Fairweather Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 I just love you lefties here who want to have your cake and eat it too. Your latest drivel goes something like this: "I'm glad we got Saddam, but I don't believe we were justified in our invasion of a sovereign state....." Please explain exactly how Saddam was to be deposed without the bold action taken by our troops and our president? Democrat Joe Liebermann said it best yesterday, "If Howard Dean had had his way Saddam would still be in power and not in prison." Heck, even Koffi Annan sees the good... More.... Annan: Many Kuwaitis Killed in Iraq After Gulf War Tuesday, December 16, 2003 UNITED NATIONS — Fresh evidence suggests that most, if not all, of the Kuwaitis who disappeared after Iraq invaded its oil-rich neighbor in August 1990 were killed, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (search) said in a report Tuesday. Click to learn more... Click to learn more... "After many years of maneuvering and denial by the previous government of Iraq, a grim truth is unveiling itself," he said. "The discovery of mass graves in Iraq containing the mortal remains of Kuwaitis is a gruesome and devastating development." The Kuwaiti government (search) has stepped up efforts to identify some 605 of its citizens who disappeared after the Iraqi invasion. Until its ouster in April, Saddam Hussein's regime insisted it had released all prisoners taken from Kuwait during the occupation and the subsequent 1991 Gulf War (search) that liberated the country. It refused to cooperate with Kuwaiti and international efforts to find the missing prisoners. No prisoners have been found alive since the U.S.-led war in Iraq earlier this year and Kuwaiti hopes that any will be discovered have diminished. While holding out hope that some of the missing Kuwaitis could be found alive, Annan said prospects are dim. His report included evidence of atrocities committed by Saddam's regime including photographs of mass graves and human remains. Annan called for justice for the victims. "The removal from Kuwait of civilians — men and women — their execution in cold blood in remote sites in Iraq, and a decade-long cover-up of the truth constitute a grave violation of human rights and international humanitarian law," he said. "Those responsible for these horrendous crimes, particularly those who ordered the executions, must be brought to justice," Annan said. Quote
Dru Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 Please explain how by using the same principles (murderous dictators are bad) you can justify America NOT immediately invading Zimbabwe??? And North Korea??? Quote
Fairweather Posted December 17, 2003 Author Posted December 17, 2003 Please explain how by using the same principles (murderous dictators are bad) you can justify America NOT immediately invading Zimbabwe??? And North Korea??? Simple, We can't get them all. As for Mugabe, I haven't heard of any mass murder in Zimbabwe, but the guy is a tyrant for sure. If we were to act there we would likely be accused of merely coming to the aid of priveleged white farmers who's ill-gotten (?) land was recently siezed. North Korea: Just thank your god I'm not the president. They are a bigger threat to us than Iraq ever was. Quote
WhiteTrash Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 Here is atleat my KISS version of Iraq war for those escaping into partison grandeur illusions. Dicator + Money + Location trategic part of world + declared open agression to US + Islamic extremist + Israel issue identification + etc = some danger atleast. Why then atleast try to attack US policy on what led to this.. Why not attack US policy on placing Saddam in power in first place. He was placed there precisely because he was a minority and would always be predestined to spend time fighting minority factions ( via desperate acts most likely ) as opposed to becoming strong natino.. Ok, so now why not talk about imperialism in general.. Reperations ( atleast in debate ) for all those poor souls condemned to life of service to the great grand daddy capitalistic trade machine.. Oh wait, that is the same model used to facilitate your friggin $90 face powder.. Ops, guess the whole stream of thought is a dead end! Even most Iraqi's are gonna be happy over time. What is wrong with defending American interests? Quote
chucK Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 Here is atleat my KISS version of Iraq war for those escaping into partison grandeur illusions. Dicator + Money + Location trategic part of world + declared open agression to US + Islamic extremist + Israel issue identification + etc = some danger atleast. Why then atleast try to attack US policy on what led to this.. Why not attack US policy on placing Saddam in power in first place. He was placed there precisely because he was a minority and would always be predestined to spend time fighting minority factions ( via desperate acts most likely ) as opposed to becoming strong natino.. Ok, so now why not talk about imperialism in general.. Reperations ( atleast in debate ) for all those poor souls condemned to life of service to the great grand daddy capitalistic trade machine.. Oh wait, that is the same model used to facilitate your friggin $90 face powder.. Ops, guess the whole stream of thought is a dead end! Even most Iraqi's are gonna be happy over time. What is wrong with defending American interests? beautiful post Quote
b-rock Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 What is wrong with defending American interests? Hmmm, perhaps we'd all be safer if we spent the what, $180 billion instead to do any of the following things: - Inspect every cargo container entering the US. - Buy depleted uranium reserves. - Hire more police officers. - More air masrhalls. - etc. etc. etc. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.