Replies

Repellent

And on so many levels it is scary.

How and why you ever called yourself conservative is beyond me.

What are you talking about? I'm serious. I've always found you to be a poster who's comments I liked to read. I'm commenting on where Noonan mentions nervousness and you start calling me names.

Did I do something to you of which I am not aware? What's up with this?

I have no clue why you are being so abusive. I don't even know what subject you're talking about here.

Is there something I can help you with- within reason I'd be glad to. I just don't understand what's going on with you.

If you could tell me what it is you're talking about without blowing a fuse, we can go from there. Are you sure you haven't confused me with someone else that you are having difficulties with?

BTW, I'm willing to treat this as 'one of those things'. I don't mind corresponding with you. When you catch your breath and settle down, please, feel free to reply to any post you see me make- or even this one. I don't bear you any ill will. Whatever's going on with you, I hope you get it sorted.

Cheers ;-)

One last question- more to help me get my bearings with you than anything else.

Were you as bent out of shape about Operation Desert Fox as you were about Operation Iraqi Freedom?

I'm just curious. I had only used the internet sparsely when Desert Fox was happening and was living out of a rucksack in Africa and France. The truth be told, I didn't follow American politics then. So, I'm a bit out of touch about how people felt during that aspect of the war.

Was there a lot of outcry? Did you oppose that as much as you did O. Iraqi Freedom? And I guess, if you answer yes, the obvious question would be- did you oppose the opening operations of the war? Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm?

Fair enough, if you were totally against all the operations during the war then it makes sense that you would oppose this latest one- no matter who the president was.

So- in lieu of you answering- perhaps this is where our differences lie. You have been opposed to the war since 1990. Every operation- regardless of who was president. That's cool I respect that. But you have to understand, many of us felt that going to war was the right thing to do after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Many of us. Even France (and Germany too I might add). That says something. Many people only think about Germany and France as having opposed the ending act of the war but they forget that just 12 years ago, they agreed with the war starting.

The thing is, war is often easier to get into than it is to get out. Pacifists would just have us surrender and go home without thinking of the consequences. That wasn't an option with Iraq- not even under Clinton. The only way the war with Saddam was ever going to end was with Saddam being taken down.

Which part of that do you not agree with? You DO see that simply surrendering to Saddam would've had more long range repurcussions that were bad than good yes? Regardless of whether you thought it was right for the war to begin in 1990 or not- that's fair enough- but regardless, it did. It did start. You can't go back and undo that.

But how was it going to END? This is the key. How else did you think the war would end without something like Operation Iraqi Freedom? Did you want the war to go on forever? It makes no sense. I get the sense that you are a pacifist- which I have nothing against per se- but why would a pacifist want the war to continue? Dubya moved to end the war and I think that's a good thing. If Clinton had wanted to end the war in 1996- also a good thing.

What's wrong with ending the war? I think this is where you and I differ. I wanted the war to end and acknowledge that this was going to happen one way or the other. You wanted the war to end- perhaps- in a way that was not realistic- ie, our surrender.

But this isn't something to have a falling out about is it?