Iraq = Vietnam

[roid]

havn't heard this mentioned for a while, but here it is again (see title).

In this video, i wish to point out everything he says about vietnam, the lessons that SHOULD have been learned, and how now to get outof Iraq.

You can't control the Arab world from Washington, no matter how big your military is. The fact that a big military DOESN'T actually get you everything you want should have been learned in Vietnam.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/
there's 3 play buttons on the right, click the one: \"Maxine Mckew speaks to Bob Carr\", it'll play in flash.

[Duper]

couple things different here.

1) we won.
2) we managed to foster a democratic government there.
3) we won't be there forever. We're STILL in Viet Nam.
4) We actually went to war. not a \"policing action\".

[ccb056]

I don't see the reason for this thread, it's already been pwn'd.

Threadlock please.

[Lothar]

Interestingly enough, I happen to have recently read an interview with a former North Vietnamese military guy who described how they won:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=13121

Iraq is very much like Vietnam in one, and only one, way: we have an opponent whose strategy is to convince us to give up, and is doing so by playing everything they can up for our media. We have an opponent that believes America will give up and leave if they just inflict enough casualties and dishearten us enough.

Iraq is very much UNLIKE Vietnam in one key way, though: a lot of us understand the above paragraph, while very few people did 35 years ago.

It's not about a big military getting us everything we want, roid. It's about using the military and other resources we have to accomplish goals that need accomplished for the sake of humanity. Sparking transformation in the middle east by giving residents the chance to ditch their culture of blame and victimization and replace it with a culture of cooperation and basic human rights... that's something that needs done. It's something we'll see through.

[roid]

It's not about a big military getting us everything we want, roid. It's about using the military and other resources we have to accomplish goals that need accomplished for the sake of humanity. Sparking transformation in the middle east by giving residents the chance to ditch their culture of blame and victimization and replace it with a culture of cooperation and basic human rights... that's something that needs done. It's something we'll see through.

given how things have gone and continue to go, that will never happen. The point is that it CAN'T happen this way, it's like trying to freeze water with a brick - Wrong tool. Old School big miltary hasbeens just don't want to admit how redundant they themselves, their tactics, and their entire ideal has become. They - Bush - are only making things worse.

[Lothar]

given how things have gone and continue to go, that will never happen.

Yes, it will.

It will require tactics to continue to change, as any military action does. It will require non-military resources, as any significant world-changing action does. It will take probably 2 decades at a minimum. But it will succeed.

The media coverage of what's actually going on over there (and even what tactics are being used) completely sucks, though. Gotta get your info from people actually there instead of talking heads hiding in some studio somewhere.

[Dedman]

Gotta get your info from people actually there instead of talking heads hiding in some studio somewhere.

I spoke with a guy a work with who just got back from Iraq. It was his impression that the people don't want to change.

It takes years to change the culture of a 30 year old company with only 50,000 employees. It will take decades like Lothar said, to change the culture of an entire country. I honestly don't know if it can be done. Time will tell.

[Cuda68]

Now that the Democrats have some power they will declare it VN type of war, withdraw for the good of the people and to the shame of the Nation.

These radical Muslims have been attacking and killing us for over 50 years. We have spent 45 years ignoring them and it cost us the Twin Towers before we woke up. We spent the last 5 years taking them apart and now we are going to turn tail and run. They will declare it a victory and things will will get very ugly with there future attacks. Think I will move to the country and hope that Iran does not get the ability to make nukes. I don't feel very comfortable or safe about whats coming.

Edit: Just read that the Democrats are going to push for a withdraw from Iraq to start in the next few months.

[roid]

Yes, it will.

It will require tactics to continue to change, as any military action does. It will require non-military resources, as any significant world-changing action does. It will take probably 2 decades at a minimum. But it will succeed.

No, it won't.

See, this is what the video was talking about. The stupid plan was to fix Iraq into this sassy ecconomic wonderland that the other neighbouring crazy countrys ("the world" as you elude to) would look at and say "Hey, you sass that hoopy Iraq? There's a bunch of froods who really know where their towel is". Iraq would be turned into the shining example of how fast and effectively the Free Trade Big Business yada yada Neocon ideal can change the world - it was to be a living monument that other nations could look to and emulate. That's why we were all told it would be a quick war - they just had to punch a hole big enough to carry a magic corporate boardtable through, which would quickly take care of the rest.

