blacksmithn wrote:timber- You seem to confuse "support for a Totalitarian Right Wing Dictatorship" with a lack of support for sending young Americans to die in a foreign land for specious reasons. One does not equate to the other.
I think it not myself who confuses issues ... Refusing to commit our resources in the pursuit of liberty and security is an abrogation of our moral responsibility IMO.
Quote:As to who poses the greater threat for WMD use, it's no secret Pakistan was poised to use nukes against Indian troop concentrations in this latest crisis over Kashmir
Pakistan rattled its nuclear sword, but made no effort to bring nuclear-capable assets to readiness. They said "They were ready and willing", not "Here we go"
Quote: Saddam on the other hand, has at least been quiescent on that score since the Gulf War, possibly because he has none or possibly due to the effective implementation of the policy of containment.
A few thousand assorted Iraqi Ethinic Minorities would argue that point rather strongly ... if they weren't dead.
Quote:Whether Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein is the greater maniac is to some extent a judgement call, but Kim apparently HAS actual nukes while Saddam even in a worst case scenario won't have them for some time. While it's true that Saddam gassed rebellious Kurdish civilians at Halabja in 1988, resulting in some 5-8 thousand deaths, Kim reduced his entire populace to starvation, resulting in approximately 2 million deaths.
Saddam has used WMD and openly refuses to renounce their use. DPRK, despite an odd-to-Western-view negotiating stance, is talking. Iraq is not.
Quote:It is not untoward to wonder at the apparent discrepancy between the administration's bellicose reaction to Iraq, their rather reticent reaction to North Korea and their outright embrace of erstwhile ally Pakistan. That Iraq sits on a vast pool of oil and North Korea and Pakistan do not, is one quite obvious explanation for this, particularly in view of the current administration's close ties to the petroleum industry and pre-9/11 indications that an Iraqi "regime change" was desirable.
Oh, it IS about OIL, alright ... but not US Oil. The French and The Russians have significant financial interest in Iraqi oil. The US does not.
I do not believe there is any reason to doubt the Administration assertion that "The Iraqi Oil is to be held in trust for The Iraqi People". Skepticism is healthy ... cynicism often fuels itself, and is an intellectually bankrupt pursuit. There is nothing simplistic about The World Situation at all.
That's the way I see it, anyway. Others may see things in any manner they wish. One thing I wish to note is that it is the soldier who secures the right of the protester to wave his banners and shout his slogans. The soldier's job is at once more difficult, and generally unacknowledged.
(edited to correct careless, easily noticed misspellings. Some of them, anyway. Gotta learn to use "Preview")
timber
