FYI, I did pull that post shortly after putting it up, and before your post was up, truly not interesting in flaming or anything that considered it... which is why I pulled it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by mambo_morden [/i]
[B]FYI, I did pull that post shortly after putting it up, and before your post was up, truly not interesting in flaming or anything that considered it... which is why I pulled it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Don't worry, I didn't consider it as flaming against me.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]And I assume from this that you didn't even read all that text, because if you did you'd know that that evidence material which Powell presented to the UN council was described in that text by him.[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, the remainder of SCUDS is not what he is talking about later in his speech. If you look closely at what he's talking about, he is talking about the building of test stands that is supporting the claim that Iraq has "illegally important 380 SA-2" rocket engines and about them "pursuing a liquid fuel missile that would be able to fly more than 1,200 kilometers", both of which DID NOT HAVE the slightest bit to do with the remainder of SCUD missiles in Iraq to which we were originally discussing.
Btw, I was just watching as one military analyst talked on TV and he was questioning that the missiles Iraq used after the war had started were actually SCUDs. Why would Iraq prove, especially right in the beginning of the war, their enemies being right and that they indeed were lying and hiding these forbidden weapons? It doesn't make much sense now does it. It would make much more sense tough if they were using them as a last resort near the end of the war. Those were reporters afterall who said they were SCUDs, not military experts.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by mambo_morden [/i]
[B]Actually, the remainder of SCUDS is not what he is talking about later in his speech. If you look closely at what he's talking about, he is talking about the building of test stands that is supporting the claim that Iraq has "illegally important 380 SA-2" rocket engines and about them "pursuing a liquid fuel missile that would be able to fly more than 1,200 kilometers", both of which DID NOT HAVE the slightest bit to do with the remainder of SCUD missiles in Iraq to which we were originally discussing.
:: EDIT :: Needed to tone down a bit... lol [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, we were discussing about the evidence in general as well.
The Iraq doesn't have the biggest oil reserves in the world like I said. They have the second biggest, Saudi Arabia having the biggest.
Of Saudi Arabia's reserves 50% are in use though and only a small percentage of Iraqis have been utilized so far.
Here's some numbers by country (billion barrels)
1 Saudi Arabia - 260
2 Iraq - 110
3 Kuwait - 95
4 United Arab Emirates - 95
5 Iran - 92
6 Venezuela - 66
7 Russia - 49
8 Mexico - 27
9 China - 24
10 United States - 23
I'm not sure if those numbers are accurate and reliable due to the website's nature where I got that information from, but they should be close enough to my knowledge.
PJH, you are correct in that the Press are the ones saying that they were SCUDS - I guess we'll have to wait for the military confirmation.
Anyone see the news of a possible "secret surrender" by Republican Guard troops? CNN just said something about it.... Might sound too good to be true, but it does seem like the US is holding back on something.
it's always a mystery to me why ppl always believe what media and gouvernments say.
regarding the politcal past current policy (national/international) and economical facts the reasons for war amongst human reasons are obvious....
the discussion about weaponry is useless as a lot of nations do own them, even aggressive ones (if one can determine whos aggressive or not) and don't think the ones claiming to be non aggressive because of a democratic system aren't.
I think the main issue is not the scud themselves but whether or not Iraq still have chemical/biological agents and if the Us and Uk were so sure of their evidence then why not show the weap inspectors where they are.I think the bombing of Baghdad should stop as it is inflaming to many people to hatred and it will recklessly kill to many civillians.
What kind of hard evidence would satisfy any of you? When he launches a chemical weapon attack, will that be enough? After he kills thousands of civilians with VX gas, will that be enough? Would a letter from Sadamm be enough proof?
err.. have they Asked the English, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Russians (despite their reductions in armament), or French (despite the fact that they act pretty irresponsible in their testing practices) to disarm ?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]The US has Pulled out of Anti-Balistic Missal Treadys as well.