That's the basic gist of their "Change the World" plan, which is why we're all in Iraq watching it NOT WORK.

[Lothar]

uh, what?

Who told you this was going to be a fast war? Who described the plan as \"make Iraq into an economic wonderland in like 6 months\"?

[Testiculese]

Lothar...EVERYBODY did. I remember everyone here saying that [insert loser representative here] said we'd be in and out in 6 months to a year.

In fact, I'm the only person on this board who knew this would be years and years. In the big Iraq thread, or the Bush might be president thread, I made two quotes.

1. Bush will have us at war before the year was out. (Ding!)

2. This war would last at least 5 years (Ding!)

[Birdseye]

uh, what?

Who told you this was going to be a fast war? Who described the plan as "make Iraq into an economic wonderland in like 6 months"?

The republicans did. that's a big reason the american public approved, in case you forgot. We were gonna waltz in, overthrow, setup democracy, cruise out fast. Welcomed with open arms as liberators. Maybe you forgot all that BS.

[Lothar]

Find me a quote please. Which Republicans, when? I think a lot of people had the perception that it would be a fast war (I remember telling people the troops would be deployed longer than they expected) but I don't remember anyone coming out and saying \"the war will be done by such-and-such date\".

[Duper]

besides..who would really be stupid enough to believe that. I'm sure someone who never gets outta the house and watches the shopping network 24/7 would, but that's not most folks. ... I hope.

War is seldom a quick thing. We spent decades cleaning up Europe after WWII.

The only reason that Desert Storm was relatively quick was because we did next to no collateral damage. We walked and everyone threw their hands up. End of war.

The contractors were there another year or so trying to clean up the mess that Saddom's troops made with the oil fields though.

[Repo Man]

The United States occupied Japan for ten years after the end of WWII. I don't recall how long the allies had to occupy Germany, but I do recall they had a hell of a lot of trouble with bombings, shootings and kidnappings by Nazi sympathizers for years after the war ended. They were dealt with forcefully and decisively and thus the pacification of Germany was accomplished.

One way Iraq will turn into another quagmire is because our namby-pamby politicians will not let our military crush the enemy. And when our soldiers do their job too well in that hell hole where the big, bad jihadists hide behind women and children, they are thrown to the wolves and court marshaled by Dubya and the perfumed princes who run the Pentagon. What a load of crap!

I am, however, skeptical that any form of truly democratic government can survive in Iraq as long as Islam is the dominant religion. Islam is not compatible with democratic principles. It is not just a religion but also a political ideology. But, who knows, there's a first time for everything.

[Testiculese]

Who, Duper? Something like 80% of the country? That's a lot of idiots

[Duper]

Who, Duper? Something like 80% of the country? That's a lot of idiots

apparently

[Lothar]

Who, Duper? Something like 80% of the country? That's a lot of idiots :)

Yes, it is.

[Birdseye]

i'll go hunt around, should be easy to find rumsfeld saying it

[Duper]

That isn't that important. It stand to reason and history points out that War is not a quick affair and with obligations in the Geneva convention, it is always assured to be long and drawn out when you go in and gut a country of it's government.

[Lothar]

i'll go hunt around, should be easy to find rumsfeld saying it

Good. I'll be waiting.

[Palzon]

i'll go hunt around, should be easy to find rumsfeld saying it

Good. I'll be waiting.

Frankly, the outcome of this debate is of little importance. I find it dubious that anyone could assert as do you that a 20 year war could be inferred from such rhetoric as "Shock and Awe", and, "Mission Accomplished", "Last Throes", and "We shall be greeted as liberators". The point is not so much whether a short war was promised. The propaganda war was geared to make one think the war would be shortlived, which is pointedly why such as a promise is remembered, whether true or not.

The really questionable part of this thread lies elsewhere...

The media coverage of what's actually going on over there (and even what tactics are being used) completely sucks, though.

Everyone should see this statement for the falsehood that it represents.

Fact: Every war turns out worse than expected by all.

Fact: Every war is propagandized by the government.

Fact: Every war is censored by the government.

Fact: Every war is characterized by the inability of those away from the front line to comprehend the horror of the front line experience.

Don't expect me to believe that this war escapes the ironies of every other war in history as illustrated by front line soldiers who fought, historians, poets, writers, and deep thinkers thoughout time.

