Subject:
|
Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:27:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
335 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> And I may add that there are two entirely different scenarios here--Blix
> hasn't once said that he was at an empasse.
No, the situation is exactly the same. But we have the benefit of hindsight to
see that Saddam was just jerking the UN inspections off during the Clinton
Adminstration. And Clinton acted, and rightly so.
> Sure there has been 'slow down'
> but he hasn't given up on the inspection process.
Brace yourself for his report tomorrow-- moot anyway, because there is ample
evidence that SH has grossly violated Rez 1441.
> Further, Clinton didn't
> invade Iraq with troops
Excuse me, neither has Bush.
> --70 hours of getting rid of strategic sites in
> response to complete non-cooperating on Saddams part is totally different
> than all-out invasion.
Yeah, it was simply a punitive action that only delayed Saddam's plans-- and in
the end, thanks to 20/20 hindsight, ineffective.
> The transcript does allude to the idea of
> 'containment' and change from within the country, not from without.
>
> So I say again to you, John, that Bubba's policies were much more consistent
> to UN policies, whereas Dubya's war-fanaticism goes against not only the UN,
> but what most people think should happen at this time.
No. Both had the authority of Congress, and the backing of the UN (rez 1441).
I don't care how much you dislike the idea of going to war against Saddam, the
terms of 1441 certainly allow for it.
>
> It's not hypocritical at all right now to not support Bush and his 'moronic'
> hell-bent attitude.
And to have supported Clinton? *That* was my question.
> Rather, it is the responsibility of every person who
> wants to live to see a better tomorrow to point out the sheer magnitude of
> ulterior motives, of deception, of sheer lunacy that Dubya's course is on
> right now.
A better tomorrow is a world that excludes Saddam.
>
> The fact that the rhetoric coming from both countries right now is virtually
> interchangable tells me that Bush is as close to a 'tinpot dictator' as
> Saddam is.
Really, Dave, you are uttering gibberish. First, define "tinpot dictator", and
then specifically show how Bush is even remotely close to that characterization.
The fact that both men's "rhetoric" sounds the same only shows that both
believe that their causes are just. I wouldn't expect anything less. But if
you are trying to morally equate the two, then you are waaaay off base. Simple
as that.
> We're suppose to be the good guys here and it's painfully
> obvious that we're not--'War at any cost' is not being the 'good guys'.
No, Dave, we *are* the good guys. If you can't see the moral difference
between Saddam and Bush, then you are lost. We are morally bound to *fight*
evil, and if you can't bring yourself to the realization that any man who
orders the execution of 100,000s of his own people is evil, then you are lost.
>
> He's your leader--I'd love to leave it at that and say, 'it's your problem
> then'--the problem is he's dragging the rest of us with him.
You have it backwards-- terrorists are dragging *us* into it, and we will hunt
them down, where ever they choose to hide (even Canada!) and will hold any
government which supports them culpable. And in doing so, we will have made
the world a safer and better place.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
| (...) And I may add that there are two entirely different scenarios here--Blix hasn't once said that he was at an empasse. Sure there has been 'slow down' but he hasn't given up on the inspection process. Further, Clinton didn't invade Iraq with (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
