Anti-war train drivers refuse to move arms freight

Al Diablito
Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:20:22 -0500

>Can't you come up with an original thought?  Perhaps an accurate one?
>A) They are dependent on the voters.

Yes, they are. But the entire apparatus of election information is 
controlled by major corporations who are able to manipulate the media to 
limit choices to an anointed few. This is true of both parties. Do you 
remember what happened in Florida? Ballot stuffing, intimidation at the 
polls, roadblocks in minority neighborhoods, Katherine Harris illegally 
removing citizens from the voter rolls. C'mon it's not that hard, it was 
only 2 1/4 years ago.

>B) Assuming wars are fought for economic reasons misses the last two
>centuries of history.  It has been rather obvious for the last century
>that this isn't the case.

This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever read. Try and back this 
one up.

>And it was quite obvious that most of the dems who did vote for it
>didn't believe in it.  The public noticed.  (Lieberman, Miller and
>Gephart did believe in it -- to name 3.)

I think they did believe that it would be good for their corporate backers. 
They had to add caveats to throw a bone to their Democratic supporters. John 
Kerry and Dianne Feinstein were particularly masterful at this 
fence-straddling. "Well, I am against the war, I think it will be a 
disaster, but I need to support the President". Guess what? It didn't work.

>This is quite laughable.  After all, the equipment was sure a lousy
>failure last time, right?

There is no comparison with what we are trying to do this time.
1) That war was a done deal by the end of February, before the weather got 
miserably hot. It looks like now it may take until March to launch this one. 
Also, by equipment, I am referring mostly to the gear and procedures meant 
to protect the troops as opposed to the weapons, which are undeniably lethal 
in the extreme.
2) The last time we had an objective of removing the Iraqi army from Kuwait. 
  Most of the Iraqi apparatus within that country was destroyed from the air 
before the ground war began. We did not go on to Baghdad to remove Saddam 
Hussein. This will be entirely different. Even if we capture or kill Saddam 
immediately, we will still be faced with millions of people who are not 
looking forward to a "MacArthur-style occupation". Saddam has released the 
criminals from the prisons, armed everyone, and the people know that we have 
no intention of replacing Saddam with someone who will treat them better. 
Think massive urban warfare, think house-to-house fighting, Battle of 
Stalingrad, etc.

>BTW: The Iraqis don't do deserts.  The US Army does deserts.  The _last_
>place an Iraqi wants to fight the US is in a desert.  If you had
>bothered inform yourself about the topic you'd have known that.

I would agree with that. However, they will have to go through deserts, 
deploy from deserts, as the region gets hotter and hotter. Also, fighting in 
the greener, marshier areas of Iraq where it will be both WET and HOT will 
not be much of a relief. Most of the fighting is likely to be in the cities.

>'Peace' movement is objectively pro-Saddam.  Yes, you _are_ defending

1) You obviously have a limited, black and white view of the world
2) You don't know the definition of objective, as I don't know ANYONE in the 
peace movement who truly likes Saddam.

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*