|Date: ||Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:11:17 -0500|
|Reply-To: ||"Droogendyk, Harry" <Harry.Droogendyk@CIBC.COM>|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||"Droogendyk, Harry" <Harry.Droogendyk@CIBC.COM>|
|Subject: ||Re: Iraq|
|Content-Type: ||text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"|
Richard and Tim:
No need to post this kind of stuff on a SAS list. There's lots of
newsgroups where you can talk about this stuff 'til you're blue in the face.
While I do value your SAS contributions, I couldn't really care less what
you think of Iraq, Dubya, Irish Settlers, kangeroos or baked potatoes.
Please show respect for the SAS-L community from which you've undoubtedly
benefited by refraining from posting OT.
From: Tim Churches [mailto:tchur@OPTUSHOME.COM.AU]
Sent: February 23, 2003 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Iraq
Richard Hockey wrote:
> To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: OT: Iraq
> I know this is OT but one of my North American associates
I hope you are wearing your asbestos underwear, because you
are in for a
serious flaming! But not from me. These are not normal
times, and this
sort of consciousness-raising piece is warranted in any and
I think. Politicians are allowed to get away with illogical
action because we all decide that it is impolite to discuss
at work, which is the main means of social contact for the
> Recently my brother-in-law Sam, who was missing after his
> in a remote area of the South Pacific for three years, was
> neighborhood rejoiced with the family. After things had
> dropped in to ask me about what is going on in the world.
> "I heard on the radio that we are going to attack Iraq,
> "Did they invade Kuwait again?"
> "Err, no, they didn't attack anyone recently. Terrorists
> the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and killed
thousands of people
> September 11, 2001."
> Sam was shaken. "Oh my God. That's unbelievable. But this
is 2003. Why
> it take so long to go after Iraq if they sent terrorists?"
> "Oh, Iraq didn't do it. It was a group based in
Afghanistan called Al
> led by a rich Saudi Arabian by the name of Osama Bin
Laden", I said.
> "So we went after him, right. Did the troops hang him by
> "The US sort of went after him. We bombed his training
areas and caves
> got some local tribesmen to chase him around but they
> answered. "He sends tapes to a tv station now and again
saying he is
> out to get us."
> Sam looked puzzled. "You mean the CIA and the Special
Forces and the
> can't catch him?"
> I avoided his eyes. "Shrub said that we would hunt him
down but then
> after he decided to go after Iraq. He's talked about
> since but hardly ever mentions Osama."
> "Who is Shrub?", Sam asked.
> How can I explain this? "He's the son of George H.W., the
> was given the Presidency by the Supreme Court after some
> disputed in Florida. Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush
> Florida's electoral votes."
> Sam paused a minute, looking more nonplussed. "Jeez, the
> going nuts. Have they done anything?"
> "Well, no. The Congress voted to give him authority to
> polls say that 62 percent of the population support him
and a war with
> The polls say that the majority think that Saddam was
behind 9-11. Of
> course, there is no evidence that he had anything to do
with it and UN
> inspectors can find no evidence of nuclear, chemical or
> that Shrub says Saddam has in his possession. The
> Nixon administration, Rumsfeld and Cheney, have
dumbfounded a lot of
> Democrats and Republicans are spineless when the President
> talks tough."
> Sam's shoulders sagged. We talked a while about
Iraqnophobia and the
> cost of war while tax cuts for the rich are going into
effect and more
> proposed. Sam became more and more agitated and finally
> My son bounced into the room and said, "I thought I heard
> is he?"
> "He said he is going back to the south seas. If he has to
> coconuts, they might as well be edible."