04
|
|
|
|
2003-04-01t17:59:00Z
| RE: Politics. I sent this email just a few minutes ago. It's about the War Monger v Peace Nik stuff going on. That's a pretty old joke: probably recycled from the 60s. The joke has B&W labeling that breaks up the world into warmongers and peaceniks. The issues are more complex than that. For many people, once you've taken a "side", the "answers" seem so clear and they do not examine much further. There is nothing so dangerous as someone who has "a handle on the truth". I was going to say that it's a high school level of justice but it's really more like a 6th grade level. If you examine the logic of punch is countered by bigger punch, then you have: punch... bigger punch... knife... gun... gang... etc. You need to break that stupid loop. Otherwise you have escalation and vigilante's taking things into their own hands. That's why we have things like police (societal consensus) and the UN (international consensus). Here are 2 similar jokes from the other side of the fence. Notice that they are not as crude. This first one is from the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html. This second one is long but even better: A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK By Anonymous PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq? WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions. PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq. WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY. PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons. WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue. PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons. WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to. PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we? WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer. PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer? WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait. PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait? WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two. PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him? WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act. PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel? WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq. PN: He did? WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq. PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition? WM: And a British intelligence report... PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper? WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs... PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings? WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors... PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix? WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security. PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point. PN: So what is the point? WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society. PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council? WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us. PN: And what if it does rule against us? WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq. PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that? WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters. PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars. WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing. PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war. WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions. PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important? WM: Yes. PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...- WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line. PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic? WM: I never said that. PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq? WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies. PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons. WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them. PN: You know this? How? WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for. PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean? WM: Precisely. PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years. WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded. PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade? WM: Exactly. PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire. WM: That's a diplomatic issue. PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy? WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions. PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions. WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security. PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security? WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won. PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live? WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq. PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq? WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences. PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen? WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations. PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations? WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council. PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council? WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council. PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council? WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto. PN: In which case? WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto. PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all? WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council. PN: That makes no sense. WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that. PN: I give up! -George --- Mike wrote: > This is great.......How to deal with liberal protestors...lol > > With all of this talk of war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who > will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the > ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support > terror. > > These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how > to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their > rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette: > > 1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a > conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. > > They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people > who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably > use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian. > > 2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the > nose. > > 3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and > they may try to hit you, so be careful. > > 4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about > more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. > > Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved > attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. > > Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are > saying. > > 5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct. > > 6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much > harder. Square in the nose. > > 7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot > realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making. > > 8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim > or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. > > It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. > We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our > children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. > > We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting > hit in the nose.
