* speaking of plans, the plans are very vague. The public does not know what the goals of a war might be, what the endgame options are, how many Americans are likely to die, what the likely counterpunch will be (hint: think terrorist attacks), and just how the U.S. plans to fight a war without clear goals and clear support.
Yes, it will be a great sight indeed to see Iraqi freedom-fighters bombing the hell out of soft targets in America, Britain, Australia and any other imperialist countries who like to consider themselves among the world police.
* essentially no one thinks a bombing campaign will either kill Saddam, who moves around a lot to highly secret locations (including houses of peasants), or will destroy all of those small cannisters of anthrax and sarin and the like...when asked, Albright and Cohen are vague and dissembling.
The same is true in the UK, a few days ago I saw a television interview (I rarely watch such rubbish but I sometimes like to laugh at the spin, but it also depresses me that most citizen-units swallow this crap) with some government minister who said that "We can attack strategic points along the production line without releasing any chemical agents", another lie. It is also a commonly held public misconception that there is such a thing as a "precision bombing campaign" (government spindoctor term) which most people believe implies a campaign where no-one is injured but we miraculously win a war without any casualties. The more American, British, Australian, French etc. troops that die in the Gulf War II (tm), the more the western world will realise that war involves losses and that we cannot go on policing the world. -- Paul Bradley paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk "Why should anyone want to live on rails?" - Stephen Fry