OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists



Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (JP) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >> Gee, what is it with you guys tonight? All over GWB for
> >> going into Iraq, now you can't wait to go after Saudi
> >> Arabia and Pakistan. Dang warmongers... ;-)
> >
> >It's damn sure a conundrum, alright. Although they have
> >both provided significant support to Al Qaeda, a war
> >against either of them would be a disaster that would
> >make Iraq look like kindergarten. However, that doesn't
> >mean that we shouldn't look at other ways to hold them
> >accountable. Pakistan, because of its nukes, and Saudi
> >Arabia, because of its oil, are among the most powerful
> >nations in the world. It is so much easier to beat up on
> >someone weak like Iraq, not that that is turning out to
> >be so easy, either.
> >
> >Do you get the irony? Beating up on someone easy without
> >connections to 9/11 while letting the powerful who were
> >connected to 9/11 go free?
>
> Uhhh, think "Afghanistan".

Uhhh, I wasn't talking about Afghanistan when I said
"Beating up on someone easy without connections to 9/11
while letting the powerful who were connected to 9/11 go
free." See, Afghanistan *was* connected to 9/11, and it
*wasn't* allowed to go free. Subtle distinction there.

> >It doesn't mean we want war with them but it sure does
> >help clarify the extreme stupidity of invading Iraq.
>
> So what IS your point? That we should issue a pass to each
> and every nation that does support terrorism? That we
> should never, ever do anything because it might make the
> French mad at us (if for no other reason than cutting the
> bribes off)?
>
> Which is it - get 'em all or let 'em all slide?

It's ironic the way you bring up Afghanistan and then the
French. There is a simple fact that blows away both of your
responses: the French are still fighting along side the US
in Afghanistan. Get it? Just war = allies.

This thread would have ended about 100 posts back if you
didn't have your logical fallacies to fall back on. Of
course, without logical fallacies the GOP wouldn't be able
to get anyone elected dogcatcher, let alone President.

JP
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> And FWIW, I sincerely hope I'm wrong about the threat we
> face. I hope I seriously overestimate the cunning and
> resolve of Al Qaida and their
> ilk. I hope we can all say in 10 years "maybe we
> overreacted".

Oh, I don't think so. In ten years we are going to be saying
we under-reacted: We went off to fight a stupid war in Iraq
while leaving the homeland essentially unprotected. We
pushed Muslims all around the world into the arms of Al
Qaeda. We estranged ourselves from our allies. We over-
extended our military. We cut taxes to the point that we
would not swallow the cost of self defense. We will have
practically laid the groundwork for our own destruction.

A few days ago a US Coast Guard was killed boarding a
suicide boat that had tried to blow up an Iraqi oil
terminal. That Coast Guard should not have been within about
ten thousand miles of Iraq. He should have been guarding
*our* coast, not Iraq's. It should be pretty obvious to
anyone with a lick of sense that Al Qaeda is out to repeat
9/11, only more so. The stakes are very high and there is no
way that we will hold them off for the next ten years
unless we change about 180 degrees from the course Bush
has set for us.

JP