>>What's flawed about your argument is that you assume that because I said
hooray for a dead or deposed Saddam and an end to his acts, that I
supported decisions NOT to do this sooner. Let's not forget the noise Bush
senior's opponents made near the end of the first Gulf War when speculation
began about whether or not to go after Saddam. He knuckled. Too bad.<<
Yeah he knuckled, hence the mass graves baby!
>>But I have no interest in defending past wrongs, only in perpetuating
Wow! that's convienient for you.
>>You rightly but I'd guess flippantly <<
Why is it flippant?
>>toss out Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma and I'd add a few more African
countries suffering awfully. So, I'm puzzled. Your argument is that
because I think fewer mass graves will be perpetuated in Iraq now -- and
that that isa good thing -- that I must not support some type of action
against similarly corrupt regimes? <<
I'm sure you as I DO support action against these regimes, but AS I SAID in
my last email it's no gonna happne baby, 'cos there is nothing to gain from
it, monetarily. If the US attack Iraq I'll apologize to you, i'll grovel1
but unfortunaltely N. Korea actually poses a threat to the US, -unlike
Iraq, invaded for no good reason.
>>Not only do you invoke the actions of other senates and other
administrations (I could as well ask why it is not pre-emptive when Clinton
lobs patriot missiles into foreign countries without so much as a peep from
his constituents or his party), but you assume I think that two wrongs
deserve a third.<<
I'm not supporting clinton am I?
>>And Afghanistan? At least allow that such things take time, much less
time than France has spent in Ivory Coast . . . but more than a year.<<
Afganistan has been more than a year.
>>Besides, had they turned over one man, they could have continued to
"prosper" under your utopian view of their former conditions. <<
My view? What's that? Did i mention that? Blair said that if Saddam gave
up his WMD he could continue to rule; now he can't find the WMD he claims
regime change was the key, that is just PLAIN dishonesty. 1+1 =3 ???
>>>I'm sure women being allowed to go to school ranks as a lightweight
accomplishemnt that followed. And again, I don't care that this was not a
primary motivator of our forces.<<<
Where in ?Afganistan? I think your attention span is as short as the
media's. women still wear the buruka, and not many gone to school baby!
>>>Finally, war is always an evil act;<<<<
I thought your point is that it sometimes is good?
>>> unfortunatly it is sometimes the lesser of two. Placating Afghanistan
or Saddam, be it by "containment" or by financial support, cost far more
lives than did action. Again, when the body count for your solution is
higher than mine, <<<
says who? The Brits interefered with the middle eat before and created
saddam , The US created Osama bin laden, yopu are looking at the small
picture, I'm looking at the bigger picture.
>>>I'm left baffled at your maintenance of your position. <<<
me at yours!
>>>The only "ends justifying the means" going on here must be by people
other than me. Our inteligence capabilities will be and certainly are
suspect for their inability to readily produce the damning WMDs; but once I
found out about Saddam's using chemical weapons on the Kurds as test
subjects, I wanted him dead.<<<
Oh yeah? Why didn't you want the Us government dead then? Poppy Bush
supported him when he did it? Seems a little 2 faced to me baby!
>>>Your support for inaction -- and "containment" is just such a non-action
-- allows such a man to prosper, to do it again should he wish. If he can
hide chemical plants in semi trailers, he can hide genocide.<<<
what does this mean?I wanted Saddam gone in 1988, how about you? Or do
yoyu just follow the news that the pentagon feeds you? I want N. korea
invaded now, how about you? I wnt Zimbabwae sorted uot now, how about you?
I want israel to Obey Un mandates how about you?
>>>I'm absolutely baffled that anyone can not simply breathe a sigh of
relief on his ousting, and acknowledge that while war is not good, good may
prosper more freely now for millions. <<<<
We'll see about that, won't we? it's not a forgone conclusion, look at
>>>Angry about the possible myth of WMDs? Fine; attack. Angry about our
inaction regarding other countries? Ditto. But you're never going to get
consistency from constantly changing administrations in a constantly
Well, that's alright then isn't it, democracy saves the day!
>>>And, of course, something tells me that should the US set military
sights on Zimbabwe or North Korea, you'd be loud among the detractors.
Let's not be disingenuous, shall we?<<<
But i'll bet you whatever yuo want that they won't! they got what they
wanted now, why bother to attack a poor african country? I'll apologize if
they do but tell me mate, will you apologize if they don't?
$B<+Bp$N (B PC $B$G1Q8lNO$r%"%C%W (B MSN $B1Q2qOC (B http://englishtown.msn.co.jp/