My affection for the Saudi's and others of the region has never 
amounted to much.  I must be an isolationist at heart, I keep thinking 
its time we kissed and made up with the Mexicans.  After all, we have 
strong an continuing and even healthy family ties.

But others may be looking for more problems to deal with, I'm not.  
Sadam is the problem at hand.  And we may stand alone.  North Korea is 
a problem that needs to be dealt with soon.  The Saudi's may or may not 
be a problem...I can't tell.  I'll take your word for it.  Lead.

-jc


On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 07:33  AM, Jim Hicks wrote:

> It seems to me that the Saudi's are more of a threat since they were 
> the majority or the hijackers and funders of terrorism and since they 
> don't have wmd's it would be prudent to attack them also since we 
> already have troops there. SH is a bit of a shit but he's "our shit".
> Also we should take Kuait and get some of those gold toilet bowls.
> jh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Callan
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 8:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Iraq response & Constitution
>
> If his old man got lambasted for not finishing the job when he had 
> Sadam by the short and curlies...surely someone on the staff is smart 
> enough to advise him not to get distracted. It may be that there are 
> more than one adversary to deal with. And North Korea may be arguably 
> a more significant threat. But that doesn't mean Sadam is not a 
> threat. And if we must do this alone...or nearly alone...isn't one at 
> a time better than all at once?
>
> -jc
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 06:31 AM, Jim Hicks wrote:
>
> So why isn't Mr. Bush going to attack N. Korea?
> Just too chicken shit? Chickenhawk = Chickenshit
> jh
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Iraq response & Constitution
>
> In a message dated 2/19/2003 6:53:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> I heard at the time that Nam was all about oil cause in
> the gulf of Tonkin are oil reserves as large as the Saudi's.
>
>
>
> That's the only excuse the Peacenik appeasers can come up with. I 
> guess if we were to attack an enemy in Antarctica it would be for the 
> oil.
>
> Sign me,
> Dirty oil, baby killer supporter
>