Subject:
|
Re: Help me with the math
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Sep 2004 07:03:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
991 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:
|
(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.
|
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 all, there are many nations who possess WMDs. We don’t worry about
them because we trust that they won’t use them or give them to those who would
use them against us. We had no such assurance from SH, especially knowing that
the bastard actually used them on his own people.
| |
| |
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?
|
He could actually be dead. If he weren’t, why remain so silent? If he were,
why acknowledge that your great leader was killed? Who knows.
| |
Where
has our international respect and standing gone?
|
What international respect and standing? From the UK? From France? From
Russia? From Germany? From Poland?
| |
Clinton is not running for re-election. I’m not interested in some
tit-for-tat game.
|
Fair enough. That wasn’t really where I was going with that, but I’ll drop it
anyway.
| |
How about this: Clinton is the anti-christ! He’s evil
incarnate!
|
I KNEW IT!! Hmmm, but then what does that make Hillary??? :-)
| |
So what? What does that have to do with Bush’s performance in
office?
|
Retracted already. Have a sip of Earl Gray; shaken, not stirred...
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Well then why mention it? It’s idle speculation.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Even though you realize that I may not have realized that you realize that the
overwhelming majority of Iraqis are happy SH is gone, you have failed to realize
that, given the choice of us leaving and thereby creating a power vacuum, or us
staying until they can fill the vacuum, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis
would prefer the latter.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Not “hand in hand”. More like “you scrub my hairy back and I’ll comb your
moustache.” Certainly he didn’t tolerate power grabs from within his populace.
He made unholy alliances with OBL types who furthered his own pet causes--
terror against Jews (thus gaining him status in the Muslim world) and attacks
against the hated US.
| |
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?
|
I only dodged because I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Is this some
reference to MM’s F911? You are assuming of course that he somehow knew who
even perpetrated the attacks initially. My brother-in-law lived 2 blocks from
the WTC and watched the second plane fly into tower 2-- his initial reaction was
that something had gone haywire with the transponders atop the Trade Towers and
that planes were being drawn into them. Crazy maybe, but it illustrates that,
at the time, nobody knew what the hell was going on. Why suppose that the
attack was limited to NY and DC alone?
Even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight-- what brilliant action would suggest
he to have done?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
And you are talking crazy. Do you honestly believe that he could have done
something to prevent 9-11? Remember, the whole thing was planned long before he
even came to office.... Seems to me that Clinton should have pursued the
matter more vigorously after the first attack on the WTC!
But I have to ask: what brilliant action could he have taken to prevent 9-11?
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
That George W Bush can’t predict the future???? What kind of a silly indictment
is that???
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Why in the world would you think that the 2 would be mutually exclusive?
| |
Imply? Please. Do you see the head of Osama bin Laden three years later? I
sure don’t.
|
What I do see is no follow-up attack has ocurred on US soil three years later.
Do you suppose that was in OBL’s little playbook? 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.
|
Again, we have a big army. I think that they can walk and chew gum at the
same time. I can’t believe that you believe that Bush isn’t doing every single
thing he can to capture OBL. Look at it from a re-election POV-- finding OBL
would virtually ensure victory in November!
| |
| |
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.
|
What he did wasn’t stupid. You may disagree with what he did, but he has
protected US soil from terrorism for 3 years and has acted to insure the flow of
oil to protect our economy and our way of life. I’d say that’s what a President
should do. He defended our country.
| |
Certainly better than your
claims of him being brilliant.
|
Taking the war to the terrorists was bold. I’d rather fight them “there” with
our military than here with our civilians.
| |
| |
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.
|
Yup.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) Look up the quote chain and you'll see I established "immenent use of WoMD". Basically, you are agreeing with me. All you did is weasel in the words "bad man". (...) You accept that lame explanation? You are satisfied with that? A shrug of the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) Well, I believe Australia is also playing a small part in the "war on terror", as well as Iraq. I guess we haven't been as lucky as the US. (URL) well. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, I guess. ROSCO (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) 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. (...) That (...) (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
|
|
|
|
