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