BIKE! Against War



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Randall R Schulz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Ken,
>
> Depleted uranium is the left-over from refining uranium with the naturally occurring mixture of
> isotopes (only .72 percent of which is the fissionable 235U). The fissionable 235U is used for
> reactors and explosives and the remaining 238U is just a metal. It's only mildly radioactive--it's
> half-life is ten times that of 235U (it's an alpha emitter, so it's only a health problem if it
> gets inside your body
somehow).
>
> DU is used for purposes where a very dense metal is desired.
>
> From a chemical standpoint (irrespective of isotopic variation), Uranium has a strong oxygen
> affinity: "Metallic uranium tarnishes in air and when finely divided ignites spontaneously."
>
> Randy
>

Both the Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence officially deny that there is any significant
danger from exposure to DU ammunition. And whilst it is conceivable that the US led attacks on
Iraq's nuclear power stations could be a contributory factor, most reseachers point to DU as the
most likely source of both deformities and cancers. The rising number of cases in Iraq, particularly
in the South where the greatest concentration of DU was fired, is simply staggering. Iraqi
physicians have never encountered anything like it, and have made the perfectly reasonable point
that similar increases in cancer and deformities were experienced in Japan after the two US atomic
bomb attacks. Cancer has increased between 7 and 10 fold; deformities between 4 and 6 fold. Yet the
US was well aware of the potential effects on civilians and military personnel of the chemical
toxicity and radiological properties of DU ammunition long before the Gulf war began, as the
following excerpts of a US Army document categorically state: "Aerosol DU (Depleted Uranium)
exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and
toxicological effects. [...] Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably
ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armour-piercing munitions. [...]
We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of DU exposure to military personnel during
combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations. [...DU is..]... a low level alpha
radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity
causing kidney damage. [...] Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term
effects of low doses have been linked to cancer. [...] Our conclusion regarding the health and
environmental acceptability of DU penetrators assume both controlled use and the presence of
excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled
release of DU. [...] The conditions of the battlefield, and the long term health risks to natives
and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic
penetrators for military applications."
- Excerpts from the July 1990 Science and Applications International Corporation report: ' Kinetic
Energy Penetrator Environment and Health Considerations', as included in Appenix D - US Army
Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command report: 'Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy
Study, July 1990' The US was also well aware of the long-term dangers of DU contamination, and
played it down, as the following memo and document make clear: "There has been and continues to be
a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. Therefore, if no-one makes a case for the
effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus be
deleted from the arsenal. I believe we should keep this sensitive issue in mind when action
reports are written." - Lt. Col. M.V. Ziehmn, Los Alamos National Laboratory memorandum, March 1st
1991 "Soldiers may be incidentally exposed to DU from dust and smoke on the battlefield. The Army
Surgeon General has determined that it is unlikely that these soldiers will receive a significant
internal DU exposure. Medical follow-up is not warranted for soldiers who experience incidental
exposure from dust or smoke. [...] Since DU weapons are openly available on the world arms market,
DU weapons will be used in future conflicts. The number of DU patients on future battlefields
probably will be significantly higher because other countries will use systems containing DU.
[...] DU is a low-level radioactive waste, and, therefore, must be disposed of in a licensed
repository. [...] No international law, treaty, regulation, or custom requires the United States
to remediate the Persian Gulf war battlefields."- Report by the US Army Environmental Policy
Institute: 'Health and Consequences of Depleted Uranium use in the US army,' June 1995
 
We are not liberating people by killing them. We are not providing democracy by overthrowing their
government and installing one of our choice which has promised to dishonour any business agreements
(oil) with France, Russia and other countries in favor of the US. The sanctions of the last 12 years
combined with the devistation of the Gulf war has killed more than
1.2 million innocent people in Iraq, 500,000 were children. That's far more than anything Sadam has
done. What we are doing now is also going to end up taking a bigger toll than what he would do. No
one is saying Sadam isn't bad. Amnesty International has been calling for UN monitoring of human
rights violations in Iraq for the last 12 years. But the US operating under the pretense of human
rights is a farce. We along with the UN could have been doing things and could still be that are
non-violent to address the human rights issues over there.

