> While we americans are led to believe that
the airplane attack on USA was unprovoked, it may have been
precipitated by our international policies.
Sure we have
international policies that may be disliked by the people of the
mideast. So why don't they just not take the money. Just say no
thank you and we will politely keep it without any insistence to the
contrary. But they never do. Do they? $300M/yr to Egypt,
$100M/yr to the Palestinians, yes and of course the almost $1B/yr to Israel,
and Saudi Arabia and Oman and Kuwait and ... The notion that our
policies, in the eyes of Fundamentalist Islam, not yours, justifies 19
wahabi (sp?) Arabs to fly planes within US border and kill
people, equally justifies the new foreign policy doctrine of
Pre-emption. Cause and effect. For years we have been generous
with the mideast, giving it money, medicine, farming technology, water
technology. Yes we bought oil. Our assistance has aided in
the elevation of their standard of living. Now we will educate the
middle-east with our other hand, justly defending
> Be that as it may, there is no connection
between it and Iraq.
You're right. There was no direct
operational connection, that we know of, between Iraq and the 9/11
attack. However, the doctrine of pre-emption clearly states that we
will go after nations who assist in harboring or financing terrorism.
Saddam did both. Foreign policy lesson #101.
> Therefore, declaration of
war on Iraq, a sovereign nation, is unjustified regardless of what Saddam
did or did not do on his own people. Instead of Saddam, USA has taken upon
itself to kill thousands of Iraqis.
Saddam and his sovereign nation killed at
the very least 1 million Muslims, paid money to encourage the homicide
bombing of innocent Israeli citizens, invaded Kuwait in an attempt to take
control of the worlds oil supply. And countless other bad things to
numerous to list. Yes we have killed thousands of Iraqis, and the
insurgent Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians, and untold
others. And now the Iraqi people have taken up the killing
in the name of securing their reborn nation.
> In the process, our own men and families
have been destroyed in this foohardy process.
Helping others achieve FREEDOM while killing those threatening our
security can hardly be called a foolhardy process. But then you
did say that Mao was some kind of great leader or such some nonsense.
Kinda reminds me of the line in the movie A Few Good Men. You know the
one, where Jack Nicholson as the character Colonel Nathan R. Jessup
says "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I
provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said
thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a
weapon, and stand to post." I here, being The United States
Keith De Lapp, P.E.