Chance, To get back to your question. I don't want to speak for any other liberal posters, but why does anyone need to defend Hussein? I do think he's a ruthless, cruel despot. I'm a proponent of diplomacy, not a Hussein proponent. Okay? Again, many millions of people in the world have the right to criticize the current US administration without automatically getting labeled Hussein sympathizers. This isn't two kids fighting in a sandbox -- well, not to me at least. I can't speak for Rumsfield.
I am quoting this again because it is remarkable to me, and has not been addressed... *To re-cap...Philly disagrees with my position so much that he states that he wishes that I will be bombed to death in support of them... * In response to this incredible statement I, (admirably restrained considering the man cheerfully wished me death by tomahawk missile, I think ) call hgim a nitwit. * coma actually reprimands me for calling philly names, saying it is wrong to do so just because someone disagrees with you!!!!!!! No mention of the fact that Philly longed for my immolation for precisely that reason, no recognition of the fact that that might be the impetus for my 'nitwit' comment...just a little note from Ms. Manners... Coma..do you not see how unbelievably biased this makes you appear!?!? Are you going to respond to this!?!? 2) Re: Your last question...circular reasoning in action... Q) Why are we going to war with this man? A) Because he's an insane dictator. Q) Why is he an insane dictator? A) Because of all the bad things he does. Q) But why does that make him insane? Didn't he do those bad things when we liked him and didn't call him insane? A) Yes, but it's different now...we are at war with him. So we are at war with him because it's insane, and he is insane because we are at war with him. Interesting...
It's one thing to protest the war, it's a completly different thing to support Sadam, which is what I thought you were doing.
By saying that our need to call every enemy 'insane' is childish? Don't you see that as an extension of the same kind of thinking? He is enemy=he is insane. Thus he who says he is not insane=enemy.
If he had said, "MacBeth, next time you step out your front door, I hope someone shoots you in the head," then that's serious. Call me naive, but I don't think you'll be joining Saddam's forces any time soon, so I disregarded his comment. So, you didn't see the ridiculousness of his comment, thought he was wishing death upon you, refrained from triple hexing him, and called him a nitwit in response. Oh wait, I'm the myopic one. My bad. Calling him a name in response to that was called for. When you see Saddam, tell him that coma, from cc.net is dissing him, and have him send a nuke my way. As for your point re: Saddam "Insane - Maybe, Maybe Not" Hussein. You said it's overly simplistic to equate our enemies as raving lunatics. I disagree, Hussein is a raving lunatic. So to learn me, you brought up some significant figures in history, to prove to me that they aren't insane for their actions. At least that's what I think you were trying to do. So, I wanted to back my opinion by comparing the actions of Hussein against various names you brought up, Hitler the most comparable to Hussein not being on this list was interesting. Anyway, killing another human being is deplorable, but during times of war is necessary. Hussein has murdered and tortured people by the masses, not during times of war. I believe one of his top priorities is to develop nuclear weapons and use them against the US. So a guy, who murders, tortures, takes pleasure in testing chemical weapons on countrymen, raping women, etc.. is not insane? HE IS A RAVING LUNATIC. Get it? Q) Why are we going to war with this man? A) Because he's an insane dictator. A1) Pick one - UN resolution non-compliance, evidence of nuclear weapons materials, tyrant and murderer to his people, etc.. Q) Why is he an insane dictator? A) Because of all the bad things he does. A1) Because of all the bad things he does and might do against us given time. Q) But why does that make him insane? Didn't he do those bad things when we liked him and didn't call him insane? A) Yes, but it's different now...we are at war with him. A1) Yes, but it's different now...we are at war with him. Oh yea, that Sept. 11th thing kinda opened our eyes.
So when Sadam ordered the invasion of Kuwait and his troops raped and murdered thousands he was not a monster? What about the time he gassed those Kurd's, hmmm, not a monster? As far as me being a nitwit? I'd rather be a nitwit than a jackass any day kiddo. OH YEAH THAT'S RIGHT, I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU...
Come on, MacBeth, It's time for you to give in... It's time to finally let your defenses down... ENGAGE CAPS LOCK!
great post , if more peoples can see thing as clearly n intelligently as u this world will be a better place n less conflict
yeah if we turn every issue into blame america then that wll solve lots of problems. maybe when we were stopping hitler n the nazi we really should have been talkin about ceaser n slavery n the native american. its good to see peoples turn a thread about saddam into a thread criticizing america.
Saddam is more like a Stalinist dictator as is Kim in N. Korea is to a higher degree. We've gone to war over these types more than madmen lording over piss poor countries because of the threat they pose. Whether or not you consider the threat of Saddam giving nukes to Al Qaeda/terrorists, the issue becomes quickly irrelevant given our country's induced fear and paranoia over dark looking men with beards and turbans. Phase One: Government sells war by linking Iraq w/ Al Qaeda Phase Two: People buys fears and asks government for war. I'm sure that if they told us in the first place that they wanted to use Iraq's secular populace as a prototype for reconstructing the Middle East, we would be less inclined towards knocking down Saddam's doors. Well, just a little less. The Liberals would have more to whine about.
