In response to Lightwizard, Tresspasser wrote:
trespassers will wrote:Quote:The administration rationalizes that this is a re-opening of the Gulf War because of violations of the treaty. This can be argued until one is exhausted.
How can this be
argued? Which facts do you call into question?
That the Gulf War ended in a cease fire?
That Saddam failed to live up to his commitments within that cease fire?
That renewed hostilities are always a potential consequence of breaking a cease fire?
Help me out here. Which of these do you claim is untrue?
COMMENTS:
Seems to me that it really doesn't matter whether any of Tresspassers claims are true or untrue. Light Wizards's comment is reasonable and logical without regard to those statements.
Tresspasser's statements are red herrings.
The administration was not entrusted with responsibility to decide if the ceasefire commitments were being met or not.. That responsibility still lay with the Security Council.-- and I needn't remind Tresspasser that the Security Council did not decide any failures were sufficient to demand force.
The administrations protestations that this is a re-opening of the Gulf War are exactly what Light Wizard said they are - rationalizations.
So, Tresspasser, why are you throwing red herrings into this discussion?
