Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:37:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
806 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > The only
> > > thing we can do is make sure it happens on our terms. Why in the heck would • we
> > > wait till after he has the ability to nuke half the world?
> >
> > Is that really a risk?
>
> Are you kidding me? The whole rest of that was completely irrelevant if you
> don't see this.
> >
> > Scott A
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 when compared to Israel, Pakistan, North Korea or even Bush/Blair?
Will stealing Iraq’s oil make the USA a safer place?
After your assertion that there were scary similarities between the current
situation and 1930’s Europe, how about this one:
A world leader takes advantage of nationalism, jingoism and xenophobia to take
his nation on an ill-advised military adventure in order to strengthen his
country, but in the end actually weakens it.
;)
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
91 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
|
|
|
|
