First, we got the "you can't liberate Iraq unless you're going to liberate Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, etc..."
I don't see the logic in that one. I mean, let's apply that to other arguments: "You can't save one child from a burning building unless you're able to save all children in the burning building." Does this mean, if I have already saved one child from a burning building I should return him to the fire? Or, is a BBQ after-the-fact okay?
Second, we got the weapons of mass destruction fallacy. I'm fairly sure nobody actually cares about weapons of mass destruction. I know I don't. He had bombs, missiles, grenades and other standard stuff. No nukes, and no sarin gas. Hmm. Kind of like Hilter or Hirohito. But, unlike Hirohito, Saddam liked to torture and kill tens of thousands of his own citizens who happened to disagree with him.
I've asked this question before and never got an answer, so I'll ask again: How many innocent civilians need to be murdered before the Liberals think a liberation is in order?
I agree that fundamentalism is the problem, but that can be said of all sides.
Don't you hate it when someone abandons free, intellectual thought in favor of partisan politics?
I don't give a damn about any religious fundamentalism other than the religious fundamentalism that condones beheading of innocent civilians and mass murder of innocent people.
I don't see the logic in that one. I mean, let's apply that to other arguments: "You can't save one child from a burning building unless you're able to save all children in the burning building." Does this mean, if I have already saved one child from a burning building I should return him to the fire? Or, is a BBQ after-the-fact okay?
No it more like we are saving a baby from a fire while we are paying and helping people to set other houses full of babies on fire
we are libertaing in one place yet helping to oppress somehwere else depending if the place has oil or not, and if the people will sell it to us for cheap
it when you step back it doesn't make a whole lot of sense
we are libertaing in one place yet helping to oppress somehwere else depending if the place has oil or not, and if the people will sell it to us for cheap
it when you step back it doesn't make a whole lot of sense
Ferret, where and when are we condoning the torture and murder of innocent civilians?
No, I'm not asking you to randomly name countries, I'm asking for a link to CNN where it says "US Gov't Condones Torture and Murder in such and such country".
How many strangers in a foreign land need to be killed before I am willing to send my father, my mother, my brother, my sister to die? I don't want people to suffer anywhere, I am glad Saddam is gonna get his. But you ask me to sacrifice the only things that matter in life for a stranger who wouldnt do the same for me. F that. If another Hitler comes to power and threatens the world, I will go and die for my family and my country. MY FAMILY. MY COUNTRY. What you ask is a sacrifice that goes beyond compassion or morality. If you want to send your son or daughter to die then do it; but don't impose your vision of morality on me.
I have a question. There are "ethnic cleansings" and genocides and tyrannical dictators all over the world that no one ever mentions or seems to give a damn about. What makes Iraq different? There are places where people die by the thousands every month. What makes Iraq the one we attack? Please explain this to me.
I've asked this question before and never got an answer, so I'll ask again: How many innocent civilians need to be murdered before the Liberals think a liberation is in order?
Unfortunatelly there is no answer to this question. One simply doesn not exist. The reason is that the US politicians (or politicians of other countries for that matter) never cared one bit about about innocent civilians around the world, and certainly not about the innocent civillians in Iraq. That lack of interest is not tied to any particular party.
Rumsfeld, in 1980's was shaking hands with Saddam at the same time when Sadam was using WMDs against Iran. A few years later, the conservative party administration betrayed Kurds. First Bush Sr. (after Desert Storm) asked Kurds to rebel against Saddam and promised substantial military help. When Kurds rebelled no help came from America. Some estimates claim over 300,000 innocent civilians were killed by Saddam as a direct result of the rebellion. As for the reasons of that despicable policy on the part of the conservatives - they didn't want to piss off our friends in Turkey.
Bottom line is very simple and sad at the same time. The so called struggle for the innocent is rarely a true reason of military actions of so called "democratic countries", but it's often a reason that is put on the first pages of newspapers, purely for propaganda purposes. Some people tend to believe that propaganda more than others.
Guess what I was tryig to say with my comments is that anyone who to this day tries to draw some sort of connection between 911 and iraq is a pompus a$$ with their head deep in it. Seriously.
Give it up with the FUD. Quit. Go watch the terror threat scale or something. Better yet, download the terrorist threat toolbar. Stand in line for some duct tape if it takes your mind off it. Adopt a polar bear. I don't know. Just keep busy and don't try to scare the whole world. Saddam in many ways won the war. He psyched out sooo many people into thinking that he can get them. People willingly locked themselves up with duct tape and gas masks.
War wasn't justified, and it won't be no matter WHAT happens. The choice to go to war was over WMD. There is none. Don't tell me Saddam is a bad man because that SERIOUSLY has nothing to do with the original choice.
That's all I'm saying.
__________________
Canada based Web Design Forums. Join us in the fun today!
