From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 07:52 AM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: > >Setting aside sarcasm now... I think that you may be mistake in *expecting* > >the left to come up with a coherent war plan against terrorism. > > I think that's Gautam's point. If, as you seem to agree, the Left is > simply incapable of coming up with a coherent war plan against terrorism, > then the Left is inherently unqualified and unworthy to hold high political > office in the United States for the future as far as we can see. > > JDG Like what high offices? President? Senator? Representative? <blatant exageration> I suppose that you would suggest that Democrats, Libertarians, and Green party candidates shouldn't be allowed to even run on any ballots in the next election. Or better yet, we should arrest people outside the polls who voted for any "left" party candidates and fly them to cuba, locking them up as "enemy combattants". </blatant exageration> The war on Iraq wasn't about liberating Iraq, it wasn't about weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. It was entirely politically motivated. The republicans saw their approval failing after Osama Bin Laden evaded capture, and, wanting some sort of evil figurehead detained or killed as a trophy that people in the US can applaud, they chose to attack our most recent war enemy Saddam Hussain (sp?). He was painted as having possible ties to Osama Bin Laden (even though evidence of that is blatantly lacking) and was turned into a scapegoat. He was chosen probably because he seemed an easier target to hit (and by golly, the military took every shot they could when they even just had questionable evidence that he was at a given location... at least three attempts to kill him using missle strikes, at least one of those on a civilian target, all missed killing the intended person). This was was politically motivated to try to boost aproval ratings in the site of a struggling economy and bad environmental policy. Iraq posed no significant threat to us. There was no good reason to go to war with them. There is no reason to make a war plan for a war on terror, because a war on terror is simply not necessary. Should we have gone into Afghanistan to get Al Quida after what they did? Hell yeah. Damn skippy. They committed a very criminal act that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people and retribution was called for. What did Iraq do though? Nothing. They had no proven ties to the attacks of September 11th. Should we wait for them to attack us or one of our allies before we attack them? Damn right we should. Otherwise it is we who are the terrorists, it is we who are the criminals. If this war really was about weapons of mass destruction, why aren't we going to war against Isreal and North Korea for their illegal nuclear weapons programs? Case and point: it simply isn't about that, it is all about politics. Disgusting. Let me illustrate the blatant lack of perspective that the majority of this country has. All of the following are more likely to kill someone in the U.S. than a terrorist attack: Heart disease; lung cancer; breast cancer; prostate cancer; aids; the flu; etc. That's right ladies and gentlemen, you are more likely to die from the flu than from a terrorist attack. How much is spent on medical reasearch each year? All together, about a couple billion dollars. That is to cover all these things as well as other medical research, which, even in 1991, when the most deadly terrorist attack took place in the U.S, each were at least 7 times more likley to kill someone in the U.S. than a terrorist attack. How many tens of billions of dollars were spent thusfar in the war on terror. Over thirty billion dollars spent on efforts in Afghanistan. How much has been spent in Iraq? Unknown, but conservative costs estimates before the war were above eighty billion dollars. A *preemptive* war on terror simply does not make any sense from any standpoint, and demostrates considerable bad judgement in foriegn policy from the standpoint of foriegn relations. Moreover, the blatant discarding of the constitution over this problem is a paranoid knee-jerk over-reaction to a problem that just simply does not warrant that kind of action yet. Do we issolate people with the flu or AIDS to prevent these deseases from spreading? No. Yet each is a greater threat to human life than terrorism. Should we tighten security on planes and airports because of what happened? Deffinately. Should we blatantly disregard the constitution and basic human rights? No. Issolating people that we have no proof commited any crimes and blatantly disregarding the constitution and their rights in the process is deplorable. If we have proof they committed a crime, charge them with one, if not, release them. Your suggestion that the left's inability to form an effective war plan against terror is a demonstration of bad leadership is not just wrong (as a war plan is entirely uncalled for IMNSHO), it disgusts me that you beleive that the republican style of the war on terror is neccessary. How many civilians has our war in Iraq killed? How many Iraqi troops simply believed that they were defending their nation from foriegn invaders when they died in combat? Our war with Iraq was not justified and was far from neccessary. To expand on what JDG has proposed, I propose that the actions of both the Democrats and Republicans have demonstrated a considerable lack of good leadership, and that neither party should be allowed to hold high office for the immediate future. Let third party candidates fill those offices. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The problem with world is that the smartest 2% make the technology that we use, but the remaining 98% choose how it is used " - Me _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
