Re: Iraq: the case for decisive action

From: Max M (maxmcorp@worldonline.dk)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 01:30:21 MST


Terry W. Colvin wrote:

>>Your question seems to imply that you assume that American troops
>>stationed in Europe are there to defend the locals. Frankly, that
>>notion is so bizarre, I don't know what to say.
>
> You are ungrateful bastards, aren't you. Europe couldn't get itself
> involved in Bosnia and Kosovo while the early UN attempts were pathetic.

For some mysterious reason the europeans are not so eager at jumping the
gun and going to war. How come, one wonders?

I mean, we have had such a long history of peace and co-existence ...

I do understand the US anger about 9.11, but frankly we have had
terrorism in Europe for a long time, and there is no quick fix for it.

So far, this time around, there has been no evidence of weapons of mass
destrucion in Iraq. I don't doubt that they are there, but this really
has to be done the proper way. Rigth now it looks like Bush has given
Iraq the evil eye, and want's to attack no matter what. He has to be
more patient.

Attacking an arab country without *very* good reason will foster yet
even more fanatism. And it will not solve the terrorist problem.

It will still be possible to hijack airplanes, or modifying a gazoline
truck into an aerozol bomb, and drive it into a major city, or ...

Don't attack the symptoms, attack the disease.

-- 
hilsen/regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark
http://www.futureport.dk/
Fremtiden, videnskab, skeptiscisme og transhumanisme


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST