Hmmmm. I haven't seen the ad, but I wonder where the outrage from the right was when an ad was AIRED showing Max Cleland morphing into Saddam. Should any US Senator be compared to a murdering tyrant? Or perhaps just Democratic ones? Where was the outrage when Rush compared Daschle to the Devil? Should any elected official be compared to Beelzebub? Or perhaps only Democratic ones? And don't forget Daschle morphing into Osama... or did we forget those? Furthermore, these weren't done by some some no-name activist with off-the-shelf software on his home PC but were attacks offered by a major mouthpiece of the GOP or funded by the Republican National Committee or major Republican candidates. Where's the outrage? Then there's this from a Conservative website called Peeonthe republic.com... Or consider this... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34148 and this... http://www.thesakeofargument.com/archives/000012.html Nice, huh? Like I said, I haven't seen the ad, but I'm not immediately against it... even though MoveOn has taken it down and said something about it being distasteful. From my point of view, it just looks like the left is starting to use ammo similar to what the right has been lobbing around for years. Regrettable of course, but after the last 15 years or so, I will not automatically be moved to outrage over tactics. Those who wish the left to disarm better advocate the same for their side... at that point, we can all make this a bit more civil. As for now, I'm tired of turning the other cheek, though a Bush morph into Hoover would be more appropriate.
Quick, name the out-of-control Polish dictator of the late 1930s and early 40s who would be the analog to Saddam?! What about the other nations he tromped over? Which ethnic group do you see Bush ethnically cleansing... oh, that's right, that was Saddam's gig!
Quick name the out-of-control Iraqi dictator? But wait, before you answer that consider that Saddam was completely contained (via economic sanctions and non-UN supported no fly zones) before we invaded.
The CIA had been planning and training for the invasion way before Kennedy even took office. After the CIA finally convinced him to approve of the invasion he wound up not increasing the force in the resistance and the plan wound up a failure. Even though the CIA was mostly at fault for this (for one , putting ads in newspapers for all the world to see) President Kennedy knew " where the buck stopped" and took the blame for his mistake. I don't see how this is comparable to the situation in Iraq. Well, except for the horrible planning and all , but this time it wasnt the CIA's fault. Who was it that said the troops "would be met with roses" ? Rumsfeld?? Wolfowitz ???
I suspect Arab and Muslim Americans (and those Arabs and Muslims with non-expired visas) would not agree with you.
Interesting fact: Percentage of U.S. Muslims who said in 2000 that they would vote for George Bush: 40 Percentage who say this today: 2 ---Council on American-Islamic Relations
if only he could cleanse this bbs of idiotic posts. only someone seriously afflicted with "mad mouth disease" would make such an arguement.
We should first ask those Arabs and Muslims being detained as "enemy combatants" without access to lawyers. You got to admit that the US has racially profiled Arab and Muslim Americans as potential enemy combatants. You also got to admit that the majority of the casaulities in the War on Terror have been Arab and/or Muslim. Do you believe this is all coincidence?
I do believe that this is in the UN charter. Will you be surprised if Saddam is charged with war crimes wrt his invasion of Kuwait?
You also got to admit that the majority of the casaulities in the War on Terror have been Arab and/or Muslim. The majority of enemies in the war on terror are Arab and/or Muslim, so no, that would not be a coincidence.
You are wrong on two fronts. 1. I dont see anything in the charter ruling out what you are considering preemptive war. 2. the UN charter is enterly different then international law
