"One is murder, the other is killing."

Post #78,292 by Brandioch 1/31/03 1:06:55 AM Reply	"One is murder, the other is killing." If you do not understand that basic difference, not much point in pursuing this. Like I said. The difference is whether you can see their faces and their eyes. Did you spend all your time in the military throwing up? I hardly think so. You were willing to kill babies then, what changed? Who initiated the agression. That is what changed. When I was in the military, we were a DEFENSIVE force. We would fight against enemy SOLDIERS when THEY invaded. THEY invade. THEY are the BAD GUYS. WE defend. WE are the GOOD GUYS. This time, WE invade. WE are the BAD GUYS. And there is NO REASON for it. We can accomplish the exact same STATED goals (remove/prevent Saddam's chem/bio/nuke weapons) WITHOUT an invasion. In OZ what is the penalty for drunk driving hitting and killing a person while under the influence? What the FUCK are you on about? This isn't about getting DRUNK and ACCIDENTALLY launching a missle. This is a pre-meditated attack. What is the penalty for deliberately kicking a baby to death? A pre-meditated attack? But you STILL think there's a difference? I can DELIBERATELY launch a missle at a city that I KNOW has children in it..... But I am, somehow, not DELIBERATELY killing the children that die? Ah, I see. You think that because I am not SPECIFICALLY identifying the children to be killed, it is different? By that same logic, the terrorists attacking the WTC were innocent. They didn't SPECIFICALLY target any individuals. I mean, what would be the crime if you got drunk and accidentally hit a child with your car.... a building with your car.... a building with your plane.... a building with a missle.... You weren't drunk in the first place.
Post #78,300 by dmarker 1/31/03 1:39:34 AM 1/31/03 4:36:14 AM Reply	Lost cause here Brandi - he just doesn't get it ... You scored a direct hit with the bit about the 9/11 hijackers and their victims - esp when we know about the poor bastards who leapt to hell out the shattered windows and the horror of those who witnessed it all - also the poor innocent people shitting themselves in the aeroplane as it hit - but by Box's screwed up definition the hijackers are not guilty of an appaling set of murders - person by person. Doug Marker Edited by dmarker Jan. 31, 2003, 04:36:14 AM EST Expand All History
Post #78,324 by Ashton 1/31/03 6:48:11 AM Reply	How far away from a War is - far enough? (new thread) Created as new thread #78323 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78323\|How far away from a War is - far enough?]
Post #78,333 by boxley 1/31/03 8:50:52 AM Reply	Nice try no cigar The terrorists caused mass killings. That was their aim. Was it murder? Yes it was deliberate attacks against civilians. Are our cruise missiles deliberately directed at civilian targets? hardly. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
Post #78,366 by Brandioch 1/31/03 10:49:08 AM Reply	WTF? The terrorists caused mass killings. That was their aim. Was it murder? Yes it was deliberate attacks against civilians. That is true. They deliberately flew those planes into buildings that the knew people were in. Are our cruise missiles deliberately directed at civilian targets? hardly. WTF? We are deliberately aiming them at buildings that we know people are in. It is the EXACT same scenario. They use planes. We use missles. They target buildings occupied by civilians. We target buildings occupied by civilians. They don't care about the people being killed. We don't care about the people being killed. They spent lots of time planning the attack. We spend lots of time planning the attack. Those are the facts. We are NOT doing ANYTHING to AVOID civilian deaths. We ARE setting up our attack in such a way that it will ENSURE civilian deaths. Yet there IS a way where we will NOT kill ANY civilians AND WE ARE NOT TAKING THAT WAY.
Post #78,332 by boxley 1/31/03 8:47:21 AM Reply	when was the last time the US was invaded and why were you stationed overseas if you were practicing defence? A vehicle is a human controlled missile that causes 50K plus deaths a year and you tell me it is not the same? BS BS BS. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
Post #78,363 by Brandioch 1/31/03 10:40:23 AM Reply	NATO. Our allies. Joint protection. You invade ONE and you'll have to fight us ALL. A vehicle is a human controlled missile that causes 50K plus deaths a year and you tell me it is not the same? BS BS BS. That's one very popular car. Why haven't I heard of it. Oh. I see. In an attempt to cloud the issue, you've switched from SPECIFICS (such as, say, a cruise missle hitting a building) to GENERALIZATIONS (such as ALL OF THE CARS in the US). So, someone who is drunk and accidently kills a child -is the same as- Someone who is sober who deliberately aims and fires a missle at a building where children live. Like I said, you make me sick.
