ThiChi; can you stand up? Can you talk? I ask as you are funny when you sit down and type and I wondered if you were still this funny standing up and talking, if you can do both at the same time that is...
My comments on the nasty piece of propoganda you posted (without reference);
In the name of this brand of "peace," Europe wrote off the Jews and Czechoslovakians to Hitler's tender mercies in the 1930s.
America didn't know about it see. They were so unaware of what was going on they didn't even realise there was a war going on for a while, and didn't join it until it suited their interests. What is your point exactly, and how do you feel about Prescott Bush's involvement with the Nazi's?
Now as the Iraqi people suffer, in the name of "peace" the Jim McDermotts of the world say, "The Iraqis be damned." This is how desperate they are to smear George W. Bush and regain power: they'll even use a dictator's slaughtering of his own people to do it!
I think that Saddam slaughtered more people whilst Republicans were in power than whilst Democrats were in power. And you have the hypocricy, or lack of wit, to start on the opposition to your political viewpoint as though yours was free of complicity.
Saddam blamed that market slaughter on us to score political points, and he's setting up civilians to die by the truckload - including putting guns to the heads of those women he made rush that American check point - just so he can blame it on us. Jim McDermott picked these lies up and used them too! Saddam wouldn't care about us killing his civilians anyway.
We don't know for sure if the Market bombing were a Coalition mistake, an Iraqi mistake, or Iraqui propoganda. The person quoted asserts it is a fact. This is nothing but crude propoganda. No one is saying that Saddam is a good man. But it suits your reductionist simplistic arguement to throw straw man arguements around. Sad, you must not realise how insubstancial your arguement is (poor dear), or you must think other people are as dumb as your arguement is.
We targeted Japanese citizens with nukes, and they surrendered because they didn't want their people slaughtered. But they weren't slaughtering their own people like Saddam.
The lack of introspection required to make that statement is stunning, but you don't even realise it ThiChi, and I'm not going to explain it to you. I would not be surprised if your grasp of world history was such that, like another right-wing American the other day, you tell me dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was just as well done when it was, as the USA could then concentrate on saving Europe from the Nazis. I'm curious if you know why that was a stupid thing to say.
Saddam kills thousands of his citizens every day, and has killed more Muslims than anyone in history! If we took out all the civilians in Iraq, Saddam would say, "Great! Now I can have all the oil to myself and stop starving my people to death or gassing them piecemeal."Did you read this ridiculous rubbish before you posted it? It is propoganda. Saddam is bad, but do we have to reduce ourselves to lying to prove this or to win an arguement?
One of the reasons we're moving in there is to stop this. It's obscene to watch these people make a political calculation to ignore atrocities, just so they can pick up a few extra seats in Congress.
Hahhahaha, lack of introspection part II. How a republican/right winger can say such things without their tongue exploding into a maggot infested stub I don't know.
Human rights violations are one of the things the left in this country used to care about, but somehow when it comes to Saddam, the left gives him a license to commit genocide. (They did the same thing with Stalin, of course, which is why he helped the peace movement grow.)They acknowledge Saddam's brutal history, yet protect his right to drop human beings into plastic shedders, fill their colons with boiling water, etc., with the phase "sovereign state." These people have become irrelevant - and they know it.
More straw man arguements, which is one way to tell if the person who is argueing against you is either mistaken about your viewpoint, or desperately trying to defend the indefensable.
Thi Chi, you have every right to your opinion, but you do not have a right to your facts; it's an old adage, but given the tenuous justification you try to use, it is apt. If statements you choose to back your viewpoint contain distortions, half-truths, and statements requiring half-witted slack-jawed acceptance to be taken seriously, you have to take the reaction such statements provoke.
You are welcome to your opinons, but please save yourself the embaressment and try to have a decent arguement before you post, unless of course you want to make us laugh.