>I do have a question though, is there any development that would cause you to
>change your mind and support the war in Iraq?

If there were clear, compelling evidence that there was an attack in the works,
or if an attack had been launched against us. So far neither has been the
case.

And here's another thing...we're now in the last phases of the battle. The
military has now searched many of the places where chemical or other WMD were
supposed to be kept, finding nothing.

Those weapons were, at one time, the whole reason for the attack (before it
became more about regime change in the constantly changing story from the Bush
administration).

Neither have these alleged weapons been used.

So we have here a very odd situation.

If those weapons are there, then we have a scenario in which the Iraqi
government, even knowing their days are numbered, have deliberately chosen not
to use those weapons...which puts the allegation of their intended use into
grave doubt.

Or those weapons are not there...which puts the whole justification of the war
in grave doubt.

So which is it?

Look at the war...we were told that Iraq represents a great threat, comparisons
to the great German war machine pre-WW2 were made...but in fact we have rolled
in with pretty fair impunity. We demolish the opposition, we receive reports
of "small arms fire" being used to protect the palaces, the worst fighting
being in Basra, but as one General said the other day, "We can go and come
pretty much however and whenever we want."

Is this the bogey-man of which we were warned so many times? Poorly armed and
supplied troops using pick-up trucks against tanks? That's it? That's what we
were supposed to be afraid of?

No...back in March 2002, Bush was very clear that we were going in to take out
Saddam, period, as noted at:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html


Iraq has so far not used chemical weapons against us, though we were told that
once we entered Baghdad that would happen... but now we are ourselves preparing
to use banned weapons --

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,931960,00.html

-- it just seems very troubling to me. The motives behind this have shifted
constantly from the beginning.

(And what to make of this article --

http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=US%20arms%20group%20heads%20for
%20Lisbon edition=697

-- I don't quite know, I leave this one to others to figure out. I honestly
don't know where this fits in.)

The thing about the truth is that it tends to be fairly straightforward. We
blockaded Cuba because we didn't want Russia to send in nuclear missiles.
Clear and straightforward. We didn't say we were blockading to keep Cuba from
exporting terrorism, or to help the people of Cuba. We said the facts,
provided the photos, end of discussion.

First we were going after Iraq for vague and unproven connections to Bin
Laden...then it became about exporting terrorism (even though more is exported
from places like Iran and Syria)...then it became about WMD (even though they
have still not surfaced)...now it's about Iraqi freedom and regime change.

Our soldiers are fighting well and bravely in the execution of their orders.

It's the thinking and, perhaps, the morality of those giving the orders at the
top that I have reservations about.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)