On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:53:13PM -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:27:53PM +0000, Paul Walker wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 08:14:31AM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > > > wonder. Since that description fits the "war protesters" - > > > otherwise known as the "pro-Saddam movement" - to a T, it's hardly > > > unfair that they > > > > Anti-war != pro-Saddam. > > I'd like to hear an anti-war proprosal for removing Saddam from power > in Iraq. I would very much support such a course if it sounded like it > had even a fair chance of success.
Paul? Are you going to defend your statement with a proposal? Or is it just hot air? I think the logic is simple. If you oppose the people who would remove Saddam from power, and do not offer an alternative means of removing Saddam from power, then it is akin to supporting Saddam. In other words, by fighting a war against Saddam, he can be removed from power with high probability, call it P. If you oppose the war but do not offer an alternative way to remove Saddam from power, and you get your way, then the chance of him being removed is much less than P. You have effectively increased Saddam's chances of remaining in power. Sounds pro-Saddam to me. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
