Hi Ken,

           Well, this is a complex issue. There is no easy answer. My
concerns are - by acting on our own - we are setting ourselves above the
laws we have helped create to insure against unlawful acts of aggression.
Bush is drawing attention away from the economy by show casing "the Bad Man"
,  war is good for the economy - kinda bad for the population tho - and
quite frankly if the war where to be fought here - we would be back
pedalling like crazy - but it will be fought as usual in another country and
those people will take majority of the damage and deaths. While it is a
horrible fact that 6 million Jews where slaughtered ruthlessly in WWII - it
might be sobering to remembering they are but a fraction of the 52 million
deaths that results from WWII. Remembering the "World Wars" are a result of
alliances and pacts made between countries - can we really predict who has a
pact with who over there? Each started with a small incident that got way
out of hand - A 3rd world war would be messy as hell - and could indeed be
the end of humanity - extrapolating out the far does seem ridulious.  But
then the Civil War was suppose to be won in one afternoon - with picnicer's
watching. We always seem to err on the side of short sightedness with war.
Maybe we need to be more pessimistic about it.

                                                  Brightest Blessings
-Trisha


>  you have allready saw that i do not know what the answer is, but, if we
> are
> wrong, it does not matter that we had the worlds backing. if we are right,
> it does not matter that we do not have the worlds backing. failire to act
> in
> the past allowed hitler to kill 6 million people. i do not know what the
> right answer is, but world backing does not decide what the right answer
> is.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trisha Cummings
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 8/29/2002 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Can't stand it anymore....
>
> Hi Kat,
>
>    I agree with you. Frankly since we don't have the world's backing -
> this
> makes us a Rogue nation and we tend to take a hardline with those - as
> long
> as its not us. I may be way off base but it could well trigger something
> much bigger and nastier than we truly want. My Dad - long time military
> guy
> - is against it also -
>
>                                           Trisha
>
>
> > OK, I may not get many people happy with me for saying this, but I
> don't
> > think
> > it's the smartest move, making a move on Iraq without Sadaam moving
> first.
> > We
> > ended the war in the Persian Gulf back in 1991 and to go back there
> now,
> > 10
> > years later and strike at them without provocation is not terribly
> smart,
> > in
> > my opinion.  I'd be very surprised if we weren't called into the World
> > Court
> > at The Hague and not charged with war crimes for it.
> >
> > To the rest of the world it's irrelevent whether Bush I finished the
> job
> > or
> > not.
> >
> > Kat
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:29:20 EDT "BG Greer, PhD" <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >     Yeah. I believe that George II feels if he
> > > can't get Osama, he'll finish
> > > what George
> > > I did not. Seems like we will really piss the
> > > Muslim world off more than we
> > > have already. That is not bad in itself, but we
> > > will not stick around to
> > > finish the job.
> > >
> > > Bobby
> > > >Yes, it does. I appreciate kyle letting us
> > > know.
> > > >I need to call my brother to see if the
> > > reserves are getting ready for
> > > >more
> > > >call ups. Of course many time he can't tell
> > > me.
> > > >
> > >