And, of course, Osama killed ten times as many people as were killed or wounded on the Allied side in the Gulf War. We're not even pretending to fight the real enemy at this point.
And, of course, Sadam has already killed many more people than even the absurd highest estimate of casualties a US invasion would cause.
Does that mean we can kill as many as we want up to that number? Sounds like "kill the Iraqi" could be a travelling carnival game. Nice to see that Saddam's your moral barometer setting, Ian. If he killed a million, we should allowed at least that much, eh?
I guess you were against the dropping of the atom bombs in WWII as well? You see, those unfortunate casualties actually SAVED deaths in the long run.
Each disagreement is weighed with long-term implications. In this case, Sadam using a weapon to kill millions in the future is weighed against the short-term loss of life to make sure he never gets the chance to do so. Got it? Don't Drink and Post.
It's all so clear now. Thank God we nuked Stalin and Mao when we did - imagine what they might have done with nukes. By this logic, we should nuke ourselves. Who knows the damage we'll cause if we don't stop ourselves before it's too late?
Saddam in Bagdad after 91 told his people they won, and no Iraqs died except the women and children in the milk factory. What's the matter you don't believe him I believe him he would not lie ever right. I am going with his assesment
I guess it must be nice to still believe this load of crap. Absolutely dropping those bombs was the wrong thing to do. It's probably the lowest moment in American history, to be honest.
i believe his point is they're trying to take the heat off saddam here for some reason which is absolutely rediculous. "LET'S POINT THE FINGER IN THE WRONG PLACE!"-salon.com