Would you be a stupid little pop-marxist recruit of NOW, perchance?
Ugh...there went my dinner!
I don't understand how people like this number one idiot, who are totally against the war in Iraq, DEMAND that we do the same thing in countries like India and Uganda. Shouldn't this be handled by the UN....never mind....they are worthless!!
*yawn*
wake me up when you reach some level of independent intellectual activity.
I know, I know: It is terrifying to contemplate doubling your neural capacity, but seriously, dearie: flaccid, mononeuronal, and stupid is no way to go through life.
So on the one hand you bitch and moan when we overthrow dictators like Saddam because we arent the worlds policemen, and then in the same breath you bitch and moan that we dont go overthrow dictators everywhere there there is abject poverty. Who the hell do you think we are, the worlds policemen.....? Moron.
Hello.
Gonna school you here, not call you names. I'm not your enemy, just trying to help someone in need in hopes you don't screw my life up.
The war in Iraq is about eliminating and replacing the environments necessary for terrorist threats to manifest. That is the only goal, that is why Iraq was targeted and not some province in India.
WMD? That was Colin Powell's idea. He advocated making the public argument on that basis because it would be more sallable to the international community.
Humanitarian? Personally I agree with this tenent. Of all the situations you mention, this is the only one that the pbulic would have supported doing anything at all. Iraq is an identifyable enemy, they have been shooting at our aircraft for years, and tried to assasinate one of our presidents. Saddam may not rate as a 'bad guy' with mistreating his people with you, but he's definitly in the international top ten.
It really comes down to one thing - a strategy of fighting terrorism by elminiating it's home basis. Iraq was such a home base. Deny this and, well, you're an idiot and there's nothing I can do to convince you. Evidence is there man.
The belief is that terrorists - even in large international organizations will have tremendously reduced ability if there are no friendly areas from which they can gain the necessary resources.
Are there regimes more supportive of terrorism? Yes. Are there other regimes as supportive of terrorism? Yes.
In achieving the ultimate goal - the long road - of reforming or replacing terrorist friendly regimes in Syria, Suadi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, etc. - is the correct first step knocking out Saddam and building a peaceful, democratic Iraq? Yes.
The results of this will not be resolved for a generation. This is a long haul. And the only thing that can possibly prevent the sucess of this strategy is a lack of will to do what is necessary when it is neccesary on behalf of people like yourself.
Let's see, President Bush dramatically increased funding to fight AIDS in Africa over what the Cliton administration was allocating. Thousands are dying from starvation because environmentalists will not allow the use of DDT which would greatly increase food production. And also socialists dictators ruin the farming capabilities of the societies they rule. What else. Oh did you mention Cliton as the savior of the Rwandans. NO, and we all know why not. And you say saddam has only killed 20,000 in the last decade. I think that's where you really meant to say, that he killed that many in his last month of power. Or did you mean to say he only killed 20,000 towns and villages. There you would be right. Thanks for the post, it reminds me how idiotic liberals are, and that in 12 years the words "John Kerry" will be the answer to a gen x version of trivial pursuit
You really believe this load of BS? You Democrats don't give a rat's ass about life, let alone the conditions of your fellow man.
It's all feelings to you morons. Plant a tree, have an orgasm. You don't do anything REAL to save a life - not that you actually care about human life - just carry signs, have stupid protests amongst others of your ilk (so you can think the "masses" support you) and bitch, bitch, bitch.
Remember that "Humanshields" sign a couple of Iraqis were carrying soon after our initial entrance into Baghdad? It read, "GO HOME ((HUMANSHIELDS)) YOU U.S. WANKERS".
See, that's what the real people of the world think of you socialist and communist morons - ya'll are just a bunch of wankers.
Maggot, if you REALLY think that Islamofascist nations are SO much better, go live there.
And speak out against the leadership while there.
Oh, and flirt with some woman while there.
The last may get you killed outright.
Oh yeah, no blood for oil, blah blah blah, Micheal moore, john kerry, blah blah blah.
STFU troll, and get your head out of Micheal Moore's a$$.
The methane is killing you.
…and you get 0 points for originality.
*yawn*
Pol Phott and the Kmerhr Rouge? You're criticizing the US over the "Killing Fields" in Cambodia? It's because of people such as yourself, i.e. the war protestors, who managed to lose the war for the US, that the US military left SE Asia with our collective tails between our legs. And that's what allowed the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people!
Just another example of leftists refusing to take responsibility for their actions... And blaming the results on others for not cleaning up after them.
Mark
This loser just doesn't get it.
It's leftists such as himself that are causing the vast majority of the problems in Africa... Hey, Pal. ever hear of Zimbabwe? It used to have the capacity to feed Africa, if not for the tin-pot leftist dictatorships that use starvation as a political tool. But now the Mugabe has taken control of the farms, and given them to his cronies, people in Zimbabwe are starving too.
And then there's AIDs in Africa. Congratulations. You and your leftist cohorts have managed to turn a communicable disease into a civil rights issue. If AIDs were treated like the disease it is, rather then a "cause celebre," it could be controlled. But first, we had to be sure not to offend those who were actually spreading the disease... Fir instance, the outcry by the homosexual community when the Red Cross began denying blood donations from homosexuals, who were at the highest risk of contracting and spreading the disease.
The fact is, that while the loss of life in Africa is tragic, the possibility of Iraq coming up with nuclear weapons was a far more serious situation that needed to be dealt with. Due to Carter and Clinton, North Korea has nuclear weapons, and now it appears that they're a net exporter of technology and supplies. All we needed was to ignore them the way that Korea was ignored for all those years.
Sheesh!
Mark
Why should the U.S. spend 15 billion(with a B) dollars in Africa to fight a disease that is 100% preventable? A waste of tax dollars.
Oh, what a powerful argument. I guess we were wrong to defend ourselves first. I'll be right over to join DU.
Why should I listen to someone who doesn't even know the difference between ZENITH and NADIR?