> Michael S. Lorrey [email@example.com] wrote:
> >Frankly, the near-instantaneous telivising of the war would have
> >broadcast shocking pictures of American bio-weapon fatalities,
> And then it would have been followed up by shocking pictures of the
> devastation of Baghdad, the massive civilian casualties, and the kids dying
> of radiation poisoning. Few soldiers get killed, the US burns up thousands
> of kids. Yep, that'll really get 'the people of the world' behind them.
> >I think
> >you severely underestimate how much this would motivate the people of
> >the world to unleash the dogs of war on Iraq.
> You think many Chinese will care about US troops getting killed? Russians?
> Indians? Arabs? That's more than half the world's population already. I
> think you severely underestimate how many of the people of the world hate
> and despise America, largely because of its military ambitions.
Neither India nor China can do squat about it, and India hates Muslims anyways, and Russia wont do anything since Iraq is funding the Islamic separatists in the southern Russian republics. If Iraq kills other arabs, the arabic world will not care by and large what we do to Iraq. Keep in mind that there were more arabic nations in the alliance against Iraq than of any other nationality. We killed over 100,000 Iraqis on the 'Highway of Death' from the air, which left very significant evidence of devastation. Thats as much as we could kill with a nuke. Nobody cried then, nobody will cry when and if Iraq uses NBC weapons and we retaliate. Islam is by and large a religion of peace, and most Muslims have no respect for terrorist groups or states. They do beleive in eye for an eye, but not endless tit for tat. The bad guy never gets the right to retaliate for his eye taken by Islamic law...