Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:39:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
639 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 any time and thus have been “imminent”, but he never suggested
through intelligence that such an plan was uncovered.
| |
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.
|
Well, that’s assuming that SH could have been trusted to not pursue them in the
future, which wouldn’t have been wise IMO.
| |
| |
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?
|
The $64,000 question. I’ll say this-- that point seems to vary along party
lines....
| |
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.
|
This is a great point. The country of Iraq wasn’t the problem. The problem was
the person of Saddam Hussein. The proliferation of nukes is only a problem
(safety and waste issues aside) when they fall into the hands of crazies.
| |
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.
|
He would be in a lot more hot water if we hadn’t caught SH. I might be
convinced to believe in conspiracies if the polls look bad for Bush in late
summer and we all of a sudden catch OBL;-)
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
I disagree that he used deception-- I believe he believed the intelligence that
SH possessed the WMDs, and he believed (and rightly so IMO) that SH wouldn’t be
afraid to use them or give them to someone who would. I mean, the guy had the
cheek to try and assassinate Bush senior! Nothing could be assumed with this
fruitcake.
| |
| |
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.
|
We’ll use Israeli intelligence-- it’s better anyway;-)
| |
Lack of trust for
deception or incompetence still adds up to lack of trust!
|
So whom are you blaming? Bush acted as he saw fit based on the intelligence at
his disposal. I’d hope any president would have acted in the same way based
on the same intelligence.
| |
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?
|
Good questions. And I’ll be sure glad when Bush wins in ‘04 so we can finally
put the “elected by the people” quip to rest! :-)
| |
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.
|
Agreed.
| |
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.
|
I think the message of Iraq to existing and future tinpots will go a long way in
making the US safer from their aggrandized aspirations.
If Iraq fails to embrace freedom and democracy, that will be particularily
painful and I for one would think twice about embarking on such an adventure
again.
But I disagree with you that America is less safe with SH on the sidelines. OBL
is a huge prize and his death will go a loooong way to dispirit terrorists
worldwide. As I mentioned above, watch out for the late capture of OBL this
summer-- Bush’s Ace in the hole? ;-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) As I said, splitting hairs. The indication was that Saddam had WoMD and was going to either use them himself or hand them out like candy to Islamic extremists (who would only to be happy to use them on Saddam, given half a chance). (...) He (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
