-Caveat Lector- >> The "right thing to do"? Please explain how invading and occupying a >> sovereign nation while knowing full well that said nation posed absolutely >> no threat to any other nation; simultaneously alienating our allies and >> further infuriating our enemies, resulting in *increased* likelihood of >> terrorist acts; using highly toxic weaponry that endangers the long term >> health of our own soldiers and contaminates the occupied land; causing the >> deaths within the first year of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and >> almost 600 (and growing) of our own troops; all on premises that were >> outright lies the "right thing to do"?
I will explain: First, you are right. Iraq was not a threat. The problem was that Iraq's government was. The insinuation that Saddam Hussein was not a threat is absurd. If Saddam Hussein was so non-threatening, the why did the UN feel the need to pass 71 (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html) resolutions to condemn and contain, and control him and his cronies, including resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein give up his WMD programs? Second, the very same US military personnel and Iraqi civilians you are so eager to defend were already suffering. Yes, no US military personnel died as a result of combat during the containment, however dozens of them died preparing for and supporting that mission and dozens more died as a result of terrorism directly linked to our presence there. And, it was just a matter of time before there were combat deaths. Never mind the hardships endured by the personnel that were deployed over there for six, twelve, even 24 months at a time supporting containment. During that same period, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians were murdered by their own government at the rate of as many as 30,000 a year conservatively. Tens of thousands more died as a direct result of the UN's policy of containment. My question is: how was our toppling of Saddam Hussein the wrong thing to do? >> And it was done while brazenly LYING to the American people in order to >> keep them sufficiently terrified to support this madness. Yes, George W. >> Bush is a TERRORIST, as terror is exactly what he visits upon his own >> subjects in order to keep them in line My next question is: are you afraid? If so, why are you doing nothing about it? It strikes me as absurd that anyone would claim that Americans are afraid or intimidated of anything. We have a well-established track record of taking matters into our own hands when we think our government is treating us wrongly from our own Revolution, to the Civil War, to the Equal Rights movement. Modern times would be no acceptation. And what terror? Where is it? What is it? How is it being done without a nationalist outcry to end it? Please back up your statements with facts. >> I'm afraid history won't look very kindly on this sad chapter. THIS, my >> friend, is an unending situation, and it's most certainly NOT better [than >> containment]. At least w/ containment/sanctions we weren't losing 2 >> American lives a day over there, we weren't hemorrhaging our own economy to >> fund it, we weren't pissing off the entirety of the rest of the world >> (just, you know, *most* of it) and our bombs were killing far fewer >> innocent Iraqi civilians. History is a very fickle beast to be predicting what it will and will not do. You will not look kindly on this chapter in our history, I am sure, but we will no know history's take until it is written. Based upon what I have read so far, the split is 50-50. And how is this and unending situation? We've been in Iraq less than a year. What makes that unending? Again, facts please. >> Since Bush LIED us into >> a war that only he and his buddies actually wanted, a rather strong case >> could be made that he deliberately misused our nation's military. Last I >> checked, that was a crime. In fact, it's impeachable. Then I must be buddies with the president as well as everyone I deployed with, because we were all volunteers who went knowing the potential before we went. In fact, about 3 million of us must be buddies with the president because we do not see mass desertions from our military as a result of our actions in Iraq. In fact, the president enjoys popular support among the members of the US military. As for deliberate misuse, how is our current president's use any better or worse than any other presidents? Where you opposed to Bosnia and Kosovo? Where you opposed to Somolia? If these actions are impeachable, then practically every president we have ever had should be impeached for misusing the military. The bottom line is that protecting the interests of our nation is always the right thing to do. That is why we have a nation as strong and as free as the one we have now. And those of us who understand such things will keep on protecting those interests as long as we can. Dennis L Hitzeman www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