Your suggestion that the failure of the war is a distortion of a biased media is either fraudulent, stupid, or complacently naive. You're more a propagandist than the government itself. And i, for one, call absoloute bull$h!t.

[Duper]

Plaz.. I think you just inadvertently agreed with what Lothar was saying there. The happenings of what's going on abroad is being grossly misrepresented or grossly Ignored; both the good and the bad.

[Palzon]

Plaz.. I think you just inadvertently agreed with what Lothar was saying there. The happenings of what's going on abroad is being grossly misrepresented or grossly Ignored; both the good and the bad.

any fool can see the media is distorted both ways. i'm talking about something else.

[Lothar]

I find it dubious that anyone could assert as do you that a 20 year war could be inferred from such rhetoric as...

Where do I assert that? Don't invent positions for me, find the actual quote. (Does anybody else find this funny?)

I said the war will take 2 decades minimum, not because of the rhetoric, but because I understand a few things about history. I never said casual observers would understand that, though (see the above comments about idiots.)

The propaganda war was geared to make one think the war would be shortlived, which is pointedly why such as a promise is remembered, whether true or not.

The war against the Iraqi military WAS shortlived. Does anyone else remember, 2 weeks into the Afghanistan war, the media panic over the fact that we hadn't completely overrun the country? How about the same media panic a month in to Iraq? Yet the Taliban and Iraqi armies completely failed within another month.

The continuing war against Iranian-funded terrorists will not be short (the "last throes" comment was idiotic)... and the culture change will not be, either. But let's not make the mistake of thinking they're fighting the same battle as was being fought against the Iraqi military. We did "shock and awe" them, we were "welcomed as liberators", and that mission WAS accomplished. And now we're on to the long-term culture change mission. (As I said in the post you're objecting to, this will require many non-military resources.)

The media coverage of what's actually going on over there (and even what tactics are being used) completely sucks, though.

Your suggestion that the failure of the war is a distortion of a biased media is either fraudulent, stupid, or complacently naive. You're more a propagandist than the government itself.

I call bulls**t on your reading comprehension skills. Frankly, you owe me an apology for the string of insults.

The fact people seem to struggle with is the very one you brought up: the reality of war doesn't come across very well away from the front line, especially if you're not getting your info direct from front-line soldiers.

Every war is propagandized and censored by the government, that's true. But this government has proven inept at propaganda, while the opposition has not. Couple that with a media that wants Bush to fail and you have a recipie for the presentation of a complete failure of a war, despite the fact that this war is not particularly more or less successful than WWII or Korea or Vietnam (reposted link: the way Iraq is REALLY like Vietnam). Every war goes worse than average people expect -- every war has a lot more setbacks than people thought it would, even for the winning side. In previous wars, though, average people wouldn't hear about those setbacks. In Vietnam, all of a sudden we had an opponent skilled enough at manipulating our own media that they were able to present not only our setbacks, but even make our successes (like the Tet Offensive) look like utter failures. The same thing is playing out in Iraq.

The simple fact is, we can win this. We have everything we need to win, INCLUDING the adapting tactics people complain we don't have (again, listen to the frontline soldiers!) It's just a matter of being willing to continue the fight despite the calls for "phased redeployment".

[Birdseye]

The war against the Iraqi military WAS shortlived.

Dude, if you are going to pull crap like this, I'm not even going to bother debating with you. This is silly. If you are going to be this much of a Bush spinmeister I shouldn't even bother. I'll find the clips, then you'll pull responses like this. Misleading as hell.

[Ferno]

uh, what?

Who told you this was going to be a fast war? Who described the plan as "make Iraq into an economic wonderland in like 6 months"?

Even I remember listening to the Republicans say this. It was said in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

From the mouth of Rumsfeld himself: "It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -in Feb. 2003

Every war is propagandized and censored by the government, that's true. But this government has proven inept at propaganda, while the opposition has not. Couple that with a media that wants Bush to fail and you have a recipe for the presentation of a complete failure of a war, despite the fact that this war is not particularly more or less successful than WWII or Korea or Vietnam (reposted link: the way Iraq is REALLY like Vietnam).

First sentence, I'll give you credit for. Second sentence.. sure, i'll give you that one aswell.

