|
....i'm digging this HOLY WAR, very
informative and intelligent points of view, but i'm definitely leaning towards
Keith on this. I don't believe we're settling ANYTHING through 500 lbs
bombs, especially on the wrong place....we had the will of the World, and
support of most countries to blister Afganistan, and seek-n-destroy Osama,
but what we destroyed was our credibility without firing one person in
charge. I, personally, find it amazing we can admit we went in under wrong
info, and nobody held accountable.
Anybody seen Rumsfeld lately??? I
find it hard to believe he never saw the disgusting photos of Abugrav
prisoners being tortured/humiliated, sexually perverted and, in some cases,
maybe killed, until they came out in media...he admitted knowing about them for
many months. We're in a war of HEARTS N MINDS more than anything else, and
we're surely losing that around the World. And let's face it kids,
the dream of bringing security and peace to Iraq has been
shattered...this will not happen as long as we are
there!!
In my opinion, this was about the most
ineffective way to fight terror i can think of...
peace over
war...tony
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 6:57
PM
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] How Much Do You
Really Know About This Country
This is not World War III! There is a war
against terrorism, which is why the United States and our Allies invaded
Afghanistan.
However, there is no connection between the war against the terrorists
that hijacked the three airliners and killed thousands of innocent people by
flying them into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon and the war
in Iraq. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate and deceptive.
One may legitimately argue that the war in Iraq serves American foreign
policy objectives and is therefore, a good thing. Personally, I strongly
disagree with that point of view.
Keith
Stuntman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Keith,
You
want simple?
Sadamned signed a treaty in 1991 which stipulated ALL WMD's
and the
equipment to make them were to be destroyed under UN
Supervision.
After a DECADE of playing mouse games with Hans Blix &
Co. UN
resolution 1441 was fully supported by the UN with a final date
for
compliance.
Sadamned refused to fully comply.
He refused to
accept exile instead of armed enforcement.
We forced compliance.
9/11
changed how we deal with those who actively support or harbor
terrorists.
We ARE in a war we didn't start.
Blame bin
hidden.
He started WWIII.
If you think Terrorists want to listen to
reason, I'll help take up a
collection for a ticket so that you can
try.
Words of wisdom and a warning, don't try.
They will only kill you
in front of a camera.
Stuntman
>
> That is a rather
tenuous and convoluted explanation. I would also
hope that your
assertion that American foreign policy is based, at
least in part, upon
retribution is wrong. American foreign policy
should be based upon what
is truly in the best interest of our country,
but I would have to
conclude that under the current Administration, it
is indeed upon
retribution.
>
> Keith
>
> Stuntman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >
> > Stuntman, your
knowledge of World history is truly remarkable. I
> would be very
grateful for you to educate me, as to how our support
of
> Iraq
in its war of aggression was in any way whatsoever related to
the
> Cold War.<
>
> If RUSSIA had not built Sadamned up,
he never would have had the
> ability to take on Iran. Once that war
was started it also was seen
as
> an opportunity to pay back Iran
for the Hostage crisis by the USA.
> So if it hadn't ! been for the
Cold war, Sadamned would never have been
a
> major player in the
Mid East.
> The USSR was great at playing one side against the other,
trying to
> weaken both sides untill they could achieve a solid
relationship
which
> would lead to their control or dominate
influence.
> Sadamned was a player switching sides to get what he
wanted, and was
> never even considered real ally material. The
political mindset
during
> the Cold war caused many mistakes to
be made, however we couldn't do
> nothing. It is a little Yin/Yang
that luckily never ended in
Communist
> domination or nucleur
winter.
>
> > The geopolitical situation at the time was
that the United States
was
> concerned more about the spread of a
fundamentalist Shiite revolution
> from Iran than the growing power
of the brutal dictator, Saddam
> Hussein. In point of fact, Saddam
Hussein, was much more c! losely
allied
> to Russia than Iran had
ever been.<
>
> Who are they playing footsy with now? Like I
said, they played both
> sides. Just look at Irans military hardware
history.
> Stuntman
>
> > Stuntman wrote:
>
> The US has been actively involved in addressing this issue. It is
> > within our best interests to get China to put him in check.
After
all
> > Sadamned WAS our problem, we helped him (for a
brief period) when
he
> > was fighting a war with Iran (due to
influnces of the cold war). N.
> > Korea IS China's problem
because they helped build them up during
and
> > after the
Korean conflict (part of the cold war).
> > A lot of "Hot Spots"
all over the globe are remanents of the Cold
War.
> > Now that
it looks like those planes in Russia were acts of
Terrorism,
>
> they will become active partners in cleaning up a! ll the messes
> > created during almost half a century of cold war
activities.
> > Big question!
> > If the treaty of
Versilles had been enforced, would there have been
a
> > cold
war?
> > Lots of little pieces to this puzzle.
> >
Stuntman
>
>
>
--
It's not the fall that
hurts.
|
