Re: Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "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.

Ahem. Saddam actually *used* WMD on the Kurds, people in his
own country. I think that demonstrates far more than mere *interest*.

> 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.

I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was equal to Hitler or Stalin in the
amount of damage he did, but in the evil of nature. Given the same
op****tunities, Saddam would have been just as evil and ruthless as
either of them.

Saddam was in a position to capture the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.
You think 9/11 was damaging to the U.S.? That would be *nothing*
compared to the damage caused to all industrialized countries if he
had done so. Look what he did in Kuwait. I would prefer to have troops
stationed in Iraq to prevent that from happening, than to have troops
stationed in Saudi Arabia *after* it happened. Iraq would certainly
have been nuked in such an eventuality. Jimmy Carter made that
official U.S. policy. Anyone think that would have been better than
this?

I don't know how honest or dishonest George Bush was about Iraq. But
I know with certainty that I am very glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and
I think we are better off today than we would have been had we not
invaded Iraq, whatever his reasons were. I also know that it's easy
to criticize in hindsight, and much harder to know what's the best
strategy beforehand. It's also easy to *say* worse things would not
have happened, when it isn't your neck on the line having to make the
decisions. George Bush's primary responsibility is to protect American
lives and property, and that applies to *probable* threats as well as
formally proven and documented threats. Intelligence is a complex and
difficult business; you almost *never* know anything with certainty.

Your objections remind me of the people harping that Y2K turned out
not to be so bad. Well, only idiots expected their cars and microwaves
to explode. But the reason why Y2K wasn't bad was because millions of
programmers worked their brains out fixing the problems in time. I was
one of them, and damaged my health in the process. It's easy to harp
and complain, after the problem has been fixed. Terrorism isn't fixed,
but Saddam Hussein is fixed, permanently, and terrorism has been held
back, at least to a degree. As George Bush said from the beginning, we
may not live to see the end of this war with terrorism. Our children,
and maybe even our grandchildren, may be fighting it. Some problems
are just not easily or quickly solved; that's life.

Just hope and pray that the liberals don't get their way and pull the
U.S. out of Iraq too soon. I can think of nothing that would encourage
and embolden the terrorists more. Regardless of whether or not the Iraq
war was a good idea, pulling out too early would be a disaster, and the
stupidest thing we could possibly do, at this point.
-- 
Judson McClendon       judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."