From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Dec 16 2003 - 12:00:28 GMT
Hi Steve,
> >> As someone who loves freedom, I consider this a very small consolation
> >> prize. We did not go to Iraq to capture a tyrant. We went there to rid
> >> Iraq of WMD which we were lied to about.
> >
> > Not true.
>
> This is not simply a case of "liberal media bias" We heard the case for
> war on Iraq directly from the President's mouth. We went to war because of
> an immanent threat to US security because of Iraqi stores and production of
> WMDs.
From Bush's State of the Union address to Congress, January, 2003:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when
have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting
us on notice before they strike."
The liberal media has been complicit in spreading the lie that Bush
justified the war on the basis that the U.S. was in imminent danger of
attack from Iraq.
Technically, the war was a continuation of the last one and was fully
supported by umpteen U.N. resolutions, including a 15-0 Security Council
vote to force Saddam to comply.
> I agree with our founding fathers that a government without the consent of
> the people is not a legitimate government and that we should do what we can
> to spread Democracy throughout the world. Though I share cynicism about
> the Bush administration's motives, I am certain that removing Saddam was a
> good thing and hopeful that we will help to rebuild a better Iraq.
Agree. You clearly recognize the difference between good and evil,
something others on this site seem to find difficult.
> >> We went there because we were
> >> told Iraq posed an "immenent threat " to the freedom of Americans.
> >
> > Not true.
>
> True. As I explained.
Not true, as I explained.
> >> We
> >> went there because we were told of a connection between Iraq and 9/11,
> >> which was proved a lie.
> >
> > Not true.
>
> Sort of true. This certainly was billed as part of the war on terrorism
> and connections between Saddam and Osama were suggested but unproved. I
> don't think we can pin the Bush admin down on any lies even on WMDs (they
> were wrong, but we may not have been deliberately misled. I sure hope not,
> anyway).
No one doubts Saddam had WMD's. Evidence of the connection between Saddam
and Osama is beginning to come out. From the London Telegraph:
"Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat,
Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited
clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the
purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and
al-Qa'eda based on the mutual hatred of American and Saudi Arabia. The
meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended
with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad."
> > We went there to root out and destroy terrorists--a biological blight on
> > humanity.
>
> Since the WMDs were not found nor any evidence that Iraq planned terrorist
> attacks on the US as far as we know there was no terrorist threat before
> the invasion. There certainly are terrorists in Iraq after the invasion,
> however.
>
> >Yesterday, we captured one of the worst terrorists in
> > history, right up there with Mao, Stalin and Hitler.
>
> Agreed. The difference between Saddam and those three and many other
> dictators is simply a matter of scale.
Your agreement on the second assertion appears to contradict your
disagreement about the terrorist threat. The threat was not imminent, as
Bush said, but remained a threat nevertheless so long as Saddam was in
power.
> >The fight will
> > continue as long as one terrorist remains. And rightly so.
>
> We need to fight for Democracy rather than simply fight against terrorism.
> Bringing those who use terrorist tactics to justice is only a small part of
> that good fight. (I'm reminded of our fight against Communism in Latin
> America in the 70's and 80's that was often quite the opposite of a fight
> for Democracy.)
The history of America's involvement in Latin America will always be
controversial, but I will never claim America has always been morally
pure. We've made our share of blunders, for sure. We agree, however, that
fighting for freedom as well as fighting against terrorism are both worthy
goals. I think Pirsig would also agree. From his letter to McWatt:
"Destroying an inferior culture is better than allowing an inferior
culture to become a threat."
Regards,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 16 2003 - 12:01:13 GMT