Subject:
|
Re: This just came across my desk... Iraqi Questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:00:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
321 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > > > Subject: Questions
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Q: Who is responsible for killing more MUSLIMS than anyone else in the world?
> >
> >
> > What, no guess?
>
> Why would I presume to answer a question that you presumably already know
> the answer to?
Why would you answer a question that I already know the answer to? So that I
would know that you know the answer. It's not such a far-out concept. Lawyers
would never dream of asking questions in the courtroom to which they don't
already know (or think they know) the answers.
>
> >
> > > > Q: Who is about to order the unleashing of chemical and/or biological weapons
> > > > on US troops that he always claimed he never had?
> > >
> > > Thus far none have been released, and none would have been released if there
> > > was no war.
> >
> > Uh, we don't know that.
>
> Again, we don't know that he *is* going to release these weapons, either.
> So where are we now? You're starting to sound much like other folks old
> posts from long ago, in which you set up your cards for others to knock down
But we shall know soon. And if he does, how would I have known that? Lucky
guess? Or that we were right all along and this only confirms it. You Lefties
will get a smoking gun yet.
>
> >
> > > They may have been found by the inspectors, if given the time
> > > needed, and even if not--you let a tiger roam around, you may not get
> > > attecked--you back him into a corner, you *will* get bitten.
> >
> > Or, he could just attack you for no reason.
>
> He will attack if he is attacked--so where do you want to put your money?
> On the chance he will attack if not attacked, or the certainty that he will
> fight back when he's attacked. Peace is given a chance in one scenario, has
> no possibility in the other.
So he won't attack if not attacked? But how do you explain his invasion of
Kuwait? It seems to me that *he* is the one who didn't give peace a chance.
>
> > >
> > > You will have caused the very thing you're griping about--the unleashing of
> > > weapons. "See??? He had 'em all along!! This proves we were right!" This
> > > isn't Justice at all.
> >
> > I don't get your point.
>
> Again, inspections were getting rid of weapons--slow, but were getting rid
> of weapons. I'm not holding that up as the greatest thing on earth, but at
> least folks didn't have to die for no Just cause.
No, they really weren't. They were being obfuscated and deceived-- exactly in
the manner which allowed North Korea to obtain their nukes.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Iraq didn't kick the inspectors out--your agressive stance forced the
> > > inspectors out.
> >
> > Dave, Dave, Dave, David. When will you and the UN and the Left learn-- weapons
> > inspections are a JOKE. Do we need anymore living examples other than North
> > Korea to finally understand this?
>
> 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.
If we had handled KJ as we are handling SH now, NK wouldn't *have* nukes, and
the point would be moot. NK *is* an international issue now because of their
possession of nukes. SH would become an "international issue" if left alone,
or if meaningless inspections were to continue.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Q: Who's self-proclaimed hero is Joseph Stalin?
> >
> > What, no guess?
>
> Again, nice for the sarcasm
It was a question. You answered my post, but didn't answer my question. Why
not? The answer is Saddam Hussein.
>
> >
> > >
> > > What did your (and Canada, I will admit) country do to Native Americans?
> > >
> > > Sanctimonious BS. "He who is without sin..." Your self proclaimed American
> > > heros committed atrocities as well, but you glorify them. A quick example
> > > of "Americanisms"--Benedict Arnold--a hero to the British, a very very bad
> > > man to the Americans. Is amazing how history gets written.
> >
> > Okay, fine. We are ALL guilty, we are all evil. George W. Bush is the same as
> > Joseph Stalin. We are all morally equivalent. Whatever Dave.
>
> No, Dubya I'm equating with SH,
Dave, that is plain silly. You sound like an idiotic, political hack. The
proper equation is Hussein to Stalin.
> not totally equal, but there are ugly
> similarities--what's worse, killing thru action, or allowing to die thru
> inaction? What's worse? Being a tinpot dictator ignoring the pleas of help
> from the people or... oh wait, that applies to both. (k, that was
> sarcasm--just as guility--bad me!)
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This impending war is and always has been with the *regime* that oppresses the
> > > > people of Iraq, not with the people of Iraq. It goes forward only because SH
> > > > refuses to relinquish power. Short of assassination, it is the only way to get
> > > > rid of him. It ends when he is deposed. Period.
> > >
> > > I like that--first its give up the weapons, then it's to liberate Iraq, and
> > > now its to get rid of SH and introduce democracy--trying to find a good
> > > 'nuff reason to appease the masses?
> >
> > No, Dave, it went like this:
> >
> > 1. Iraq attacks Kuwait
> > 2. We repel Saddam, and under condition of surrender, he agrees to disarm.
> > 3. 11 years later, not only *hasn't* he disarmed, but has been stockpiling
> > chemical and biological weapons AND is pursuing Nukes.
> > 4. We decide enough is enough, Sadam is out-- by force if necessary.
>
> Yeah, that's a convenient synopsis--11 years of what? Why was there no war
> during the 11 years? Oh right--Bubba had 8 of those years...
Look closer. Even Clinton saw fit to bomb Iraq, but nobody on the Left really
cared about that, because they *liked* Clinton. Most of the anti-war protests
are actually anti-Bush protests. I doubt the Left would be screaming as much
had Gore somehow found the courage to take this course to war.
>
> Dubya is fighting Papa's war, this time on shakier ground--perfect resolution.
Right. If Gore were president, would this be Bush Sr's war?
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe we will be *thanked* by the people of Iraq for liberating them from
> > > > the brutal tyranny under which they have been existing. With the God-given
> > > > natural resources at their disposal, Iraq has the means to becoming a shining
> > > > star for Democracy and Freedom in the Middle East.
> > > >
> > > > JOHN
> > >
> > > Wow John, You actually believe this? Like Afganistan?
> >
> > I do. Afganistan also hasn't been blessed with the natural resources Iraq has,
> > and so the road will be tougher. And I said Iraq has the *potential*-- whether
> > they choose that path remains to be seen.
>
> Yeah, the lords that are ruling afganistan are a great help compared to the
> gov't before.
>
> > >
> > > Yeah, I'll send a personal "Thank You" letter to Dubya if, say, after the
> > > dust has cleared, this is what actually happens.
> >
> > From the sidelines. Don't bother.
>
> I think that admitting wrong takes more courage than adhering to a course of
> action blatantly proven wrong because I had, at one time, believed it was
> right. Stubbornness against all logic and justice is, well, as one of my
> fellow Canadians said, moronic--I'm very much bigger than that.
But that is how I perceive you *now*. If Bush is correct, you would *never*
have come to that conclusion (that he was right). Bush's success will be due
to his unwavering courage to take on terrorism and terrorist regimes right now,
when it is needed.
>
> So I would apologize for not believing, but you will not convince me that we
> could achieve the same objective (if the 'betterment of Iraq' is the actual
> objective) thru a peaceful process (less people die during 'peaceful processes')
Name that "peaceful process". The fact is that the anti-war crowd has no
answers, just objections. North Korea is the result of your peaceful process
solution. We shall see if less people die because of it.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
