freecounterpoint: Let's see if deep thinker Obaba can answer these

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Let's see if deep thinker Obaba can answer these

7 comments:

Pepe le Pew said...: As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq, it was clear to me at the time that, had there been a realistic alternative to war to counter the threat from Saddam, Mr. Bush would have chosen it.

This is hard to believe if you consider the progression of events prior to the war, during which new reasons to go to war were popping up as quickly as the old ones were invalidated.

1. what terrorists is he talking about?
2. same statement
3. what threat? he had no army to speak of.
4. the no-fly zone is a chicken shit issue.
5. it's true that tolerance was lower but in the absence of clear and present danger, this is a moot point.; 7/03/2008 11:47 PM
Mr roT said...: Saddam bankrolled a bunch of your palestinian buddies, Pepe. His army was formidable for the region, and he had chemical weapons at his disposal, which are a significant force multiplier.
The no-fly zone is not a chickenshit issue. If Saddam had succeeded in shooting us down, that would have been war without the plan. Clear and present danger is a criterion for other legal actiins to be triggered. Saddam was in violation of dozens of UN resolutions and so the war was legal period.; 7/04/2008 4:50 AM
Tecumseh said...: No war is OK in Pepe's book -- unless is wahed by Commies or something to destroy Western Civ. C'mon, JJ, be serious, why argue about this?; 7/04/2008 3:25 PM
Mr roT said...: Pissin' in the wind?; 7/04/2008 4:20 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: well forgive me for being so radical ai, but I do believe the threshold of clear and present danger is reasonable.; 7/04/2008 6:18 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: JJ most european nations fortunately bankroll the palestinians. it's only a sin in american (and israeli) eyes.
At the time of the invasion, his army had nothing to do with what it was prior to the gulf war 1, and was small in comparison to iranian, turkish, and israeli.
To be legal, the war had to be explicitly authorized by the UN security council.; 7/04/2008 7:48 PM
Mr roT said...: not true; 7/05/2008 3:32 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)