Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:48:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
477 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Spencer Nowak writes:
> > So, I wonder why you require "hard" evidence for one side of the coin, but >such amazingly soft (ie clearly fabricated) evidence for the other.
>
> I could say the same...
> why do we need "hard evidence" to go to war(which, by the way, we have given
> saddam ample chances to avoid by simply telling us what he has) and "soft
> evidence" to stay home and let a US hating dictator get wmds?
Because one way people don't die. Inspections and containment was working.
The other way people die--bombing and fighting.
There had better be a physical "smoking gun" for me to consider the very
option of thinking about starting a war. And if there is another way of
achieving the same ends without loss of life, I'm going to opt for that one.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
