[CLUE-Talk] Charlie Daniels comments, article about Saddam's sons.

[G. Richard Raab]

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

On 2003 March 27 Thursday 07:05 pm, Sean LeBlanc wrote:


> I'm still not convinced it's all that different, and I'm still not
> convinced that Bush and his buddies will be gaining by invading Iraq. I
> don't remember too many right-wingers out on the streets - maybe it didn't
> get any coverage. I'm sure I *do* remember a talk show or two where
> conservatives did express their doubts.
>

Oh, I remember quite a bit of fighting over it, in the congress. They did not 
take to the streets though.

> Okay, that could be true. What about these Iraq-France oil allegations -
> there are some that say the opposition from France over this war has a lot
> to do with oil as well as their alleged involvement in the creation of WMD.

I do not know about the French (but that would not surprise me in the least) . 
But I do know about our training from personal involvement.




>
> Of course not. I never thought that disagreeing with your government is
> anything but the right thing to do if that's where your conscience leads
> you. But I think many who ARE against the war are folks who are either: 1.
> Marxists who aren't really Americans, anyway (sorry: I think the two are
> mutually exclusive, regardless what the citizenship status is - if you are
> Marxist, your positions are at direct odds with what the American
> experiment is about.) and 2. "useful idiots", i.e. dupes for Marxists. Note
> that I said many: it might not even be most, and certainly not all.  I
> think the ones shouting and displaying the slogans that can't back up their
> opinions with rational thought are the dupes...and I don't want to be
> associated with either of these groups.

By that definition, then the same could (and probably should) be said of 
Republicans AND Democrats.  I seriously doubt that the forefathers had in 
mind the kind of ppl who run America today. In fact, I suspect they would 
abhor many of our recent presidents.


>
> Either way, the whole discussion over war or not is moot at this point - we
> are there, and I'm sure this will play out until the end, regardless of
> what people are saying on the street in the U.S., Europe, or wherever. In
> the meantime, I'm going to support the men and women of our military.

Personally, I do wish that W. had given more time. But as you say we are 
there. I have been a big believer that once you loose the dogs of war, it is 
far better to let them do there job from start to end rather than to try and 
reign them in ('nam comes to mind). In fact, it does bother me when I hear  
ppl saying that we should stop. I suspect that we would lose more lives in 
attempting to stop.



> Yes, well al-Qaeda hates the Saudi leadership, too, correct? But the Saudis
> paid them off. I think part of this is about trying to deter the deterables
> - the whacko Wahibis we can't do anything about - the people who may give
> them aid and comfort who don't want to give up their lives, we can. That's
> how I understand the argument, anyway.
>

While I am not Muslim, my understanding is that Al-Qaeda tolerates the Saudi 
monarchy because it is of the right faith. Saddam is not. He is considered 
more evil than us. If any true Al-Qaeda gets close to Sadaam, they are 
suppose to assignate him. That is why they have worked with the Kurds for 
some time. 




> > >Maybe the OK bombing conspiracy
> > > theories are true. If either is the case, I wish these were presented
> > > to the American people, rather than the somewhat nebulous reasons we
> > > have been given.
> >
> > ????? huh????
>
> A quick Google search turned up this:
> http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/Insightmag_042202.htm
>
> I'm sure there are more and better links, but this was towards the top.
>
> There has been conspiracy theories floating around about the Iraqi ties to
> OKC since day one. Originally, an APB went out for a Middle-eastern looking
> man, which was retracted later, IIRC. Now I don't give these much credence,
> because conspiracy theories abound on every topic, and I'd wager 99% are
> bunk without even a kernel of truth to them, but there is a stink about
> that whole case. I recall the Sami al-arian (sp?) case, and how much flak
> O'Reilly got over that. Well, they arrested him and seven others over a
> year later. O'Reilly also interviewed a woman about a year ago who said
> there is/was a mountain of documentation dealing with OKC she knows of that
> the FBI said it was not interested in. I can't remember much, as I was
> engaged in something else at the time, but I'm sure you can google up
> references to her on the show, too. Again, it proves nothing, but it's one
> of those things that makes you wonder what exactly was the deal with that.
>
> <snip>

- -- 
cheers
g.r.r.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+g7dyhe/sjaHGmTIRAuodAJ4lwHsqXjguI0OLyW3tlRulwurHGwCg7mcJ
fx5ZZ+tIfL4O7VcQh0DiCWo=
=QwUX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----