Lets see SAdamm was a big problem for about 12 years or more, part of that under GW's watch before 9/11. Daddy Bush help him just like Regan, when he became a real problem Dady Bush couldn't really deal with him. The best thing the government and their friends at the UN could think to do was to put economic sanactions on while thousands of Iraqi children died. Listen you don't send a inefficent bull into a china shop to pick out wedding dishes. The pentagon like all big Central Managed bureuratic government organizations is a big screw up, the Penatgon may be the biggest, even Rumsfield before 9/11 said it probally could not account for ovver 2 trillion dollars in spending over the years. You add all this screw up to no real responsiblity at the top they will still get there pensions, lobbyist fees and big corporate jobs even if they screw up and kill thousands of innocent people, and its nothing but a mess. Don't send the pentgon or even the CIA to bring down a ruthless dicator, don't allow it and the " homeland defense protect us from terrorist. You talk about big screw ups 9/11 was a big government screwup, if it was not such a terrible action the governments ablity would have been a joke. If the government did not cause so much harm it would be one great big joke.--- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Given the information below, add two and two together: used ballistic > missles, had relationships with terrorists, used WMD, hated America. > > All these add up to a pattern that suggests a threat. Since we acted, > we can't say for sure if the the threat was significant enough to act. > We can also Monday Morning General and say the deposition of the > dictator was not necessary then or ever. > The real question is, how long do we wait, how great must the threat > be, before we act. Do we wait until destruction is certain? Do we > take the modern law enforcement approach and say "we can't do anything > until he comes and hurts us?" > Pre-emption is valid when the threat is great enough. Paul obviously > believes there was no valid threat. I stand at about 60/40, maybe > there was a threat, I don't think action was required in 2003. This > does not, however, mean that pre-emption is an invalid use of the > military. > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > > No part of anything you mentioned makes Iraq a threat to America or is > > valid justification to use the United State's DEFENSIVE military > > against him. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Brian Holtz" <brian@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Saddam's hatred for America (regardless of whether some think > > > Saddam's hatred justified), and > > > * > > > > > > Saddam's support for terrorists that have targeted American > > > civilians; > > > > > > > > > > > * Saddam's record of aggression, in which he > > > > > > > > > > > > * killed over a million people, > > > > > > * invaded one sovereign neighbor, > > > > > > * annexed another by force, > > > > > > * fired ballistic missiles at two more, > > > > > > * defied UN nuclear disarmament mandates that Iraq was bound to obey > > > as a 1945 UN Charter signatory, > > > > > > * used chemical WMDs in a war of aggression, and > > > > > > * used chemical WMDs in genocidal attacks on its own citizens; >
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
