Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:31:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
663 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
(snipped quotations)
What I thought: nowhere did he ever use the term “imminent”.
| |
Dubya *wanted* to invade Iraq--pure and simple. It wasn’t the
intelligence community that was mistaken, it was the administration.
|
The meaning of your non-sequitur eludes me. What Bush wanted was Saddam
Hussein removed from power, period.
|
That’s not quite the whole story. He wanted SH removed and replaced with a
pro-US stooge. The people of Iraq are going against the plot... they are
asking for democracy!
|
Believe what you want. Time will certainly tell.
|
Smell the coffee John; time is telling as we speak!
| |
| |
| |
| |
You can point out that France, Germany, Russia, and everyone else may have
thought that Saddam may have had WoMD, but these countries also didn’t go
to war--they were letting Blix do the job that he was suppose to do. It
wasn’t Saddam who kicked Blix out of the country--it was Dubya.
|
“Everyone else may have thought that Saddam may have had WMD”??? There
was never a doubt in anyone’s mind!
|
Because of the agenda set by Washinton & London. Even I thought he had
WMD... I just did not think he posed a threat.
|
Well, some did. How can you be certain that you would have been right?
|
I was wrong in a way; it looks like he did not have WMD. I feel he would have
used them if he had them.
| |
| |
| |
They may have thought that he’d
never give them to terrorists or never use them, but please!
|
That is where the facts pointed. The war has not disproved that.
|
Facts? What “facts”? The facts are that he had them in the past, he had the
willingness to use them, and he was sympathetic to and supported terrorists.
|
Show me the link with OBL.
| |
I honestly believe that, giving that history, he would have, and the stakes
were too high to simply ignore him. >
|
He could not even police his own country!
| |
And I’m not even mentioning his nukes
program
|
WHAT “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.
|
With hindsight, the CIA should not have supported him and Rumsfeld should not
have given him WMD!! Do you agree?
| |
| |
| |
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,
|
They saw what they wanted to see... and then some!
| |
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?
|
We did not have to; that was what Blix was for!
| |
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.
|
Nope.
| |
| |
I think it’s clear that it’s Blair & Bush that have been playing games.
|
If you think this is a game, then you definitely are a blinkered partisan.
|
Why do you say that? Bush and Blair are being found out day-by-day. Their former
supporters are seeing the light now. Kerry (the war hero) may throw the cowardly
cuckoo out of the nest!
| |
| |
Get out of your panic room John, the whole thing has been a giant hoax.
|
Is that how you see it from your conspiracy closet?
|
I feel the nuke case was overstated. Do you disagree?
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
I have no idea what you mean; I stick to the facts John. Do you dispute what I
say about Osiraq?
| |
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. Was SH “cooperating” in the same way
North Korea cooperated in completing her apparent nuclear program?
|
I was talking about Osiraq in 1981, what are you talking about?
| |
| |
| |
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. NK is a
problem for world security, and every effort should be made to disarm them
before rolling in the tanks.
|
Why was that not true for Iraq?
| |
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).
|
What would Bush do? Is he “crazy enough”?
| |
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.
|
Bush is too... remember all that blanked-out text in the 911 report? What does
that hide?
| |
| |
| |
| |
“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.
|
Like you say, Bush wanted SH. 30,000 dead was the price!
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
What about the Iraqi lives?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
That is a big “if”. Do you really think killing thousands in Iraq & Afghanistan
will decrease the risk to US interests? You really are a useful idiot!
| |
Please excuse us if we decide to
play it safe rather than be sorry.
| |
Then tell me what would the cost of
lowering that probability be? Is upsetting the US pro-Israeli lobby too much
of a price to pay?
|
You simply don’t understand the political ramifications of a US withdrawal of
support for Israel. Don’t you see that is exactly what the terrorists
want?!
|
A lot more than the terrorists want that.
| |
You useful idiot! And after that support is withdrawn, they attack
Israel. Isn’t this obvious?? Your willingness to hang Israel out to dry is
sickening to me.
|
If support is withdrawn for the likes of Sharon, he’d be forced to talk peace.
| |
Look at it this way-- we can’t withdraw support for
Israel for the reason of appearances alone (weakness and broken resolve).
|
You mean pride is more important than doing what is right? That really is sad.
| |
So deal with it, internalize it, and stop suggesting it.
|
Go back to you panic room John; reality must be hard for you.
| |
It is not the
answer to any solution except the problematic existence of the State of
Israel to Islamo-Facists. Further, if you think that these pigs will be
satiated with the obliterating of Israel, you are dreaming! So just forget
about Israel, would you?
|
No.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
…which was installed by Washington.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Time will tell.
| |
| |
| |
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!
|
You have not answered my point!
| |
| |
| |
Best to do what is right for us, for
usually that is best for the world as well anyway.
Spreading Democracy and Freedom are noble tasks, and make the world a
better place. BTW, name for me 1 war in the history or the world between
2 Democracies....
|
- 1775 US (and France) v Great Britain
- 1991 Croatia v Yugoslavia
- 1978 Israel v Lebanon
|
There are questions about those conflicts and the states of the governments
at the time, but I’d rather not get into it (no time, actually).
|
I actually agree with you. None were stable or true democracies as we understand
it. The one that is closest (IMO) is Croatia v Yugoslavia.
| |
Perhaps I’ll just retract and say Democracies are a lot more civil than
non-democracies (which was the point of my assertion anyway).
|
Tell that to the millions killed in Vietnam (and bordering countries)!
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) How long do you think it would have taken Hussein & Sons to kill that many if they'd been left in power? Anyways, the US was directly responsible for putting Saddam in charge of Iraq those many years ago. Quite frankly, it worries me that the (...) (20 years ago, 12-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
|
|
|
|
