|
|
 | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) Clinton didn't propose an unprovoked invasion in defiance of the UN, and he didn't endorse the removal of inspectors before their job was done, and he certainly didn't advocate the murder of 100,000 Iraqi civilians. If removing him was the (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) No, there really doesn't seem to be much support in any quarter. And the remaining pro war camp is much quieter and harder to draw (apart from the determined political apologist rearguard, and the shrill cries of the mindless faithful), (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) Please point me to where Resolution 114 mentions Iraqi freedom. That may (possibly, eventually) be a consequence, but it is NOT what Americans are dying for. ROSCO (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) Look, even Clinton acknowledged that SH would need to be deposed eventually. Removing him was the bottom line, even without the threat of WMDs. His mere existence was a "green light" in my mind. JOHN (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) What you seem to have never internalized is that we went into Iraq for one reason, and one reason only-- to depose SH's evil regime. We issued an ultimatum for him leave or we would make him. He didn't, and we did. He was the threat, he was (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
