[Vision2020] Donald Rumsfeld-speak

Sunil Ramalingam sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:43:41 -0800

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Bob Hoffman accurately described my position in his answer to your post.&nbsp; But speaking of discomfort, I'm increasingly uncomfortable about believing anything the President says, after hearing him announce that Hussein and Al Quaida were one and the same, and that they act in concert.&nbsp; (That was back in late summer or the fall)&nbsp; If they act in concert, doesn't that require an act by Iraq?&nbsp; If&nbsp; he believes that, then I'm uncomfortable with the advice he's getting; if he doesn't, I'm uncomfortable that he's so willing to lie to us.&nbsp;&nbsp;</P>
<P>We weren't attacked by Iraq.&nbsp; They haven't been linked to September 11.&nbsp; We're told we have to attack them because they might have WMD.&nbsp; On the other hand, apparently we know that N. Korea has nukes, but we have announced we have no plans to invade them.&nbsp; Perhaps if we learn that they're floating on oil we'll change our minds, but only if our invasion doesn't annoy the Chinese.</P>
<P>If you can make an argument analogizing post-WWII Japan and Germany to a post-Gulf War II Iraq, I'll read it.&nbsp; I don't think they have much in common.&nbsp; I don't think we'll 'create' a 'democratic' state there, and I think we shouldn't jump to the conclusion they'll want one afterwards.&nbsp; Will they hold our principles dear after we turn their cities into rubble?&nbsp; Or will they turn to the likes of Al Quaida, who will look like prophets when they say, 'I told you so, they are here to kill our brothers and take our oil.'</P>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;From: Don Kaag <DKAAG@TURBONET.COM>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;To: Vision 2020 <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Donald Rumsfeld-speak 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:00:34 -0800 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;You posted..." 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;You assume that things in Iraq would have been better had we 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;toppled Hussein.&nbsp; However, given our history of installing and/or 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;supporting rulers who kill both their own subjects and sometimes 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;&gt;those of their neighbors, I don't make the same assumption." 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;...so, how do you explain the present-day democratic states of the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Federal Republic of Germany, Japan and South Korea? 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Although I personally oppose the invasion of Iraq at this point, I 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;did support the war in 1991, and if compelling evidence of weapons 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;of mass destruction is uncovered either by U.S. or allied 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;intelligence or by the U.N inspectors, my stance will change. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I must admit to becoming increasingly uncomfortable reading the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;antiwar postings on this site, because I have the feeling that many 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;people posting would oppose any military action in Iraq for any 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;reason whatsoever, and I strongly disagree with that viewpoint. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;There are very few objective Historians who believe that "violence 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;never solves anything". 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;If Saddam Hussein can be shown to have substantial amounts of bugs, 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;gas or nukes, in egregious violation of the 1991 treaty, the U.S. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;government has a responsibility to take them away from him or 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;destroy them. They have a responsibility to protect the people of 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;the United States from serious threats of harm. That is what the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;U.S. military exists for. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Don Kaag 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>The new MSN 8 is here: Try it  <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMSEN/2018">free* for 2 months</a> </html>