Uncool, you wrote:
"The unfortunate reality of reality is that it is clear cut nor
is it black and white."
For this reason, I virtually never read past your first line;
because it is immediately apparent that you NEVER proofread your
posts or care to communicate effectively.
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
---------------
The unfortunate reality of reality is that it is clear cut nor is
it
black and white.
As per former secretary of treasury Paul O'Niel the decision to
go
to war was made while George Bush was President Elect, before he
took office. The basis, from Mr. O'Niel's observation was the
idea
developed by Rice, Cheney, Rumsfield and Bush that "rouge
nations"
were the greatest threat to US supremecy over the world. The
aleged
idea was that overwhleming force used against a "rouge nation"
would
serve to discourage the 'rouge nations' 'rouge' behavior.
The decision to target Iraq over other options was made with out
O'Niel's involvment so he could not comment on that rational, but
the decision was made. Reasons to justify it were then sought out
by
the adminstration, CIA cheif Tenent was the main party
responsible
for finding cause to wage the war that Bush and his closest
advisors
had already set there mind on having.
One of the largest problems I have with this assesment is
Afghanistan, if the goal had been to set an example then
Afghanistan
should have been sufficient. The agenda was not to set an
example,
the agenda was to invade Iraq. The most absurd reality, is that
the
result was the exact oposite of the aleged desired effect. With
the
armed forces bogged down in Iraq, and the US Army proportedly
broken
those 'rouge nations' have become more emboldened. Iran stepped
up
its enrichment program and is unshakably defiant, North Korea had
its flare up of defiance, China has become more assertive in its
claim of dominion over Taiwan. Mr. O'Niel often pondered the fact
that the discussion was always how will we go to war with Iraq
and
never why.
Regaurdless of wether the agenda was deterance or not, what is
clear
is that it was not clear and presetn danger, nor eminant threat
that
promted the war in Iraq. I could go on and on about my own
Senetor,
Carl Levon the senior member of the Armed Forces Comitte in the
Senate how ever I thought the thoughts of a former high level
Bush
aid and long time Republican would be of more value.
--- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rep. Paul has made a logical and thoughtful argument against
what
he believes to be an initiation of aggression in Iraq. His
stance
is principled. The only question to me is whether or not the
conflict in Iraq is a case of legitimate reaction to a credible
threat of aggression or not. No one has been able to make a
clear
cut case in either direction.
>
> BWS
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XmUd6C/bOaOAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/
