Thank you again...
crackhead, for you have (unwittingly) given me a chance to tie this neatly together. I can now summarize the meta of this whole debate as "are we (the US/UN) justified in using force against Iraq?" With your help, I have come to the conclusion that appeasement of tyrants (be they minor tyrants with keyboards or major tyrants with armies and weapons of mass destruction) is not a good long term strategy, it just seems to embolden them. A non response is regarded as tacit approval. I was too busy working to respond to your tiring posting style and "left it alone"... A few weeks goes by and I rejoin to find that your hands have not remained "idle" nor have you had any gestalts... In other words, you haven't changed, in fact you've been very busy - much like I suspect that Saddam Hussein has been.
You just keep repeating the same manta and doublespeak - much like governments do. For (goodandplenty, goodandplenty, goodandplenty) repetition is sometimes an effective brainwashing technique. When called out on it, you simply do Pavlovian more of same... I will give you high points for consistency at least.
But, I digress... I conclude (brazenly - hardly a "random sample" or high population :-) ) that appeasement, as a strategy, is not effective. I think that it only emboldens the adversary. Sincere thanks for the insight and, unlike you, I could be wrong...
and you really should start practicing using the following separator in your posts: ----oooooOOooooooo------
