|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-18 00:39:36
If Saddam’s removal was left up to the U.N., then no action would be taken against Saddam until mushroom clouds and Bio/chem. weapons where eventually used against democracies. From observations based on these dictators’ actions over the last many years we could expect to witness free ranges nukes going off within a 10 year time frame if Saddam or N. Korea is left to their own devices.
---Understanding the obsolete U.N. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) mandate; ---
Now after the Mushroom clouds go off in the U.S./Britain, then these nations who where attacked would have the right to strike back with Nuclear weapons, wiping out the country of Iraq/Korea/Etc and all it’s people. This is the outdated MAD scenario of the cold war U.N. retaliatory model.
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) mandate of the cold war (Soviet Union) era would work against Saddam, IF we could easily & directly link the mushroom clouds to him.
However, the difference is that if the Soviet Union launched missiles we could directly track that back to the former U.S.S.R. in minutes, thus we know who to nuke/eliminate.
---The modern problem of MAD and why it will no longer provide us security---
Saddam/N. Korea mushroom clouds would not be as obvious as the old Soviet Union, if Saddam sold their weapons to a 3rd party, how do you “PROVE” the origin of a Thermal Nuclear Bomb after it goes off?
Due to the fact that we couldn’t prove who pulled the trigger, these leaders (Saddam, N.Korea) currently have a false sense of security from retaliation by MAD. Eventually Saddam could nuke the U.S./Britain and not suffer the consequences of MAD if done through a 3rd party or proxy.
The defense Saddam would use is, “We didn’t do it” and North Korea would also state, “We didn’t do it” To paraphrase, if someone on your block smashed your car window, would you put the entire block in prison? If a few nukes go off in the U.S. should the U.S. have the right to nuke everyone in the neighborhood they consider a threat? Under the current U.N MAD scenario the U.S. could and would. I am certain that is exactly what would happen, and in 10 years or so we would be clearly set for a real WWIII holocaust.
---My understanding of 3rd parties/proxy as it relates to WMD war---
If Saddam sold the weapons to a 3rd party not listed as a terror group and then that group sold the weapon to Islamic Jihad who forwarded it to Osama Bin Laden, Saddam could claim that he didn’t pull the trigger and didn’t sell it to a “listed” terror group, therefore can not be held directly responsible (remember MAD) for other organizations actions. Much like, if a hardware store sells a pipe to a maniac and said maniac makes a pipe bomb and kills people;
• Do you have the right to blow up the hardware store and its employees? (Um no)
• Could you even prove which hardware store the pipe was obtained from? (Not likely)
• What if the pipe was completely vaporized in the blast? (No evidence)
So like the example of the hardware store, Saddam or his sons would be relatively safe from nuclear retaliation, so long as he does his deeds through a 3rd party/proxy and we already know how good Saddam has become at keeping secrets from the U.N. over the last 10 years.
Note: These are my personal thoughts on the matter. I would appreciate all/any suggestions/comments.
Thanks;
Steve
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-18 18:05:53
Your impressions of 3rd party terrorist users is correct, but not new. Weapons manufacturers, when selling their wares, are supposed to be supplied with 'end user' certificates, so the manufacturer isn't liable if their weapons end up in the hands of terrorist organizations.The purchaser is then responsible for how those weapons are used.
Therefore, we are assuming that Iraq would sell the weapons it has obtained from France, Russia, US etc. with only assumptions as 'proof'. Many brutal dictatorships sponsored by the US and the former Soviet Union had no such agreements for arms as most transactions were clandestine. Indeed, there was a news article recently about Afghanis selling Stinger missles for $200,000 US a pop. These were obtained from the CIA during the USSR/Afghanistan conflict at only $75,000 US. (They were mostly paid for in drugs, as it would take an awful lot of goats and rugs to make up $75,000. The streets of North America become glutted with the drugs of the nations who receive US military aid. Heroin in Vietnam, Cocaine in Central America, and Afghani hashish in the 80's and 2001.)
