Well reasoned and fairly said, Bob. keith whaley
Bob Blakely wrote: > > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [skip] > > I think he's an idiot, > > It's one thing to preach this nonsense to your party zealots for which you > no doubt receive much acclaim, but believing their own propaganda is what > cost your party power, especially in the last congressional elections. I > generally welcome such rhetoric as it exposes the the left for who they > really are. > > > think he's been an unmitigated disaster for the country since the day > after > > the last election, > > The "unmitigated disaster" is the result of an internal rot that fermented > during the previous administration. What, you think Enron, Anderson, > Worldcom, etc. suddenly started up just after GWB took office? Not according > to their testimony! It was all glitter and gloss until the house of cards > fell apart and was discovered during the initial months of this > administration. Speaking of glitter and gloss, how 'bout that agreement > President Clinton made with the North Koreans, eh? > > > If Bush were not President your son would not be in imminent peril of > > combat, since Bush and the members of his administration are the main > > instigators of this action in the first place. > > This ex military man worried about combat and so does my son. Nevertheless, > this was my job and today it is my son's. We both agree that this is the > right thing to do. Your assertion that "Bush and the members of his > administration are the main instigators of this action" is false on it's > face. Saddam is the instigator of this action. In the last action against > him, there were terms of surrender. Saddam agreed to them, the hostilities > ceased. Since Saddam has violated and failed to comply with nearly all (if > not all) of the terms of surrender, this is actually a continuation of the > same action. Saddam is the person responsible for his current predicament > and the peril of his people. My son and I both agree that it's time someone > has the balls to step up to the plate before the man becomes even more > dangerous. During WWII, waiting for Hitler to occupy France and lob V1's and > V2's into Britain was not good policy. In those days, there were people like > you delaying our entry into the war. That delay is to our shame. > > > Europe doesn't support it, > > Really, Contrary to your current view, France and Germany do NOT constitute > all of Europe. Britain, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Rumania, Italy, The Czech > Republic, Denmark - almost all of Eastern Europe support this action. Get > yourself a more current map of Europe and update your education. > > > the U.N. doesn't support it > > The UN has made no such decision. They haven't had enough meetings yet to > come to no decision. > > > it's not a response to the attack on the WTC, > > Nobody says it is. This is simply the job that the UN (and last president) > should have done long before this. > > > the American people don't understand the need for it, > > The polls say otherwise. I know you think that your view of the world is the > only correct one and that since you probably hobnob mostly with people of > like mind, you think most folks think like you. Your view is therefore > provincial. > > > and Bush and Rumsfeld won't tell us why want to do it. > > They have said why. Over and over they've said why. I assume that what you > actually mean is that you don't agree that what they have said is sufficient > for you. > > > > So they're about to blow the crap out of Baghdad. How the hell should I > know > > why they're doing it? Oil? Politics? Warmongering? Too much > saber-rattling > > to back down now? > > It's about oil and stability in the entire Middle East. Oil is the fuel of > the economies of every developed nation on the face of this planet. We don't > want it to possess it, we are most comfortable with many nations owning and > trading it. We will not allow a sociopath with power to dominate the Middle > East and hold the world hostage. About oil? Damn right! That was Saddam's > motive for attacking Iran. It was his motive for attacking Kuwait, and he > made no secret of the fact that Kuwait was his stepping stone to Saudi > Arabia. This is a man who rallies his people by saying that he has seen > himself riding in victory through the gates of Jerusalem and has, in fact, > sent rockets into Israeli cities. Now consider Israel. Jane's books on the > worlds military estimated some years back that Israel possessed > approximately 200 nuclear weapons. We don't need some madman rallying his > cause by attacking them again, especially with gas or biologics. If you > think Israel will allow themselves to be pushed into the sea, your a fool. > If you think we want any chance of nuclear weapons flying in that area in > anyone's future, your an even bigger fool. > > Of course we could just send over a diplomat to get another agreement > concerning this with Saddam. Perhaps we could speed things along by using > the Clinton administration's treaty with North Korea as a framework. Surely > Saddam's record indicates that we wouldn't have any problems similar to the > ones we're experiencing with North Korea, eh? > > > Christ, I have no idea. > > Then maybe you should do something to end this ignorance. > > > But whatever the reason is, they're the twits who are putting your son and > his friends in peril, not me. > > There is a peril we signed up for and accept. There is another peril we > never signed up for and should never have to endure that comes from the > hands of well meaning, but unwise fools. The first mission of the US > military is to deter war through it's very presence. Failing that, the > secondary mission of the military is to win the war. Right now, the presence > of the military is an attempt at the first mission. If you participate in > undermining the effectiveness of this presence by doing things that give aid > or comfort to Saddam so that he thinks he can avoid the conditions of his > surrender, you work against this first mission. This subverts the primary > mission and is a peril we did not sign up for. If war happens, similar aid > or comfort will lead Saddam and his troops to believe that hanging on until > we are unwilling to continue is a good strategy. Such subversion will > ultimately cost more lives on both sides. Needless to say, we did not sign > up for this peril either. These lessons are from history. Read some. > > > I have nothing to do with any of it. > > I certainly hope not, but your rhetoric is all to familiar.
