HB 139 (Wireless Internet Access Requirements, Chief Sponsor: Bradley M. Daw)

Charles Curley charlescurley at charlescurley.com
Thu Jan 24 19:09:45 MST 2008


On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:14:23PM -0700, Bryan Sant wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 11:04 AM, Hill, Greg <grhill at corp.untd.com> wrote:

> 
> Right.  I am agreeing with you and Von.  I just think there are more
> powerful, rational, and logical reasons for agreeing with that
> position than saying "the other kids don't like us".
> 
> However, I have to correct your grossly exaggerated parity.
> 
> A) We didn't make up the intelligence that we had about Saddam
> Hussein.  We knew he had WMDs because WE SOLD 'EM TO HIM in the '80s.

Uh, OK, that explains how the Iraqis acquired WMDs in the 1980s. Back
when Hussein was Our Boy. Just like Osama bin Laden was Our
Boy. However weapons rot, the more modern the faster. Just because he
had them in 1989 does not mean he had them in 2003.

> French, UK, and German intelligence all AGREED with our intelligence.
> We all had believable intel on the WMDs because Saddam wanted the rest
> of the world generally and enemies in the middle east particularly to
> BELIEVE that he did have WMDs.

Actually we now know that the administration made more than 900
distinct and documented lies in the two years following September 11,
2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

> 
> B) 9/11 proceeded our invasion.  We didn't cause 9/11 (or other
> terrorist attacks).  We try to prevent and respond to them.  Our
> attacks against Afghanistan were COMPLETELY warranted.  Iraq wasn't.

No, the attacks against Afghanistan were not warranted. How many
innocent Afghans have been killed because of a war with an oppressive,
vicious tyrannical government?

Furthermore, hospitality is a prime virtue of the Pushtun (the tribe
from which many of the Taliban came). The US demand that the Taliban
turn over a guest, Osama bin Laden, was mind-bogglingly stupid. Anyone
familiar with Afghanistan could have predicted that the Talibs would
have fought rather than dishonor themselves by abandoning their guest
-- because historically that's what they've done. Having put his hosts
in the position of having to defend him in a stupid, suicidal, war did
not endear him to them. It is quite possible that the reason bin Laden
hasn't yet been found is that the Talibs silently bumped him off.


> 
> C) The UN made something like 21 resolutions (a.k.a. threatening
> letters) for Iraq to allow UN weapon's inspectors to come in and
> verify that Saddam didn't have WMDs.  Saddam continued to not allow
> inspectors in even after the UN had sent SEVERAL resolutions promising
> to use FORCE against Iraq if he didn't comply.  Of course the UN is a
> spineless, corrupt, joke so they didn't follow through on their
> promises, even after fixed dates blew past.

If you want to be irate at people who ignore UN resolutions, go right
ahead. I suggest you start with the country that has ignored more than
any other. Israel. Maybe Hussein though, "Gee, if the Israelis can get
away with it, maybe I can, too..."

> So....  Congress declared war

They did? I missed it.

> and America, the UK, and a handful of other countries, kicked down
> the door and spanked Saddam.  A little rash -- we should have waited
> to firm up our intel.  WAY too expensive of an operation (despite the
> right or wrong of it).  And, yes, it didn't help our image with
> countries that were illegally selling minor weapons and other goods to
> Iraq in the Oil for Food scandal (hello France, Germany, and Russia),

Also, hello the UN, which was up to its corrupt neck in it as well.


> who didn't want the status quo rocked.  America merely did what the UN
> promised they were going to do...  And yet we're the bad guys.  Screw
> the UN.

Let me see.... The UN is a corrupt, pusillanimous outfit unwilling or
unable to enforce its own resolutions. So, why should the US do the
enforcing for it? Sorry, sounds like a non-sequitur to me.

> 
> D) This has been the most successful military operation of this size
> EVER.  

Define successful. We were told...

Iraq has ties to al Qaeda. Oops, a lie.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Wrong.

Iraq would welcome us with open arms. This administration has given
the word "cakewalk" a bad name.

Iraq was tied in to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That lie was
convenient, given that this administration started planning the
invasion of Iraq in January, 2001. Right after the inauguration.

Iraqi oil would pay for the operation. Right.

So tell me, what exactly do you mean by "success" in Iraq? Preferably
something that isn't based on a lie.

> There's never been fewer soldiers killed, nor fewer civilians
> killed in any war of this size in the past.

Great. We've had fewer soldiers killed in the name of a lie than any
war of this size ever. That's not my idea of a rousing success. One
life wasted for such lies is one too many.

And what of Iraqis killed? Don't they count? It seems to me that, as
Iraqis are as human as Americans, their lives are just as valuable.

> We haven't killed millions of civilians -- rather Saddam killed
> millions of his own civilians.

Are you suggesting that Hussein reached out from his hidey-hole to
kill the civilians who have died of the violence since he was deposed?
And what of those who died since he was rather precipitously executed?
According to studies published in the Lancet, there is pretty good
confidence in the figure that some million Iraqis have did of causes
related to the violence since the second US invasion.

> 
> E) I don't think we should have gone into Iraq so hastily.  However,
> we're there now, and I think pulling out the troupes abruptly would be
> a disaster.  I agree with Ron Paul that we should pull out ALL of our
> troupes from around the world (not just Iraq).  But this would have to
> be done very gradually.  I love the military, but I hate government
> intervention and by that principle, we shouldn't be out policing the
> world.  Also, we're broke as a nation, and we can't afford to do so.

"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." Wm. Lloyd Garrison.

> 
> But we need to clean our own house first.

Now there I agree with you.


-- 

Charles Curley                  /"\    ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software       \ /    Respect for open standards
and/or writing?                  X     No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com    / \    No M$ Word docs in email

Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0  809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20080124/4c697983/attachment.bin 


More information about the PLUG mailing list