Look,  I am not the President, one of his advisors or even involved in the
decision making of the US government in any way so I have no idea about the
"behind the scene" reasons for the foreign policy decisions that they make.
I do believe, however, that a lot of the supposed facts that you use to
argue your point are completely wrong.  Where do you get your information?

VT

"David Patrick" <david.patrickNO+SPAM@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:gg9vlvoil2cf87o4idi7ri5tuurhe42ouc@4ax.com...

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:11:52 -0400, "VTRusso" <burg1259@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

I didn't say anything about democracy.  I was talking about aggression.

You don't think Caucescu was brutal? You don't think North Korea
should be stopped from killing millions more of it's own people? What
about the Tiannimen(sp) square massacre?

Even by that definition there are a lot of brutal countries out there
that the West has been very happy to deal with over the years. Several
British citizens have just been released from Saudi Arabian jails
where they were barbarically tortured into making confessions.

Yet Saudi Arabia continues to be one of the UKs greatest friends.

The reason that we are negotiating is because we are about peace.  War is

a

last resort.

Not in Iraq it wasn't.

While the whole wrangle at the UN was going on Britain and America
moved their troops into place. It was clear at that moment that
nothing Iraq did would avert war.

Bush claimed a little while back that it was Saddam who ordered the UN
inspectors out of Iraq. In fact it was Bush himself who gave that
order.

While UN weapon inspectors were in Iraq, that country could not have a
meaningful WMD programme (which was the given justification for the
war). While the UN inspectors were in Iraq, there was no need for war.
If Bush had prefered to wait the couple of years until Saddam kicked
the inspectors out then he could have got the UN mandate, got a truly
international coallition, like his dad did, and avoid squandering all
the sympathy globally that 11/9 brought.

North Korea kills ten times the number Saddam killed of their own
people, sells weapons and drugs on the black market, waves nuclear
weapons around and will shortly have a delivery system that can reach
California. So America tries to buy them off with aid.

The ironic thing is that Iraq was not a big threat in regards to
international terrorism, but if the Coalition cannot regain control
then it could become a very significant threat.

David Patrick

"David Patrick" <david.patrickNO+SPAM@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ppkslv0vmc3be0q7gv8t7i4l5bnoa8i3ai@4ax.com...

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 17:26:23 -0400, "VTRusso" <burg1259@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

I love how you blame us for being right.  The US never messes with

anybody

that doesn't mess with us or tries to bully one of our allies.  If

punk

governments want to be violent against their people, we stand up for

those

people. If punk governments want to be violent against other nations,

we

stand up for those nations.

If that is the case then why did America and the rest of the West
support the Romanian dictator Caucescu? Why are we trying to negotiate
with North Korea which has killed millions of it's own people and is
currently threatening to test nuclear weapons and destabilise the
whole region? Why is Britain and America supporting China which
continues to brutally suppress democracy to this day?