Let's see... the folks who have responded to the thread have the most vested interest in the comparison so that would be Tony, Lindy, Mary Anne and yourself. However, do any of you really long for Pol Pot, Idi Amin or Stalin? I doubt it. Obviously, everyone here is too young for most of those references anyway, age everyone several decades and maybe we'd have an issue to discuss. Tony jumped on the issue defensively as if it were a leveled accusation when it was, as I've already explained, a rhetorical tool measure by which folks here can realize what a ridiculous, anti-humanitarian position their anti-Bush views have placed them.

Which is not surprising, as the left is typically two-faced in regards to tin-hat tyrants. Tin-hat tyranny is respectible now, as long as the tyrants are opposed to Bush and the neo-imperialism of the United States. If they are Tin-hats that are pro-US or tied to the CIA they can all go to Hades in a handbasket and get whatever awful fate they deserved.

Don has said in so many words that Saddam was no threat and believes removing him from power was "shameful" - so yes, he might as well have felt it would've been shameful to take out Idi Amin or Pol Pot (who clearly posed no threat to the US) as well. He'll deny it naturally and mock indignation at the comparison, but as long as he keeps decrying the ousting of Saddam it matters little. His sham humanitarian morals are clearly evidenced with each post he makes. Exchange his comfy position with someone who was on their way to the shredder feet first and he might sing a different story - begging for Bush or anyone else to depose Saddam quickly.

I would be outraged at such callousness in regards to human suffering if one doesn't realize the way hate numbs people and can lead to living in denial about an issue. The left discounts all those Iraqis who begged us to remove Saddam and point to some killer/thug Sunni and Shiites' actions as evidence the US was entirely unwelcome.

Tony jumped on the issue but the bottom line was it was meant to illustrate how support for Saddam and trying to damn the effort to remove him really puts one in a pretty bad light. Sure one can repeat the lie, as Don does, that it was ALL about WMD, but WMD were just a facet of the bigger picture and the speechwriters used it to help sway an otherwise hesitant populace more expediently when he needed a Congressional resolution to act freely.

It's politics. I'll repeat it again. Iraq is a tactical victory that has and will continue to contribute to the nation's safety, helping us moderate and channel anti-Americanism in the Middle East. 887 or 8870 deaths - these are negligible to the potential deaths that would arrive from a dirty bomb or Sarin attacks. If we had lost a city - the folks around the nation would not forgive the anti-Americanists who would've preferred Saddam in power and Bush out of the White House. That would be an ugly day indeed. This way if the day comes - Bush will get blamed anyway.

Saddam may not have been caught red-handed but we didn't need to catch him red-handed. Our cease-fire agreement had been broken between 1991-96 and we had the right to get him out, whether or not he dumped most of his stuff after 1997. It's not a police action, but a military conflict. Sure you'll find some lawyers who'll defend Saddam, but the bottom line is they're human parasites who pose as humanitarians and the ignorant can't discern past the fifty layers of BS they snow the less discerning masses.

I'm wasting my time repeating the logic of the Iraq war. If Clinton did it it would have been a gutsy response and considered 'finishing up George Bush's mess' but now it is just neo-imperialism by a bunch of evil neo-imperialists. Neo-imperialism is just a leftist invention. It doesn't exist anywhere but in their own minds.

SDAI-Tech1