|
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
So, pro-war dudes, you are in the wrong war!!!
|
You are a very wise man. It all makes sense now. The pro-war and anti-war supporters have been getting into so many heated debates, not because they are different species (which is what it almost started to look like), but because they're on entirely different wavelengths.
| quote: |
All this has made me an Anti-War supporter. But if I was a pro-war supporter, I would urgently want Bush to fire Perle, Wolfowitz & co. because they make it much harder to get any beneficial results from the war. More specifically, the Americans should now leave the Iraqi cities alone, secure the most important strategical areas inside Iraq, start to search for WMD in the desert, bring the UN inspectors back, make a truce with Saddam to get WMD inspections and humanitarian aid started in the cities, and let Iraqis overthrow Saddam at their own pace. I simply can't see how it would benefit Bush to attack the cities with tens of thousands casualties, and put the American troops vulnerable to the ensuing guerilla warfare from the entire Iraqi population. Giving Baathists a false last chance would make them comply like never before, and the relieved Iraqi civilians might easily skip the guerilla war because a truce is better than bombings. Of course, the US would assassinate Saddam when they have destroyed the WMD, and are ready to leave. |
^^^
Haha, good joke, this would only happen in your fantasy dreamland.
--
Vesa, this has been arguably, the wisest and most insightful post I've read yet in this Political Forum. Rarely do I see someone look at both sides of the issue (scenario 1 & 2), distinguish between them, and THEN show his ideas from the OTHER perspective.
Your scenario 2 is very probing and sheds a lot of light. Somehow it lacks the conspiracy theory feel, which is a very good thing.
My proverbial hat goes off to you! 
|