Third sentence is where you come off as a right-wing fanatic. sorry man, but you do. Do you remember how the media was the first few weeks after the invasion? I sure do. It was all "rah rah go bush go!". Then after the torture scandals, the buyoffs, the hints at corruption came out is when the blogs first put the brakes on. The media was still right behind Bush. supporting him on everything he said.

The media does not 'want bush to fail' as you put it. The media's getting the backbone it once lost and is now skewering the man and his staff over their bumblings, incompetence, and outright contempt to the voter. Remember when I first said he was "inept"? Seems to be what he is now.

Mission accomplished? man if this is what an accomplishment looks like, I shudder to think what a failure is.

[Lothar]

Misleading as hell.

This "they promised a short war and that means everything, not just the Iraqi military" crap is misleading as hell, Brian. You should know better. I remember way back in October of 2001 people saying we should brace for a long war, that the war on terror would be worldwide, blah blah blah. And then when we got ready to invade Iraq, there were a few limited comments about how quickly we expected the Iraqi military to fall -- and those comments were entirely correct. But anybody who thinks that meant the war on terror, as a whole, would be over in 6 months is an idiot.

The thing "they" were wrong about was that they didn't predict how many terrorists would come in to Iraq from outside. They were right about the Iraqi military crumbling, but they were wrong about Iraq becoming such a significant battleground.

Do you remember how the media was the first few weeks after the invasion? I sure do. It was all "rah rah go bush go!"

I remember coming on this very board and finding discussions of how the military was totally bogged down, two weeks into Afghanistan, and maybe four weeks into Iraq. I remember the media reports saying the same thing -- the military was expected to just roll over everything, and this 2-week delay was a sign we were in over our heads just like the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80's, and that Saddam's armies were defeating ours. And I remember thinking, damn, people had an excuse to think so with Afghanistan... but by the time Iraq rolled around, you should've known better.

I also remember the media running negative stories as soon as there were hints of the Iraq war. They were behind Bush on Afghanistan, but definitely not on Iraq. And overall they absolutely DO want Bush to be a total failure.

But, even if we assume the media just loved Bush like crazy, despite all evidence to the contrary... even so, the Bush administration has zero propaganda sk1llz and the terrorists have incredible propaganda skeelz, and it shows. This war, we're in no worse shape than WWII or Korea or Vietnam (and, in fact, in better shape than most of those) but the picture we get every day says we're totally screwed. And we might be, if we have leaders who decide to give up the fight. But we won't be if we have leaders who are willing to see it through.

[Will Robinson]

I think it's more than fair to point out that the war against Saddam was short as predicted by Rumsfeld and Bush because many on the left side were saying we would be in for a long terrible war, that we weren't prepared for desert warfare, the sand would destroy our equipment and strand our boys like Jimmy Carters helicopters during the failed Iranian hostage rescue attempt etc. etc.

So it's not just spin to point that out because the left was so wrong and so vocal in their prediction that we wouldn't have a swift military victory over Saddam.

Bush never predicted the aftermath of defeating Saddam would be short lived because, frankly, I don't think he bothered to ask anyone what the aftermath would entail in that particular arena of the War on Terror. Beyond the death or capture of Saddam he probably just considered it all part of the big picture and he always said the larger effort, the War on Terror, would last longer than his eight year term so in a very literal sense he did tell us that the post Saddam phase of the WOT would be long and drawn out.

I think it's fair to criticize him for letting the Iraq phase play out so long without really executing it well, he's to blame for stringing our guys out to die for no real gain because he's not getting out and yet he's not jumping in with both feet when the insurgency beefed up!
So in my book Bush is a failure on the management front but he didn't ever try to sugar coat the big picture. He always said the WOT was going to be a long terrible fight.
He needs to really get with it or just get out. I think he's trying to provoke the democrats to tie his hands in congress so he can bail out of Iraq claiming they won't let him fight so he has no choice but to withdraw then blame them for the mess that ensues. If he does that he should be shot.

[Birdseye]

I think I'll find some rumsfeld clips and let you guys split the hairs while I withold commentary. Off to hunt.

[Will Robinson]

I think I'll find some rumsfeld clips and let you guys split the hairs while I withold commentary. Off to hunt.

If Rummy said the whole WOT was going to be cake then he's an ass but I doubt he said that. I know Bush didn't.

[Tyranny]

ahem...

1. Testi, you were not the only one here who thought that Bush would end up going to war with somebody.

2. The Iraqi War ended in 2003 with the defeat of the Iraqi military and the fall of Baghdad on April 9th and the eventual capture of Saddam Hussein on the 13th of December of the same year.

