I just dont understand the mental disconnect that happens with anti war liberals.
Of course, RR jr is just living off his dads name. He has no new insights, nothing creative to say.
He was interviewed by M Medved the other day, and he didnt say ONE THING I hadnt heard before.
But the buzzer rang when this exchange took place.
RR: Well, we are guilty of killing 800 verifiable civilians deaths by our military in Iraq, thats a pretty good reason to oppose this war.
MM: Yes, but what about the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved because saddam is no longer murdering Iraqi's.
RR: (we have all heard this "pat" response), well, back in the 80's we supported saddam because he was gonna help us with our enemy Iran. We are responsable for his being there.
You know, thats like a child is being sexually abused by one parent and the other says, Im gonna get a divorce and take my kid away from being abused.
The response is, well, YOU married the *******, its your fault its like this.
So, lets just say for arguement, yea, saddam is our fault. So do we try to cut the losses and get him out? Or do we just compound the situation and allow him to continue to torture, maime, rape and murder Iraqis by the tens of thousands annually?
I just dont understand how the "we put him there" response argues for "allowing him to continue"?
IF ANYTHING, the fact that we put him there argues we are more responsable than ever, than anyone, or than any other situation where dictators are murdering citizens. In fact, it even argues against one of their other (STUPID) responses.
Well, if we are gonna rescue Iraq from a dictator, why not all the other evil dictators in the world??
TWO flaws with that arguement
but I will stick to the one that I brought up in this thread,
IF WE PUT HIM IN POWER< then that makes us responsable for taking him out if he is committing atrocities, unlike many of the other evil dictators.
I love the way liberals make our points ever stronger !!!!!!!