Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:33:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
623 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
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.
|
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.
|
That’s splitting hairs: “Grave and gathering” “Urgent”. Bush is doing the Texas
Two-Step. But on the other count, yes, Bush indicated that Saddam was to be
removed from power - specifically because of the WoMD. Can’t find any WoMD so
now it’s a bait-and-switch affair.
| |
Deal with it. We are bigger than you, we are a target, and we want to
protect ourselves in any way we deem necessary.
|
“Any way”? At what point do we become a defender against a threat and switch
over to an agressor who IS the threat? Did Iraq pose a credible threat to the
U.S.? Not that I can see. Bush sold this war solely on Iraq being a danger to
the United States through “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. He either lied or was
incompetent because evidence of such is simply not forthcoming. Bush needs to
answer for his actions - you don’t see me shrieking about his actions in
Afghanistan (I’m sure there are specific ones to shriek about, but overall, we
could not allow them to harbor the Al Qaeda network). He thought he had carte
blanche to do whatever he wanted in the pursuit of terrorism without having to
answer for his actions.
| |
| |
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.
|
How about the liberation of the Iraqis from the brutal dictatorship of SH?
|
If that’s how he wanted to sell the war to the American congress and people, he
should have stepped up and said that. Instead he chose a deception because he
knew the answer to that: there are plenty of brutal dictatorships - why Saddam
over any of the others?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
He was never our puppet. We supported him against Iran, but that was
analygous to supporting the monster Stalin against Hitler. There is no
hyprocrisy there (look up the word hyprocrisy, BTW).
|
Score one for John! Bush the Elder bought into the nonsense that the enemy of
our enemy is our friend, but I wouldn’t describe Saddam as our puppet. However,
Bush did think he could work with Saddam in a closer way than we ever trusted
Stalin.
| |
| |
You used a bunch of lies and deceit to get him, killing thousands along the
way and spending billions. Imagine that.
|
What lies? What deceit? Failed intelligence is neither. It was worth it,
and the world is a better place for it.
|
Failed intelligence is worth it? It means that we cannot go to the world again
with any crediblity by citing our intellgence. Lack of trust for deception or
incompetence still adds up to lack of trust! How do we get future coopeartion
when we falsely yelled “wolf”? How can a democracy make choices when the people
who have been elected (ignoring the debatablity of Bush actually being elected
by the people) can’t get the truth to the people? One of the most important
things that we as an electorate need to do is tell Bush - ANY politician - that
they darn well better not ask Americans to die for trumped up reasons, be they
specific lies or sheer incompetence.
The world might be a better place, but is the United States the better for
it? No, the resources were wasted on a world that does not care, a population
that does not appreciate being liberated, and a move that has not made us more
secure - this is all nonsense that distracts from Bush’s incompetence in
apprehending Osama.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) I disagree in this sense: I believe what Bush meant was that, given time, the inevitable proliferation of WMDs to terrorists by SH was bound to occur, just not "imminently". If SH already had the weapons, then an attack could have happened at (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
