nam,? Did the president dare send troops to fight overseas without the support of the American people? Though many were opposed to military force, it was for many diferent reasons. Some thought that military force was not needed because the threats imposed by President Bush was in fact acknowledged by the Iraquian troops because they no longer were advancing in territory and no other territory was currently in danger of being invaded, and it would only be a matter of time before they withdrew thier troops. David Chandler in a letter to the la times wrote "The official reasons given by the bush adminastration for going to war in the Persian Gulf are not adequate to explain our agressive posture. Without firing a shot Huesseins momentum has been resolved and effective sanctions are in place So why is ther the urgency to go to war on Jan 15th, we have plenty of time to talk it out. This was the feeling of many opposed to war. They fel that america was trigger happy and wanted to felx its preverbial military muscle. Tim Thomas reflect this in a la Times editorial, "Why must America show off to the world how strong it is by sending innocent troops overseas to fight a war that is both pointelss and avoidable. Has our country not learned from earlier war mistakes that sending troops without the support or the approval of the people is asking for unpparalled bloodshed. Dimplomacy is the answer, troops, and military action is not. The overall feeling of those opposed to military force was that of wondering why president bush was so quick to threaten Military force when diplomacy had not fully been explored. "Talk is cheaper than blood and backed by sanctions and unified world opinion, negotiations wouldbe far more productive in the long run. ...