Post #78,367 by boxley 1/31/03 10:50:24 AM Reply	kettle pot, puke away Oh. I see. In an attempt to cloud the issue, you've switched from SPECIFICS (such as, say, a cruise missle hitting a building) to GENERALIZATIONS (such as ALL OF THE CARS in the US). So, someone who is drunk and accidently kills a child -is the same as- Someone who is sober who deliberately aims and fires a missle at a building where children live. matches one of your statements [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78184\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=78184] Can you kick down the door to an Iraqi family's house and shoot innocent, civilian mommy while the children watch? Or, could you crush baby's skull with your boot while the other kids watch? The only difference between that and pushing a button to launch the missile is whether you see their faces and their eyes. Genaeralizatons comparing delivery of death. Cant have it both ways. They are morally equivelent. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
Post #78,398 by Brandioch 1/31/03 12:15:53 PM Reply	Wow, a 100% content free post. matches one of your statements Yes. That is because I have something called a "principle". Therefore, my statements about my viewpoint are consistent. This is something new to you? Genaeralizatons comparing delivery of death. Cant have it both ways. They are morally equivelent. Negative. In your example, the killer is drunk and accidentally hits a child. Like I pointed out, the person launching the missle is NOT drunk and INTENDS to deliver an explosive payload in an area containing children. So, in your view, INTENTIONALLY targetting a building that is KNOWN to house children with HIGH EXPLOSIVES..... results in ACCIDENTAL deaths? In which case, the terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC only ACCIDENTALLY killed those people. The process is the SAME. The ONLY difference is that we send in cruise missles rather than flying airplanes.
Post #78,403 by boxley 1/31/03 12:22:49 PM Reply	the priciple of qickly sidetepping valid points? Therefore, my statements about my viewpoint are consistent. unless called on it then you exit stage right ad nauseum. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
Post #78,408 by Brandioch 1/31/03 12:33:48 PM Reply	I think the opposite has been claimed. unless called on it then you exit stage right ad nauseum. I will hammer a point until the thread has right shifted beyond readability. I do NOT leave a discussion. There is no difference between targeting a building full of civilians with a plane or with a cruise missile. No difference. The only difference between killing with a missile and stomping their heads beneath your boots is whether you can see their faces and their eyes. You're trying to salve your emotions by distancing yourself from the actual killing so you can PRETEND that they weren't kids just like you see every day. So you can PRETEND that they were faceless "collateral damage". They are PEOPLE. Not THINGS.
Post #78,412 by boxley 1/31/03 12:39:01 PM Reply	When did I ever argue otherwise? Killing kids is killing kids thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
Post #78,415 by Brandioch 1/31/03 12:58:59 PM Reply	Here's a link that you might have forgotten about. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78095\|I want to you post that.] Yet you would NOT post that. Hmmmm. When did I ever argue otherwise? Through this entire thread. Killing kids is killing kids Not accourding to your posts in this thread. If it were so, then you wouldn't have any problem stomping baby skulls. To quote you AGAIN: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78188\|One is murder, the other is killing.] We are getting ready to murder children in a country that has NOT attacked us nor our allies. We are WRONG.
Post #78,433 by boxley 1/31/03 2:01:40 PM Reply	we are getting ready to kill kids and you are wrong I asked you for a link and you submit a petty gotcha wanting everything your way. Sorry, I came here for an argument based on exchange of information and ideas. You came here to impose your emotions on everyone else. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
Post #78,436 by Brandioch 1/31/03 2:12:40 PM Reply	Awww, does it hurt when you're shown to be wrong? When you are the agressor, it doesn't matter whether you use planes or missiles or whether you crush their skulls under your boots. You are killing innocent civilians AND you are wrong. We aren't DRUNK, we aren't ACCIDENTALLY launching those missiles and we are NOT pursuing OTHER courses that would NOT kill innocent civilians. Sorry, I came here for an argument based on exchange of information and ideas. Those are the FACTS. If you have a problem with them, that is your problem. The same way people here feel about a plane hitting the WTC -is- The same way people there will feel about a cruise missile hitting their home.
Post #78,441 by boxley 1/31/03 2:19:32 PM Reply	No need to apologise or capitulate, you refuse to accept that a dead kid is a dead kid. So make noise if you wish but present it a little better will ya? thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
Post #78,446 by Brandioch 1/31/03 2:39:36 PM Reply	I do neither. And you've shifted your position. you refuse to accept that a dead kid is a dead kid. Nice try. You lose. I have never stated that a dead kid is anything other than a dead kid. My point has always been about the KILLING of the child. Flying a plane into a building and killing children -is no different than- Sending a cruise missile into a building and killing children -which is no different than- Crushing the child's skull beneath your boot You claimed that they were. The only difference is whether you can see their faces and their eyes when they die. You make me sick.
