From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:36:28 -0700
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Jon Gabriel
...
> The primary role of a leader is to keep his/her country safe and its > borders protected. If he were to ignore clear threats to his country's > security by refusing to defend against them he would be putting his > citizens at risk. Should we instead stand by a leader who ignores > clear and present dangers to our country and hopes they go away?
Which leader are you talking about in that last sentence?
No one specific actually.
David's original question stated Bush & Co are wrong for pursuing a US war against terrorism. I think inaction (the obvious alternative) would have been disastrous.
Jon
Le BLog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
