On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:32:24 -0400, wrote:

Typical moonbat contradictions
Tim Daneliuk said:

nothing any well paid shill wouldn't say.

I regrettably stumbled onto this post, and after laughing for 30
minutes, decided to address the oppressive blather.


Oh good, we can hardly wait for the writings from the maniacal

It is not. In the early days of what would become WWII, the Left argued
as you have - "There's no serious threat to us. It's just asinine to
worry about it." Fast forward 15 years. Hitler and Stalin are
responsible for something on the order of 100 *million* deaths in total.
History is full of other such examples of what happens when you
ignore evil.

And in what possible way does this relate to an impotent US sock
puppet like Saddam Hussein? Or are you setting the stage for a dialog
on the invasion of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or perhaps Canada.


Well let's see, Saddam was oppressing his people, doing great evil,
killing the opposition and [reallly] torturing his prisoners. i.e, if you
are going to call waterboarding or sleep deprivation "torture", I'm sure
you would most certainly agree that sawing peoples' arms off with a Sawzall
(OBWW), breaking their arms for failing a mission, or cutting out the
tongues of dissidents with pliers and exacto knives would definitely fit
the definition. So, by deposing Saddam, evil was defeated. [This is
important relative to the paragraph below]


We shouldn't ignore evil? What about Darfur, et al.?
Funny, I don't see any Warships racing towards Africa - or DC.


Gee, you're PO'd because we deposed someone perptetuating evil, now
you're PO'd because we haven't sent the military to quell another evil. So,
which is it, should be be defeating evil or not? Or, do you only agree to
deploying troops to a) places where evil exists and we haven't gone, and/or
b) deploying troops to places where we have no strategic national
interests?

Methinks it's just another moonbat bit of hysteria, you'd be just as
riled if Bush had sent troops to Darfur claiming it was just another
example of western domination in another country's internal problems.


Today's threat isn't just an Islamist Terrorist threat per se.
Today's asymmetric warriors are testing the waters to see if they can
bring down a superpower. What ties them together far more than religion
is their tribalist mentality - of which there is plenty to go around on
the planet. The combination of a suicidal eschatology and a tribal
mentality, fertilized with global communications, transport, and
technology, will inevitably follow the same course as pre-war Hitler and
Stalin. The task today is to prevent the snowball from rolling down the
hill before it gets so big it cannot be stopped.

Your arguments over minutia are irrelevant in light of the fact that
we invaded a sovereign country that in no way threatened the US or its
neighbors, to overthrow a leader who had been propped up by decades of
support from the both the magnanimous right and the quivering left.

So, which is it, we should be taking down evil, or we shouldn't? What
about Darfur?


.... rest of moonbat hysteria snipped -- life is too short and I've got
woodworking to get back to


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+