Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar
Well pardon me. Oddly enough i *don't* have all the time in the world to make posts on here, so i thought i'd cover the quickest stuff before i left, and the rest when i returned which is what i'm doing now. In short, bite me.
Could you please find an example where i've posted either of the two lines you when qoute below please?
|
OK, sorry for the hyperbole on my part, my point was that we all know you're a busy college student, so you don't need to remind us all the time. If you don't have time to make all the points you want to, make them next week; we'll still be here.
I do the same thing; I'm on my way out the door and want to make a point real quick, but then I say something stupid like how we used to "help Iraq fight the Soviet Union" in the 80's, which I'm surprised as hell no one called me out on.
Quote:
|
Well i've yet to hear you explain the the fuck attacking Iraq makes the world a safer place for anyone. Yea pushing a madman with bio/chem weapons into a corner (just before elections are coming up), without any firm evidence he's done anything recently, had any role with Al Queda or has done anything Isreal has not done in realtion to UN resolutions sure sounds good to me.
|
I agree, if there's no firm evidence then we shouldn't do anything. But I think there is firm evidence that most of us aren't privvy to. There is news on the wires this morning about Rumsfeld sharing newfound intel with UN members that links Iraq to al Qaeda. Yes, it may well be more carefully-timed media puppeteering.
But I think domestic support for military action would quickly vaporize if Bush were to prosecute a war without some firm evidence turning up real quick, and he's well aware of this. Words and ideas are fine for sabre-rattling, but when it comes to losing American lives, people are gonna demand proof. We all know this, and the president knows this, so we won't have a war unless that proof exists.