quote:
Neither you nor Kerry, really offer much more than Monday-mornig quarterbacking, and that's a key reason he lost.
Paisano, please pay special attention to the dates that these messages were written. It's a nice little trip down memory lane for holmes and I. Please indicate where any monday morning quarterbacking has gone on by either one of us, now that you have some indication of what were were saying almost two years ago.
They are from a Coffee House thread named
"War and Majority" in which holmes and I engaged a very republican poster called RedVento.
I have bolded the dates for you.
Also please take special note of the prediction I made.
Message 80 of 100
03-28-2003 10:02 AM
OK, I think this will be the fourth time I have asked.
Do you think it is OK for the Bush regime to have intentionally misled the American people into thinking that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the Sept 11 attacks on the WTC?
There is NO evidence that Hussein had anything to do with it, yet Bush's speeches regarding the war constsntly invoke Sept 11th. It is calculated, deliberate, and immoral to mislead the public this way.
Message 73 of 100
03-27-2003 10:06 AM
quote:
RedVento: And btw I am a moderate republican who understands what needs to be done to make the world a little bit safer for those like you.
The world SAFER? I predict that this war will only make things much less safe for Americans. I predict that it will make it much more likely that a fundamentalist moslem dictatorship will take over in Iraq eventually as well as promoting radical anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Moslem world, making terrorism more likely. I think that we will have to work very, very hard to gain back our prestige and credibility internationally. I think this war has made our future dealings with North Korea even more difficult.
quote:
But now that do have nukes dealing with them (North Korea) is a bit more complicated than dealing with Iraq who can be stopped before they can cause any more harm.
WHAT HARM has Iraq done to the US???
Message 41 of 100
02-03-2003 04:27 PM
Holmes, to RedVento: The problem is that Bush stirred up a bunch of anger when he branded N Korea an "axis of evil", and then said the US has an international right to attack ANY other country which might equal the military might of the US, especially those who we don't like and have branded "axis of evil." Go figure someone getting upset by THAT.
After this stupid declaration, the N Koreans shifted their covert (small) weapons programs, into overt large scale programs. That's when international monitors and their cameras were pulled from nuclear sites (which Carter and Clinton managed to get put in place) and nuclear reactors were reopened and supplies flowed back to them.
If you cannot admit that under Carter and Clinton--- though not perfect by any stretch of the imagination--- things were at least moving in the right direction (threats were minimized), and that things are rapidly moving in the worst possible direction under Bush (threats have become maximized), then you are simply a liar.
Message 19 of 100
01-29-2003 01:16 PM
Holmes: On the topic of war with Iraq in specific, personally I am against it at this stage. This is regardless of it being done against the will of the public (which is it's own issue).
Bush did a great job last night of addressing why Saddam is a bastard and that he is basically a violent man bent on procuring and using any weapon he can get his hands on.
While Bush overspun the threat Saddam's weapons pose as WMDs, as well Saddam's ability to use them against the US (those rockets wouldn't reach anywhere near us), he was dead on right saying if we were going to be attacked there would be no "imminent danger" signal we could look for. We cannot afford to wait for THAT scenario, before taking action.
Unfortunately he made no case why war at this point in time was the only, or the best, solution to the problem we are facing.
Saddam is currently contained and can be kept so, with no major cost in lives or finances, almost indefinitely. If/when he bucks the containment, then we could step up military solutions.
There has also been no explanation of how a war would help us find those missing stockpiles and keep them out of the hands of terrorists.
If anything, a war would make the borders more porous by diverting attention away from general containment and other Fog-of-War issues, and so increase the possibility of weapons being snuck out or otherwise obtained by terrorist organizations.
In fact he is given greater incentive to release his WMDs to organizations he'd be hesitant to give them to, just in hopes they get used against the US.
There is also little reason to believe that any following government would be more pro US than it is now, and would not on its own try to obtain or trade in WMDs. After all it is a very poor nation. Why couldn't "freed" Iraqi scientists start freelancing talent to nations and organizations opposed to the US.
Heheheh. Bush talked about how Iraq was dangerous just because it could export the "technology" to terrorists. Unless we propose to kill all of their scientists with the knowhow, please explain how a war will stop the spread of the technology.
I think the fact that Saddam is a fiend is beyond question here, as well as our need to contain and disarm him. But that goes for a lot of other "bad" countries and leaders as well. It seems pretty obvious why we've chosen this man and this country to not pursue all other avenues first, and it has nothing to do with violating UN resolutions.
But here is something that has confused me greatly... Al-Queda without question attacked us. It was supported and defended by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. Why has Bush assembled a more awesome military force to defeat Saddam Hussein than he did to pursue Al-Queda in Afghanistan? If Bush was able to muster this kind of force, why didn't we do the same thing to greater ensure we beat BinLaden and co?
{Made cited topic a link. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-07-2004 11:44 AM
™ Version 4.2
