Suzanne, thank you for posting your opinions to the group. I don't know
if anyone else will want to respond but it would be interesting to get
some other opinions. I'll start by responding to your points. Perhaps in
time we can really explore some of these issues. You have posted a
letter that you wrote to President Bush. I will give my comments after
quoting yours.

"Although I have not been one of the hundreds of thousands in this
country and
the millions abroad to have participated in a
march or demonstration, I am
writing today to express my strong opposition to
your proposed war on Iraq.

And, make no mistake, this is "your war." For
some reason, you have decided
that we must attack Iraq, and you have created
conditions under which there
appears no face-saving way for you to turn back.
"


Just because you say to Bush "this is your war", that doesn't make it
true. The reasons we are in this current situation are complex but they
go back to way before Bush was on the scene. Our hostilities with Saddam
began when he invaded Kuwait. They have continued because he never
obeyed the agreements he signed in order to save his regime at the end
of the war. Then we were attacked on 9/11 and Bush said that we would
fight a war on terrorism against terrorists and those who support and
harbor them. Saddam is a big supporter of terrorism and he has harbored
terrorists as well. To say this is Bush's war is simplistic and
misleading. In fact, Bush is representing the majority opinion in the
U.S. The polls say 69% in favor of the war.


"This despite the evidence
that there are many countries fulfilling the same
set of conditions that you
are using for justification of war with Iraq:
Iran, N. Korea, even allies
such as Pakistan."


I fail to see the point of this argument. Are you saying that if there
are several gangsters living in a city, the police should not arrest any
one of them because the others are guilty of similar crimes?

And yes there are different conditions with each country. In the case of
Iraq, it attacked Kuwait and it signed agreements to stop the war
against it. It has broken those agreements. There are 17 U.N.
resolutions asking it to comply. It continues to evade it's obligations.
Iran, N. Korea and Pakistan have not taken over another country and no
such resolutions are standing against them. There are many other
differences.



"Once the United States establishes itself as the
sole arbitor of good and
evil and the only country with the right to
decide when force should be used
globally, we will have won the emnity of much of
the free world,"



First, we aren't the sole arbiter. England and Australia are firm allies
and we have around forty other countries on our side, including most of
Europe. And yes, any country has the right to pursue a foreign policy
that it feels is in it's best interest, and they do. The United States
is the only country that was attacked on 9/11. We are still called "the
great Satan" by many in the Arab world. We have more of a need to defend
ourselves than many other countries.


"and
certainly intensified hatred and a greater level
of threat from extremists
seeking a good case for further violence against
Americans here and abroad."



This is a very important point that I think a lot of people don't get:
you cannot increase the level of threat against the U.S. from the
"extremists". They already believe it is their God given duty to destroy
us. That means to try to launch chemical, biological, and nuclear
attacks against us. It doesn't matter what we do. They will still try to
do this, as they believe it is the will of God and they will get a
special meeting with Mohammed and get to have sex with 72 beautiful
virgins if they kill a lot of us. That is already an unbearable threat.
We have to act to stop them from achieving their goals. They already
have total hatred against us. Like we did with the soviets, we must show
them that attacking us will lead to their utter destruction. Only then
will they back off....maybe. Peace through strength worked with the
Soviets and it is our only hope against these fanatics.



"I urge you to reconsider this course, to take to
heart the words of Senator
Robert Byrd and many others who are urging us to
slow or, better still,
reverse this headstrong rush to unimaginable
carnage and destruction."



It's interesting who the allies are of the "peace" lobby. Ex KKKer
Robert Byrd, groups like ANSWER with their rabidly anti Semitic history,
and communist groups that would like to overthrow the U.S. government.
We also have the French and Germans, both full of anti Semitism and
billions of dollars in business deals with the Butcher of Baghdad. We
also have the likes of Arafat and his cronies. It makes me very
suspicious of the motives of those who are behind the so called "peace
movement". I believe you are sincere, but the "peace movement" is being
run by anti Semites and enemies of America. I believe Bush is heading
the true peace movement. Peace through strength.



"Note: A copy of this message has also been sent
to my Senators, Hillary
Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer, and to my
Representative, Gary Ackerman.
I hope that they will do all within their power
to oppose this unwise course"



They have already voted to give Bush unfettered power to go to war.
Maybe they know something you don't know. Maybe the threat is way beyond
what you are comfortable imagining. With 60 suitcase nukes "missing"
from the ex Soviet stockpile and with the thousands of tons of anthrax
and other toxins floating around, and with dozens of sleeper cells right
here in America...I think the Senators and Congressmen knew what they
were doing when they gave Bush carte blanche. Now they are only
grandstanding for political reasons.

If there is a nuclear attack on our soil and millions die instead of
thousands, the peaceniks will all be terribly sorry for what they are
doing. Only then it will be too late. I praise Bush for moving ahead and
doing what he knows is right. I praise Colin Powell, Tony Blair, Ariel
Sharon and others for standing with him. I am confident to follow their
lead. I trust them more than the likes of Byrd, Arafat, Schroeder, and
Hussein! Just look at how this is lining up and you can see where the
right side is.

Von Cello
http://www.voncello.com/

"Moral equivalency is not moral!"