These two sites have accounts from actual people over in Iraq as opposed to a news agencies account
of someones account: http://www.greenjon.com/shield/ http://www.humanshields.org

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> |
> | Here's a few perspectives from Americans currently in Iraq:
> | http://www.greenjon.com/shield/TruthAndLies.htm
>
> Here's another perspective, from some Americans that just escaped from
Iraq:
>
> "A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with
Japanese human shield
> volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored
video, all shot
> without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young
American pastor with the
> Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to
reality." Some of
> the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if
American bombing
> didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain
their freedom from
> Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the
likes of which
> the world had not seen since Stalin and ******. He and his sons are sick
sadists. Their
> tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a
huge shredder for
> plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies
got chewed up from
> foot to head." http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r
 
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:43:52 -0800, "one of the six billion" <[email protected]>
ejaculated:

>> From a chemical standpoint (irrespective of isotopic variation), Uranium has a strong oxygen
>> affinity: "Metallic uranium tarnishes in air and when finely divided ignites spontaneously."
>>
>> Randy
>>
>
>Both the Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence officially deny that there is any significant
>danger from exposure to DU ammunition. And whilst it is conceivable that the US led attacks on
>Iraq's nuclear power stations could be a contributory factor, most reseachers point to DU as the
>most likely source of both deformities and cancers.

Do you mean that we could be killing people with depleted uranium? Isn't that the purpose of
warfare, killing people and breaking things?

Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________

A reminder: Why we are fighting: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/AmericaAttacked.htm

Another reason: http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing keep this in mind, they have Libya
heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own
math here." -Dennis Miller
 
"Ken [NY)" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:43:52 -0800, "one of the six billion" <[email protected]>
> ejaculated:
>
> >>
> >
> >Both the Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence officially deny that there is any
> >significant danger from exposure to DU ammunition. And whilst it is conceivable that the US led
> >attacks on Iraq's nuclear power stations could be a contributory factor, most reseachers point to
> >DU as the most likely source of both deformities and cancers.
>
> Do you mean that we could be killing people with depleted uranium? Isn't that the purpose
> of warfare, killing people and breaking things?

Hmm. I thought the (current) pretense for invading Iraq was that he had things like chemical and
biological weapons. You know, the kind of things that would spread terrible affliction and disease
among combatants and non-combatants alike.

So, Ken, are you saying that mustard gas and disease agents are bad, but depleted uranium is OK?
Sounds like your standards are a little inconsistent.

No, come to think of it, your standards have been remarkably consistent. They run straight down the
political party lines. I guess that makes life easy. Saves all that complicated _thinking_!

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> "one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> |
> | Here's a few perspectives from Americans currently in Iraq:
> | http://www.greenjon.com/shield/TruthAndLies.htm
>
> Here's another perspective, from some Americans that just escaped from Iraq:
>
> "A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers
> made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi
> government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of
> the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on
> camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to
> see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me
> that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and ******. He
> and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people
> put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies
> got chewed up from foot to head."

I have no doubt that Saddam Hussain is evil. However, the presence of an evil leader is clearly NOT
the motivation for this war.

Why? Because we know there are dozens of similarly evil leaders in dozens other countries, and there
have been ever since the United States existed. Yet we're not attempting an overthrow in North
Korea. We've let Chinese dictators oppress millions or billions, and we buy our manufactured goods
from them. We've let millions starve in various African countries. We've actually helped install
dictatorships, when it served our purposes. We've ignored consistent reports of torture and murder
as political tools.

It seems to me that if you're a leader of an oppressive regime, you can count on little interference
from the United States. Unless, of course, you happen to have our oil under your sand!

Say, how _did_ our oil get under their sand??

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
"one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| We are not liberating people by killing them. We are not providing democracy by overthrowing their
| government and installing one of our choice which has promised to dishonour any business
| agreements (oil) with France, Russia and other countries in favor of the US. The sanctions of the
| last 12 years combined with the devistation of the Gulf war has killed more than
| 1.2 million innocent people in Iraq, 500,000 were children.

Correction:

Those alleged deaths can be attributed to Iraq's implementaion of the Oil for Palaces errr...Oil for
Food program.
 
"Ken [NY)" <[email protected]_text> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:43:52 -0800, "one of the six billion" <[email protected]>
> ejaculated:
>
> >> From a chemical standpoint (irrespective of isotopic variation),
Uranium
> >> has a strong oxygen affinity: "Metallic uranium tarnishes in air and when finely divided
> >> ignites spontaneously."
> >>
> >> Randy
> >>
> >
> >Both the Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence officially deny
that
> >there is any significant danger from exposure to DU ammunition. And
whilst
> >it is conceivable that the US led attacks on Iraq's nuclear power
stations
> >could be a contributory factor, most reseachers point to DU as the most likely source of both
> >deformities and cancers.
>
> Do you mean that we could be killing people with depleted uranium? Isn't that the purpose of
> warfare, killing people and breaking things?
>

Killing people is already beyond tragic, then using something that keeps killing long after the
original sin adds another amplitude of tyranny. Using something that also kills the troops and
future humanitarian relief aids as well is even more cruel and sadistic.
 
