From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Feb 16 2003 - 20:31:01 MST
Samantha writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> > War protestors around the world may be dismayed to learn
> > the effect of their efforts on the population of Baghdad
> > and on Saddam's government. The news is greeted with the
> > greatest elation by the government and Mr. Hussein.
> > Meanwhile the people ask, "Is it really true?", so often
> > have they been lied to by their government-controlled
> > media. I'm afraid it is, and those who strongly want
> > to be rid of him must be greatly discouraged.
>
> What people anywhere would fail to be elated that their country
> was not to be invaded and large sections of it blown up?
Those who oppose Saddam and wish for a regime change. How
much they *personally* fear the kind of war that'll happen
must surely vary a lot from person to person.
> Exactly how is this bad news or something that should
> dismay those of us who point out that there is no good
> reason for this proposed war?
I'm surprised that I should have to spell it out. But
that merely shows how each of us finds the viewpoints
and arguments of others comparatively alien. You do
grant the possibility (though I expect you to think
it somewhat less probable?) that the uniform pressure
from the armed might of the world might cause him to
accept one of the deals that is talked about, and just
abdicate? Surely if he knew that it was a certainty
that he was going to be captured by the allies, he
would be more likely to choose exile.
> > So while the effect of the demonstrations on the Bush
> > administration and its allies will be minimal, of course,
> > we can expect that any thoughts Saddam Hussein has of
> > abdicating or to destroying his WMD are put on hold.
>
> Alleged WMD. We have no proof. Zero, Nada. No reason that
> stands scrutiny has been given for the carnage and cost,
> immediate and likely consequent, of this proposed action.
All the news reports and discussions I've seen refer to
a number of WMD that he had in 1996, and for which he has
failed to account. What do you think happened to them?
> > This resembles ever so much the Vietnam debacle a
> > generation ago, the main difference being that in
> > addition to the encouragement and support given to
> > the murderous Hanoi regime, western politicians were
> > deeply affected by the demonstrations and protests
> > as the years went by. At least this time there
> > will not follow such tragic consequences.
>
> If western politicians do not heed the cry of the people the
> consequences will be tragic indeed.
Okay, we have you on record as predicting that. I'll go
on record as predicting that the deaths of Western soldiers
will be less than a thousand, and that because of the
difficulty that capturing Baghdad poses. It is said that
some sectors of the city will be so willing to depose Saddam
that the first things that arriving troops should do is pass
out pistols. Other areas are known to be quite loyal to
Hussein.
As for the deaths of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, as General
McCafferty (or McCaffrey) said, there's little telling. It's
expected that the Allied propaganda leaflets already dropped
will cause the main Iraqi army units to surrender quickly, but
that the Republican Guard units will not. Civilian casualties
will be almost entirely limited to Baghdad, and will be much
less than in other wars in which a capital city was conquered
(e.g. Berlin) because of modern capabilities---no block by
block, street by street fighting.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 16 2003 - 20:27:52 MST