At 12:20 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote >> > At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >> > >> You are conflating two separate things: >> > >> a) "serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before >> > >> acting" >> > >> and >> > >> b) "agreement from other nations before acting" >> > > >> > >"Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off." >> > >> > Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. >> > >> > I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see >> > them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. >> >> In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree >> there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was >> accurate in pointing out that the use of the words "permission slip" >> intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school >> for their parents to sign. I think that is the point....although >> the song could throw one off. :-) > >Thanks, Dan. Spot on.
But Dave, finish connecting the dots! Dan said he use of the words 'permission slip' intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign." You said, to paraphrase, the use of the words 'permission slip' brought to mind images that undermined "seriously considering the opinions of other nations." Do you view a child bringing home a permission slip as a child engaging in "serious consideration of the opinions of his or her parents?" Or do you view a child brining home a permission slip as a child getting the *permission* of his or her parents? >Moreover, what the President actually said was, "America will never seek a >permission slip to defend the security of our country." We're talking about >removing the dictator in *another country* who posed *no threat* to the >security of the United States Do you believe that: -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK? -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated several others? -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon from the utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Thank you for your answers. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