While there are no guarantees that Saddam will not sell his weapons to terrorist organizations, there are far more weapons out there that have been provided by nations such as the US, France, and Russia that are a far greater worry.
Also, some heed must be paid to the alleged intentions behind the actions of Saddam. Often, people say he 'gassed his own people'. Not entirely accurate, for the Kurdish peoples are trying to create a separate Kurdish state by civil war, much to the annoyance of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. The chemical weapons were used in a 'battlefield' setting, as it were, not as a 'terrorist act. Scary, though, to think that they were used in the direct manner for which they were created.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-18 19:35:31
Dear Steve
You raise some very interesting points, and realistic scenarios, but these scenarios are only a few of a potentially infinite number. I think most will agree that Saddam has chemical and some crude biological weapons available to him, and would love to develop a nuclear capability. However, in the context of the current discussion on Iraq, I believe we must consider the distinct possibility that Saddam has already deployed chemical weapons inside the US and elsewhere. If this is the case, and I maintain it is a real possibility, would a strike on Iraq not ensure disaster? This of course, is but one realistic scenario of many. A judgement, either way, that will not result in absolute disaster for the US and its allies (including Canada), the population of Iraq, or both is simply impossible to make with any degree of certainty- we just don't have enough information to do so. People argue very passionately for or against an attack on Iraq but unfortunately, neither 'camp' is equipped with a crystal ball, and it is quite impossible to determine the long or short term consequences of action or inaction where Iraq is concerned. Not especially comforting, but a fact we need to face.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-19 05:49:29
Quote:
I believe we must consider the distinct possibility that Saddam has already deployed chemical weapons inside the US and elsewhere. If this is the case, and I maintain it is a real possibility, would a strike on Iraq not ensure disaster?
End Quote;
-----------The question I pose to you is; say your above statement turns out to be true and Saddam has deployed chemical weapons. If we wait 10 more years, would Saddam update his inventory and deployment to nuclear weapons? Would our procrastination of 10 years be more or less likely to change the situation from chemical disaster to nuclear holocaust?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-19 13:49:52
Hi jwitt,
Since we are talking about WMD here is an interesting link.
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/3453118?source=Evening%20Standard
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rb
Date: 2003-02-19 17:05:20
I would hazard more like an official leak to stir up fear and justification for aggression.
Let me get this straight, we can generate satellite photos that supposedly show factories and such manufacturing WMD (which none of the UN inspections have been able to find and proof of) as well as enforcing a no fly zone around Iraq but somehow Hussein managed to load up three huge tanker ships full of chemical weapons and set them off without anyone noticing?
Preposterous is about the best I can offer for that article. No concrete facts, no specific sources offered than the nebulous "officials", a terribly unlikely premise. It is far more likely that is an exmaple of Donald Rumsfeld's "Office of Strategic Influence":
From the New York Times:
"Managing The News: Plans being developed by the Pentagon's Orwellian new Office of Strategic Influence, calling for planting false stories in the foreign press, running other covert activities, manipulate public opinion. Secretive new office headed by Air Force General Simon Warden (ph) envisions using a mix of truthful news releases, phony e-mails from disguised addresses to encourage the kind of news coverage abroad the Pentagon considers advantageous, while using clandestine activities including computer network attacks to disrupt coverage it opposes."
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/osi-followup.html
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-19 19:30:53
Dear Steve
Yes, it is possible that waiting 10 years could result in a nuclear holocaust. I very seriously doubt it, but must grant you this possibility. This is also based on the supposition that my "statement turns out to be true", which brings me back to my original point- that it is exceedingly difficult to predict the consequences of invading or not invading Iraq. To be honest, I think that neither the Hawks nor the Doves have presented a truly compelling case. I also looked at the link you provided below. The first thought that came to my mind is that it implicates the Syrians and Jordanians in a conspiracy to help Saddam evade inspections. I have very serious doubts that Jordan's King Abdullah would be a willing accomplice in such an activity. Although I regard Syria's Bashir Assad, like his father before him, to be among the worst of the worst in terms of pathetic dictators, I think he is more than shrewd enough to understand the dire repercussions of aiding and abetting Saddam in such a manner. Lastly, this would present the US and Britain with a priceless opportunity to make their case, which they certainly don't seem to be jumping at. So, all in all, I'm not so sure that the information presented by that link is legitimate, but will keep my eyes open for anything which may help shed additional light on the matter.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-20 13:17:10
You are saying that really “anything” is possible, and that isn't quite what I am getting at.
