Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:48:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
576 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
I honestly believe that, giving that history, he would have, and the stakes
were too high to simply ignore him. And I’m not even mentioning his nukes
program (Nukes??? The dude was sitting on 1,000,000s of barrels of oil! What
the heck?) It appears that we intervened in time. In hindsight, it probably
would have been better to depose him back in ‘91.
|
It probably would, but that’s not what draws my attention in your post:
Exactly why can’t a nation with oil resources seek nuclear capabilities?
| |
| |
| |
Further, SH was
leading Blix around the country like a monkey on a leash. It was a
freakin’ game to him.
|
Blix is about the only person who still has credibility on this issue. Bush
and Blair are back peddling like mad right now.
|
Of course! They were clearly misled by the intelligence, but it didn’t
matter in the end. The justification was still there. It might have been a
harder sell to the American and British people though. But honestly, how
could we have trusted him that he’d destroyed all of the WMDs? The guy was a
powderkeg with a lit fuse. The only question was how long was the fuse?
You may sniff conspiracy, but I think that’s just self-serving partisan
gloating.
|
Then why did your country require inspections in the first place? That is, if
they were so pointless, why bother?
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
At the time Iran had just bombed it and Iraq was 10+ years away from getting
a bomb. Furthermore, as a friend of “the West”, SH was cooperating fully
with IAEA inspectors (something that Israel has never done). Begin only
bombed it to help with an upcoming election.
|
You’ve got it all figured out, eh? What makes you think that the
intelligence upon which you base your assertions is any more reliable than
that upon which Bush and Blair relied?
|
What exactly are Scott’s interests in Iraq? I can figure out B & B’s interest.
| |
And yeah, you’d better set off “the
West” in quotations. What is clear is that SH had private deals with many
European countries, including Russia.
|
Bearing in mind both are colser to Iraq, I wonder why none felt threatened.
| |
Was SH “cooperating” in the same way
North Korea cooperated in completing her apparent nuclear program?
|
Well, NK has nukes already, but none was found in Iraq. Of course NK doesn’t
have oil, and the US already have reliable bases in that part of the world (read
SK, Japan, Taiwan). So strategically, yes, this was a great move. Ethically,
it’s foggy.
| |
| |
| |
If you look at us the wrong way waving a nuke or other WMD that is...
|
lol. That does not explain North Korea. Nor dose it explain Saudi Arabia!
|
Look, the governments of NK and SA are not direct threats to the US.
|
Riiiiiiiiiiight... as opposed to Saddam? What exactly made Saddam a bigger
threat than Kim Jong Il?
| |
NK is a
problem for world security, and every effort should be made to disarm them
before rolling in the tanks.
|
Two comments:
- why wasn’t this made in Iraq? (I say because they were already disarmed...)
- why do you say roll in tanks? What’s with the need of invasion?
| |
But now that KJ has a nuke, there is a big
problem, because he is crazy enough to use them (in the event of an attack).
|
Somehow, I don’t feel threatened. Not one bit.
| |
SA definitely has some enemies within her kingdom that are threats to the US,
but I think she is dealing with them, because they are also a threat to the
royal family as well.
|
Ahh, the joys of autocracy. It’s alright to like those guys when they do as
they’re told, isn’t it? But in Saddam’s case, you were so adamant in saying he
was brutal against opponents... why the change of heart?
| |
| |
| |
| |
“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.
|
30,000+ dead to get one man. I don’t know how Bush sleeps at night.
|
The blood of those fallen is on the hands of SH, not Bush.
|
Who chose to go to war?
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Nothing compared to the cost of the War on Terror.
|
Really? How about in terms of US lives?
|
Your indignation regarding the loss of US lives is comprehensible. You using
those as justification for Iraquis dying isn’t. This isn’t a football match,
where both sides are allowed to score!
| |
| |
| |
What would be the cost of
a nuclear terrorist attack in a major US city?
|
Tell me what the probability is first.
|
Are you nuts? First, if you doubt whether OBL would denotate a nuke in a US
city if he could, then you are deluded. Please excuse us if we decide to
play it safe rather than be sorry.
|
Gee... I guess that Pakistani scientist played safe, asking for pardon before
being accused of leaking stuff to OBL... That would render Saddam not guilty in
this regard, wouldn’t it?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
- 911: ~3000 dead
- Afghanistan: 3000 civillians dead, opium production condoned by Nato and a country in chaos.
- Iraq: ~30,000+ dead & a country in chaos.
|
You misunderstand. Add in the 100,000s of innocent Iraqis who died and would
have continued to die under a SH dictatorship.
|
I suppose it’s easy to lead them to it. Remember Shiites in ‘91? It’s not as if
that carnage would have happened if someone hadn’t incited them to rebel and
then ditched them. Some paragraphs above you’ve implictly accepted the combat
against inner threats to rulers...
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I think many fear that the US will not leave!
|
They are wrong.
|
He is.
I think many fear the US will run. That place is already in civil war, have
you noticed?
| |
| |
| |
As far as the world popularity contest goes, I hold no illusions. We will
be vilified regardless of what we do.
|
That is not true. Think back to how the US involvement in the Balkans &
Somalia was received internationally. It only turned sour when things went
wrong on the ground.
|
I would rather pursue our own national security than curry international
favor with military meddling in other country’s affairs. That’s the UN’s
job!
|
Does your concept of national security know any limits? What exactly doesn’t
threaten your NS, if anything?
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) (talking about Iraq here) It's not that they can't, it's why would they? It costs billions of dollars for such a venture, where the oppotunity cost may never be made up. Unless there is something else about the nuclear plant that one is (...) (20 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) Believe what you want. Time will certainly tell. (...) Well, some did. How can you be certain that you would have been right? (...) Facts? What "facts"? The facts are that he had them in the past, he had the willingness to use them, and he was (...) (20 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
|
|
|
|
