Subject:
|
Re: This just came across my desk... Iraqi Questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:17:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
384 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > John Neal sez to Dave K:
> > Dave, Dave, Dave, David. When will you and the UN and the Left learn--
> > weapons inspections are a JOKE.
Allow me to paraphrase: When will the Left and the UN stop participating
in democratic debate and simply accept what the Right says on blind faith
with no (or in spite of) evidence?
> > John Neal also sez to Dave K:
> > Do we need anymore living examples other than North
> > Korea to finally understand this?
What you don't seem to understand is that even the Left recognize that N.
Korea is a much more pressing issue than Iraq, but Dubya, Powell, Rice,
Rumsfeld, et al seem to think that it's better to go after an easy military
victory regardless of who or what suffers in the process.
> Joke is that N Korea is said to be an 'International issue' whereas Iraq is
> an 'American Issue'--where is the difference--N Korea *has* WOMD, and is
> developing nucs and can hit continental US, and Iraq can't get 800 miles
> outside their border. One is International issue, one is a threat to
> American Security--perfect sense.
Dave, you're missing the real joke!
North Korea has nuclear weapons AND wants a dialogue with the US AND N.
Korea's neighbors recognize the threat AND those neighbors specifically want
the US to take the lead in handling the situation. Therefore, we're not
doing anything.
Iraq has no nuclear weapons AND DOES NOT want a dialogue with the US AND
Iraq's neighbors acknowledge no credible threat AND those neighbors
specifically DO NOT want the US to lead the charge in handling the
situation. Therefore, we have bribed, cajoled, coerced, and brow-beat
others into allowing us to invade Iraq.
Quite a punchline, and there's a postscript:
Until very shortly before the Azores summit, Dubya maintained that the issue
would be put to vote before the Security Council, and that the US would
secure a majority of the votes, thereby scoring a rhetorical victory of
principle even if France, Russia, and China vetoed the action. But after
the summit, the vote-quest was abandoned, allegedly because it would have
forced a veto to occur! 'Scuse me, Dubya--which side of your face are you
talking out of? The clear motivation for abandoning the vote was to avoid
having to admit that a majority of the council does NOT support US
bloodlust, at least not sufficiently to vote yea on the record.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
64 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
|
|
|
|
