[Vision2020] Free Speech and Crazy Bush
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:19:01 -0800
How many tons of VX did the UN inspector say Iraq had not accounted for? I
thought I heard 200 tons. For those of you not familiar with VX -- it is a
chemical nerve agent developed by the British. The US thought it was so
valuable they traded nuclear bomb technology to them to get VX technology in
return. The Brits thought it was such awful stuff they washed their hands
of it. It is now banned by international treaty and the US is in the
process of destroying their stocks of it. And Saddam has 200 tons of this
stuff???? I'd rather he had nukes because you stand a better chance of
detecting them as they come into the country. Dump a few pounds of this
into the air vents for the Sears tower and you turn it into a mass grave.
Subways in New York, San Francisco, and D.C.? This could be make the 9/11
casualties look like a warm up.
I do wish Bush would (could?) release the intelligence info that is the
basis for his claims that Saddam must be removed from power. But being in
the intelligence community (in a round about way) I know that there are some
things you cannot release without destroying the source. And preserving
those sources is more important that the good that would come from revealing
the data. For example, what if the conference rooms of one or more of
Saddam's palaces is "bugged". If Bush were to play the recording, or even
release a transcript, they would certainly know how it was obtained and
destroy that source of extremely valuable intelligence. Same thing with
pictures. And no, I don't have access to any classified data on this
mailto:email@example.com (Cell phone text message 110 chars max)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of Ted Moffett
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Free Speech and Crazy Bush
Mr. Kaag, et. al.
The "pacifist pets," to quote one of your choice phrases from an earlier
vision2020 post that speaks volumes about your mindset, who are against the
current push for war against Iraq, are very much concerned about the
thousands of civilian deaths and injuries to men, women and children, that
will certainly occur if we apply "maximum force consistent with the mission
and its goals, and with the fewest possible U.S. casualties," to quote your
wishes for how the war should proceed.
So do you include thousands of civilians, including women and children, when
you quote Patton about the "poor, dumb, S.O.B." who will die for his
country? Perhaps you are being ironic when you refer to this quote as a
"lovely sentiment." I surely hope so!
Regardless, the fact the you could present your opinions on this subject
only in terms of saving American lives, with no mention of the horrors that
will be unleashed on civilians in Iraq, is an example of the American
arrogance that earns the U.S the enmity of people around the world, when we
use our overwhelming military power against weak defenseless nations, which
certainly describes Iraq at this time.
Debating about whether this will be a "war" or a "massacre" from the lofty
realms of military science is absurd and callous. It will certainly be a
"massacre." This is the issue that must be soberly considered before
justifying this "war."
I hope when you teach your students at Moscow High you present more
compassion and balance in your attitudes towards the human family which must
eventually live together on this planet in peace. It is either peace, or we
will likely destroy ourselves or create a world of militarized armed camp
against armed camp misery, etc. We are clearly on our way to one of the
No, I am not ignorant of the necessity for the use of military force, so
don't trot out your proud militaristic lecture about the rough men who are
keeping America free so that "pacifist pets" such as myself can speak their
mind. But I am very realistically aware of what will eventually happen to
the human race if we cannot give up the habit of war.
>And by the way, although I am not particularly enamored with a war in Iraq,
>it is my earnest desire that all wars the United States becomes involved in
>be concluded speedily, with maximum force applied consistant with the
>mission and its goals, and with the fewest possible U.S. casualties. You
>would prefer, perhaps, a bunch of American kids coming home in body bags?
>General George Patton once said to his troops before battle," It is not
>your job to die for your country... it is your job to make the other poor,
>dumb, S.O.B. die for his!" A lovely sentiment.
>On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 11:35 AM, Bob Hoffmann wrote:
>>At 09:38 AM 1/29/2003 -0800, Carl Westberg wrote:
>>>It's obvious we will be at war soon. Why the obsessive focus on Iraq?
>>>It seem's the "axis of evil" has been condensed to Saddam, with North
>>>Korea, Iran, etc. being "different". After Iraq, which way does Dubya
>>>point his cowboy hat? Iraq is far from the only country we would have
>>>reason to go war with, given Bush's criteria. I understand Canada's been
>>>ticking the adminstration off lately.
>>Aside from the oil issue, Iraq meets a number of other U.S. considerations
>>as a candidate for war, without any exclusionary > issues.
>>For example, since Vietnam, it has been U.S. policy not to fight any wars
>>that it would have a remote possibility of losing, or even a remote
>>possibility of resulting in massive U.S. casualties. With 50,000 U.S.
>>troops within artillery range of North Korea, this point on the axis is
>>clearly excluded. Developing nuclear weapons? By their own admission. A
>>target for U.S. military attack? Not under the mutual damage exclusionary
>>principle. We only attack countries that have no real possibility of
>>fighting back: Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Libya, etc. Again, under the
>>principles of war, if your enemy cannot fight back or reasonably defend
>>itself, there is no war, merely a massacre.
>>820 S. Logan St.
>>Moscow, ID 83843
>>>>From: Bill Kerr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>>Subject: [Vision2020] Free Speech and Crazy Bush
>>>>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:28:25 -0800
>>>>Warning this message contains free speech stimulants. :)
>>>>Does anyone else think that Dubya is complete in his craziness yet?
>>>>What is the effect going to be on Moscow?
>>>>Does anybody really care?
>>>>Does Bush really care?
>>>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>>>communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
>>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>>communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.