Subject:
|
Re: My over-simplification of the anti-war movement
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:44:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
209 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott Costello wrote:
> I dont have the chance to respond with the same level of frequency here on
> OTD as many of the regulars, so this may sound like a hit and run, as I will
> voice my opinion and probably not respond to rebuttals in a timely fashion.
> I, however, desired to lay out my position in as simple a way as possible.
>
> First off, I dislike the name Iraqi Freedom because I believe it gives the
> wrong impression of the reason for this war. This war was started not simply
> because there was an oppressed nation. Were we to take the role of world
> liberator, we would never stop fighting, a good portion of the continent of
> Africa could use liberation.
>
> In very simplified terms, after we were attacked on 9-11, the United States
> declared war on terrorism, wherever it exists.
Even that funded by Pakistan?
> This started in Afghanistan
> where the Taliban was aiding and abetting top terrorist Osama Bin Laden. We
> did that and successfully drove the vicious Taliban from power, and made a
> fugitive of Bin Laden. I, like most people, would love to have Bin Laden in
> custody, and that may yet happen, but his ability to carry out evil over the
> globe has all but neutralized.
Me too. I'd love to hear what he has to say. Likewise for SH. Do you
think Bush would want us to hear about their version of events?
>
> Terrorism, however, does not end with Al-Qaida, or the Taliban, we had to
> look at all sources of danger to the United States and her citizens.
Why just "to the United States and her citizens"?
> Saddam
> Hussein has been a threat to our safety since the 1991 Desert Storm war.
Evidence?
> He
> never fully complied with the cease fire he signed at the conclusion of that
> war, and he regularly makes payments to the family of Palestinian suicide
> bombers.
Sure he's gave the Palestinians a few thousand dollars whist the USA has
given Sharon [a wanted war criminal] a few BILLION dollars.
> There is also evidence that several top Al-Qaida operatives put
> previous differences aside and found safe harbor in northern Iraq. Perhaps
> the enemies of my enemies philosophy prevails here. Finally, do not forget
> that Hussein tried to assassinate President George H. W. Bush.
>
> Bottom line here is that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair believe
> that Hussein poses a clear and present danger to the safety of our nations
> and our citizens.
That is what they say...
> Simply waiting for another attack on this nation from an
> Iraqi supported terrorist would be suicide. At this point the only reasons I
> have seen to disagree with military actions are as follows.
>
> 1. You are a pacifist who disagrees with military action for any reason,
> even the defense of your country.
>
> 2. You believe that Bush, Blair, and their respective administrations are
> disingenuous with their analysis that Iraq and her deadly weapons pose a
> threat to our respective nations.
>
> If you fall into category 1, then I will always disagree with the belief
> that evil men, and yes Saddam falls into that category, cannot be trusted to
> forgo their aggressive tendencies simply by imposing political pressure, or
> economic sanctions. However, if you find yourself in camp 2, you have to ask
> yourself could 45 nations with leaders of varying ideologies join the
> conspiracy? Or perhaps you believe that the strong arm tactics of the
> United States and Great Britain
UK not GB.
> have put undo pressure on these nations.
> True other nations oppose us, most notably France, who really hasnt agreed
> with us on much since 1945. Or maybe you believe that you have more reliable
> intelligence that these administrations.
I'm sure I could have figured out where the Chinese embassy in Belgrade
was! ;)
>
> Wherever you find yourself, I welcome opposing voices disagreeing with my
> categorization of the opposition.
>
>
... I'm sure in a parallel universe somewhere Blix is still working away
at solving this without radicalising opinion across the world.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | My over-simplification of the anti-war movement
|
| I don’t have the chance to respond with the same level of frequency here on OTD as many of the regulars, so this may sound like a hit and run, as I will voice my opinion and probably not respond to rebuttals in a timely fashion. I, however, desired (...) (22 years ago, 31-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 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
|
|
|
|
