[email hidden] (Jason O'Rourke) pondered, puzzeled,
prognosticated (perhaps even premeditated), and then, in a very wise
voice, sed: :
Quoted message said:What was obvious was the reason why Iraq was attacked.
Personal gain for Dubya?
Quoted message said:On the question of - is Iraq better off now than they were before - the answer is yes. Do I care if
the stated reason was false? Not really.
The better question is: Is the *world* better off now than it was before. The answer, of
course is no.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Iraq was not "our enemy". All they "did" was have the gall to not share our religion, skin color,
dress code, etc. They were disarmed. They were not a threat to their closest neighbors much less
the US. Granted, Saddam was trying to pretend he was still important by allowing/disallowing UN
inspectors in his country, but that is hardly a cause to go to war over.Not a believer in contracts, are we?
Kind of irrelevant isn't it? Do you think all broken contracts should end up in war?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:If you believe that the POTUS should have the power to send our young men and women to die over a
personal grudge, then we really have nothing more to talk about.You should separate the "why" and the "should" elements in your thinking. It's possible to discuss
one or both, but you seem stuck on just the one.
You're losing me here.
--
chris
"And so, happy X-mas, for black and for white
For the yellow and red ones, let's stop all the fights.
A merry, merry X-mas, and a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one, without any fear."
(war is over if you want it) --John Lennon