And You people say your against Nukes???? [/B][/QUOTE]
Well considering the Anti ballistic missle treaty was a bilateral treaty between Russia and the USA with no other parties, it was getting kind of worthless, other countries are developing arsenals and their activities have to be considered.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Well considering the Anti ballistic missle treaty was a bilateral treaty between Russia and the USA with no other parties, it was getting kind of worthless, other countries are developing arsenals and their activities have to be considered. [/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed. I think that there's gotta be a shift in attitude and thought process out of the cold war era mindset. The idea of mutual destruction (the basis for the ballistic missile treaty) is basically this: Any [B]RATIONAL[/B] enemy could be assured destruction in response to an attack.
In the future, we may potentially face muslim extremists who view death as a gate to heaven - thus will not fear the following destruction in response to an attack. We can't think in terms of western rationalism as we deal with issues abroad anymore. Other rogue nations that do not fear reprisals may also be problematic to cold war thinking.
This is just an observation on my part, but this is why, in my opinion, the American pullout from that treaty doesn't really signify all that much, but I'm sure others may see it differently.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]Oh This reminds me, That the US has Weapons of mass disruction. And wants everone to disarm except them.. :mad: :mad: :mad: [/B][/QUOTE]
that's it - I really fear terrorists attacks, but I although fear this totally uncontrolled military superiority of the US. now that even the UNO (a political institution founded with the US after WWII)
is no option for the us administration when thwarting their plans it seems as if ppl have no choice then being on the "right" side of the US or belonging to the "unwilling" what is in principle the same thing as belonging to the "axis of evil" if referring to Mr. Bush's Black And White World Order.
and that's exactly what I've predicted when this man got elected (if it was an "election"). it's not an option to bring the wild west and the law of the gun to the world pretending this to be democracy and freedom.
bringing down the regime would have been justified after the aggression of '91, but US gov hesitated doing that and I think they have had a reason for this and Hussein wouldn't been tolerated if this wasn't in any case of use for the administration. now it is against any international law justified to fight a preventive war!?
it's always easy to justify a war when pretending a human goal like liberating people of an opressing system and I totally agree that Iraquian ppl may have a better perspective after the regime is brought down but the way how Mr Bush set up this war and in some cases "bought" support for this unjustified action regading international law and with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (maybe a duobtable "act of magic" recovers some) is a fatal mistake and will give those extremist more power and support to argument against the US.
if saddam hussein owns weaponry of mass destruction (not only in theory) we should at last see them in action within the last stand of Baghdad (what I really not hoping for as those victims we have no is far enough).
there is no country being a thread to the US as long as its a nation regarding conventional militay might, now that ppl will learn that terror seems to be the only way of oposing I fear it will get more intense.
thx Mr Bush to make this planet more "secure"....I'm really pissed and the US has had some really good presidents in the past that showed another way is possible.
its really shocking that "survival of the fittest" once more becomes an accepted phrase....
*I've never been anti american and I never will be as I got to know a lot of nice ppl (I even planned to work and live there). I strictly divide the people of some nation and its gouvernment and the actual us american administration and the powers behind it with their view of world order is not what I call freedom*
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Solitaire [/i]
[B]with their view of world order is not what I call freedom* [/B][/QUOTE]
Thats So ture...
The US's Veiw of world order is them controling Every Country in the world. And if those people Elect a party that does not agree with the US's Version of the world, the country gets on the "Axis of evil" list. And Gets the shit bomb out of them
Thats just my Opinion.
Now My version of world order is a united earth where everone Elects people directy into the United Earth goverment. And where ever counntry is equal, and no super powers.
I just have to sit back and laugh when some of you talk of Bush. It's really funny, some of you would have me believe he's the anti-Christ.
Listen, Bush may not be good. But, we only have him for another two years. And even IF he gets reelected, thats it. No more. He is not going to set up some dictatorship. Nor do I believe that this is an "engineered" war. Honestly, some of you need to take a step back and look at what you are implying (I am not trying to offend or flame anyone here :) )
Like I said at some other point, wait and see for who is right. If I am wrong, I will admit it. But I have a strong conviciton that what we find in Iraq will shock and appall the world.
