A liberal's response a year later.
wbwhite at MADBBS.COM
Sat Apr 10 21:35:52 MDT 2004
You've given him a heavy dose of what is so. Will he be able to use the
information, or will he simply chant, "Four legs good; two legs bad"?
> Today I got an email from a liberal in the UK in response to a something I
> sent him a year ago. I'll include those two messages and the reply I sent
> him today.
> First my original message:
> Subject: What say you now?
> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:11:03 -0700
> From: Jim Nantz <jnantz2 at getnet.net>
> To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> People are dancing in the streets of Baghdad.
> People were cheering as Marines helped them pull down a big statue of Saddam.
> One Iraqi who didn't want to wait, was attacking the pedestal of the statue
> with a sledgehammer.
> People were spitting on portraits of Saddam and hitting them with their
> shoes, which is a big insult over there.
> Marines are having trouble making it through town because of all the people
> wanting to kiss them.
> Others were seen kissing photos of George Bush.
> Others were shouting "Bush is Great" and "Long live Bush."
> Iraqis were also drawing their own American flags and waving these and
> displaying them on their vehicles.
> What say you now?
> XXXX Now his response that arrived today. XXXX
> Delivered-To: jnantz2 at getnet.net
> Received: (qmail 25655 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2004 12:58:52 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-160.getnet.net) (126.96.36.199)
> by mail.getnet.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2004 12:58:52 -0000
> Received: (qmail 29987 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2004 12:58:51 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1)
> by localhost.getnet.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2004 12:58:51 -0000
> Received: from smtp-160.getnet.net ([127.0.0.1])
> by localhost (scrubber [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP
> id 14592-23 for <jnantz2 at getnet.net>; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 05:58:51 -0700 (MST)
> Received: (qmail 29974 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2004 12:58:51 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO wmpmta02-app.mail-store.com) (188.8.131.52)
> by smtp-160.getnet.net with SMTP; 10 Apr 2004 12:58:51 -0000
> Received: from wmpmtavirtual ([10.216.84.20])
> by wmpmta02-app.mail-store.com with SMTP
> <20040410125849.VGLR4453.wmpmta02-app.mail-store.com at wmpmtavirtual>
> for <jnantz2 at getnet.net>; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:58:49 +0100
> Received: from 184.108.40.206 by t21web10-lrs ([10.216.84.20]); Sat, 10 Apr
> 04 13:55:20 GMT+01:00
> X-Mailer: talk21 v1.26 - http://talk21.btopenworld.com
> From: xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: jnantz2 at getnet.net
> X-Talk21Ref: none
> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:55:20 GMT+01:00
> Subject: Re: What say you now
> Message-Id: <20040410125849.VGLR4453.wmpmta02-app.mail-store.com at wmpmtavirtual>
> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at getnet.net
> X-UID: 33388
> One year ago you sent me this e-mail. Well one year on the story is now
> totally different. I fear the Americans have lost their grip on reality.
> What say you now?
> XXXX Now my reply. XXXX
> At 06:55 AM 4/10/2004, you wrote:
> > Jim,
> >One year ago you sent me this e-mail. Well one year on the story is now
> >totally different.
> Totally different, How so?
> > I fear the Americans have lost their grip on reality.
> How do you figure this?
> The current violence in Iraq is due to two groups.
> One is a relatively small number of people who no longer have any special
> privileges they had while Saddam was in power.
> The other is a moslem cleric and his followers who want Iraq to be another
> islamic dictatorship like Iran is. Both groups have a strong incentive to
> want to see the current push for democracy in Iraq fail. Anytime a
> dictatorship falls, there are people who stand to loose something. These
> people want the old dictatorship or one like it to come to power and will
> work to achieve this. So you shouldn't be surprised that a few Islamic
> wackos are up to no good.
> Yes the American forces dropped a bomb on the compound at a mosque. People
> in the mosque were shooting at them. The Americans have every right to
> shoot back. In fact, the Americans showed incredible restraint. They had
> every right to destroy that mosque and kill everyone in it. If you're
> going into a mosque for afternoon prayers while people in the mosque are
> shooting at soldiers, you should not be surprised if you get shot at once
> you're in there or on the way in.
> If I were to find fault with the American response to 9-11, I would say
> that Bush has been to soft on these terrorists. Saddam's sons got what
> they deserved and their father should have gotten the same. Also keep in
> mind that the terrorists and their allies understand nothing but
> force. They don't understand you trying to be nice to them. Attempts at
> negotiation with them are seen only as a sign of weakness that result in
> more attacks. If the terrorists are going to use mosques as places to
> store weapons and attack, then those mosques they use should be
> destroyed. Giving in to terrorists is not the way to deal with
> them. Spain just tried this by voting for the candidate who promises to
> remove Spanish troops from Iraq. This did not stop the terrorists. After
> the election, more bombs went off and more were found before they went off.
> Don't give me that rubbish about Saddam having nothing to do with
> 9-11. Everyone knows that he had a training camp for terrorists in
> Baghdad. Also Iraqi agents met with Osama's people on numerous occasions.
> For the last 30 years, America has been soft on terrorists. Over that
> time, terrorist attacks against America and American interests have been
> growing more severe. Kadafy in Libya was behind some bombings in Europe
> that killed some Americans. After Ronald Reagan sent the Air Force to blow
> up Kadafy's house, he's kept very quiet. After the liberation of Iraq from
> Saddam, Kadafy announced that he was giving up his nuclear weapons program
> and handed over the equipment he had for this purpose.
> Ask your grandparents or others of their age how successful the attempts to
> negotiate with Hitler were. I saw the film of Chamberlain waving his piece
> of paper he had with Hitler's signature on it and going on about how he had
> achieved peace in our time. It didn't quite work out that way did it? As
> time went on, Hitler's demands and aggression grew as the Western nations
> did nothing to challenge him. World War 2 was the result.
> You might say the Germans and the French were right in opposing any action
> against Saddam. Their motives were because of oil. France had a lot of
> contracts with Saddam to help launder the money that was supposed to be
> used for the oil for food program. Thanks to French help, most of that
> money went to Saddam to support his lavish lifestyle while his people
> suffered. Also France sold a reactor to Saddam that thankfully was bombed
> by the Israelis. Other parts for nuclear weapons programs have been found
> in Iraq that were of French and German origin.
> I believe I've answered your question.
More information about the Rushtalk