Subject:
|
Re: A few things...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 May 2005 00:58:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2913 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Americans are dying for Iraqi freedom
|
WHAT????? You seem to have conveniently forgotten the war in Iraq was
primarily to remove the “threat” of nuclear weapons
|
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.
|
Rubbish! If it was agreed he had complied with 1441, he would have been
able to stay in power.
|
Correct. Because then we would have been satisfied that he didn’t have WMDs
at his disposal to possibly provide to terrorists.
|
What WMD’s????
|
The ones the UN believed that he hadn’t destroyed.
| |
But John, what about those poor Iraqis and their thirst for “Freedom”?
|
What about them?
| |
| |
<snip off-topic material>
| |
| |
We issued an
ultimatum for him leave or we would make him.
|
That was a couple of days before the war. It is clear that even if he
(and his sons) did leave, Bush would still have invaded.
|
No, Scott, it is not “clear” by any stretch of the imagination. That is
your (ignorant, I might add) opinion.
|
You need to read Plan of Attack.
|
Figures you’d cite someone like Woodward. <yawn>
| |
| |
| |
| |
He didn’t, and we did.
He was the threat, he was the link and sponsor of terrorism.
|
Can you evidence what terror acts against the USA he sponsored?
|
I can say that he sponsored terrorism against Israel.
|
Even if true, he still posed no threat to the USA(?)
|
If? That, again, is merely your uninformed opinion.
| |
| |
He used WMDs against
his own people.
|
Yep, and he got them from Washington.
|
I don’t care if he got them from Uranus, it doesn’t justify using them.
| |
| |
That means that he had no compunction with associating with
such swine (I chose “swine” because it is particularily offensive to
Muslims) or murdering innocents on a massive scale.
|
What about Washington’s support for “such swine” and its “murdering innocents
on a massive scale”?
|
See WWII Stalin ally argument.
| |
| |
That made him public enema number
one.
|
No. Spin did that. It fooled people like you.
|
And, apparently, Clinton as well...
| |
| |
| |
| |
The removal
of SH killed two birds with one stone-- increased world safety and
liberating a people from tyranny.
|
Can you evidence how the Iraq war has brought about “increased world
safety”?
|
The threat of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists via SH is gone.
|
Should that read “The invented threat of WMD falling... “?
|
No.
| |
| |
The
threat of continued mass extermination of innocent Iraqis at the hands of SH
is gone.
|
Now the mass graves in Iraq are Bush’s making... and that of his rabid
supporters.
|
Add up body counts if you want to play the numbers game. US colateral civilian
damage vs SH slaughter total.
| |
| |
The word is out to terrorists and those who would sponsor
terrorism-- the days of impotent UN sanctions and resolutions are gone-- we
mean business, and we aren’t afraid to act; offensively if necessary.
|
|
<snip> OT comment.
| |
| |
And if we hadn’t taken the fight to the terrorists, do you honestly
believe that the US would have gone almost 4 years without a follow-up
attack from OBL? If so, you are deluding yourself.
|
Perhaps if Washington had defended freedom more before 2001, 911 would never
have happened. Think about that… if you dare.
|
All I come up with is Clinton not responding to repeated OBL attacks. Thank
God Bush had the courage to finally confront the issue of global terrorism
seriously.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) ...based on a case made by the USA. (...) Bush trusted him, why don't you? (...) No John. It is a question directed at you. I shall try again: Can you list any terror acts against the USA which SH sponsored? (...) What is the difference (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) What WMD's???? But John, what about those poor Iraqis and their thirst for "Freedom"? (...) You need to read Plan of Attack. (...) Even if true, he still posed no threat to the USA(?) (...) Yep, and he got them from Washington. (...) What (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
82 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
|
|
|
|
