BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?

Subject: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: outfidel
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 08:26 PM

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it." -- U.S. officer during the Tet Offensive

Destroying the Village to Save Weapons Manufacturers

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Peter T.
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 08:56 PM

enough! yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 09:00 PM

Heloo, why are people starting loads of threads about iraq? there is loads already, this is folk music site, but this rate soon there is more threads going to be about war.john

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 09:01 PM

ptert posted while i was writing my message, but he put it so much better than me, and thats waht i meant.john

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 02:05 AM

It's just like fucking for virginity

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 02:08 AM

The reason there are so many threads John, is because whenever the unwitting aupporters of Saddam Hussain start loosing an argument on facts they start another thread.

Lets face facts: War is Evil. Sometimes it may be that war is the lesser of two evils.

The threat of war has forced Saddam Hussain to conceed what he has grudgingly conceedd already.

Regretably it may be neccessary to mittigate the evil of Saddam Hussain by the evil of war. Only the most biggotted anti Bush faction could believe that USA and UK armed forces would deliberatly target children and bystanders.

Let us hope sanity prevails, and the Iraqui armed forces dispose of Sadam Hussain, in order to attemt to bring peace and democracy to that part of the Middle East.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 07:50 AM

I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons for ignoring the build-up to war. But I also think it is important for people to be able to talk about the war. For those who don't want to talk about the war, the solution is quite simple. Don't open the thread.

I think outfidel's point is a crucial one, because it goes to the heart of the logic used by hawks and chickenhawks to justify the carnage. Killing people isn't liberating them. It calls into question the entire justification for the war.

Thanks for the link, and thanks for making the point, outfidel.

Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:20 AM

I think its interesting that this particulat "contribution" was initiated with a quote invented by a correspondent. I wonder how many more will come out of the next war, if there is one.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:51 AM

Very few people allege that Bush is deliberately targeting civilians. On the other hand, he has stated his intent to dump 3000 cruise missiles into Iraq's largest city. Given our previous success with smart weapons, it's a sure bet that scores of those missiles will strike non-military targets, likely including civilian bomb shelters.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:00 PM

Mmmmm ! Trying to be objective.

If G W Bush is as stupid as his knee jerk detractors make out would any General give him details of the actual opperational plan ?

Please recall that the first casualty is always truth, and that deliberate misinformation is a weapon. Please see recent history on this, such as the WW2 operations "Fortitude", and "Mincemeat"

Gareth

"Fortitude" = Allied troops to invade in Norway and the Pays du Calais

"Mincemeat" - Leaking 'Plans' that Allied troops were to land in Sardinia rathe than Italy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Felipa
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 02:55 PM

yes, I heard the song before
"Though it isn't really war,
We're sending fifty thousand more
To help save Vietnam from Vietnamse"

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Felipa
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:12 PM

sneaking back with red face - the song I quoted was about escalation and focused on what was happening to American soldiers more than what was happening to Vietnamese, but I had momentarily remembered the line as We're KILLING fifty thousand more to help save ... Vietnamese

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Oldguy
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:23 PM

How can we save Iraqis?

Once a cleric visited Saddam to complain about the conditions his people were suffering under. Saddam picked up his pistol and casually shot him.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:29 PM

Somewhere around here I know I have a recording of The Fugs' Kill For Peace... guess its time to dust it off again after 40 years. Just shows ya how far we've come in all that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: outfidel
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:44 PM

I'm not anti-Bush and I don't hate him. In fact, I voted for the guy -- I simply thought he was the better candidate than Gore.

I don't think he's an idiot or puppet. There was a piece in the Sunday NY Times magazine that seemed to characterize Bush pretty well. He's a fairly shrewd politician who is the ideological son of Reagan rather than Bush Sr.

I don't think Bush is doing this for oil. If so, we would be invading Venezuela instead of Iraq - Chavez has done more to upset world oil supply and prices than Saddam has.

I don't think Bush is a terrorist or a maniac -- I trust that he will do everything he can to target Iraqi military resources and not their people.

HOWEVER, I must disagree with his launching ateral invasion when 1) it has not been proven that Saddam has WMD of mass destruction that he plans to use against his neighbors, and 2) it has not been proven that Saddam and al-Qaeda are linked in any way. We've been promised proof since (coincidentally?) before the last Congressional elections, but none has been provided.

Sorry, he just hasn't sold me on the case for war.

Now when I hear this rationale that we're doing it to save Iraqis from Saddam, I'm reminded of the (apocryphal?) quote above from the U.S. officer during Tet. In 1991, there approximately 85,000 Iraqis killed or wounded during the Gulf War. How many more will be killed in a protracted campaign to topple Hussein?

