[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But the Pentagon says this will be a new type of warfare - a war > against infrastructure, not people. I can't know whether that's > true, but their descriptions make sense,
It sounds better than "we're going to wipe out countless civilians". Propaganda is real. > The aim is to take over the country with > virtually no loss of innocent life, rule it for one year, then hold > elections. The rule is that you will not find out what really happens for 10 years. Vietnam and Iraq War I showed that without a doubt. http://www.rense.com/general34/STUPID.HTM Lies. Like the new information about the Patriot missiles that the U.S. has sold to practically every country that wanted one. During the first Gulf War massacre, the Pentagon claimed a 100 percent kill-ratio against those evil Scud missiles launched by Saddam. Now the news is the Patriot missiles never hit a single Scud, or that the kill-ratio was somewhere in the range of 7 percent, at best. > > Did Osama bin Laden intend minimal loss of life when he attacked New > York? Did Saddam intend it when he gassed the Kurds? > > Our intentions, unlike theirs, are decent. I believe that -- no > matter how ridiculous it may sound to a small number of you. They believe their cause is just, too. The ends justify the means. > What is it about the Iraqi people that makes them unworthy of being > liberated? What makes us the liberators, though, and where do we stop? Probably half the world is under some form of violent oppression. Do we bomb or lead by example? That is the challenge. "You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace" (Spearhead) RR ps just heard about a leaked document that outlines Pentagon plans in which the Iraq invasion is the beginning of a 30 year military strategy to gain control in the middle east. I will look into this and post what I find. Do you really think they give a fig about the people of Iraq??? Really???
