are they siding with our Village idiot now when he did to Iraq the exact same thing that Hitler did to Poland - Attack a non-threatening nation?
Isn't this somewhat hypocritical?
2007-02-18 03:52:09 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Kelly B. is absolutely right on this. It starts off with a self inflicted wound on your country to blame on another(9/11). Level it, and move on to the next country proclaiming that they housed and trained the imaginary terrorists that we're off looking for.
Hell, didn't you people know that George W's granddad was the highest ranking Nazi official in the US. He help support the tyrannical madman in his conquest for globalization. Now he's finishing the job where Hitler left off. Not as dramatic yet, but it's coming.
2007-02-18 04:40:57 · answer #1 · answered by Ted S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Todays Radical Isamist is Hitlers Jew.
We are just trying to find justification throughout the world this time!
The difficult part is this time the supposed enemy is militarized and self protected many through weapons we provided them (Al Qaeda) people forget that the US was in full support of the Taliban and Osama when it suited our purpose!
Everyone hypothetically says they would have stopped Hitler if they had the choice.......hopefully soon people will wake up to the fact that this administration is doing much of the same things Nazi Germany did in the 30's&40's.
Perhaps not as drastic YET!!
But with the Patriot Act and the 2007 Defense Authorization Act the president has given himself free reign over every American and can arrest and detain any American at any time for any reason!
How that doesn't frighten every American baffles me!!!
2007-02-18 04:16:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
not greater hypocritical than the Democrats balloting for the 1st Gulf conflict and the 2d, then since they are actually not popular for the 2d one abruptly being against the conflict. Whichever way the wind blows is the way the Democratic occasion is going to pander for votes. communicate approximately hypocritical. i know that is been some years because of the fact the 1st Gulf conflict while the "non violent, non-threatening united states of america of Iraq" invaded Kuwait. that is been a jointly as considering the fact that Saddam systematically used WMDs like poison gasoline to kill his own voters the Kurds that he disagreed with.
2016-11-23 16:42:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about this scenario:
I'll pay your family a healthy ransom if you just strap on an explosive vest filled with lethal shrapnel and slaughter as many innocent people as possible in a crowded shopping center.
These terrorists are cut from the same cloth - they demand that you convert to Islam, or they will kill you.
Any nation that supports, aids, sympathizes, trains or passively accepts these dirt bags is indeed a threat to all civilized nations.
2007-02-18 04:04:41 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Oh sorry; I thought the US CONGRESS invaded Iraq because they wanted to get a foothold in the Middle East (Besides Israel), gain a new ally, spread democracy, and take down a madman defying America and the UN...not because he wanted to mass murder all the Jews there.
(Are there even any Jews in Iraq?)
2007-02-18 04:02:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Iraq is a non-threatening nation? I guess so is North Korea and Iran, as well as Syria and Afghanistan. Those poor terrorists. What world do you live in?
2007-02-18 03:56:44 · answer #6 · answered by Daniel 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