Re: 2 points to make . . .sullivanstreetJune 29 2004, 23:11:09 UTC
1. O'Reilly on Monday during a breif news stint on FoxNews stated the fact about Michale Moore not accepting his bid on a Televised discussion..There is actually some info about it on Moore's personal webpage..As for the Limbaugh situation..I did mean TV, MSNBC wished to persue Moore's idea of a publicised debate between possibly the most conservative, and most liberal people in America. More's contacts refused comment, and never returned the calls of the news agency.
2. I hate people that use the arguement that during the 80's the US didnt care about Saddams actions..The truth is that, w/ the threat of the Soviet Union and the added threat of a possible nuclear armed Iran we had more dier things to worry about in the since of national security..The atrocities committed by him were just as horrible then as they were in recent times, but now we have a more just cause to liberate the oppressed nation of Iraq..The US has always been a beacon of freedom and Democracy..And the enemies of democracy waged war on us..The leadership of Iraq was a sworn enemy to the US..They were avid financial and demographic sponsers of terrorist, and that administraiton (not the people of the country) were determined to continue to undermine what the US was trying to do in the world by any means nessisary.
Re: 2 points to make . . .psychomatronicJune 30 2004, 17:49:52 UTC
Thanks for the info. For the record, I think Moore's pretty much a wimp who can't take criticism.
And I'm sorry that you hate me since you don't even know me. And I still say that no matter what the situation was in the 80's, I hear people night and day talking about the attrocities that Saddam committed, without mentioning that we were allies with him at that time. It seems hypocritical to me that we pretty much looked the other way when he was of use to us and then, when we didn't need him, we start pointing out his evil deeds, and I don't dispute that they were evil.
I just guess when he's not doing them for us, they're more evil.
2. I hate people that use the arguement that during the 80's the US didnt care about Saddams actions..The truth is that, w/ the threat of the Soviet Union and the added threat of a possible nuclear armed Iran we had more dier things to worry about in the since of national security..The atrocities committed by him were just as horrible then as they were in recent times, but now we have a more just cause to liberate the oppressed nation of Iraq..The US has always been a beacon of freedom and Democracy..And the enemies of democracy waged war on us..The leadership of Iraq was a sworn enemy to the US..They were avid financial and demographic sponsers of terrorist, and that administraiton (not the people of the country) were determined to continue to undermine what the US was trying to do in the world by any means nessisary.
Reply
And I'm sorry that you hate me since you don't even know me. And I still say that no matter what the situation was in the 80's, I hear people night and day talking about the attrocities that Saddam committed, without mentioning that we were allies with him at that time. It seems hypocritical to me that we pretty much looked the other way when he was of use to us and then, when we didn't need him, we start pointing out his evil deeds, and I don't dispute that they were evil.
I just guess when he's not doing them for us, they're more evil.
Damon
Reply
Leave a comment