I wrote this in November, 2008: VT has a rabid, loyal and loving fan base of one poor misquided fool who is full of himself for no apparent reason. But consistently.
On Nov 20, 3:49 pm, VT Sean Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is from BEFORE THE FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED! > > I wrote this in February 2003..... > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:02 PM > Subject: One Man's Humble Opinion > > Preface, here are a series of email comments posted on the Internet in > regard to current political and global events. > > It seems we have two types of law. One for domestic matters and one > for international matters. As a country we need congruence in how we > handle events of these types. The American people are use to one type > of justice. This justice is based on cause and effect, action and > reaction. The action the President wants to take is proactive. In a > country where you are innocent before you are proven guilty, there is > no connect. > > VT > > The offer of exile looks good on paper. For a dictator of a country > with enemies on all sides, he may see this as a death sentence. Listen > I was downtown September 11. I watched the planes hit the towers from > my conference room 2 blocks away. Viewing this act of terrorism from > this vantage point creates a desire for revenge. I just want to think > things through several moves ahead. I don't want to find this country > painted into a corner by a foreign policy or military action that > leaves us alone with no allies and a larger threat of terrorism than > before. This action could united the Arab world against us. Our > borders are too large to fence. > > VT > > War as a cavalier solution should not be taken lightly. We can conquer > Iraq quickly. That should not be a problem. We will kill Saddam. That > is a given. Now the dangerous part. > > We will have an occupying army in a US hostile part of the world. We > will either be supported or unsupported by our allies. If we are > supported the costs to the United States will not be a great and the > logistics for war and occupation easier. Without support it will be > much more difficult. Our troops will also be exposed to constant > danger to ambush. There will be high casualties from this. It will > come from many terrorists sources. > > While we are saber rattling it gave the Iraqis time to slip their own > terror cells into our country. Don't kid yourselves, they are here. > The President gave them plenty of advance warning. So now we have > Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaeda terror cells in the US. The seratin found in > England was probably distributed through out the NATO countries and > the United States. Upon our attack it will probably be released. > > While the war is going on it will be expensive to finance. So we will > have to issue Treasuries to pay for the expense. The last treasury > auction went badly. We had to offer the notes at discount prices. The > yields had to be higher so that the bonds would be bought. During this > war interest rates for bonds will rise to finance the war. this will > cause interest rates for all loans rise. The cost to use money will > rise. The recovery will be postponed. The deficit will be a huge > burden for years to come. This is not the same scenario as the last > Iraq war. > > This is just the tip of the iceberg. So before you say lets do this > and get it over with, just know what the cost of a war could be. > > I am for defending this country against all threats. I just understand > what that actually means. > > VT > > http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum/web/one-mans-humble-op... > > On Nov 20, 1:39 pm, Zebnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > let others who know what they are doing > > > You mean you cowardly, limp-wristed, fifth column, anti-American, > > adolescent lib/Dems? ROTFLMAO!!!! > > > On Nov 20, 4:27 pm, VT Sean Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The Iranians are just one more example of a missed opportunity > > > cause by the errant war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq. > > > > Yet you myopic ignorant Bush Republicans can't see the damage > > > you caused with your 'enlightened' policies. > > > > You had your chance, you FUCKED EVERYTHING UP, > > > now shut the fuck up and let others who know what they are > > > doing fixed the huge fucking mess you guys created! > > > > On Nov 20, 1:19 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > an Iraqi-American alliance because a majority of Iraqi perfer us as > > > > allies to countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran... > > > > >http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sadr-takes-aim-at-new-us-iraq-agreement/2/ > > > > > >>> I think the fact that prominent Sadrist leader Hazim Aaraji said > > > > >>> they were shocked by the developments reflects the complexity of > > > > >>> Iran’s manipulation of Sadr and the SIIC by letting the latter > > > > >>> agree on the deal while encouraging the former to oppose it — a > > > > >>> miniature carrot-and-stick game. I doubt the Iranians are happy > > > > >>> with the agreement per se; they are only happy with their > > > > >>> self-proclaimed ability to play Iraqi Shiite parties against one > > > > >>> another. I would even say that Iranians are doing exactly what > > > > >>> diplomacy textbooks would instruct regarding presenting one’s own > > > > >>> chips. What they didn’t understand of the textbooks, though, is > > > > >>> that they also need to know how much the person across the table is > > > > >>> interested in those chips. In fact, Iran is overlooking the fact > > > > >>> that across the table sit more than America alone, when it comes to > > > > >>> the nuclear question. > > > > > What the Iranians don’t understand is that their carrots and sticks > > > > are not big enough to change world opinion on their nuclear ambitions. > > > > There is a multitude of states that couldn’t care less about American > > > > success in Iraq but to whom Iran’s going nuclear is a red line — the > > > > nuclear issue is not a U.S.-Iran duel on Iraqi soil. > > > > > Anyway, I think the Iraqi decision to accept the deal was a result of > > > > the tough stance of the American administration. This actually > > > > surprised Iraqis who were used to a softer American tone. Moreover, > > > > many parties in Baghdad have matured to deal pragmatically and > > > > realistically with the issue of a strategic partnership with America — > > > > America is the best ally we could possibly have. Even though Iran > > > > holds a few strings, most of the strings now are in more capable Iraqi > > > > hands backed by the mighty United States of America.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
