Replies

No, actually I support US led regime change in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic strong holds instead of defending them with US men and dollars. And I voted Bush only because there wasn't a better Republican candidate around.

I love these ad homuem (?sp) attacks that get launched the moment some one comes out and starts asking the tough questions, nothing like shutting up any real debate and totting the party line, like mindless little bots. Shoot away, it won't make these problems go away or get answered by doing only what your betters tell you.

* Why are US troops still in the Balkins and the US is still backing the KLA? * Why is the US still giving money to Arafat? * Why is the US still spending globs of money, around $10 billion/year, defending Saudi Arabia when it refuses to cooperate with the US?

You are right. We can think about it now, or start thinking when it is too late. To add to that painful list, above, I would ask about our exact dealings with the Iraqi opposition. The greatest set of illassorted ratbags, windbags, bankrupts (literally in some cases) and fundamentalists I have ever seen.

If anyone put in a post, saying I think we should send money to support war criminals and Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East - there would be an uproar. But that is what we are already doing. No lesson has been learnt by the immoral policy of supporting Sadaam (that is why they had to pull 8,000 pages out of the dossier. They were about the US sending weapons, including anthrax).

Mine was not an attack. I truly wanted to know your position.

So I requested it, in a concise and short list of questions.

I cannot answer all of your questions. The real world is complex. Let me suggest one answer: Damage repair costs to Iraqi oilfields, will be offset against revenues from oil sales. Just a logical guess.

I would surmise that during the Thirty Years War, many questions arose.

I would further surmise, that before, during and after WWII, NOBODY had all the answers. Leaders (on both sides) did what they believed was best, under the extant circumstances.

Here are a few big questions to ponder:

Considering Islam may be hellbent on a long term quest for violent expansion, what course of action is most wise for the US to follow?

How can the civilized nations cause the Islamic citizenry, to turn away from their violence and expansionist aims?

With 15 of 19 WTC/Pentagon homicide perps originating from Saudi Arabia, would the US have been justified, to conquer Saudi Arabia, and make it a US territory, under the "spoils to the victor" doctrine of warfare?

Which muslim nation would serve as the best "example" to be destroyed, to show the world the folly of allowing it's citizens to attack America?

In WWII Germany and Japan were decisively defeated. In the aftermath, their citizens DID NOT try to continue the war, by terrorism. Can defeated muslims be expected to join a civilized, peaceful world community?

Of an estimated population of 1.2 billion muslims worldwide, how many would have to die, for the living to "fall into line" like the Germans and Japanese did?