clinton vs. Sadam - Food for thought

John Bush jbush at POST.CIS.SMU.EDU
Wed Nov 19 05:08:52 MST 1997


On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Richard Swerdlin wrote:

> DP:
>
>         Saddam is Saddam.  It is doubtful that the presence of Mr. X
> or Mr. Y in the Oval Office would achieve a remake of Saddam.
> He likes to probe or fish.
>
>          Sooner or later the bastard will have to be neutralized, since
> biological & chemical weapons should not be taken lightly.  This may
> not be a pleasant thought, but our world remains a bit chaotic
> anyway, so that forceful action is difficult to avoid.
>
How long are these sanctions we have going to be imposed?  Are they
going to be like our troops in Bosnia?  They'll be out in 6 months?
The sanctions hurt the poeple of Iraq much more than Saddam--and
Saddam's grip on power in Iraq is pretty secure.  So by not making a
plan for reducing and eliminating the sanctions, we are bascially
saying, "jump through every hoop we give you and maybe one day we'll
lift the sanctions."  I don't agree to that even if we are talking
about Saddam.

I do find it interesting that the Republican response to Clinton has
been, whatever you need to do, we'll support it.  Quite a difference
from the Democrats back with George Bush, don't you think?



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list