Absolute Moral Authority

Because plain old moral authority just wasn’t good enough — a mesablue production

Resistance is futile

Posted by mesablue on March 7, 2008

Found at Junkyardblog.

Advertisements

34 Responses to “Resistance is futile”

  1. TRM said

    There’s no way we are going to elect him or Hillary….

  2. anon said

    this is soooooooooooooooo lame

  3. Anon said

    … oh and you better elect him or Hillary!!!! … republicans suck!

  4. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    Wow, this was a waste of 3 minutes and 38 seconds. We have a black man who is raising money, getting votes, and inspiring people and it’s turned into brainwashing and a religion? I guess George was not brainwashing people by his lies and fear tactics or the Reagan revolution was not a religion. LOL

    What is with the coke images? George has Obama beat with the coke using. Judging by his ever changing moods and demeanor he may still be using.

    Looking around you seem to be a typical conservative living in a black and white world with the 100% Israel support and anti-Muslim stuff I see.

    Whats with the banned in red China banner? I believe all the outside internet is pretty much banned there. Don’t like China? I assume you support the war in Iraq but guess no problem that it is financed by the Chinese?

    What’s with the “I support Michelle Malkin even though she is, in fact, a woman and a minority” button? Is this site some type of political parody or you some kind of racist?

    Since you have the same layout and theme as my blog think may have to change mine since feel dirty now.

    By the way, anyone who claims he has “Absolute Moral Authority” in reality has none.

  5. Rosetta said

    By the way, anyone who claims he has “Absolute Moral Authority” in reality has none.

    You tell him, random complaining troll guy with the same layout and theme who may have to make changes since he feels dirty now!

  6. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    Rosetta…

    Do you even know what a troll is?

    An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    My comment was not controversial (unlike the post), off-topic since was commenting on the post and the site as a whole, or irrelevant since made valid (even if you disagree) points.

    I have not disrupted the discussion since your comment and the other three have made no attempt at any discussion.

    Funny, you quoted me but made no point in regards to it.

  7. mesablue said

    By the way, anyone who claims he has “Absolute Moral Authority” in reality has none.

    No kidding?

    Why do you think I came up with stole the term?

    No moral authority in your comment. Nope. None at all.

  8. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    Mesablue…

    When did I claim moral authority and what does it do with my comment?

    Feel free to explain the title of your blog for a new reader…

  9. Rosetta said

    Funny, you quoted me but made no point in regards to it.

    Ok whiner. Let’s tango.

    George has Obama beat with the coke using. Judging by his ever changing moods and demeanor he may still be using.

    Please cite your peer-reviewed scientific journal study of the lifetime 8-balls snorted by George “Walker” Bush vs. Barack “Hoover” Obama.

    Let’s see your evidence for the continued abuse of the aforemention Ivan Bloesky by the President of your United States.

    I also look forward to your graph showing the number of GWB mood swings vs. those of Hillary or Obama. Or Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi?

    Lastly I would like for you to try and refute this well-established fact: Democrats commit suicide at a higher rate than Republicans because of the post-goat-fucking remorse.

    Thank you in advance.

  10. Rosetta said

    Feel free to explain the title of your blog for a new reader…

    How long have you been a reader? I’ve been reading for almost 36 years.

    I AM THE SMARTEST MAN ALIVE!!!11!

  11. wiserbud said

    Wow, this was a waste of 3 minutes and 38 seconds.

    Let me guess, that was how long it took you to figure out how to start the video, right?

    Suggestion? Next time, ask the librarians. They are there to help.

  12. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    Rosetta…

    You are very fond of the name calling which is a sign of a weak mind there.

    Of course there is no iron clad proof of the coke use by George but the stories of the allegations have been reported for over 20 years.

    Interesting readings…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-seery/the-bush-cocaine-chronicl_b_37786.html

    “Bush’s record is perfectly clear: in every political campaign he has ever waged, he has skillfully evaded “the cocaine question,” probably in much the same way that he avoided appearing for his drug test while serving in the National Guard.”

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/20/president.2000/bush.drug/

    “Bush Thursday denied using illegal drugs over the past 25 years, but refused to discuss his younger years for fear of sending “a signal to children that whatever I may have done is okay.””

