From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 10:56:09 MDT
"Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
>If inspectors return there need to be safeguards on what they
>can and cannot do. We would demand the same if
>inspectors came to our country.
Need? There would "need" to be safeguards in this country to do such a thing
because that is the only way it could get done, the USA is a superpower.
Iraq is not at least not yet, so there are other and better ways it could
get done there.
>the perfectly reasonable assumption that any such would
> be spies for their governments.
A spy is someone in a country that is trying to discovers information about
that country that the government would not like to be known, and yes that is
exactly what the UN inspectors (that Iraq had agreed to let in) would be
doing. Do you have a problem with that?
> And, this entire thing is not about Saddam. It is not about
> WMD. It is about getting as much of our firepower in the area as
> possible to control the oil. The rest is rationalization.
Could you please tell me why it is inconceivable Saddam is trying to develop
weapons of mass destruction and inconceivable George Bush would be concerned
about it if he were. As for controlling the oil, in general I don't have the
slightest problem with that but unfortunately I don't see any easy way to do
it with the military alone, if there were the USA would not have removed
half a million solders from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait ten years ago.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:01 MST