Michael Cash wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2004 06:27:50 -0700, "John W." <worthj1970@yahoo.com>
brought
> down from the Mount tablets inscribed:
>
> >Brett Robson wrote:
> >> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >> > John W. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Michael Cash wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> The AP radio news, in characteristic unbiased fashion,
informed
> >me
> >> >>> this evening that in the debates Kerry will call Bush to
account
> >for
> >> >>> "the mess in Iraq".
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Just out of curiosity, do you think it's not a mess and think
we
> >were
> >> >> absolutely right for going there and taking our eyes completely
> >off the
> >> >> ball?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Which war do you think wasn't a mess?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is the War of Terrorism (TM Fox News) as there was no formal
> >> declaration of war? Or is it an armed conflict that looks
> >> deceptively like war.
> >
> >Actually I think it's called the War in Iraq now, though the
Diversion
> >in Iraq might be a better name.
>
> Diversion from what?
>
Bin Laden. Not only wasn't there a tangible connection between him and
Iraq, it's not even that probable; Bin Laden is Shiite, Hussein Sunni.
Bin Laden supposedly despised Hussein for his repression of Shiites in
his country. So we should have kept our focus on the agents of terror,
not a pathetic dictator that we had pretty much successfully kept under
our thumb for a number of years. And for all the reasons used to go to
war in Iraq North Korea is a much better target for our aggression;
they didn't have the nukes then (looks like they do now), but were
trying to get them, ignored UN resolutions much like Hussein, and the
humanitarian crisis there is dire (in Iraq there really wasn't much of
a humanitarian crisis until the US made one). But you can't say these
things anymore because evidently wanting to avoid international
military conflicts has become a Liberal agenda (which is evil in the
eyes of most 'conservatives')....

John W.