Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:34:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
532 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
(snipped quotations)
What I thought: nowhere did he ever use the term “imminent”.
|
I’d say the ‘capable of attacking within 45 minutes’ was imminent enough.
| |
| |
Dubya *wanted* to invade Iraq--pure and simple. It wasn’t the intelligence
community that was mistaken, it was the administration.
|
The meaning of your non-sequitur eludes me. What Bush wanted was Saddam
Hussein removed from power, period.
|
Show me before the war where he said that? You know Dubya, et al. mentioned the
imminent threat of Iraq many times over, but I don’t recall anyone saying
*specifically* that the US was in it just to get Saddam. WoMD, drones and
planes capable of dispersing agents on US soil, Nuclear facilities, but no
mention of removing Saddam from power, period.
| |
| |
You can point out that France, Germany, Russia, and everyone else may have
thought that Saddam may have had WoMD, but these countries also didn’t go to
war--they were letting Blix do the job that he was suppose to do. It wasn’t
Saddam who kicked Blix out of the country--it was Dubya.
|
“Everyone else may have thought that Saddam may have had WMD”??? There
was never a doubt in anyone’s mind! They may have thought that he’d
never give them to terrorists or never use them, but please! Further, SH was
leading Blix around the country like a monkey on a leash. It was a freakin’
game to him.
|
That’s one way of looking at it. Then there’s the truth which showed us that
the UN inspectors should have been given all relevant info, but wait! There’s
Colin Powell at the UN showing all these slides ‘n such of supposed ‘bad
activity’ of the Iraqis, but the US administration wouldn’t give any of that
info to the inspectors. So who was playing a game here? Who was dangling that
proverbial carrot in front of the inspection team? The carrot, I will remind
you, turned out to be completely proverbial--having no actual factual basis at
all. Love how the truth gets out, no matter how much you try to obfuscate it.
It’s your interpretation of what’s good for yourself, and the rest of the world,
which scares me.
| |
| |
No one was turning a ‘bline eye’ to Saddam, no one was giving him a free
ticket to develop these non-existant programs.
|
Certainly not the Israelis, who probably did more to save the world from a
nuclear terrorist attack than we did by bombing SH’s nuclear facility Osiraq
in ‘81.
|
ANd the Gulf war in ‘91--does that give you the right to invade in ‘03? Stop
rationalizing this unjust war with past grievances. Show how the war in ‘03 was
justified in any way, shape or form.
| |
| |
So if there was no war, where would we be today? Instead of the US
inspection team coming back after finding nothing, and after the deaths of
hundreds of soldiers and thousands of civilians, and the wanton destruction
of cities, Blix would have come back after finding nothing, with no deaths
or destruction.
|
Except for the usual, brutal killing of civilians by the 1,000s at the hands
of SH’s regime.
|
Again, that was when SH was your (the US) ‘puppet’ in Iraq and yet you didn’t
invade then. Hypocricy. Show in ‘03 how you justify the invasion.
| |
| |
Haliburton? Funny you should mention that...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21186-2004Jan15¬Found=true
‘Tis absolutely amazing how every plan that Dubya makes seems to have the
potential to send more money into the coffers of that company.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/01/con04020.html
Funny that.
|
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Dr Freud.
|
Nice. The megacorp makes all the money on this fiasco, and a ‘cigar is just a
cigar’.
| |
| |
| |
The good news is that we have a
splendid opportunity to assist a great nation become democratic and free.
God knows what disasterous future we averted by deposing SH-- we can only
confront evil when we see it and act accordingly. If nothing else, the
example of SH is a beacon of warning to current tin-pot dictators around
the world who respect nothing but power-- the stakes are high and we aren’t
just whistlin’ Dixie...
|
Yeah, if you look at the US the wrong way, they’ll come over and ‘kick yer
henie’. Good example.
|
If you look at us the wrong way waving a nuke or other WMD that is...
|
Read SA post on this--he said it better than I could.
| |
| |
“We can only confront evil when we see it and act accordingly”?
What ‘evil’ was there in Iraq in 2003 that you had this overwhelming need to
confront? It must’ve been a clear and imminent danger. Where was it? No
one can find it. Imagine that.
|
We found it. It was cowering in a hole. It was Saddam Hussein. Imagine
that.
|
You used a bunch of lies and deceit to get him, killing thousands along the way
and spending billions. Imagine that.
| |
| |
And again you state that getting rid of Saddam was the good thing. And
again I will reiterate--since when does the ends justify the means? The
means, I may add, which include, but are not limited to, the deaths of
thousands of people, the destruction of property, the expenditure of
billions of dollars and the lowering of the worlds opionon with regard to
the integrity and honour of the US administraition.
|
What was the cost of the terrorist attack on 9-11? What would be the cost of
a nuclear terrorist attack in a major US city?
|
So again you use 9/11 to justify Iraq. How many Iraqis were among the
hijackers? How many Saudis? Please.
| |
As I mentioned before, if you want to play the numbers game-- I win, because
more Iraqis lost their lives to torture and murder continuously at the hands
of SH than died in the war. And look at Iraq today-- emancipated, and full
of hope for a bright future. Her only fear being that the US and the world
leaves before she can find her feet.
As far as the world popularity contest goes, I hold no illusions. We will be
vilified regardless of what we do. Best to do what is right for us, for
usually that is best for the world as well anyway.
|
First, Iraq, as demonstrated, wasn’t good for you. You’ve wasted billions,
you’ve lost all credibility on the world political stage, and you’ve made it so
much easier for terrorist organizations to recruit. I mean, who isn’t pissed at
the US right now? And don’t go saying what’s good for the US is good for the
world--your new environmental protection reductions, for a start, isn’t good for
the world at all. Arrogance, stupidity and hypocricy all in one package. How
efficient of you (1) (not you, John, but the US administration and those that
wholeheartedly support them).
| |
Spreading Democracy and Freedom are noble tasks, and make the world a better
place. BTW, name for me 1 war in the history or the world between 2
Democracies....
JOHN
|
So there you are.(2)
Dave K
1. I know. Eh, it was still a great quote.
2. Same source as 1
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) I don't have time to research it, but you are dead wrong on both counts. He called for Saddam to step down, and never used the term imminent threat. (...) Please, at this point nobody knows the "truth". For all we know, the WMDs could have (...) (20 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: To change the tune...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: (snipped quotations) What I thought: nowhere did he ever use the term "imminent". (...) The meaning of your non-sequitur eludes me. What Bush wanted was Saddam Hussein removed from power, period. (...) (...) (20 years ago, 8-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
55 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
|
|
|
|