I have no illusions about Hussein -- he's a tyrant and a butcher. I question the means rather than the ends. In this instance, the unintended consequences of war strike me as too great -- too many innocent lives will be lost as "collateral damage", and too many Middle Easterners will lured by fanatics. General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, testified before the US Senate last year that he believed war with Iraq was liable to "supercharge" Al Qaeda recruitment.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 05:33 PM

I appreciate your points outfidel. I think another really important aspect of the way that Bush is conducting this campaign, is the new precedent he is setting of attacking another sovereign nation that has not attacked us, ie attacking (so-called) pre-emptively.

This is a dramatic departure from the ways and means the US has always followed when going to war. The US has never used this tactic, which has at times been used by the Israelis, in places like Lebanon.

It is just a rotten precedent to set. Not only do I feel Bush hasn't made a case for this war, I feel very strongly he has not made a case for the need to strike ANY nation pre-emptively. We didn't bomb Cuba when we KNEW there were nukes there, so why the need now, when we know Iraq can't touch us? It just makes no rational sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Oldguy
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 06:05 PM

outfidel - PM

You are correct but it is not unilateral. In Nato the vote was 16 to 3 to defend Turkey.

The majority of European nations are in an alliance with The US and the UK to conduct this action as well as the majority of nations world wide. Today Argentina, Japan and others joined that group and said they agree with the alliance. Why does the word unilateral keep popping up?

In the beginning Bush said the US was prepared to act unilaterally if necessary. Now it will not be necessary.

Weren't the 85,000 Iraqis killed in the '91 war in the Iraqi army? You can't win a war with out killing people in the opposing army.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 08:25 PM

"The majority of European nations" excludes France, Germany, and Russia, who between them control a plurality of the population compared to those who actively support Bush. Even among those in favor of war, many still require that it be UN-sanctioned. I haven't seen any numbers on the rest of the world, but I would imagine that such nations as China, India, and Pakistan do not support the U.S., between them carrying nearly a majority of the entire world's population. As to the casualty figures, it is true that in '91 the deaths were almost entirely military. That was because the majority of the fighting was done outside of Iraq's urban centers. Both Bush and Saddam have stated that the fighting this time will be street-to-street. That's a lot messier.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 08:47 PM

Once a cleric visited Saddam to complain about the conditions his people were suffering under. Saddam picked up his pistol and casually shot him.

--Old Guy

Old Guy, can you show us some documentation to support that statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:09 PM

Ahhhhh, excuse me!

Well, if my spellin' is worse than usual it's because I had a slight head ache earlier and had a choice between the asprin and the shotgun...

Ahhh, I was running low on asprin but had plenty of shot gun shells so, what the hey?......

Ahhh, what's the question?

boboboboerrrtttt......................

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:16 PM

Old Guy,

(Glad to see ya' registered, BTW.)

The NATO vote was only to defend Turkey (a fellow NATO member) should there be a war, it was not a resolution to agree to attack. Turkey, meanwhile, is raising the price on their bribe to use Turkey as a base of attack.

France and Russia are both permanent members of the UN Security Council (along with the UK, US and China.) All 5 have veto power over anything the Security Council wants to do. If either France or Russia vetos, there will be no UN resolution authorizing the attack. Period. Without an explicit authorization, any attack not conducted in immediate self-defense (from an attack by another nation) is illegal under international law for anyone who has signed the UN Charter. Hence the term unilateral being used poorly -- even if other nations join us, it will be an unsanctioned attack outside of international law.

The US Constitution states that international agreements are the highest form of law to the US, so it's illegal within the US as well.

The UK and US are falling back on their position that they don't need a new resolution to authorize an attack. Unfortunately, no one except the US and UK governments agree with this interpretation.

Meanwhile, today the non-Security Council members met to discuss the situation in a non-binding session. Even Kuwait and Iran said they felt the attack was unwarranted and dangerous to the region -- leaving only Japan and Australia in support among those nations that can do anything but sit on the sidelines and cheer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:17 PM

Er, plus Spain.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:37 PM

Wait, Spain can do more than sit on the sidelines?   Seriously, though, if the countries that have the most to fear from Iraq think it's a bad idea to invade, it seems pretty clear that we are not interested in global or regional peace and stability.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:29 AM

Do you REALLY think it would be wise for the countries that "have the most to fear from Iraq" to agree that an invasion should take place? Suppose it doesn't take place? What position would that put them in with Saddam?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:10 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, in my humble and certainly incompletely informed but nonetheless reasonable opinion (Hey, I can say reasonable, it's my opinion!), this discussion is all about a very large and smelly red herring. The motives of this Administration and those who support it have only partly to do with Iraq or North Korea and whatever may or may not be going on there. Instead, they have largely to do with the creation of a state of Permanent War, against the Evil Nation of the Moment and against International Terrorism.

