One thing: I think in opposing this invastion, we should not refer to stuff like Americans coming home in body bags, implying that this will a tough invasion to carry out. If it turns out that the U.S. m iliatry has an easy time destroying the current Iraq goverment do we then support it? And also we don't know that it will be tough. No-one can predict this sort of thing. Saddam may well have put together an army capapble of resisting a U.S. invasion. He certainly has had time; and the support for resisting a U.S. invasion is probably strong regardless of how people feel about their government otherwise.
But he has not had a whole bunch of money to buy weapons with nor great access to the supply market in general (to put it mildly). The bottom line is WE DON'T KNOW how strong Iraq resistance will be. It is better to premise our opposition on another basis. Michael Perelman wrote: > Bush should attack in late September/early Oct. according to the official > wag the dog election calendar. > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Ian Murray posted: > > >>World leaders appear to be in deadly earnest over warnings >>that Saddam must be deposed by force. But some in the US >>are asking why a blueprint for the conflict was leaked at >>the moment when sleaze scandals hit a new peak. Report by >>Jason Burke in London and Ed Vulliamy in New York >> >> >
