From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 11:58:44 MST
"Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
>With no or little consequences and death to only him and his
>direct guard and troops that *might* be enough.
Well thanks a bunch for that concession, but only *might* ??
> He hasn't been able to do much of squat with that oil for the
> last decade in case you missed it.
That's true and due entirely to the 91 gulf war. I bet you opposed that
conflict too.
>There are many murderous despotic tyrants in the world.
>Why do we go after this one in particular
Because Saddam is the only tyrant on this planet that invaded his neighbors
twice,
is developing weapons of mass destruction and has actually used them, and
most
important of all looks like it's practical to overthrow militarily.
>Are you sure oil and positioning US forces don't have at least
>something to do with it?
Iraq has the second largest and possibly the largest oil reserve in the
world, of course that has something to due with it. But it doesn't matter
a hoot in hell if the reasons America wants to go to war are saintly or
sinful, the important thing is the consequences of doing so. Will getting
rid of Saddam be a good thing? Yes. Is the price to do that too high?
I don't know. I worry about the war itself and I worry about the
occupation. I just hope the Bush people know what they're doing.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST