Does evil exist and should we defeat it...

So why are we not occupying Rowanda and Darfur and Cambodia and many other nations?
Because not everybody shares his opinion. If having Dixie state it made us all follow then you wouldn't have asked this question and we'd already be in Darfur. I believe that evil exists only when good people do nothing about it.

So, Dixie said so, let's get going.
 
Man will never eliminate the evil in his breed.

We can only stand against it and minimize its effect on the innocent.
 
Starting a series of wars will create collateral effects that in the end will harm more people than we've saved. The only one worth considering is Darfur, which no ones going to do anything about because the Russians like them and they have oil.
 
I belive the mass graves exist, Ive seen enough to prove that, I am talking about the part about the wood chipper and such.

Well, it is actually more like a shredder used to shred plastic, but... same principle. And the supposed reason for feeding victims in feet first is not to see the expression on the victim's face, but rather to have them (partially) witness the horrors of their own mutilation. So it might have been slightly different from what I originally stated.

I posted the links to two independent and separate sources who have spoken to numerous other independent and separate eye-witnesses. I don't know what else I can do, or they can do. These are not people who have an agenda or a reason to lie. The horror stories which have come out of Iraq since the fall of Saddam are incredible. Rape, torture, mutilation and death were the order of the day under the Saddam Hussein regime, and this is clear as a bell to anyone with half a brain. These people have no reason to lie about it, they aren't likely right-wing hacks trying to cover Bush's ass for the invasion of their country. Even the most 'anti-American' of the Iraqi's, are thankful not to have Saddam Hussein as their leader anymore.
 
So why are we not occupying Rowanda and Darfur and Cambodia and many other nations?

Let's be clear, I did not state that we invaded Iraq because of human rights. We indeed invaded because we thought he had WMD's and feared the technology to mass produce them, would eventually end up in the hands of alQeda, as there was also evidence of their presence in Iraq. However, because all of our information was not completely accurate, doesn't negate the fact of Saddam's defiance of the UN and international law, nor does it negate his brutal history of torture and death on his own people.

Let's also be clear, we are not "occupying" Iraq. We are there, we are present in their country, but it is not an American occupation like we had in Japan following WWII. The Iraqi people have held free elections, picked their leaders, adopted a constitution, and are forming the first democracy in the history of the Arab world. We are not there dictating how they should do this, we are there to provide protection for them, while they do it, and to help train their own security forces, who now handle the majority of the problems from insurgents.

Yes, we could have sent a team of covert assassins into Iraq and killed Saddam, but this would have simply resulted in the Baath party replacing him with another tyrant maniac who would have been just as brutal and just as willing to embrace terrorism. Converting Iraq into a modern democracy is eventually going to be the best thing that ever happened for those people, and hopefully, for the entire region. This could have never been established any other way, the people of Iraq were powerless.

You are trying to throw the baby out with the bath water because you never wanted the baby in the first place.
 
Well, it is actually more like a shredder used to shred plastic, but... same principle. And the supposed reason for feeding victims in feet first is not to see the expression on the victim's face, but rather to have them (partially) witness the horrors of their own mutilation. So it might have been slightly different from what I originally stated.

I posted the links to two independent and separate sources who have spoken to numerous other independent and separate eye-witnesses. I don't know what else I can do, or they can do. These are not people who have an agenda or a reason to lie. The horror stories which have come out of Iraq since the fall of Saddam are incredible. Rape, torture, mutilation and death were the order of the day under the Saddam Hussein regime, and this is clear as a bell to anyone with half a brain. These people have no reason to lie about it, they aren't likely right-wing hacks trying to cover Bush's ass for the invasion of their country. Even the most 'anti-American' of the Iraqi's, are thankful not to have Saddam Hussein as their leader anymore.

Well Dixie, we could have done something about those deaths had we chosen not to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power after 1991. In 2004, we were a day late and a dollar short, and the reprisals had stopped a decade ago. I refuse to start a war merely for the purpose of retribution.

We could have saved millions and millions of lives with a trillion dollars through non-violent means. Instead, we decided to invade Iraq, and cost a million more lives.
 
Last edited:
I belive the mass graves exist, Ive seen enough to prove that, I am talking about the part about the wood chipper and such.

A mass grave is a grave containing six bodies or more. There are mass graves, but the number is not as high as we have been told by our government.
 
A mass grave is a grave containing six bodies or more. There are mass graves, but the number is not as high as we have been told by our government.

Wow, if Saddam had only taken the time to bury his victims 5 to the hole, he could have escaped any blame at all for his mass killings. I bet he wishes you had been his adviser back then.... oh, wait... he's not doing much wishing these days....

We've not really been told anything by our government, the Bush Administration is not very proactive in telling us things, or haven't you noticed?

Here is what we do know from your liberal friends at HumanRightsWatch.org
“By conservative estimates, at least 290,000 people are missing in Iraq, and the answer to their whereabouts likely lies in these graves.”
Peter Bouckaert
Researcher for Human Rights Watch
(Hardly a Bush Boot Licking Right Wing Propagandist.)

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/05/14/iraq6046.htm
 
My suspicion is, you more likely love playing Johnny Cochran and building a criminal defense for these thugs by attempting to discredit whatever I post here. I am familiar with the MoveOn.Org tactics and propaganda, and I have heard and read enough independent accounts of what went on in Iraq, to define it as unequivocal evil.

Here are a few things you can read over, if you are genuinely sincere. (which I doubt.)

The United States, Britain, Europe and the War in Iraq, published in December 2003, by William Shawcross ...very good book, details and chronicles the torture techniques used by the Hussein's as well as the accounts of routine rapes by the deviant sex maniac sons.

Documented eye-witness accounts of the shredder from Ann Clwyd--
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/thunderer/article1120757.ece


Evan Thomas and Christopher Dickey, Newsweek, from the 2002/10/21 issue:
"Both men (Uday is 38, Qusay 36) were born and bred to violence of the most lurid kind. As infants, they were supposedly given disarmed grenades as toys. More reliably, they were said to accompany their father on outings to the torture chamber. ... Saddam has always believed in the symbolic power of mutilation. [Saddam] was aiming at the creation of "a new man" in Iraq, just as Hitler and Stalin had tried to do in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. He may well have made his sons into psychopaths. ... Strolling through a park, Uday spotted a young couple. He called out to the young woman, but the pair walked on, pretending not to notice. Affronted, Uday grabbed the woman by the arm and declared, "You're much too good for this simple man." (Her companion was wearing the uniform of an Army captain.) The woman stammered that she had been married only the day before. Uday's guards promptly dragged her to a hotel room, where Uday raped her as the guards watched from the next room. Latif, who says he witnessed this scene, says he heard the woman scream. He went to the balcony and saw her half-naked figure lying in front of the hotel entrance six floors below. Her husband, who cursed Uday, was executed for 'defamation of the president.'"

Iraqi exiles agreed that Uday Hussein, the eldest of five children, personified the government's random brutality. Human rights groups and Iraqi exiles accused him of routinely kidnapping women off the streets, raping and sometimes torturing them, and personally supervising the torture and humiliation of hundreds of prisoners. Such conduct earned him the title "Abu Sarhan," the Arabic term for "father of the wolf."
-- The New York Times, July 23, 2003

"Thousands of people are missing in Iraq, victims of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, but a more visible legacy are the parts that are missing from people who survived. Missing eyes, ears, toenails and tongues mark those who fell into the hands of Mr. Hussein's powerful security services."
-- The New York Times, April 24, 2003

Farris Salman is one of the last victims of Mr. Hussein's rule. His speech is slurred because he is missing part of his tongue. Black-hooded paramilitary troops, the Fedayeen Saddam, run by Mr. Hussein's eldest son, Uday, pulled it out of his mouth with pliers last month, he said, and sliced it off with a box cutter. They made his family and dozens of his neighbors watch.

"...Salman was blindfolded and bundled into a van. Residents of his neighborhood say the van arrived in the afternoon with an escort of seven trucks carrying more than a hundred black-uniformed fedayeen wearing black masks that only showed their eyes. They rounded up neighbors for what was billed as a rally; Mr. Salman's mother was ordered to bring a picture of Mr. Hussein. Two men held Mr. Salman's arms and head steady, and pointed a gun to his temple. Another man with a video camera recorded the scene. 'I was standing and they told me to stick my tongue out or they would shoot me, and so I did. It was too quick to be painful but there was a lot of blood.' The fedayeen stuffed his mouth with cotton and took him to a local hospital, where he got five stitches, no painkiller and was returned to prison."
-- The New York Times, April 24, 2003

More accounts of the "fun" had by Uday and Qusay Hussein....
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030602-454453,00.html
Uday Hussein, the eldest son of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, was ready to party. At his first outing in 1998, at the posh Jadriyah Equestrian Club, he used high-powered binoculars to survey the crowd of friends and family from a platform high above the guests. He saw something he liked, recalls his former aide Adib Shabaan, who helped arrange the party. Uday tightened the focus on a pretty 14-year-old girl in a bright yellow dress sitting with her father, a former provincial governor, her mother and her younger brother and sister. ...The rest is too disturbing to detail here, you can read more at the link.

