wrote in message
oups.com...
You keep missing the big picture, John.

We embark on a crusade that makes a mockery of everything this country
traditionally has stood for, imprison people without due process,
follow our own citiznes around peering and prying into library reading
lists, etc.....and you continue to declare every day with fewer than
the prevailing average number of innocent people killed as "good news".

Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the
organization that already attacked us,

You first need to dismember the governments of the countries that are
supporting them.

not when we continue down some
unrelated list of people and nations who just might maybe, somehow,
some way, someday, attack us in the future. (Taken to its logical
extreme, that includes everybody).

The large majority in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. are happy that
they're being given the chance to vote in democratic elections. I'm sure
the same is true for folks in Iran and Syria. And we can thank Bush's
policies for giving them that chance.

The chance to choose their leaders fills them with hope rather than
despair...which is good, because despair is what breeds terrorism.




Give me liberty or give me death? For too many folks that has become
"Forget about liberty. Give me an absolute assurance my family won't be
attacked by a terrorist and I'll volunteer to set fire to the Bill of
Rights"

Sign me up.



"People who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither."

OK Mr. Franklin. The problem with that statement is that the US has a
history of trading liberty for security in times of war.

Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the
organization that already attacked us,


NOYB wrote:
You first need to dismember the governments of the countries that are
supporting them.

Agreed, definitely.

So why did we attack Iraq?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
news
Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the
organization that already attacked us,


NOYB wrote:
You first need to dismember the governments of the countries that are
supporting them.

Agreed, definitely.

So why did we attack Iraq?


You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers,
and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad?

So why did we attack Iraq?



NOYB wrote:
You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers,
and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad?


So, we invaded Iraq because they harbored an anti-European terrorist
about 20 years ago, and Saddam *claimed* (not verified) that he was
supporting anti-Israeli terrorists?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
So why did we attack Iraq?



NOYB wrote:
You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide
bombers, and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad?


So, we invaded Iraq because they harbored an anti-European terrorist about
20 years ago, and Saddam *claimed* (not verified) that he was supporting
anti-Israeli terrorists?


I'm tired of listing the proof, so here's a link:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

So, we invaded Iraq because they harbored an anti-European terrorist about
20 years ago, and Saddam *claimed* (not verified) that he was supporting
anti-Israeli terrorists?



NOYB wrote:
I'm tired of listing the proof, so here's a link:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/


Basically a long and tedious repeat of the same info I summarized above.

Proven links between Iraq & anti-US terrorism: NONE

OTOH Saddam was a good buddy to Bush Sr and Rumsfeld back in the good
ol' days. Pictures don't lie!
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

DSK

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:02 -0500, NOYB wrote:


You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide
bombers, and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad?

Abu Nidal? Geez, you were in diapers the last time that organization was
active.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:02 -0500, NOYB wrote:


You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide
bombers, and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in Baghdad?

Abu Nidal? Geez, you were in diapers the last time that organization was
active.

I didn't realize there was statute of limitations on international murder.
They're still hunting Nazis, aren't they?

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:13:40 -0500, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:09:02 -0500, NOYB wrote:


You missed the part where Saddam was paying the families of suicide
bombers, and was harboring known terrorists (like Abu Nidal) in
Baghdad?

Abu Nidal? Geez, you were in diapers the last time that organization
was active.

I didn't realize there was statute of limitations on international murder.
They're still hunting Nazis, aren't they?

That may be, but we don't invade countries looking for dead Nazis. Sabri
al-Banna, aka. Abu Nidal, was killed in 2002, *before* we invaded Iraq.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:03:35 -0500, DSK wrote:

Good news will be when we get serious about dismembering the
organization that already attacked us,


NOYB wrote:
You first need to dismember the governments of the countries that are
supporting them.

Agreed, definitely.

So why did we attack Iraq?

DSK

Go back and read the first post in this thread. There was a mention there of WMD
in Lebanon.