At 03:14 PM 7/27/2003 -0600 Michael Harney wrote:
>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?).
This is nonsense, Michael. President Bush declared that Iraq was a member
of the "axis of evil" in January of 2002 when his approval ratings were
sky-high. Try another theory.
>(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).
So, the US should not have tried to kill Saddam and using missile strikes
to try and do so was wrong? Are you serious????
>They committed a very
>criminal act that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people and
>retribution was called for.
Do you really believe that the liberation of Afghanistan was justified
solely by retribution? I mean, I don't even consider retribution to be
in the Top Ten of reasons for the US to liberate Afghanistan.... and
indeed, I'm not sure that it is a reason at all.
>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.
Actually, on 2 August 1990 Iraq suddenly attacked Kuwait. In early 1991,
Iraq signed a cease-fire with the United States, a cease-fire whose terms
they have never abided by. Case closed.
>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.
What's disgusting Michael is your inability to comprehend that an attack on
a country that already has a nuclear weapon would very likely result in the
incineration of hundreds of thousands of people - to say nothing of the
hundreds of thousands of civillians that would die in Seoul thanks to DPRK
artillery shells. Once Iraq gets a nuclear weapon, Michael its game over -
unless of course you advocate direct confrontations between nuclear powers.
Let's consider for a moment what might have happened had Iraq waited to
attack Kuwait until 2 August 1992. We now know that Saddam Hussein would
likely have shocked the world by successfully testing a nuclear weapon at
this time. Thus a nuclear-armed Saddam rolls into Kuwait and begins
pushing on into Saudi Arabia - and he declares that if the US sends troops
to Saudi Arabia that he will lob a couple nuclear weapons into Tel Aviv and
Haifa. *Now* what, Michael?
You have argued that it is terrorist and criminal to attack a country that
has not attacked you or one of your allies.... so, you simply wait for
that country to build nuclear weapons and *then* attack your allies?
By the way - of the recent developments in the nuclear programs of the
DPRK, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq over the past 15 years - how many
occurred with the knowledge of US intelligence sources?
I'll give you a hint - the answer is a very round number.... so I wouldn"t
count on being able to know when a successful test is "imminent" if that is
your plan.
>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:
Only because Iraq has so far been successfully prevented from developing
nuclear weapons and selling them to the highest bidder.
Michael, a nuclear bomb going off in NYC would kill millions of people...
so that statistic of yours is absolutely meaningless.
>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?
I'm glad you brought this up, Michael, because the answer is between
100,000 and 200,000. Meanwhile, according to UNICEF, Saddam Hussein was
kiilling around 5,000 people a day. Of course, the Left only cares
about people killed by Americans.... thus if you get killed in Zimbabwe,
don't expect ANSWER to start rallying international support to stop the
killing.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
