>”They are evil, we are not”
>I’m sure our noble allies saudi arabia and pakistan will testify to that
>>socalalarm, we allied with Stalin in WWII. Does that mean
>>Hitler wasn’t evil? Does it mean FDR and Churchill were?
Yet another false analogy, and a strawman argument from
bgates. In fact the analogy is false twice over. Heee-lllo.
If Iraq attacked Saudi Arabia and Pakistan *and* the US, and
we allied with them to beat back the attack, THEN you would
have an analogy. Just not a good one.Talk about disengenious
arguments!
By the way, you should know by now that Iraq had nothing to
do with 911, and was an enemy of Al Quaeda.
So we attacked Iraq just because Bush *wanted* to, and
because he thought Iraq was “evil”. You practically said so
yourself. Thanks for clarifying that. And Bush lied about
it, too.
The questions is: Does it make sense to attack countries
that Bush deems “evil”? Who are we to say we are better? And
how does Bush pick *which* evil country to attack? It seems
to be a plethora of them, and the republicans do not apply a
uniform standard as to which countries need to be
“democratized”.
The selection criteria seem to revolve around whether the
specific “evil” country has nukes (don’t attack), has oil
(definitely attack), is islamic (“evil”, good excuse to
attack), or has a right wing military regime (don’t attack,
they are our friends).
By the way, it is not lost on the world that we only go
after non-nuclear nations. As a result, a number of them are
scrambling to develop and/or enhance their nuclear
capability. North Korea and Iran come to mind. Good work,
Bushie.
