Text 10449, 149 rader
Skriven 2009-03-20 23:21:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av John Fitzgerald
Ärende: BI-PARTISAN INVASION
============================
JF>>>   The point you are avoiding is that it is foolish to
JF>>>   allow your enemies to hold you to a higher standard they
JF>>>   have never lived up to so they can run their campaign.

BK>>>   The point you are avoiding is that it is foolish to allow your
BK>>>   enemies to pull you down to their level. We have always won our
BK>>>   wars by holding ourselves to a higher standard.

 JF>>   That's why we don't behead, people, blow up churches and
 JF>>   mosques, hide behind women and children, store our
 JF>>   military supplies in schools, hide bombs in market places
 JF>>   and fly planes into buildings 'for Allah'. All we did was

BK>>  Neither did the Iraqis we were fighting.

 JF>   Wrong, the Iraqis we were fighting were Saddam's regime,
 JF>   responsible for many atrocities against many different
 JF>   peoples, including their own.

 But *NOT* the ones you listed. And Christians under Saddam had a
 better life in Iraq then the ones who are left have now. And
 better by far than those in Saudi Arabia.

 JF>>   waterboard, kick some butt, and in one case put some
 JF>>   panties on prisoner's head.  If this is all you need to
 JF>>   say we are at their level, then evidently your partisan

BK>>   If you think that is all college prank
BK>>   level, you are deluding yourself.

 JF>   On the contrary, if you think what some of our guys did
 JF>   begins to compare with the sort of things Saddam's guys
 JF>   were doing to their prisoners, you are the deluded one.

 Is that your two wrongs make a right defense?

 JF>>   induced hatred for Bush has consumed your sense of
 JF>>   reasoning in these matters.  ie.waterboarding can be
 JF>>   gotten over of within minutes, and was used to extract

BK>>   Do you guarantee that? Torture lasts long
BK>>   beyond the physical effects.

 JF>   So does a punch in the nose.

 If you think those equate you are sadly mistaken.

 JF>>   lifesaving and vital info, and was only employed under
 JF>>   special circumstances.

BK>>  And just how many times did that happen?
BK>>  Did it *EVER* happen?

 JF>   Don't know the numbers.  Neither do you.

 Can you say for certain it happened even once?

JF>>>    all the other Democrats who voted overwhelmingly
JF>>>    to invade Iraq.

BK>>>   No democrats voted to invade Iraq. There was
BK>>>   no resolution  or declaration or bill to invade Iraq.

JF>> The Iraq War Resolution (Resolution of 2002,[1]) was a
JF>> joint resolution (ie. a law) which was passed by
JF>> Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243,
JF>> authorizing the Iraq War.

BK>>   Nope, authorizing the use of force if
BK>>   required to make Iraq comply with the
BK>>   UN resolutions.

 JF>   You start out with 'nope' and turn around and say 'yep'.
 JF> What exactly are you saying no to?

 No to authorizing the Iraq invasion. Since the use of force was
 not necessary to compel Saddam's compliance, there was no
 justification in that resolution.

BK>>   They were complying.

 JF>   Not according Clinton's people, or Bush's people, not
 JF>   according to UN weapon's inspectors.

 Yes, according to the UN weapon's inspectors. And Clinton was no
 longer in office, and his people would have no way of knowing.
 Bush's people lied on demand.

JF>> Both Republicans and
JF>> Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it.  That resolution
JF>> cited 17 different reasons for going after Saddam.  WMD
JF>> were just one of those reasons.

BK>>   That is the one we are discussing.

 JF>   And apparently that is the only one you want to discuss,

 That is the one we are discussing. What other one do you want to
 discuss?

 JF>   and in that event, you are back to square one:  'No WMD
 JF>   found' after waiting a year and a half.

 "They weren't there," GW Bush.

 And we may have waited a year and a half, but the inspectors
 didn't.

 JF>   And don't forget, Saddam was a supporter of terrorism.

 Only to the extent of pandering to the neighbors he was looking
 to for support. He talked the game. According to the report,
 snipurl.com/phaseii, start with the conclusions on page 105 on.

 JF>   Saddam's willingness to support terrorists was clearly
 JF>   demonstrated when he promised to give money to the
 JF>   families of suicide bombers, and even though that
 JF>   concerned Hamas and Israel, it STILL demonstrated that he
 JF>   was willing to do business with terrorists.   And the

 Which he only did when facing the possibility of a US invasion,
 and then to curry favor with regimes closer to the US.

 JF>   fact that Al qaeda flocked into Iraq and fought with the
 JF>   Iraqi insurgents again demonstrates that Saddam's Iraq
 JF>   and terrorists altogether were perfectly willing to form
 JF>   alliances to defeat a greater common enemy.  When Bush

 Actually, it was the Sunni who Al Qaeda moved in with, and the
 Shia are the majority of the three groups. A clear majority, not
 just a plurality.

 And they did *NOT* do that when Saddam was in power. As the SSCI
 report mentions, Saddam did not trust Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda
 considered Saddam more a target than a possible ally. Saddam
 refused all efforts by Al Qaeda to form an alliance.

 JF>   said we will go after terrorists and anyone who supports
 JF>   them, both Republicans and Democrats applauded.

 Then why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? More republican talking
 points from you.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... I am Homer of Borg. Iambic pentameters are irrelevant.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)