--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snippage> > What I find most amazing is that all you opponents > of the war talked about > how hard it would be to rebuild Iraq before the war, > and many proponents of > the war agreed - but argued that it would be harder > for America to leave > Saddam Hussein in power, with no way of really > controlling his next move, > and the always-imminent possibility that he might > acquire nuclear weapons > right underneath our noses the way the North Koreans > did. Anyhow, sure > enough, rebuilding Iraq has been hard - and all you > opponents of the war > seem almost *shocked* by this development.
??? I think that many who opposed the war *as prosecuted by the Bush Administration* were _not at all_ shocked that things are tough...I frex was surprised at how *little* initial resistance there was. Although it seems that non-Iraqis (?al Quada?) are behind at least some of the current in-Iraq attacks. > How about being just a little-less defeatist about > the inevitablility of > our failures in Iraq - which I must say it almost > looks like you are > secretly hoping for? Of course, you'd rather spend > more time engaging in > recriminations and bashing of the Bush > Administration. This is ridiculous - I don't know *anyone* who is pleased with bodies coming back instead of live soldiers. Every couple of days there are sad stories on the news about someone who won't be returning to his family at Ft. Carson, or how a parent has chosen to be AWOL to keep custody of her/his children. However, the lack of WMDs capable of inflicting damage on the US is rather gratifying -- if one forgets that much public support for the war was based on the presumed existence of such WMDs. > Oh and in the vein of socio-political groups that do > not criticize their > own extremists - I would note that for all of the > opponents of the war on > this List and other List Members who talked about > how important it was to > have a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq - the silence > regarding the Democratic-lead > effort to make US aid to Iraq a "loan" instead of a > grant was deafening. <sigh> Perhaps because the notion of a loan instead of a grant seemed so obviously stupid? (To be honest, I didn't know that it was a Democrat-led movement.) After all, nobody's yet commented about the Supreme Court *finally* deciding to take the issue of the Guantanamo Bay detainees under advisement (?is that the correct term?), or the fact that Congress passed the "Healthy Forests Initiative," which is supposed to reduce fire danger in National Forests, and it specifies the cutting of trees up to a foot in diameter...which just happens to be what the lumber industry 'needs' [it's underbrush that increases risk of a simple fire - which is in fact part of the natural lifecycle of a healthy forest - becoming a raging conflagration, which can even sterilize the soil], or that 'reducing fire danger' deep inside a pristine forest won't affect any neighborhoods anyway. For that matter, what are *new* houses doing *inside* a so-called National Forest? IOW, I for one don't always comment on the vast quantities of idiocy emerging from the government. Debbi who doesn't know if a Democrat proposed it, but in our recent election we soundly defeated a proposal for the city govt. to "increase peacefulness" (by pumping 'soothing' music into public buildings *at night,* promoting mass meditations....the guy who managed to get 2000 citizens to sign his petition must have been personally quite persuative - or else canvassed the bars!) No, I am not making this up! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
