I am Genuinely Curious Why Conservatives Don't Love Genocidal Dictators Like We Libs Do

2-7-2003

[ChuckHam]

Not everyone here agrees with the rush to war or the new doctrine of preemptive attack on potential enemies...

You're exactly right. Some here are appeasers of the first order.

[MJY1288]

I'm starting to smell Ozone :-)

[Aggie Mama]

You actually start out asking some good questions which are fairly easy to reply to, but then you descend into typical liberal name-calling, which does not deserve a response.

[Torie]

Sorry you don't make the cut. Your screed has no substance. I dislike Jimrob blowing many liberals away, that have some genuine ideas worth debating based on some evidence and reasonably tight reasoning, and have so posted, to absolutely no avail. Yours has none of that, so it is in the spam section of the matrix.

[freedomcrusader]

If you truly wanted to get to know us better, you wouldn't have insulted the founder of this site, or those who post here.

I'm sorry of you're so hateful of differing points of view that you can't even ask a question of people who hold that point of view without condescending to them.

Liberal elitism and condescension is perhaps what we rail against most around here. You're attitude is typical.

[nutmeg]

ping!

[quidnunc]

Noam Chomsky is an anti-American windbag.

As for Iraq, we are fighting a war to the death with Islamic jihadists.

Saddam Hussein is a meglomaniac who is a long-time supporter of terrorism and who is intent on dominating the Middle East..

We will have to fight Saddam sooner or later; better that it be sooner rather than later when he will be stronger.

[saminfl]

I’ve got to tell you that word on the liberal street is that you guys are a bunch of single-minded, groupthink brownshirts. But you probably knew that already.

Gosh, WE don't have to attend seminars to learn how to argue with radio talk show hosts. Unfortunately, if you want to see "group think," look in the mirror.

[Conservababe]

Well, evidently the author of this post cannot think and/or type fast. LOL

[vbmoneyspender]

This question is asked in light of the fact that most serious people outside of the Bush administration don't see Iraq as any sort of threat to anyone in the US.

Right off the bat, you start with something that is not even arguably true. This is why hard left liberals like you drive most people over here crazy.

Tony Blair is a serious guy. He thinks Iraq is a threat. Christopher Hitchens is a serious guy. He thinks Iraq is a threat. Vaclav Havel is a serious guy. He thinks Iraq is a threat. George Will is a serious guy. He thinks Iraq is a threat. Charles Krauthammer is a serious guy. He thinks Iraq is a threat. Andrew Sullivan is a serious guy. He thinks Iraq is a threat. The Washington Post editorial page is composed of serious people. They think Iraq is a threat.

I could go on and on and on with a list of people who any reasonable person would consider to be smart people who have a firm grasp of world affairs as well as basic common sense realities. And yet you ignore the existence of these people in the very first question you pose in your post. How can I take you seriously when you start off with a statement like the one above that I have to assume you know is flatly false?

[chaosagent]

"Is Saddam a liar? Well, probably, but so is George W Bush, and sorry, but Powell has no gravitas with me."

Well, right off the bat, you say Saddam is possibly lying. If he is, that means he had WMD's and will use them. It also means that he is connected with and backing Al-Qaeda.

By your own words, this should be sufficient.

And yes, I do value American lives over Iraq lives. That's why I'm an American. Do you think Islam and Iraqi's value American lives?

Go back and read your history. We are exactly where we were in 1935-38 with Hitler. If we had stopped him when he invaded the Sudetenland and Poland, a lot more people would be alive today.

[Mr. Mojo]

Interesting supposition, especially since this was posted a mere 2 minutes after Colmes got off work tonight.

[Physicist]

Why are American military lives more important than Iraqi lives?

Let's suppose I accept your unspoken premise of moral equivalence (which I do not, save for the sake of argument). The fact remains that we are Americans, so of course American troops are more important to us than Iraqis. Why are wolf lives more important than sheep lives? If they aren't, the wolves nevertheless won't wring their paws on that account.

[MJY1288]

LOL, Do you think it's Alan himself :-)

[68skylark]

It's hard to summarize a lot of issues in a short post. But I'm really interested in your post and I would really like to have a civil discussion. Maybe email or some other forum would work better if you're interested in talking about the issues.

I'm one of those who does support a war to liberate Iraq. I think the case was made long before Colin Powel's speech the other day.

I find it hard to understand the case for keeping Saddam in power, but I like to think I'm can be open-minden enough to try to understand the other persepctive.

[Petronski]

...you guys are a bunch of single-minded, groupthink brownshirts. But you probably knew that already. And no, I’m not talking about freedom of speech within the server space wholly owned by rimjob.

Whoops, I missed this part. This is Mr. Robinson's living room. As much as I'd love to debate you, you have no place insulting him here, and I would expect a timely zot.

[DensaMensa]

the Bush Administration needs a dumbed-down populace, non-critical thinkers.

Liberals think they are "non-linear" thinkers, while the "linear" thinkers, people who can think things through to a sound solution occupy the Right.

Another word for "non-linear" thinking is SCATTERBRAINED! An apt description of the Democrat party.

[katnip]

Well, evidently the author of this post cannot think and/or type fast. LOL

Are you kidding? This is probably his term paper he's been working on for a month.