Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:03:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3623 times
|
| |
|
|
Hey all :)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > The threat in Iraq now solely rests upon whether or not we remain in the
> > region.
>
> And it results entirely from the fact that we invaded a sovereign nation
> under false pretenses.
That doesn't do much to address the point, Dave! You're right, but John
probably is too.
> Hey, while we're on the subject, could you please tell me the reason that we
> invaded Iraq, and could you cite a date that the reason was given?
To secure a stronghold on the oil-fields of the Middle-East in preparation for
protecting the US supply chain and projecting force into the increasingly
unstable region. The reason has never been given -- the people wouldn't stand
for it.
> > > > > Please answer these two questions, for the record:¬
> > > > > What would qualify as success in Iraq?¬
> > > >
> > > > The formation of a stable, democratic `[1`] state of Iraq.
> > >
> > > Not likely to occur in the next decade, at least.
> >
> > So? What if we gave up on Japan after 5 years? On Germany? Who knows what
> > would have happened to them?
It is _so_ strange finding chunks of this conversation where I agree with John.
> > > How about the ongoing civil war, which is indeed a civil war by any measure
> > > except the one favored by Bushco?
> >
> > It will only improve if we stay, not go.
>
> Are you sure? On what basis?
It will improve with time whether we stay or go. (Civil wars have winners,
afterall.) If we enforce civility the time between now and then will be more
pleasant for the average Iraqi. And we'll have a shot at meeting our original
goals.
> > > And here's another question: What, specifically, would Bush have to do
> > > before you'd say "you know, maybe he [{has}] made a royal mess of things?"
> >
> > The Ayatollah Khomeini created the mess; OBL created the mess; SH was the
> > problem. President Bush is doing what he believes is the best way to fix
> > it.
Whew! John, _maybe_ he believes that he's 'fixing' the situation to the best of
his ability. His belief doesn't make it so.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Hey, Chris-- long time! (...) clunk (jaw on desk) (...) I would. It's honest and correct. We shouldn't have to apologize for protecting our national interests IMO. Nobody else would. (...) spppp (monitor sprayed by pop) LOL (...) Is that the (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Ah, yes. Dr. Rice's famous "smoking gun mushroom cloud" argument. Sorry, but that's not sufficient. Hussein did not have and was not actively seeking a nuclear weapons program, so any argument based on that premise is invalid. It may be the (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