A chef at Baghdad's exclusive Hunting Club recalls a wedding party that Uday crashed in the late 1990s. After Uday left the hall, the bride, a beautiful woman from a prominent family, went missing. "The bodyguards closed all the doors, didn't let anybody out," the chef remembers. "Women were yelling and crying, 'What happened to her?'" The groom knew. "He took a pistol and shot himself," says the chef, placing his forefinger under his chin.

Last October another bride, 18, was dragged, resisting, into a guardhouse on one of Uday's properties, according to a maid who worked there. The maid says she saw a guard rip off the woman's white wedding dress and lock her, crying, in a bathroom. After Uday arrived, the maid heard screaming. Later she was called to clean up. The body of the woman was carried out in a military blanket, she said. There were acid burns on her left shoulder and the left side of her face. The maid found bloodstains on Uday's mattress and clumps of black hair and peeled flesh in the bedroom. A guard told her, "Don't say anything about what you see, or you and your family will be finished."



Have you heard enough yet... there are hundreds of stories like this, from real Iraqi people who were there and witnessed it all first hand.


Ok, I am willing to agree that Saddam Hussein was a thug, a tyrannt, and an all around bad guy.

Explain to me how we have the right to go in and destroy his country? Explain how we have the right to invade another nation and remove its leaders from power???


And while you are at it, explain why we haven't taken out Kim Jong II?

Or Omar al-Bashir

Or Than Shwe

Or why we haven't invaded Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Chad, China, Cuba, Syria, Turkmenistan and other central Asian countries who's leaders are as bad as Saddam??




This idea that we invaded Iraq to "save its people from an evil man" is just covering up our bullshit.

If we gave a shit about other countries Edi Amin wouldn't have lasted as long as he did.

And we wouldn't have waited until we could make up an excuse like WMDs to do something.
 
You know, it's just amazing to me, liberals refuse to recognize the significance of overthrowing Saddam... think of all the people who no longer have to dig these holes and mass bury their fellow Iraqi citizens? Aside from the gruesome stench, imagine what it would be like, if that were your job and there was nothing you could do about it... Imagine laying down at night and wondering if the mass bodies would ever stop piling up, if the killings would ever end... Imagine having to do this daily and understand there was absolutely nothing you could do to stop it.... I mean, I know you all love Saddam and hate Bush, but just think of the poor Iraqi mass grave digger! Isn't it a 'feel-good' thing he doesn't have to do that job anymore?
 
Ok, I am willing to agree that Saddam Hussein was a thug, a tyrannt, and an all around bad guy.

Explain to me how we have the right to go in and destroy his country? Explain how we have the right to invade another nation and remove its leaders from power???

The same way we had the right to go in and destroy Hitler's country, invade his nation, and remove him from power. We have a moral human obligation to oppose evil and take action to stop it whenever we can.


And while you are at it, explain why we haven't taken out Kim Jong II?

It's called a Nuclear Bomb!

Or Omar al-Bashir

Or Than Shwe

Or why we haven't invaded Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Chad, China, Cuba, Syria, Turkmenistan and other central Asian countries who's leaders are as bad as Saddam??

Now you are trying to throw up examples of bad behavior to justify allowing bad behavior. Why haven't law enforcement agents stopped all the crimes in America? Does that mean we should dismiss them and the rule of law?

This idea that we invaded Iraq to "save its people from an evil man" is just covering up our bullshit.

No one made that claim, in fact, if you read my previous post, I made a point to make that point completely clear. It is not an idea we invaded Iraq for this reason, and it's intellectual dishonesty to claim it is.

If we gave a shit about other countries Edi Amin wouldn't have lasted as long as he did.

And we wouldn't have waited until we could make up an excuse like WMDs to do something.

No one "made up" anything. Some intelligence was inaccurate, and that has been admitted from way back, no one is trying to deny this. The fundamental problem quislings like you have, is you can't comprehend how we could have multiple reasons and justifications for a war. If I was unable to fathom the idea that we could actually have numerous reasons, causes, and justifications for war, I would be denouncing it at every turn just like you.

