do you think we'd not get any more attacks if we did nothing? we were doing nothing before 9-11. i believe that we will get attacked again no matter what we do in iraq. the question is will terrorist get terrible weapons from iraq or maybe north korea. if they do, we will pay a heavy penalty for not doing something, just like we did in new york and d.c. only worse. by the way some employees at cdc are being offered smallpox vacinations. if offered i may go in to take it. i am officially still employed even though i am at home on indefinate sick leave. -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Arnold To: [log in to unmask] Sent: 3/8/2003 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Iraq Speaking of the first Golf War in '91, I was in 7th grade at that time so I don't remember much other than a friend's brother got shot and he had to learn how to walk again. Other than that, I don't know what progress was made or what was undone. But however Iraq and Saddan haven't done anything against us like Bin Laden has and will continue way after he even dies, I think based on talking to people. We have one problem, why do we want to make another, another and a whole scale of problems and problems regenerating themselves. I'm getting ready for another 9/11 just because of Bush liking to play war, and this time they will probably take out the whole Washington DC, New York or maybe even both. This war could be like a wedding invitation with no time, no date printed and saying "please RSVP but we know you will just come any time you want". Let's talk about paper to print the invitations on and what to wear. Remember we don't know what day it's going to happen, so we will need at least 3 of the same outfits :-) Thanks, Anthony Visit me at http://www.anthonyarnold.net/ -----Original Message----- From: St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of K. Salkin Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 4:58 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Iraq Mag, what hard evidence do you have that this is all to do with oil? I'm a bit sceptical about that. Oil may be an issue, but I think it's a minor one. It's primarily to do with Bin Laden and to go after Saddam and finish the job his father started. Saddam tried to invade Kuwait, probably for the oil for himself, not the US invading for oil. We have got better things to do than to invade countries for their oil. Where are you reading that invading Iraq is due to US business interests? Kat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Magenta Raine" <[log in to unmask]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.c-palsy To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:07 PM Subject: Re: Iraq > In a message dated 3/7/03 9:22:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [log in to unmask] writes: > > > This was last night, in the East Room of the White House. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Magenta Raine > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:40 AM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: Iraq > > > > Perhaps I saw another press conference. (it was the one with the blue > > background and yellow circles of some kind). > > > > Yep, it was a different press conference. A senator from South Carolina gave > a speech on this war and pointed out that Israel who is right next door to > Iraq doesn't seem bothered by Saddam at all. When they were, they took care > of it by bombing a nuke plant in Iraq. So, I really doubt we are worried > about Saddam's weapons, or liberating Iraq from Saddam, It's about oil, I > think, and controlling US business interests there. I think we need to > understand there is a lot going on behind the facade of the Bush > administration. > > Mag, getting off her soap box! > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I am available to do writing, editing, reporting, designing jobs, including > business cards, etc. I am also a disability rights activist. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~