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | We are not liberating people by killing them. We are not providing democracy by overthrowing
> | their government and installing one of our
choice
> | which has promised to dishonour any business agreements (oil) with
France,
> | Russia and other countries in favor of the US. The sanctions of the
last
> | 12 years combined with the devistation of the Gulf war has killed more
than
> | 1.2 million innocent people in Iraq, 500,000 were children.
>
> Correction:
>
> Those alleged deaths can be attributed to Iraq's implementaion of the Oil
for Palaces
> errr...Oil for Food program.
>
>
No doubt there are serious human rights violations going on over there. However we are adding to
those for our own Oil for Palaces program.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Ken [NY)" wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:43:52 -0800, "one of the six billion" <[email protected]>
> > ejaculated:

>
> Hmm. I thought the (current) pretense for invading Iraq was that he had things like chemical and
> biological weapons. You know, the kind of things that would spread terrible affliction and disease
> among combatants and non-combatants alike.

I heard a joke today about it. "There is proof that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."
<pregnant pause>..... ................. ............... ................. ................. "We have
the receipts."

--
Due to the level of spam, I no longer accept email, except from a few select individuals.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "one of the six billion"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> We are not liberating people by killing them. We are not providing democracy by overthrowing their
> government and installing one of our choice which has promised to dishonour any business
> agreements (oil) with France, Russia and other countries in favor of the US. ....

And while some, if not nearly all, Iraqis might like to see Saddam go, their situation will not
improve at all if we replace him with a dictator who is even worse.

While the allegations of torture could be true, one should keep in mind that before the start of
the previous Gulf War, the other Bush administration trotted out a witness who told Congress that
the Iraqis had taken babies off of respirators in Kuwait and killed these infants. Much later,
after the war, it was discovered that the "witness" was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador, and
she simply told Congress what she was told to say. They fabricated evidence to get resolutions
passed giving the administration the permission to attack Iraq. At least, that's what I read in a
newspaper column about how U.S. administrations have on occassion been less than truthful with both
Congress and the public.

That's the problem with lying. Do it once, and no one will believe you even if you are telling the
truth the next time.

> "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > |
> > | Here's a few perspectives from Americans currently in Iraq:
> > | http://www.greenjon.com/shield/TruthAndLies.htm
> >
> > Here's another perspective, from some Americans that just escaped from
> Iraq:
> >
> > "A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with
> Japanese human shield
> > volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored
> video, all shot
> > without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young
> American pastor with the
> > Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to
> reality." Some of
> > the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if
> American bombing
> > didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain
> their freedom from
> > Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the
> likes of which
> > the world had not seen since Stalin and ******. He and his sons are sick
> sadists. Their
> > tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a
> huge shredder for
> > plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies
> got chewed up from
> > foot to head." http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r
> >
> >
> >

--
Due to the level of spam, I no longer accept email, except from a few select individuals.
 
"Bill Zaumen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:nobody-2303031247180001@adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net...

| While the allegations of torture could be true, one should keep in mind that before the start of
| the previous Gulf War, the other Bush administration trotted out a witness who told Congress that
| the Iraqis had taken babies off of respirators in Kuwait and killed these infants. Much later,
| after the war, it was discovered that the "witness" was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador, and
| she simply told Congress what she was told to say. They fabricated evidence to get resolutions
| passed giving the administration the permission to attack Iraq.

What does that have to do with UPI?

Are you claiming that the government controls UPI and fabricated the story?
 
In article <[email protected]>, "P e t e F a g e r l i n"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Bill Zaumen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:nobody-2303031247180001@adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net...
>
> | While the allegations of torture could be true, one should keep in mind that before the start of
> | the previous Gulf War, the other Bush administration trotted out a witness who told Congress
> | that the Iraqis had taken babies off of respirators in Kuwait and killed these infants. Much
> | later, after the war, it was discovered that the "witness" was the daughter of Kuwait's
> | ambassador, and she simply told Congress what she was told to say. They fabricated evidence to
> | get resolutions passed giving the administration the permission to attack Iraq.
>
> What does that have to do with UPI?
>
> Are you claiming that the government controls UPI and fabricated the story?

