From: lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
Newsgroups: alt.guitar.amps misc.consumers.house alt.home.repair sci.environment
Subject: Re: Kerry should work at IHOP.  not run for president
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 04 14:12:13 GMT

In article ,
   "Kevin Singleton"  wrote:
>"Ian St. John"  wrote in message 
>news:1vdad.6791$hk6.63261@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> You seem to have stopped reading after a few words. Guess your buffer
>> overflowed?
>>
>> The rest of it is: "To defend the U.S. or to support U.N. sanctions".
>> However, there was no threat to the U.S. and the U.N. did not request
>> assistance.
>>
>Your congressman defined the threat as "continuing".  What do you think he 
>meant by that?  I think it means that your congressman believed that Iraq 
>was a threat, and that Iraq continued to be a threat.  

Congress has no intelligence agency.  They all work for the executive 
branch, and we know caveats and uncertainties expressed by them were not in 
the documents Congress saw.


>Tell us what you 
>think your congressman meant when he authorized the president to use force 
>against Iraq.
>

"All necessary" to "defend the US."  Can you honestly say an invasion was 
necessary to defend the US?

>> Well, Costa Rica is gone.. and it is not a case of justificatino by the
>> inclusion of 'allies'. The allies do not have to follow U.S. law and 
thus
>> are not accountable to the U.S. people for the illegal use of the U.S.
>> military.
>>
>That was pretty weak.  So, Costa Rica is no longer contributing troops.  
I'm 
>sure they both had to get back home to the farm.  That changes nothing 
about 
>the fact that this coalition is larger and stronger than many we'd fielded 
>in the past.

Come on, 90% of the casualties and 90% of the cost from the US.  Except for 
Britain, no nation has more than a few dozen troops in Iraq.


>  Remember, in the global war on terror, you're either with us, 
>or against us.
>

Remember, the Nazis said something just like that.