 | | Re: What about the first? —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | (...) Had france actually stopped them after occuping the Rhineland (which it could have done very eaisly at that point) the whole thing would never have happened. The German military at that point was weaker than Saddam's is right now. Instead the (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) They did not "occupy" the Rhineland - it was already part of Germany. (...) Would AH have violated the treaty if he thought he'd be repelled? Can SH get the same level of public support AH got? Did you read the text I quoted? See: ==+== (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) we (...) Are you kidding me? The whole rest of that was completely irrelevant if you don't see this. (...) -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Right now he does not have the nukes, and he does not have a conventional delivery system. He is a long way from getting them... and he is getting weaker by the day. So, what risk does he pose? What risk does he pose to world peace & security (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) That's what the members of the League of Nations thought about the German military in the 1930s. (...) & (...) Oh yeah, Israel is such a threat defending itself and all. (...) It would take about 20 years for Iraq's oil production pay for the (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Relevance? [BTW: They’d have been right; he did not have nukes ;) ] (...) Don't make me laugh. Does supporting Israeli belligerence make the USA a safer place? (...) Can you justify that? (...) Did you answer my question? Will stealing Iraq’s (...) (22 years ago, 17-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) would (...) you (...) peace (...) No but supporting Israeli defence against Palestinian Terrorism does. Arafat is just another dictator that needs to go. I highly doubt the US or most other "Western" countries would be as patient as Israel has (...) (22 years ago, 17-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) But what about Israeli terrorism? See: (URL) Arafat is (...) ...and Sharon is wanted on war crime charges: (URL) are others in the Israeli “military”. (...) A number of countries have come under sustained terrorist attacks without resorting to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | [snip] (...) Now that is really interesting. Then again they gave Arafat a Nobel peace prize too. [snip] (...) no (...) All of that falsely assumes Saddam would not destroy the oil infrastructure as a parting gift. (...) war. (...) Freeing the Iraqi (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) One can point to individuals in both parties in letting Enron go wild, but it really was the baby of the Republicans. Bush loved 'em. As to the oft-repeated but inaccurate claims that the environmentalists had somehow blocked construction of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | (...) I think you misunderstood me. By "doing nothing" I don't mean about just Saddam. I mean every dictator, even the ones the US is friendly toward. Untill all of the people of the world are free from tyranny, (including but not limited to US and (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't see how obliterating everything helps those under dictatorships. I also don't see the point in risking what freedom we have to help people who don't want it or can't maintain it. I think you statement goes way beyond Patrick Henry's. (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | | | (...) If they actually knew what freedom was, would they still not want it? Until everyone is free, peace will never exist. I think it would be worth the cost of both money and lives if we (everyone on Earth) could teach our grandchildren's children (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Belgium & Norway [Re: What about the first?] —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Who is "they"? The decision outlined above was taken by *Belgium's* "Supreme Court". As their name implies the "Norwegian Nobel Committee" is actually based in *NORWAY*. The prize was actually shared by Rabin, Arafat and Peres. Their work was (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
