<<However, you must factor in the unique awfulness of Saddam's regime into the equation,>>
Sorry, Nadine, NOT at all "unique". Inhumanity on a greater scale is unfortunately commonplace. Hutu/Tutsi comes to mind (Gee, why no Yankee intervention; I sure didn't see any neocon activism there!?), Sudan ("a separate civil war has raged in the south of Sudan for two decades, pitting the region's mainly Christian and animist peoples against the largely Muslim government in Khartoum. Up to 2 million people are believed to have died") and Zimbabwe are healthy current contenders. Both curiously, and assiduously, ignored by bleeding-heart neocon interventionists.
Explain that. If you can, without pretzel logic.
<<Saddam would have been free to complete his shopping trip at AQ Khan's Sam's Club for Nukes>>
Seems rational that if you don't like nuke shopping, you should close the store (duh!). Yet that's not what we can expect, since Bush and his coterie of neocons was, and is, remarkably cozy with this lying, proven, profligate nuke vendor; explain that. If you can, without pretzel logic.
Bush attacked a country that was not the goddam pusherman; in fact, Bush provided foreign aid for, and professed friendliness with, Pakistan, the actual nuke pusherman. Explain that.
If you can, without pretzel logic.
Thanks in advance.
John |
