Yes we should

Post #168,118 by lincoln 8/7/04 7:42:28 PM Reply	Yes we should Should we just tell these families that the war was unjustified and that the costs were too high and we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place? THAT was NOT the reasons given to us to go to war. Saddam was doing these atrocities for the past 20 years. We've known about them back in the Reagan administration, yet he sent Rumsfeld to sell hundreds of millions of dollars to Saddam so he could fight the evil Iranians. The current administration has been running this war "off the books" so that the billions we taxpayers are paying for this doesn't get counted against the over $400 billion in debt that has been added to the national deficit last year alone. lincoln "Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #168,120 by Nightowl 8/7/04 8:08:37 PM Reply	I think the problem here is that we have TWO questions, really, not one. First question: Was Bush justified in sending us to Iraq? Answer: No, because there were no weapons of mass destruction found, and that was why he said we had to attack. Second question: Did it do any good to invade Iraq? Answer: Yes, it toppled Saddam, freed an oppressed people, and gave a country a chance to have a more civilized government. Was it wrong? Depends. Was what Bush said wrong? Yes. There were no WMDs. Was it wrong for the Iraqi people? They'd probably say no, they are liberated. But was it RIGHT for Bush to tell us one reason to invade, and then we find that the reason didn't exist? No. Nightowl >8# "A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
Post #168,173 by lincoln 8/8/04 5:57:45 PM Reply	So N. Korea is justified in attacking the USA? After all: - we have WMDs - we're the only country to use nuclear bombs against an enemy - we've been saber rattling about N. Korea, talking diplomacy, and if it fails, our military is going in (to paraphrase Rumsfeld) - we attacked Iraq in a pre-emptive strike to prevent his using WMDs, so why can't they make the same argument on us? - getting rid of the current administration would be good for the country and the world (same reasoning to remove Saddam) - we've proved our unwillingness to respect other country's governments; see our takeovers in Grenada, Nicaragua, Chile, Iran, etc. etc. etc. lincoln "Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #168,176 by boxley 8/8/04 6:39:33 PM Reply	we have been at war with them since 1950's we are only in a truce, hostilities hav e never ceased by treaty. So yes under International law they can attack us. thanx, bill "delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #168,208 by ben_tilly 8/8/04 11:57:57 PM Reply	Technically that was not a war on our side To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #168,262 by CRConrad 8/9/04 11:31:30 AM Reply	OTOH, isn't signing a truce=retroactively declaring war? :-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!