 | | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Sorry, I don't share your admiration for suicide martyrs. (...) Not when dealing with thugs. In that case, the bigger the gun the better-- it's called "results". Stand in front of as many of SH's tanks as you dare; he will roll over you every (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Not even if they're crucified? Dave! (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Thank you for bringing that moment of *perfect* clarity, Dave! I'll walk and talk peace, thanks. Dave K (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) You mean *self-inflicted* crucifixion? JOHN (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Heck, yeah! He was *the Lord* according to the myth. If he allowed it to occur, then it's tantamount to causing it to occur. Dave! (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) But can he create a stone he can't lift? You raise some heavy theological issues, not the least of which is circular in reasoning. JOHN (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Ummmmmmmm, you sure you want to phrase it that way? -->Bruce<-- (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Yes. This started 11 years ago with the invasion of Kuwait. JOHN (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) …which Bush only mumbled about until Thatcher kicked him in the proverbial ass. Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Kuwait was liberated. That war is over. This cannot be about that invasion--it's over. You're so quick to tell us to 'get over' Bush and the election--get over Kuwait--it's done. SH wasn't massing a force to re-invade. What is it you are (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Ploughed ground, but I'll explain 1 more time, and I'll type extra slowly in hopes you get it this time: 1. SH invades Kuwait. 2. UN forces repel SH from Kuwait. 3. SH agrees to >>>DISARM<<< 4. SH yanks weapons inspectors around for 11 years, (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) No. That was resolved 11 years ago. But hey, I was just trying to give you a chance to rephrase your statement before you were jumped all over for such an inviting statement, considering that Bush is initiating the violence. I see the jumping (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Um, not exactly. When a war ends the armed hostility phase with a truce agreement, it's not over until a negotiated peace is in place. In this case, the truce agreement specified that SH would disarm and change his ways. He didn't. Violations (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) That's a pretty good house of cards you built there. If that's the 'domino effect' that gets us to now, you cannot use "Kuwait's invasion" as the foundation building block for *this* war. The issue--the invasion of Kuwait--has been resolved. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Begin violence. (...) End violence. (...) No violence.... (...) No violence.... (...) No violence.... (...) No violence.... (...) No violence... (...) Violence, started by the U.S.! Hey this is *your* sequence of events. "sometimes violence is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) 2004: DPRK: Give us food, or Seoul gets it... you know we can do it, you saw that nuke that OBL set off earlier this year? That was us. And we made more. RoK: OK, I guess so, but just this one time... 2005: DPRK: Give us food AND a good stock (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) The violence is a CONSEQUENCE of his FAILURE to comply. You are making my case for the impotence of the UN. If the UN isn't willing to back up their threats, they are empty and worthless. Without violence, there will be no disarming SH. That's (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Absolutely not. It was a condition of surrender, Dave, that SH disarm. He has violated that treaty, therefore it is *unresolved*. (...) Who else's would it be? (...) Rez 1441 states that "serious consequences" will occur if there isn't (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) I don't drive a Hyundai, go ahead! Seoul is the one that requested we show restraint, so I don't have a problem with them eating the consequences. (...) Oh dang, I drive a Mazda. Time to switch to that BMW, I guess. Anime? They are welcome to (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) No John, you said one thing and I called you on it: "sometimes violence is the only way (because the bad guy starts it)." Okay, we started the current violence, so your statement has a certain irony to it. You'd be far better off amending your (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) You weren't paying attention, JOHN: how can the U.S. use a UN resolution as a pretext for war when the UN doesn't back us on it? Yes, the UN shouldn't have passed such a resolution if they weren't prepared to back it up, but we have no legal (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Indeed! Look, the U.N. is a joke -- but at least I am willing to hear the punchline because it means people do not have to die RIGHT THIS MINUTE! And yes, of course, the U.S. has become imperialistic. Look at our feigned concern for the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Yes, the invasion of Kuwait is over. That business is finished. What was never finished was the removal of Saddam Hussein from his nice, cozy position of power. This is something Papa couldn't finish and something Hill Billy Clinton wouldn't (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Why? I wouldn't have cared if Saddam had been allowed to thumb his nose at resolution after resolution after resolution, ad infinitum...I have no ego investment in making others obey my every word, as long as they also keep the peace. Everyone (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) I'll agree completely that 'keeping the peace' is the paramount concern here. That, and the prevention of the proliferation of more WOMD. Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN resolutions and sanctions imposed on his country. Now it's time to put (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) I thought what was wanted was justice for the "helpless" Iraqi people? Why should we let SH slip away quietly when it is our "claimed" agenda to make him pay for his supposed crimes? Or is there another agenda that doesn't care about justice (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
