Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[tom poe <tompoe AT amihost.com>]

For those of us who believe the war in Iraq was not pre-emptive, so much
as it was simply Bush politics designed to emperialize the U.S. interest
in controlling the world's oil, along with an immediate need to relocate
U.S. bases formerly positioned in Saudi Arabia, does Saddam's capture
(not one of his body double's capture) signal a needed change in our
stance on the War in Iraq, or war, in general?

Personally, it would seem that this momentous event for the Iraq
citizens, finally puts us back to what should have occurred on April 9,
2003, when troops entered Baghdad.  The announcement that Operation
Whatever-In-The-World-Are-You-Doing-Bush was over, and that troops would
be pulling out immediately, if not sooner.

Now that the Iraq people are symbolically freed, including the capture
of their tyrannical leader, there is no reason to stay, is there? 
Cannot reconstruction continue by remote control, with the U.N. moving
in to peace-keep?  Or, is there some other reason for not turning over
matters to the U.N.? 

The talk seems to center on not knowing whether guerilla attacks will
continue.  Why would anyone want to encourage such attacks to continue? 
Why wouldn't anyone use this opportunity to announce withdrawal, U.N.
entry, and give the guerilla attackers little excuse for continuing?  We
could serve the Anti-War protest movement in a significant way, if this
sophomoric logic could be polished and presented to the public, looking
for answers.  Anyone have ideas on this?
 
Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/