Now, 90% of the dead and wounded are civilians.
where did you come up with that notion?
The best argument the Administration has presented ..
how about the argument from a liberal slant:
<< "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal,"
Mr. Clinton said on Feb. 18, 1998, in a major foreign policy address at the Pentagon that had Democrats rallying behind him.
Including Dashle who said: to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." and ... "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with their own agreements and with international law."
So clinton and dashle agreed...until it became politically expedient to NOT agree.
It is certain, not just possible, that thousands of Iraqi civilians, including women and children, will be killed when we attack.
It is certain that thousands of Iraqi military men will be killed or captured, the only thing that would make the deaths of many children and women probable is for Saddam to use them as he does a piece of toilet paper...which he has shown he will do. To be sure SOME civilians will be killed. I don't know of any war that can exclude that horror, Just how many may very well be up to Saddam and his army.
Iraq is weak. Iraq is contained
Same thing said about Hitler/Germany in '33? Do you know why Saddam is somewhat contained? He is currently contained by the United States of America , UK, (may be others)military forces...some 250,000 strong in the region at the moment. That is the only reason Saddam has suffered the "Inspectors", and even at that he is throwing crap in their faces..The USA cannot leave that type of force there long, and according to many Iraqi's , they want us to come ahead and get rid of Saddam. It is time. |
