OH What a Difference 3 Years Makes...
"In launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing--weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. . . . Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold numbers of Iraqi civilians could be killed."--Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002
"Not so long ago, prominent German politicians were outdoing each other forecasting worst-case scenarios for the Iraq conflict. The predictions ranged from 'millions of victims of U.S. rockets' to 'millions of Iraqi refugees desperately fleeing the country.' "--San Francisco Chronicle, May 1, 2003
"It is also likely that in the early stages there will be a large segment of the population requiring treatment for traumatic injuries, either directly conflict-induced or from the resulting devastation. Given the population outlined earlier, as many as 500,000 could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries."--U.N. report on "likely humanitarian scenarios," Dec. 10, 2002
"Up to four million people could die in a war on Iraq involving nuclear weapons. A more contained conflict could cause half a million deaths and have a devastating impact on the lives, health and environment of the combatants, Iraqi civilians, and people in neighbouring countries and beyond. It could also damage the global economy and thus indirectly harm the health and well-being of millions more people across the world."--executive summary, "A New Gulf War: The Real Cost," Medact ("a UK-based charity taking action on key global health issues"), Nov. 13, 2002
Take note of who said what when. These organizations and people were predicting the worst prior to "W" taking action to protect us from terrorists here in the US. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that antiwar sentiment seems to be abating: "Many of the weekend demonstrations across Australia, Asia and Europe drew smaller-than-anticipated crowds--far short of the millions worldwide who protested the initial invasion in March 2003 and the first anniversary in 2004." Only 1,000 people showed up to a Saturday rally in New York, a city of eight million.
It's easy to get discouraged by the drumbeat of bad news from the adversarial media (You all know who they are NY Times, CNN, LA Times, Katie Couric, Matt Lowry, Hollywood Types, Barbra Streisein, et. al) --and polls suggest many Americans are sorely tempted to give up and give in. Here's hoping we continue to resist because after all the dire predictions proposed by the likes of Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy were never realized.
"In launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing--weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. . . . Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold numbers of Iraqi civilians could be killed."--Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002
"Not so long ago, prominent German politicians were outdoing each other forecasting worst-case scenarios for the Iraq conflict. The predictions ranged from 'millions of victims of U.S. rockets' to 'millions of Iraqi refugees desperately fleeing the country.' "--San Francisco Chronicle, May 1, 2003
"It is also likely that in the early stages there will be a large segment of the population requiring treatment for traumatic injuries, either directly conflict-induced or from the resulting devastation. Given the population outlined earlier, as many as 500,000 could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries."--U.N. report on "likely humanitarian scenarios," Dec. 10, 2002
"Up to four million people could die in a war on Iraq involving nuclear weapons. A more contained conflict could cause half a million deaths and have a devastating impact on the lives, health and environment of the combatants, Iraqi civilians, and people in neighbouring countries and beyond. It could also damage the global economy and thus indirectly harm the health and well-being of millions more people across the world."--executive summary, "A New Gulf War: The Real Cost," Medact ("a UK-based charity taking action on key global health issues"), Nov. 13, 2002
Take note of who said what when. These organizations and people were predicting the worst prior to "W" taking action to protect us from terrorists here in the US. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that antiwar sentiment seems to be abating: "Many of the weekend demonstrations across Australia, Asia and Europe drew smaller-than-anticipated crowds--far short of the millions worldwide who protested the initial invasion in March 2003 and the first anniversary in 2004." Only 1,000 people showed up to a Saturday rally in New York, a city of eight million.
It's easy to get discouraged by the drumbeat of bad news from the adversarial media (You all know who they are NY Times, CNN, LA Times, Katie Couric, Matt Lowry, Hollywood Types, Barbra Streisein, et. al) --and polls suggest many Americans are sorely tempted to give up and give in. Here's hoping we continue to resist because after all the dire predictions proposed by the likes of Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy were never realized.
