GG Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 Apparently not enough to try to save his own skin. Sooner or Later
blzrul Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 IF true it proves that Saddam did more effective long-range planning that the idiots who brought us Operation Eternal Quagmire. I wonder if anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps dictatorial creeps are NECESSARY in that part of the world to keep things under control? So messing around with "liberation" is not necessarily a good idea. It's certainly not paying off for the Iraqis, pretty soon they'll be on the endangered list. We're not even liberating enough oil to pay for this war that was supposed to pay for itself via oil.
UConn James Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Apparently not enough to try to save his own skin. 195671[/snapback] A government, especially a dictatorship, will go to any and all costs and efforts to keep itself in power. Our Constitution was written and amended to prevent this as best as possible This isn't exactly a new development in the grand scheme of alliances of convenience.
KD in CA Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 I wonder if anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps dictatorial creeps are NECESSARY in that part of the world to keep things under control? So, murderous dictators are a-ok in the Middle East, but if a handful of US soliders mistreat some prisoners, it's cause to dismantle the entire Administration. It's starting to get comical now.....are the men with the white coats back yet?
GG Posted January 7, 2005 Author Posted January 7, 2005 IF true it proves that Saddam did more effective long-range planning that the idiots who brought us Operation Eternal Quagmire. I wonder if anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps dictatorial creeps are NECESSARY in that part of the world to keep things under control? So messing around with "liberation" is not necessarily a good idea. It's certainly not paying off for the Iraqis, pretty soon they'll be on the endangered list. We're not even liberating enough oil to pay for this war that was supposed to pay for itself via oil. 196524[/snapback] Thanks for the daily affirmation.
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Dare I mention that this story is completely incompatible with the "Bush lied, Saddam doesn't support terrorism" mantra?
GG Posted January 7, 2005 Author Posted January 7, 2005 Show me where it says I condone it. It certainly doesn't say so in my post. 197001[/snapback] I wonder if anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps dictatorial creeps are NECESSARY in that part of the world to keep things under control? So messing around with "liberation" is not necessarily a good idea. It's certainly not paying off for the Iraqis, pretty soon they'll be on the endangered list. Good thing I didn't have to go too far. What exactly does the above quote mean, then? In what context should I take "NECESSARY?" Funny me, but I took it as, it's necessary to lop off the heads of tens of thousands of brown people to keep that part of the world in line.
jimshiz Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Show me where it says I condone it. It certainly doesn't say so in my post. 197001[/snapback] I think the following quote says it all... I wonder if anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps dictatorial creeps are NECESSARY in that part of the world to keep things under control? So messing around with "liberation" is not necessarily a good idea. It's certainly not paying off for the Iraqis, pretty soon they'll be on the endangered list.196524[/snapback]
KD in CA Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Thanks guys, saved me the trouble! Wow, we're use to her not having a clue about what she posted a week ago, but now she's contradicting herself within the same thread. Scaaaaaary
Recommended Posts