2003-04-10t21:03:00Z
| RE: Politics. So far the audience for my journal has been myself. However as I think about recent events, particularly the Iraq War, I find myself wanting to write my thoughts on the times for the sake of posterity. Perhaps my children or grandchildren will one day look at these notes. Perhaps it will give the stuff in the history books a more personal feel. I don't know how history will judge today's current events but I want a snapshot of how I see them right now. I was going to go back to 2001 September 11, the day terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Centers in New York and the Pentagon, but then I decided to go back to 2000 presidential election. I voted for Gore. Why? I had heard enough "Bushisms" to guess that Gore was the "smarter" man, or at least the one who could come across as polished and serious. The pro-Bush stance seemed to be based on character, but I didn't think that I could determine their characters from what I had observed. As far as who really won the election in Florida, I don't really know or care. It was just a close election that needed a better process. Since then, but before 9/11, I have disagreed with Bush on several issues: Bush abandoned the Kyoto Protocol on the environment instead of working something out. Bush abandoned the treaty for the International Criminal Court; US operative must have something to hide. Bush planned to "save" the trees by cutting them down; The forests are self-organizing system that needs less management not more. Bush bluntly withdrew from the ABM treaty. And most irritating of all: Bush tried to open up Alaska's ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) for the sake of oil. Then came September 11. I think that the diplomatic option was practically nil since we simply attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan as quickly as logistics allowed us to. However I think the US response was appropriate, since we knew exactly who did it. On the other hand I think any US President would have done exactly the same thing. I understand that the US had to present a resolute face to the world in response to terrorism. We were targeted, tested, and touched. Our response after the touching was another test. My opinion was that the US should have utilized the world sympathy and moral authority granted to us via 9/11 and vigorously hunted down the terrorists and terrorist infrastructure while fostering more international good will. We should not have done anything that would encourage current terrorists or the creation of more terrorists. However Bush went on to say "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." on 2001 September 16. That was stupid because that colored the situation as West v Islam, as opposed to civilization v criminals. Bush further went on to explicitly name Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as members of an Axis of Evil. You just don't make statement like that. On 2002 November 8, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441. 1441 basically states that Iraq has not documented disarmament satisfactorily and that it must do so along with inspections. This roughly 2,000 word document also included the following few word near the end of the document: "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;". No timetable is mentioned in the Resolution. The inspection process dragged on for several months. Bush and Blair of the UK emphasized that the process was not just several months but that Saddam Hussein had actually been delaying on disarmament for a decade. France, Russia, and China opposed action and wanted the inspections to continue. This is where the opinions throughout the US and the world split. Everyone agreed that Hussein was a brutal, villainous dictator who may possibly have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The conflict has been about what to do about it and when. For Bush too much time had already passed. Bush was massing forces for months before the US attack officially started on 2003 March 19. Bush had his own timetable. He was going to go in regardless of the UN's decisions. We'll never know if inspections would have worked, or if it didn't, if the UN would have eventually given the green light to use force against Hussein. I think it was a big mistake to go in without the UN. While ousting Hussein is a good thing, doing it without the UN again makes the situation seem more like the West v Islam instead of civilization v criminals. What was the big rush by Bush? He hasn't provided me with convincing reasons or proof yet. People therefore suspect things such as elections, oil, dad, imperialism. Was it to start the war before Congress had a chance to contemplate the bill? I wish Bush had provided more concrete reasons. It may turn out that Hussein did have WMD but it is so counter to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. For me, the opinion split about what to do and when has been the most hurtful. The US going in alone has globally has produced a "war hawk v peacenik" or "action v inaction" atmosphere, similar to that of the Vietnam war. This should have been a very clear cut war. Instead tribalism and the "us v them" attitude seems to be stronger all over the world. There has been goofy anti-French stuff such as renaming "French Fries" as "Freedom Fries", or how the French "owe" us for WWII. What's worse is everyone narrowing their eyes at the US since we forcibly manifested our pre-emptive force for peace policy, and that we will do it without UN restrictions. They have also seen that we are indeed a military super power. They must conclude that they would have a difficult time fighting conventional wars with us and will resort to WMD or non-conventional tactics (e.g. terrorism) which are cheaper and more effective against the US. I hope that Bush and his administration have learned from their mistakes. As of today the US has done a fine job of ousting Hussein. Civilian and military casualties were minimal on all sides. I'm sure Hussein harmed many more Iraqis during his reign than the US ever did. There is chaos and looting but I get the sense that the Iraqi's are happy to see Hussein go. So far the US seems to be setting the path for a free Iraq, with free press, real elections, ownership of their oil. The sooner we help them help themselves and then leave, the more proper and justified this war will seem. Still it seems odd that we spent $75B to war with Iraq, but will only spend $3.5B to rebuild it. We'll also see if the US will have greater influence on OPEC and the price of oil, and whether the US dollar will retain power over the European euro when it comes to oil. This does make me think about all the wrongs in the world that are allowed to remain in the status quo. Will we do anything about the warlords in Africa? The nuclear nut in North Korea? Is this a Spiderman case of "with great power comes great responsibility"? What do we do as a superpower? I hope that we do more good but preferably with the UN whenever possible. I hope that we prefer diplomatic and economic solutions over military ones. I also hope that public opinion will prevent us from abusing this power.
