From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 20:45:54 MST
In a message dated 2/20/2003 9:33:41 PM Central Standard Time,
oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au writes: There are a number of people in this
debate who pretend to be undecided about the issue, but clearly are pro-war.
For the record, I'm extremely anti-war (hopefully that's not news). Apart
from anything else, Australia has been involved in far too many wars of
dubious merit (actually, downright stupid is probably the best descriptor -
gallipoli, vietnam, boer war? probably lots of others but I'm no war buff).
Emlyn are they pro war or pro survival? Seriously, this country was hit
first by the Al Qaeda. Now it sees a man that has hit them personally in the
past, as well as others, looking for the weapons to hit them again. So they
have decided to hit him first. Is that so illogical?
Other people being equally pro survival have clearly decided the way
to survive by hunkering down and acting like they are anti war. This way
when the mad man runs amok he will tangle with the hawks who do the fighting
and the hunkered down dove won't even get noticed.
This morning the Washington Post was supposed to have run an article
summarizing the encouragement the doves were giving to Sadaam Hussein.
Supposedly he is feeling much better about his situation because he has
friends that will attempt to protect him.
I haven't been able to see today's Post -- is the report I have
received correct?
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 20:48:33 MST