Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Michael Czeiszperger <michael AT czeiszperger.org>]

On Oct 3, 2004, at 6:15 PM, James Dasher wrote:

I have lots to say, but don't really want to get embroiled in a 
tit-for-tat back-n forth.  I had my say, you had your say, and I'm 
mostly willing to leave it at that.

> The question of Iraq's weapons programs is still open.  Iraq didn't 
> have a nuclear weapon.  But as the L.A. Times, among others, have been 
> reporting, captured Iraqi scientists have been telling a different 
> story from the "Saddam had no WMD programs".  And I haven't heard 
> anyone (qualified) dismiss the possibility/probability that the former 
> regime shipped their weapons across the border.

We could have a good discussion about the veracity of the intelligence 
from Iraqi scientists, but if the remote possibility of the existence 
of weapons program is enough to invade another country why don't we go 
after countries who actually have them and intend to use them? The Iraq 
situation feel so incredibly short of the threat level for invading 
another country.

> But Kerry's got a long Senate history opposing pretty much every war, 
> at every time, in every place.  Would Kerry really turn his back on 
> his core convictions?  Personally, I don't see it.  I'm not saying the 
> man doesn't have a spine; I'm saying that he actually has one, and 
> that once he won the election, he would abandon certain rhetorical 
> flourishes and positional contortions and return to those convictions.

The US has been involved in so many wars for the wrong reasons of 
fabricated evidence of the threat involved (like the Gulf of Tonkin for 
example) that having someone making decisions based on actual facts 
must come as shock.

___________________________________________________________________
michael at czeiszperger dot org
Chapel Hill, NC