I don't have anything you don't man. I guess I just look at this invasion differently than most. I think there were lots of good reasons for going in there.
What is my main reasoning, well I think Gee W's papa didn't go far enough the first time through. I think that the oil that was locked in that country had a lot to do with our invasion, but I don't really think that's bad per say. Our industry and defense rely on oil. Training and supporting our enemies in most countries means giving them some Aks and money. Now Libya, Syria and Iran have gone much further, and at times should have been attacked as far as I am concerned, but that was during the Cold War and would have probably escalated quickly. Iraq had camps with full size aircraft so g's could practice hijacks. Not too friendly in my eyes. As for trying to kill him, well first time around we played with the kid gloves. They could have killed him several different times if they wanted to, but simply killing him doesn't stop his kids and the rest of the Baathists from carrying on his "good work" :) So it takes something more. Another point, not necessarily something nice to think about, but something to consider. As east and west grow further apart, it's not so bad that we gave the Arab street a black eye. If you look at some of the mutual security pacts that are proposed right now you have a very serious threat to our security, but those pacts haven't really gotten much play since we took down Saadam. While there is no direct proof of cooperation with Al Queda, there are second and third level links through other terrorist organizations, such as those involved in Israel. The meeting between Iraqi intel and an Al Queda operative did take place, and (was it the czechs?) still say they are sure it took place. Now obviously Osama-mama and So-Damn Insane(sorry it's Friday) would have had issues with each other. Osama is a radical Muslim and the way that saadam lived would have been repugnant to him, however the enemy of my enemy............., or maybe better the evil you know than the one you don't. I don't claim to know their motivations, but not all of Al Queda is as dedicated to Islam as the big boys. Look at how many of the hijackers spent their last hours, drinking and getting laid :) Finally I have to say, I am a bit tired of hearing about human rights, and freedom for the Iraqi people. There are far more deserving places IMHO, if that what we are really talking about (one island one republic one Ireland!!), or places that have treated their citizens much worse (Cambodia, Africa in general). We don't care about human rights really. That's for the papers. I have to say man, this is not the company line, rather my personal opinions. I strongly disagree with many things in this administration. The invasion is not one of those things. Now if you want to talk about how they have basically destroyed privacy as we know it and the right to defend one's person and property you'll get my full support. Those who know me here can tell you I am no one to just go along. Anyway time for chow. Pieces dawg :) Tim -----Original Message----- From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 10:36 AM To: CF-Community Subject: From the Washington Post: Halliburton's Deals Greater Than Th ought > 1. He supported our enemies with money and training. As have many other nations that we have NOT attacked. Including some of our allies. > 2. He attempted to kill a former president How many times did we attempt to kill him? It's ok if we do it but not if someone tries to return the favor? > 3. His troops routinely engaged our aircraft in the no fly zones. I will give you that one. However, how many aircraft and/or aviators did we lose? I am not, by any means, a Saddam apologist. I just get upset when people try to feed others the company line, which is utter BS. The administration attacked another sovereign nation on the basis of flawed intelligence regarding WMD. They used fear of these weapons to garner public support. They hinted at culpability in the 9/11 attacks (which WERE a smack in our face, and by the way, where is Osama anyway?). If they had been a bit more honest about the whole thing, perhaps those of us who use our right to question our government's actions would not be so skeptical. All I am saying, Tim, is that you come across as a smart man. You have experience in the military and work at the State Department, so I will not profess to know more about what is going on in the world than you. And I would never argue the Constitution with you. However, your reasoning that "he smacked us first" doesn't fly with me. If there is more evidence that he did do so, then the government needs to release it. Don't give me any crap about national security, just show us the evidence. Not the Colin Powell - fuzzy satellite images - scratchy recording evidence, but real, hard evidence, and I will quietly go away. I just don't think that we have any. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
