Subject:
|
Re: This just came across my desk... Iraqi Questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:54:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
372 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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?
The fact is that *no* amount of evidence would have prevented a French veto.
They are too invested. And, to be honest, I don't blame them; they are looking
out for what's best for France. I just wish they'd be honest about it.
>
> > > 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.
Then why doesn't the Left recognize how we got to where we are now with NK? If
they did, they would be less critical against ousting Saddam at *this*
juncture. It will be good for KJ to have seen what happened to Saddam when it
comes time to "talk" with NK.
>
> > 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.
I will give you that it is a joke how we bustle around trying to garner the
support of the likes of Cameroon. The whole UN is a joke, and it is an affront
to the dignity of the United States to pander favor in it. Now if it were
comprised of countries that were of relatively equal strength, it would be more
useful. But we live in a world where the US is overwhelmingly the dominant
force. To go through the motions of "asking" for permission to defend our
country in any way we see fit is laughable. Nobody else bothers....
JOHN
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
