Subject:
|
Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:47:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1412 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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).
|
Name all those that you feel see it as “obvious”, subtract that from everyone
else, and you will have “a great deal”.
| |
| |
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.
|
Seems obvious even to you that is NOT about freeing the people of Iraq, but
controlling the flow of oil (which was flowing anyway, just not our way).
| |
| |
| |
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;-)
|
Moot. And no, it isn’t,since the evidence is the exact opposite - his
nationality does matter.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
That’s fine, except you carefully ignore my point: Bush is convenient on what he
wants to pay attention to and what he wants to ignore (an act that he repeats to
alarming degrees).
| |
| |
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.....
|
I don’t think you thought through the ramification of what you just said (if the
sanctions are corrupt, and Bush based his actions on those corrupt
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.
|
Exactly. Bush needs to account for his claims and can’t.
| |
| |
| |
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;-)
|
Dictatorship. Let’s use the right words. It doesn’t happen without someone in
the family business taking part somewhere along the line.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Yeah, but it’s time to tell Bush his time has run out.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
“We are fighting for Iraq, not against Iraq. Isn’t this obvious?” And then you
agree with my assessment that we are NOT fighting for Iraq, but for our own
self-interest, and then say you are not shooting yourself in the foot and are
only being honest?
At least you just evened out your limp by shooting yourself in the OTHER foot.
:-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Wake me up when this actually happens (and considering Bush’s “election”, he is
the LAST person in this country that I trust with establishing a democracy).
| |
| |
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)
|
Wake me up when Bush comes up with some tangible evidence...
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
“...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.” And no, SH was not #1 on the list (well, Bush’s list, but that has nothing
to do with objective reality).
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
No it is NOT! Bush told me (and you and every sinle American) that we should
expend our resources and lives on trumped up evidence that he cannot back up.
Bull$#!+ is what he gave us, and its a sad commentary that some people are
swallowing it.
The proof that
| |
was needed was that they had been destroyed (to be provided by SH)
|
This is just a scam argument to avoid admitting that he was dead wrong (or lied)
about their being any “weapons of mass destruction” poised for immenent use upon
the population of America. Incompetent or a liar, I don’t care which: we need
to toss Bush. I’m not interested in the slightest in lawyer-style song and
dances, bull is bull.
| |
| |
Not to mention that you are still using a U.N. sanction
to justify actions that the U.N. itself does not sanction.
|
Really?
|
(deleting quote that nowhere says the U.N. has resolved to invade Iraq and is
thus not relevant).
Call me when you can produce the right quote.
| |
They wouldn’t follow up on their own resolutions! Impotent, useless.
|
“Not to mention that you are still using a U.N. sanction to justify actions that
the U.N. itself does not sanction.” You are trying to dodge the point.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Not at this time of night - but Bush was citing Saddam as the direct threat, not
the secondary threat.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Events that are currently transpiring do not surprise me at all.
| |
| |
| |
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--
|
No, too late, I already established that Bush and Cheney are bigger than Leahy
so he cannot be the biggest by definition. Nyahh! :-)
| |
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.
|
Bottom Line: Bush the Elder should never have supported him in the first place.
But Bush is okay with scumbags (remember, this is the guy who didn’t want the
communist governments in eastern europe overthrown).
About the only thing he did right was form a coalition to free Kuwait by
understanding his LIMITED mandate and sticking to that mandate. What you are
saying is that he should have reneged on his agreements, destroying our national
credibility just so he could save his own face.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) Fine; put it this way: there are a great deal of countries on both sides. Saying "the world clearly thinks it isn't obvious" is a gross distortion. (...) Not controlling the flow of oil (or do you have cites for that?), but enabling the free (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