Once Permanent War has been achieved, the government will be justified in (1) giving carte blanche to the military, the arms manufacturers, and whichever corporations contribute the most to the party in power, so as to continue the War Effort in perpetuity; (2) continuing to undo the national and worldwide political, social, environmental, and economic reforms that have "burdened" international corporations for the past 20 or so years (take a look at the GATT sometime -- and that was passed on Clinton's watch); and (3) systematically rolling back the human and civil rights that were fundamental to this nation's founding and have been the ostensible reason for the United States' having fought (most of) its wars in the first place. (Take a look at the USA Patriot Act, and the recently "leaked" Patriot Act II.)

And while you're at it, take a look at Nineteen Eighty-Four. Didn't I recently hear someone refer to the UK as "Airstrip One"? I don't know if that reference to Orwell was intentional or unintentional...if the latter, it's very interesting.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: outfidel
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 10:03 AM

Old Guy -

re: "unilateral" -- in addition to Nicole's point above, Bush and Powell have repeatedly said that the U.S. doesn't need U.N. permission to invade Iraq. Essentially, we're flouting international law. IMHO that's a dangerous precedent to set.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:29 PM

I agree, Mark. But it's just not possible to fight a nebulous concept like that, except by waging a totally different political philosophy, and the Democrats are as neck-deep in this as the Bush adminsitration.

Either way they win -- a slick bit of political manuevering, really, that's been building up for quite a while. Perpetual war may be the goal because it's great for the elite's financial interests and lousy for the peons who do the bleeding...

... but even if they fail, all this focus on the war has let a lot of damaging economic and environmental legislation pass without scrutiny.

Forget the "Hitler" analogy, this is more like ancient Rome.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:50 PM

It seems to me that there are too many of these burgeoning Iraq threads at the moment, so I have posted my response to this thread here, on "BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:15 PM

DougR, they know perfectly well that any hostile activity from Saddam would give Dubya the green light for an invasion. By not speaking out, they risk leaving him in power, but by speaking, they would risk nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 02:25 AM

Lurker: you see it your way, I'll see it mine. But I can see why they are hesitant to oppose Saddam unless they have assurance that the invasion will take place. He still has lots of weapons of mass destruction that have not yet been found.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 06:40 PM

CarolC

"Once a cleric visited Saddam to complain about the conditions his people were suffering under. Saddam picked up his pistol and casually shot him."
--Old Guy

Old Guy, can you show us some documentation to support that statement?

No. I cannot show you any documentation. I was surfing for something to tell me how many innocent people were killed by dictators and I came across that vignette.

If I find it again I will show it to you.

Old guy

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Cluin
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:01 PM

There's the next submission to the list of terms we are sick of hearing: Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Shoots right to the top of the list.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 09:39 PM

I would appreciate that, Old Guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 04:25 PM

"The operation was a success, but unfortunately, the patient died. . . ."
                                                                                              --Dr. Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:44 PM

Here are some of the signs carried by some of the protesters at the
recent Peace March in DC. Some people are just brilliant!

Let's bomb Texas, they have oil too.

How did our oil get under their sand?

If you can't pronounce it, don't bomb it.

Daddy, can I start the war now?

Drunken Frat Boy Drives Country Into Ditch

1000 points of light and one dim bulb.

Sacrifice our SUV's, Not our Children.

Preemptive impeachment.

No George, I said Mac Attack.

Stop the Bushit.

Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld: the asses of evil.

$1 billion a day to kill people -- what a bargain.

Consume --> Consume --> Bomb --> Bomb --> Consume --> Consume

Disarm Bush too.

Big Brother isn't coming -- he's already here.

Empires fall.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind (Gandhi).

Impeach the squatters.

Mainstream white guys for peace. (Sign held by three mainstream-looking
white guys)

Hans Blix -- look over here.

Let Exxon send their own troops.

Destroy Florida. [It could happen again]

There's a terrorist behind every Bush.

We can't afford to rule the world.

War is so 20th century!

9-11-01: 15 Saudis, 0 Iraqis.

Drop Bush not bombs.

I asked for universal health care and all I got was this lousy
stealthbomber.

America's problems won't be solved in Iraq.

War is Not a Family Value.

Colorfully dressed drag queen carrying a sign that says: I am the bomb.

Picture of the peace symbol: Back by Popular Demand.

A picture of Bush with a red-stained upper lip: "Got blood?"

A picture of Bush saying "Why should I care what the American people think?
They didn't vote for me."

A picture of Bush saying "Ask me about my lobotomy."

Beneath a picture of a menacing soldier pointing his rifle/bayonet toward
the viewer: Say it! One Nation under God. Say it!

What would Jesus bomb?

