Subject:
|
Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:48:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1143 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
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.
|
“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).
| |
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.
|
I think everyone would agree that the free flow of oil is in the best interests
of our country and Iraq. Win-win.
| |
| |
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.
|
That may be, but my point is that OBL could be an American for all I care-- the
point is mute;-)
| |
| |
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.
|
I condemn the UN for not complying with the U.N.‘s own resolution! Empty
threats are meaningless and a joke.
| |
If it’s a
U.N. sanction, then the U.N. needs to enforce it. End of story
|
Don’t even get me started on corrupt U.N. sanctions.....
| |
(and it
should be pointed out since Bush can’t substantiate his claims, it would
appear that the U.N. was correct).
|
How? The weapons were never accounted for.
| |
| |
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.
|
If the money flows through the Saudi government. But I do acknowledge some
grayness here when a government is the family business;-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Time will tell.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Not at all. I’m only being honest. We generally do only act in situations
where our national interests are at stake. The genocide in Sudan is less
pressing to us than a whacko using oil profits to create WMDs and threaten our
national security.
| |
| |
As opposed to after some calamity?
|
Are you refering to the trumped-up calamity Bush was claiming would happen,
|
Truth is, we may never know what was avoided. A democracy in Iraq could have
serious consequences to Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. This problem is a
lot bigger than SH.
| |
or the one that he has caused through his own idiocy and incompetence? If
the former: it didn’t exist,
|
As far as we know, and there is evidence that stuff was brewing (via Russian
intelligence, for one)
| |
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. :-)
|
3-)
| |
| |
| |
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. I do not want to blame SH for 9-11! Never did, never will! The taking out
of SH was making good on an ultimatum to world leaders who aid and abett and
finance terrorists. SH was #1 on the list.
| |
| |
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.
|
They existed once. That is enough proof on Bush’s part. The proof that was
needed was that they had been destroyed (to be provided by SH)
| |
Not to mention that you are still using a U.N. sanction
to justify actions that the U.N. itself does not sanction.
|
Really? (from Res 1441: “13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has
repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its
continued violations of its obligations;”)
They wouldn’t follow up on their own resolutions! Impotent, useless.
| |
| |
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.
|
I can honestly say that that was never my understanding of the motives of why
we went to war. Can you cite that?
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Sounds like a crazy hypothetical, since terrorists themselves are trying to
prevent a democracy from being formed in Iraq in the first place. Let’s give
the Iraqi people a little credit here and see what develops. I believe you will
be greatly surprised.
| |
| |
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).
|
Well, Leahy AND the senior whale from Massachusetts are the biggest ones-- you
can take that option for a future contract and realize huge profits without the
liability of the full contract price (but with a higher premium:-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Bottom line: we should have removed the scumbag when we had the legitimate
opportunity, just like Clinton would have taken out OBL when he had the chance
as well.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) Name all those that you feel see it as "obvious", subtract that from everyone else, and you will have "a great deal". (...) Seems obvious even to you that is NOT about freeing the people of Iraq, but controlling the flow of oil (which was (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) It did. (...) Sure, let's get rid of the veto. Lets go back and look at all the resolutions against Israel. Would the NeoCons in Washington like that? Scott A (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) So what about Saudi Arabia? It seems like you keep dodging the fact that SA is a much, much, much more significant player than Iraq given the very criteria that you just listed. Do you imagine that it could have anything to do with the very (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) 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) (...) (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
|
|
|
|
