Subject:
|
Re: K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:02:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
390 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > To which I say, there's no longer a need to go it at all! Send in the
> > inspectors, not the bombs!
> >
> > Are they just not communicating properly? I'm not saying that a military
> > option may not be necessary sometime in the future, and I wouldn't trust
> > Iraq if they told me that the sun was up and it was 12 p.m. local time, but
> > is Dubya so 'trigger happy' that he is just itching to strike out, even when
> > Iraq is meeting all the demands?
> >
> > It seems, to me anyway, anytime a rep. from the White House speaks, they
> > always mention, "Any attack...", or "If we attack..." which just doesn't
> > start a good discussion of peaceful solution.
> >
> > Someone please, for the sake of humanity, explain this to me.
>
> Participation in a conspiracy is dangerous stuff. There are always loose
> ends that you can't tie up. That's why big awful conspiracies that
> require lots of secrecy and participation are silly. Acting President Bush is,
> I believe, worried that more and more attention is being turned to the
> conspiracy that he lead to obtain office and that eventually someone is going
> to turn up incontravertable evidence of criminal behavior. He wants to divert
> attention while simultaneously boosting his popularity.
>
> If you look at his dad's popularity when we attacked Iraq a decade ago, it shot
> up higher than Slick Willy's ever made it. The problem with timing. His
> popularity dropped faster than he'd expected and didn't get reelected. He
> should have waited ten more months before attacking, but probably he just
> couldn't.
>
> The son will attempt the same winning strategy as his father, with some
> refinements. We have to go into a popular war or he won't be reelected -- and
> might end up in prison!
>
> Chris
If you see this, and you're slowly convincing me that your interpretation of
what's going on is true, so now I see it, how come this isn't common
knowledge to the rest of the masses?
What's going on? How can the first ammendment be "taking a back seat" to
'anti-terror' so much as to stop the truth from getting out there?
For fattening my FBI files--Bush, you're policies are idiotic and I would
like to see you and Saddam have that duel--maybe the first duel can be of
wits--but then again, two knock outs due to blunt trauma to the head doesn't
sound too exciting.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
30 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
|
|
|
|
