A good concise statement the only change I would make is in tense. Between sanctions and regular bombings we are killing innocent people now. The question is why we are going to kill more of them.
pms wrote: > How about, Even when Saddam had plenty of help from Cheney's buddy Jim > Baker, he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag, so why are we going to > kill all those innocent people? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 8:11 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:28022] Re: Re: Iraq > > > >>One thing: I think in opposing this invastion, we should not refer to >>stuff like Americans coming home in body bags, implying that this will a >>tough invasion to carry out. If it turns out that the U.S. m iliatry has >>an easy time destroying the current Iraq goverment do we then support >>it? And also we don't know that it will be tough. No-one can predict >>this sort of thing. Saddam may well have put together an army capapble >>of resisting a U.S. invasion. He certainly has had time; and the >>support for resisting a U.S. invasion is probably strong regardless of >>how people feel about their government otherwise. >> >>But he has not had a whole bunch of money to buy weapons with nor great >>access to the supply market in general (to put it mildly). The bottom >>line is WE DON'T KNOW how strong Iraq resistance will be. It is better >>to premise our opposition on another basis. >> >>Michael Perelman wrote: >> >> >>>Bush should attack in late September/early Oct. according to the >>> > official > >>>wag the dog election calendar. >>> >>>On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Ian Murray posted: >>> >>> >>> >>>>World leaders appear to be in deadly earnest over warnings >>>>that Saddam must be deposed by force. But some in the US >>>>are asking why a blueprint for the conflict was leaked at >>>>the moment when sleaze scandals hit a new peak. Report by >>>>Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > >
