[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

[Chuck Mize]

On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 16:34, alex wrote:

> Hm, the primary purpose of Gov't spending seems to be the propping up of
> unsustainable programs that cause an increase of the national debt year
> after year. Welfare, Medicare, Social Insecurity, I mean Security, are a
> drain on the taxpayers of this country. Why doesn't the U.S. Gov't get
> back to the things that is is supposed to be doing(National Defense,
> Interstate Commerce, etc) and get it's nose out of the peoples business.
> And that goes for all forms of Gov't, right down to the oppressive
> socialistic leaders that we have here in PXD.

You're right the government should get back to national defense and
interstate commerce and not starting wars all over the globe.

> 
> > 
> > > > And if you don't have an international court of justice, you have war.
> > > > There must be a civil place to resolve grievances outside a particular
> > > > nation's bias.
> > >
> > > War will always be.
> > 
> > So long as there are people like you, yes.  We're working on changing that
> > by teaching civility.  It's a long process.
> 
> No, so long as there are people like you who will allow evil people to
> do as they wish because "We don't want to hurt anyones feelings". I'd
> rather do the right thing for the right reason than the wrong thing for
> the sake of political correctness.

What about when Reagan and Bush I sold chemical and biological weapons
to Saddam and funded the Taliban in Afghanistan. Were those the right
things for the right reasons?

> > 
> > > Bureaucracy and multilateralism neither obsolete war nor do they provide
> > > an affective means to wage war.
> > 
> > Arguing in court before a consensually assigned panel is a much better
> > alternative than blowing each others brains out and destroying the land.
> > 
> > However, it doesn't ensure the victory of the largest army, so the U.S. is
> > opposed to it as a matter of policy.
> > 
> > > If you wage war you fight to win, or you don't fight at all.
> > 
> > I'll take the latter.
> > 
> Guess that means you're a loser then? I'm sorry, but it's just that your
> elitist attitude is showing and is becoming such a boor.
> Again, I'd rather fight for what is right than live in a world were
> people like Saddam are allowed to run free.

So you are condoning the actions of an administration that has close
personal ties to the bin Laden family and the Saudi royal family? Does
it make one an elitist to be outraged that the current administration
lied to the American people to justify war-mongering?
> 
> 
> > There was no declaration of war.  It was a criminal violation of UN
> > Charter.
> 
> Congress gave President Bush the power to act in the way that he sees
> fit to combat TERRORISM(remember the Twin Towers Jeme?) in all it's
> forms across the globe and to prevent another attack on our and, by
> extension, eventually anyone else's soil. I think that is a noble task.
> But think back. What did His Holiness Clinton do to really fight
> anything?

I remember the Twin Towers and I am sickened that those 3,000 deaths
were used as a justification to take away personal freedoms, alienate
the world community and make war for no other goal than monetary profit.
I am also disgusted by people like you who throw it back in the face of
anybody who speaks out against those atrocities.



> Russia, France and Germany seemed to see the oil for food program as a
> way to make large sums of money for themselves. I wonder how much the
> leaders and higher ups from those countries(and the U.N. for that
> matter) made off of that "humanitarian" program.

I can't believe you would even make that argument when all of Bush and
Cheney's cronies are getting set up to make billions in profit on the
"rebuilding" of Iraq.


> 
> Uh, no. Most of the destruction in Iraq is because Saddam refused to
> follow the mandates set forth by the U.N.

Oh really? Just because the weapons inspectors couldn't find any
imaginary weapons of mass destruction?


> 
> > You're just looking for reasons to believe the people of Iraq are not
> > trying to protect themselves from foreign occupation.  There is no
> > evidence of that.  It's all propaganda.
> 
> Again, you really need to read a wider selection of news sources.

Pot, meet kettle.

> > 
> 
> > 
> > > Sometimes you need a big corporation to get the job done.
> > 
> > And what is "the job" and WHY does it need to "get done"?
> 
> Getting the infrastructure of Iraq up and running as quickly as possible
> is the job. Who else can you name to get it done? Maybe we should put
> the U.N. in charge and then it can be like Afghanistan. I would argue
> that the people there are in fact no better off now than when we ran the
> Taliban out. WOW! Let's have the U.N. run the world!!!!!!
> > 

I'd rather see the U.N. put in charge of it than Halliburton.