|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 455 of 536:
| 
Dec 17 14:38 UTC 2003 |
I vote that if jp2 is going to use 'How-weird', from this point on Bush
shall be referred to as 'The Shrub' in this item.
|
bru
|
|
response 456 of 536:
|
Dec 17 14:47 UTC 2003 |
"matter to them, only the "ends" They are like Hitler, who told the German
people that he would make them great again, that was the "end", and the means,
exterminating the jews, wiping out other countries, just didn't matter."
well, seig heil to you too! Nice of you to bring up hitler though. Would
you rather we had waited until SAddam rebuilt his army, massed his weapons,
adn moved on Isreal by cutting through Jordan with the support of Syria to
liberate Palestine thus bringing the entire middle east into war? Should we
have kept on appeasing him as we did Hitler until millions of innocent people
had died, the world economy collapsed, adn people started tossing nuclear
weapons around?
Now wouldn't that have been fun. I mean, we would have won, certainly. But
how many billions would have died and how much would we have lost?
Would that have made you happier richard?
|
twenex
|
|
response 457 of 536:
|
Dec 17 15:00 UTC 2003 |
It would have been easier to just say "we are going to depose Saddam".
at least then you would only have broken international law, instead of
breaking international law, lying through your teeth, and leaving the
generations alive today wide open tothe charge of imperialism in the
future.
|
gull
|
|
response 458 of 536:
|
Dec 17 15:08 UTC 2003 |
I don't object to Saddam being removed, but I wish the Shrub had given
us the honest reasons for doing so instead of a series of trumped-up
justifications.
|
twenex
|
|
response 459 of 536:
|
Dec 17 16:44 UTC 2003 |
Re: 458: This guy reads my mind.
|
klg
|
|
response 460 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:18 UTC 2003 |
Herr bru-
Did you see dat Herr richard tinks vee are like der Fuhrer??? Und vee
don't even speek Gehrmann! Iz dat a joke? Unless Herr richard can
show dat ze quote in response 445 are incorrect, den he looks pretty
foolish. No? (Herr doctar Dean beleift dat zhee Iraquis vere
an "imminent threat", jah??)
(Go, How-veird!!)
|
twenex
|
|
response 461 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:24 UTC 2003 |
Mazel tov.
|
klg
|
|
response 462 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:26 UTC 2003 |
Gesundheit.
|
flem
|
|
response 463 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:37 UTC 2003 |
Well *somebody* here sure looks foolish...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 464 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:52 UTC 2003 |
re #464: the word "somebody" seems inappropriately singular..
|
twenex
|
|
response 465 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:55 UTC 2003 |
Hooray for the gifts of humor and laughter (laghter?)
|
klg
|
|
response 466 of 536:
|
Dec 17 17:56 UTC 2003 |
Gut *jemand* hier sicheres Aussehen unklug. . .
|
bru
|
|
response 467 of 536:
|
Dec 17 23:26 UTC 2003 |
ja mein heir.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 468 of 536:
|
Dec 18 00:38 UTC 2003 |
(Mike, your response is recursing...)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 469 of 536:
|
Dec 18 01:03 UTC 2003 |
s/464/463/
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 470 of 536:
|
Dec 18 03:51 UTC 2003 |
Re #467: "Ja, mein Herr."
|
richard
|
|
response 471 of 536:
|
Dec 18 05:12 UTC 2003 |
klg in #445, you quote Dean as saying there was no question Saddam was a
threat. But as Dean has said, he would never have supported such drastic
action unless he was an IMMINENT threat. There is a difference between a
"threat" and an "imminent" threat. An imminent threat means we are about to
be attacked and we are vulnerable to that attack, which we were not attacked
nor were we vulnerable to such attacks. Iraq HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION. Get that through your head. They had none. Therefore Bush
lied, Cheney lied, and we went to war under false pretenses.
And klg, you did not answer the question I asked, which is WHAT COST IS TOO
HIGH? IS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS? You don't
care, you just don't. Thats why I compared you to Hitler. When you hate so
much that no price is too high, when you hate so much that you'll mortage your
children's futures or do whatever else is necessary to get to the "ends", that
is when you border on irrationality. Which is what happened with Hitler
|
mcnally
|
|
response 472 of 536:
|
Dec 18 06:44 UTC 2003 |
<sigh>
|
twenex
|
|
response 473 of 536:
|
Dec 18 10:41 UTC 2003 |
/agree jmsaul.
|
klg
|
|
response 474 of 536:
|
Dec 18 17:26 UTC 2003 |
Herr richard:
(Loosen your shorts.) And explain to us which of Dean's statements
about making war on Iraq we are supposed to believe, the ones where he
for it or the ones where he's against it.
(In either case, we hope he wins the nomimation.)
(Go, How-veird!!)
Re: "And klg, you did not answer the question I asked, which is WHAT
COST IS TOO HIGH?"
Here is what somebody else might answer, Herr richard:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
John F. Kennedy
"There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the
long range risks of comfortable inaction."
John F. Kennedy
"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it.
And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender,
or submission."
John F. Kennedy
|
twenex
|
|
response 475 of 536:
|
Dec 18 17:32 UTC 2003 |
Being against Saddam doesn't mean being in favour of that particular
war, or against it; or the reverse. It's a new concept (in some
quarters), and it's called "subtlety".
|
klg
|
|
response 476 of 536:
|
Dec 18 17:39 UTC 2003 |
As in "subtle liar," Mr. tweenex?
|
twenex
|
|
response 477 of 536:
|
Dec 18 18:33 UTC 2003 |
No.
|
willcome
|
|
response 478 of 536:
|
Dec 18 18:56 UTC 2003 |
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
|
fitz
|
|
response 479 of 536:
|
Dec 18 19:14 UTC 2003 |
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, while it was really believed that Iraq
actually
did have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, the countries around
Iraq--even Kuwait--did not think that Saddam was an imminent threat. Perhaps
the known track record of Saddam to kill his own country's population
emboldened them.
More likely, the countries around Iraq relied on Saddam to refrain from acts
that would very likely compel France and Russia to side with the US.
|
