Re: How many Iraqis dead due to Liberal Democrat lies?


Moe Syzlak wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:17:17 -0700, "TPS" <theron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> >But W bears the responsiblity for throwing our troops into that fiery pit on
> >the unfounded assumption that he'd be able to justify it after the fact with
> >the discovery of WMDs. Pseudocons can sift through all the Democrat quotes
> >that they want, but they can't remove the responsibility for this colossal
> >blunder from W's shoulders.
> >
>
>
> Going to war over WMD was the only PC way to do it. We couldn't have
> said, what really needed to be said - We need to stabilize the Middle
> East and get rid of Saddam, because the oil production for the West is
> too vital. It was the only way to depose of a nutcase that was causing
> havoc in the Middle East.
>
> That should have been reason enough to get rid of him, especially
> after his invasion of Kuwait and the poison gassing of his civilians.
> But too many hippie protestors and left wingers go to rallies in their
> busses and cars and proclaim "No blood for oil."
>
> Yes, believe it or not, oil is vital to a modern nation. If you don't
> like it, turn off your computer, get rid of your car and go back to
> living like a caveman. If you don't want blood for oil, don't use it,
> period.
>
> It's the same deal with Iraq - a country where they can execute you if
> a doctor can show your rectum has been penetrated (Ken Wilson would
> have been hung long ago) - that is developing
> nuclear weapons. They need to be handled now, like Iraq, BEFORE they
> become a REAL threat, not like as we learned with North Korea, when it
> is too late and too much is at risk.
>
> No, it was the cowardice of the rest of the world (aka Europe) that
> made us come up with the WMD bit. Those losers still haven't learned
> their lesson from WW2 - that appeasement only encourages war mongers.
>
> You are short-sighted and have no grasp of the bigger picture. The war
> would have never happened if Germany, France and Russia hadn't given
> Saddam encouragement, and the war would be going a lot better if every
> liberal didn't break out in a panic after the first soldier died - "Oh
> my God, it's another Vietnam!"


Wow.
It's truly horrifying that you think that's okay.
So do you think we have enough soldiers to expend on "stabilizing"
Iran, Syria, Korea and China? You think that if enough soldiers (U.S.
and other) die, the world will become MORE stable? When do you strap
on your target and head over?
Again - how many WMD's was Iraq producing before we invaded?
Ask the W administration for an answer - FUCKING NONE. Your argument
carries no weight. There were measures in place to prevent Iraq from
becoming a real threat, and they clearly worked, as evidenced by their
lack of WMDs.
You'd better hope that the current administration never decides they
need to "stabilize" your neighborhood.

.

Loading