Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:07:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
624 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
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?
|
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?
| |
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.
|
Rumsfeld: “We know where they are.”
As an aside, the whole country does not have to be checked; pre-war, SH did not
control his whole 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.
|
One could say the same about any number of countries.
| |
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.
|
After the only means of dialoge was cut off.
| |
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.
|
Strange then that the threat to US interests has increased since 911...
| |
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.
|
Bali and Turkey come to mind.
| |
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.
|
NATO controls very little outside Kabul. Now Afghanistan relies on an opium
harvest managed by “warlords” who are supported by NATO; is that any more
stable?
| |
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.
|
Strange then that the threat to US interests has increased since 911...
| |
The UN
effectively chose the former, first by failing to enforce its own mandates on
Iraq,
|
...and Israel
| |
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.
|
You are airbrushing history. Remember, SH was willing to comply in the end. Blix
thought he was a few months away from getting to the truth of the matter.
BushBlair were not interested in the truth... the bombers were already fuelled.
Blix could find no WMD. We have killed 30,000+ people. We have alienated an
entire culture. We have reduced a proud country to lawlessness. The result: we
confirmed Blix was right!
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
