Zo Re...But what if the decisive battles had taken place during the summer?
What makes you think most of the battles weren't fought during the summer. Germany didn't have the strength to finish off Russia in one summer; 1941, and had to spend a lot of the summer of 42 regaining the personel and ground lost during the winter of 41.
Well, we disagree as to the costs.
But you do agree, contrary to what all the leftist want to say, there are costs. And by not answering the question, do you also agree that France, if put in our shoes, wouldn't be pushing for a quick resolution of the Saddam problem. In fact, if the shoes was on the other foot, and Chirac was the one calling for regime change, and GW was resisting it, would you back GW or Chirac. Pick your poison.
It's not my argument. Ramsey Clark isn't lying; he's just buying the propaganda.
Of course, when it doesn't suit your current argument, then disavow the argument. Maybe not you, but I know both Ted and Al have used that argument to bash Gw. Now that it is being used against them, then they dispute it. How typical of both sides. A bigger problem is, shouldn't the left be against Ramsey, if the left believes he is just spreading propoganda. How does spreading known propoganda help the left? It was like Garapolos on O Rielly the other day. He called her on the claims she was making about 100,000 dead. Then she said, well they aren't my claims, a report out of the UN said that. Fine, but if you don't believe it, why repeat it.
You think so, don't you? But not so. He just picked them as a call to arms.
Just as Gw picked Saddams WMD as his call to arms.
All of this had been fomenting since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of the Islamic Brotherhood as a reaction to the secularization of leaders like Kemal Ataturk in the '20s.
Now you have gone and done it. How does that fit into Ted and Al's theory, that it was all Gw's fault. Can't you leftist ever get your theories straight. Frankly, I agree with you, that OBL would have tried to find another reason to separate SA from US protection. But Saddam did make the ones he used plausable.
It's just not that simple. As bad as Saddam is, a power vacuum in Iraq would be worse. Of course, you and I just do not agree on that.
Isn't that like saying you don't want to take chemotherapy, because it might kill you. You are dead either way. The chemo is the only one, which has a chance of a positive outcome. We know leaving Saddam in power will create problems. |
