From: Dave Winslow \(Dad\) (David@Winslow.mv.com)
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 05:28:39 PDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Winslow (Dad)" <David@Winslow.mv.com>
To: "J. Forster" <jfor@quik.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 08:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] WMD in Iraq - Revelation!
> From: "J. Forster" <jfor@quik.com>
>
> > Mel Miller wrote:
> >
> > > Howdy List,
> > >
> > > It is an indisputable fact that Saddam Hussein used chemical
> agents
> > > against the Kurds in the North and the Marsh Arabs in the South
of
> Iraq.
> >
> > He has NOT, AFAIK, used them against the USA, Israel, or other US
> interests.
>
> How is that relevant? This thread has been about the existence of
WMDs
> or not, and the possible threat they posed.
>
> > > He may well have inflated the size of his NBC stock piles so to
> > > paraphrase Shakespeare; "If so, it were a grevious fault, and
> greviously
> > > hath Saddam answered for it."
> >
> > This seems a bit premature. He could well survive a second Bush
> presidency, only
> > to re-surface yet again. Iraq is beginning to look a lot like
> Vietnam.
>
> We spent years fighting a measured rather than decisive war in
> Vietnam. Iraq has been nothing like that. We lost 60.000 Americans,
> 300 times the current death toll of Iraq. We lost Vietnam with a
> military presence of half a million, we won in Iraq with something
> like 150,000 maybe. Vietnam was an ideological war against
communism,
> a symbolic battle with the USSR and China really, the war in Iraq
was
> real, a response to Hussein's support of terrorism that had cost us
> 3,000 innocent lives, and the threat that he and the terrorists
might
> pose into the future. North Vietnam posed no threat, imagined or
> otherwise, to the US.
>
> So, how is it Iraq is beginning to look like Vietnam to you?
>
> > > Intelligence gathering is an art as much as a science. The
> "National
> > > Interest" is defined by politics as shaped by national
> perceptions. I am
> > > not concerned about splitting hairs where our national security
is
> > > concerned.
> >
> > I oppose the distortion, selective use, or selective omission of
> intelligence to
> > support a political objective. Remember, '.. swear to tell the
> truth, the WHOLE
> > truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth'. Clearly there are issues of
> protecting
> > intelligence sources and methods, but dummied up uranium documents
> hardly come
> > under that exception, IMO.
>
> You may disagree with the threat posed by Iraq, but the war is
hardly
> a political objective. We were attacked, and Bush, with plenty of
> support from the people and both parties, declared the supporters of
> terrorism to themselves be among our enemies. The intelligence that
> pointed to Iraq as a strategic move in that regard may have been
> flawed, may have involved deliberate deception by some, but it is
most
> unfair to assume Bush told us anything but the truth as he had been
> advised.
>
> > > We are in a guerilla war with extremist elements of a
> > > culture, using religion as a cover, for their stated desire to
> crush our
> > > culture.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Yes, in this war we can not identify the hidden enemy soldier, and
can
> only target those who would support him. Do you disagree that
Hussein
> was one of them? Given that the UN has been completely stalled in a
> peace at any price, or worse, certain political/economic agendas,
how
> would you fight this war against terrorism?
>
> > > It is in our National Interest to oppose them. Lets keep our
> > > eye on the ball, we need to uphold our culture, and if a
> megalomaniac
> > > like Saddam is reckless and arrogant enough to try to bluff us,
> well
> > > then I say:
> >
> > I'm unconvinced that Saddam represented any plausible threat to US
> security.
>
> He did so by his support of terrorism. Furthermore, by frustrating
the
> inspectors after the first war to the point where they left, and
> deceiving them again just prior to this one, he maintaining a stance
> that certainly suggested he did indeed still have his WMDs. So the
> threat was real, even if he no longer had the means to back it up.
> What were we to do, call his bluff?
>
> > Nothing NBC was used in the 9-11 attacks. Just small knives and a
> maniacal sense
> > of mission.
>
> Why should this country, victimized by such attacks, not take
> seriously greater potential risks? In past hostile scenarios, each
> side could prepared for war, while holding out for peace. That is
not
> true in the current case of on going terrorism. The war is already
on,
> our taking of Iraq was not preemptive as usually meant. It was a
> response to an attack against us, the past horrors and provocative
> stance of Hussein.
>
> > > Thank you very much , Sir for the opportunity to take you out!
> >
> > Sounds like you believe that the ends justify the means..... A
> VERY DANGEROUS
> > principal, IMO. Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. It
> can be used to
> > justify just about anything. Have you thought about who gets to
> choose?
>
> The whole purpose of law is preemptive. Those who refuse to
cooperate
> in peaceful contract of some kind with their neighbors, as
individuals
> or as countries, are endangering everyone and generally not
tolerated.
> When the end is the security of citizens, the means of taking
control
> of others has always been justified in the minds of most people.
>
> Dave W.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:25:01 PDT