| ??? 12/16/02 12:38 Read: times |
#34528 - RE: us and uk attack on Iraq |
Daniel McBrearty wrote:
. The really interesting question is, why did they leave him there after the LAST Gulf War? There are quite a few vets now living with the consequences of DU poisoning who were pretty frustrated at not being allowewd to finish the job then. ...because it was made clear by the Egyptians, acting as honest brokers, that if the Americans backed down he wouldn't use his WMD. The Americans didn't want the civilian casualties, or the political/ physical fallout. What would have happened ? Can you imagine the headlines ? THAT would have been their fault too. And don't forget how scared the Americans are of ANY casualties in their forces. This time Saddam has to go. A man who can gas his own people ? (Amnesty international confirmed) And folks in the UK support his "right to self-determination" ? Steve |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| us and uk attack on Iraq | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: us and uk attack on Iraq | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: us and uk attack on Iraq | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: us and uk attack on Iraq | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: us and uk attack on Iraq | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Too far | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: us and uk attack on Iraq | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: us and uk attack on Iraq | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: us and uk attack on Iraq | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: us and uk attack on Iraq | 01/01/70 00:00 |



