On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:57:32 -0400, Kevin Gowen
<kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote:

>> Unless you're referring to the French state of 1940-44 that was a
>> puppet government of Nazi Germany then no, I don't.

>Then your statement is nonsensical.

How so?

>> While it's not a perfect analogy, ask yourself WHY would Dubya have no
>> qualms whatsoever about swooping in on Baghdad, guns a-blazin' based
>> SOLELY on the suspicion of their production of WOMD yet on the other
>> hand send diplomats to beg for a treaty with North Korea even though
>> Mr. Il openly admit to manufacturing nuclear weapons?

>Mr. Il? Don't you mean "Mr. Kim"?

No, I meant Mr. Il and not Mr. Kim. I'm American, not North Korean and
prefer to go with the name that comes last and not the actual surname.
If he'd like to be called by his proper family name perhaps he should
press release that his name is actually Jong Il Kim.

>I don't know anything about anyone "begging for a treaty", but the fact 
>that a country called China borders NK might have something to do with 
>the reluctance to "swoop in" with "guns ablazin".

I'd go so far as to say that North Korea's own million strong army and
nuclear arsenal are deterrent enough for Dubya. My point, obviously,
was that Dubya's war on Iraq had nothing to do with WMD. 

>Are you saying that it is your wish that the US "whoop in" on NK with 
>"guns a-blazin"?

It is my wish that my President wouldn't use lame excuses for his
for-profit daddy-love-me wars.

>> Credit to Dubya, he does know how to pick his fights although I'm
>> quite sure he had no idea Iraq would become quite the quagmire it has.

>Could you please tell us the ideal length for a war? I mean, Reagan was 
>criticized for Grenada being too short.

Did I say there is an ideal length for a war? I don't support nor have
I ever supported this current war so for me it's ideal length would
have been zero days.

>>>No, it's all about maintaining hegemony. Now, smile.
 
>> Apparently selective hegemony limited to only those Bush isn't afraid
>> of.

>I don't know what "selective hegemony" is suppose to mean. The term 
>makes no sense.

It means to dominate weak enemies who you are guaranteed success
against and to run away from those whom might actually harm you. 

>> I was already smiling, Kev. Thanks.

>Oh, so you must be enjoying our many football stadiums and shopping malls.

I was reading your post.