Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:03:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1017 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > 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
> >
> > That's what the members of the League of Nations thought about the German
> > military in the 1930s.
>
> Relevance?
>
> [BTW: They’d have been right; he did not have nukes ;) ]
>
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Oh yeah, Israel is such a threat defending itself and all.
>
> Don't make me laugh. Does supporting Israeli belligerence make the USA a safer
> place?
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 been, given the same
circumstances.
>
> > >
> > > Will stealing Iraq’s oil make the USA a safer place?
> >
> > It would take about 20 years for Iraq's oil production pay for the cost of
> > making it usable the way the left-wing extremists keep saying it will.
>
> Can you justify that?
The cost of rebuilding the Iraqi oil production infrastructure would be about
200 billion. Iraqi oil production only generates about 10 billion a year. Do
the math.
>
> > Obviously Iraq's oil has little to do it anything with the possiblity of war.
>
> Did you answer my question? Will stealing Iraq’s oil make the USA a safer
place?
Stealing oil is not an objective. If it was it would be easier to just nuke the
country without regard to the innocent cilivians.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > ;)
>
> No answer?
Didn't feel one was necesary considering only 47 percent of the US supports
action without the approval of the UN.
>
> >
> > I heard a funny thing on the news about the Protest in Washington. It was
> > organized by ANSWER. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)
> > http://www.InternationalANSWER.org/
> > Right on their page is the following statement: "Support Self Determination • for
> > the People of the Middle East"
>
> Perhaps they should work on Self Determination for the people of the USA 1st? • ;)
>
> > So by stopping the war and preserving a
> > dictatorship that publicly executes civilians who voice disagreement is how • we
> > "Support Self Determination for the People of the Middle East"
>
> Has Bush picked a stooge to replace SH yet? Or will Mr Franks just run the
> country? Mr Exxon? No mention of human rights or democracy here:
> http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
>
> > Digging around the ANSWER site a little you will come across this site:
> > http://www.workers.org/wwp.php
>
> Looks like a different site to me?
Yeah one of the supporters of ANSWER.
>
> > Now everything makes perfect sense. This whole thing isn't about whats best • for
> > the people of Iraq it is about instituting the great ideal of communistic
> > socialism on everyone and fighting the evil capitalist US. (yes sarcasm was
> > intended)
>
> What is “communistic socialism”, and why is it worse for the people of Iraq
> than the “evil capitalist US”?
See the 'other' thread for why socialism is bad and capitalism is not.
>
> What's your point? [Would you feel better if the Coca Cola company sponsored
> the march?] Does all this mean the war would be right? What does Bush care
> about "what’s best for the people of Iraq"? What respect does he have for • "Self
> Determination"? In fact what is your country’s record on supporting "Self
> Determination" since WW2? It certainly has a poor record in the Middle East
> [Saudi Arabia, Israel/Palestine etc]. But what about the wider world? Need I
> mention Central America?
Hence earlier point that the UN (not just the US acting alone) should stop all
that crap and rebuild the countries without the dictators. I think you
misunderstand my position with that of total agreement with Bush/Blair. I only
agree with about 60 percent of what they are saying.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
