Reply With Quote
The Democrats don't want to see the truth Yoni. You're not playing fair!
The Democrats don't want to see the truth Yoni. You're not playing fair!
Dead babies in the Sudan, too.
Attack?
I wonder how many of them were killed with smart bombs?
Big difference Chump!
What's the difference?
You're saying dead Kurd babies are more important than dead black African babies.
Good show.
As horrible as the Saddam regime was, that in itself is not enough to invade a country. WMDs or a strong link to terrorist groups would help legitimize the war in Iraq.
This may sound like a cliche, but it is true: If dictators who opress their people is a big enough excuse to invade a country, what is Bush waiting for to invade Cuba, South Korea, Iran, etc.
Spin, spin, spin Chump You'll figure it out later than sooner.
Spit it out -- what's the difference?
What are your degrees of genocide?
so you would support US troops in the Sudan?
To stop an active genocide as peacekeepers? It's been done before.
Shot in the head and bulldozed, according to the article.
I never claimed it was the only justification...just another in a long list of legitimate reasons to topple the regime.
What are the other legit. reasons?
I think genocide is more than enough reason to go into a country, and I wish those in control on Capitol Hill would step up in the Sudan situation.
They, along with the "sophisticated" people over in the EU, stood by and let Rwanda happen.
Hussein failed to comply with the terms of the original Gulf War armistice which was to provide a full accounting of his WMD programs. That's where the justification for the invasion begins.
You mean Republicans?I think genocide is more than enough reason to go into a country, and I wish those in control on Capitol Hill would step up in the Sudan situation.
I dig the consistency though....
Both sides are to blame on that one, Chump...that was going on when your buddy was in office too...
Ah, Rwanda.
Now we're worried about dead babies?
Well then, we'd best not be attacking any more cities.
Especially w/ clusterbombs and artillery.
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htmMs. Bellamy (UNICEF) noted that if the substantial reduction
in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had
continued through the 1990s, there would have been half
a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as
a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a
partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of
the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues
which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed
to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people
would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of
the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council
and the effects of war."
And here:
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?R...ctCountry=IRAQAfter Baghdad fell to US-led coalition forces one year ago,
infant mortality rose, according to NGOs working on
health issues in Iraq and health officials, including
Dr Naeema al-Gasseer, the World Health Organization
(WHO) representative for Iraq who is currently based in
Amman, Jordan.
Democrats are just as caring as you conservatives make yourselves out to be.
Geez Smeagol give us a break, you act like it's easy to go and invade countries, murder civillians, topple great humanitartian governments, and be the greatest source of evil, corruption, and greed mankind has ever seen.
We're only 1 country, be patient
We'll get to those other countries...
The situation in Darfur started in March of last year.
If you're talking about Rwanda you're absolutely right -- the entire world lacked a spine.
What about Sudan?
A genocide is happening and this president doesn't even mention it.
Let the UN do it...they know how to do it the right way...oh wait.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
