 | | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) If you'll modify that to "some" rather than "much", I'll agree (mostly support to him being a thorn in the side of Ayatollah wackos in Iran, but then, there's a certain sense of deja vu in the U.S. screwing around with things there, too). (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Yeah. You know, this whole topic would be easier if one of two things would happen: either privatize the armed services -- eliminating any need to deal with this kind of situation any differently than any other contractual obligation, or (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) yet (...) assert that (...) desertion. (...) of (...) up. (...) Hmm, interesting question. I tend to feel that you should have known what was possible before signing up. Anyone who is active now has had an opportunity to bail out, or should (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Much of which he did with US support. (...) Seriously, was he any worse in 2003 than some of the human rights abusers Bush supports today? I’m talking about countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Why? I find myself with complicated reactions to the situation that I haven't yet worked through. Were they dodging slavery (the draft), then I would assert that they had the moral high ground and I would be supportive of their desertion. But (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Win-win-win?
|
|
(...) Well that has failed. The WMD are apparently AWOL, the whole country looks like a giant terrorist recruiting centre and it is clear that the "threat" to us all is (URL) increasing>! (...) Yep. We killed >10,000, put new torturers in the (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Yeah, I'm with John! What does it matter if Americans die needlessly and have their resources wasted as long as it is happening Out of Sight! ;-) Hunky-dory. No relation to Shiri Dori. Or were you being ebonical? -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) That he is a genocidal tyrant that has additionally invaded two of his neighbors soley to steal their resources springs to mind. Or are you saying that Saddam's actions are "just"? (...) Unjust things happen during any war - however, from a (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Would you mind providing why you think this? I think we'd all agree that war, all things being equal, tends to be unjust. Furthermore, Saddam was the recognized (by us) legitimate ruler of a sovereign nation. He did thumb his nose at UN (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) It's stupid, it's not what we claim it's about, it's presentation of the facts are wrong, it's not worth our effort, there are better things for us to pursue, and I can go on and on. But overthrowing Saddam in itself is not "unjust". (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
