Subject:
|
Re: A few things...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 May 2005 19:38:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3013 times
|
| |
|
|
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, 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.
|
...based on a case made by the USA.
| |
| |
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>
|
Bush trusted him, why don’t you?
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
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?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
What is the difference between gassing Kurds and napalming civilians? Why not
start with your own backyard?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Lol. The Nazi war machine rolled up a whole continent like a fireside rug. There
is no comparison.
| |
| |
| |
That made him public enema number
one.
|
No. Spin did that. It fooled people like you.
|
And, apparently, Clinton as well...
|
...you sound like you respect his judgment?
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
OK. What was the threat then?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
OK. Show me that SH’s ‘kill rate’ in the year before the war was greater than
the time since.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
|
|
But you are afraid to think. You should think about why the threat exists.
| |
<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.
|
|
|
Everything I’ve read about the 911 attackers leads me to feel they may have
been a bunch of incompetent twits that outwitted another bunch of incompetent
twits in the USA and Germany.
| |
| |
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.
|
You mean after Bush was caught nappin’? ;)
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) <snipping> (...) Yes. Point? <snip> (...) Who knows? I know he aided and abetted terrorists. Whether they were the actually ones involved in terrorism against the US is anyone's guess. The point is that he was a friend of terrorism and an (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) The ones the UN believed that he hadn't destroyed. (...) What about them? (...) Figures you'd cite someone like Woodward. <yawn> (...) If? That, again, is merely your uninformed opinion. (...) I don't care if he got them from Uranus, it (...) (19 years ago, 28-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
|
|
|
|
