Active Users:74 Time:09/07/2020 05:50:32 PM
Re: huh? jfclark - 16/01/2003 09:59:40 AM

secure the safety of Americans? You are doing quite the opposite. Hussein has not been agressive for ... somewhat over ten years. Leaving him alone would not lead to agression against Americans. Attacking Hussein on the other hand, will most likely lead to retaliation from scattered groups. Thus, attacking Iraq, has nothing to do with protecting Americans.

I guess we disagree. Very many Americans really believe that Hussein poses a direct threat to the United States by virtue of his repeated attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Many of us also believe that leaving Hussein alone has indeed led to aggression against us and our allies. I guess we just disagree about that. But it's always surprising to me to hear people who love the idea of leaving Hussein alone, as if the world is a better place with him as leader in Iraq.

Save the poor, oppressed people of Iraq can be no reason. If it were, the USA would have to remove a GREAT number of bad leaders around the world. And I am not claiming that the people of Iraq are not opressed compared to the USA.

Again, I guess we disagree. Saving the people of Iraq *is* a good reason to invade Iraq. It's not sufficient, meaning it can't be the only reason. But it's still a reason, and not a "pretend" reason at all. Again, it amazes me to hear people claim that the world is a better place with Iraqis continuing to live under Hussein's brutal regime.

There are not many real reasons for attacking Iraq, but there are very many pretend reasons. The only real reason I can see is oil.

We haven't stopped disagreeing, apparently.

I get the impression taht the US congress will agree to just about anything in order to not seem "unamerican", and because none of them want the blame in case something were to happen if you did not attack Iraq.

You can believe that, but like I said earlier, it destroys your argument that this whole crisis is somehow Bush's personal cowboy vendetta-crusade. It's simply not.


I did not mean that they were high in any party, though, but that they were ... how to explain it... following the politics of the party in their rulings.{/QUOTE)

See my reply to Keith below. Supreme Court Justices are notoriously private about their political leanings. We can frequently guess as to what they are by following their rulings. But with a few exceptions (Bush v. Gore is the most notorious recently), most observers don't think that their rulings are "political"--they just happen to reflect the fact that five Justices are generally "conservative" and four are generally "liberal."

{QUOTE}What are you talking about? The comments in aero's link claimed that the only way to get rid of Bush was to assasinate him or make some sort of coup. I merely pointed out that not voting for him next time would also get rid of him. Why did you attack me over that?


Misunderstanding, I suppose. My apologies.

