Subject:
|
Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:16:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
492 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > Iraq is not a destabilising force. SH is far too concerned with his own
> > > self-preservation.
> >
> > Iraq is not a destabilizing force? I take it you feel his track record is
> > something that should be sealed by the court and not considered.
>
> ...for how much of his track record did he have the support of the ‘West’?
Notice how you never answer questions? That you just shift to a new attack?
Iraq is not a destablizing force? Just say yes or no for once, and *then*
append your explanations instead of this constant dodging.
> Did
> we act when he started gassing his own people?
Actually, yes, but not as completely as we would have preferred to do.
> Was Bush Sr not willing to let
> his invasion of Q8 go with only mild rumblings until Thatcher convinced him
> otherwise?
So why are you complaining about the U.S.? This is all Britain's fault!
(I swear this is like shooting fish in a barrel)
>
> Can it not be argued that his track record is partly shared with the ‘West’?
Yes, it can be argued, but it doesn't change that he is a destablizing
force, which you are trying to skirt.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
