I'm getting freeped

On my blog comments....

If any DU'ers would care to lend a hand....I grow weary of debating with these narrow minded idiots. I am tempted to delete some posts but I do not want to squash the debate.

The latest action is on a report gleaned form other blogs on Fallujah. They are using the Saddam was killing people argument and trying to turn the cause of the war around to make it seem that Peace activits and progressives allowed Saddam to be a brutal dictator.

http://wherearetheweapons.blogspot.com

Seriously. Just leave the halfway-thoughtful ones, if freepers ever write anything halfway thoughtful.

it's called evidence.

arming Saddam and sticking with him even when the rest of Reagan's cabinet thought it was too risky. :eyes:

I have always contended that Bush the Dumber's cabinet always assumed Saddam had WMDs because most of them GAVE them to him.

Soak up all their vitriol and waste their time. It's a tricky challenge sometimes, but it can be done.

Just poke them enough to make them respond with long rants. Don't try to persuade them. Make them present their case.

The trick is to prod them enough so they'll waste their energy on you and keep doing it. If you overpower them, they'll leave in a huff. If you neglect them, they'll lose interest and leave.

But if you're really skilled, you can string them along for a good while. All the time, keep feeding them enough rope to make fools of themselves.

Set up a poll - they can't resist polls no matter how unimportant. Make sure they can vote over and over, but "Diebold" it, so they always lose. :evilgrin:

The question should be about something that really gets to them, like not being allowed to pray in school or something. Let them vote & vote to their little hearts' content and then skew the poll so that they lose!

Those guys get my blood pressure up. F*cking idiots.

Is always my counter. Sure it's truly horrible Saddam murdered a subset of the Iraqi people, armed Iraqi soldiers instead of building the countries infrastructure and tortured prisoners. Yet I find it for more comforting to know it was done against the USA wishes. Under Bush the USA continues to murder a subset of the Iraqi people, has destroyed the countries infrastructure and spends money on rearming the country instead (when it's not losing 9 Billion dollars) and continues to torture prisoners. So the big gain is that is now ME that is sponsoring it. Ugh! We are the unpaid thugs of new Iraq. Great.

If he DISARMED???

DISARMED from those "WMD" Iraq hadn't had since 1991.

-freeper: But Saddam was the worst dictator ever! and disappeared MILLIONS!

Read what the Human Rights Watch has to say about the "disappeared" in Iraq; "No details were available about the fate of the approximately 16,500 people reported “disappeared” in the last ten years, mainly ethnic Kurds and Shi’as but including the approximately 600 Kuwaitis reported to have been in Iraqi custody but unaccounted for since the 1991 Gulf War."
http://hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/iraq.html

bush's own website agrees with the 16,500;

"In 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur stated that Iraq remains the country with the highest number of disappearances known to the UN: over 16,000."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect4.html

-freeper: We've discovered MILLIONS in those mass graves! bush said so!

"Remember we discovered mass graves with hundreds of thousands of men and women and children clutching their little toys, as a result of this person's brutality."

-Bush, November 16, 2003
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/frost/transcript.html

Oh we did, huh?

Blair admits Iraq graves claim untrue

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office has admitted that repeated claims that 400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves were untrue, The Observer newspaper reported on Sunday.

According to the paper, only 5,000 corpses have been uncovered.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/18/content_1611454.htm

And of those 5000 corpses, who are they? The mass graves mostly include the remains of ethnic Kurds and Shia Muslims killed for opposing the regime between 1983 and 1991. While Iraq was a US client state. Like we're currently killing off all who oppose the bush regime in Iraq.

Sandy Hodgkinson, the (bush's hand-picked) U.S. official in charge of disinterring these graves, said the majority of people buried in the mass graves are believed to be Kurds killed by Saddam in the 1980s after rebelling against the government (during the Iran-Iraq WAR, where the Kurds sided with IRAN, and the USA sided with IRAQ) and Shiites killed after an uprising following the 1991 Gulf War (helped and supported by Bush41, Cheney, Powell, etc).

And that is straight from bushCartel's own mouthpiece.
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000479.php

In the absence of mass graves from the 1990s to the present,in the absence of ongoing or imminent atrocities, how can we say that we saved more Iraqis by going to war than if we hadn’t? ONLY if you're an IDIOT. (ie rightwingnut)

And HOW MANY IRAQIS have we killed in the past TWO years?

100000 Iraqi civilians dead

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

The vast majority of Americans say "humanitarian" is not justification;

In the latest PIPA polls, only 27 percent of respondents said they think that countries have the right, without UN approval, to overthrow another government that is committing "substantial violations of its citizens' human rights,".

