Subject:
|
Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:57:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
179 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > And how many people seriously thoguht that the death of the kids was going
> > to help?
>
> It matters a great deal to the Iraqi people.
Probably. But the impact of their deaths remains to be seen, alas. I am
hopeful that the elimination of those two brutes will allow Iraq to begin to
heal from the atrocities inflicted upon it by enemies both at home and abroad.
However, it's too soon to know whether this will be the case, or whether it will
simply allow some other hungry faction to win popular, democratic support in
that country.
> What lessons did {you} learn from WWII?
> (Dirty little secret: war is sometimes {GOOD}).
I would rephrase it thus: Although war is always bad, sometimes it is
unavoidable, and sometimes good can result from it at great cost.
But war is never good.
> What would you have called the situation previously with the brutal SH in
> power? It was a mess to begin with.
Although nothing can be said to justify Saddam's sadistic rule, it must be
remembered that he only rose to that level of power through direct and
intenstive US aid. As such, the US in general (and certain administrations in
particular) must bear some burden for the consequences of that aid.
Obviously, that doesn't excuse his actions at all, but Cheney found him
sufficiently tolerable to strike oil deals with him as recently as 1999.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
26 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
|
|
|
|
