blix isn't the topic, even prima facie. the topic is "appeasement", and even that straw man is a proxy. ariel knows what the real topic is.

Bushbasher

How can you call the author's thesis a "straw man" when you yourself are unwilling to defend Blix, presuamably because you agree with the authors sentiments?

Keith tried the "I know what the author's saying, even though he isn't actually saying it" and that turned out poorly for him. If you think the argument is a straw man, show me where.

No. Find another patsy.

Bushbasher and Bushbred, you have quite obviously lost this particular argument. Blix was an abject and complete failure, just like your arguments. Just like Neville Chamberlain. And just like the UN.

Congratulations to Johnathan for writing this article, and to PaulL for following up his good work. It's gratifying to see him wupp the asses of the likes of Ho Hum, Chris Shaw and bushbred. I've tried arguing with these left wing whackos until I'm blue in the fingers, but they refuse to look at facts objectively.

Sadly the information war seems to be lost. Most people believe the headlines about David Kay, and have only seen the two second sound bite of him saying "there's nothing there." Most do not realise that he went to great lengths to detail Saddam's deliberate deception regarding his WMD program, as well as his underlying psychology, which meant that he would always pose a threat.

Nothing much changes in the left dominated media and education system. I only found out that Ronald Reagan actually envisioned the star wars program as a means of bringing about nuclear disarmament, when I did a thesis on missile defence and nuclear disarmament a couple of years ago. Until then, I had always been fed the perception of "Ronald Raygun" as a being a far-right warmonger.