Kiddy Leaders :-)

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	>From: Keithjmoon70@xxxxxxx 
	>Subject: Re: Kiddy Leaders :-) 
>
>>Bush is the *wrong* "Leader", not matter *what* time.
>>*No* one responds favorably to bullying, arrogance, and condescension
>
>Those are some big letters.  

They're all lower case!   ;-)

>Criticism comes with the job of being  President of the worlds most powerful 
>nation, especially during a time of war.

Before I reply, I just want to be clear that I am quite ambivalent about this whole war thing.
I'm grappling.
Please keep in mind as you walk through this debate that a majority of our own country is against war with Iraq at this time.  A *vast* majority of our historically closest allies in the world are against war with Iraq at this time.
Just want to set the record.......

It is a *BIG* mistake to simply dismiss these statistics and view points of our international friends.
 
>With Bush we get Powell.

And I'll *never* understand that.  :-)

>Iraq is clearly dangerous to us

I don't believe it is as clear as you make it out.
See comments above.  Obviously there are many around the world who disagree with you.

>Bush wants to eliminate this danger

An unproven danger.

>Clinton did not eliminate this threat when they 
>kicked the UN inspectors out.

There you go again, wanting to take unilateral action.
Plus, what threat?
If there was a threat, then why haven't we seen something in the last 12 years?
Why not in the last 3 years, or however long it was that inspectors were kicked out?
Why not let inspectors resume their mission?

>We are not getting into other people's business, we were 
>attacked directly this time.

We were not attacked by Iraq.  And, we were attacked with the most conventional of means.  Airplanes.  No chemicals.  No bio-weapons. 
No one in that area was attacked by Iraq.  Ok, Kuwait was.  But, how would we react if we felt Mexico was angle-drilling into our Texas oil fields, and wouldn't stop?
No one in that area is supporting this notion that Iraq is an immanent threat.

>I saw the people falling to the ground out of the WTC.  I heard no sympathy 
>from Saddam Hussein.  No cooperation.

Lack of sympathy or cooperation is not a reason to go to war, Jon.

Please provide me with a good answer to the following question:

If there hasn't yet been the transfer of any weapon of mass destruction from Iraq to anyone....
If we can't even prove that they still exist....
If we now have inspectors back in that country.......
If we now have military folk at the doorstep, and complete control of both the North and South no-fly-zones....
If it stands to reason that getting a weapon of mass destruction out of Iraq and into the hands of a terrorist with the ability to smuggle it into the US is now (due to above and steps post-9/11) infinitely more difficult than it would have been the past couple of years......

Why should we not simply triple, no quadruple, the number of inspectors and intelligence flights in Iraq to at least *try* and work to a peaceful resolution of this matter?
Why are we so arrogant as to dismiss the feelings (very strong and passionate feelings) of the rest of the world??

(ok, that was two questions).

I'm also *very* interested to hear how you can support war (war = the death of hundreds, if not thousands of *innocent* people) so strongly when The Pope, a person who is the highest representative of Christianity, and presumably has the "word of God", strongly condemns this war and calls it unjust?
Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Just chattin' with friends......
Kevin in VT