Subject:
|
Re: "gutless" bush?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:16:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
477 times
|
| |
|
|
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, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > >
> > > > > We live in a fallen world-- sometimes violence is the only way (because the
> > > > bad guy starts it)
> > > >
> > > > Ummmmmmmm, you sure you want to phrase it that way?
> > >
> > > Yes. This started 11 years ago with the invasion of Kuwait.
> > >
> > > JOHN
> >
> > 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 trying to prove with this? What it tells me is that you're bitter that
> > W Sr. didn't 'get the bad guy' then, and now you're out to finish the
> > job--11 years later.
> >
> > Yeah--yet another "White House" reason for this little war.
>
> 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, while stockpiling illegal
> weapons, including chemical and biological in the process.
> 5. The UN passes 1441, demanding compliance or serious consequences would occur
>
> 6. The UN looses its spine, countries complicent in SH's weapons build-up block
> UN efforts, exposing the UN for the sham it is.
> 7. Realizing that disarming will only occur with SH removed from power, the US,
> along with coalition forces, issue an ultimatum for SH to take voluntarily
> exile or they will forcibly remove him.
> 8. He refuses.
> 9. He is being forcibly removed by the US and coalition forces.
> 10. We grab all of Iraq's oil (just seeing if you were paying attention!)
> 11. The fat lady sings.
> 12. On to North Korea.
>
> JOHN
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. So this current invasion cannot rely on that
issue--it's resolved.
Resolution 1441 was a UN resolution. The UN isn't sanctioning this
invasion. Therefore that particular issue cannot be used as a pretext for
this current invasion.
Iraqi disarmament was happening without the cost of lives. Containment of
SH was happening without the cost of lives. Invading for either of these
reasons is unjustified. I like how the US 'contained' the USSR for 50ish
years but can't do the same thing for a little bitty country like Iraq. Oh
right--bullys don't like standing up to other bullys of the same
starure--they just like picking on those smaller and weaker than they
themselves are.
The only point that stands up on its own is the oil grab--I know you were
being facetious, but in your sarcasm, you spoke the truth. The rest of the
points are 'way points' to get from one issue to another and I won't refute
them. Saddam did refuse to step down. I don't like that he didn't step
down, but if some agressor was standing on my doorstep, I'd probably put up
a fight as well.
If there was no agressor at my doorstep, there could, and would, have been
time to resolve issues peacably.
I'm like APD--if there was a bulldozer parked outside my house for no just
reason, I'd lie in the mud in front of it.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
65 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
|
|
|
|