Its not just Bush, Its those Neo-Conservatives. Who do want the US to control the world. And Yes there are People in the states that want that, mind you, AND I'm not Kidding.
well we have such movements in every nation - even the experiences in WWII and the regime there some minorities here still like the idea of a Führer. our conservative powers are not for the war but wouldn't have said anything as being quite obedient to the white house course; now that we have labour party in coalition with the green party running the gov we have quite a reasonable point of view regarding the war but in case of the chancelor it is also questionable and due to image matters :/...I really don't think that's real hypocrisy but it's still not that honesty that e.g. our foreign minister is showing (but I think that is an exception regarding politicians in general - among 100s of idiots there is sometimes one real nice guy)
I don't understand Blair though but maybe he and Aznar got the impression they lost the train regarding the EU; their people are much further regarding the european idea.
well Chiraque is also a man I won't call peacekeeper; I think he has his reasons blocking against the war initiative of the coalition and they undoubtable have to do with the political position of France within the world and economical reasons as most nations as well.
there are no angels among our worlds politicians and there'll probably never be some that's because we the people have to have an eye on what's going on...
but I wonder if some ppl just watch B5 for the sake of good Sci-Fi or the general subtext and paralels to our lives and environment...at least an illusion within me died with this discussion.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by mambo_morden [/i]
[B]PJH, you are correct in that the Press are the ones saying that they were SCUDS - I guess we'll have to wait for the military confirmation. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah. I hope they'll give the public info about those missiles soon.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]PJH, you're correct in that fact that it's the MEDIA reporting the missiles as SCUDS...
but if you're waiting for Saddam's ilitary actions to make sense, you'll be waiting a looooong time [/B][/QUOTE]
Hehheh.... could be. But I think that even Saddam has that much sense in his head, that if he really has those weapons in possession he'd try to keep that in secret as long as possible and that way get as much support from the world against the US and it's allies as possible. It's been said, that he's actually a very good tactician.
but I wonder if some ppl just watch B5 for the sake of good Sci-Fi or the general subtext and paralels to our lives and environment...at least an illusion within me died with this discussion. [/B][/QUOTE]
If you are refering to myself, then please clarify what you mean. I do not see Bush having the president killed so he can move into power. I do not see Bush bombing innocent civilians. I do not see a Nightwatch-esq orginization shutting down businesses, firing officials, arresting dissidents, ect. I do not see Bush disbanding the Senate/Congress. I do not see Bush trampling over our liberties. In fact, I don't even see him restricting them in any major way. So yes I do understand what Babylon 5 means. However, you cannot say that the two situations are one and the same.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Solitaire [/i]
[B]that's it - I really fear terrorists attacks, but I although fear this totally uncontrolled military superiority of the US. now that even the UNO (a political institution founded with the US after WWII)
is no option for the us administration when thwarting their plans it seems as if ppl have no choice then being on the "right" side of the US or belonging to the "unwilling" what is in principle the same thing as belonging to the "axis of evil" if referring to Mr. Bush's Black And White World Order.
and that's exactly what I've predicted when this man got elected (if it was an "election"). it's not an option to bring the wild west and the law of the gun to the world pretending this to be democracy and freedom.
bringing down the regime would have been justified after the aggression of '91, but US gov hesitated doing that and I think they have had a reason for this and Hussein wouldn't been tolerated if this wasn't in any case of use for the administration. now it is against any international law justified to fight a preventive war!?
it's always easy to justify a war when pretending a human goal like liberating people of an opressing system and I totally agree that Iraquian ppl may have a better perspective after the regime is brought down but the way how Mr Bush set up this war and in some cases "bought" support for this unjustified action regading international law and with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (maybe a duobtable "act of magic" recovers some) is a fatal mistake and will give those extremist more power and support to argument against the US.
if saddam hussein owns weaponry of mass destruction (not only in theory) we should at last see them in action within the last stand of Baghdad (what I really not hoping for as those victims we have no is far enough).
there is no country being a thread to the US as long as its a nation regarding conventional militay might, now that ppl will learn that terror seems to be the only way of oposing I fear it will get more intense.
thx Mr Bush to make this planet more "secure"....I'm really pissed and the US has had some really good presidents in the past that showed another way is possible.
its really shocking that "survival of the fittest" once more becomes an accepted phrase....
