From: derekbill@allsummerlong.com
In article <9Wsjd.20268$KJ6.13042@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Greg Heilers wrote:
> Derek A. Bill wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Today its Democracy we're bringing to Muslims. Iraq is a land of tribes
> > artifically linked by 1920s British colonialist mindset, and held
> > together by totalitarianist dictators. Now that we've removed the man
> > who held the 'country' together, it's falling apart. Hussein once said
> > "they will need six presidents to rule Iraq when i am gone" and his
> > words are gaining credibility as we watch the various factions fight
> > over the territory. It's like Yugoslavia and Tito devolving into
> > Bosnia, Slovenia, Serbia, etc. But at least our efforts there resulted
> > in no loss of American life.
>
> Personally, I would rather see them fighting in *their* territory, as
> opposed to other continents. Like you have suggested, their infighting is
> bred into them.
>
> > Meanwhile, closer to home, people who would never vote for a candidate
> > supporting abortion rights will vote for a President who bombs pregnant
> > women. Are those unborn any less innocent than our own? And we defend
> > (when we even bother to acknowledge) our actions by claiming our intent
> > isn't the same. At least with Hiroshima we were killing people whose
> > leader had started a war with us.
>
> That is an analogy I can not accept. Are you suggesting that if Japan,
> Germany, Italy, et al, had *not* gone through the "bookkeeping" procedure
> of officially declaring war on us....then it would have been proper to
> *ignore* what they were doing in the world, and *not* fight them?
When did Iraq declare war on us, formally or otherwise?
And how the hell can you compare Hussein to Hitler? They may have both
done horrible things to their own people, but unlike Hitler, we had
Hussein in a box. A little box, and he wasn't going anywhere.
We built lots of planes and tanks and lent them to Britain, saving
their asses. In the few months before Pearl Harbor, the Luftwaffe had
given up on air superiority, and in the East Hitler had just bit off
Russia and was suffering from horrible indigestion. Stalin creamed him
faster than we did.
Hitler sank our ships on the way to Britain, giving us a reason for war
if we'd chosen to go sooner, but FDR was wise enough to get our
production and troop levels up before we jumped in.
As for Japan, in a great convergence of science and the supernatural,
those nuts thought they were both genetically superior AND divinely
entitled to rule us. We did not have them in a box, either.
I'm not antiwar. I'm more of a TR kind of guy, with the stick and the
walking softly, the Godless coinage, the environmentalism, and a stout
federal interest in the purity of commerce. In other words, a more
traditional conservative Republican than that shithead now occupying
the White House.
>
> > The man had designs on Iraq in 1999
> > and has used 9/11 to justify spending our blood and our treasure on
> > trying to drag people into a world they don't want to live in.
>
> Actually, earlier than that. And in 1998, such "designs" became official
> U.S. government policy, as passed by Congress, and signed by Mr. Clinton.
> (And I give credit to Mr. Clinton for doing so.)
There's a difference between an official assasination or overthrow of
an existing government on one hand, and an invasion and occupation on
the other. And lets not forget that during the 2000 Presidential
debates (which when viewed now are at once comical, ironic, and tragic)
Bush came out firmly against 'nation-building'.
> And as far as worlds one does not want to live in...what about the "world"
> that Mr. Kerry espoused, where the E.U., and U.N., are apparently given a
> strong input into our own foreign policy? That is a world that *I* do not
> wish to live in.
You mean the 'global test'? That's not a veto, or even a vote...it's an
input. It's a dialogue. And if you listen to that part of the debate,
Kerry clearly stated that it was the American public that had the first
and last say on what we did.
In other words, the phrase 'global test' meant globally as in 'listen
to everyone inside and outside the US' and 'test' as in 'trial', not
pass or fail.
He followed up in the same monologue with 'no American president has
let our foreign policy be dictated from abroad, and neither would I".
Those of us who get our coverage from a non-Fox source have had a
chance to see that segment over and over again.
>
> > I was wrong about the outcome of this election because I believed the exit
> > polls which showed a Kerry victory, forgetting that, once again,
> > casting a ballot and having it counted are two different things.
>
> That is because the problem lies with the "exit polls" and *not* with
> the vote counting. I personally, was "exit polled". One of the questions
> was whether or not I thought things were going well in Iraq. (for the
> record, I think they are, when taken in historical context). But, the
> pollsters assume that if one thinks things are going "poorly", then that
> automatically means lack of support for Mr. Bush. On the contrary, many
> of us feel, that if things are defined as going "poorly", then it is
> more likely because of people like Mr. Kerry, Mr. Daschle, Michael Moore,
> George Soros, ActUp, MoveOn.org., etc., who are doing everything they can
> to sabotage the policies of our Administration. The same goes for the
> economy. I think there is definitely room for improvement in the economy.
> But I want the improvement to come from the Republicans. I have had more
> personal "prosperity" in the last four years, as well as in the 1980's,
> than I *ever* had in the mid to late 1990's. I would love to see Rep.
> Linder's "Fair Tax" given serious consideration.
Were you asked for whom you voted? That's the only question i'm
referring to. The others are interesting, but not intended to be
conclusive in predicting the outcome.
Sabotage? As in speaking out in opposition? Bush's policies are failing
because they suck, not because we say they suck. You're giving the
spectators credit for what's going on down on the field, good and bad.
Do you think those of us who think he's an idiot are talking ourselves
into failure in Iraq? Abu Ghraib, Al Qaqaa, they're beyond our
influence. The man makes his own mistakes, without our help or
opposition. Besides, he's gotten his way 99% of the time. We've given
him the rope and he's hanging us out to dry.
That's the great thing about his election. If we fail in Iraq, it will
be Bush's fault and only Bush's fault. It won't be the fault of the UN
or the Democrats or France or gays.
He broke it, and now we're buying it with our blood and money. Not just
the money of those who support the war....everyone's money. And the
blood of those with the least to gain from the whole mess.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
