Frankly, I don't know where the good Dr. Ruwart stands on this war against terror, but she would not be alone among libertarians, obviously, if she is against it(her non-aggression stance is, as she makes clear, a basic libertarian principle, as you've seen). I'd guess she is against our action in Iraq, but as I say, I don't know for sure(after all, if viewed as the only reasonably effective form of self-defense, even she(and many other Libertarians) may stand up for our actions there). By the by, information given as reason for this war which you declare is false, simply isn't known to be false at all, and your side has offered nothing that would show it is, including the Wilson opinion.
Huh? The White House has admitted that the info was not correct and reported erroneously. Only FOX News still hangs onto the notion that it was true.
What's this about Kay and job security? You would seem to imply that with tons of evidence that a grand effort was made to hide the truth, as was seen before and well expected, we shouldn't continue searching. Swell, but stupid for an American, IMO.
Look it, Dan B.......we are spending a wad of $$$ in Iraq..........to give the good doctor of philosophy another $600 million to prove what we already know is not my idea of sound fiscal policy.
His report says little......
Horsepoopy.
Yes, exactly......it says nothing. I wouldn't have used the world horsepoopy but its apt enough.
Re: "Oper. Iraqi Freedom has cooked our gooses, and within another decade, I anticipate the murder of more Americans on our soil by terrorists."
That more Americans will be attacked at home, as should be getting through your head by now, has been something very easy to anticipate with or without our response in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our response certainly, in both cases, has the capacity to slow and/or even fully prevent further attacks on our soil.
I'm sorry.....in one sentence, you say an attack on our soil could be anticipated with or without our response in Iraq and Afghan. and then, in the next breath, you think we have slowed or even fully prevented further attacks. You really need to make up your mind because frankly, I will not let you have it both ways.
And just for the record, our goose is cooked at this point no matter whether you get off the fence or not.
Re: "Do you really think Osama's hatred of the US happened by accident?"
How the hades you imagine I would think a thing like that I can't fathom. I KNOW his hatred was set in stone before, and with or without, our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq(I know this, becuase I've listened to his little speeches along the way).
Do you know anything about Reagan's Marines in Lebanon; about the components for WMD that were sold to Saddam and the subject of numerous hours of Congressional hearings; about the contra costa weapons smuggling into Iran; the 24/7 support of Israel; the air force bases in the Muslim holy land; our support of repressive regimes including Saddam's.......the list goes on and on. OBL can find many reasons to hate us.
However, that's not really the point.....what's past is past but why do things that only make conditions worse. That's what Bush has done and now its backfiring badly. Its very likely we will end up in the same feudlike fighting we see in Israel/Palestine.
Re: "Do you really think our toppling of Saddam has won the admiration and love of the Muslim masses? To them, its a horrific replay of the Crusades. Do you really think that we have set into motion a whole bunch of healing?"
First, our toppling of Saddam has the capacity to win the admiration of Muslims(and already has, significantly), particularly if we indeed do not behave as did crusaders(and all objective historical evidence says we won't).
What evidence do you have that "it will win the admiration of Muslims and already has, significantly"? I would really like to see what you believe to be support for your position.
Re: "I am not trying to mislead anyone but simply responding to your comments as I see them."
You mean, you see fit to omit words I wrote which would make your "pre-emptive comment" crap look fully like the bogus argument it is(and fully off point, at that).
You're paranoid. Like I said, this is a public forum and all your words are available to be read. Its you that can't seem to stay focus and not me.
Re: "He(David Kay) has some theories and a great deal of speculation but the evidence does not support that Saddam had WMD.
Oh, but the world, including France, Germany, Russia, and the whole of the U.N. ALL have know and verified long ago he had WMD.
Speculation........that's all it was. And it seems everyone knew it was speculation except for Bush and American neocons.
Now, Kay verifies Saddam has made great effort to hide information about it, and no one knows what happened to what the world long ago verified exists. If you wish to believe he destroyed what he had and gave up his designs on wanting our hide, you, well, you have got to be kidding or naive as all get out.
Oh right........where is your proof? Saddam was toppled over 6 months ago and we have found not one WMD......plenty of weapons and ammunition but no WMD.
Get a clue.......they are gone if they ever existed. They were gone by 1998. There are none! Nada! Zero! Zip!
Re: "Sadly, you are deluded. Our enemies grow in strength thanks to the actions of Bush"
So you imagine certain Muslims are spurred to act, and surely that is true. Trouble is, that category of Muslim was indeed by and large already spurred to act, and our pacifism could not undo their resolution. Fact is, there are simply tons of happy Muslims now that Osama/Taliban and Saddam are not in charge, and other Muslims who will wait to see that we do not impose Christianity upon them, and become happy.
Right! And the prince and the princess will marry and live happily ever after.
Spend one month in Cairo or Teheran or Bagdad or Amman, and I dare you to come back with the same opinion. |
