Subject:
|
Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:21:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1363 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
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”.
|
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.
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
Not controlling the flow of oil (or do you have cites for that?), but
enabling the free flow of oil to occur. And I said I didn’t want to get into
corrupt UN policies...;-)
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Hence the winky.
| |
And no, it isn’t,since the evidence is the exact opposite - his
nationality does matter.
|
So are you proposing another civil war because McVeigh and Nichols were
Americans? :-)
| |
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
Yes, and this brings us back to Chris’ original statement a while back-- the US
should tow the UN line or cut bait. I agree that pandering to the UN when
convenient is silly when everyone knows that we will act in our own best
interests when we need to (because sure as hell nobody else will!)
| |
| |
| |
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...).
|
I was referring to the
Oil for Food Scandal
| |
| |
| |
(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.
|
His claims that SH had WMDs? Everybody knew he had them. What we didn’t know
is what he did with them. That was the proof that needed to be provided (to
Blix & co)
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
My point is that the whole family doesn’t see eye to eye on certain issues,
namely terrorism. The top condemns it, but some lower ministers clandestinely
finance it.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
|
|
A democratic Iraq scares you???
| |
| |
| |
Should have let sleeping dogs lie.
|
Time will tell.
|
Yeah, but it’s time to tell Bush his time has run out.
|
And time to tell Kerry to take the reigns? Careful what you wish for;-)
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Why must these be mutually exclusive? They certainly aren’t in my mind--
WIN-WIN.
| |
“...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.”
|
I concede that jumping through bogus UN hoops is bogus.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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
|
Are you insinuating that the intelligence cited was fabricated?
| |
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.
|
Absolutely not. It is from Blix himself.
| |
Call me when you can produce the right quote.
|
The gist was to provide proof that the WMDs had been destroyed or serious
consequences would occur. Serious consequences. I don’t call more
inspections “serious consequences”.
| |
| |
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.
|
Again, I reject any uttering from the UN to be binding on the US. More impotent
claptrap. What is the world going to do-- hate us more???
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I don’t think so. Maybe to our ally Israel....
| |
Bottom Line: Bush the Elder should never have supported him in the first
place.
|
Perhaps. But at the time we had a bigger enemy in Iran. Do you think that
unholy alliances are wrong?
| |
But Bush is okay with scumbags (remember, this is the guy who didn’t
want the communist governments in eastern europe overthrown).
|
Roosevelt was okay with Stalin-- arguably the biggest scumbag of all time...
| |
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.
|
No, I’m saying that he shouldn’t have made such agreements and we should have
had a war such as we just had with Iraq 13 years ago. The coalition and UN
pandering led directly to this war.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) John's right. Haliburton will make it's money just from infrastructure contracts, the oil in this case is almost secondary. And anyway, the puppet democrazy that we establish isn't going to be hostile to us even if the people are. So we'll get (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) The last time I looked Bush: had ~140,000 troops in Iraq. had installed a dictator in iraq. was conducting show trials there. If that is not control, what is? (...) ...and where is that oil flowing to? Your "SUV" perhaps? (...) I'm not (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) Actually, I'd say your misquote of me is the gross distortion (see the first line in the quote sequence for the correct claim). :-) (...) I still don't see what your point is here beyond controlling that flow (your original point was how it (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
