Subject:
|
Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Jul 2004 01:32:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1654 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Actually, I’d say your misquote of me is the gross distortion (see the first
line in the quote sequence for the correct claim). :-)
| |
| |
| |
| |
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...;-)
|
I still don’t see what your point is here beyond controlling that flow (your
original point was how it was obvious that this was all about freeing the
Iraqis, yet still admit it was about the oil one way or the other).
I tried to account for that, but it made utterly no sense reading it as mute, so
let me reiterate: moot. :-)
| |
| |
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? :-)
|
You oversnipped and lost me.
| |
| |
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!)
|
Thats fine, just don’t use the U.N. as the excuse to go to war. Selective
pandering is my point.
| |
| |
| |
| |
(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)
|
And that would be the U.N., not George Bush, wouldn’t it? We are back to the
point that their judgment was correct and Dubya’s wasn’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.
|
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.
|
The top turns a blind eye to it - the point remains that why are we bothering
with Iraq when the greater problem regarding the terrorists lies in Saudi
Arabia?
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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???
|
Clearly I don’t think it is headed that direction.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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;-)
|
Bush has screwed up on just about all fronts: you should have been careful what
you wished for four years ago.
| |
| |
“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.
|
They are exclusive because the approach you are using is intellectually
dishonest (or conviently lacking in morals, or a politician/lawyers’ usual
sophistries). You claim that it all about helping Iraq, but it isn’t. Oh,
maybe we might be helping Iraq in the long run (maybe, but that’s a different
debate), but that’s not the motivating factor so it isn’t “obvious” that we ae
fighting for any interests but our own. Maybe we are, but obvious it ain’t.
| |
| |
“...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.
|
Then why base a war off a “bogus hoop” U.N. resolution? It means you are saying
Bush’s reasons for war are 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?
|
Yes. I concede that it might also be incompetence, though more likely
incompetence combined with greed and selective vision (which I view as
fabrication).
| |
| |
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.
|
Bush was citing our own intelligence, not Blix.
| |
| |
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”.
|
You need to leave in enough of the quote sequence for me to be able to figure
out what this is in reference to.
| |
| |
| |
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???
|
Again, you want to use the U.N. as an excuse for war, and deride it in the same
breath. And every time you are called on it you selectively claim the part that
is inconvenient to you as claptrap, while seizing on the other as an excuse for
unilateral action.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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....
|
I note Chris remembers it the way I do.
| |
| |
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?
|
Actually, yes, when you blind yourself to the fact that it is an unholy
alliance.
| |
| |
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...
|
He wasn’t blind to it being an unholy alliance.
| |
| |
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.
|
How were we to do that without the very agreements you said we shouldn’t have
made?
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) I stand corrected. I noticed my gaff after I posted:-( Though it isn't your stance, it is a common misconception that is held. I apologize for attributing it to you:-) (...) Our main objective was eliminating a dangerous threat in the person (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