*I've never been anti american and I never will be as I got to know a lot of nice ppl (I even planned to work and live there). I strictly divide the people of some nation and its gouvernment and the actual us american administration and the powers behind it with their view of world order is not what I call freedom* [/B][/QUOTE]
@ rhett - I haven't enroled exact comparisons but if you don't feel in some way controlled and have full faith in your gouvernment then I really admire you as you surely have a better sleep as I have had since the developments since september 11th.
and additionally I want to say that a situation discribed at the example of the clarke regime that I was alluding to needn't to be exactly the same in outward appearance and execution to have the same character or result in the future.
if life and policy would be that easy as the plot in a TV show we haven't had those problems - always concentrate on the backstory!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Solitaire [/i]
[B]bringing down the regime would have been justified after the aggression of '91, but US gov hesitated doing that and I think they have had a reason for this and Hussein wouldn't been tolerated if this wasn't in any case of use for the administration[/B][/QUOTE]
It wasn't the US who "hesitated", it was the UN that didn't wanna be bothered with it then.
Comments
[B]you'd be suprised at how easily "hard data" of an intelligence report can get a man killed... [/B][/QUOTE]
LOL!
Btw, you'd be surprised how easily "hard data" can be faked. ;)
- PJH
[B]FYI, I did pull that post shortly after putting it up, and before your post was up, truly not interesting in flaming or anything that considered it... which is why I pulled it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Don't worry, I didn't consider it as flaming against me.
- PJH
[B]And I assume from this that you didn't even read all that text, because if you did you'd know that that evidence material which Powell presented to the UN council was described in that text by him.[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, the remainder of SCUDS is not what he is talking about later in his speech. If you look closely at what he's talking about, he is talking about the building of test stands that is supporting the claim that Iraq has "illegally important 380 SA-2" rocket engines and about them "pursuing a liquid fuel missile that would be able to fly more than 1,200 kilometers", both of which DID NOT HAVE the slightest bit to do with the remainder of SCUD missiles in Iraq to which we were originally discussing.
:: EDIT :: Needed to tone down a bit... lol
- PJH
[B]Actually, the remainder of SCUDS is not what he is talking about later in his speech. If you look closely at what he's talking about, he is talking about the building of test stands that is supporting the claim that Iraq has "illegally important 380 SA-2" rocket engines and about them "pursuing a liquid fuel missile that would be able to fly more than 1,200 kilometers", both of which DID NOT HAVE the slightest bit to do with the remainder of SCUD missiles in Iraq to which we were originally discussing.
:: EDIT :: Needed to tone down a bit... lol [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, we were discussing about the evidence in general as well.
- PJH
The Iraq doesn't have the biggest oil reserves in the world like I said. They have the second biggest, Saudi Arabia having the biggest.
Of Saudi Arabia's reserves 50% are in use though and only a small percentage of Iraqis have been utilized so far.
Here's some numbers by country (billion barrels)
1 Saudi Arabia - 260
2 Iraq - 110
3 Kuwait - 95
4 United Arab Emirates - 95
5 Iran - 92
6 Venezuela - 66
7 Russia - 49
8 Mexico - 27
9 China - 24
10 United States - 23
I'm not sure if those numbers are accurate and reliable due to the website's nature where I got that information from, but they should be close enough to my knowledge.
- PJH
Anyone see the news of a possible "secret surrender" by Republican Guard troops? CNN just said something about it.... Might sound too good to be true, but it does seem like the US is holding back on something.
but if you're waiting for Saddam's ilitary actions to make sense, you'll be waiting a looooong time
regarding the politcal past current policy (national/international) and economical facts the reasons for war amongst human reasons are obvious....
the discussion about weaponry is useless as a lot of nations do own them, even aggressive ones (if one can determine whos aggressive or not) and don't think the ones claiming to be non aggressive because of a democratic system aren't.
there are many ways being aggressive!
Oh This reminds me, That the US has Weapons of mass disruction. And wants everone to disarm except them.. :mad: :mad: :mad:
[B]The US has Pulled out of Anti-Balistic Missal Treadys as well.
And You people say your against Nukes???? [/B][/QUOTE]
Well considering the Anti ballistic missle treaty was a bilateral treaty between Russia and the USA with no other parties, it was getting kind of worthless, other countries are developing arsenals and their activities have to be considered.
