Subject:
|
Re: I'm just going to take a back seat.... Re: You Can Lead A Horse To Water....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:07:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
446 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Spencer Nowak writes:
>
> "Dubya is singularly incompetent. He is
> trashing American influence for no good reason, destroying whatever trust we
> had with Middle-Eastern countries,"
> What influence?
> As far as i know, we never had much influence over any of those countries...
> For "no good reason" eh?
Since Dubya has been claiming that this will stabilize the region and
reduce the threat of terrorism, then the burden of proof is 100% on Dubya to
demonstrate that unilateral invasion of an Arab state will NOT result in a
rise in terrorism against the US, nor in a resurgence of Muslim extremism.
Lacking that evidence, he has "no good reason" to attack Iraq at this time.
> How about: He hates the US, he has WMDs, hes
> completely unopposed in his country, and hes an unstable nut.
It can readily be argued that Dubya hates the US:
1. He has stopped all over the Bill of Rights
2. He has no interest in bipartisan politics
3. He has no interest in protecting the environment
4. He has no interest in protecting citizens' privacy
5. He has no interest in preserving the right to due process
6. He has no interest in allowing civil, dissenting discourse
7. He has no interest in maintaining freedom of religion
8. He has no interest in constructive foreign policy
9. He has no interest in the opinions of his constituents
10. He has no interest in fostering international peace
Further, he certainly has WMDs. So many, in fact, that we've had
sufficient surpluses to sell our extra nukes to Israel and our chem/bio
weapons to Iraq.
An unstable nut? Just watch him try to maintain composure in any
non-scripted press conference or open forum of discussion.
> This just in...I saw in the paper this morning that some Americans that went
> to Iraq to serve as human shileds for the poor innocent civillians(hehe)
> left after being informed that they hads to use themselves to shield
> strategic military sites for Saddam. Strange, huh?
Not really. If their goal was to act as human shields to stop US bombs,
then they shouldn't be fussy about the choice of targets they get to
protect, as long as it stops US bombs. If, however, their goal was to stop
US bombs and in the process make themselves look like martyrs dying on
behalf of innocent Iraqis, then of course they'd be upset about being used
otherwise.
What was their actual goal? Are they interested in protesting war even at
the cost of their own lives, or are they more interested in making a
grandstand demonstration? If the end result is that this stupid war is
averted, then I don't care whether the protestors guarded civilians,
military bases, or Saddam himself.
For that matter, since the US and UK have previously sneaked spies into
Iraq in the guise of neutral UNSCOM inspectors, why in the world would
Saddam trust volunteers from the US and UK now, of all times?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
