Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] attacking Iran?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Vern Green wrote:

> > I normally withold judgment on such matters because I can know very 
> > little of the evidence that confronted the President
>
> It sounds very much like you are preparing a defense for the eventuality 
> of a democrat gaining office and then executing some military campaign 
> of their own in the middle east.
>
> If you are not preparing that defense, then you should be, because both 
> of the leading candidates have sounded a little hawkish of late.

It hadn't even occurred to me, and I'm wondering what I wrote below that 
reminded you of the Democrats.

Mike


> On 9/2/07, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> > I don't know what to believe, but here's the current #1 on Reddit:
> >
> > http://politics.reddit.com/goto?id=2kxog
> >
> > Of course I'm skeptical of the claims but we've been hearing for months
> > that something might happen.  We'll just have to wait and see.
> >
> > I just want to add one interesting point.  The Muslim world consists of
> > Shia and Sunni.  Our President and his family are close friends of the
> > Saudi royal family, who are Sunni.  The President wants to spread freedom
> > and democracy in the Middle East, but the Saudi royals are dictators and
> > they do not have a democracy, yet Bush has never expressed any concerns
> > about that.  This map shows the distribution of Shia and Sunni:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Muslim_distribution.jpg
> >
> > We have been attacking some of the countries with the largest Shia
> > populations:  Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran is certainly the most Shia of
> > all of them.  What next?  Syria and Yemen?
> >
> > I'm sure there's a strong argument for attacking Iran, but it would be
> > easy to make a strong argument for removing the Saudi royals and
> > instituting a democracy in Saudi Arabia.  Most of the 9/11 terrorists were
> > Saudi, for starters.  There's plenty more where that came from but we
> > aren't hearing about it.
> >
> > Regarding any possible forthcoming attacks:  I normally withold judgment
> > on such matters because I can know very little of the evidence that
> > confronted the President, but this time it's a little different.  After
> > years of scheming, lying and secrecy, he won't have my support for any
> > unprovoked attack on another nation.
> >
> > Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion