Re: Senator, you're no Hitler (no Who)

[Zenswhen <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not sold on that premise.

Kevin:

Even the "administration" admits it.

>obviously came back to bite him square in the ass, and hard.

Yes, obviously. That's where the "incompetence" comes in. Contrary to what Mc would like to suggest, Clinton's staff warned Bush's about Laden and Bush's team chose to ignore it. Clinton tried to get Saddam with the UN and the GOP pounded him.

>That quote could be used by both sides of this current national and world debate.

Except that we are the ones reliving history here. And it's the same players, almost.

>So (this isn't directed at you Mark), let's not let this slip into some sort of personal thing with statements of "Mark's Blather" and other crap like that.

If people ask me about my sig, and seemingly I AM the only one they ask about their sig (for some reason) no matter the other political ones found here, I will respond. But I have not instigated any such conversation, you will note. Not have I set out to. I must say that Mc calling what someone else writes "blather" is pretty damned humorous. Maybe if he'd wiped the drool off his chin first...

>Neither was Hitler...until he was.

Alan:

There's just no comparison, except that the US sees both as enemies. Then again, the standard must be low since these people equate pot smoking to funding terrorism. They're just...clueless. Dangerously incompetent. Short sighted as HELL. And you and I will pay for it. I could almost live with that, but my 20 year old daughter will pay, and THAT I cannot accept. I'm thinking of the future...Bush is thinking about the past. 

>the Japanese rampage did its level best to work my father to death in 

Yeah, they attacked us didn't they? Saddam is not in the same league nor has he done anything similar. He is contained, and has been for over 10 years. He attacks no one. He barely has an army, and no navy. I cannot sanction what he's done to his own people in the past (nor what the US has done to its people), but neither can I convince myself that it's a reason to risk the future security of this country. A targeted missle would do the job better, and the risks (present and future) would be minimal. The failure to use the technology we have is akin to the failure to keep track of what Laden was up to pre-9/11. The US occupying two Middle Eastern countries is asking for endless terrorist attacks...surely you are aware that 9/11 was because our troops were in Saudi Arabia...can you imagine what's going to happen after this???? I can.

>it, I mentioned it as a direct factual refutation of your claim that 
Iraq had only attacked Kuwait.

Since we sanctioned and funded and fully supported it, I'd be hard pressed to call that the same as Iraq attacking Kuwait in any way. Even then, it was to take back land taken from them by Kuwait. WHY were we involved again?

>[In April 1991, Glaspie] said she was the victim of "deliberate 
>deception on a major scale,

Yes, and Clinton denied having sex with Monica. Your point? Are you asserting that members of the conservative persuasion are not subject to normal human behavior patterns when caught doing something wrong? I don't think I can fathom the level of self-deception it would take to believe that...

>I'm guessing here that you would NOT be happier if the U.S. declared 
war on every tyrant simultaneously, so I really don't know what your 
point is.  We obviously can't do everything at once.

There are more immediate threats, but we're going to "live with them" according to the administration (speaking of N. Korea). Funny how some things are more important than others, when rationality says otherwise. But factually this "war" is going to make things worse, not better. That alone is reason enough not to do it. Course now it's too late. Here's another quote: "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."

>doubt that clearing him out will be a deterrent to other terrorist 
attacks on the U.S., and NOT taking action against him will be an 
encouragement to same.

Can't imagine WHY you'd think that, when all evidence is to the contrary. We know from the 9/11 terrorists living in the US that democracy and freedom will not sway them, and that when we mess with them it always makes them fight back harder. Of course, here lately there's very little freedom and democracy in the US either.

>not support Al Queda, but a high-ranking member of Al Queda did live 
in Baghdad prior to 9/11.

That was discounted as false by the CIA long ago. There is currently no shred of evidence linking the Saddam and Laden, who in fact hate each other. Even if it was true, that's hardly evidence enough to go 100+ billion dollars into debt (while already in serious deficit), ruin this nation's security, lose young American lives...there has been zero evidence Saddam has given ANY materials to ANY terrorist. He didn't give the planes to the 9/11 terrorists, did he? No. Maybe the box cutters? Nah. Nor did he fund them, or do anything in regard to them really. Every time Bush makes that reference to justify himself, he's lying. Period. Lying, you know, the thing that they impeached Clinton for?

>I think getting rid of Hussein is 
necessary to demonstrate to any terrorists that not even God can save 

Yet we know they don't learn from that sort of "lesson" but instead it gives them more reason to attack us. They don't think in ways you and I might call reasonable...and until that message is received by the west, we're just making things worse...as Reagan did (the same staff is in charge now and making more and similar mistakes). When will people learn??? I think Rumsfeld and Cheney ought to be tried for giving aid and comfort to the enemy...the evidence is clear enough.

>Apparently you don't see the irony of citing this quote in the 

There is no irony. We are the ones initiating violence here. I don't see the US going after every petty dictator who is oppressing his people (of which there are many), so that's not the reason. In fact, the US apparently sanctioned it until now when suddenly we need a reason to go to war.

>May we deduce that if you walked in on someone 
raping your daughter you would try to talk him out the door rather 
than join the ranks of the incompetent?

That's an extremely poor analogy. For one thing, as you mention, I wouldn't be initiating violence but defending against it. Iraq has committed NO violence against the US (or anyone). Shouldn't we go after China first, for instance, because they're killing their own and (at least) shot down one of our spy planes, which could at LEAST be called an act of aggression? No? I wonder why...


"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
                                 Isaac Asimov

                 Cheers             ML
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more