> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 2:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: WMD
>
>
> > 20,000 soldiers is a hell of a lot, and the US has
> > more urgent/important things to do than sending them
> > traipsing around the Iraqi desert sounds like a pretty
> > good one.� Right now, at this moment, the US military
> > is desperately overstretched.� There is a 3:1 rule for
> > deployments - to put 20,000 troops on the ground
> > outside the US, you need to have a minimum of 60,000
> > soldiers dedicated to the job.� Force constraints are
> > real, and a major concern of everyone in the defense
> > establishment right now.
> >
>
> A) What could possibly be more important than finding the
> weapons of mass
> destruction that were the entire justification for the
> invasion in the first
> place?
Perhaps preventing another child in Iraq from being tortured by have their
eyes gouged out in front of their parents, in order to illicit a confession,
to start. That alone is worth every tax dollar I gave (and will give) to
support the war.
Weapons, I might add, that the Bushies claimed to know
> exactly where they
> were before the invasion. (In March, Rumsfeld was quoted
> saying they were in
> the Tikrit area.)
Did he really? I don't think he said it like that, but please, prove me
wrong.
>
> B) We won the war - why are we now so overstretched?
Are we? By what standard?
Maybe
> the Bushies
> underestimated what it would take to win the peace. They
> appear to have had no real
> plan for what would happen after the glorious victory, just
> as they have had
> little plan for Afghanistan other than going in and quickly
> declaring victory
> on the Bush News Channel - oops, sorry, I meant the Fox News Channel.
Now you are being belligerent.
>
> C) If we need more troops, send 'em in. This is no time to be
> poormouthing
> things.
If we don't have enough troops - why not? How can an
> occupation be
> harder to organize than an invasion?
Its easy to criticize, but what would you have done differently, other than
not gone to war in the first place?
>
> D) I'm sure the Bush apologists on this list will have all
> kinds of excuses
> for their beloved lord and master. Screwing up the aftermath
> does not detract
> from what was a successful military operation. But the point
> of the operation
> was not just to be able to declare victory.
I thought is was Blood for Oil or something like that.... (now I'm being
belligerent)
It was to find
> Saddam's WMD - which
> they swore up and down to the entire world existed and which
> they did claim
> to know where they were.
This is not true.
I'm glad the bastard is out of
> power, but I'm not glad
> that there's anarchy in Iraq,
Unless you are over there, I think you don't know what is going on there. I
won't make the claim I know either. But listening to a few disgruntled
Iraqi's in the press does not mean the country is in Anarchy. I am sure that
if the press pointed microphones toward a few disgruntled Americans, the
responses would be very similar ("This country's goin' ta Hell!").
A few years ago, when the US government shut down, no one claimed that the
US was in Anarchy. When Hurricane Andrew hit the South, no one claimed
Anarchy in the US, and during the race riots in LA after the Rodney King
beating no one claimed the US was in Anarchy. When people lived in fear from
the DC sniper, no one claimed the US was in Anarchy.
Trade still occurs in Iraq, its just the government that is shut down. Are
they experiencing a disaster? I think so. Do they need help? Oh yeah. Will
they survive - yes. Will things get better? Of course. Will Iraqi's
eventually rule themselves? History tells us this is the most likely
outcome, even if we wanted to make Iraq the 51 state. They are pretty tough
people. I don't think Americans could have borne a similar war with as much
grace and compassion.
and I'm not glad that his WMD
> can't be found.
> Where are they?
We have the wealth, technology, and power to find them. It is only a matter
of time.
Do you really want to discuss this, or do you want to bash Bush and his
cronies for a little while longer? If so, bring it on, I don't like the guy
much myself.
Nerd From Hell
>
>
>
> Tom Beck
>
> www.prydonians.org
> www.mercerjewishsingles.org
>
> "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never
> dreamed I'd see the
> last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