View/create new replies Sign up for a premium account to add posts to a list of favourites!
To all peace-loving Americans - 15/01/2003 02:21:45 PM 465 Views
A Norwegian replies: - 15/01/2003 02:30:52 PM 112 Views
I know I must have misunderstood that message..... - 15/01/2003 02:33:11 PM 56 Views
Re: To all peace-loving Americans - 15/01/2003 02:39:49 PM 40 Views
Good Link, aero. *NM* - 15/01/2003 02:47:19 PM 1 Views
That was excellent! Thanks AC - 15/01/2003 02:52:10 PM 1 Views
I have a theory, aero, and that is - 15/01/2003 03:01:58 PM 1 Views
lol - 15/01/2003 03:03:59 PM 1 Views
- 15/01/2003 03:08:35 PM 1 Views
Am so human - 15/01/2003 03:16:05 PM 1 Views
Thx ac nice article *NM* - 15/01/2003 03:16:48 PM 1 Views
I shall treasure those three words forever... *NM* - 15/01/2003 03:16:51 PM 1 Views
I've been thinking that same thought for ages. - 15/01/2003 03:33:54 PM 1 Views
simple.... - 15/01/2003 03:37:50 PM 1 Views
Because the first time... - 15/01/2003 03:55:47 PM 1 Views
Re: I have a theory, aero, and that is - 15/01/2003 03:55:58 PM 1 Views
Theories, reality. - 15/01/2003 03:57:24 PM 1 Views
That was the most patronising piece of #$%^ I've read in a long time - 15/01/2003 04:32:38 PM 41 Views
Once upon a time there was a mad dictator - 15/01/2003 04:42:04 PM 49 Views
The message is devoid of sincerity (not saying you are, tho, Mierin) - 15/01/2003 04:57:21 PM 34 Views
Who would flame you? You speak the truth! *NM* - 15/01/2003 05:00:11 PM 1 Views
A point that do-gooders seem to forget - 15/01/2003 05:13:30 PM 1 Views
Do people really misunderstand the electoral college? - 15/01/2003 05:24:50 PM 30 Views
A little tongue-in-cheek, but a good statement: - 15/01/2003 05:39:07 PM 15 Views
I thought you were talking about Bush! *NM* - 15/01/2003 05:46:21 PM 1 Views
One flaw here - 15/01/2003 06:11:24 PM 1 Views
I don't think that's entirely fair, but it's too late for me to expl y *NM* - 15/01/2003 06:14:18 PM 5 Views
my answer to you.. - 15/01/2003 06:25:52 PM 1 Views
Oh, please! - 15/01/2003 06:34:49 PM 21 Views
My answer to your answer - 15/01/2003 06:48:42 PM 1 Views
No - they ignore it altogether; it's how they make us a dictatorship *NM* - 15/01/2003 06:50:05 PM 1 Views
True... - 15/01/2003 07:01:11 PM 1 Views
of course not... we all know what it is meant for - 15/01/2003 07:04:10 PM 1 Views
Re: True... - 15/01/2003 07:10:16 PM 1 Views
Re: To all peace-loving Americans - 15/01/2003 07:14:09 PM 15 Views
No - 15/01/2003 07:19:01 PM 1 Views
Their President likes it, but not many others - 15/01/2003 08:02:49 PM 1 Views
thank you meirin, some one speaks the truth *NM* - 15/01/2003 08:08:26 PM 6 Views
There's no perfect solution to the problem. - 15/01/2003 08:13:25 PM 1 Views
Sorry, double-post. *NM* - 15/01/2003 08:50:03 PM 1 Views
Hmmm . . . - 15/01/2003 09:01:26 PM 13 Views
Hmm *NM* - 15/01/2003 09:50:18 PM 1 Views
Oops *NM* - 15/01/2003 10:27:01 PM 1 Views
What no Links? *NM* - 15/01/2003 10:31:02 PM 1 Views
Re: A wonderful letter. - 15/01/2003 10:33:04 PM 30 Views
Small points. - 15/01/2003 11:35:26 PM 1 Views
Re: - 15/01/2003 11:50:15 PM 1 Views
oh, so you say... - 16/01/2003 12:46:13 AM 1 Views
you see? we cannot both be wrong... *NM* - 16/01/2003 12:47:08 AM 1 Views
huh? - 16/01/2003 12:57:32 AM 1 Views
thank you *NM* - 16/01/2003 12:58:58 AM 1 Views
when was the first time it happened? *NM* - 16/01/2003 01:00:21 AM 1 Views
who are you to... - 16/01/2003 01:02:02 AM 1 Views
though we should learn from history - 16/01/2003 01:03:41 AM 1 Views
let me see... - 16/01/2003 01:38:21 AM 1 Views
no, and that is just the point - 16/01/2003 01:45:10 AM 1 Views
allow me to repeat myself - 16/01/2003 01:48:12 AM 1 Views
lol - 16/01/2003 01:50:22 AM 1 Views
- 16/01/2003 01:54:32 AM 1 Views
*NM* - 16/01/2003 01:56:36 AM 1 Views
Re: Hmmm . . . - 16/01/2003 01:57:58 AM 1 Views
who is Spiro Agnew? - 16/01/2003 01:59:54 AM 1 Views
I stopped at that myself - 16/01/2003 02:00:45 AM 1 Views
Small points - 16/01/2003 08:47:17 AM 1 Views
UN Security Council resolutions... What a joke - 16/01/2003 09:24:18 AM 1 Views
Re: Small points. - 16/01/2003 09:49:58 AM 1 Views
Re: huh? - 16/01/2003 09:59:40 AM 1 Views
Technicalities aside... - 16/01/2003 10:13:25 AM 1 Views
Re: who is Spiro Agnew? - 16/01/2003 10:18:42 AM 1 Views
Yes. And Mierin seems to think... - 16/01/2003 10:22:52 AM 1 Views
Re: Bush V. Gore - 16/01/2003 10:26:11 AM 1 Views
I am TRYING! Next voting he will lose. *NM* - 16/01/2003 08:07:35 PM 4 Views
I guess we do. *NM* - 17/01/2003 04:56:00 AM 1 Views
arab league biased? - 17/01/2003 05:01:12 AM 1 Views
difference is - 17/01/2003 05:04:00 AM 1 Views
thanks *NM* - 17/01/2003 05:05:47 AM 1 Views
finally! - 17/01/2003 05:07:02 AM 1 Views
No, you're wrong - 17/01/2003 12:34:48 PM 1 Views
I did not know that - 17/01/2003 02:17:36 PM 1 Views
Despite the fact that the United Nations is impotent... - 17/01/2003 02:30:46 PM 1 Views
that is very kind of you - 17/01/2003 03:06:16 PM 1 Views
Maybe this will clear things up - 17/01/2003 04:33:04 PM 1 Views
a couple of small details - 17/01/2003 06:17:27 PM 1 Views
True enough. But, um, the comparison is to Bush.. - 17/01/2003 07:03:47 PM 1 Views
actually, I knew all that - 18/01/2003 08:39:39 AM 1 Views
Re: a couple of small details - 18/01/2003 08:45:15 AM 1 Views
lol - 18/01/2003 08:46:21 AM 1 Views
what ethnic minority was blamed? - 18/01/2003 08:53:27 AM 1 Views
Ok... - 18/01/2003 06:18:31 PM 1 Views
Re: Hey mierin. - 19/01/2003 12:08:27 AM 1 Views
Re: The vote: - 19/01/2003 12:15:24 AM 1 Views
The most recent number I heard... - 19/01/2003 01:33:41 AM 1 Views
*starts at sig* oh, well... that will have to wait - 19/01/2003 08:02:53 AM 1 Views
can you deny it? - 19/01/2003 08:04:24 AM 1 Views
oh. sorry - 19/01/2003 08:06:32 AM 1 Views
Last I heard - 19/01/2003 08:07:22 AM 1 Views
Re: LOL!! - 19/01/2003 10:24:39 AM 1 Views
Re: - 19/01/2003 10:41:58 AM 1 Views
sorry, I have been learning from the president lately - 19/01/2003 11:05:44 AM 1 Views
Re: Re: - 19/01/2003 11:18:07 AM 1 Views
They seem conflicted to me - 19/01/2003 12:45:59 PM 1 Views
We were both wrong - 19/01/2003 05:11:42 PM 1 Views
something in between then... - 19/01/2003 05:18:39 PM 1 Views
Let me get this straight... - 19/01/2003 05:33:29 PM 1 Views
Wasn't it already straight? - 19/01/2003 05:47:13 PM 1 Views
What I'm confused about - 19/01/2003 09:42:36 PM 1 Views
You are mixing up two things - 20/01/2003 02:09:28 AM 1 Views
Ok. It looks like I agree with you on most points. - 20/01/2003 02:22:29 PM 1 Views
good - 20/01/2003 03:49:14 PM 1 Views
The other controversial elections - 21/01/2003 12:57:13 AM 1 Views
I see. thanks. *NM* - 21/01/2003 01:51:10 AM 1 Views