Subject:
|
Re: Break Out the Cristal (trickle-down economics explained with champagne!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:55:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
409 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > So you believe that Iraq had agressive intentions towards the US in the
> > immediate future? That this country, which couldn't send a missle 800 miles
> > outside their borders was well on its way to threaten the peace, security
> > and "freedom and liberty" of the United States of America?
> >
> > Just asking.
>
> Ploughed ground, but I'll explain again. Saddam supports terrorists (paying
> Palestinians families of homicide bombers is one example that we are aware).
> He has, in fact, terrorized his own people with chemical and biological
> weapons. The man is a monster, and a friend to terrorists. I don't fear *him*
> now or ever, provided he never obtained nukes. And while his possession of
> nukes wouldn't even necessarily constitute a direct threat to the US, it would
> constitute a huge threat to our ally Israel and thereby constitute a threat to
> us indirectly.
>
> But I believe that he would provide scum like OBL WMD to use against the US if
> the opportunity presented itself. This is why we need to act now. Heck, we
> should have done this 12 years ago. Remember, this war is not with the people
> of Iraq, but with their cruel oppressor. I think even many Iraqis understand
> this to be true.
>
> JOHN
You may call it "ploughed ground" but what you say here is contradictory to
whay you said earlier--
> I'm not sure that they are necessarily mutually exclusive. The ultimate
> self-interest motive in our war against Saddam is the self-preservation of our
> way of life which is all about Freedom and Liberty. If you are referring to
> motives like oil procurement, then the answer is no.
"The self preservation of our way of life", or as Dubya says in every single
speech, "Protecting Americans". And everyone else in the world points out
to you that Iraq wasn't threatening your way of life, nor was going to in
the near future. So why war now?
Bringing in Israel is just going to bring up that discussion, "Who is more
right? Israel or Palestine" and as if that conversation hasn't gone on long
enuf--they *both* have to stop.
And again, there has never been any credible connection b/w SH and OBL. The
idea that we're at war because at some unspecified point in the future SH,
who doesn't have nucs today, *may* sell them to terrorists in the future is
outrageous. Other WMD, as far as I know, would be pretty difficult to get
to the US from Iraq, and again, we're banking the reason for this war on a
future possibility.
One more thing--if you went after OBL with the vim and vigor that you're
going after SH, OBL wouldn't be around to buy those weapons, would he? OBL
hit you. He hit you hard. And you had (most of) the world on your side
when you went looking for him. Now what do you have? This very idea should
bring you up short.
The soviets have nucs and, from what I've read, is having a *very* tough
time accounting for all of them, and keeping track of them. Yet notihng--no
protest, no build-up, no war posturing... And N Korea? So again, we're in
this battle because of false pretenses.
One valid concrete reason, please. One valid "sanctioned by the US gov't"
reason for this war. One reason that could *not* have been accomplished
without sending in the troops. One reason that hasn't been built on false
pretenses.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
79 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
