Dragonlich:
What absolute twaddle.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
It only matters to anti-war people, apparently... 
|
That is patently the most asinine statement I have yet seen on this board. Would you like me to tell you, in detail and at great length, exactly why?
Quote:
|
Clinton's lies may not have killed anyone, but they sure as hell didn't save an entire country, it's inhabitants and it's future.
|
Now that the soda I spewed through my nose upon reading your utterly ridiculous canard has been wiped from my monitor, I would point out that we may have saved a country, but only in a Colonel Klink sort of sense. We had to burn Iraq to save Iraq. And I'm pretty sure that those thousands of civilian, women and children among them, don't feel all that "saved." Nor do the tens of thousands who are still without water and electricity. As for Iraq's future, that future is being sucked out even as we speak through pipelines belonging to companies like Halliburton and Unocal. Saved Iraq? Destroyed it, more like. Destroyed it based on a justification that was an out-and-out lie. Where are the WMDs? Answer me that, then tell me about "saving" Iraq. Bush lied. People died. It's that simple. Sort of a calculus of politically motivated death, if you will.
Quote:
|
How's about looking at that for a change. Given Saddam's record, it is quite likely that he would have killed *more* Iraqis in the past months than the US has so far.
|
I would dearly love for you to provide me some documentation for that. Considering that somewhere between five and ten thousand Iraqi civilians and many many more in their military forces are now dead, I'm failing to see how Saddam would have accomplished that. Sadly enough, we may never know how many Iraqi civilians died. It's not exactly like the U.S. is going to release an accurate count, is it?