    Hmmm… George will not answer the question but at least Obama has been honest. Maybe he only had(s) a drinking problem or maybe mild retardation. Really, never noticed the different Georges when he has spoke over the years? Did you watch the first debate with John Kerry where he had a dazed look and repeated the same five phases while holding on to the podium for dear life? The next debate he was normal at least for him.

    Interesting video of George and his speaking changes over the years…

    Going back to his past drinking problem which he is has said his last drop was in 1986 but check out the video of a wedding reception he was at in 1992…

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/bush/bush.html

    George has shown a patten of lying in the past and as President and who else are known to be liars? Gee drug users!

    Way are we talking about suicides now? Post-goat-fucking remorse? What does that mean? If you were referring to literal goat fucking it is well known that activity is popular with Republican voting rednecks.

  13. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    Wiserbud…

    You do know that was the length of the video? Oh wait, you are just another person who makes snide personal remarks without adding to discussion which seems to be par for the course on this blog.

  14. George has shown a patten of lying in the past and as President and who else are known to be liars?

    Um, the Clintons?

  15. Rosetta said

    You are very fond of the name calling which is a sign of a weak mind there.

    Really? That explains my trouble with addition.

    How has it escaped your superhuman observation skills that name calling is stock in trade at your beloved Huffington Post? You cite a source run by weak-minded fools? Hahahaha.

    Or is HuffPo name calling different than me calling you a whiner?

    I’m guessing it’s your strict Christian moral ethic that compels you to obsess on and criticize Bush’s past alcohol and drug use.

    I for one wouldn’t care if he started each day with 5 Jaeger Bombs and ended each day snorting blow off a hooker’s ass in the Oval Office. Know why?

    He’s been responsible for killing lots of bad guys, freeing lots of Iraqis and Afghanis and preventing another terrorist attack on our soil.

    So you and the rest of your 5th grade class should continue to debate whether Bush drinks Miller Light or Bud Light and let us growups concern ourselves with more serious matters.

    CAUTION: Name calling alert

    Idiot.

  16. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    Pajama Momma…

    Ummm… George lied about the threat level of WMD and terrorists in Iraq which led to a war (hundreds of thousands died) and Clinton lied about a legal consensual sex act between adults. That’s like almost the same.

  17. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    Rosetta…

    Good job of not addressing my points and instead make a different point that alcohol and drug use is not really that bad. (Guess you are not disagreeing with Bush’s alcohol and drug abuse now) Why the whole Obama “hoover” comment then?

    Thanks for informing me that only Christians have morals and can judge people. LOL That statement was worth the price of admission alone.

    Your best counter argument is to attack the Huffington Post? Never mind the Drudge Report, Rush, Bill, and Savage are the ones really known for their mindless name calling.

    George is responsible for killing bad people? Yep, all the 100,000 dead in Iraq were bad people. Yes, us invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan means they are now free people. LOL

    Forget 9/11 happened on George’s watch but take the credit for no more terrorist attacks.

    Thanks for redefining idiot as someone who makes valid points and backs them up instead of making irrelevant remarks and name calling.

    You will be happy to know that I am done here and it was fun (not) while it lasted.

  18. Slublog said

    You will be happy to know that I am done here and it was fun (not) while it lasted.

    You know what’s funny? Accusing someone else of having a weak mind when you’re recycling way-past-their-prime SNL laugh lines.

  19. Rosetta said

    Thanks for redefining idiot as someone who makes valid points and backs them up instead of making irrelevant remarks and name calling.

    Hahahaha. Are these not the droids I’m looking for? Damn!

    Please come back so I can learn more debating skillz!!11!

    I wrote a poem for you:

    Brilliant MJ “Revoltingpawn”, why must you flee?
    Your stay here was too short; we hardly knew ye.

    I stand corrected and chided on so many points,
    You are King of This Thread, I hereby annoint.

    Now run away and help those whose wisdom may lag,
    You typical, onanistic, liberal douche bag.

  20. Rosetta said

    Slublog, they always leave just when it starts to get fun.