3. What we have been fighting now for the last 3 years is a war inside Iraq, no longer a war against it. (Granted, this is how I see it).

I'm half tempted to re-post the same things I've said before about this issue but they always fall on the blind or def (otherwise known as the strongly opinionated), so it's not worth the effort. Honestly posting this was probably not worth the effort either, but meh.

It just surprises me that everyone craps their pants when things don't go smoothly or how they themselves invisioned it. As if anyone of us here could have done anything better in the same situation. It's a waste of breath debating hypotheticals all the time. What if this, what if that...it's already done for cripes sake.

Man...now I remember why I've avoided E&C for so long. Guess it takes a special breed to stay blue in the face over the same dead horse issues year after year

So in parting I give thee...


Enjoy

[Tyranny]

ahehehe...whoops, guess I psuedo-necro'd this post.

Go me!

[TIGERassault]

It just surprises me that everyone craps their pants when things don't go smoothly or how they themselves invisioned it. As if anyone of us here could have done anything better in the same situation. It's a waste of breath debating hypotheticals all the time. What if this, what if that...it's already done for cripes sake.

We all waste out because the majority of the time, the 'mistakes' were made by the president of a superpower, with access to enough nukes to obliverate an entire country or ten.
And it gets REALLY worrying when we realise that this is what the Americans elected to be their president! TWICE!

[Will Robinson]

It just surprises me that everyone craps their pants when things don't go smoothly or how they themselves invisioned it. As if anyone of us here could have done anything better in the same situation. It's a waste of breath debating hypotheticals all the time. What if this, what if that...it's already done for cripes sake.

We all waste out because the majority of the time, the 'mistakes' were made by the president of a superpower, with access to enough nukes to obliverate an entire country or ten.
And it gets REALLY worrying when we realise that this is what the Americans elected to be their president! TWICE!

Well you're not alone because it gets worrying to us too when we realize that most of the other countries in the world, even when they have the power of being able to act as one truly 'super power', are totally full of crap when they issued demands that a murderous dictator must account for his actions and yet that dictator decides to ignore the demands and is instead is able to bribe his way out from under the enforcement of those demands.

There would have been no war if the U.N. Security Council said
"Yea, Bush is right, 12 years is long enough to wait. Saddam, either show us everything right now, let us all in right now with completely unfettered access or prepare to die at the hands of our united forces!"
It's what they said they would do, it's what they all agreed to do and it's what they should have done.
If they had started moving troops into the area instead of holding their palms open under the oil-for-food-scam table there would have been no war!


It's also worrysome that once it was determined that the Iranians and the Syrians were going to supply manpower and armament to the jihadi's in Iraq and Hezbollah and Hamas that the rest of those countries who like to criticize the U.S. for starting a war have damn near nothing to offer towards a solution.

I guess my point is best summed up as:

It would be a whole lot easier to consider the rest of the worlds concerns about foreign policy if they bothered to have one of their own!!

The only sign of a euro-weenie foreign policy is to whine like children and bend over for every islamo-facsist advance that comes their way.

My new response to any euro-weenies whining about our policy is three words. Grow some balls.

[Ford Prefect]

grow some balls

Actually Will I think Europe has had quite enough of thinking with their balls instead of their brains. The countries of Europe have been the target of enough bombs and bullets over the last 60 years or so to last a few lifetimes. Remember that it was that sort of \"our way or the highway\" thinking that got Germany and Italy into such trouble. Twice.

[Shadowfury333]

Remember that it was that sort of "our way or the highway" thinking that got Germany and Italy into such trouble. Twice.

Don't forget Napoleon Bonaparte, who basically defined short-man syndrome. However, I don't see how it is smart to simply surrender to every threat that comes your way. There needs to be at least some courage on Europe's part.

[Will Robinson]

I don't think you can call a collection of countries represented by the U.N. Security Council as a unilateral \"my way or the hiway\" approach.

I do think you can call a country that joins the U.N. Security Council, joins with the other countries on the council to demand Saddam comply or else and then when 12 years pass without real co-operation from Saddam they take bribes from him and oil contracts, contracts that are only of value if the U.N. gives up trying to enforce the demands, you can call them a bunch of selfish lying two faced bastards.