What I am saying is, “is it more or less likely that we would have to deal with a nuclear disaster if we leave Iraq or N. Korea to there own devices”?
Flash back to year 2000; assume we had this same conversation about the world trade center. Say I asked you if the world trade center could be leveled to the ground, your response like mine at the time would be, “yes it is possible but I very seriously doubt it”.
Correct?
One thing as Canadians we have to understand is that Americans no longer see the world through rose coloured glasses anymore.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-20 19:49:46
Steve,
I understand your point, but I'm not so sure that we are on the same page. We can invent all sorts of scenarios to support or object to an invasion of Iraq. Saddam is a potential threat, for sure, but how much of a threat? We know that he and his clan are interested in self preservation more than anything else, and are highly unlikely to take actions which they understand will result in their downfall or elimination. However, we also know that they make some serious miscalculations- invading Kuwait for example. So then, at what point are we whimsically engaging in a military campaign in which many innocent people will needlessly be killed? The corollary of which is- At what point are we deluding ourselves into believing that an extremely serious threat should merely be swept under the rug?- to be dealt with another day. At the moment, I believe we are sitting squarely between these two points, and lack enough information, or a weight of evidence to have confidence in a decision to go to war, or not to go to war. To address your last point, I'm definitely sympathetic to the US ambition to eliminate terrorist threats, but I want to feel much more certain that the end will justify the means.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-20 23:21:49
Hi Jwitt,
Just to start off, the rose coloured glasses comment was harsher then I intended. I didn't realize it until I re-read my post later.
I do feel the pains of struggling between going to war versus taking no effective action. On one hand I think of the innocent people in Iraq who will certainly die. (Latest reports suggest Saddam will create a ring of death around Baghdad and use the city of 4 million as hostage). I also think of some of my military friends, two weeks ago my wife and I picked up a friend's kids from school and I thought of them burying thier dad, it was difficult to contemplate.
Conversely, the terror of 9/11 and the view of nuclear mushroom clouds are just as unsettling. Seeing Satellite images of Gulags in N.Korea and listening to witness accounts of Saddam's brutality is nearly just as troubling. I have little doubt that if Saddam could he would, or a fanatic would for him, as for Korea; that is anyone’s guess.
I do not envy the decisions Mr. Graham and our government must eventually make, I know it must be a very heavy burden to carry.
Steve.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-20 20:44:18
Well, their glasses may not be rose coloured but the lenses are covered with red, white and blue little stars and little stripes.
It seems to me that MAD-think is what is driving US policy right now more than some hybridized post-modern preemptive blitzkrieg theory. Their (well the Bushies anyway) certainty that Hussein has the capacity to assure the destruction of the US appears to founded more on assumptions based on Cold War thinking than on any verifiable evidence of sufficient weaponry or delivery systems for same. After all, in order to be a worthy enemy of the USA it must be demonstrable that said enemy is as powerful as the USA. Like the old 'evil empire' was. That's what makes the game worth playing after all and the USA is nothing if not competitive. We knew for sure that the Soviets had the weaponry because they delighted in showing it off every now and then. We *believe* Hussein has the weaponry because why else would he be so defiant? Rather like the guy in the subway who leers and grins at all and sundry. He must have a weapon we can't see. What else could possibly explain such posturing, such arrogance, such an obvious indifference to what anyone else thinks, such a sense of invulnerability. The guy may be mad but stay clear, he's got a knife or something.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-21 02:45:09
no Banquo, we don't just believe Hussein has weapons, we know it. And not just because he is being defiant, and not just the US. The fact of the matter is that Iraq cannot account for a lot of VX, anthrax, etc... (even the UN says this) and it is a fact that they did indeed have these agents. If they had them, and have no proof of getting rid of them (which, if they did destroy them they would have provided such proof by now, or evidence would be easily found of their destruction), then doesn't logic dictate that they still have them? Especially considering they have a long history of deception about this very same issue? Even France and Germany say Saddam has to disarm, implying he is currently armed.
