hi sarah
>>> Ron, you say that anti-war is not pro-Saddam, but without a war,
he will stay in power, so anyone demonstrating against the method of
removal, when no alternative exists, is de facto demonstrating against the
removal itself.
uh yeah. kind of. but are we truly sure that no alternative exists?? not
that i have one, but surely someone can come up with something. id be only
too happy to see him go, but i have 2 problems with war :
1) the very nature of war itself.
2) the possible/probable extended consequences of war in iraq.
the problem that i have with the sudden "liberation" theory is how its been
neatly dusted out & put on display now that the "weapons of mass
destruction" thing seems to have lost popular favor.
>>>>>>>>>>The Moslem groups invited to take part in the marches in
London were from extremist organizations that are so right wing you
normally wouldn't want to associate with them.
one of the reasons i didnt march here. i didnt want to be identified as pro
saddam. the news coverage of the marches here made the marching in sa look
like a major pro saddam gathering. we have a huge muslim community here,
with an extremely militant wing called "PAGAD" (people against gangs and
drugs). this is basically a vigilante group who go around blowing up
gangsters and drug merchants.
>>>>>You said Iraqis would probably be worse off if liberated. How
could they be worse off?
go ask the people of zimbabwe, namibia, zambia, mocambique, nigeria, kenya,
zaire, mali, ivory coast, uganda. (and im sure many people could add
numerous other examples to this list) they all thought they were getting a
bargain when they got "democracy". they all came horribly, horribly short.
freedom fighters who had promised all sorts of things to their supporters
turned out to be worse, far, far worse, than their predecessors.
i really dont have the answer to saddam/iraq. i probably never will have. i
just dont think bush has it either.
ron
