popeye1250
Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006 From: New Hampshire Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote:
ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Its revisionist history because you are now claiming it as justification when prior to the invasion it was just an addendum to the search for WMD....the actual stated justification for invasion. But that didn't pan out....so now Bush is the "great liberator"? Ya know, Mike... I don't pretend to have all the answers. Personally speaking, I'd just as soon we not be in any foreign countries mucking around, but I do realize that there are many things that go on in this world that I'm not privy to. I do find it interesting that so many want to scream about how Bush "lied" about WMD... how he "tricked" everyone into going to war with Iraq. How it has been proven and admitted to... Seems to me that if Bush & Company knew that there were no WMD (which would be required if they indeed "lied" or intentionally mislead with fabricated evidence), then there must have been some other reason they felt it was important for us to do what we did. Again... I claim no special insight into what that reason might be, but being the eternal optimist that I am, I like to believe that no non-pathological human being would intentionally destroy lives and cost our country billions of dollars just for shits and grins. Yet when I bring up that there was a history with Saddam Hussein being a ruthless and oppressing dictator, and allude to the fact that maybe... just maybe that might have been an underlying reason to take steps to rid the world of a known evil (as well as plant plant a seed of hope for other oppressed people), then those very same naysayers cry out, "No, no... it couldn't possibly be for humanitarian reasons... it was all about WMD and lies!" Treasure, that's easy to explain, Bush ="bad" Obama = "good." Now they're going in for the oil but they tell us they're doing it not to find WMD but for "human rights." That's supposed to give everyone a warm, "fuzzy feeling" inside. And it's like a blank check that they can use whenever they feel like it. And who's "human rights" do they want to protect? Probably the same people who were dancing in the streets right after 9-11. I think most Americans would agree with you, we shouldn't be in foreign countries getting involved in their internal squabbals, fights or arguments! Want to hack each other to pieces with machetes, go right ahead! Somehow I'm supposed to "feel" bad about that as an American? I don't have a machete and I'm not in "Macheteland." What happens if I don't pay my mortgage next month? Is someone in "Macheteland" going to pay it for me? You know, to help me out with my "human rights" and all that shit? That's the new clarion call, "Human Rights!!! Human Rights!!! Human Rights!!!" After he gets the oil in Libya I wonder who else is going to get a good fucking dose of "human rights" shoved down their fucking throats whether they want them or not? Does Yemen or Syria have any oi,...er... I mean are they running a little low on (heh, heh) "human rights?" I can just see the red shirts on the Carriers, writing "I got your "human rights" right here!" on the 1,000 lbs bombs before they rack them on the F-18 Hornets.
_____________________________
"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"
|