In alt.fan.dan-quayle midtowng <gjohns01@eudoramail.com> sez:
: Paul Havemann <paulinnj2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> chris.holt <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> sez:
:>: Okay. How many Baghdad residents were executed by the US in
:>: the past year, as compared to Baghdad residents executed by
:>: Saddam' government in the previous year? That's the best
:>: way to make a valid comparison.
:>
:> No, because your 'valid comparison' requires an example of the US
:> ordering Iraqi civilians to dig a pit before being lined up and
:> shot.

: So that is your definition of Iraqi "freedom"? If someone
: else digs their pit to be shot in they are free?

You, too, seem to be conflating the US death penalty (keywords:
rule of law, democratically elected government) with Saddam
Hussein (keyword: dictator).

It amazes me that you're opposed to
the former, but somehow resent that we put an end to the latter.

: Or maybe if it is Americans shooting civilians accidently
: rather than by Saddam intentionally then there is nothing to worry
: about?
: Or maybe if America handpicks puppets to run the country rather
: than Saddam ruling with an iron-fist this is freedom to you?
: We didn't invade because of WMD. We didn't invade because
: of links to terrorists. We didn't invade because Saddam was a
: threat to any other nation in the world.

Then why? Did we invade so we could build an empire?

So that Bush could alienate world opinion

-- and endanger not only his
presidency, but the future of his political party?

Because it was
cheaper to spend billions of dollars to occupy Iraq to control
its oil than to spend a fraction of that just buying the stuff on
the world market?

To let Bush's campaign contributors make
obscene profits?

It couldn't possibly be because Bush believes in the reasons he's
been stating since it all began. Reasons I think are important.
Reasons you dismiss without a second thought.

"Think outside the box." It's something you used to say. You
don't have the ability to do that.

: The last item on the list is that we invaded to free Iraq.
: But what you are talking about isn't freedom. You are talking
: about simply _less_ oppression.

Yes -- less oppression from the Baathists who would like to pick
up where they left off. Less oppression from the Iranian (and
other) elements who would like to control Iraq.

Less oppression
right up to the moment when the Iraqis assume control of their
own destiny. But I suppose you think that's a lie, too.

The only alternative I've heard from you and yours is to have
let the UN continue to dither for perhaps another ten years
while Saddam methodically decimated the population. You lot *have*
no alternatives that would work.

No, they're not free *yet.* They will be -- and that's more than
Saddam ever would have done for them. It amazes me that you
refuse to see past the end of your nose.

: "Less oppression" isn't worth hundreds (and soon thousands)
: of American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of
: thousands of Iraqi lives, alienating almost every one of our
: long-term allies, and an insurgency that doesn't seem to have
: an end.

If that was *all* that was at stake, you could have a point. You
simply can't see past your preconceptions.

I wonder if you'd have felt this way if Clinton had done what
Bush has done.