2003-04-18t15:24:00Z
| RE: Family. There are certain days I wish I could retain in my memory and Tuesday was one of them. From the forecasts I knew that the next several days would be cold and wet, but that providence was sneaking in a summer day just before all that dreariness. So when I got off from work I rushed home and quickly suggested that we go to the beach. The kids were, of course, ecstatic. Julia unfortunately had to go to a reunion with her old co-workers at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. However I felt it would be much better to be at the beach with the kids, than just watching TV with the kids. There were nothing but everything special about our afternoon at the beach. I biked there with the kids in tow in the trailer. Connie was singing. York did an occasional "Look at that". I was trying to point out interesting things along the way like a tree bursting into full bloom, or a bus-long speed boat on a trailer in the middle of the street. As we got closer and closer there were more people buzzing around biking, jogging, walking, running, roller-blading, and so forth. When we got to the beach, I locked up the bike, took off the kids socks and shoes, guided them across the walkway, unfolded our weaved blanket, and cut loose. Then it was a mix of digging up sand, collecting stones, splashing ankle deep in water a bit, throwing sand, looking at the moon, looking at the clouds, chasing, climbing on dad, tackling, tossing, writing in the sand, making sand angels, and riding on my feet while I laid on my back. Connie found a pair of dark glasses. York filled up the bucket with sand several times. I spent a few moments just lying down. We had a few bite of our granola bars and some sips of water. I ogled the passer-by's and some of them were smiled and even waved as they looked at us. I kept on eye on the bike and two eyes on the kids. As the sun got redder, I started to warn the kids that it was almost time to go home. When it was really low, the kids were good about packing up and heading home. The kids almost napped on the way home but managed to stay awake. A very good afternoon.
2003-04-21t18:19:00Z
| RE: Politics. I sent this email just a minute ago: Chill out dudes! -We have these long email threads because we don't get together often enough. On the other hand it's easier than trying to schedule meetings. -The Robert Reich's piece was SATIRE! Thus it has license to be "Partisan ravings". *^_^*. - "Peace mongers"? Come on Niks, it's war mongers v peace niks. Or is it that you dislike the Nikos "Niks" connection with peace "niks"? Hehehe. -"Indeed". Bill, that term comes across as pedantic. ; ) -Didn't I tell you guys well before Gulf War 2 started that Saddam was a 90 lb punk? Bwah-ha-ha-ha! Didn't we learn anything from GW1? That he's the mother of hot air? That he's a military piece of shit? That he aint no Napoleon or Hitler? Well? he did have a taste for torture and stuff but we all agreed on that. -By "fiery thread" I don't mean that we start get all steamed up or make personal attacks, but rather that we make strong arguments. You guys are my friends and I value your opinions. Sometimes it differs from mine and I'd like to figure out WHY because I want to see more sides of the elephant. If my views are fantastic, emotional, overly-conspiracy oriented, partisan, etc. please tell me why. I'll do my part and try to do the same with your opinions. Otherwise we should converse only with the voices in our own heads and horde up guns. Instead of saying "that's just liberal/conservative trash talk", how about saying why those arguments are wrong. If you don't, then it makes you seem close minded or one sided. You guys do listen to more than just Rush Limbaugh or the left-wing equivalent, right?. BTW, what is the left-wing equivalent? Seriously. -I've said it before but this French bashing is not helpful. If it is constructive in any way please tell me how. Does it make you feel better? Are we going to extract vengeance on them? The world has problems and I think more help is better than less. Of course too many cooks would make frying the turkey dangerous. I would like to think that as we progress, we will move away from tribalism to a bell curve. That is the civilized nations are together in the middle of the bell curve and we deal with the problem nations on the tips of the bell curve. If we don't, then it tends to make us a node on the network that the other nodes may resent, feel like ganging up on, etc. Note that this DOES NOT rule out military action. If we followed this vision, the Pope's vision, then there is no more "war". There is