Subject:
|
Re: Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:53:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
481 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Further, and this cannot be stated often or loudly enough, the state
primary motivation for invading Iraq was that Hussein possessed weapons of
mass destruction and that he posed a direct threat to the United States.
Whatever happened to those weapons, anyway?
|
We know that they existed. SH used them on the Kurds. Either he destroyed
them (but then why wouldn’t he simply say so and thus averting his own
desposition!), or they still exist somewhere. The whole thing makes no sense
to me. What other possibilities are there?
|
One possibility is that Dubya could publicly acknowledge that St. Reagan both
supported Hussein and supplied him with weapons of mass destruction. Another
possibility is that Dubya could publicly acknowledge that Uncle Cheney had
business dealings with Hussein within the past five years, long after Hussein
was known to have used chem weapons on the Kurds. Another possibility is that
Dubya could publicly acknowledge that the war was based on false pretenses.
| |
| |
The fact that Hussein was a brutal dictator was used to justify
the pursuit of that stated goal, but it was not, in itself, the goal.
|
In a way it was, because monsters such as he, with the amount of oil money at
his disposal, are a threat to the world by their nature-- ask any Kuwaiti.
The guy was a powderkeg (who had a history of blowing up).
|
If that were the case, then you’re stating that Dubya lied to the American
public in making his bid for war.
| |
| |
Alternatively, if Dubya’s goal was to oust Hussein because Hussein killed
innocent Iraqis, then he lied to the American public, to Congress, to the
United Nations, and to the world at large.
|
It wasn’t the sole stated intent, but a good byproduct.
|
So you’re agreeing that Dubya lied? Do you think that he was justified in doing
so (ie, in dragging his country to war without disclosing all pertinent facts)?
Lying to get a country to go to war is far more serious than lying about a legal
extramarital affair between consenting adults. Do you propose that Dubya should
be impeached for his deceit?
| |
Thanks to scientific polls, the will of the “silent majority” is
knowable, and most Americans favored the intervention to liberate Iraq (as
did Congress BTW).
|
That’s like the old riddle:
Q: What’s so fragile that you’ll break it even if you mention it?
A: Silence.
If those opinions are known, that those opinions are no longer silent. This may
seem like nitpicking, but it’s not. Point me to those scientific polls, and
I’ll take a look at them. What was the sample size? Where were the polls
taken? What were the precise questions? All of these must be fully disclosed
before such a poll can claim validity.
Dave!
PS. Did you buy your MEGA BLOKS
battleships yet?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
|
| (...) Would that we could compare that number to the number of innocents who would have been executed by SH by now. Chances are the latter would be higher, and thus Bush's intervention actually saved the lives of innocents in total. (...) We know (...) (21 years ago, 10-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
