Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:54:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
727 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
Like you say, Bush wanted SH. 30,000 dead was the price!
|
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 rest of the world hadn’t called us to task long ago on that mistake
rather than continuing to defend him politically (or supporting his military, as
a few major players seem to have been doing).
| |
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!
|
The Iraqi situation is a moot point (note the correct usage of the word “moot”,
which I don’t think I’ve seen before on LUGNET) right now. Too much information
is classified, too many people on both sides have political agendas which aren’t
necessarily altrusitic, and we really can’t know for certain what might have
been hidden in underground bunkers short of digging up the entire country. We
certainly can’t prove one way or the other what the Hussein regime might have
had in terms of WMD twenty years down the road.
However, anyone who thinks that invading Afghanistan did not decrease the risk
to US citizens is sadly mistaken. The second worst attack on US soil was
enacted by recognized military forces, US casualties primarily consisted of
recognized military forces, and military retaliation was the only suitable
response. The worst attack on US soil was enacted by rogue terrorists, US
casualties primarily consisted of civilians with no military attachment, and
again, military retaliation was the only suitable response. Anything less would
have sent a message to every terrorist organization out there saying that we are
unwilling or unable to defend ourselves against the worst atrocities that they
could commit, and that would have invited more terrorist attacks on US soil.
Furthermore, unrelenting pursuit of Al-Qaeda members seems to have kept them
from successfully staging any major terrorist attacks in the last 2-1/2 years.
And finally, any government that requires terrorist financing to support itself
clearly poses a threat to the world, as they effectively become a safe haven for
terrorist training programs the instant they have a vested interest in the
continued survival of that terrorist organization.
After 9-11, our response was going to send a message. It was just a matter of
which we were telling them to fear more, our bark or our bite. The UN
effectively chose the former, first by failing to enforce its own mandates on
Iraq, and then by not being able to prevent the US/UK alliance from doing it for
them. Whether the rejection of UN mandates was simply a token victory that
amounted to nothing more than Hussein snubbing his nose at the US, or if it
signified at least the intent to possess and deploy WMD (if not the existence of
such) is a matter of opinion, but the UN is supposed to be able to play
peacekeeper on an international level, and the whole Iraqi situation pretty much
proved the long-held suspicion that they are incapable of doing so. And until
they can, I can pretty much guarantee that the US will continue to do so for
them, regardless of which party is in the White House.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) I don't know. What was his "kill rate" before the war? How many women & children did he kill in the run up to that war? (...) Rumsfeld: "We know where they are." As an aside, the whole country does not have to be checked; pre-war, SH did not (...) (21 years ago, 12-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) I'm not sure which parts of LUGNET you've been reading, but a number of us are passingly familiar with the correct usage of moot. (URL) Here> is part of one of many discussions about that very word (at least, a discussion of one of its (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: To change the tune...
|
| (...) Smell the coffee John; time is telling as we speak! (...) 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. (...) Show me the link with OBL. (...) He could not even police his own country! (...) (21 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