A village in Texas is missing its idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Troll
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:10 PM

There was a UN Resolution that caused the cease-fire in the Gulf War back in the '90's. It stated, in part, that if Saddam Hussein did not comply with all the particulars, the shooting could start again.
I, for one, have never seen where that Resolution was rescinded and I don't believe that it had a specific life.
Why, therefore, is a new resolution needed?
In other matters, it's obvious why France, Germany and Russia don't want a war and it has nothing to do with the fact that "they know the horrors of war".
It's MONEY!
Saddam owes the three countries billions and the French ,in addition, hold oil contracts worth billions more. If Saddam is ousted, the chances are slim of them ever seeing a dime.
Follow the money, folks. Follow the money.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:16 PM

Sorry, troll. Every time I follow the money, it inevitably leads right to Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, et al.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 11:54 AM

Troll,

You are spot on with your post above.

Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:17 PM

So Teribus and troll, are you suggesting that it is OK to slaughter innocent Iraqi citizens so the US can seize control of Iraqi oil fields, for which the French, Russians, and other nations, have legal contracts with Iraq to produce and sell to their countries?

Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:19 PM

I put this on the Vive Le France thread, but I figure it might not hurt to put it here, too:

The US has financial motives for wanting to wage war. troll maintains that France has financial motives for wanting to prevent a war.

Hmmm... Which one? Which one? Which position holds the higher ground? Which is the greater evil? Killing people for money, or not killing people for money. Gee, that's a tough one.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:38 PM

CarolC,

The US has financial motives for wanting to wage war - What are they?

Anon GUEST,

Where on earth do you get the idea that the US wants to sieze control of Iraq's oil-fields?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:42 PM

Wow, Teribus. It would take a long time for me to fully answer that one. I'll start with the US military-industrial complex for now. I'll add more as time allows.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:54 PM

"Where on earth do you get the idea that the US wants to sieze control of Iraq's oil-fields?"

God damn, I laughed my ass off reading that. Thanks for a great joke there, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:37 PM

It's pretty simple, Teribus. Bush intends to palce a military governor in charge of Iraq during the occupation. This military governor will undoubtedly have some degree of control over where oil and other exports can be sold to, as it is a perfectly legitimate function of the government. It would be very surprising indeed if American oil companies, possibly ones with connections to Bush, did not get awarded a certain percentage of these contracts. Even if all that happens is that the current contracts with France and Russia are invalidated, and the market is opened to American companies, they still gain considerably.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:17 PM

ask the Kurds in Northern Iraq, about what they think
should happen. (or the Shia Minority or the Marsh Arabs)
who were all brutally suppressed by Saddam)
for a land with no history of democracy the Kurds in northern
Iraq are doing quite well, and could set an example for the rest of the region.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:21 PM

I read somewhere that the Kurds in Northern Iraq are concerned that they will lose their autonomy if the US and the UK attack Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 04:22 PM

the kurds have given up their hopes for an independent Kurdistan,
instead they are working for a level of autonomy within Iraq,
(and they are aware they will be losing some autonomy they have today,
but expect some benefits) (this from Last weekends globe&mail article)

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 04:37 PM

Ever been on the receiving end of an air raid Troll with your family, Troll?

"ask the Kurds in Northern Iraq, about what they think
should happen."

One thing they certainly don't want is to have the Turks move in to crush the Kurdish mini-state they've set up in Northern Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 01:18 PM

Troll? whos Troll,
no I havent been on the receiving end of an air raid.
my town was surrounded by Russian tanks though, was yours McGrath?
petr

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 01:42 PM

Troll is troll. He lives in Florida USA (when he's not being an itinerant strolling musician in places like Japan).

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 03:10 PM

Among German KZ survivors there is a big split right now. Some of them say 'No war evermore for whatever reasons' some say don't you recall how we have applauded each single bomb even when we have been (close to) the target for it brought the end of suppression nearer. No easy decision.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: outfidel
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:57 PM

Just saw a story on the BBC about the Kurds in Iraq. According to the story, the Kurds are more worried about Turkey than Saddam, especially now that Turkey is partnering with the US on the northern invasion.

Since the '91 Gulf War, the Iraqi Kurds have carved out an unprecedented level of autonomy within Iraq, including creation of a Kurdish bank. They believe Turkey views that autonomy as a threat, and that Turkey will use the pretext of an Iraqi invasion to stamp out Kurdish autonomy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 02:26 AM

Outfidel: nobody said it's going to be easy.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: outfidel
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 12:10 PM

Agreed, and I haven't heard otherwise.

Keeping the peace without an invasion wouldn't be easy, either.

BTW, I also heard an NPR story last night that said support for Saddam in the Middle East is *much* lower this time around than in 1991. For example, you haven't heard Yassir Arafat coming out in support for Saddam. Arabs generally loathe the idea of a US/UN invasion -- but at the same time, they recognize Saddam is a corrupt tyrant who has really hurt the entire Middle East region since his invasion of Kuwait.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing Iraq to save Iraqis?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 12:40 PM

Yes, I heard the same report on NPR.

DougR