I am actually quite happy with the plan our gov't offerred to the UN: give the inspectors a little more time (2 mos.), and if there is still a lack of co-operation, then force is the only viable option. I will admit I do not see the American's need to go right now.
Iraq can do little in a month or two with inspectors on the ground.
And if the US was indifferent to what anyone else thought, Gulf War round 2 would be long over by now. I know very few agree, but there has very seldom (if ever) been a country as powerful as the US who are so restrained and peaceful. I don't like the Bush administration very much at all, but think if someone like Saddam had the US's kind of power. We would not even be allowed to have this discussion.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-21 10:51:35
I'm quite happy with our proposals as well. And my madman on the subway allusion was to Saddam, not GWB. But let it pass...
In the realm of logic it's still not possible to prove a negative. The cleverness of the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only that, clever.
Proportion and context are so important here. Hussein wasn't banned from having *all* rockets for example. *Some* rockets is different from *banned* rockets. While all bio and chemical-weaponry is definitely banned it's right here that we bump up against the proving a negative difficulty. The assertion seems to be that since the inspectors can't find it, it must be well hidden. Which is an assertion of a negative as proof of a positive.
Furthermore, we are left not really knowing for absolutely certain sure what they did and didn't declare in the last document they submitted because the US redacted some 800 pages from the declaration and so far at least haven't let anyone know what was in those pages. Speculation is that it was information about companies that had continued to do business with Hussein but we simply don't know.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-22 02:45:23
"The assertion seems to be that since the inspectors can't find it, it must be well hidden. Which is an assertion of a negative as proof of a positive."
It's not just that I think since they can't be found they must be well hidden, this on its own is pure speculation and quite unfounded. However, Iraq had the weapons and bio/chemical agents, everyone agrees to this, so where are they now? Are we to take Saddam's word for it that he destroyed them all in the past few years, without any way to verify this? I will admit this is not 100% concrete proof, but can we afford to take the risk of assuming that this time he's telling the truth, and has changed his ways? Especially when dealing with a threat so grave. I don't think we can.
As for the documents, were the US the only ones given them? Not the UN or other members of the sec. counsel?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-24 23:15:09
Someone had to photocopy the 3,000 pages so all members could get a copy. The US said "we'll look after it" and when the document came back it was short 800 pages.
How does "not 100% concrete proof" become "threat so grave"?
Sheer faith?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-25 02:27:46
nothing in this world is 100%. you couldn't provide an airtight case to me that you even exist, or I to you. All we can do is make informed and reasonable inferences. The only time we'd really have 100% proof Iraq has WMD is if they were used. That is the threat so grave I was referring to. There are extremely good odds that Saddam still has WMD, I don't think many people disagree about that anymore, it's more of the method of disarming him that's the concern. Again, though the evidence points that way and they are very good odds he does have them it isn't 100%. The only ways that it could be proven near 100% are unrealistic (changing his ways and admitting) or as I said have them used.
As to the documents, are you suggesting that the US tampered and interfered with the UN inspections, and if so why nothing has been done or said? Shouldn't the UN be looking after that sort of thing? Do they have no spine?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-21 11:00:05
...."I will admit I do not see the American's need to go right now."...
The reasoning put forth to me is that as summer approaches Iraq the increase in temperature will hinder allied troops. Particularly if said troops have to wear bulky chemical defense suits.
Try wearing a plastic rain poncho in 25 degree Celsius heat with 125lbs of kit, then do a forced march sucking air through a restrictive air canister and you will end up on you butt pretty quick.
