Colin Britto <goanet@goanet.org> wrote: > The comments below are of the type "if you are against American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, then you are pro Saddam and Taliban". > > This is a very simplistic evaluation of world events. The author swallows the "with us or against us" and other facets of the doctrine of the Bush administration without any critical thought whatsoever.
> They fail to grasp this basic fact: Being against the US intervention in Iraq does not mean a pro-Saddam stance. Mario replies: Colin, what I have grasped is that you like to keep repeating yourself (see above) without feeling any need to explain your reasoning or provide any specifics. I looked in vain for YOUR critical thoughts on the Bush doctrine on confronting terrorism and supporting democratic movements with the long term expectation that spreading freedom and democracy will enhance world peace. I do believe that if you do not support us you are against us in the war against worldwide terrorism. Since you think this is so "simplistic", would you PLEASE give us your "sophisticated" opinion of how you can be against the US stand against terrorism without giving aid and comfort to our enemy - and yours as well as you will find out if you ever cross paths with them. The terrorists are psychologically sustained and feed on the opposition to the US of people like you. Are you even aware that it was Al Qaeda that first declared "war" against the US at the height of Bill Clinton's appeasement oriented administration? Are you aware that Clinton's failure to respond to the series of attacks from WTC-I to Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Uganda, Somalia and Yemen only emboldened them leading directly to WTC-II on 9/11. Do you even remember Osama calling himself the "strong horse" and the US a "weak horse"? No sign of the self-declared "strong horse" for several years now, just some audio and video tapes encouraging others to die, while he hides in some hole in the ground. All this was before Bush became president. Are you even aware that Saddam had violated 17 UN resolutions over 12 long years, was brutalizing his own people and looting the oil-for-food program, before Bush decided enough was enough? Shouldn't he have been removed just for this stuff, with no regard to any WMDs? Colin writes: > It is also rather amusing (and sad) that the author keeps hoping for WMD to be found in Iraq. Ignoring facts does not make them go away. Mario replies: When you finish laughing would you like to tell us what facts I am ignoring? Would you venture a guess as to how WMDs can disappear without a trace? Did you even know that Iraq had WMDs and had used these against Iran and the Kurds? Also, while you are at it, would you explain to us why, if Saddam had no WMDs, that he was unable to show this to the UN inspectors, which would have lifted the sanctions, and he could have gone on with his cushy dictatorship, mass graves and rape rooms, looting the Iraqi treasury, and you could have gone back to your sophisticated views of the world without a care fo all the Shia and Kurds that were being brutalized. >