[B]Well considering the Anti ballistic missle treaty was a bilateral treaty between Russia and the USA with no other parties, it was getting kind of worthless, other countries are developing arsenals and their activities have to be considered. [/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed. I think that there's gotta be a shift in attitude and thought process out of the cold war era mindset. The idea of mutual destruction (the basis for the ballistic missile treaty) is basically this: Any [B]RATIONAL[/B] enemy could be assured destruction in response to an attack.
In the future, we may potentially face muslim extremists who view death as a gate to heaven - thus will not fear the following destruction in response to an attack. We can't think in terms of western rationalism as we deal with issues abroad anymore. Other rogue nations that do not fear reprisals may also be problematic to cold war thinking.
This is just an observation on my part, but this is why, in my opinion, the American pullout from that treaty doesn't really signify all that much, but I'm sure others may see it differently.
[B]Oh This reminds me, That the US has Weapons of mass disruction. And wants everone to disarm except them.. :mad: :mad: :mad: [/B][/QUOTE]
that's it - I really fear terrorists attacks, but I although fear this totally uncontrolled military superiority of the US. now that even the UNO (a political institution founded with the US after WWII)
is no option for the us administration when thwarting their plans it seems as if ppl have no choice then being on the "right" side of the US or belonging to the "unwilling" what is in principle the same thing as belonging to the "axis of evil" if referring to Mr. Bush's Black And White World Order.
and that's exactly what I've predicted when this man got elected (if it was an "election"). it's not an option to bring the wild west and the law of the gun to the world pretending this to be democracy and freedom.
bringing down the regime would have been justified after the aggression of '91, but US gov hesitated doing that and I think they have had a reason for this and Hussein wouldn't been tolerated if this wasn't in any case of use for the administration. now it is against any international law justified to fight a preventive war!?
it's always easy to justify a war when pretending a human goal like liberating people of an opressing system and I totally agree that Iraquian ppl may have a better perspective after the regime is brought down but the way how Mr Bush set up this war and in some cases "bought" support for this unjustified action regading international law and with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (maybe a duobtable "act of magic" recovers some) is a fatal mistake and will give those extremist more power and support to argument against the US.
if saddam hussein owns weaponry of mass destruction (not only in theory) we should at last see them in action within the last stand of Baghdad (what I really not hoping for as those victims we have no is far enough).
there is no country being a thread to the US as long as its a nation regarding conventional militay might, now that ppl will learn that terror seems to be the only way of oposing I fear it will get more intense.
thx Mr Bush to make this planet more "secure"....I'm really pissed and the US has had some really good presidents in the past that showed another way is possible.
its really shocking that "survival of the fittest" once more becomes an accepted phrase....
*I've never been anti american and I never will be as I got to know a lot of nice ppl (I even planned to work and live there). I strictly divide the people of some nation and its gouvernment and the actual us american administration and the powers behind it with their view of world order is not what I call freedom*
[B]with their view of world order is not what I call freedom* [/B][/QUOTE]
Thats So ture...
The US's Veiw of world order is them controling Every Country in the world. And if those people Elect a party that does not agree with the US's Version of the world, the country gets on the "Axis of evil" list. And Gets the shit bomb out of them
Thats just my Opinion.
Now My version of world order is a united earth where everone Elects people directy into the United Earth goverment. And where ever counntry is equal, and no super powers.
no really, just "............"
Listen, Bush may not be good. But, we only have him for another two years. And even IF he gets reelected, thats it. No more. He is not going to set up some dictatorship. Nor do I believe that this is an "engineered" war. Honestly, some of you need to take a step back and look at what you are implying (I am not trying to offend or flame anyone here :) )
Like I said at some other point, wait and see for who is right. If I am wrong, I will admit it. But I have a strong conviciton that what we find in Iraq will shock and appall the world.
