It's official: No military action against Iraq (beyond the usual perpetual bombing)

Cian cian_oconnor at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Mar 21 15:17:41 PST 2002


--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Max Sawicky wrote:
> Yup, and the left bought the sandbags in quantity.
> This time we're
> hearing "Iraq is not Afghanistan," which is
> unarguably true, but that
> doesn't mean that the Pentagon couldn't make
> hamburger of them. I
> wish the U.S. military were as ineffective as some
> antiwarriors like
> to claim.

Surely the problem is access. Where are they going to invade from? I have no doubt that once they were on the ground they'd make mincemint of the Iraqi forces, but they've got to get there first.

For what its worth, the British army and navy didn't hold the US armed forces in terribly high regard. They see them as far too dependant upon technology. Not that that matters too much in Iraq (Afghanistan is a different story though).

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list