 | | 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?
|
| (...) 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)
| |