41 percent said that intervention could be justified if the violations were "large-scale, extreme and equivalent to genocide."

In the case of Iraq, however, only 32 percent of respondents believed both that human rights abuses equivalent to genocide justified intervention and that such extreme violations were occurring under Hussein's rule.

Asked, "Do you think that there are other governments existing today that have human rights records as bad as that of Iraq under Saddam Hussein?" an overwhelming 88 percent said there are.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1114-06.htm

The war in Iraq CANNOT be justified as an intervention in defense of human rights even though it ended a brutal regime, Human Rights Watch said Monday, dismissing one of the Bush administration's main arguments for the invasion.

While Saddam Hussein had an atrocious human rights record, his worst actions occurred LONG BEFORE THE WAR and there was NO ONGOING or imminent mass killing in Iraq when the conflict began, the advocacy group said in its annual report.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-07.htm

-freeper: We toppled Saddam for the bad things he did 20 years ago, but better late than never! We had to hold him accountable!

Blair: March 2, 2003

"If military action proves necessary, it will be to uphold the authority of the UN and to ensure Saddam is disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction, not to overthrow him. It is why, detestable as I find his regime, he could stay in power if he disarms peacefully."
http://www.sundayherald.com/print31827

Bush: March 5, 2003

"We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force,"
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Mar/03092003/nation_w/nation_w.asp

"Three top Bush administration officials said today they would welcome exile for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and one, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, signaled the United States might allow Hussein to escape war crimes prosecution if he voluntarily steps down."
http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/01/20/official.html

"President George Bush last night gave Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to give up power and go into exile."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31547

Saddam can stay if he disarms, Powell says
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561443683.html

Rice and Powell Say that a Disarmed Saddam Could Stay in Power
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/2159.html

-freeper: Only you *spit* LIBRULS are against the invasion of Iraq!

Dick Cheney in April 1991, then Defense Secretary

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists?

How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072479

GHW Bush, 1998;

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
http://www.rense.com/general43/quote.htm

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors, and national security adviser under President Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush:

Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts. "Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Norman Schwarzkopf - Four Star General - 1/28/03:

"The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq….(And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld)"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27?language=printer

Col. David Hackworth (ret), America's most highly decorated soldier:

"Should the president decide to stay the war course, hopefully at least a few of our serving top-uniformed leaders - those who are now covertly leaking that war with Iraq will be an unparalleled disaster - will do what many Vietnam-era generals wish they would have done: stand tall and publicly tell the America people the truth about another bad war that could well lead to another died-in-vain black wall. Or even worse."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29786

James Webb, former Sec. of Navy under Ronald Reagan, Decorated Marine Veteran - Navy Cross, Silver Star, and Purple Heart:

"Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years? …In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets…. Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A34847-2002Sep3

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Head of Central Command for U.S.:

"It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot, and are hot to go to war, see it another…We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni /

TOP REPUBLICANS BREAK WITH BUSH ON IRAQ STRATEGY
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B11FB3F590C758DDDA10894DA404482

Republicans Who Voted Against Iraq Resolution Tell Why
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/11/194543.shtml

"A Republican Dissent on Iraq"
Full page ad in Wall Street Journal by major GOP contributors:

"Mr. President, …The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions. That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back…. A Billion Bitter enemies will rise out of this war."
- Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2003

As for the freeper nonsense that it was LIBRULS who supported Hussein, point the morans to the United States National Security Archives. It was REAGAN and BUSH I who supported and financed and supplied Hussein.

And that's FACT;
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm



Being moran idiotic freeping rightwingnuts, they will of course continue to ignore all the FACTS. STUPIDEST MFers on the planet.

Was he a *spit* LIBRUL back then???

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0410/S00132.htm

That's an amazing collection of relevant facts and quotes.

And STILL the stupidest MFers on the planet remain the stupidest MFers on the planet.

A typical example; BUSH HIMSELF has REPEATEDLY and PUBLICLY stated that Iraq had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 911...FAUX MOOS went on and on and on defending bush, saying "He NEVER said Iraq was involved in 911-just the opposite in fact!" when the world was ridiculing & mocking America for being so stupid for believing Iraq did 911...

...and of course the majority of rightwingnuts still think Iraq did 911.

:eyes:

just let them pump up your hit count and start putting up some ads.

Then donate some of the money to causes/candidates that these fascist larvae would pop a vein over.

blog-jitsu