|
|
 | | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
| (...) Yeah, I was called in on that characterization as well by Dave! What I meant basically was that sometimes violence can beget peace. How about it is good to resist against evil, even if that means going to war. But I think we are of the same (...) (23 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?)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 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?)
|
| (...) The Sons of Saddam seem to have forgotten that trite statement. Or perhaps, "He who lives be the sword, dies by the sword." So, yes, it's trite, but it also kinda backfires against David since it can also be used to explain why it happened. I (...) (23 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?)
|
| (...) That can't be applicable, the institutions whose legitimacy for trial was recognized have been overpassed. Trial would therefore be a farce without an impartial judge. (...) No longer "if". IMO it's just a question of taste (or sensibility, if (...) (23 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?)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) And yet you still keep on missing the point--you didn't give the inspectors this long to do their job--doing their job without the support and 'proof' that you "Mericans supposedly had, btw, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