The bottom line is the further we get into summer the more lives it will cost.
Now the flip side is to wait until the fall, but the Arab nations (in private) say that delay is not acceptable, Saddam must be stopped now.
That is my understanding of the whole subject.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-21 12:47:45
So the reason to go to war right now boils down to seasonal wardrobe. Great, just great.
See, the thing is it doesn't really matter what we or anyone else says about all this. It's actually been clear since late last year that the US was going to hit Iraq. Wolfowitz, Perle and others have admitted in interviews in Britain that what the inspectors do or don't find is irrelevant. So we're going to have a oh, oh, oh, what a lovely war no matter what. Lots of body bags have already been ordered, 75,000 of them, and the US armed forces are offering signup bonuses for morticians. It's gonna happen so all of you in favour can rest easy, you're getting what you want. I only hope you like how it turns out.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-21 15:23:54
In 10 years we haven't done much about Saddam, there have been well over 200,000 body bags used already in Iraq. Iraq is not a nation at peace just ask the Kurds & Shi'is Muslims. At some point Saddam has to be stopped.
Why banquosghost? Why does Saddam not simply leave the country; take his Cronies and millions of dollars with him?
If you were Iraq's leader, wouldn’t you leave the country for the sake of the people?
In the last Iraqi election Saddam claimed he got 100% of the vote, surely he could get re-elected in 5 years? Why doesn't he just say enough and leave for now?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-21 20:47:51
Saddam's as mad and as dangerous as a rattlesnake in a bucket and I don't at all doubt what you say. I simply ask in return, why now? Why like this?
Are you old enough to remember Domino Theory, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the US war for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people? The secret bombing of Cambodia? How about the pretexts for the invasion of Grenada which turned out to be lies? How about the poor little Kuwaiti girl telling us about the bayoneting of babies by Iraqui soldiers and who we later found out was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and that it had never happened.
It seems that every decade, decade and a half, the USA has this compulsive need to send the forces into battle. Since Sept.11/01 they've been in an enormous spasm of grief, fear and anger. Rightly so. They have every right to go after Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I'll go with them. I'm absolutely on side for that fight. But *that* fight is not *this* fight. Furthermore this fight (Saddam) is going to make that fight (Al Qaeda) bloodier, harder, longer, wider and it's going to bring even more of it on shore in North America and Europe.
In continental Europe memories of what war on your own soil is like are still fresh. Not one event or two but years and years of death and destruction. It makes them cautious. Not cowardly, cautious. In North America it's been so long since there's been a war on home soil that the internal combustion engine wasn't involved because it hadn't been invented yet. Repeating rifles were the most modern weapon in use and then not by many but officers. Automatic weapons weren't even used in North America until the Gatling gun was first used against Louis Riel and his forces at Frog Lake as a favour to the US Army, so they could find out if it worked. The cannonballs didn't explode.
We in North America have no real idea what war on our own soil is.
But attacking Iraq is one of the best ways of assuring that we find out. Unless the CIA is to be disbelieved about simply everything they say.
War is always an ugly option but it's frequently been a necessary option. The distributed battle against Al Qaeda is an example of a necessary war. But what's the distribution factor? I've seen no evidence whatever that the distribution factor includes Iraq. To the contrary, what I've seen are fabrications, deceptions, plagiarisms and demonstrably false allegations made from the floor of the UN no less. And I've seen bullying and intimidation tactics used against allies and potential allies by the primary advocates for the attack on Iraq. At the same time that primary advocate doesn't even attempt to refute those who have called their fabrications and false allegations by their true name. Not once have any US officials defended or attempted to straighten out the deceptions or falsehoods. They've just made some more of them. The photos Powell displayed at the UN that were debunked by journalists who went there have simply disappeared from the conversation.
I want Saddam and his minions gone. Even dead. How is the question. I'm quite sure that, what is it, 3000 Cruise missiles over a couple of days as an opening salvo followed by an invasion of a few hundred thousand with tanks, artillery, infantry and air support is overkill for one guy and his buddies. There's going to be a much bigger killing field than is necessary to just take out Saddam. The *only* reason I can figure for that is that the USA wants to send a message in blood and fire. And I hate that. Hate it.
