Since you ask:

When Clinton invaded Haiti, I was not really for it, but I thought perhaps
we could do some good there.  It was at the beginning of his presidency and
little did I know that we would be going everywhere.

When Clinton lobbed a few bombs into Iraq in response to an attempted
assassination of Bush 41, I thought we should have gone in at that time and
removed the terrorist regime.  But it didn't happen.

In 1998 when Clinton threatened war against Iraq over the inspectors, I was
all for that one.  Finally we were going to go after Saddam, remove him,
free the Iraqi people and get rid of an arsenal of WMDs.  (Didn't happen,
Clinton was only fooling, but I was for it.)

When we went into Bosnia, I didn't see where this was in the interest of the
United States, I really considered that problem a European problem and let
them deal with it.  If we went in there, we would be there for a long time.
History should not be ignored.  I just didn't see how the Balkan situation
could be a threat to the security of the United States, after all there were
no WMDs there and these people had been fighting each other for a long time.
I was a little surprised at the way one group was denied weapons and the
other had just about everything they wanted, short of nukes.

When we went into Kosovo, I still didn't see how this was in the interest of
the US or how that dictator Milosovich was threat to the United States.  But
we are part of NATO and NATO wanted to remove him as a threat to neighboring
NATO countries and for humanitarian reasons.  Since none of the European
countries, with the possible exception of the UK, can do anything to remove
a brutal dictator for a fourth rate country, we had to do it for them.
(Here is a UK article describing the state of readiness of the French
military.  This may further explain the current position of the French.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F12%2F
16%2Fwfran16.xml )

We went in ostensibly under NATO control.  However, when we started bombing
using B-2 bombers, this was no longer NATO, this was the United States doing
the bombing, on our own.  You see, the B-2 is not under NATO control.

I did not think it was a good idea to bomb the Al-Sifa (sp?) pharmaceutical
company in the Sudan.

I did not think it was a good idea to indiscriminately lob bombs into Iraq
or Afghanistan, just for the heck of it.  Clinton tossed more bombs around
the world in his 8 years in power than I care to remember.  No wonder some
countries around the world hate us.

The use of force should be carefully weighed and used only as a last resort
to protect yourself or to protect someone else who absolutely cannot protect
themselves.  At that time, the job should be carried through to completion.

Denys

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
rosenblatt, joseph
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 8:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: OT: Re: [HP3000-L] Left, Left, Left-Right-Left

>On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 05:33 PM, :-) Craig Lalley wrote:
>> Why is it so easy to proclaim the innocence of Saddam and the moral >
bankruptcy of President Bush?
>I don't remember anyone on this list "proclaiming the innocence of Saddam"
or the "moral bankruptcy of President Bush".
>Please identify the culprits.
>FW
Though I am not guilty of proclaiming Saddam Hussein's innocence, my words
may have been misconstrued about the "moral bankruptcy of President Bush." I
certainly never meant to imply that Dubya, the man, is morally bankrupt. I
unequivocally belief the policy he is pursuing is morally bankrupt. I
believe, with equal vehemence and repulsion, that the same is true of Saddam
Hussein's policy. (BTW, if you notice I never call the leader of Iraq by his
first name only. This is not out of any respect to the man or his office.
The use of his first name only is, at least in his eyes, a term of
endearment. I do not wish to endear myself to him or him to me.)
The liberal says that there two sides to every question. The mathematician
answers him, "Mobius, mobius not." One size does not fit all; neither do two
sizes.
We must stop this attitude that says if you disagree with US policy you must
be at worst a traitorous scoundrel that seeks to destroy democracy, mom and
apple pie and at best some sort of dewy-eyed liberal* dupe that lacks
understanding of the real situation. The "If your not for me you are against
me" credo is simplistic, mean-spirited and can get us into a lot of trouble.
My opponents are neither evil nor stupid; if they were, their arguments
would be easily refuted.
Let Peace be the maxim by which we act because we will Peace to become a
universal law.
Work For Peace
The opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of my
employer.
Yosef Rosenblatt
*It is the consensus that only "liberals" are against the war. I believe
that is incorrect in two ways. The first is that not all those branded as
"liberals" in this country are against the war, a number of so-called
liberal senators come to mind. The second is that there are a number of
conservatives against the war. In our own ranks, we have at least one self
proclaimed conservative that has made it abundantly clear that he would
oppose the war if the president were a Democrat. ;-) (You know who you are.
Don't Deny it.)
WFP
YR

* 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 *