I don't understand Blair though but maybe he and Aznar got the impression they lost the train regarding the EU; their people are much further regarding the european idea.
well Chiraque is also a man I won't call peacekeeper; I think he has his reasons blocking against the war initiative of the coalition and they undoubtable have to do with the political position of France within the world and economical reasons as most nations as well.
there are no angels among our worlds politicians and there'll probably never be some that's because we the people have to have an eye on what's going on...
but I wonder if some ppl just watch B5 for the sake of good Sci-Fi or the general subtext and paralels to our lives and environment...at least an illusion within me died with this discussion.
[B]PJH, you are correct in that the Press are the ones saying that they were SCUDS - I guess we'll have to wait for the military confirmation. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah. I hope they'll give the public info about those missiles soon.
- PJH
[B]PJH, you're correct in that fact that it's the MEDIA reporting the missiles as SCUDS...
but if you're waiting for Saddam's ilitary actions to make sense, you'll be waiting a looooong time [/B][/QUOTE]
Hehheh.... could be. But I think that even Saddam has that much sense in his head, that if he really has those weapons in possession he'd try to keep that in secret as long as possible and that way get as much support from the world against the US and it's allies as possible. It's been said, that he's actually a very good tactician.
- PJH
[B]
but I wonder if some ppl just watch B5 for the sake of good Sci-Fi or the general subtext and paralels to our lives and environment...at least an illusion within me died with this discussion. [/B][/QUOTE]
If you are refering to myself, then please clarify what you mean. I do not see Bush having the president killed so he can move into power. I do not see Bush bombing innocent civilians. I do not see a Nightwatch-esq orginization shutting down businesses, firing officials, arresting dissidents, ect. I do not see Bush disbanding the Senate/Congress. I do not see Bush trampling over our liberties. In fact, I don't even see him restricting them in any major way. So yes I do understand what Babylon 5 means. However, you cannot say that the two situations are one and the same.
[B]that's it - I really fear terrorists attacks, but I although fear this totally uncontrolled military superiority of the US. now that even the UNO (a political institution founded with the US after WWII)
is no option for the us administration when thwarting their plans it seems as if ppl have no choice then being on the "right" side of the US or belonging to the "unwilling" what is in principle the same thing as belonging to the "axis of evil" if referring to Mr. Bush's Black And White World Order.
and that's exactly what I've predicted when this man got elected (if it was an "election"). it's not an option to bring the wild west and the law of the gun to the world pretending this to be democracy and freedom.
bringing down the regime would have been justified after the aggression of '91, but US gov hesitated doing that and I think they have had a reason for this and Hussein wouldn't been tolerated if this wasn't in any case of use for the administration. now it is against any international law justified to fight a preventive war!?
it's always easy to justify a war when pretending a human goal like liberating people of an opressing system and I totally agree that Iraquian ppl may have a better perspective after the regime is brought down but the way how Mr Bush set up this war and in some cases "bought" support for this unjustified action regading international law and with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (maybe a duobtable "act of magic" recovers some) is a fatal mistake and will give those extremist more power and support to argument against the US.
if saddam hussein owns weaponry of mass destruction (not only in theory) we should at last see them in action within the last stand of Baghdad (what I really not hoping for as those victims we have no is far enough).
there is no country being a thread to the US as long as its a nation regarding conventional militay might, now that ppl will learn that terror seems to be the only way of oposing I fear it will get more intense.
thx Mr Bush to make this planet more "secure"....I'm really pissed and the US has had some really good presidents in the past that showed another way is possible.
its really shocking that "survival of the fittest" once more becomes an accepted phrase....
*I've never been anti american and I never will be as I got to know a lot of nice ppl (I even planned to work and live there). I strictly divide the people of some nation and its gouvernment and the actual us american administration and the powers behind it with their view of world order is not what I call freedom* [/B][/QUOTE]
Well written.
- PJH
and additionally I want to say that a situation discribed at the example of the clarke regime that I was alluding to needn't to be exactly the same in outward appearance and execution to have the same character or result in the future.
if life and policy would be that easy as the plot in a TV show we haven't had those problems - always concentrate on the backstory!
[B]bringing down the regime would have been justified after the aggression of '91, but US gov hesitated doing that and I think they have had a reason for this and Hussein wouldn't been tolerated if this wasn't in any case of use for the administration[/B][/QUOTE]
It wasn't the US who "hesitated", it was the UN that didn't wanna be bothered with it then.