Regardless of all of this, Saddam and his two sex deviant sons, were sick beyond anything we can wrap our little minds around here in the US. We only occasionally see people like Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy, we only see movies about Hannibal Lecter and Freddy Krueger. We simply don't comprehend the kind of monsters these men were, and how they ruled the people of that country.

To sit and make excuses or debate how we somehow were "wrong" for stopping this evil, is absolutely amazing to me. I can't believe what some of you will do and say to prop up your personal political viewpoints, even when confronted with the evidence. You will deny, obfuscate, mislead, draw illogical analogies, distort facts, twist the truth, you just fucking don't care, as long as you think it helps your political objectives. Stunning, indeed!
 
Dixie has a ridiculous absolutist philosophy. His worldview of the danger in the world is grossly distorted, where he regards deaths causeqd by randomly invading nations and war as irrelevant, and every death that happened 10 years ago caused by a moosle-man to be the penultimate evil in the world.
 
He justifies the death of that girl and her family by saying "let's fry em!" Stupid, simple conservative logic. It's too fucking late! You sent them there, you put sociopaths in a position of power, you caused that death, you are responsible. War is reprehensible and is not the answer, it cannot improve the human rights situation in the world. Human rights you guys don't even believe in.
 
The same way we had the right to go in and destroy Hitler's country, invade his nation, and remove him from power. We have a moral human obligation to oppose evil and take action to stop it whenever we can.




It's called a Nuclear Bomb!



Now you are trying to throw up examples of bad behavior to justify allowing bad behavior. Why haven't law enforcement agents stopped all the crimes in America? Does that mean we should dismiss them and the rule of law?



No one made that claim, in fact, if you read my previous post, I made a point to make that point completely clear. It is not an idea we invaded Iraq for this reason, and it's intellectual dishonesty to claim it is.



No one "made up" anything. Some intelligence was inaccurate, and that has been admitted from way back, no one is trying to deny this. The fundamental problem quislings like you have, is you can't comprehend how we could have multiple reasons and justifications for a war. If I was unable to fathom the idea that we could actually have numerous reasons, causes, and justifications for war, I would be denouncing it at every turn just like you.

Regardless of all of this, Saddam and his two sex deviant sons, were sick beyond anything we can wrap our little minds around here in the US. We only occasionally see people like Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy, we only see movies about Hannibal Lecter and Freddy Krueger. We simply don't comprehend the kind of monsters these men were, and how they ruled the people of that country.

To sit and make excuses or debate how we somehow were "wrong" for stopping this evil, is absolutely amazing to me. I can't believe what some of you will do and say to prop up your personal political viewpoints, even when confronted with the evidence. You will deny, obfuscate, mislead, draw illogical analogies, distort facts, twist the truth, you just fucking don't care, as long as you think it helps your political objectives. Stunning, indeed!


Bullshit! Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

The people in charge KNEW that the WMDs didn't exist in the numbers and types that they insisted were there.

There was never any claims about humanitarian reasons. We were ONLY given the reasons of WMDs and the dangers to OUR COUNTRY. We called it a Preemptive strike, claiming that we HAD to invade so Saddam didn't attack us.


It was only AFTER the fruitless attemtps to find WMDs of any substance or number that they started this bullshit about "saving the people of Iraq".


"Now you are trying to throw up examples of bad behavior to justify allowing bad behavior."

No I am not. You are using Saddam's brutality as justification for invading another country.

But you have no excuses why we haven't invaded Darfur, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, and Chad.



You claim that we are this "white hat" nation that is saving the world from brutal dictators. And that is just horseshit.

Even if we ignore the fact that many of these brutal dictators were set into power and supported by us, we have not even attempted to make changes in places where there is no underlying benefit for us.


If you want to believe the bullshit, go ahead. But don't try and make a case for our invasion being some sort of NOBLE effort. We didn't do squat when he was gassing the Kurds. We didn't do squat when he was slaughtering people. We waited until it was seen as politically expedient and beneficial for us to launch a war.
 
Bullshit! Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

The people in charge KNEW that the WMDs didn't exist in the numbers and types that they insisted were there.

No, they really didn't know. We have had several independent groups investigate this very charge, and all found there was no such knowledge by any of the parties involved, and your allegation is completely without basis. We simply didn't know, and had no way of knowing what he had or didn't have, and THAT in of itself, was the fundamental problem. We couldn't trust Saddam, we knew that much. He wasn't complying with our attempts through the UN to confirm what he had or didn't have, and we really couldn't afford to keep playing a shell game or taking chances with him.

