that the US could have ever gotten force authorized. Please explain what you think Bush needed to do to avoid a veto from France, Russia, OR China. Without a war Saddam would still be in power and your two points wouldn't apply. We might well have spent just about the same amount of money holding troups in reserve over there waiting on UN OK which still wouldn't come. The behavior of France supports this point beause they are still trying to counter US efforts despite an entirely different situation and no basis for a quick handover based on previous UN occupations. There are clear and obvious reasons to wait for improved stability prior to holding elections. France is simply playing the disagree with the US one upmanship game it has been playing for at least 2 decades.
see ya
Current Events » in reply to A couple benefits of UN support that we don't have
your faulty assumption is
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Bush U.N. speech persuades few
- Meanwhile: Baghdad Blasts Undermine Bush Bid for Iraq Backing
- Bush refuses to kiss U.N. ass
- Why did he address the UN, then?
- can't answer a simple question can you?
- re: Why did he address the UN, then?
- Perhaps you are asking the wrong question
- re: No
- Why did he address the UN, then?
- Bush’s U.N. fiasco