Subject:
|
Re: Whoa whoa whoa!!! You two faced so-'n-so!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:29:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
164 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2967598.stm
> >
> > "
> > US President George W Bush on Thursday said it would take time to find Iraq's
> > chemical and biological weapons, but he promised to "reveal the truth" about
> > them.
> > "
> >
> > Holy bold faced idiocy, Batman!
> >
> > "To the UN" says Mr. Blix before Feb, "Searching Iraq for WoMD will take time"
> >
> > "Hey, we know he has 'em, we know he plans on using 'em soon, and we know where
> > they are!!" Says Dubya and croonies, "Now git outta that country 'cause we're
> > taking charge in the name of 'world peace'! We don't have time to wait!!!"
> >
> > Flash to today--Dubya says, "it would take time to find Iraq's WoMD"
>
> Here is the key difference, Blix was not sent in to find WMD's, he was sent in
> to verify Iraq's declaration of the status of their WMD program. We mistakenly
> called his team "inspectors" when they should have been called "verifiers". In
> spite of his obvious anti-war bias, he had to reluctantly admit that Iraq did
> not comply with the demand for full disclosure. Blix didn't need more time, his
> job was complete, he was sent to discover if Husein was going to finally comply
> with the UN or keep playing games, Husein chose the later.
>
> Here is what I really don't understand, if no WMD's existed, why did Husein just
> comply, why not welcome inspectors with open arms and help them every step of
> the way? If he was truely innocent as you imply, why did he never act like an
> innocent man? He could have avoided this war, no matter how itchy you believe
> GWB was, if Husein had been 100% compliant, or even 75%, more nations than just
> France would have been against this action.
>
> If no WMD's are found, and no trace of them beyond those moble weapons labs I
> will be baffled. Where are they? The UN unanimously agreed that they existed,
> but no proof was given of their destruction, were they destroyed? If so why
> didn't Husein produce that evidence? Were they sold or hidden? If so to who? Did
> they never exist? If so then why did the UN unanimously approve 1441?
>
> I'm sorry but trying to justify Husein's actions makes my head hurt.
>
> > I'd call for his resignation today if I could.
>
> You can, Oudai Husein called for his resignation all the time, lot of good it
> did him. At least here in California many are calling for our rotten govenor's
> resignation.
>
> Scott C.
I would never justify SH's actions on anything. He is a tyrant and a despot.
But I also, at htis particular time, cannot justify, nor can *anyone else* for
that matter, the reason for the US incursion into Iraq.
You can't justify it. Not by a long shot. 'Free Iraq'? Not at the rate you're
going, and shoudln't it have been a *world* decision? Further, why today, why
now? After all, SH has been there for numerous years--why now? Because your
despot of a leader told us, the world, that SH was a 'clear and imminent' danger
to all of us. Now, after the war is over--we're looking for that clear and
present danger and we're just not finding it.
Neal can go on about the Germans and the French and the Russians having ulterior
motives to not support this fiasco you've created, but I've pointed out before
this ill deed, that Canada, your closest neighbour and ally--the country who
helped you more during 9/11 than anyone else, the county, I might add here, that
has closer ties with you--economic and/or otherwise (more trade goes across the
windsor/detriot bridge in one month than all other country's trade combined
coming into the US), and we *know* for certain that our economic destinies are
hopelesly intertwined, and yet we stood up and said, "No! This little tirade
your moronic president is going on about is nothing but a bunch of
horsefeathers."
So again, SH=bad man--no disputing at all. Does that give leave for your leader
to create hysteria using lies and whip y'all into a frenzy so he can basically
do as he pleases with no repurcussions?
I don't think so. You can slant this by saying "Well Iraq is much better off
now." Is it? WIll you leave them to their own destiny now? Even if it means
that they want to become more religiously-centric? Not by what I've been
reading--the rate you're going Iraq has to become the 51st state in order for
your leaders to be happy.
You're in it up to your eyeballs therefore you can't see the truth. I
understand that. Let a caring friend help you to see the truth of the
matter--your president lied to you. He should be removed from office.
The sooner the better.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Whoa whoa whoa!!! You two faced so-'n-so!!!
|
| (...) Here is the key difference, Blix was not sent in to find WMD's, he was sent in to verify Iraq's declaration of the status of their WMD program. We mistakenly called his team "inspectors" when they should have been called "verifiers". In spite (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
9 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
|
|
|
|
