It amazes me that we seem not to understand that some poor woman in Iraq thinks her Iraqi child is just as important as a high-level aid worker from a foreign country.

Whose priorities are more important?

Should her child should be collateral damage in a war for oil and power? Is it any wonder she supports the "terrorists"? We should think more.

[ October 20, 2004, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

"Either you're with us, or you're against us!"

[ October 20, 2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I'm with us...I guess.

Tony Blair, drunk under the influence of Bush, announced yesterday that Britain is sending more troops in. This poor woman's fate is probably doomed.

CNN Story

[ October 22, 2004, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

In the interest of accuracy ...

Britain is not sending MORE troops to Iraq, but is redeploying 850 members of the Black Watch currently in southern Iraq to regions closer to Baghdad. Most seem to believe that this move is preparatory to an assault on Fallujah.

PS, that is what i read also. Britain is not sending in MORE troops, just redeploying some of its troops farther north.

The big debate in Britain was two-fold. One, these troops will be leaving the 'relatively' calmer south and head to the more volatile area nearer Baghdad. Britains are more worried about kidnappings and deaths now. Also, this is seen as giving George Bush a strategic (strategery as BUsh would say) victory so close to the election and help his re-election chances.