Lizard_King wrote:

foogla wrote:


Fair enough. How long do we have to wait until it's the final word of the matter?

Well, I grant the US the same inspection term as was granted to the UN inspectors. How about that?

Much like the French helped get all those Baathist officials through Syria with French papers.

Wich the French claim never happened. *shrug*

Which French government are you listening to? The one I heard (and now only through ye olde "international" media) was issuing plausible diplomatic deniability while essentially asking if we could change the topic.

I am a pacifist, that was my feeble attempt at sarcasm. Also I was emphasizing "wars", not "regime changing".

Holy shit, an honest to god pacifist? Does that mean you don't believe in any wars, and that problematic/evil people can be dealt with by giving them a good talking-to?

Also I don't think that the "policy" can't get rid of all problems in the world, I just don't think it won't be used that way.

There's a few too many double negatives in that sentence...if you mean that aggressive regime change CAN fix all the problems in the world, just that it won't be used that way, I disagree on both counts. For instance, Pakistan is the next real foreign relations challenge, and everyone is well aware that invading a nuclear country is out of the question. To America's advantage it is also India and China's problem, which means that mulitilateral diplomatic pressure is an option unlike in so many other situations. I would be interested to see what precisely you think this is being "used to do".