|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 480 of 536:
|
Dec 19 01:11 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps. For those who limit their thinking to the short term. With
the consequences being that thereafter Iraq - known to have made a
deal with North Korea for the purchase of missiles and being assisted
in nuclear technology by Russia - would have the wherewithall to
blackmail the world just as North Korea has done successfully. (Is it
just us, but are not the first two sentences of the response
immediately preceeding totally contradictory?)
|
richard
|
|
response 481 of 536:
|
Dec 19 03:23 UTC 2003 |
I wonder...if Saddam was a white anglo-saxon, would this have happened? I
seriously think that the racial issue plays a factor in making some people
in this country more uncomfortable with some leaders than others. One of the
more damaging fallouts from this conflict and a whole host of post-9/11
actions, is that many many muslims in the middle east (most of them in all
likelihood) think the U.S. is racist and imperialistic. I commend Howard Dean
for saying bluntly that capturing Saddam HAS NOT made america safer. Because
in fact the whole process of doing so has caused a greater number of people
in the world to hate us than ever before
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 482 of 536:
|
Dec 19 03:29 UTC 2003 |
Well... Milosevic is a white guy. Slavic, but white and english-speaking and
everything.
Our government *is* imperialistic. The neocons don't even bother to deny it.
Racist? Not exactly, but certainly culturally biased.
That said, the cultures of the Middle East have a lot of bad attributes too.
|
richard
|
|
response 483 of 536:
|
Dec 19 03:43 UTC 2003 |
ok culturally biased, but admit that more people now hate us than ever before.
How does that make us safer? Hate breeds more hate
|
willcome
|
|
response 484 of 536:
|
Dec 19 04:46 UTC 2003 |
There's no country in the world which is undemocratic and has a Caucasian
majority.
|
gull
|
|
response 485 of 536:
|
Dec 19 15:27 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:480: I'm surprised you're still willing to argue that Iraq had a
nuclear program. Where is it?
|
klg
|
|
response 486 of 536:
|
Dec 19 17:21 UTC 2003 |
re: "#482 (jmsaul): . . .Our government *is* imperialistic. The
neocons don't even bother to deny it. . . ."
Mr. jmsaul,
Don't be silly. Which neocons do you have in mind?
re: "#483 (richard): . . . but admit that more people now hate us than
ever before. . . ."
Herr richard:
No. More people hate us today than the day before Saddam was
captured?? Prove it.
(Go How-veird!!)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 487 of 536:
|
Dec 19 18:01 UTC 2003 |
re #484: patently false, as I can think of several obvious
counter-examples to your claim. Of course it becomes a bit
harder if you choose to stretch your definition of democracy
beyond reason. If the Pope is elected by the College of
Cardinals, does that make the Vatican a democracy?
|
jp2
|
|
response 488 of 536:
|
Dec 19 18:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 489 of 536:
|
Dec 19 23:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 490 of 536:
|
Dec 20 01:24 UTC 2003 |
Re: #484: If true, that's probably got to do with the fact that their
isn't a single country in the world that has a Caucasian majority and
where people living anywhere above the breadlne aren't filthy rich
compared to the average in the rest of the world - i.e. the
middle=classes effectively represent the largest or moot powerful
class.
|
tod
|
|
response 491 of 536:
|
Dec 20 01:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 492 of 536:
|
Dec 20 01:46 UTC 2003 |
Whether it be or no, I don't think Isrealis are classed as Caucasians,
sicne they are related to the Egyptians the Berbers of North Africa,
and the Arabs. Caucasians the world over have a nasty habit ;-) of
speaking Indo-European languages natively.
|
klg
|
|
response 493 of 536:
|
Dec 20 02:26 UTC 2003 |
News flash:
In a surprise move today, Colonel Qaddafi of Libya, to show his
growing hatred for the U.S. and his desire to make us less safe,
announced he is dismantling his nuclear weapons program and allowing
the entry of international inspectors. Lefties are now quaking in
their beds since this is a clear reaction to the U.S. quagmires in
Afghanistan and Iraq. How-weird Dean (Go, How-vierd) in close
consultation with his buddy Herr richard, caught with their shorts
down, have, to our knowledge not yet issued a statement critical of
the Bush administration's handling of this crisis. But one is
expected shortly.
|
keesan
|
|
response 494 of 536:
|
Dec 20 02:47 UTC 2003 |
Lots of people in this country who are not 'Caucasian' speak English.
|
