The Jews have suffered more than any people in the history of the world. They have a right to protect their homeland and citizens. That they get down to business to do that is of necessity, not choice. How many terrorist bombings would you support in your own neighborhood?
So because they're Jews they can do whatever they want? And if you want to talk terrorism, the very formation of Israel was essentially a terrorist act, as were the ever-increasing settlements that drove so many thousands of Palestinian civilians out of their homes.
Israel's government, and specifically the Mossad are easily as much terrorist entities as the Palestinian organizations fighting against them. And at the end of the day, it's the Palestinians who've had their land stolen almost like the Native Americans and who've had far more casualties.
As far as our previous support of Hussein--it's a big world out there. And a tough one. Grow up.
YOU grow up. Your thought process is seriously scary. It seems very Orwellian in nature. When it comes to your "America is #1" rhetoric, it seems like you're able to hold two blatantly contradictory notions as both being true.
If people like Rumsfeld and Cheny
supported Saddam and armed him for years, knowing he was killing these people and helping him do just that, then how do you figure that these murders were their motive for turning on him? It makes no sense. In fact, shouldn't they be considered ACCOMPLICES to Saddam's atrocities?
That you would disrespect one of the greatest men in the history of this country (Ronald Reagan) says much of your jaded world view.
What a great counter argument. You completely ignore the deeds of Reagan which are historical facts and reiterate his mythical status among Neocons. This is another "attack on character" fallacy.
In case you're not up to date with the virtual genocide that was ordered in Latin America during the 80's:
Consortiumnews.com
Thanks, Ronnie, For The Debacle In Latin America (Articles) Jacob Wheeler
To deny that this happened is to disrespect the memory of tens of thousands of people who were slaughtered.
And are you denying Reagan's misdeeds regarding Iran-Contra? You're SERIOUSLY delusional if so.
Remember Ronnie saying "I told you that I was innocent, and in my heart I still believe that to be true. The evidence, however, says otherwise" ...?
Your phrase I bolded shows how deluded you are. Where do you come up with this nonsense? Dennis Kucinovich?
Back in 1996, Madeline Albright
did not even deny that over a half million CHILDREN in Iraq had already died due to the US embargo:
"We Think the Price Is Worth It"
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
The final estimates I've seen from some sources have been higher than 1.5 milllion, but to be conservative let's assume it's around 1.3 million as reported here:
Death Toll from Embargo over 1.3 Million: Iraq
Are you comparing Reagan and Bush to Hitler and Hussein?
No. I am pointing out that Reagan and Bush have death tolls easily on par with or even surpassing Saddam's. Hitler is in a whole nother league. Aside from his higher death tolls, he was one of the few politicians who genuinely believed in his own hype. Saddam was more of a traditional politician compared to Hitler in that, although the Ba'athists were allied with the Nazis during WW2, Saddam is a more secular ruler who's in it for the power. Hitler was so wrapped up in his ideology that he made military decisions based on it.