[CLUE-Talk] The prism of our experience

[G. Richard Raab]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 10 July 2003 10:52 am, Jeffery Cann wrote:

>
> Any responses from the pro-war folks on the list?
>

I am not pro-war, but not a pacifists either.


> I'm interested to hear opinions in light of this annoucement that the main
> reason for going to war (i.e., that Iraq has WMD) cited by Bush, Rumsfeld,
> Cheney was a BIG FAT LIE.

Well, not entirely. As I have said several times in this group, Biological and 
Chemical weapons are fairly easy to produce. In fact, they have been used 
through out history (Think plague or small pox). In fact, just about all 
nations (and major terrorist groups) have access to these, if not outright 
development of these. They are not that difficult. 

As to the nukes, well that is a plain joke. The evidence that W produced was 
shown not only to be total bull shit, but it was so bad, that nobody with an 
IQ over 90 could assume it was true. As to their past program, I am sure that 
they had one. I am also sure that they hide stuff. But I seriously doubt that 
they have been developing it in the last decade.


> I am outraged that our so-called leader feels it is necessary to 'act on
> his conscience' at the expense of several THOUSANDS of lives (5K-7K killed
> during Iraq ware), several BILLIONS of dollars and at the integrity of the
> office.
>

Personally, I would have no problem if there were not so many inconsistancies. 
North korea is a much greater threat to us (and China is a huge long term 
one).
North korea does have nukes, biologicals, chemicals and rockets that can reach 
at least the western edge of colorado. We have spent more money on holding 
the 38th parallel than we have spent containing Iraq. As to support of 
terrorist groups, Bin Ladin despises Iraq even more than they despise the 
USA. The puppy gassing that CNN showed took place with the kurds (our 
allies), not with the Iraq government.
Iran does support of terrorists and it is thought that they are persueing 
nukes.
So the question is why Iraq, but not Iran or North Korea? It was certainly not 
based on the threat to the US or Israel. That leaves few options. And based 
on W's past integrity (actually lack thereof), there is few options.

> Jeff

- -- 
cheers
g.r.r.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/DbGwhe/sjaHGmTIRAuAdAJ9XeZ6ETWDhlkxBpfeRjDHN/smQpgCfWJPi
eH6djYYo4j8Wq6v94vLt7wI=
=2EM9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----