There was never any claims about humanitarian reasons. We were ONLY given the reasons of WMDs and the dangers to OUR COUNTRY. We called it a Preemptive strike, claiming that we HAD to invade so Saddam didn't attack us.

One of the key problems I have had with the Bush Administration in the prosecution of this war, has been the anemic case made on the primary basis of WMD's. It was never "the only reason" but it was indeed the premier keynote reason given by the Administration, and that is the reason left-wingers like you have been able to beat them over the head for the past 7 years. As I said, if I were stupid enough to believe there is ever only a SINGLE reason for a war, I would be right there beside you, protesting this one. The truth of the matter is, there are always MULTIPLE reasons for war.

It was only AFTER the fruitless attemtps to find WMDs of any substance or number that they started this bullshit about "saving the people of Iraq".

Saving people from brutal tyranny is hardly bullshit. Especially to those who are being oppressed by the tyrant. It was always one of many reasons for the war, you only started hearing it when the primary reason given by Bush, turned out to not be as accurate as our CIA said it was. Again, I fault the Bush Administration for putting all it's public relations eggs in one basket, and giving the perception of WMD's being the "only" reason. But I can't change history, they did what they did, and I am sure they had their reasons.

"Now you are trying to throw up examples of bad behavior to justify allowing bad behavior."

No I am not. You are using Saddam's brutality as justification for invading another country.

No, again, I am not. Please read what I posted! I have not claimed this was our reason or justification for invading another country. It was one of many reasons, as all wars have MANY reasons, not just ONE! You keep trying to say... YOU CHANGED REASONS! But no one changed anything, it was always one of MANY reasons, it came to the forefront when the Bush Administration's chosen primary reason couldn't be substantiated. And this alone is not a reason for war! I know it's really a hard thing for you to believe, but try really hard to understand... there are ALWAYS MULTIPLE REASONS for WAR!

But you have no excuses why we haven't invaded Darfur, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, and Chad.

I just told you why. Wars require MULTIPLE reasons. If those countries were conspiring and meeting with alQaeda, actively pursuing nuclear and biological weapons, defying the UN resolutions, providing sanctuary and a paycheck for the '93 WTC bomber, allowing terrorist training camps in their country, putting out assassination contracts on former US presidents, running UN inspectors out of the country, had a history of attacking their neighbors... etc. etc. etc... THEN we may be just as justified in an invasion of those countries. Again we come to the fact that you simply can't comprehend how wars have MULTIPLE reasons, not just ONE! Like I said, if I had this same debility, I would be protesting war too!

You claim that we are this "white hat" nation that is saving the world from brutal dictators. And that is just horseshit.

Never made that claim, but I do believe we have often taken on that very role in the world, and the world is a better place for it. I don't see what is "horseshit" about it. Please name just ONE dictator we've saved the world from, that we shouldn't have?

Even if we ignore the fact that many of these brutal dictators were set into power and supported by us, we have not even attempted to make changes in places where there is no underlying benefit for us.

Listen to what your complaint is here! You are charging us with not taking military action and spilling American blood for things that wouldn't benefit us! Why WOULD or SHOULD we make such attempts? You don't even support wars where there IS a benefit to us, I could only imagine how outraged you would be if there were no benefit!

If you want to believe the bullshit, go ahead. But don't try and make a case for our invasion being some sort of NOBLE effort. We didn't do squat when he was gassing the Kurds. We didn't do squat when he was slaughtering people. We waited until it was seen as politically expedient and beneficial for us to launch a war.

I didn't try to make a case for our invasion on this basis, you keep claiming this, but I have posted four times now, that is not the case. Our case was made on numerous reasons and justifications, just as any war is. The chosen primary reason presented by the Bush Administration, turned out to be inaccurate because of bad intelligence, and you are unable to comprehend there were numerous other reasons, which didn't turn out to be invalid or inaccurate.

We did indeed do more than "squat" when he gassed the Kurds and slaughtered people, we took it to the UN who passed resolutions which he defied. For nearly 20 years, we attempted to handle Saddam diplomatically, with little or no results. Precisely because we didn't want or desire to go to war in Iraq. When the legitimate reasons became numerous and we couldn't afford to continue ignoring them, we acted! It had nothing to do with "political expediency" as this has probably been one of the worst "political" moves in all of American history for any president. Much of that is directly attributable to the Bush Administration's inability to explain the numerous reasons and justifications to brain-dead quislings like you, who can't comprehend multiple reasons for a war.
 
