"ad hominem" is not out of place. You don't plan your foreign policy based on
what a stinker some foreign head of government/state is. You'd have to invade
Canada and Britain if that were the case....
Jon Spencer wrote:
> "Ad hominem" is an odd thing to put in here, and it is put in incorrectly, I
> might add.
> But it appears to me that you chose to let things go until they get out of
> hand, assuring us that they will not. I chose to support the view that they
> are already out of hand and will get much worse.
> Saddam's character has been clearly shown in both his personal (child
> molestation), his internal (killing MILLIONS of innocent people, 150,000+ by
> WOMM) and his external (Iran, Kuwait, US, others) activities.
> It's a judgment call. We have made different judgments. It is our
> responsibility to handle things in the temporal world, to protect the
> innocent, wherever they may be.
> You appear to focus on Saddam. I chose to focus on his millions of victims.
> We just have different points of view. Neither of us can predict which
> course of action will have the most negative consequences, or the most
> positive. However, from my perspective, the opportunities for a good
> outcome are far greater if we chose to protect both ourselves and others.
> The possibilities from this vantage point are (1) a freer Iraq, far fewer
> people killed in the next 5 years, and (3) elimination of the very viable
> threat to not only the US, but the entire world.
> Al Quaeda will do whatever it wants to do, regardless of what we do, unless
> what we do is to (1) remove their state sponsors and (2) track them down.
> (1) says that we must remove the Taliban from Afghanistan first [done], take
> out Saddam next [in process], and then see what else must be done.
> You cannot expect to enjoy your freedoms, when there are others, quite well
> motivated by Satan as well as by the natural man, who see YOU as both (1) a
> threat to their plans to control people, and (2) a target.
> I think that there are many individual statements in this post that you
> would concur with, as well as statements by me that you may think are
> mischaracterizations of your position. I understand that you simply chose
> to interpret the world in a different manner.
> The purpose of this post is to try to state from a high level what my
> perspective is.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [ZION] Elder Nelson misquoted
> First of all, I do not oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein from power --
> every bit the tyrant that people say he is. What I oppose is a foreign
> country, a
> superpower who think they have a mandate to police the world, deciding whom
> take out and who to leave in charge (if Hussein, why not al-Assad and
> as I keep asking).
> Secondly, the comments about Bush were *in response* to your ad hominem
> attack on
> Saddam. Again, the point is, I'm sure what you say about Saddam is right.
> that's not the point. It's what should be done about it that's the point.
> /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
> /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and
falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authorís employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: email@example.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!