Date Posted:09:41:23 03/03/02 Sun Author: jerry Subject: Re: Saddam In reply to:
Keith
's message, "Re: Saddam" on 09:45:13 03/01/02 Fri
the american issue in the middle east is always a touchy issue to speak about b/c as patriot as i want to be i can't help but to the united states as the world's most self absorb, greedy, contradicting, inconsiderate bully. Supposely the 'New War' is an attempt to obtain infinite justice and enduring freedom yet we pull out of a peace agreement with russia so that we can go play with new weapons and justify why more money is going to the military instead of to education. Saddam, oh Saddam is the problem really that Saddam is 'evil'or that he is anti-american, we the educated-elite populace of america speak of assasination plans as if they were as common and proper as Sunday Dinner. Biological warfare? what is the atomic bomb, who used that first and inhabitants of japan still suffer from the terrors of nagasaki and hiroshima, innocent people like the ones that were in the WTC, innocent people like the ones in the homes destroyed by bombing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, Japan, where the people were used as test dummies for the bomb of the 20th century. Nuclear testing off the coast of Puerto Rico, causing cancer, now let me understand who is evil and what evil is. Is it determined by the fact that the U.S. is the last standing world power left to oppress the 'separated' world to no end. If Saddam is killed by american assassins expect response, because not only is that an act of total self interest compose on a false persumption of terrorism but its a blatant act of agression against the ruling hands of the middle east, and eastern world, first the taliban and then saddam, how about pakistan, and possibly china....
If we play with bombs then everybody should be able to play with bombs." lets be fair, if we must be aggressively stupid.
>What I mean is that if we take him out now, he will
>not have the ability to wage biological warfare on our
>country (literally). For example, he would not be
>able to launch an anthrax loaded ICBM at San
>Francisco. However, he may be able to attack our
>troops, it is what our soldiers are willing to fight
>against and a sacrifice they are willing to make.
>
>So yes, it would be better to lose a few hundred or a
>few thousand troops than millions here at home. Why
>do you think we have a military? To break it down, it
>would be better to sacrifice a few for the greater
>good. That's the way the world works. Feel free to
>ask more questions or talk to me after class or
>something.
>
>>
>>But not on our home terf? what is that supposed to
>>mean? That it would be Ok because the people killed by
>>his biological weapons wouldn't be US citizens?
