Subject:
|
Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:25:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1079 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
You are either not listening or being deliberately obtuse. We did not start
a war with the people of Iraq; we simply deposed their oppressive government
whom we perceived as a potential threat. We are fighting for Iraq, not
against Iraq. Isn’t this obvious?
|
No. And the “no” answer should be obvious because clearly a great deal of the
world clearly thinks it isn’t obvious. We are fighting for what Bush’s crowd
thinks is “our” (U.S.) interests, or would like us to believe is our (no quotes)
interests.
| |
Terrorists’ nationalities are by and large a moot point. OBL was a Saudi--
should we attack SA? Of course not. He’s actually an enemy of SA as well.
|
The links of OBL to Saudi Arabia are much stronger then any (virtually none)
links to Iraq. which is the point I think he was trying to make.
| |
No, what you can’t do is to defend the UN and ignore the stated
ramifications of violating Res 1441. The UN is impotent and useless.
|
Either you need to completely ignore Res. 1441 in justifying Bush’s Iraqi War
Redux, or you need to condemn Bush for not complying with the U.N. If it’s a
U.N. sanction, then the U.N. needs to enforce it. End of story (and it should
be pointed out since Bush can’t substantiate his claims, it would appear that
the U.N. was correct).
| |
Fine. As I stated before, it is irrelevant.
|
If the money that feeds them is flowing through Saudi Arabia, then it most
certainly is not irrelevant.
| |
| |
And you can’t bring up SH being a tyrannical dictator for your justification
either.
|
Of course I can.
|
And I agree with that, but Bush only really mentions it in relation to our own
security, and where Iraq is going scares me more than Saddam ever did. Should
have let sleeping dogs lie.
| |
| |
Africa over the years had much such tyrannies where ‘tinpot
dictators’ slaughters masses of people and yet you sat on your hands (in a
US administration sense). Why Iraq?
|
OIL, DAVE. OIL! Isn’t it obvious???
|
Ummmm, you do realize that you just shot holes in your own claims that this was
about freeing Iraq?
| |
As opposed to after some calamity?
|
Are you refering to the trumped-up calamity Bush was claiming would happen, or
the one that he has caused through his own idiocy and incompetence? If the
former: it didn’t exist, and the latter is an argument against, “Why now?”
| |
| |
There’s no legitimate
explanation. There really isn’t.
|
Because you refuse to look past your blinkers.
|
I can’t think of any rejoinder that is more ironic than just reading what you
wrote. :-)
| |
| |
You want everything your way--you want the idea that you dislike the UN and
the US should get out of it but you’ll use their resolutions to invade, even
though the UN didn’t want you to. You want to blame SH for 9/11
|
NO! You aren’t paying attention!!!!
|
I can’t see how you say that - he pegged you exactly.
| |
NO! He was mandated to verify that SH had destroyed WMDs he was KNOWN
to have possessed. You aren’t paying attention!
|
You aren’t paying attention to the fact that Bush provides no evidence that they
still existed. Not to mention that you are still using a U.N. sanction to
justify actions that the U.N. itself does not sanction.
| |
We were worried about him providing WMDs to terrorists, not any attack from
him.
|
No. That was not the stated reason for the war. Attack by Saddam was exactly
what was cited. That’s how Bush sold the war.
| |
| |
And my personal favourite--You want to bring peace and freedom to Iraq even
if it kills ‘em. Peace and freedom has to come within a country.
|
And it will-- hopefully. We just gave the Iraqis a little gift of cutting
off the head of their oppressive government. The rest will be up to them.
|
And when they elect an opressive government that aids terrorists, what is Bush
gonna do about the new monster he created?
| |
No, it’s when the opposition gets so rude and disrespectful. Leahy is an
ass-- take that to the bank.
|
Bush and Cheney are bigger ones - take that to the Stock Market and invest it as
Blue Chip stock with unlimited growth potential and no downside (beyond not
paying attention to it).
| |
| |
I hope the pressure keeps on until these guys come out with the
truth--that Dubya wanted to finish ‘daddys little war’
|
What on earth are you blathering about? And for the record, Bush senior
would have finished off SH then and there were it not for the UN.
|
Actually, that would be the fault of many of his allies, who wanted Kuwait
freed, but did not trust Dubya’s Daddy not to establish A New Imperialism in a
region that had been thoroughly messed up by previous imperialism and was
distrustful of the West because of that imperialism. Bush the Elder had a
mandate to free Kuwait, and nothing more. He wisely stuck to it because that
aided future trust and cooperation. Bush the Younger only looked at the goal
and not the consequences. In any case, you are blaming the U.N. for (primarily,
but not solely) Saudi Arabia’s willingness to cooperate based on limitations to
the action.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) "A great deal"?, or mostly France and Germany (who had national interests in seeing SH remain in power-- at the expense of the Iraqi people). (...) I think everyone would agree that the free flow of oil is in the best interests of our country (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) You are either not listening or being deliberately obtuse. We did not start a war with the people of Iraq; we simply deposed their oppressive government whom we perceived as a potential threat. We are fighting for Iraq, not against Iraq. Isn't (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
106 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
