Is this a first-grade slur?Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Frackal
The problem with so many leftists that I see is that all they seem to do is viciously tear people down like a bunch of immature pissants on a playground and almost NEVER offer solutions.
:thumbsup:
They come across like little pimple-faced kids looking over their shoulder to see if mom or dad is coming.
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: raildogg
You radical leftists have a huge double standard.
You constantly claim that we killed 100,000 or more Iraqis when the figure is below 20,000.
Now when anyone calims that the dictator Saddam killed 100,000 you all get up in anger.
Just come out and admit you guys love dictators, especially the ones that hate America.
:roll:
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
He may not have gassed them all... but they are all dead by his hands just the same.
It's amazing to me that someone would be upset that she said all 300,000 were gassed. It's not a secret that he murdered hundreds of thousands of people. So what if he didn't gas them all? Does that make him any less responsible for the other 290,000 dead people because he had them bombed or shot instead of gassed?
Libs go after stuff like this and try to act like the misstatement is more important than the fact that 300,000 people are dead. *ding* One more beloved patriot in the credibility armor.
Originally posted by: sonz70
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
He may not have gassed them all... but they are all dead by his hands just the same.
It's amazing to me that someone would be upset that she said all 300,000 were gassed. It's not a secret that he murdered hundreds of thousands of people. So what if he didn't gas them all? Does that make him any less responsible for the other 290,000 dead people because he had them bombed or shot instead of gassed?
Libs go after stuff like this and try to act like the misstatement is more important than the fact that 300,000 people are dead. *ding* One more beloved patriot in the credibility armor.
I think more people, (from other countries) see it as another fumble in a war that had slim reasons for if any. Sort of along the lines of "they don't know why they went to war" in that cateogry people can throw the "they don't even know how many people he killed, which is the new reason of validation for the war". So yes, for the pro-war people, it is just another attack by the "libs" as you like to say, for the people still on the fence about the war, or the ones already against it, it is just another show of the ignorance of the administration that went to war for no reason; and even the reasons they give, (such as; he killed so many ect ect ect) they cannot keep straight.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: sonz70
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
He may not have gassed them all... but they are all dead by his hands just the same.
It's amazing to me that someone would be upset that she said all 300,000 were gassed. It's not a secret that he murdered hundreds of thousands of people. So what if he didn't gas them all? Does that make him any less responsible for the other 290,000 dead people because he had them bombed or shot instead of gassed?
Libs go after stuff like this and try to act like the misstatement is more important than the fact that 300,000 people are dead. *ding* One more beloved patriot in the credibility armor.
I think more people, (from other countries) see it as another fumble in a war that had slim reasons for if any. Sort of along the lines of "they don't know why they went to war" in that cateogry people can throw the "they don't even know how many people he killed, which is the new reason of validation for the war". So yes, for the pro-war people, it is just another attack by the "libs" as you like to say, for the people still on the fence about the war, or the ones already against it, it is just another show of the ignorance of the administration that went to war for no reason; and even the reasons they give, (such as; he killed so many ect ect ect) they cannot keep straight.
The irony is; while Bush and his crowd condemn Saddam for killing Iraqis and ruling Iraq with an iron fist, the U.S. military kills Iraqis during Operation Iron Fist in Iraq.
This invasion and occupation has gone on for two years, seven months, and four days. There are varying estimates of the number of Iraqis killed from 17,000 to around 100,000. The U.S. high command itself has estimated that it will take up to 12 years to "pacify" Iraq. Saddam ruled Iraq for decades.
Who will be the final winner in the tally of Iraqi corpses? Saddam or Bush?
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
He may not have gassed them all... but they are all dead by his hands just the same.
It's amazing to me that someone would be upset that she said all 300,000 were gassed. It's not a secret that he murdered hundreds of thousands of people. So what if he didn't gas them all? Does that make him any less responsible for the other 290,000 dead people because he had them bombed or shot instead of gassed?
Libs go after stuff like this and try to act like the misstatement is more important than the fact that 300,000 people are dead. *ding* One more beloved patriot in the credibility armor.
:thumbsup:
Perhaps they don't recognize those killed "by other means". Or maybe they'd just like to live under a rock and believe Saddam only killed 5000 people under his reign.
Or perhaps they just like to rag on Hughes. I suspect it's a bit of both.
Or maybe they would like to see someone charged with disseminating information to the world manage to do it with some manner of accuracy?
Just a thought.
Seriously... what difference does it make if they were gassed or shot or beheaded or hung or beat to death or tortured or dismembered or thrown off a building or run over or stabbed or......... ???
Originally posted by: slyedog
the whacks are always desperate to dig things up, no matter how silly it is. dead is dead.
Originally posted by: slyedog
the whacks are always desperate to dig things up, no matter how silly it is. dead is dead.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It's already open knowledge. Iraq received a lot of dual-use chemicals from the US. In fact, many countries provided Iraq with supplies.
Germany was the main provider of chemical weapons items to Iraq. Of the companies that were involved, 2/3 were German. Not surprising when Germany has historically been a leader in chemical warfare and genocides.
I didn't ask about Germany.
What evidence / proof have you that the US "gave" Saddam these chemical weapons which he then used to kill thousands of his own people?