Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:03:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1326 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > > It won't get to that point.
> > > > I remember Ronald Reagan making a speech about the Empire of Evil (then, the
> > > > USSR), which had WoMD and could try to launch them anytime, so he proposed
> > > > SDI. The thing is, the Soviet Union had *no intention* of starting a war:
> > > > even those hardliners at the Politburo *knew* that MAD was the best defense
> > > > for both sides of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War!
> > > >
> > > > And that's exactly what will grant us security.
> > >
> > > What if the holders of WoMD don't care if they get destroyed or have no
> > > location to destroy?
> >
> > Neither worries me. If the first happens, it would take a lot more than a
> > loony dictator to fire the missiles (and I have not yet heard of collective
> > insanity in such a degree); The second is clearly not the case in Iraq,
> > which is largely urbanized - Baghdad is a rather large city, as you may know.
>
> Pedro, you are missing the point. Even if SH isn't crazy enough to fire off a
> nuke at an enemy (which is in and of itself debatable), he's smart enough and
> perfectly willing to give one to a looney like OBL who IS looney enough to
> denotate one (thus SH having his dirty work done for him).
>
> Mike's point is that the enemy is not a nation state, but rather
> _territory-less_ religious fanatics from (and supported by) many states. The
> only way to prevent terrorism is to deal HARSHLY with states who would and do
> support them.
>
> The people of Iraq should be asking themselves: Do I *really* support Saddam
> Hussein enough to undertake a war which I am sure to loose at a possibly
> horrific cost? Because the fact is that if SH were to be deposed (internally),
> the case for war against Iraq would be largely defused.
>
> JOHN
Well, if this is the motivation behind the war, then go beat up yourselves.
That controversial commercial about that guy filling up his SUV is dead
on--the truth hurts and you Yankees don't want to hear it. Come up with a
coherent foreign policy and if your gov't feels that there are 'rogue
nations', then you, as a citizen of your country, should support that by not
buying goods/services/whatever from these nations--guess where your oil
comes from? Guess who's funding these terrorists? Who gave the weapons to
these countries in the first place? It's the same as your drug
problem--you're funding both sides of the war on drugs as well--your kids
are buying and your police agencies are fighting the people who make the
stuff. You're pumping gas into your wasteful vehicles, funding these
countries, and your gov'ts fighting against them.
But nope, you Yanks want your freedom to do as you please while everybody
else is the bad guy.
I was at that peace rally in downtown Toronto on the weekend--supposedly
100,000+ people. I was there--the people I saw weren't hippies and
beatniks, they were business people, students, professors, families--in
other words, people with possibly more than a semblance of
intelligent/rational thought--and they were there protesting this 'holy
war'. So then the question comes down to, 'if intelligent folks are against
this war, why are some for it?'
And the only answer I come up with is 'cause those that want the war want
the war for *no* rational reason--they just want the war "'cause that's just
how it's always been done."
It's time for a change.
I did see one sign that still cracks me up--
A woman's sign said, "My Bush doesn't want war"
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) There ain't nothing you can say about Steinbrenner that can upset me. Unless of course, if you refer to this Dodger fan as a "Yankee". :-) (...) It shouldn't be too hard to guess where France's oil comes from, that's for sure. :-) (...) Which (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Pedro, you are missing the point. Even if SH isn't crazy enough to fire off a nuke at an enemy (which is in and of itself debatable), he's smart enough and perfectly willing to give one to a looney like OBL who IS looney enough to denotate one (...) (21 years ago, 18-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
|
|
|
|
