In favour of war

[andrewducker]

Anyone want to read this and then tell me they're not in favour of war?

Comments

[shannon_a]

A recent study by a Nobel prize winner said that half-a-million people will die if there is war in Iraq, half before and half after due to the infrastructural damage we're going to do.

If tactical nukular weapons are used, as Dubya proposes, this number will climb into the millions.

If you're going after leaders for the murder of innocents, you need to start with Bush and Blair.

[andrewducker]

Cite please. Nobel prize winner in what? Iraq has no infrastructure to speak of right now, it's a ruin. I'm hoping for a quick conflict followed by emergency humanitarian aid. I know the government has that planned because my father has been informed he's going to be part of that (he's a paediatrician).

[shannon_a]

http://www.iansa.org/documents/2002/collateral_damage.htm

You're right on the huminitarian aide; at least here in the United States those contracts are being given out to corporations with connections to the White House, starting with the company previously run by our Vice President. That should say something about how much we're really trying to help people, as opposed to lining pockets.

See: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=14682

[andrewducker]

I actually think it's a very good thing that the contracts are being sorted out now. It doesn't surprise me that the contracts are going to contacts of the central government cabal, as I don't like Bush in the slightest, but at least they are preparing for the post-war rebuild.

The article was interesting also - but didn't have a lot of hard data in it. Also, comparing the the effects of the first gulf war (where they broke the infrastructure) to the second (where there is no infrastructure to break and they plan to go in and build one with haste) is not likely to be accurate.