Subject:
|
Re: This just came across my desk... Iraqi Questions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:13:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
394 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> I've said before that France is hardly morally clear on this matter, since
> they're motivated at least in large part by their past financial investment
> in Iraq, as well as promised contracts for future oil rights. So, to that
> end, you're absolutely correct that they should come clean.
> However, *no* amount of evidence would have convinced Bush that Saddam had
> indeed disarmed, so we can hardly condemn France exclusively for failing to
> accept what others might call "sufficient" evidence.
There's rumor that Iraq fired a Scud earlier today. Just a rumor, who knows
if true, but if it is, it puts paid to the notion that Iraq had already
disarmed, as Scuds are banned.
This does not defuse the "inspections would have disarmed eventually"
argument, but there is nothing that will do that, as it's such a circular
argument that it's virtually unbreakable in context (however false it
obviously is once you step back and consider the behaviour.
> Most critics I've heard have identified the source of the current problem
> in North Korea to be Dubya's inclusion of N. Korea in his "Axis of Evil,"
I'm having a bit of a problem with that assertion. Either the DPRK (note the
difference, I refer to the dictatorship, not the oppressed masses who
suffer) is evil, or it isn't. (it is, all Stalinist regiimes are)
Saying that if one doesn't label a regime as evil it's less likely to
misbehave seems sheer ostrichism. I expected better than that from you, Dave!
> Many things internal to the United States are a far greater affront to US
> dignity (whatever the heck *that* means). Among them, our willingness to
> seek the impeachment of a President who engaged in a legal sexual affair
> with a consenting adult,
Plowed ground alert:
the impeachment trial wasn't about the affair, it was about perjury. That
Man perjured himself, repeatedly, and got away with it. We expect
politicians to lie, but lying under oath crosses a line. Personally I'd like
to see more politicians brought to task for lying... including this current
bunch, but that doesn't reduce the magnitude of That Man's transgressions,
and you know it, Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
