----- Original Message -----
From: Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:07:00 -0400
Subject: RE: OReilly vs. Moore
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I never said that and never implied it. I continuously
>list multiple reasons for the war. People like you
>keep focusing on one item and say stupid things like
>Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11 so the war was not
>justified.
I never said Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11. I challenge you produce the
text where I wrote that.
>There wasn't one specific reason for the war; there
>was a long list of reasons.
Sam, I understand your reasons for going to war. Not once did I say there
were not legitimate. I will repeat..a lot of the reasons you list for
going to war, I see them as legitimate issues. Here is a quote from my
earlier emails,
"Please consider that I do not consider these invalid reasons to go to
war. These are actually pretty good reasons."
I have never questioned you on your reasoning for supporting the war,
never. I have a very difficult time how this fact escapes you. Many of my
responses have made this clear.
> > Please consider that I do not consider these
> > invalid reasons to go
> > to war. These are actually pretty good reasons.
> > But it doesn't mean we
> > should have and it doesn't mean war was the only
> > option.
> >
>Those are pretty good reasons to go to war but that
>doesn't mean we should?
>OK, what's on your list of things we should have done
>before going to war?
How about what we did with Japan or S Korea. We move in and get the IMF to
pump money into Iraq. We build a democratic state as a foothold in the
Middle East. Any investments into Iraq could be paid off with Oil at a
latter date. I have no idea if this is the best option, but my point isn't
that you have not fully investigates other possible avenues. Why do I
think that, because despite my challenges you have failed to respond "I
thought perhaps this move could have worked." Or "Although I thought his
move should have been explored before military operations." Or how about a
"I can't blame them for going into Iraq but I think they should have tried
this first." If you said that, then all would be simple. I would have
said, "Sam, you make a insightful point and I stand corrected. You are not
a war monger" Of course at this point any such statement would have some
credibility issues.
>I doubt it because you don't want to listen. You're
>convinced I love going to war at the drop of a hat and
>no matter what I say won't change that.
Why haven't I listened? Some of your comments have been digested and I
think some of them make a lot of sense. Again, I do think that some of the
things you mentioned are grounds for a military operation. But I'm not
convinced you love going to war at a drop of a hat. You convinced me of
such. Despite my challenge you have failed to provide a possible solution
other then war.
Sam,
There is actually a few more illogical statements on your part but I'm too
tired to discuss them since they are more of a result of poor reading
comprehension and not the issues. You may not realize this, but to me you
are coming across like a blood thirsty war lord. I do realize that with
the majority of the list titled to the left that you are in the unenviable
position of being outnumbered. I attribute your poor writing terse answer
to that. But realize that I have not written that facts you provide are
false. I'm just challenging you to consider possible other
options. Remember correct data but poor analysis can happen. Considering
other options in no way diminishes support for military
action.________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
