Subject:
|
Re: "gutless" bush?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:23:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
542 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > 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.
>
> Absolutely not. It was a condition of surrender, Dave, that SH disarm. He has
> violated that treaty, therefore it is *unresolved*.
> >
> > Resolution 1441 was a UN resolution.
>
> Who else's would it be?
>
> > The UN isn't sanctioning this
> > invasion. Therefore that particu.lar issue cannot be used as a pretext for
> > this current invasion.
>
> Rez 1441 states that "serious consequences" will occur if there isn't
> compliance with 1441. How would you define "serious consequences"? *More*
> <gasp> weapons inspectors? What kind of pressure is available to force him to
> comply? Or do we scream and scream and finally give up?
> >
> > Iraqi disarmament was happening without the cost of lives.
>
> Wake up and smell the (illegal) scuds Dave.
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 claim on that resolution outside of the UN.
>
> > 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.
>
> As a tinpot dictator, he wasn't much of a threat to the US (unless he got
> frisky with other oil producing countries). As a WOMD *supplier* to
> terrorists, he was a grave threat.
What "womd" did he supply to terrorists? Saddam doesn't care about religion
or idealism or political causes.
> >
> > 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 only country who is in this for the oil is France. The argument that the
> US is doing it for oil is ridiculous-- I mean, do the math. Or just wait and
> see what happens with what we do with the oil fields. You can line up and eat
> crow with -->Bruce<--, Dave! and RM. It is comical how coincidences drive the
> conspiracy theorists nuts-- Wellstone dies days before the election.... BOTH
> Bush and Cheney are OIL MEN..... Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The oil companies are already lining up for new contracts.
>
> > 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.
>
> That's good Dave-- empathize with monsters. You are morally against using
> force to remove a monster from power, yet you can justify a monster's using
> force to remain in power. You are morally lost.
One doesn't have to empathize with him to realize it wasn't going to be an
option he was going to take.
> >
> > If there was no agressor at my doorstep, there could, and would, have been
> > time to resolve issues peacably
>
> Or string out negotiations, inspections, etc.
That, too.
> >
>
> > 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.
>
> "APD"?
I don't know how many times I have railed against people speaking "initial"
and no one seems to get a clue on this. If it isn't a really common usage
(U.S., U.N., FBI, CIA, AWOL, SNAFU etc) identify the name properly and
*then* start using the intials for ease. Grrrrrr. Sorry, pet peeve.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
65 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
