Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Feb 2004 05:24:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
709 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
| |
Exactly why can’t a nation with oil resources seek nuclear capabilities?
|
(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 interested in...
| |
Then why did your country require inspections in the first place? That is, if
they were so pointless, why bother?
|
Not that they were pointless, just impotent. SH had been giving the UN the
run-around for 10 years. Even Blix was frustrated. That’s not a good sign.
| |
| |
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.
|
I can’t speak for Scott; what do you think was Bush and Blair’s motivation?
(please don’t say “Oil”)
| |
| |
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.
|
The US is the main target for terrorists (after Israel, of course). SH and
Iraq weren’t the problem; it was his sympathy with US enemies that was
threatening.
| |
| |
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.
|
Exactly Pedro! And why is that? Because NK built them secretly, all the while
agreeing not to! We trusted them, and got burned! The exact same thing was
going to happen in Iraq under SH!
| |
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.
|
But at least KJ isn’t chummy with Islamo-Facists, so while he is a threat to the
world by possessing nukes, he isn’t a direct threat to the US (yet).
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
See above. He was sympathetic to Islamic terrorists; our sworn enemies.
| |
| |
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...)
|
Weapons inspections went on for 10 years and questions still remained. That’s
a lot of effort.
| |
- why do you say roll in tanks? What’s with the need of invasion?
|
That is the proverbial “last resort”
| |
| |
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.
|
Why would you?
| |
| |
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?
|
Actually, I have a deep distrust of Saudi Arabia. I think that they play both
sides, which makes them one of the most dangerous players of all. The royal
family will do what’s best for them, never us. And they certainly do not
“do as they’re told”!
| |
But in Saddam’s case, you were so adamant in saying
he was brutal against opponents... why the change of heart?
Who chose to go to war?
|
There would not have been a war had SH chosen exile.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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!
|
I understand your point Pedro. My point was that, although many 1,000s of
Iraqis died in the liberation of their country, many 1,000s would also have died
had SH remained in power. At least now they are free of totalitarian rule.
| |
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?
|
In that regard perhaps. There are also issues of chemical WMDs, financing,
harboring and abetting...
| |
| |
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...
|
That kind of meddling in affairs of foreign states seems to go awry often. One
day you are supporting OBL against your cold war enemy, and the next he is
your enemy. Messy stuff.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
No, they are most definitely not in civil war. The amount of resistors
compared to overall population is miniscule. Don’t be fooled by Liberal media
reports. Great progress is being made in Iraq. Many resistors in Iraq aren’t
even Iraqis.
The US would only run if we elect the anti-war weenie John Kerry to office.
| |
Does your concept of national security know any limits? What exactly doesn’t
threaten your NS, if anything?
|
This phenomenon of world terrorism is a new one and we are still getting a hold
on how to most effectively deal with the threat. Right now hyper-vigilance
seems to be working, but we are always in danger of resorting to complacency.
Right now I personally think that the greatest threat to my culture is
television, so go figure. Maybe we should bomb the networks? Except Fox;-) (1)
JOHN
(1) I dedicate that barb to my Lefty friends Bruce, Dave, and Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | courage in combat [Re: To change the tune...]
|
| (...) I'm not clear what Mr Kelly’s politics are, but he does have my respect. I'm no fan of the Vietnam War (nether was he), but he did serve his country with considerable distinction; both "in country" and in sharing his opinions & experiences (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) 4 Points: I'd say the Palestinians are on the receiving end of "terrorism” more than the USA is. I'd say that not all the attacks on Israel are "terrorism". I'd say there is not a lot of evidence in the public domain to show that the USA is a (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) Because it is ultimately their prerrogative. You are aware of that basic notion of sovereignty, aren't you? (...) That is their problem. As a non iraqi, you have no vote on the matter - do you? (...) That is your problem, granted. But it's up (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) 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? (...) Then why did your country require inspections in the first place? That is, if they were so (...) (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
|
|
|
|
