Replies

A simpleton's excuse is what you're offering, and that doesn't surprise me a bit. Nobody is calling for a U.S. invasion of Communist China because quite frankly, Beijing has a few billion more people than did Saddam, and I never said that Ron Paul was responsible for Saddam's behavior, as usual you're twisting things around: what I SAID was that in Ron Paul's world, the Iraqi people would still be fed into industrial shredding machines and that is an absolute truism because he DID oppose the liberation of Iraq, just as he opposes any U.S. action against Iran.

And nobody I know is calling for "invading every country that has a bad ruler", that's a straw man argument and you bloody well know it.

The fact is, Saddam was in violation of the terms of his surrender to coalition forces after Gulf War I, he was in violation of countless U.N. resolutions requiring him to give up and account for ALL weapons of mass destruction and their accompanying programs, and he all but dared the international community to take him out, and it was up to the United States to do just that, and the Iraqi people will be better for it.

It is an impossibility for a nation of approximately 300 million people to invade "every country that has a bad ruler", but you knew that.

But Saddam needed to be taken out like the garbage he was, and the civilized world is silently breathing a sigh of relief.

Except for Ron Paul, who indeed isn't responsible for Saddam's crimes, and nobody suggested he was.

The fact is, unless the liberation of Iraq had been absolutely totally scripted according to Ron Paul's definition of what is a "Constitutional War", he (in my opinion) wouldn't have given a good g*d@mn about the Iraqi people as long as America could hide between our two oceans like we used to do way back in his 'good old days' that he aspires to.

Back to you Sparky.

I never said that Ron Paul was responsible for Saddam's behavior,

No, you said he didn't care about it. By that logic, you don't care about brutality in Zimbabwe or Sudan, because you're not arguing for a US invasion of either country - or of any other dictatorship (that isn't in the Middle East). You and Ron Paul agree - you both don't favor US invasions of countries just because they're dictatorships; except that you, mkjessup, become inconsistent when it comes to Middle East dictatorships. Paul has a single standard, you have a double standard. And you blast Paul as not being concerned with victims of dictatorship - but only in those dictatorships that you want to invade, not in dictatorships that you don't want to invade. It makes me a little dizzy to try to follow your reasoning, but hypocrisy and double standards always do.