sure.
we could have all sat back for another 100 years, we woulda all been
outta here and it would be up to another generation to take care of
it...
GOOD! complacency, way to go.
...tony
tony weeg
senior web applications architect
navtrak, inc.
www.navtrak.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
410.548.2337
visit www.antiwrap.com to send long url emails to your friends!
-- dont mistake my perfection as arrogance
anonymous
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 11:16 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
I think he's saying that the Iraqi people should have done it, and not
have it imposed by outsiders.
larry
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:28:09 -0400, Tony Weeg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> so, what ur saying is that the world, the iraqi people, and the middle
> east specifically would have been better off with him in power?
>
> ...tony
>
> tony weeg
> senior web applications architect
> navtrak, inc.
> www.navtrak.net
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 410.548.2337
>
> visit www.antiwrap.com to send long url emails to your friends!
>
> -- dont mistake my perfection as arrogance
> anonymous
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:25 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
>
> Almost. We went into Iraq to oust Saddam /because/ he had undeclared
> weapons of mass destruction. The whole oppression of his entire
counry
> came up in side notes, but it was those 25,000 liters of anthrax,
38,000
>
> liters of botulinum, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas, not to
> mention that completely false "damning" report of Iraqi agents trying
to
>
> buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. Aaaaaand, don't forget that as far
> as the Administration's talking points were concerned, Saddam and bin
> Laden were in cahoots, Iraqi agents met with al-Qaeda operatives.
>
> Even with the 9/11 commission saying there was no connection between
> Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda, Cheney et. al. will not ever admit they
> were wrong and they went to war on what is at the minimum inexcusably
> shoddy intelligence, and at worse, deliberately falsified intelligence
> to bolster the Administrations pre-drawn conclusions.
>
> The ends do not justify the means - and Bush's Machiavellian march to
> war can't just be brushed under the rug for the sake of letting
foreign
> policy bygones be bygones.
>
> - Jim
>
> Jim Davis wrote:
>
> >The main problem with the moral argument is that it's not applied
> evenly.
> >
> >Yes, Iraq may be better off now, but the moral high-ground was not
the
> >launching point of the war: there are perhaps dozens of places that
> have it
> >just as bad or worse and we do little or nothing there.
> >
> >Moral reasoning may make us feel better in the aftermath, but it was
> never a
> >primary reason for going to war.
> >
> >We didn't go in to free the Iraqi people; we went in to oust Saddam.
> There
> >is a subtle, but important difference there.
> >
> >Jim Davis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
