Subject:
|
Re: I think the 1st Ammendment was broken
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:44:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
388 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Telling a country that they can’t have a weapons program??
|
UN res 1441, among others.
| |
Telling Iraq that
they couldn’t have a weapons progam was *not* the reason for this fiasco.
|
Actually, I think that is precisely the reason.
JOHN
|
No, the WoMD was--there was nothing in the res. that said that Iraqi’s
couldn’t have, say, a factory producing bullets and rifles and such--that’s
a weapons program...
|
“and such”, such as ballistic missiles (Scuds)?
|
The missile in itself won’t be much of a weapon without a powerful warhead. A
SCUD armed with 1 ton of TNT will do less damage than a “daisy cutter” or
similar ordnance.
| |
| |
To deny a country the right to defend itself is just ludicrous.
|
If defense is the actual intent. Iraq was an aggressor, and to
characterize it, especially with SH at the helm, as anything but is just
ludicrous.
|
Technically, since the previous armistice (1991) Iraq did not “agress” anyone.
The US did, and even had the nerve to deny the obvious.
Bearing in mind that Turkey invaded northern Iraq (late nineties, more than
once), Iran is a “delicate” neighbor, and only Jordan and Kuwait posed no real
military threat, defensive armament is more than justifiable.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
15 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
