> > >> But on that topic, I think that instead of going in for vengeance, he >> should have gone into Afghanistan for the Taliban's Human rights >> violations. > >So, once again we are the world's police? I personally don't think we >should go around and >try to fix every injustice in the world with our military. If we have a >reason to be there, IE national security, then we should be there.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the US, which is the biggest military power, acts arbitrarily and unilaterally, and suffers the consequences, or it acts with the UN. Besides why not champion the cause of human rights and democracy. Its a hell of a lot more noble than he tried to kill my daddy. Moreover it provides a very sharp contrast to our enemies and provides a very strong propaganda counterpoint. From what I understand, radical islamicist groups are having a recruiting heyday right now. Because of our support of petty and brutal dictatorships, like Egypt for example, we are making it very easy for Al Quaeda to replenish its forces > > >> >> I am still trying to figure out why he is gearing up for a Vietnam >> style confrontation with Iraq, except that Hussein went after Daddy. >> Any confrontation with Iraq is a complete distraction from the war on >> terrorism. > >He's obviously a problem. Even Hans Blix says he is not be forthright. >We're feeding the >UN our intelligence and letting the inspectors do their job. If, and when >they find the shit that is supposedly missing and find evidence of a nuclear >weapons program, then we cream him, simple. But is it national security? He has no delivery system that can reach the US, what missiles Iraq does have are short range. Even the heavy mods to the Scuds increased their range to around 600 miles, barely. > > > >Moreover that has been no evidence that Iraq has supported >> or supplied any terrorist group anything resembling biological or >> chemical warfare agents. for instance the recent reports of Iraq >> supplying groups linked to Al Quaeda with nerve gas turned out to be >> a propaganda attempt by the Bush White House. The Washington Post's >> ombudsman had a very good piece detailing how the Post got conned by >> administration aides >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20351-2002Dec20.html. >> another example is Rumsfeld's setting up a special office to find >> evidence (real or manufactured) of links between the Iraq >> dictatorship. This despite the fact that the DIA, CIA and allied >> intelligence agencies have not found anything so far. Even the >> vaunted meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi embassy official >> in the Czech Republic a year before Sept 11/2001 has turned out to be >> false. >> > >Like I said lets wait and see what the UN says. I personally am a little >more worried about the North Koreans, but there should be a good >international backing to keep them in check. So then its OK for our government to lie to us in order to build support for military adventurism. I thought that issue was resolved in the 70's with the various CIA and DIA scandals and their subsequent congressional hearings. > > >> One thing I have also never understood is how the Republicans can >> claim that the Democratic Party is the fiscally irresponsible party, >> when the national debt has only increased under republican >> presidents and has decreased under Democratic ones, going as far back >> as Johnson in the early 60's. Under Johnson, Carter and Clinton, the >> debit was reduced, while under Ronnie Raygun, Bush Senior and now >> Shrub, the deficit has skyrocketed. Instead of paying down the debt, >> which would have resulted in far more resources being added to the >> national economy, he's going for making the tax cuts permanent, and >> letting the nation be further burdened. Yet at the same time there >> are a series of sweetheart deals and tax breaks to the oil, gas and >> coal industries that's almost obscene. Where is the logic in this? >> > >Larry, I will agree with you that we have a budget problem. However you >can't lay that blame squarely on either party. They are both at fault. I >don't think either party knows how to handle spending properly. Who has been pushing for the tax cuts and making them permanent? Seems to me that the record speaks for itself. I am very interested in seeing which groups get the biggest tax breaks and government handouts over the next while. Then correlating that information with political contributions. -- Larry C. Lyons | email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | To reply remove the NOSPAM from the above address. | Home Page: http://www.lyonsmorris.com My opinions alone, no one else will take responsibility for them. ======================================================== Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts. ======================================================== Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
