Re: Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:16:04 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>"Howard Brazee" <howard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>As you say, I'm all for killing the terrorists, when they can be found.
>>>But part of the "education" process is to provide a social environment
>>>in which that can take place. As Bush pointed out, democracies are not
>>>prone to starting wars with innocent neighbors. I do not think it is
>>>the population of Iraq that is so opposed to democracy; the problem is
>>>being im****ted from other countries, like Iran.
>>
>> When democracies (and other states) start wars, they define the enemy
>> as guilty.   And every state is guilty of stuff.    If we don't find
>> weapons of mass destruction, we change our excuse.
>
>Anyone who thinks Sadam Hussein wasn't interested in WMD is ignorant
>of recent history and clueless about human nature. If we did not find
>them, it was because he had moved them elsewhere, and/or not yet
>developed what he wanted. What would have been better, to have waged
>WWII in Europe, or taken Hitler out when he first started violating
>the Armistice agreement? The latter would have saved some 50 million
>lives and the devastation of Europe. Sadam Hussein, like Joseph Stalin,
>is one of the few men in history who have fair claim to being more evil
>than Hitler. Even Hitler had friends and people he cared about, but
>Saddam Hussein, like Stalin, had no such human emotion and was more
>like a reptile than a human. Hussein was a serious danger to anyone on
>the planet, and I for one will gladly pay my share of taxes to take him
>out. But people clueless about human nature, like Neville Chamberlain,
>never understand true evil until it bites their heads off, and then it
>is too late, unfortunately, usually for many others.

But that's not the point.  Bush SAID before the UN and the American
people one of the reason's for invading Iraq was because Sadam HAD
WMD's.  The fact is, and there is almost no doubt that Bush knew this,
he hadn't had any for nearly 10 years having disposed of them after
the Gulf War.  Bush also said before the UN and the American people
that Sadam was linked to Al Qaeda.  Again, something he knew not to be
true, but was used as another reason to invade Iraq. And how about the
way he humiliated Colen Powell with the neuclear Milk Factory or
nuclear train to nowhere or the attempt (untrue) to buy radioactive
material from Niger?  Lies, upon lies, upon lies. 

Just because Sadam was "interested" in WMDs is no reason to invade.
Fidel Castro has been "interested" in WMDs for over 30 years and Bush
didn't invade him.  Hell, Hugo Chavez is probably interested in WMDs
and we're not invading him.  

You compare Sadam to Stalin (not even close) as what?  A reason to
assuage your guilt for sup****ting Bush and his invasion of Iraq?  If
being inhuman to your people is the criteria, then why haven't we
bombed China for their treatment of Tibet?  Why haven't we invaded
Burma for their suppression of democracy in that country?  Or invaded
North Korea whose people are slowly starving and have a demigod for a
ruler? Why haven't we put a substantial force in Darfur to help end
the genocide there?  Bottom line is, your sup****t for Bush and his
Iraq invasion is illogical.

Regards,
          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the
kids to
copulate me."
--  ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve