Subject:
|
Re: Guess who's next?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:19:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
187 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > Let's play a game! We all throw in 10 bucks and state, for the record, who
> > the next coutry targeted for 'WoMD disarmament' and 'harbouring terr'sts'--
> >
> > I guess Syria
>
> That's not hard guess, not even worth even money in Vegas. That's all the
> news stations can talk about these days with little exciting going on now.
>
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html
>
> > No UN mandate, but "baah! We no need no steenkin' UN mandate!" anymore.
>
> I don't see it happening, would be convienent as we already have the troops
> and equipment over there, but highly unlikely. Bear in mind Husein already
> had a cease fire agreement and 17 UN resolutions it blatantly defied. He hid
> weapons he was know no have, when inspectors found contraband in '98 he
> kicked them out. Time and time again he stood defiant in the face of
> pressure from the UN.
Well no--he didn't kick out the inspectors--the inspectors were ordered out
by the UN, just like this time--the inspectors were ordered out so the US
could vent their aggressive tendancies.
And again, if Iraq blatantly defied UN resolutions, shouldn't it be up to
the UN to do something about it, even if its a hodge-podge mamby pamby
no-notihng solution? It was, after all, a UN resolution, not a US resolution.
>
> Syria signed resolution 1441 for Iraq to disarm!
So did the US, so did a whole slew of other countries--does that make Syria
a 'good guy' in this? Because they signed, does that give them automatic
credibility?
> Granted they are like
> Disneyland for terrorists, but it is mostly for the anti-Isreal types. With
> their willingness to hide, harbor, and help Huseins cronies during this
> conflict there is no question that scrutiny should be directed at Syria. If
> 14 years, 17 UN resolutions, and over a year of mindless diplomat debate
> rage over Syria's terrorist ties I believe the US would be willing to do the
> heavy lifting for the world once again.
/son
And so they should! Go get 'em!
/soff
> Finally I still don't get why Husein doesn't get more blame for the start of
> this war; he is the cause of it. If he had once, just once, fully complied
> with the UN resolutions, first off there wouldn't be 17 of them, but
> secondly he could have averted war, and maintained his tyranical hold over
> his people. There was no suprise attack here, he saw the forces amassing,
> felt the political pressure, he chose a path that led to war.
Saddam is the *cause* of this war? Saddam was the *focus* of this war,
Saddam was the *scapegoat* for this war, Saddam and his bad way of running
his country was the supposed reason for this war, but it was Dubya who was
the *cause* of this war. If you didn't have this trigger happy Texan as
president, you think this war would have happened?
Yes Saddam should have complied with UN resolutions. Yes Saddam should have
been a nicer person to his people. Yes Saddam should have done many many
things better than he did. But then again, so should Dubya. Lets talk
tyranny here--when *most* of the world, and even many many Americans, were
blatantly against this war, Dubya, in defiance of all that, went ahead and
did what he wanted to do. Tyranny? With this one example who's the tyrant?
Who blatantly ignored what the masses wanted? Little "over the top" to be
sure--I'd much rather have Dubya as a neighbour than SH, but let's start
calling a spade a spade instead of glossing over the truth.
This was not a war to decrease terrorism worldwide. This was not a war to
protect Americans or increase the security of the USA. So I ask, besides
the 'liberated Iraq', what was this war for? Oil? Dubya flexing Imperial
America? I dunno, but the *stated* reasons are all null and void.
The final question--was this war necessary (i.e. Just)? If I get a good
non-partisan "Old Glory Stars 'n Stripes" answer to that, I'll be impressed.
I hope that the 'New Iraq' will be a better place for the citizens of that
destroyed country. My personal belief is that they would have eventually
got to a better country via support from world communities, and without the
need for war.
>
> Scott
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Guess who's next?
|
| (...) 17. Wow! This is what Isreal has defied between 48 & 92: Res 101, 106, 111, 127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250, 251, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, 450, 452, 465, 467, (...) (21 years ago, 15-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Guess who's next?
|
| (...) That's not hard guess, not even worth even money in Vegas. That's all the news stations can talk about these days with little exciting going on now. (...) I don't see it happening, would be convienent as we already have the troops and (...) (21 years ago, 15-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
13 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
|
|
|
|
