<<Why don't you try telling the Iranians and the Kuwaities how small, defenseless and innocent Saddam's Iraq was?>>
Nadine, he said "small defenseless", not "innocent" (READ the post). You obviously added "innocent" to enhance your ability to respond with indignation. Cheap, cheap, cheap argumentative ploy. You expect to get away with that here?
Try and respond to the thesis actually presented, not an artificial one baked in your mind.
<<Iraq, the country that attacked all its neighbors, gassed its own citizens, filled its own coutry with weapons caches and mass graves, trained, supported and hired terrorists all over the Mideast>>
Yes, Iraq attacked its neighbors, and the last of the attacks were seen more than a decade ago, before Iraq got a good whacking. However, the (rightfully) embargoed, overflown, and badly infrastructure-decayed RECENT Iraq, which was the subject of the military action in 2003, is what the poster was referring to. Again, you responded to something other than the thesis actually presented. Is there a pattern here?
<<then either you are really a closet fascist, or you just hate America.>> Ah, ad hominem argumentation with a flag wrapping, always a comfortable refuge when an effective response is just not at hand. I think you owe Anne Coulter a royalty on that last one. |
