Subject:
|
Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Sep 2001 08:16:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1059 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > But we MUST not knee jerk, as tempting as that is. This war will be a long
> > > one, a tough one, perhaps the toughest war we have ever tried to prosecute.
> >
> > So what did you mean when you said this less than 4 days after the attack?
> >
> > ==+==
> > Secretary Powell declined to specify what would
> > be done but said a week deadline for all of bin Laden's organization to be
> > turned over to the west was not unreasonable. He's being too generous.
> > ==+==
>
> Sounds entirely consistent to me. The first message expressed a desire
> to have the existing powers-that-be in Afghanistan turn over bin Laden on
> their own, rather than simply rolling out NATO within the week (and without
> due consideration) to storm Afghanistan and take him by force. The second
> message is a caution reinforcing exactly that idea: Eric was advised not to
> pursue a course dictated by blind fury or righteous anger, but rather to
> allow event to unfold along a well-planned and well-considered route.
> How do you perceive these to be inconsistent?
In the former quote above he calls for restraint. In the latter quote above
he can't wait for action. Read his latter comments in context:
==+==
The aggressor has made the mistake of attacking the homeland. They will pay.
If I were Saddam Hussein, who has made the foolish mistake of exulting, I'd
be enjoying the running water while I could. That country needs to be
disassembled too, their citizens freed, and the oil pumped out and sold to
pay war reparations.
Latest news is that the "Afghan government is in hiding". They can run and
hide but they cannot escape. Secretary Powell declined to specify what would
be done but said a week deadline for all of bin Laden's organization to be
turned over to the west was not unreasonable. He's being too generous.
==+==
For expressing verbal support for the attack on the 11th even poor old
Saddam Hussein gets punishment (what ever happen to freedom of speech!). In
fact the whole country "to be disassembled". Lovely. More innocent suffer
for our errors.
Anyhow, what has this got to do with NATO? Do you have inside information?
From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1564000/1564277.stm
"Lord Robertson added that the US had so far made no request for military
action from Nato."
Scott A
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) Sounds entirely consistent to me. The first message expressed a desire to have the existing powers-that-be in Afghanistan turn over bin Laden on their own, rather than simply rolling out NATO within the week (and without due consideration) to (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
