Subject:
|
Re: Help me with the math
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Sep 2004 05:37:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
885 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:
|
(snippage)
| |
| |
How outrageous! Bush’s intervention in Iraq was all about deposing SH’s
cruel and dangerous regime-- nothing more!
|
You keep piping up with tha line. Bush’s invasion was about stopping Saddam
from immenent use of “WoMD” - nothing more. It was not about deposing
Saddam because he was cruel - that’s a retroactive argument used because the
real argument for war turned out to be a load of hooey.
|
Please. SH was always a threat to stability in that region-- the first
Gulf War was ample proof of that.
|
That has absolutely nothing to do with the point. Bush sold the war on the
basis of “WoMD” (Weapons of Mass Destruction for anyone wandering by) and when
Bush couldn’t find any, he came up with the “bad man” excuse. Bait and switch.
| |
Again, intelligence was bad WRT WMD but
frankly, in a scenario like that it is in our best interests to err on the
side of caution.
|
That is really easy to answer: where is the head of Osama bin Laden? Where has
our international respect and standing gone?
Clinton is not running for re-election. I’m not interested in some tit-for-tat
game. How about this: Clinton is the anti-christ! He’s evil incarnate! So
what? What does that have to do with Bush’s performance in office?
| |
| |
Why are we still meeting
| |
resistance in Iraq? All we want to do is help the Iraqis set up a
government that insures freedom for her people and leave! What is wrong
with that????
|
One, that may not be all Bush and Cheney are attempting to do.
|
And it may be. Your hatred of Bush won’t let you consider this possibility.
|
I said “may”. That carries with it the implication that it may not. You have
assumed incorrectly. I am not convinced that they are up to something, but I
certainly won’t exonerate them. I can see reason for people to be suspicious of
their motivations.
| |
| |
Two, Bush is
on shakey ground with his “free the Iraqi people” tack: it means that he has
removed his own moral mandate to stay there beyond a bare minimum of time.
The Iraqi people get to decide their own fate, and that may well be an
Islamic fundamentalist government. If the Iraqis want us out, what is wrong
with that? These are all scenarios that the Bush adminstration should have
considered more closely, and it is pretty darn clear they didn’t.
|
What you are failing to realize is that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis
are thankful for our intervention-- the resistance certainly does not
represent the will of the people of Iraq! This is the impression we get from
biased news stories that only focus on the actions of a few thousand (among
millions) who don’t want freedom in Iraq (many of whom not even being
Iraqis!)
|
The overwhelming majority of Iraqi’s want us out at this point, too. And you
are failing to realize that I realize that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis
are happy that Saddam is gone.
| |
| |
| |
We attacked to remove SH’s regime-- that regime is history! So why is
there still fighting? Because of Islamic Fascists who don’t want Freedom!
They want pukes like SH in power around the world who are sympathetic to
their cause who will assist them in their fight against the West.
|
Saddam stepped on them in Iraq - he didn’t want rival power structures, and
that’s exactly what the fundamentalists were. Removing Saddam removed their
natural predator.
|
We will suppress them until a free Iraq is able to defend herself on her own.
|
I take it by that response that you are abandoning your claim about Saddam and
Islamic extremists are working hand in hand. Supressing them carries a large
variety of its own risks and you’ll note Bush tippy-toeing around this
“suppression”.
| |
| |
| |
Bush is brilliant for taking this fight to Islamo-Fascists now before the
stakes got too high. Why must we wait for a nuclear bomb to be denotated
on our soil before everyone gets the message??? The only way to stop
these wackjobs is for all nations to unite to purge them from their
respective soils. Some need assistance to do so, but it is imperative that
these scumbags find no place to hide and organize! Then we can go about
the business of hunting them down one by one and exterminating them like
the vermin they are.
|
Brilliant for sitting on his hands while the terrorists blew up the World
Trade Center?
|
Are we talking about Clinton or Bush here? ;-)
|
Shall I repeat the question or are you going to dodge it again?
| |
| |
He didn’t have an ounce of forethought on that,
|
Not sure what you mean here. I thought everyone agreed that swift
intervention in Afganistan was precisely the correct and immediate response.
|
FOREthought - as in preventing the tragedy from happening. You are talking
about a reactive response.
| |
| |
just like he
didn’t have an ounce of forethought about how to handle Iraq once Saddam was
booted.
|
Please cite for me one article where someone predicted the outcome of SH’s
deposition.
|
I take it you don’t realize you just made my point for me?
| |
| |
Brilliant for not hunting down the one scumbag he had a world mandate
to hunt down?
|
Please. Are you implying that every possible effort isn’t still being made
to find and capture OBL?
|
I thought I was saying point blank that Bush has wasted resources, time, and
energy into a wild goose chase instead on concentrating on the task at hand.
Imply? Please. Do you see the head of Osama bin Laden three years later? I
sure don’t.
| |
| |
Bush is an idiot. He is reactive and not proactive.
|
Not at all. Our intervention in Iraq was clearly proactive!
|
A proactive wild goose chase doesn’t particularly count for anything, especially
when it is followed up by reactive blundering that threatens to destroy any good
that might have been done in deposing Saddam.
| |
| |
Are we
going to get world help after crying “wolf!” over non-existent WoMD? No.
|
Don’t be so sure. Wait until the Islamo-fascists start attacking them
(Beslan???). And watch out. Don’t be surprised if Russia starts shaking
things up in
|
Maybe that wouldn’t have happened if Bush had captured bin Laden instead of
futzing about in Iraq.
| |
Pakistan!
| |
Brilliant? Hardly - he’s an idiot.
|
I believe that that kind of knee-jerk epithet is beneath you, -->Bruce<--!
|
I think I backed up my statements fairly well. Certainly better than your
claims of him being brilliant.
| |
But seriously, let’s face it-- the real idiots are the Islamo-fascists
themselves. To believe that God would be pleased when they slaughter
innocent women and children for any cause and that such cowardly acts
will somehow bring about their goals is mindbogglingly stoopid.
|
Yup, I have great contempt for religious zealots of any stripe. I do hope that
there is a special hell reserved for those who would target children for murder.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) I don't agree. He sold the war on the premise that SH was a bad man who possessed WMDs and wouldn't think twice about making those weapons available to our enemies. I never bought the direct threat idea-- just the aid and abett idea. After (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) (snippage) (...) Please. SH was always a threat to stability in that region-- the first Gulf War was ample proof of that. Again, intelligence was bad WRT WMD but frankly, in a scenario like that it is in our best interests to err on the side (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
57 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
