From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 07:22:19 MST
In a message dated 1/24/2003 1:05:26 AM Central Standard Time,
Spudboy100@aol.com quotes Kai: "War against terrorism is not comparable with
conventional wars. It means fighting against belief systems and against the
causes for the motivation of those people. Wars like this can not be won with
bombs. You either win them in the minds or not at all. Therefore, the only
intelligent idea of Mr. Bush so far has been the "coalition against
terrorism". He now is going to destroy this coalition for no sensible
reason."
## Of course terrorists have been whipped any number of times. And
before that other old stand by of pacifists is pulled out of the hat
"violence does settle things." Hitler, Carthage, the Knights Templar and any
number of others have not been heard from lately.
Even in Vietnam the invisible VC slithering through the jungles unseen
and unheard was a creation of the peaceniks and the media. If you ever talk
to any of the professionals you will find Charley was regarded as more of a
city boy uncomfortable in the jungle. After the defeat during Tet the VC was
never heard of again.
My point is simple: we must not let the rhetoric of the faint hearted
and those seeking to excuse their hiding behind others overly impress us.
There still appears to be a good chance to be rid of Sadaam without having
much of a war if any.
In addition to the threat he represents to the US there are good
strategic reasons for opposing him and that is oil. It is true that the US
gets only a small part of its oil from that area but Europe needs to be
protected.
Kai then adds this: "So why isn't there an international coalition
against proliferation, lead by the US, but instead only one focus on one of
the most unlikely terrorist supporting countries in the world?"
## Go look in a mirror Kai. There is no international coalition
because you will not be a part of one. You want the privilege of telling the
US that we should not answer the threat to our lives from the Mideast but
that instead you want us to go do something about North Korea. You want
privilege and ease without doing any of the work or taking any of the
responsibility.
Kai, "The US are not going to war for moral, ethics and democracy - or
not any
longer. Would that be so, other countries than Iraq would be top on the list.
Countries where people die of hunger, while a small elite sells their country
for their own profit."
##Still making choices for the US, Kai? Why don't you form a
coalition to do something about the North Koreans? Why didn't you do
something about Sadaam during the past ten years? You want the boycott to
work and you want to see his sick, elderly and children fed -- how come for
ten years you have turned a blind eye while he spent money to build weapons?
If you sold him food and medicines wouldn't that have been as profitable as
selling machine tools or other supplies to build WMDs?
Ron h
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST