In a message dated 4/1/03 6:36:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Yeah, and the was the Embargo! 12 years of siege warfare > against Iraq to prevent Saddam from buying weapons, > and now we know that the _only_ think that Saddam bought > in this period was... weapons. > Again, it's a false dichotomy. War or ineffective embargo. Unless you are prepared to argue that NO embargo could EVER have BEEN effective. (Which is a defensible position, given the propensity of some countries (Mr Subliminal mumbles "France, Russia" here) to break the embargo for their own commercial benefit.) > > What about another 30 years of siege warfare? The advantage > will be that, with the death of all Iraqi children, by > 2033 the Iraqi soldiers will be too old to understand how > to operate their chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. > But what had Saddam been doing recently? Had he invaded anyone? Had he threatened to invade anyone? Had he provably armed any terrorists? Was it impossible for a really intrusive inspections regime to disarm him eff ectively? (Given the recalcitrance of the French, perhaps.) In my opinion, the best way to achieve our aims would have been to patiently build a case against him by letting the inspectors do their job (assisting them to do it) and constructing an international alliance against him. Maybe I'm wrong that any of this would be possible, but I don't think we really tried. I think the Bush administration wanted a war and didn't want to let anything interfere. I'm not against any war anywhere ever. I'm not sure, but I think I'm against this war at this particular moment. However, this is now a moot point. I hope we win, quickly, with minimum damage to Iraq. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
