Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
> Yet at the first sign of any progress the US sends in the troops. Just keeping
> up the pressure would have helped a lot. But so would not selling arms to the
> region in the past have. Unfortunatly neither would have been especially
> rewarding. And call me paranoid but seen the financial state the US currently is
> in, they really need to get some revenue. So while I listen to all those
> financially potentially desastrous plans the Bush government cooks up, it can't
> help but feel as if the government is already spending money they plan to get
> from something much like the winning number of a lotery ticket. Unfortunatly
> only time can tell if I'm just being overtly cynic or if I'm seeing things
> right.
The problem was, the reason progress was being made was because there was
military might being amassed near the borders. *That* was the pressure
making things happen. If it had been drawn back, the progress would have
halted. And it takes a lot of resources to keep that much military might
on someone's doorstep that way. Maybe if other countries had offered to
pay some of the costs of just holding there, it could have gone on that
way awhile longer. But did any of them? Not that I've heard of. I have,
however, heard of a couple of countries near Iraq offering to help pay for
the actual *war*.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