Post #78,455 by boxley 1/31/03 3:25:29 PM Reply	puke away, you just shifted YOUR position My point has always been about the KILLING of the child. no it wasnt a few threads back you were calling it murder I WAS CALLING IT KILLING. Nice reversal Sid. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
Post #78,464 by Brandioch 1/31/03 3:50:33 PM Reply	Cute. But I can post references to your posts. In context. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78441\|you refuse to accept that a dead kid is a dead kid.] compared with [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78188\|One is murder, the other is killing.] no it wasnt a few threads back you were calling it murder I WAS CALLING IT KILLING. Nice reversal Sid. Hmmm, you are probably refering to [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78292\|this post]. Hmmmm, it seems that YOU are the one attempting to claim that it is "killing" when done by our side, but "murder" when done by their side. I am still consistent that there is no difference between what the terrorists did and what we are planning to do. But now you claim that I am making such a distinction? I guess that's why you couldn't post a reference and I could. Flying a plane into a building and killing children -is no different than- Sending a cruise missile into a building and killing children -which is no different than- Crushing the child's skull beneath your boot
Post #78,480 by boxley 1/31/03 4:36:38 PM Reply	I did post a reference to that and you ignored it bob and weave all you want to I am right you are wrong. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
Post #78,499 by Brandioch 1/31/03 5:55:27 PM Reply	Make all the claims you want to. The proof is delivery. Awwwww, I'm really sure that you said that. I really am. Really. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78464\|This is a link] Unfortunately for you, I have no problem posting links to previous posts that reference your ORIGINAL position. Now I'm sure that you can post a link to an EARLIER post from you that contradicts that. I'm sure you can. You just don't have the time or something, right?
Post #78,507 by boxley 1/31/03 7:18:55 PM Reply	Oh Christ, the magic man returns!! self referencing proves! You select several links of YOURS to claim I am making points. lets continue in that vein. I will post a link to your post where you claim killing kids is murder. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=77829\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=77829] Flying a plane into a building and killing children -is no different than- Sending a cruise missile into a building and killing children -which is no different than- Crushing the child's skull beneath your boot One is murder, the next killing the third murder. Hijacking planes flying them into buildings [link\|http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00001.htm\|http://www.usdoj.gov...tle9/crm00001.htm] murder the catholic view of the difference between murder and killing In this hypothesis it is, at most, permitted on account of a reason commensurate with so great an evil as is the destruction of human life. Thus, for instance, a military commander may train his guns upon a fortified place, even though in the bombardment which follows he knows perfectly well that many non-combatants will perish. The sufficient cause in the case is consideration of the highest public good to be subserved by the defeat of the enemy. finally the authoritive source that you as good soldier schwenke in this case must recognise as an authority [link\|http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/02spring/butler.htm\|http://www.carlisle....spring/butler.htm] the following is the source of most of your material [link\|http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/jeffrey/www/loons/conspiracy/tyler.html\|http://www-2.cs.cmu....piracy/tyler.html] neeners, thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
Post #78,508 by Another Scott 1/31/03 7:22:29 PM Reply	Careful, you'll wake the Merlin - Paris, France.
Post #78,410 by Another Scott 1/31/03 12:35:06 PM Reply	Information isn't perfect. As I'm sure you know. Brandioch writes: In your example, the killer is drunk and accidentally hits a child. Like I pointed out, the person launching the missle is NOT drunk and INTENDS to deliver an explosive payload in an area containing children. So, in your view, INTENTIONALLY targetting a building that is KNOWN to house children with HIGH EXPLOSIVES..... results in ACCIDENTAL deaths? A drunk who runs over a child usually doesn't intend to do so. They believe, or have information in their head, that says they can make it to wherever they're going without incident. They have imperfect information and they act irresponsibly. A targeting officer who decides where a missle should be delivered doesn't have perfect information about the target, but tries to act responsibly based on his training and the information he does have. His objective isn't to deliver a missile into an area containing children. His objective is to see that a target is destroyed. I'm sure that, if at all possible, a targeting officer will not pick a target if he had information that children were present. If, however, the enemy has intentionally placed civilians in a high-value military target, one that must be destroyed for the success of the mission, then the military would have little choice. And that's very unfortunate. How should such a situation be handled in your view? Should the US military be prohibited from causing accidental death (or "collateral damage") in any circumstance? If so, it seems to me that you're advocating the end of all military action as any enemy would obviously make sure civilians were present in any confrontation. How do you handle the real-world case in which military targets and civilians and civilian infrastructure are co-mingled? Cheers, Scott.
