Subject:
|
Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 04:27:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1430 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:
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
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). :-)
|
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:-)
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
Our main objective was eliminating a dangerous threat in the person of SH (via
WMD proliferation mainly, but I wouldn’t rule out other forms, either). By
doing so, we freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. Win-win. And by
helping the Iraqis establish a sovereign democracy, we guarantee a free flow of
oil from a prolific source. Win-win-win.
| |
I tried to account for that, but it made utterly no sense reading it as mute,
so let me reiterate: moot. :-)
|
There was no sense beyond poking fun at those who misuse the term “moot”.
Purposefully misusing words is a little way in which I amuse myself; feel free
to ignore my pitiful attempts to humor myself:-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
You were asserting that OBL’s nationality was germane to his actions as a
terrorist. All I was asserting was that if he wasn’t acting on behalf of
Saudi Arabia, he could be American for all it matters.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I agree. But I understand the position Bush is in. On one hand, he wants to be
a participant in the “world community”, but on the other he wants to preserve
our national sovereignty. But in the end, it is like
Kevin Garnett (the ‘03-‘04 NBA
MVP) playing basketball on the playground with a group of elementary school
kids. He may just want to fit in and play with his little “buddies”, but the
fact is that he is so beyond them in terms of skill and size that his
participation in any serious competition with them is a joke. The US is KG;
Cameroon and Sudan are the “buddies”. Treating the US and countries like
Burkina Faso as equals is rather a joke. We are too big to participate in games
on the UN “playground”.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
(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.
|
Not really. SH was never going to provide the proof that destroyed the WMDs.
The whole scenario was FUBAR.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
I think the Saudis are coming around to the idea that they need to go after
extremists in their own backyard, because the royal family would ultimately
become a target as well.
| |
Bush has screwed up on just about all fronts: you should have been careful
what you wished for four years ago.
|
I was! Thank God Gore hasn’t been at the helm this term!
| |
| |
| |
“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.
|
What is obvious is that we aren’t fighting Iraq; we are fighting for Iraq.
| |
| |
| |
“...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?
|
To appear as a team player on the UN (backfired when the world didn’t buy in).
Again, I don’t support it.
| |
It means you are
saying Bush’s reasons for war are bogus.
|
His ultimate reasons were sound; just not his trying to justify them to the UN.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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,
|
I am there (failure of intelligence).
| |
though more likely
incompetence combined with greed and selective vision (which I view as
fabrication).
|
I reject “greed” arguments as the ramblings of black helicopter spotters.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Resolution 1441 called for providing proof by SH to Blix that WMDs had been
destroyed. Our intelligence believed that they still existed. SH never proved
that they had been destroyed, just asserting they were destroyed. If he
really had destroyed them, then why the hell wouldn’t he show it and friggin’
remain in power??? It just doesn’t add up. More likely is that they are still
hiding or were smuggled somewhere. This really is the only logical answer as to
their status.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Sorry. It is long and full of diplomatic BS.
Check it out yourself(particular attention
to line 13)
| |
| |
| |
| |
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,
|
Bush did, not me.
| |
and deride it in the
same breath.
|
Yes, I deride it.
| |
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.
|
I am not a partisan for the administration on this one-- I have said from the
beginning where I stand WRT the UN.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I note that another conservative might have heard it as I did;-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I don’t think anyone had the illusion that SH was a swell guy....
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Obviously neither were we, and we proved it by ousting SH.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
We could have easily done it with an extra-UN coalition without the blessing of
the UN.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) If you do think he had WMD, are you not concerned that Bush has engineered a situation whereby OBL’s foot soldiers are apparently crawling all over the country? Scott A (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Win-win-win?
|
| (...) Well that has failed. The WMD are apparently AWOL, the whole country looks like a giant terrorist recruiting centre and it is clear that the "threat" to us all is (URL) increasing>! (...) Yep. We killed >10,000, put new torturers in the (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
