In my neighborhood there is a little grocery store. We use it everyday for our necessities. The owner is nice enough. The employees are nice enough. We get along. The prices are acceptable.
One day, I see a group of club wielding thugs walk towards the store with the intent of killing the owner and taking over the store.
I personally have the sneaking suspicion that if the thugs take over, my prices will raise, not to mention the fact that the thugs are thugs, and if they own the store, their thuggery will probably simply escalate now that it has a better means of financing itself. Also, I never hated the original store owners. We got along. They were acceptable neighbors.
So, the big question is whether or not me and my friends and our AK-47s feel like stepping in and confronting the club wielding thugs.
Personally, I would hope that I would step in...especially when you consider that once the thugs are better financed, they probably will also buy AK-47s and stopping them will become much more difficult.
I'm glad Saddam is gone. I have only praise for both Bush and Bush Sr. in this regard.
How about to defend an ally (Kuwait)? Also, how about to defend our oil interests? Those are two very important reasons to go into Iraq the first time, as well as the second time.
What would the economy of the USA been like over the past 10 years if Saddam had control of the oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? He would have jacked the price up, forcing us into $3/gallon a decade ago. As it is, most of us grouse at paying above $1.50/gal right now. It would have stifled our economy, and enriched someone known to slaughter his enemies (foreign and domestic) WITH WMDs, and also spends money on many terrorist groups.
I think we were well within reason to defend and ally and also our national security in both efforts.
Gary
John W. Redelfs wrote:
Jim Cobabe wrote: >John, what say you about this OSC editorial on Bush and Iraq? > >http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-01-25-1.html
Orson Scott Card says that the war in Iraq is justified as an extension of the first Gulf War even if there were no weapons of mass destruction. I
say that the first Gulf War was not justified because it was not on our
own
soil. I don't believe in invading foreign countries on a pretext. --JWR
Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-- Jonathan Scott
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