just world police action against criminals like terrorists or tyrants. They don't deserve the term "war". -It's so 5 minutes ago to discuss why we went to Iraq AT THAT TIME. (Sort of like discussing what happened to votes in Florida 2000.) HOWEVER, I think we have to cover it to move forward. --WMD. Could Saddam have made/acquired/distributed WMD if we had given him more time? There was weak evidence before we went in. Some of the evidence we used was sucky or forged. (Conspiracy: is US intelligence so lame? Or did we lamely try to fake some in order to further legitimize our war?) We haven't found any yet. Some WMD DECAY with time and become useless. --Tyrant. Oh yes Saddam was a brutal bastard (but no military genius). However we aren't urgently going into every country with a cruel tyrant. Maybe we will. We'll see. --Rebuilding contracts. We all know that Chenney made mega-moola from GW1 via Halliburton. There must be all sorts of friends who will make money from this rebuilding. Is it possible they had to make sure the war went on with the US at the head to make sure the US could control reconstruction? Do you guys know off hand if these reconstruction companies are paid by US taxpayers or via Iraq oil? --Oil. You guys keep saying this has nothing to do with oil but it MUST play a factor. The 2nd largest oil reserve in the world cannot be not a factor. It cannot be denied that the reason that Britain went into the Mid East way back when was for oil. It cannot be denied that the reason the Mid East is important is because of oil (and strategic location as far military and trade, etc.). Do you deny that a US influence in Iraq will not give us some leverage with OPEC? Also isn't there some issue about whether oil will be via the US dollar or the euro? Did you notice how we protected the Ministry of Oil but did nothing about protecting the antiquities? --Dad. I'm sure that Jr. isn't doing this all for the Sr. but it must taint it a bit. The Bush names were already connected with the war. It does nothing to explain the urgency. --Election. A war can really captures people's attention. Keep our mind off the economy or Enron connections. Did he push the timetable for the 2004 election? I don't know but that would be villainous. --Crusade. This is a terrible reason for a war. It would explain urgency if it was an agenda that Bush feared the public would not support. This is the most dangerous "reason" that may be perceived by Muslims. Islam in particular is almost designed for suicide attacks. --Terrorism. This sounds like a fine reason for the war but I don't buy it. International intelligence cooperation has done more for capturing Al Queda and other terrorists than the this war. As far as I know no Iraqi citizens were on the planes that hit the US on 9/11. Saddam and Osama are natural enemies except for "an enemy of my enemy is my friend". The Bush administration's propaganda machine has done a good job of tying Iraq with terrorists. EG: Making France's diplomacy choice a "French betrayal" because they are forgetting about the 9/11 because Iraq is tied with 9/11. The only real connection I see with Iraq and terrorism is that he might buy and sell weapons but so do a lot of people. --Expense1. Did he push the timetable on the war so that Congress would have no opportunity to decide against the budget until after the war had started? If so that's pretty beastly, sort of like getting the wife pregnant before everyone agreed on it. For perspective the US Military budget is ~$364B so the war cost (~$80B) increased the budget by ~22%. Or for another perspective $80B could fix up most of the schools in the US! But I guess education is not an emergency issue. And deficits don't matter. --Expense2. Did he push the timetable because he thought the UN was going to agree with it (Freedom Fries) and that the troops were already there? It sure is expensive (monetarily, emotionally, politically, logistically, etc.) to have troops hanging around in a far away place. However I don't think the loss of allies and ally support was justified by the timing. I think it would have been net cheaper to go in with allies plus politically stronger. --Empire/Enabling Democracy. The term empire here is misleading. I don't think the US is imperialistic in the traditional sense. However I think we clearly have an agenda to foster democratic countries in the world and to regime-change countries that don't conform internationally. In my opinion enabling democracy is our best reason for the war. However, it doesn't explain the urgency. If anything, it would have been more democratic to give the UN more time to