Post #78,414 by Brandioch 1/31/03 12:50:51 PM Reply	Check the rhetoric on that one. A targeting officer who decides where a missle should be delivered doesn't have perfect information about the target, but tries to act responsibly based on his training and the information he does have. No one is talking about "perfect information". The discussion is about sending a cruise missle against a building with children in it. His objective isn't to deliver a missile into an area containing children. I doubt that many people get up in the morning and say to themselves "today, my objective will be to NOT kill any children". What part of "high explosives" do you not understand? The blew up a stadium here, recently. They used high explosives. It was in an urban area. Do you know how much EFFORT and PLANNING they put into making sure that no one was around? His objective is to see that a target is destroyed. And the demolition company's objective was to see that the stadium was destroyed. But they managed to do so WITHOUT loss of life or injury to children. I'm sure that, if at all possible, a targeting officer will not pick a target if he had information that children were present. Read the speeches. They're talking about sending missiles into a CITY. If, however, the enemy has intentionally placed civilians in a high-value military target, one that must be destroyed for the success of the mission, then the military would have little choice. Nice attempt at side-stepping the issue. No one had YET brought up human shields. But you just had to in an attempt to justify your position. No. No human shields. No children tied to tanks. I'm talking about putting a cruise missle into downtown Baghdad where we KNOW there are innocent civilians. Want to try to stay on topic? How do you handle the real-world case in which military targets and civilians and civilian infrastructure are co-mingled? Duh!!! Isn't that the topic under discussion? Did you manage to MISS that? The US wants to invade Iraq. The US is talking about sending HUNDREDS of cruise missiles into Baghdad. There WILL be children killed. So nice of you to join the conversation. Maybe you could read some of the thread?
Post #78,428 by Another Scott 1/31/03 1:48:27 PM Reply	I'll try one more time.... before calling it quits. Brandioch: And the demolition company's objective was to see that the stadium was destroyed. But they managed to do so WITHOUT loss of life or injury to children. Scott: I'm sure that, if at all possible, a targeting officer will not pick a target if he had information that children were present. Brandioch: Read the speeches. They're talking about sending missiles into a CITY. And stadiums are often in cities. Your point? Yes, care must be taken in chosing targets and putting the right amount of ordnance on them. Picking the right size ordnance is easier now than it was a decade or two ago due to improved targeting accuracy. Cities are big. Children aren't uniformly distributed in cities. Bomb delivery and missiles are getting more accurate. Just because, someone somewhere in the Pentagon has proposed using 400 cruise missiles on Baghdad's infrastructure and military targets doesn't mean that the US is going to be deliberately targeting children. You apparently believe that there's no way that the US can reasonably perform such an attack without knowingly killing children. I believe that it is possible to carryout such an attack without knowingly killing children, and I do trust the military to try to minimize casualties. It will be very difficult though. Especially if "human shields" are present - something you don't want to talk about. I don't think our military is stupid enough to use cruise missiles if something smaller will do the job. E.g. IIRC, they took out a lot of the power grid the last time using carbon fibers dropped over the power lines... That's about it from me on this topic. Cheers, Scott.
Post #78,434 by Brandioch 1/31/03 2:06:15 PM Reply	Don't bother trying to confuse the issue. And stadiums are often in cities. Your point? Funny. I was using the example of high explosives being used in a city to demolish a stadium as an example of how responsible someone has to be when high explosives are used in a city. And all you managed to get out of that was that a stadium was in a city. Yes, care must be taken in chosing targets and putting the right amount of ordnance on them. Yes. That is correct. Incomplete, but correct. Picking the right size ordnance is easier now than it was a decade or two ago due to improved targeting accuracy. Again, correct, but incomplete. Cities are big. And water is wet and fire is hot and you're just going to continue filling in irrelevent details, aren't you? Children aren't uniformly distributed in cities. Yep. You are. Have I ever said that cities weren't big? Have I ever said that children were uniformly distributed in them? No and No. I guess it is too much to ask you to stay anywhere close to on topic, isn't it? You apparently believe that there's no way that the US can reasonably perform such an attack without knowingly killing children. Seem to believe? Have you missed the ENTIRE POINT of this thread? I believe that it is possible to carryout such an attack without knowingly killing children, and I do trust the military to try to minimize casualties. Cute. They won't KNOWINGLY be killing children -but- They will be TRYING to minimize casualties. Isn't that cute? It's trying to play semantic games. You swapped "casualties" for "killing children". Here's how you SHOULD have written it. They won't KNOWINGLY be killing children -but- They will be TRYING to minimize killing children. Then you can see the flaw in your logic.
