When it comes down to it, there probably wouldn't be an Islamic movement if the Shahs were still running Iran. There wouldn't be problems in Northern Ireland if the British simply killed all of the opposition. There wouldn't be a threat of terror in the U.S. if we just walled off the borders and rounded up all the Muslims and put them into camps.
For that matter, if we used nuclear weapons, all our wars would be very short ones, with no U.S. casualties.
Compare life in Germany and the rest of Europe in 1946 to what it was like in 1936. Or Japan. Who was enjoying the better standards of living? When were people healthier, and living without fear?
Do you have any capacity for abstract moral analysis at all? How can one brain scream the the U.S. is heading for tyranny, while advocating it for other populations?
Current Events » in reply to Ds - "The party has no frigging idea what to do about the war in Iraq." This is tiresome.
"This is tiresome." So is your constant advocacy of totalitarianism.
The whole thread (22 posts)
- Update on Democratic victory results
- Ds - "The party has no frigging idea what to do about the war in Iraq." This is tiresome.
- "This is tiresome." So is your constant advocacy of totalitarianism.
- "probably wouldn't be an Islamic movement if the Shahs were still running Iran. "
- Go for it.
- See if you can answer a simple question
- No one pretends the Shah with CIA help wasn't brutal and repressive.
- Go for it.
- Shall we go down the list of totalitarian regimes Conservatives support?
- "probably wouldn't be an Islamic movement if the Shahs were still running Iran. "
- "This is tiresome." So is your constant advocacy of totalitarianism.
- Ds - "The party has no frigging idea what to do about the war in Iraq." This is tiresome.