![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I rarely post on this topic, even though my opinions are active I haven't really felt like taking the time. However:
"If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical and biological weapons, this would change the situation completely and immediately for the French government," [French Ambassador to the United States] Jean-David Levitte said. (From this CNN article)
This, in a way, is very disturbing.
Either
1) Iraq uses chemical weapons on our soldiers, many die, Bush is vindicated and France will likely change its stance.
2) Iraq doesn't use chemical weapons, Bush is not vindicated, and our soldiers are not put up against that horrific device.
So which to hope for? I mean, in a way, it would be kind of nice for Bush to have been right. It would help ease the international ill-will the U.S. has had for the last year or so. Of course, the downside is that we'd still have Bush who would suddenly be popular and we'd have regiments of our military exposed to chemicals that are deadly both short and long term.
"If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical and biological weapons, this would change the situation completely and immediately for the French government," [French Ambassador to the United States] Jean-David Levitte said. (From this CNN article)
This, in a way, is very disturbing.
Either
1) Iraq uses chemical weapons on our soldiers, many die, Bush is vindicated and France will likely change its stance.
2) Iraq doesn't use chemical weapons, Bush is not vindicated, and our soldiers are not put up against that horrific device.
So which to hope for? I mean, in a way, it would be kind of nice for Bush to have been right. It would help ease the international ill-will the U.S. has had for the last year or so. Of course, the downside is that we'd still have Bush who would suddenly be popular and we'd have regiments of our military exposed to chemicals that are deadly both short and long term.
