Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:22:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
681 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
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).
|
Well, okay. Bush believed SH possessed them and was fully willing and able to
share them with his aquaintances at any time. Interesting question: Did SH
know that he didn’t have WMDs? Was he deceived by his own scientists?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
He wouldn’t have used them against us even if he did - all he cared about was
grabbing his neighbors oil. He would have been only too happy to be allies
with us again (as long as we tolerated his land grabs).
|
Not so sure. A better deal might have been struck with terrorists who would
have been willing to destabilize other Arab countries for his benefit. He
might not have used them against us, but he would have given them to those who
would’ve.
| |
| |
| |
“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....
|
A retreat into moral relativism? I’ve seen a growing number of Republicans
question Bush on the matter of the war.
|
Not at all. I’m just acknowledging that there is a fine line. And those
renagade Republicans will be harshly dealt with;-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
But since they didn’t have them, what was the point of the war?
|
The desposition of SH.
| |
Even if they
had them, I sincerely doubt he would have given them to any organization that
he did not control.
|
A difference of opinion, but a catastrophic result if you miscalculated.
Bush’s miscalculation resulted in a ridding of a brutal dictator and the birth
(hopefully) of a Democracy. I like his win-win gambit.
| |
I believe he believed what he wanted to believe - intelligence agencies are
back-pedaling furiously from what Bush claims they said.
|
I don’t draw that conclusion after hearing Tenet’s Georgetown speech.
| |
As to Bush senior - well, that sums up a lot about Dubya, this is all a
personal family vendetta. Maybe America would be better off without any Bush
in national office.
|
Maybe America would be better off having had only one JFK in office;-)
| |
Yes, but my point still stands: failed intelligence on our part is not worth
it, whatever the outcome.
| |
| |
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.
|
Truman summed it up: The Buck Stops Here. Who would you have me blame? Last
I saw I don’t get to vote for the CIA director - Bush can change him at whim.
And even then, this is more an interpretation of the intelligence from within
the White House more than the intelligence itself. If the CIA is to blame,
then heads should roll. If they aren’t, that should be telling you something
(indeed, the source of the interprtation lies at the feet of Bush’s staff).
|
We will never know all of the facts WRT CIA intelligence, but let’s give them
their due. They aren’t always wrong. They were spot on with Khadafi and look
what has happened-- we are getting shipments of nukes sent to us!
| |
| |
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! :-)
|
Until then, I get to quip with impunity! :-)
|
If you so elect-- or not, as the case may be;-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
So, you think Bush is going to win but you are voting against him? ;-)
|
Show me any Dem who will support the Fair Tax Plan and I’m board!
| |
| |
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.
|
I don’t think I said that - but we don’t gain any safety with him on the
sidelines, and Islamic Fundamentalists will use it as a recruiting poster, so
I do view it as a net loss.
|
lol I see it as the opposite-- a disheartening blow that their hero, the one who
stood up to the Great Satan, has been exposed as a cowardly, hole dweller. That
kind of stuff goes right into the terrorists’ heads. The Russians were
brilliant for burying the theater terrorists upside down wrapped in pigskin.
Playing those mindgames...
| |
| |
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? ;-)
|
Hey, he has the example of his dad peaking too soon - he advocates perpetual
war just so he can avoid that! No smiley - I wish I was joking. :-(
|
Perhaps the terrorists are waiting for a weenie anti-war Demo to get in office
before staging their next major attack on US soil?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) That still only takes up back to the he's an incompetent or liar question, and saying the answer is incompetent still means he shouldn't be president. (...) What terrorists were going to destablize his neighbors? They would have gone for Iraq (...) (20 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