And I think that faced with having those kind of partners on the council, that if a few countries decide to go through with the enforcement and the rest decide to back out of their responsibility, then it isn't unilateral enforcement on our part it's desertion on theirs.

The fact is, if they hadn't sold out and had instead lived up to their obligation to enforce, Bush couldn't have justified going alone. He would have to wait for the others to join him and the collection of countries amassing troops at Saddam's doorstep would have caused him to give in. There would have been no war, the subsequent discovery that his WMD supply was long gone would have been no big deal because no one would be trying to gain political points by saying we went in because he had them and we were wrong. They would all agree that we went in to ensure he didn't have them which is the truth of the matter.

If the U.N. Security Council members had done what they promised to do there would be a whole lot less dead people in the wake of this affair, There would be a whole lot less islami-kazi movement across Syrian and Iranian borders. The whole purpose of Security Council members is to enforce the resolutions instead they used it as a bargaining chip to take bribes and oil future deals that were contingent upon the U.N. releasing Saddam from the U.N.'s enforcement.

I find it pathetic that the focus is all on how the U.S. made this a mess. In my eyes the mis-management of the war, which has been pretty bad, is nothing compared to the backstabbing by the rest of the Council who sold out their partners for cash.
the rest of the Council has no legitimate right to complain about how we handle the aftermath because they sold their rights to have a voice.

Have you noticed how now those Council members won't vote in favor of sanctions and resolutions similar to those against Iraq because now they know that words mean something, that some members really mean it when they say or else.

The Euro-weenies and the Russians can all go piss up a rope.

[TIGERassault]

Will,
The problem is that your country's foreign policy is pretty much \"Kill, purge and destroy those who oppose us\". It's not really that brutal, as they don't attack everyone, but I couldn't think of a better way to put it.
You charge in head-first into the enemy, against the wished of both the power and the people. You disregard the basic human rights of your enemy's citizens. You send in more and more troops like bottles from a vending machine, ignorant to the fact that each one has their own life being thrown away because of this so-called \"War on Terror\". Heck, you even managed to kill more of your own US troops that you lost in the enemy's terrorist attacks!
And lets not forget your own plans to stop \"terror\", by actually terrorising the innocent civillians. I can still see that you're still alive, so I must presume the US army failed their mission.

But wait, mabye this might be a good idea after all! Mabye you'll be able to finally get those rebellious countries to join in on your great philosophies and have no more trouble from them. And the world can be united under one supreme leader. Yeah, I mean this guy!

Boy, the truth gets vicious when you corner it!

[Will Robinson]

Will,
The problem is that your country's foreign policy is pretty much "Kill, purge and destroy those who oppose us". It's not really that brutal, as they don't attack everyone, but I couldn't think of a better way to put it.
You charge in head-first into the enemy, against the wished of both the power and the people. You disregard the basic human rights of your enemy's citizens. You send in more and more troops like bottles from a vending machine, ignorant to the fact that each one has their own life being thrown away because of this so-called "War on Terror". Heck, you even managed to kill more of your own US troops that you lost in the enemy's terrorist attacks!
And lets not forget your own plans to stop "terror", by actually terrorising the innocent civillians. I can still see that you're still alive, so I must presume the US army failed their mission.

But wait, mabye this might be a good idea after all! Mabye you'll be able to finally get those rebellious countries to join in on your great philosophies and have no more trouble from them. And the world can be united under one supreme leader. Yeah, I mean this guy!

Boy, the truth gets vicious when you corner it!

Well if you call a 12 year ramp up for war charging in....

Basically you haven't addressed anything I said instead you site some opinion poll as evidence we went against the will of people. You might want to check with how the peoples representatives voted, you'd find that almost every one was in favor of the war. And even after it was discovered the WMD's were gone the majority still said it was the right thing to do.

How about you go back, re-read my post and give me your own opinion on how the U.N. Security Council members sold their soul and their partners down the river for money. How about tell me your own opinion of what would have happened if the same members who voted to enforce the resolutions had started moving troops and equipment towards Saddams border. Do you think he would have stood stuborn if he didn't have the French and the Russians telling him "Don't worry Saddam, we won't let the U.N. go through with the enforcement" even though in their capacity as Security Council members they voted for that very outcome?

Yea, the truth can bite you...if you ever find it you can come show us the bite marks, but so far all you bring is BS political rhetoric!