Spot on Bounder. Why hasn't Turkey applied directly to NATO for a deployment of troops?
So France and Germany's reaction could be used at home to bolster the adminstration's position should they decide to act without support of the UN.
Many americans put more faith in Nato (where the US has a good amount of control) then the UN (which many americans mistrust).
Portraying France and Germany as "turning their backs on a Nato ally" gets far more play then "France has vetoed the US backed plan for the use of force on Iraq" from the UN.
It seems you forget or you dont know that Usa and personaly Donald Rumsfeld
was giving to sadam biological and chemical weapons of mass desruction
at his war with Iran.
Are you hypocrite or just ignorant ?
We give plenty of military aid (including weapons of all types) to our "friends". Should any of those "friends" threaten us with those weapons we would take an equally tough stand.
The difference now is that Iraq has always been a "rogue" Arab state. They attacked "other" arab nations, embraced support from the great Satan (US) etc.....
Iraq has used Saddams anti-US stand over the past years to bolster his position in the Arab world. Especially on the extremist end.
Now, if you believe the hype, Iraq may use these weapons on the US. Bin Laden hated Iraq and Hussein. Suddams anti-US stand has gained him a reputation that no other muslim leader has had. He is seen not only as defying the US but as willing to "go to war". The question is how far is Saddam willing to go. Will he supply terrorists with wmd?
The fact that at one time we viewed Iraq as a potential ally is of no relevance. Before the US involvement in world war 2 our country had all sorts of "dealings" with Hitler. From industry to Political.
If I give my neighbor a hand gun as a present to defend his home and few years down the road he comes to my house to rob or threaten me, its not my fault. It may have been bad judgement but should I throw my hands up and hand over what ever he wants because I gave him the gun?
Also our government is not a homogenous entity. Its complete character and policies change with every new administration. To say 20 years ago the US government used bad judgement in its dealings with Iraq so now the present government must with out question bare the responsibility of those dealings is complete bs.
You cant blame Clinton for what Carter did or what Johnson did nor is it logical to blame the current administration for the decisions Reagan made. Whatever Rumsfield did back then he didnt do it alone and I doudt he made any decision on his own.
Theres plenty of real logical reasons to oppose action in Iraq.
"Bush is a warmonger"
"Bush Jr. wants revenge for Sr."
"Bush is only out to steal Iraq's oil"
Are all bs.