In article <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask] says...
> You know Brice, it is amazing how people have selective memory when
> it comes to the status of the Iraq war.  Those who want GW out of
> office say he started an unjust war.  However the truth is, it was a
> continuation of Desert Storm.  Saddam broke the cease fire agreement
> and the coalition of the willing is there finishing the job.  Regardless
> of WMD, Saddam had broken many (almost all) of the cease fire agreement.
> It is the French, Germans and Russians who just didn't have the stomach
> to help finish the job.

Why did the coalition go on about WMD and immediate threats to security
if this was the case? Why not just state the truth as you have now?
Hardly surprising people think it was unjust when the main reasons
presented at the time turn out to be untrue (allegedly!).

> However, now they are all ready to go back in and sell their goods and
> services.  I hope the Iraqi's change their suppliers and avoid those who
> would not help free their people.  They don't have to use the US, just
> avoid those countries that wish they were still being oppressed/murdered
> under Saddam's control.

You say they have a choice but I thought Mr Bush had shared out all the
lucrative re-building deals with his buddies (for "security" reasons of
course).  I don't see how Iraq has a choice there.

Also, I know Saddam was violent and he oppressed and murdered.  But the
coallition troops have been quite agressive with the civilian
population.  Agressive to the point of killing un-armed civilians well
after the "war" was over.  So I don't think the initial good feeling of
the Iraqi people to the coallition is continuing - which is a shame.

Peter
--
http://www.beluga.freeserve.co.uk

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *