[Jeff and Jane Scott]

At 27-03-03 04:24 PM -0500, LeftyZ@aol.com wrote:

>The question is, even assuming any of what you said is true of Iraq, does
>this justify/lead to the conclusion that some country should kill thousands
>of their soldiers, who knows how many civilians and kids, and level their
>cities -- with a horrible, terrifying war machine that makes that country
>look like the bad guys to most of the rest of the planet?

Sometimes it does.  Thousands of Iraqi soldiers will be killed.  Thousands 
of civilians also.  That is the unfortunate reality.  You won't see any 
cities levelled though.  If the US wanted to, they could achieve their 
objective with barely any losses on their side.  Instead, they have chosen 
to bear the loss of many US/British/wherever servicemen in order to 
minimise casualties on the other side - you won't find that happening too 
often in history.

If this war was not happening, thousands of Iraqi's would still be dying.


>And does it mean WE have to do it?

So "somebody" should do it, but not you?


>And does it mean we shouldn't have even attempted more containment and diplom
>acy (and, for god's sake, ANYTHING but WAR) before we became KILLERS?
>Shouldn't a war like this always always always be the last last last resort?

Iraq was ordered to disarm twelve years ago.  They kicked out the weapons 
inspectors 5 or 6 years ago.  They stated to the UN that they had no SCUD 
missiles a month ago.  They launched the missiles they don't have a week ago.

I support the coalition action because I believe it is inevitable that 
Saddam needs to be dealt with.  I've believed this war to be inevitable 
since the end of the last Gulf War, when the job was not finished 
off.  Instead, naively, Iraq was given the chance to change their ways.  I 
support what is happening now because, as Europe discovered in the 1930's, 
the longer you leave it the more difficult the task becomes.


jeff...