 | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —John Neal
| | | | (...) Agreed. (...) Fair enough. (...) Hindsight is certainly 20/20. I would be more apt to concede culpability if we actually had any idea as to his evil character, and even given that it is sometimes necessary to choose a lesser of 2 evils (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) Business, sure, but look at the circumstances. Cheney was Secretary of Defense in Gulf War I and CEO of Halliburton in 1995, and in 1999 oil deals were struck with Iraq. Let's remember that this was during the time when Saddam was already (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —John Neal
| | | | | (...) Let me say this, Dave! I won't defend big business. I am not a fan of "big business", nor am I a fan of big government. "Big" in these areas is bad IMO, inevitabley leading to corruption and abuse of power. I don't know any specifics about (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?) —Richard Marchetti
| | | | | (...) Skeptical which way? (...) And neither do I. At the same time I don't believe in letting them off the hook and overtaxing the vastly less wealthy members of our society instead. The reality is that we have a corporate welfare scheme of untold (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | |
