Richard Barker wrote:
>How many times do we have to state this.  Everyone or at least the vast
>majority of people believe that Saddam is not a nice person.  Nobody is
>supporting Saddam, no one his ignoring is alleged war crimes.  Some people
>do not believe that this war is justified and so are against it.  This
>doesn't mean they wouldn't have supported the allied forces in the WW2 or
>that they wouldn't have supported the war of independence.

Richard, unfortunately you will have to continue to state it because both
sides continue to throw rocks, evoke questionable arguments, indulge in
hyperbole, etc.   I am equally tired of the "it's all about oil", naked
aggression, naked imperialism, and "the US is the biggest threat to world
peace" arguments.

IMO this is a question of the least bad option and I'm not surprised that
people's value judgments result in different conclusions.

Cortlandt Wilson
(650) 966-8555

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>Behalf Of Richard Barker
>Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:12 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [HP3000-L] OT:RE: [HP3000-L] OT: Sec of State Powell's
>Integrity (was: Quote s of the Day)
>
>
>How many times do we have to state this.  Everyone or at least the vast
>majority of people believe that Saddam is not a nice person.  Nobody is
>supporting Saddam, no one his ignoring is alleged war crimes.  Some people
>do not believe that this war is justified and so are against it.  This
>doesn't mean they wouldn't have supported the allied forces in the WW2 or
>that they wouldn't have supported the war of independence.
>
>>We now very clearly see some of the weapons that the inspectors "did not
>>find" and we are finding the chemical labs that hans blix and sean penn
>said
>>were not there.  We are seeing al qaeda fighters joining in the
>fray, again
>>demonstrating thier connection to saddam.
>
>I'd like to see a bit more evidence of this than some journalist saying it
>is the case, I'm not sure I would even trust the US Government, if
>they said
>the same.  Saddam and his colleagues say that Iraq is winning the war, does
>that make it true.
>
>>But because saddam is a left wing dictator, he has
>>the support of the liberal/left of this country and his actions are
>>therefore acceptable.
>>Sure, they (and the U.N.) tried to make it appear as though saddam's
>actions
>>were seen as polically incorrect by pretending to make weapons
>inspections.
>
>Oh dear, here we go again.  Jim, I assume you are American.  In the schools
>in the US, do they teach everyone that left wing or socialist politics is
>evil and all right wing, capitalist ideals are good.  Saddam is a
>right wing
>dictator, his name even appears under the definition of 'right wing' in the
>Encyclopaedia.  I'm also sure there are a number of people, who would
>consider themselves 'right wing', but still do not support the military
>action.  Why do so many people try and group all the people who are against
>this war (which is the vast majority of the world) into this little box.
>
>---
>
>I would be a little more worried about the backlash from this war.  After
>9/11, America, had real world-wide support, but now, it is
>probably the most
>hated country in the world.  Unfortunately, I fear, that the problems will
>now escalate for the American people because of the actions of it's
>government.
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Mc Coy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
>This person is part of the same crowd that thinks President Bush is a war
>criminal for going after terrorists and the regimes that support them, but
>does not consider saddam hussein's actions to be criminal.
>
>There is no one that is pro-war - at least not on our side.  There
>are those
>who do understand that sometimes war is the only solution and is persued
>only as a last resort - just as in this case.
>If you are "anti-war" keep this in mind:
>
>If it were not for war, we would not have the freedom that we have today.
>We would still be subject to the British throne.  So if you are "anti-war"
>then you have to be "anti- American independence".
>After centuries of slavery in this country, it took a war to finally end it
>completely.  If you are "anti-war" then you would have to be willing to
>accept slavery.
>If you are "anti-war" then Hitler and the Holocost would have had to have
>been acceptable to you.
>If you are "anti-war" in this case, then the events of 9/11 must also be
>acceptable to you - just as gassing of the kurds, the torture and murder of
>thousands of other Iraqi's, and saddam's desire to build nuclear and
>chemical weapons for the expressed purpose of attaking Israel and the U.S.
>also must be acceptable to you.
>
>If President Bush suddenly launched an attack on FL or CA and began
>murdering and torturing millions of democrats, these same anti-war leftists
>would be screaming for the U.N. to send in troops to kill him and bring an
>end to the blood bath.  But because saddam is a left wing dictator, he has
>the support of the liberal/left of this country and his actions are
>therefore acceptable.
>Sure, they (and the U.N.) tried to make it appear as though
>saddam's actions
>were seen as polically incorrect by pretending to make weapons inspections.
>
>We now very clearly see some of the weapons that the inspectors "did not
>find" and we are finding the chemical labs that hans blix and sean
>penn said
>were not there.  We are seeing al qaeda fighters joining in the fray, again
>demonstrating thier connection to saddam.
>
>What we need in this country  today are more people like President Bush and
>Secretary Powell and our soldiers, who are willing to stand up and defend
>America and alot less of those so eager to see it destroyed.
>
>JM
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>==================================
>This message contains confidential information and is intended solely for
>the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not
>the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
>email. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received
>this e-mail
>by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email
>transmission cannot
>be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
>intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or be incomplete. The
>sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
>the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email
>transmission.
>If verification is required please request a hard copy version. No
>contracts
>may be concluded on behalf of Virgin Express SA/NV by means of email
>communication. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any
>attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability
>for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
>==================================
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *