Subject:
|
Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:34:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
340 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > I think the U.S. public is becoming wary of Bush's motivation. They may not
> > like Saddam Hussein, but the Al Queda connection is tenuous at the very best.
>
> I saw a poll the other day (cited on CNN, but I can't remember the
> uber-source) that showed that about 45% of Americans believed that the Bush
> administration would intentionally falsify information to make its case, and
> something like 58% believed Bush would deliberately omit information that
> hurt his case. I wish I could remember the exact figures.
I believe *any* politician will do such, but some more than others (Dubya!).
war? Seems to me an oxymoron. Justifiable, maybe - I suppose a war
> > against any tyrant like Saddam is justifiable from some standpoint. But if
> > it is, why now? Why us? If Bush can't get the world to side with him, will
> > it be worth the price?
>
> Well, "legal" in terms of adhering with UN resolutions etc...
Okay, I was being pendantic. But the resolution the UN passed made it look
fairly legal (within the context of the UN declaring war, though not a
unilateral US action).
> In any case, the immediate urgency of this war has not been justified.
> Yes, he's a brutal dictator, but he's been a brutal dictator for decades,
> sometimes with US endorsement and funding!
I agree with this assessment. Why now? Why us? "Terrorist" links? I'm
not convinced.
>
> > I think it more likely Saddam is being singled out because he is a cheap and
> > easy *stationary* target. Though, of course, no where near as cheap and
> > easy as Bush had hoped.
>
> Yes indeed. That's why North Korea is a diplomatic situation, and I
> suspect it's also part of the reason that Bush isn't pressing Saudi Arabia
> too hard about suspected ties to al Qaida.
We don't want to embarrass an ally that won't stamp out the terrorist links
because they go to darn high and risk the stability of the government. Some
ally. I wonder if it is too late to back Saddam?
_
:-O (Edvard Munch scream)
-
>
> > But the claim that there is nothing Saddam can do is absolutely false
> > (though realistically true). He can leave power. Now why that would
> > satisfy Bush I'm not quite sure since it would leave the exact same power
> > structure with a Saddam-of-a-different-name in control. Given that Saddam
> > would be willing to lose 90% (a low estimate no doubt) of the population to
> > retain power (and would lose no sleep over it) it ain't gonna happen. If
> > this was restated so that there is nothing Saddam can do on the subject of
> > WoMD (weapons of...) to satisfy Bush, yes, I agree.
>
> Heh. I hadn't even thought of Saddam's abdication as an option, I guess
> for the same reasons you cite.
>
> > The French have bitterly resented the U.S. leadership in NATO fairly
> > consistently, so I must say I pretty much dismiss their opinions out of
> > hand. But to be fair, I pretty much dismiss Dubya's opinions out of hand, too.
>
> Hmm... "Even-handed out-of-handedness." I like it!
Was that an even-handed back-handed compliment? :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) I saw a poll the other day (cited on CNN, but I can't remember the uber-source) that showed that about 45% of Americans believed that the Bush administration would intentionally falsify information to make its case, and something like 58% (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
