From: Adam Flinton 

Mark Hessey wrote:

> "Monte Davis"  wrote in message
> news:12n130lfi79vn9e4mlovqn183h6daq0tae{at}4ax.com...
>
>>"Mark Hessey"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But, I find the left's sound bite
>>>stuff of "Where are the WMD?" to be simplistic in nature
>>
>>Yep -- asking factual support for a president's decision to take the
>>country to war is just SO simplistic. Surely any "moderate
>>independent" would respect his freedom to fantasize.
>
>
> That Bush chose to boil it down to WMD in his talking points instead of
> continually promoting an unwieldy littany of reasons does not in fact reduce
> the reason to that single aspect.
>
>
>>As for the "feigned claim" not to see a connection between Iraq and
>>terrorism: did I miss the message in which you provided the name of
>>ONE Al Qaeda member who was active in Iraq -- let alone receiving
>>Iraqi government support -- as of the invasion last spring?
>
>
> What does al Quada specifically have to do with it? I'm talking about the
> greater good of shutting down the terrorist mind-set sooner, and over there
> instead of over here, than later. It's working very well indeed, as
> witnessed by the actions of Libya, the capitulation of Iran to inspections,
> some progress with N. Korea (though not enough and still a problem) and the
> uncovering of a most disturbing underground network of nuclear
> proliferation.
>

Huh???? The US has sodding huge numbers of "terror weapons" aka
WMD aka nuclear weapons. If you want to clsoe down the terror mindset then
the nuclear powers are the place to start.

> That last alone is worth 10 Iraqs.

Over 100,000 other people's lives? Blimey you're free & easy with
violence for political ends.....have you ever considered joining al-qaeda?


> Almost on par with shutting down that
> huge problem, is the overall effect of our action going forward, that can,
> and hopefully will, in reducing the need for as many future military
> operations. We'd not get this kind of absolutely necessary jump start in
> creating a new, more stable world order through an "ambassadors to
> terrorists" plan - not no way, no how.
>

So defeat terror with terror but it's OK coz it's our terror?

> We can't afford to dilly dally around lest our mainland train and bus depots
> begin to explode into a facsimile of the unacceptable conditions in Israel -
> is that what we want, to build efficient teams of 1st responders to rush out
> into the streets of our cities like a team of "Roomba's"
sweeping the blood
> and guts into the sewers?

But so long as it's Iraqi blood & guts going into the swers that's fine.

>  Then we'd have truly lost the war, not the
> hand-wringing false loss via the Patriot Act that the left decries
> disingenuously. Amazingly enough, last night Kerry made the incredibly
> stupid statement that he could sum up the problem of that act with two
> words: "John Ashcroft." If that really reflects of the depth
of his thoughts
> on the matter, no wonder he doesn't get the war on terror either.
>
>

If Ashcroft & his ilk get their way then the terrorist have won. Cheers
for rolling over like a good little pooch in the face of a bunch of bearded
fascists.


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5