Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
I can't remind you again when I never made any such statement before, and besides, as I have said before, that does not answer my point. You may claim that the action taken was ineffective. It does not follow therefore that no action was taken. Your claim that the diplomats 'walked on by' is factually incorrect. That is all I'm saying. I have no desire to get sucked in to yet another Iraq war argument.
|
As I said, ineffective action to resolve a problem is the same as taking no action at all.
If a house was on fire, and someone stood by just watching, another person tried to blow out the flames, and a third person phoned the fire brigade, which of the three should be thanked?
---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatedbythemail
well i can't speak for the millions but my feeling was that any intervention of whatever kind had to have some sensible measure of support in the arab world (outside of kuwait/saudi). many goddam pinko liberals are not against the use of force per se, but the inappropriate use of force. in this instance i was of the opinion at the time that an anglo-us led intervention would create more problems than it would solve and theres not much evidence to disabuse me of that notion as yet.
|
So Saddam in power until that arab support was gained was an acceptable situation for you?