Do you think that only the year 2003 is important?
Kinda. Since that is the year your administration decided to invade Iraq. If it had been the year Kurds were gassed, it would have made sense. As it is, it doesn't.
Yes, I do support the elimination of Saddam. Do you? Or do you want him to continue his rule? Whether you like it or not, he wasn't about to resign
What you cannot understand is that IT IS NOT OK to kill 7,352 civilians just because you want to avenge a past crime. I would love to see you try to justify that, but of course you won't. This is about when you call me a supporter of Saddam. Or something.
You have not answered my question about your charges that Powell will appoint the Iraqi representatives
Fred, you make me want to take a good grip of your shoulders and shake you for a quick return to sanity :-)
I DID respond to that. I told you the current band of ministers of this and that are appointees by the occupation forces. They are not elected. They are appointed.
My view is that representative Iraqi government is an improvement over Saddam. Do you disagree?
You are talking about a fantasy. There is no such government. We can only talk about the reality at present, and it is arguable that life at present is better than when it was under Saddam. Eventually, I hope it will be.
STILL, IT DOES NOT MAKE THE INVASION "OK". ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY MEANS, ESPECIALLY WHEN MEANS INCLUDE BUTCHERING OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ORDER, INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY ON LIES PRESENTED AS PROOF, AND KILLING MORE THAN 7,000 CIVILIANS IN THE PROCESS.
For crying out loud.
Whatever happened to my points on France and what you call its "special interests"? No answer? |
