On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:16:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:10:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Dave Hall wrote:


IS selling weapons not collaborating?


We were not selling weapons to further terrorism. We sold them because
Saddan was at the time a lesser evil as he battled our then greater
enemy of Iran.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- great moral standing there.


There is a great bit of truth in that statement. So, are you judging
our actions today by our inability to see the future 20+ years ago?


We Knew Saddam was a bad guy 20 years ago


Did we really? Compared to Khomeni, he was a saint, at least in the
perspective of the current events of the time.





So
are you saying poison gas is OK when someone else uses it against our
enemys -- or biological weapons?


That depends on who the enemy is and how it affects the "war". We used
a nuke on Japan in WWII.


And have paid the price of world opinion ever since.


Really? What "price" have we paid? Japan is one of our closest allies,
especially in business.

A survey a year or so ago indicated that the world feared the US more
than any other country. Before you say that's a good thing, remember
the playground bully -- eventually 2 or 3 of his victims get together
and put him in his place.

I've seen similar reports that claim that the U.S. was also the
biggest "terrorist". But you have to take the perspective of the
people selected for these surveys into consideration when analyzing
this data.

We don't bully or terrorize anyone. But we do stand up for what's
right. Self determination and democracy is a far better life than one
of oppression and despotism.



It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Yet bush is so eager to get other nations to join in again, despite more
and more pulling out.


Define "eager"? Bush has tempered his initial slamming of those
ingrate nations like France et al, and now wants to normalize
relations again. But he's not pulling a Lewinsky on anyone.

He has bribed most (if not all) the current participants.

Proof please? Where has he "bribed" anyone?


Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.


Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

They were invited back because of Un and US pressure (read threats)


Stall tactic. Saddam knew they'd find nothing. They already removed
the WMD.

To Where????? When are you going to stop beating that drum? Even Bush
has given up the search.


Syria. Bush gave up the search because of the likelihood that those
WMD are no longer within the boundaries of Iraq. If we even go to war
with Syria or are otherwise granted access there, you can bet we'll
look for them then.

You REALLY are desperate to find something. Our own guy Scott Ritter
told bush there were no WMD, as did several intelligence agencys.


Scott Ritter is a turncoat, who was likely paid to do so. He was very
pro WMD in the beginning, and then suddenly became a harsh critic of
even his own earlier actions. He smells bad, and I would take his word
for anything.

"I would take his word for anything."

NOTE --- I did NOT doctor the above -- perhaps a slip revealing your
true beliefs (I can't spell Freudian)

"Would NOT" would be the correct statement. At least you (seemingly)
understood my intent if not the typo.

Which leaves me a bit puzzled as to a lack of any additional comment.

Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat.


Right, "stories". That's all they were.



Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.


From what I've seen, they actually had too many choices. It was
somewhat confusing. But it was a far site better than a single choice
that you either made or died for not voting for.




Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle

Try http://www.hackworth.com/

Regularly posts correspondence from the guys over there


It stands to reason that there will be a differing of opinions
depending on what part of the country you are in and what battles you
have fought.

And Hackworth seems to have gained the trust of the grunt types who
write him regularly.

Hackworth used to be a straight shooter and regular contributor to
talk radio. Evidently he's had a change of heart.


Try:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...680555557.html

Is he a paid columnist as are some of the others recently found out?


He's a military officer who was THERE. There are others who write
similar accounts. I've read dozens of them, some in private E-mails.

Is that your standard response when someone paints an entirely
different picture from that which the liberal media wants us to see?

Dave

Given recent revelations, I've become suspicious of any columnist
supporting Bush and cronies.


Why? Does the existence of evidence which shatters your pre-conceived
notions of what this war is all about, make you feel uncomfortable to
the point of denial?

The revelation that columnists can be and have been bought, makes me
more than a little suspicious of those supporting the one with the money.


That works both ways. Michael Moore and George Soros, among other
notable liberals, both have a sizable sum of money to "sway" writers.

With that in mind, it would be intellectually dishonest of you (or
anyone) to accept as 100% truth one "side", and discard the other as
"propaganda" based on an unequal application of the "bias" rule.

Dave