D
dijetlo
Guest
Originally posted by jon_forward
no where did I state saddam was the #1 bad guy on the planet...
Than why did we attack him instead of the No #1 bad guy? If our motivation was humanitarian, than we should have attacked the biggest humanitarian offender. You seem to understand the administration on this point, when are we going to attack the No #1 humanitarian offender. If our commitment to human rights stops at the Iraqi boarder, was it really a commitment to "human" rights? Why aren't we "freeing" any other oppressed people?
No, I'm trying to get some understanding of what you originally said.that would be you putting words in my mouth.
this is reason enough for the U.S.of A and the few other brave countrys to be in the middle east right now. we should of stopped the brutal reign of saddam and co long ago. shame on us
What other third world countries now qualify for invasion for the US to avoid further shame? Do you have a standard for qualifying a world leader for "regime change" or are we going to conduct world affairs based on how you "feel" about the world leaders, or perhaps the value of natural resources present in the target nations is a better yardstick for our humanitarian interest? You unequivocally supported the current administration rationale for the invasion of Iraq, the humanitarian argument (though in retrospect I doubt you realized that was what you were doing) and then seem shocked that someone might take issue with your reasoning. Hussein was a bad guy, no kidding. Want me to make a list of bad guys who run little countries? That's the weakness of your argument as well as the administrations current argument.
I would suggest you spend your time figuring out how youre going to defend your statements. Jon, you don't need to worry about me, wonder who my friends are, question my loyalty, etc. etc. etc. It does nothing to make your point and comes across as childish.I dont know wether to feel sorry for you ...or laugh. actually both