come to the conclusion that Iraq needed military action to be regime-changed. --Big Stick. The good thing about the war is that Saddam was such a wimp and the people wanted him out that so few people died. By going into the war basically alone, it shows the world that the US can use that big stick and that we do use it pre-emptively. This is probably the best reason for the war and its urgency. Hopefully we won't use that big stick much more and now revert to diplomacy. I am strongly against going to war with Syria, the rest of the "Axis of Evil" (Iran, North Korea), EU, France, Russia, China, or anyone else. I am strongly against WWIII. Since we are a pre-emptive super power, then the natural response would be to use pre-emptive attacks via WMD and terrorism. Also the US military is stretched thin (we're running 60% on reserves) across multiple fronts: it would be a good time to war against us soon. The US military is just doing its job and they do it well, God bless them. It is up to us the US public to influence US policy makers as strongly as we can. My brothers in the military survived this round. I don't want them to go to war in the next few years or spend years policing foreign countries. I don't want my kids conscripted into war a few years from now. I sure hope Bush's switches to diplomacy and that his diplomacy improves. -George Hernandez
2003-04-29t17:24:00Z
| RE: Politics. I sent this email out just now: As I've said all along: I was fine with kicking Iraq's little ass. My beef has been about our lame attempts to be clever with justifying our entry. We did not need to lie or distort intelligence (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=400805). That's what got everybody on the defensive and thinking that we're imperialistic and/or war mongerish. Our emphasis should have been on discussing with our allies the long range ideas to reduce terrorism via democratizing and economically strengthening the fringe countries like Iraq. Terrorism arises from desperate people living under daily violent conditions with no hope who then resort to fantastical methods. Once you've got everyone on the boat about that, then everyone would agree to large scale police actions (and not war) via regime change. Then you look for some excuse to get a "warrant" to enter: like say a clear timetable and definitions on cooperating WMD (which 1441 did not have). As it stands, what we've managed to do is show our strength and willingness to apply it. That's a good thing but the mafia does that too. What we needed was legal authority. We're sort of doing it ass backwards because our post-war efforts give us legitimacy by seeming to be focused on democratizing and economically strengthening Iraq, but our pre-war efforts seemed freaky. Like I said, all this stuff is hindsight. Now that we have our "goals" out, I want us to use alternative means to achieving these goals: diplomatically, economically, politically, etc. and not just via our military. -George --- Nikos wrote: > I don't know why you're so upset George. Nothing in the article is new. > It was the confluence of Terrorism and WMDs that made Iraq unique in the > world to justify our going to war. That's what the article said to. > What's different? What in the article is "hindsight BS"? > > -Nikos- > (:-> > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 1:01 PM > To: George, Gus, Stever, Nick, Linda > Subject: Re: Reason for War > > > > On 4/28/2003 at 12:49:36 PM Central Daylight Time > George wrote: > > * I would have preferred if the administration had said > * that this was why we went in before the fact. I like my > * cards up front. All the crap about WMD merely pushed > * my "someone's shitting me" button. By saying, after > * the fact, that this is why we went in makes it look like > * hindsight BS. -George > > Planned or not it got the worlds attention..... and Koreas....and it > shut those Monkeys up and brought them to the table in China... Denis > Miller said in his latest HBO show (Great stuff on Iraq war if anyone > wants a copy) ....the war is all a front to show the world our > power...sand and heat make glass and we should make Iraq look like > Supermans fathers office on Krypton and then say to Korea....Hey you > Mofos want some of this???? LOL I think hes right and the show was > done in March before the war.... Anyway can we get the liberals to take > their No War for Oil and No war on Iraq signs down...its over! Saddam > was a threat but you cant start a war by saying hey we're going to flex > our muscles... > > > Mike |
| ||||||||
![[PHOTO: George Hernandez]](/h/Media/zMisc/GHLogo.gif){kind=small}