The bogus report from Kuwait fooled both the U.S. Congress and the press at the time. Until the
current reports are verified by a neutral party, I'll assign less than 100% confidence in their
reliability.

We've already seen bogus reports about the use of banned missiles, corrected a few days later. I'm
sure we'll see more. You should keep in mind that the Bush Regime/Aminsistration would find it
politically advantageous to find some support for the causus bellum of the week. One or two career
diplomats have recently resigned citing the refusal of the regime to engage in diplomacy and the
level of disinformation being passed to the public. Given that, I'll remain skeptical until I see
some pretty solid proof.

--
Due to the level of spam, I no longer accept email, except from a few select individuals.
 
RattRigg wrote:

> Killing innocent people is not the goal of the military action in Iraq, just a sad consequence.
> And Id say the fault lies with the Iraqi dictator who brought this on his people by his refusal
> to comply with the UN resolutions.

That is the claim of the US goverment. But until this very day they have failed to present any
evidence, let alone proof, for that accusation. When they tried to do it in the Security council of
the UN, they had only forgeries to show. As a consequence, 11 out of 15 members of the Security
Council voted "no" to the war.

> Its sad that this fact has to be pointed out. If Saddam had complied at any time in the past 10
> or so years, he'd be sitting in his palace right now and the big bad USA couldnt touch him.

Saddam presented 12000 pages of paper documenting the destruction of his arsenal. He destroyed,
under supervision of UN inspectors, even those weapons that international treaties allowed him to
have (like the Al Samoud rocket). He allowed said inspectors free, immediate and unconditional
access to his entire country, which said inspectors confirmed publically. They could not find any
evidence for hidden weapons, even though they were supported with information by the secret services
of most industrialised countries (ground penetrating radar satelite images, monitoring of trade and
what have you).

On what grounds do you claim he did not comply?

>
> Instead he chose to put his own ego ahead of the welfare of his country.

Well, that is the way of dictators. 90% of the countries on this planet do not have democratically
elected goverments. Do the US want to go after all of them? What, for example, about

- Pakistan: Ruled by a military dictator who disposed of an elected goverment (as bad and corrupt as
it may have been) and tried to judicially murder its president. His military supported (even
founded) Al Qida and allowed them to rule Afganistan. Yet the US call him a friend.

- Nigeria: Mr Taylor, the power that is there, is a dictator with so much blood on his hand, that
Sadam looks like an altar boy in comparison (and that means something!). Yet the US...

- Saudi Arabia: A corrupt, religiously fanatic goverment by some plutocrats who financed the attacks
on September 11. Yet the US...

And I could go on and on.

> I cant decide if your "protest" is meant to be punishment for the
> vast majority of the people who live there and actually dare to be
> supportive of the war, or if its just a collective temper tantrum.

The polls that I happen to know of show that 2/3 of the US population are against a war without UN
authorisation. Yet that does not matter to a president who was himself elected under dubious
circumstances.

Up to the 19th century, it was the souverain right of any goverment to declare war onto other
countries for any reason it saw fit. During the 20th century, with all the suffering that war caused
in that dark periode, that right was restricted, ironically at the instigation of the US, and war
was alloed only for 2 reasons:

1) Self-defense after an attack by another country

2) With authorisation of the Security Council of the United Nations, after a country had broken
worlkd peace. An example for this was the second gulf war, where the US and its allies were
authorised "to use all means available, including military force, to drive Irak out of Kuwait". I
consider this a major breakthrough in international law, that makes this world a safer place for
all of us. The US have steped back into a time, were, according to Clausewitz, "war was the
continuation of politics by other means". Under international law, Bush commited "crimes against
peace, crimes against humanity, preparing and starting an agressive war". Under the rules that
the US established in Nuernberg and Tokio, these crimes carry as penalty death by hanging.

The freedom of all of us depends on the rule of law. Of course, the law is only effective if it can
be enforced. Unless the world finds a way to punish the current US goverment for its action, and
prevent repetition our freedom is at stake.

Ironically, the freedom in greatest danger is that of US citizens. The current US goverement has
used the shock of the terrorist attacks on
2.1.01 to severely restrict the freedom of people living in that country, as the following
examples may show:

- A layer was arrested for treason, because she defended an accused terrorist (now convicted of
being involved in the first bombing of the World Trade center) in court.

