Lee, I've serious doubts about your account of why the US didn't
march into Bagdad and take out Saddam; you wrote:
<The world couldn't swallow those pictures and we had to abruptly stop the war due to
weak stomachs of TV viewers. Regardless, Saddam signed a UNCONDITIONAL
acceptance of our terms which was full cooperation. Not once, twice but at least 3
times over these past few years yet he keeps bluffing. I am sorry but I hope we go in
again and finish this thing for good and keep the camera out>
I didn't get that feeling at all about the general American
public. (I did know people with that reaction, but I run in circles
that are further left even than the "liberal elite" -g-.) I think
Bush didn't want to push to Bagdad, for domestic political reasons
(US public will care when the TV casualties are American)
and, perhaps, for some kinds of geopolitical reasons (fear of what
might replace Saddam.... power vacuum leading to regional wars or
something). Weak stomachs of TV viewers weren't it, IMO. (Not to
say I think we should have pushed to Bagadad... I don't know enough
about Iraq, or war, to estimate the cost, in US & Iraqi lives,
if we had. Cost to Iraq of Saddam is clearly huge, though. I do
think we should probably accidentally bomb him, if possible---
although the question of what will replace him must be
considered.)
HB |
