Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:02:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
692 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
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.
|
You may think he’s a liar, but I don’t, so on that issue we may have to agree to
disagree. Now as far as incompetency goes, I say this. Bush could only make a
decision based on the “facts” given to him. But given SH’s history, and the
possibility that he possessed WMDs, how couldn’t Bush err on the safe side? The
risk was too great to ignore. If anything, blame the complete idiot Saddam
Hussein for being too clever by half. He is the one who sorely miscalculated!
And we all paid the price (some moreso than others).
Okay, I just did some digging. I think Charles Krauthammer sums up this
intelligence fiasco pretty well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61949-2004Jan29?language=printer
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
What terrorists were going to destablize his neighbors? They would have gone
for Iraq first - Saddam kept a tight lid on Islamic extremists.
|
Huh? From all accounts I’ve heard, terrorists came through Iraq regularily and
frequently. It appears that they still do....
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
“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;-)
|
Fair enough of an answer. I think I can accept that explanation of what you
said.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Which was required for...? Since there were no nukes, they couldn’t fall
into the hands of crazies and so why did he need to be deposed from the
standpoint of American security?
|
That is hindsight.
| |
And would desposition make him a despot? He already achieved that I
thought. :-)
|
lol I desporately need more sleep:-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
But I didn’t miscalculate, Bush did. There’s no democracy there, and I’d
rate the chances that it descends into an Islamic Jihad as more likely in any
case. And as I said, we spent a lot of money, lost lives, ruined our
international standing, have little hope for future cooperation on real
problems for America rather than invented ones...it’s a
lose-lose-lose-lose-etc scenario. Unless you want to count the enrichment of
select backers of Bush as a “win”.
|
Give it a little time. Rome wasn’t built in a day (platitude-fix for the day:-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
But I do after remarks on several other occasions. I gotta admit, I’m not
going to wade through that entire particular speech - rationalization upon
excuse.
|
I thought Kay responded well as well.
| |
| |
| |
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;-)
|
Ummmmm, last I looked there was only one JFK and we only had one in office
(and I said national) office in any case, on the off chance you meant
“Kennedy”). But then, JFK has nothing to do with Dubya going to war with
Iraq, so this is a complete non-sequitor.
|
Almost. “John Forbes Kerry”:-)
| |
| |
| |
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!
|
Ummmm, does Bush support this? If not, it’s a non-issue. And there are
other parties.
|
I’m saying that my vote is up for grabs-- support the Fair Tax and I’m yours.
| |
| |
| |
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...
|
That ain’t the way a fanatic’s mind works (see continued bombings in Israel).
|
Well, if there is anyone who understands the sick mind of a terrorist, it
would be Israel.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
I’m not sure that I’d go there when they pulled it off big time under a Repo
who still is blundering around not catching the guy responsible. :-)
|
Ahem. I guess practice makes perfect, as they tried for the first time during a
Demo-mission. At least Bush would gladly accept OBL’s head on a platter if it
were offered to him....:-)
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