- A 72 year old nun was prevented to enter a passenger plane on the grounds that she was a thread to
the USA. She had spoken out against the war.

- Under a new law US citizens can now be deposed of their citizenship and brought to prisons outside
the US, if accused (nb: accused, not convicted) of terrorism, where they may be held indefinetly
without legal council, due process and other such unimportant things.

- This and other means of fighting against terrorism have been placed into the trusted hands of Mr
Pointdexter (of Irangate fame), who is of course a known fighter for civil rights and will use
these powers only in the best interest of the US and all her citizens.

Has any of you guys recently read George Orwell?
 
"Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| Saddam presented 12000 pages of paper documenting the destruction of his arsenal. He destroyed,
| under supervision of UN inspectors, even those weapons that international treaties allowed him to
| have (like the Al Samoud rocket).

What do you know that Blix doesn't?
 
"Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> RattRigg wrote:
>
> > Killing innocent people is not the goal of the military action in Iraq, just a sad consequence.
> > And Id say the fault lies with the Iraqi dictator who brought this on his people by his refusal
> > to comply with the UN resolutions.

What kind of doctor are you? A Proctologist?

An "asshole" doctor? Sounds about right.
 
one of the six billion wrote:

> The sanctions of the last 12 years combined with the devistation of the Gulf war has killed
> more than
> 1.2 million innocent people in Iraq, 500,000 were children. That's far more than anything Sadam
> has done.

It is important not to fall for the propaganda of the current US administration justifying their war
of agression. On the other hand, one should also beware of Iraqi propaganda.

The oil for food program provided enough money to by food, medicine and other required materials.
However, these funds were not used by Saddam, because the current level of poverty in Iraq gives
himself and his cronies much more control over people than they would otherwise have. So these
"millions of dead" (the figures are probably exaggerated too) go largely to the account of Saddam,
not the UN sanctions.
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> We've actually helped install dictatorships, when it served our purposes. We've ignored consistent
> reports of torture and murder as political tools.

The US have a large part even in keeping Saddam in place, he probably would have been disposed by
the Iranians after invading their country back in the '80s without direct intervention in his favour
by the Reagan goverment.

They even gave him germs to start his biological weapons program. And do you remember who signed the
contracts on behalf of the US goverment? Bang bang Rumsfeld himself!
 
bosaci wrote:

>
> "Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > RattRigg wrote:
> >
> > > Killing innocent people is not the goal of the military action in Iraq, just a sad
> > > consequence. And Id say the fault lies with the Iraqi dictator who brought this on his people
> > > by his refusal to comply with the UN resolutions.
>
> What kind of doctor are you? A Proctologist?
>
> An "asshole" doctor? Sounds about right.

Before you use 4-letter words at other people, you should learn to quote correctly: What you have
extracted here is something RattRigg wrote, not myself.

The second thing you should learn is that shouting and the use of rude words in a discussion does
not exactly support your claims (what are your claims, anyway?)

As to your question, I am a doctor of science, my specialty is enzymology.
 
"Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> bosaci wrote:
>
> >
> > "Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > RattRigg wrote:
> > >
> > > > Killing innocent people is not the goal of the military action in
> > > > Iraq, just a sad consequence. And Id say the fault lies with the
Iraqi
> > > > dictator who brought this on his people by his refusal to comply
with
> > > > the UN resolutions.
> >
> > What kind of doctor are you? A Proctologist?
> >
> > An "asshole" doctor? Sounds about right.
>

Regardless of the source, there is absolutely no way to wage war without killing civilians or
innocents. This is, especially with modern weaponry, an unavoidable truth. Sure, 1500 years ago,
some "collateral damage" occurred, but for the most part, field wars involved only armies and their
assorted camp followers (thus, the umbrage the English felt when at Agincourt when the French
attacked same). A great many battles were not field battles, however, but sieges of cities and, even
then, the brunt of the suffering fell on the general populace.

Historical references aside, this is why war is such an atrocious activity and should not be
entered without due consideration of the consequences. Goals need to be stated, and outcomes must
be anticipated. If I felt that this action would eliminate Hussain, establish some positive
goodwill between the US/UN and interested Arab states, and ensure that future terrorist attacks
would be minimized, than I'd probably (being as self-serving as the next human) support such an
activity. Sadly, I strongly feel that this action will only, potentially, eliminate Hussain and
make him a martyr in the eyes of those involved, thus accomplishing what should be the primary goal
of such a war.

Rick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom Back