On 4/26/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
Stepping in. The frame is "the United States is not an unruly child as my opponents suggest. We are Texas tough." This is Texas BS but how our guys in the oil bidness like to talk. >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? Saddam's military was decimated, using the original definition of the word, compared to Gulf War 1 and even lacked the ability to defend itself from several neighbors to say nothing 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? Troops were not necessary to defer aggression by Iraq. They might be of use to prop up Bush's buddies when the place explodes in the coming civil war. -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? See both of my responses above -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? Actually yes. The US and the UK had the most officials administering the sanctions and they ended up being both bribeable and foolish and caused needless harm to children. Another solution was developing but doesn't fit into this black/white/black discussion. What would have been the scenario if the other members of the Security Council had their continued aggressive inspections resolution approved? -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? Giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers after Israel demolished their homes has become conflated here with "funding terrorists." Nice going. -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a > terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United > States? Does the US support for Syria as part of the deal in Gulf War 1 and continuing today despite administration rhetoric - see Canadian citizen flown by U.S. to Syria for torture interrogations, constitute a threat to our security? -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? I see you don't know your CIA history. Or know anything about the Iraq nuclear program and its complete shutdown after Gulf War 1. -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? There was no missing stockpiles. This grew out of alarmists extrapolating what could possibly be the largest amount Iraq could have and then demanded proof that this imagined amount be accounted for. -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the > security of the United States? Does anyone remember the balloon trucks which were poor copies of vehicles sold to Iraq by the UK and them transformed into magical roaming bio-weapons factories by one drunken discredit Iraqi on Chalabi's payroll. You really need a more rounded sources of news. -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? There was no evidence for this before the war, there is now evidence that the stockpile never existed. There have now been repeated reports by weapons inspectors desperate to find any evidence of this. Zippo, nada, zilch. You've got to get by the conservative soundbytes and look at some facts Jack. These were the fevered imaginations of conservatives who believe in boogeymen and when the Soviet Union dissolved turned their imagination loose into other areas of the world. -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? There was the distinct possibility that my neighbor down the street, this shifty Pakistani or Arab or Persian or Indian or some other rag wearer, was trying to purchase a nuclear weapon to destroy the United States. How dare some people criticize me for bombing his house with his family inside and giving his Kwicky-Mart to my business friends to run. At least now we can thank my God we are safe. Just to make sure I've installed secret cameras to keep an eye on all those people not going to church enough. Thank you for your answers. You are welcome. JDG > -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
