Erik Reuter wrote: > >Ummm, the US military was busy in Afghanistan? And then it was summer, >unsuitable for war in Iraq. Now it is getting to be cold in Iraq. Good >for soldiers wearing protection from chemical weapons. > The diplomatic efforts, those we see taking place right now, could have begun much earlier in the wake of 911. If it had been done in a manner such that other nations felt they were involved in a cooperative effort to curtail terrorism, perhaps we'd have many more of them on board right now. Instead we've alienated most of them.
> >>Bush Corp. So we'll attack. We'll destroy their infrastructure so >>that the long suffering people of Iraq can suffer a bit longer. But >> > >What infrastructure, and are you sure that removing Saddam means >destroying it? > Roads, bridges, power plants, communications stations etc. I imagine that we could just invade without a bombing campaign, but I'm certain that our casualties would be much higher if we did that. >And is the state/situation the Iraqis are "living" in now >something that you want to continue? > > No, but that goes for dozens of countries accross the globe, many of whose living conditions are worse than those in Iraq. Is the state/situation in Ethiopia something that you want to continue? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/2307369.stm Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
