Patriot - where's your magnanimity?
You must understand that we are like a daddy to the rest of the world, and as such, we must calmly point out the errors of their ways. If that child is just plain stupid and finds it hard to understand the point, well, you have to try harder!
You must understand that we are like a daddy to the rest of the world, and as such, we must calmly point out the errors of their ways. If that child is just plain stupid and finds it hard to understand the point, well, you have to try harder!
you got it wrong
I would like to know where exactly in that previous post - or in fact any of my posts - I expressed any sort of support for Saddam and his gangsters.
The answer is nowhere. But supposedly we did not enter Iraq because the regime were gangsters, supposedly it was because they had large quantities of weapons grade nuclear material, biological and chemical weapons - all of which was ready to be deployed against the West (or at least Israel) within 45 minutes.
I say again, one of the main things which is supposed to separate democratic countries from totalitarian ones is that the end does NOT justify the means. So in this case saying "We lied about the WMD but Saddam was a nasty man" does not pass muster. Not by a long chalk.
If nasty regimes have to be invaded, why is Bush not in Zimbabwe? China? Libya? etc...
The fact that the US is currently the strongest country in the world by no means guarantees a positive outcome for you. Who would have predicted a crushing defeat for Germany in 1940? Who would have expected mighty Ancient Rome to fall to the miserable Vandals?
Big upsets do not only happen in sports games. What most concerns me about current US policy is I don't think anyone in charge has a clear idea of the true risks they are taking on board. At the very least it will destabalise the US economy for some years.
I would like to know where exactly in that previous post - or in fact any of my posts - I expressed any sort of support for Saddam and his gangsters.
The answer is nowhere. But supposedly we did not enter Iraq because the regime were gangsters, supposedly it was because they had large quantities of weapons grade nuclear material, biological and chemical weapons - all of which was ready to be deployed against the West (or at least Israel) within 45 minutes.
I say again, one of the main things which is supposed to separate democratic countries from totalitarian ones is that the end does NOT justify the means. So in this case saying "We lied about the WMD but Saddam was a nasty man" does not pass muster. Not by a long chalk.
If nasty regimes have to be invaded, why is Bush not in Zimbabwe? China? Libya? etc...
The fact that the US is currently the strongest country in the world by no means guarantees a positive outcome for you. Who would have predicted a crushing defeat for Germany in 1940? Who would have expected mighty Ancient Rome to fall to the miserable Vandals?
Big upsets do not only happen in sports games. What most concerns me about current US policy is I don't think anyone in charge has a clear idea of the true risks they are taking on board. At the very least it will destabalise the US economy for some years.