"What a piece of work is man
How noble in reason
How infinite in faculties
In form and moving
How express and admirable
In action how like an angel
In apprehension how like a god
The beauty of the world
The paragon of animals"
Old Will had it right you know. It really doesn't have to be like this. We do have the right to choose another way. I don't believe in my deepest heart that we will choose another way, but we do have the right. Although all rights are up for grabs by the highest bidder so who's to say what'll be left after all's said and done.
I cannot be convinced that *this* fight must be fought *this* way. I cannot. You may as well accept that.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-22 00:28:42
Hello banquosghost,
With that last post you have certainly earned my respect, I fully understand where you are coming from. But day by day I am more and more at a loss; are we not are running out of options?
In all honesty, I don’t want my fellows go off to some stinking desert, probably never to comeback home the same, if come home at all. (No one is ever the same after war, I know that too well).
I don’t want to see more Iraqi kids die in war or due to sanctions either.
We are following this conflict closely, what do we do? Iraq is not disarming; do we suit up troops with inspectors until armed conflict is forced? Do we lock down the country with 200,000 troops? Surround Baghdad and wait for Saddam to surrender? Do nothing leaving sanctions to kill more innocent kids, lift the sanctions and end up nuked a few years down the road?
If you have more options this is the time to put them on the table, make a new thread named something such as “Our options to avoid death & combat in Iraq”, as Canadians we are all trying finding a solution, time is not on our side.
Peace.
Steve.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-23 02:37:56
I'm not sure if this last post was addressed to me, but if so, then no I'm not old enough to remember first hand the Vietnam 'experience', however, I recently took a course in it and am aware of the said incidents. The domino theory did end up being true, although in a manner which no one expected. Vietnam turned Communist, so did the surrounding SE Asian countries. They just started fighting each other though, instead of joining forces as predicted. The enemy of the US was responsible for stopping the Khmer Rouge genocide, and for the record I think the Vietnam war was a sad, costly mistake (with the aid of hindsight of course).
As for the baby bayonetting, I don't think that story had as great an impact as you make it out to. It is unbelievable, and sounds like WWI propaganda. Also, the UN authorized force, not just the US. I doubt one story had the influence to push the ever reluctant UN to action.
And if this fight shouldn't be fought this way, then how should it? You're quite right in saying that Saddam and co. must be neutralised, but what other option is there that hasn't already been tried? Sanctions, inspections, assasination attempts, uprisings, etc. have all failed.
As for the seasonable wardrobe, I think that's oversimplified for obvious reasons. In warfare there are certian windows of opportunity, and right now is one of them, while it's not too hot. Heat is a great hindrance on troops.
"I cannot be convinced that *this* fight must be fought *this* way. I cannot. You may as well accept that."
Really? I am disappointed to hear this. I would have thought that one with (not to be patronising) as much intelligence as yourself would be more open minded. IMHO one should never close one's mind to thinking any one way. What if there is a persuasive option you just haven't heard yet?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-23 10:08:46
Waterloo asks, "What if there is a persuasive option you just haven't heard yet?"
I'm open to persuasive options, I'm not open to the current option of 3000 Cruise missiles and bombs from 30,000 feet.
I'd be very open to a ground based invasion with limited and local air support engaging *only* those who offered armed resistance. The point of "liberating" the Iraqui people is presumably not to liberate them to eternity.
The post wasn't actually pointed at you specifically. Your response is appreciated however. Not being of an age to directly recall the Vietnam years doesn't mean you might not recall the American students supposedly in mortal danger in Grenada or the news crews storming the beach ahead of the marines in order to get the best shots of the glorious moment of conquest. The Kuwaiti girl didn't have much impact on the process of the war I agree. What she is indicative of is the new marketing of the war option. Except that truth in advertising laws don't apply.
Reply to this message
|
|