Post #78,435 by Arkadiy 1/31/03 2:11:31 PM Reply	We're not firing at a city A 5-megaton "city buster" would be "firing at a city". Carpet bombing would be "firing at a city". Cruise missiles are so expensive because they are designed to take out a target. A single building. Nothing else. So, we're not targeting "a city". We're targeting a very particular area in a city, a place where children or women or civilians MUST NOT BE PRESENT. Saddam has a lot of police and security force to keep "the rabble" away from his palaces and bunkers. I just don't see Saddam's headquarters filled with children happily running around. Centries all over the place, plainclothes walking the stree - yes. But not children. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #78,846 by TTC 2/3/03 1:59:59 AM Reply	Re: We're not firing at a city May I refer you to [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=78102\|THIS]?
Post #78,870 by boxley 2/3/03 8:29:21 AM Reply	try this one for context [link\|http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/02spring/butler.htm"\|this one] thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #79,001 by Arkadiy 2/3/03 5:32:09 PM Reply	If Saddam has half a brain, he already has procedures in place on how to make sure Baghdad population survives w/o power or water for as long as he needs to win this war. It's not our problem to ensure that Baghdad population has fresh water and light, it's Saddam's problem. As long as we don't blow civilians up with high explosives, I think it's a fair game. It's war, after all, not diplomacy. (Mind you, I don't think that this particular war is justified. We should not start it. But I hate the PC way of waging war in general.) -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #79,217 by TTC 2/4/03 12:06:21 PM Reply	Re: If Saddam has half a brain, But you said "We're not firing at a city". You just shifted your position.
Post #79,262 by Arkadiy 2/4/03 2:08:49 PM Reply	We're firing at very specific building in a city Buildings in which civilians have no business whatsoever. Buildings that have ample security perimeters manned by guards whose job is to keep "the rabble" (aka civilians) out. We pay alot of money and attention to limit the damage to those buildings only. If Saddam cared the rat's ass about civilian population, he would have expanded the security perimeter by a few blocks and kept everybody out. We made our list of targets abundantly clear. If Saddam fails to take steps to protect his population, it's his fault. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #79,351 by Ashton 2/4/03 8:33:55 PM Reply	Heard a lengthy analysis yesterday of our 'Tactical Plan' (natch the unClassified version. Natch.) This from a woman just back from Iraq, looking over the situation now re civilians, medical care, basic human needs -- after 12 years of embargo. "All Systems" are weak; there is little 'food storage for future' -- most sell the allotments from legit. oil sales ("Given them" by the "beneficence of Saddam"). Proceeds from such sales == the only means of purchasing meat (for just one thing). Yada & yada - she covered a huge amount of ground, by speaking concisely and intelligently about What she Saw. All water in Iraq is electrically pumped. Our conducting chaff over powerlines - is so obvious it may be made into a Disney movie. People are trying to store water in 'bladders' against the likelihood nay certainty -- that much of the country's infrastructure shall be placed out of operation, and the likelihood that MONTHS shall elapse before a semblance of correction. We may 'prevail' in this first strike. But there will be many thousands of civilian collateral damage (that euphemism to gag anyone) - from dysentery to a raft of other utterly predictable consequences. The techno details of our marvellous destructive capability - demonstrate Where we place most of our focus, right after 'selling things' that need [oil]. We are about to unleash a nightmare atop all the above duct-taped together civilian milieu. The US shall be Hated as never before. And Dubya's peculiarly bucolic and abrasive personality is the obv Focus for all that Rage. (We have no idea how many -and soon- are the next candidates on the Repo Hit List leading to WW-III.. with just a small next miscalculation). If Saddam cares not for the civilian population (?) Obviously we care even less. Whatever that says about US and our lust for control of [oil], at any cost. No "yes, but..s" will be able to counter the post-First Strike Tee Vee evidence. Unless.. Congress acquires some guts and aborts. Ashton
Post #79,421 by Arkadiy 2/5/03 4:55:05 AM Reply	Maybe caution will prevail and we will refrain from bombing power plants. But... Country's infrastructure is a legitimate target in a war. That's why a) we should not start this war and b) Saddam should do what he is told, up to and including exile. Militarily, he has no options. The only thing that allows him to remain defiant is his total disregard to Iraqi population's suffering. But then, that's nothing new. See "sanctions". -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.

Welcome to IWETHEY!