gh0st
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Messages
- 6,023
- Reaction score
- 0
Most of you probably dont know who Lars Larson is. He's a decent talkshow host I listen to a bunch; mostly because he likes to involve callers and emails and so forth. He, as you probably guessed is a staunch conservative. Here is the email I sent him, I hope he reads it on the air because what he has to say in the Presidents defense will be interesting beyond words.
Price of Gas? Up 46% (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp)
Value of the Minimum Wage? Down
7%(http://www.epinet.org/issueguides/minwage/figure1.gif)
Unemployment? Up 30% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
Poverty rate? Up 11% (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf)
Federal Defecit? 412 billion, up nearly 2000%
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6862777/)
The dollars lost huge value against the Euro and Yen. In virtually all
respects, America has become worse since George Bush has taken office.
Worse, he lowers taxes in an effort to appease that little "R" next to
his name, so we, under his Administration, are basically never going
to climb out of our massive debt. Our economy is virtually in shambles
- yet you defend him on a moral basis? I'm a republican, I'd rather
have Clinton in office than this clown.
Incidents of international terrorism? Up 200% since the War in Iraq
(http://www****b.org/ChartModule.jsp) (this is tkb.org by the way). We've squandered hundreds of
billions of dollars on POINTLESS foreign conflicts. A war based upon
utter deception on the part of the Bush administration. Try to justify
it now. Humanitarian basis? Thats idiocy (http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm)
"By contrast, the United States-led coalition forces justified the
invasion of Iraq on a variety of grounds, only one of which—a
comparatively minor one—was humanitarian. The Security Council did not
approve the invasion, and the Iraqi government, its existence on the
line, violently opposed it. Moreover, while the African interventions
were modest affairs, the Iraq war was massive, involving an extensive
bombing campaign and some 150,000 ground troops."
"The lack of ongoing or imminent mass slaughter was itself sufficient
to disqualify the invasion of Iraq as a humanitarian intervention.
Nonetheless, particularly in light of the ruthlessness of Saddam
Hussein's rule, it is useful to examine the other criteria for
humanitarian intervention. For the most part, these too were not met."
Care to explain why, exactly, we didnt go into Iraq a few years ago?
Ah, probably we shouldnt have then, and we shouldnt have now. As
George Bush Sr. said,
"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human
and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. ... We
would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.
... [T]here was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating
another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War
world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Bush has establishd the ill concieved cold-waresque notion of the
preemptive strike. We see the fruits of that doctrine: our troops our
dying because of it.
Strains imposed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it far
more difficult for the U.S. military to beat back any future act of
aggression, launch a preemptive strike or intervene to prevent
conflict in another part of the world, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff said in a classified analysis sent to Congress on
Monday. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3may03,0,6915005.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
Why you support this war effort and this madman is beyond me. I will
be supremely suprised if you read and reply to this email on the air -
I doubt you will; it showcases how shallow support for GWB really is -
its based on morals, not results. The President delivers neither. A
moral man does not decieve, resulting in thousands of deaths. A moral
man does not desecrate states rights, trying to keep Terri Schaivo
alive.
I left out a bunch, I'll deliver the killer blow after he replies. I'll post it here.
Price of Gas? Up 46% (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp)
Value of the Minimum Wage? Down
7%(http://www.epinet.org/issueguides/minwage/figure1.gif)
Unemployment? Up 30% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
Poverty rate? Up 11% (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf)
Federal Defecit? 412 billion, up nearly 2000%
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6862777/)
The dollars lost huge value against the Euro and Yen. In virtually all
respects, America has become worse since George Bush has taken office.
Worse, he lowers taxes in an effort to appease that little "R" next to
his name, so we, under his Administration, are basically never going
to climb out of our massive debt. Our economy is virtually in shambles
- yet you defend him on a moral basis? I'm a republican, I'd rather
have Clinton in office than this clown.
Incidents of international terrorism? Up 200% since the War in Iraq
(http://www****b.org/ChartModule.jsp) (this is tkb.org by the way). We've squandered hundreds of
billions of dollars on POINTLESS foreign conflicts. A war based upon
utter deception on the part of the Bush administration. Try to justify
it now. Humanitarian basis? Thats idiocy (http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm)
"By contrast, the United States-led coalition forces justified the
invasion of Iraq on a variety of grounds, only one of which—a
comparatively minor one—was humanitarian. The Security Council did not
approve the invasion, and the Iraqi government, its existence on the
line, violently opposed it. Moreover, while the African interventions
were modest affairs, the Iraq war was massive, involving an extensive
bombing campaign and some 150,000 ground troops."
"The lack of ongoing or imminent mass slaughter was itself sufficient
to disqualify the invasion of Iraq as a humanitarian intervention.
Nonetheless, particularly in light of the ruthlessness of Saddam
Hussein's rule, it is useful to examine the other criteria for
humanitarian intervention. For the most part, these too were not met."
Care to explain why, exactly, we didnt go into Iraq a few years ago?
Ah, probably we shouldnt have then, and we shouldnt have now. As
George Bush Sr. said,
"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human
and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. ... We
would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.
... [T]here was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating
another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War
world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Bush has establishd the ill concieved cold-waresque notion of the
preemptive strike. We see the fruits of that doctrine: our troops our
dying because of it.
Strains imposed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it far
more difficult for the U.S. military to beat back any future act of
aggression, launch a preemptive strike or intervene to prevent
conflict in another part of the world, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff said in a classified analysis sent to Congress on
Monday. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3may03,0,6915005.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
Why you support this war effort and this madman is beyond me. I will
be supremely suprised if you read and reply to this email on the air -
I doubt you will; it showcases how shallow support for GWB really is -
its based on morals, not results. The President delivers neither. A
moral man does not decieve, resulting in thousands of deaths. A moral
man does not desecrate states rights, trying to keep Terri Schaivo
alive.
I left out a bunch, I'll deliver the killer blow after he replies. I'll post it here.