"But no one changed anything, it was always one of MANY reasons, it came to the forefront when the Bush Administration's chosen primary reason couldn't be substantiated."

Look at what you just said, Dixie. The other reasons didn't "come to the forefront". The administration made up other excuses when the first one didn't pan out.

And give up this "left-wingers like you" garbage. Just because I am not buying the lies does not make me a left-winger. It might make it easier for you if you label me as such. But it simply is not the truth.
 
No, they really didn't know. We have had several independent groups investigate this very charge, and all found there was no such knowledge by any of the parties involved, and your allegation is completely without basis. We simply didn't know, and had no way of knowing what he had or didn't have, and THAT in of itself, was the fundamental problem. We couldn't trust Saddam, we knew that much. He wasn't complying with our attempts through the UN to confirm what he had or didn't have, and we really couldn't afford to keep playing a shell game or taking chances with him.



One of the key problems I have had with the Bush Administration in the prosecution of this war, has been the anemic case made on the primary basis of WMD's. It was never "the only reason" but it was indeed the premier keynote reason given by the Administration, and that is the reason left-wingers like you have been able to beat them over the head for the past 7 years. As I said, if I were stupid enough to believe there is ever only a SINGLE reason for a war, I would be right there beside you, protesting this one. The truth of the matter is, there are always MULTIPLE reasons for war.



Saving people from brutal tyranny is hardly bullshit. Especially to those who are being oppressed by the tyrant. It was always one of many reasons for the war, you only started hearing it when the primary reason given by Bush, turned out to not be as accurate as our CIA said it was. Again, I fault the Bush Administration for putting all it's public relations eggs in one basket, and giving the perception of WMD's being the "only" reason. But I can't change history, they did what they did, and I am sure they had their reasons.



No, again, I am not. Please read what I posted! I have not claimed this was our reason or justification for invading another country. It was one of many reasons, as all wars have MANY reasons, not just ONE! You keep trying to say... YOU CHANGED REASONS! But no one changed anything, it was always one of MANY reasons, it came to the forefront when the Bush Administration's chosen primary reason couldn't be substantiated. And this alone is not a reason for war! I know it's really a hard thing for you to believe, but try really hard to understand... there are ALWAYS MULTIPLE REASONS for WAR!



I just told you why. Wars require MULTIPLE reasons. If those countries were conspiring and meeting with alQaeda, actively pursuing nuclear and biological weapons, defying the UN resolutions, providing sanctuary and a paycheck for the '93 WTC bomber, allowing terrorist training camps in their country, putting out assassination contracts on former US presidents, running UN inspectors out of the country, had a history of attacking their neighbors... etc. etc. etc... THEN we may be just as justified in an invasion of those countries. Again we come to the fact that you simply can't comprehend how wars have MULTIPLE reasons, not just ONE! Like I said, if I had this same debility, I would be protesting war too!



Never made that claim, but I do believe we have often taken on that very role in the world, and the world is a better place for it. I don't see what is "horseshit" about it. Please name just ONE dictator we've saved the world from, that we shouldn't have?



Listen to what your complaint is here! You are charging us with not taking military action and spilling American blood for things that wouldn't benefit us! Why WOULD or SHOULD we make such attempts? You don't even support wars where there IS a benefit to us, I could only imagine how outraged you would be if there were no benefit!



I didn't try to make a case for our invasion on this basis, you keep claiming this, but I have posted four times now, that is not the case. Our case was made on numerous reasons and justifications, just as any war is. The chosen primary reason presented by the Bush Administration, turned out to be inaccurate because of bad intelligence, and you are unable to comprehend there were numerous other reasons, which didn't turn out to be invalid or inaccurate.

We did indeed do more than "squat" when he gassed the Kurds and slaughtered people, we took it to the UN who passed resolutions which he defied. For nearly 20 years, we attempted to handle Saddam diplomatically, with little or no results. Precisely because we didn't want or desire to go to war in Iraq. When the legitimate reasons became numerous and we couldn't afford to continue ignoring them, we acted! It had nothing to do with "political expediency" as this has probably been one of the worst "political" moves in all of American history for any president. Much of that is directly attributable to the Bush Administration's inability to explain the numerous reasons and justifications to brain-dead quislings like you, who can't comprehend multiple reasons for a war.


Damn Dixie, you know a sewer rat could taste like pumpkin pie, for all's I know, but I aint gonna eat the filthy mother fucker.
 
Back
Top