- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Then learn to be clear.
I see you support murderous, thug dictators as long as they are your murderous, thugs. Wonderful....Why do you have so little regard for the lives that Saddam tortured, and snuffed out?
j-mac
Saddam used to be our murderous thug, back when he was seen as a buffer against the Soviets.
After we won the cold war, we no longer needed him, so he just became another murderous thug, unclaimed by anyone.
Oh come on...So the US is just in it for self interest eh?
j-mac
Well, it would be a good idea if we did look out for our own self interest and not try to remake someone else's nation because it is run by a murderous thug who is not a threat to us.
Further, your comment about supporting murderous, thug dictators as long as they are our murderous, thugs did remind me that Hussein was once seen as being on our side, or at least supporting our self interests.
And when he proved to be more risk to us, and the region, he had to go.
j-mac
And when he proved to be more risk to us, and the region, he had to go.
j-mac
Then learn to be clear.
I see you support murderous, thug dictators as long as they are your murderous, thugs. Wonderful....Why do you have so little regard for the lives that Saddam tortured, and snuffed out?
j-mac
J, it was perfectly clear, and I suspect you see that now that you've re-read it.
J, you can do better than this silliness. This is exactly what we did as a country. Saddam was fine as long as he was ours. That is exactly what we did, and with much conservative support I might add. And no one but those who watched Saddam as he killed those people, waited until it was allover, and then, and only then, decided to add war and more death to the misery of the Iraqis. We didn't stop killing, we added to it. On several occassions I have given you the position paper by the human rights organization that wanted Saddam removed but couold not support our action. They did for the reason I mention above. We saved no one; we only added to the death and misery.
Now you're being silly....If you want to discuss the entire Iraq war yet again, I'd be happy to, but you may want to start its own thread.
j-mac
Meaning you have no answer.
I didn't bring up the topic. But the truth is the truth. :coffeepap
And when he proved to be more risk to us, and the region, he had to go.
j-mac
Murderous thugs do have a way of outliving their usefulness.
It took some of the smartest men in history 12 years to form a government, that we now call the United States of America.
You really expect these clowns to do it in less time?
But, hey! Am I the only one that isn't surprised that the bad guys went on the down low, until U.S. forces moved out, then decided to get off the hook?
Murderous thugs do have a way of outliving their usefulness.
Last I checked our Founders didn't need a foreign power on our land for those 12 years.
He kept Iran in check.And just what was Saddam's usefulness to the US over the past 20 years?
j-mac
And how many lives did that cost?
j-mac
And just what was Saddam's usefulness to the US over the past 20 years?
j-mac
And how many lives did that cost?
j-mac
How many lives were lost under Kim Jong Il? How many under Eqypt's regime, or Saudi Arabia. How many lives are lost in Africa each year under their oppressive regimes.
Please don't act like you actually care about lives lost as a reason for action like Iraq.
Nothing, since the fall of the Soviet union. That's when he outlived his usefulness.
What an artless dodge!!
Why not respond to the question?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?