Previous poster was responding to my post.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

I would have responded the same only with a little less control. Bend down and kiss the ring and thank God for the American soldier that gave you the right to complain about the GOD BLESSED US of A.

__________________

Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies, but not terrorists.

democrats believe it is okay to taser a 10 year old if this stance will get their guy elected.

Great job on the reply! I enjoy your thought process and ability to respond in a way that tells it like it is.

__________________

Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies, but not terrorists.

democrats believe it is okay to taser a 10 year old if this stance will get their guy elected.

This is a flawed thread because nowhere does anyone define terrorism.

Sorry if I am being a bit socratic, but unless you reach a consensus of defining terrorism, the bickering without any rational thought wil continue.

Plus, history isn't as one-sided as some people are arguing on this thread, for good or for evil.

__________________
Signature:

I agree

The Left defines terrorism as anything George W. does or anything the United States has ever been involved in.

I am sure that there are many on this thread who will tell you we were wrong to save Europe from the Nazi's. Our acts of terrorism during that war killed X number of innocent Germans.

__________________

Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies, but not terrorists.

democrats believe it is okay to taser a 10 year old if this stance will get their guy elected.

You forgot the keyword - SOME.

Actually when you think about this SOME concept, it might be interesting to read about SOME of the "folks" that our government has supported in the past (Suharto in Indonesia - as an example). You would then realize that this is quite a tricky topic which is not as clear cut as you suggest. Don't be naive enough to think that our government has always done what's best for the world.

Some "Liberals" actually ask why we didn't remove him in 1991, some years after he commited his worst "Crimes Against Humanity". They also wonder why our government supported Saddam in the 80's when (in fact) he commited his worst "Crimes Against Humanity"?

Interesting stuff when you actually read about it.

__________________
I love Us All,
Ziggy
The Ziggy Articles

Actually I think its interesting that George Herbert Bush didn't support the Shi'ite uprising in 91' to get rid of Saddam.

However, its not suprising considering the Ayatollah is right next door and we didn't want Iraq becoming a puppet of Iran and Iran becoming the supreme power in the region.

Its a complicated issue. Would the Shiites have been puppets of Iran back in 91'. Who knows, but one thing is probably certain, that they would have fostered very mutual and close relationships that might have kept more moderate government officials in Iran.

But really, that's just speculation.

__________________
Signature:

The fact that our military preserved our freedoms in past wars doesn't mean they're doing it now. The only thing they're accomplishing in Iraq is getting themselves killed in a war that has nothing to do with keeping the US free. They're dying in order to postpone the inevitable civil war that Bush precipitated when he took out Saddam.

Sometimes the lives of our military are sacrificed in defense of our nation nation and other times their lives are just thrown away for a worthless cause. Iraq is one of those times where their lives are being totally wasted. It really has to suck to die for nothing.

Who is they? And if your gonna accept his definition your accepting your country commits terroristic act.

Liberals like who? Bush Sr gave the typical liberal exactly what they wanted after Desert Storm.Appeasement and dialogue which Saddam quickly turned into a strategic means to him holding his position as dictator.UNs resolutions gave the entire world a say in the destiny of Saddam.Bush Sr urged the Iraqi military to overthrow Saddam but Saddam was having none of that.Saddam began to turn over information the powers that be wanted and buy his way out his hole slowly but surely.That deliberate,methodical patience paid off supremely for the dictator tho didnt it as the UN dug in huh?

Ill be the first to say I wish Bush Sr took him out but that political correctness and benefit of the doubt route seems to be filled with potholes.

And you wonder why GWB didnt think twice.

If the liberals are asking why Saddam wasnt taken out then (Im assuming then it would be justifed) why does it bother you so that he is now gone.The issues in 2003 when things were much more dangerous, Saddam had been continually defiant and provokative and we had just been attacked by ME terrorists? Benefit of the doubt time was over....Saddam was asked to step down,he did not?

We supported Saddam vs the Iranians in the 80s, sure.Then the UN supported him thru the 90s and early 2000s vs the USA.Once again you probably still wonder why the UN was not going to be the force to stop Bush from taking him out once and for all.

Saddam himself was the only one going to stop it.He didnt.

__________________