  21. EC said

    Wow, he actually tries to use Wiki and HuffPo as sources? This is the same HuffPo that shuts down comments whenever a bomb or shooting happens in Israel, right?

    Go back to your treehouse, tard!

  22. Bush lied, people died.
    No war for oil.

  23. wiserbud said

    Oh wait, you are just another person who makes snide personal remarks without adding to discussion

    Awwww, you figured me out. And I was trying to be so subtle, too.

    100,000 dead in Iraq

    gawrsh, it must hurt when you pull almost-facts like this out of your ass. Oh, wait, since you seem to have your head stuffed up there pretty well, I guess you’re used to huge things going in and out of there.

    By the way, here’s a concept that you might want to mull over for a while: If Clinton hadn’t spent all of his political capital on defending and diverting attention from his unethical behavior, he might have actually been able to do something about that stupid little terrorism thing that he wants everyone to believe he was so focused on, laser-like, during his tenure in office.

    So, yeah, in my opinion, Clinton lying about his blow-job (as well as the many other items than brought that to light, by the way) are directly responsible for the nearly 3000 people who were murdered on 9/11 by those who should have been brought to justice years before.

    By the way, ya know what’s a great debating technique? Using “maybe” and “probably” and “possibly” and “might have” as often as possible, then bitching and moaning when people ask you to back up your suppositions. I mean, seriously, they’re your opinions!!1!1!! You don’t need no stinking facts to back them up, am I right?

    Since speculation and supposition are all the rage with assholes like you, how about we all play “guess what was on the documents that Sandy Berger destroyed?” Ya think they might have shed any light on just how incompetent Clinton’s administration was when it came to dealing with Al Qaeda or how much they are culpable for the events that occurred after they left office?

    I’m gonna say “Why, yes they would have.”

  24. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    Wow! I said would not be back and six comments with name calling appear all sudden. LOL You really are all under age kids right? I hope you all keep the name calling to the blogs because that mean I am been talking to six people who have had all their teeth knocked out.

    My sources (some) are mocked but no counter argument or information showing they are wrong. Hmmm…

    I really had to address Wiserbud since he tried to make some points but well his ignorance got in the way.

    Seriously you tried to link Clinton’s blow job to 9/11? The fact Clinton rounded up everyone responsible for the World Trade Center bombing and Bush is not even looking for Bin laden anymore should tell you something. Fact, look it up the Clinton security team warned the incoming Bush administration about the Al Qaeda threat. George’s respond was to break Presidential vacation records and run a promotional campaign to invade Iraq up until 9/11 happened. Bush was talking about Iraq and not Al Qaeda before 9/11.

    I wonder if two months into Obama’s Administration and a terrorist strike happens you all will be blaming Bush? LOL I am thinking not…

    I used maybe once or twice when needed and never used the words – probably, possibly, or might have. Try again… Not that would have anything to do with debate technique.

    I bitched and moaned when asked to backup my points? Nope… Rosetta totally dropped the Bush did no coke and is a lair part of the discussion when did back them up with my links. Oh, the conversion was turned to Clinton which is the tactic used when can’t defend Bush. I am glad of all were reading your Republican talking points handbook. Still waiting for someone to backup the few outrageous points that have been made here. What was your point that my statements are opinions? That your statements are facts and not opinions?

    Funny, your whole rant really applied to the other comments here and not mine. But I guess it’s your head that is to far up your ass to see that…

  25. wiserbud said

    It is to laugh. You attempt to take the so-called high road and get all offended that someone was calling you names, and then you proceed to call me a child and ignorant. Truly, you are a magical unicorn of confusion and self-awareness.

    I … never used the words – probably, possibly, or might have.

    Quote: probably in much the same way that he avoided appearing for his drug test while serving in the National Guard.”

    Gee, moron, if you aren’t even going to read your own stupid shit, why would you expect anyone else to?

    Here, let me get this for you. “You didn’t say the word, you just pulled a quote that used the word.” Okay, fine. Let me clear this up for you then. I used “you” as in the all-inclusive, plural, “all you fucking asshat lying pieces of shit” use those words. Better now?

    My sources (some) are mocked but no counter argument or information showing they are wrong. Hmmm…

    Refuting opinions is a waste of time. You got any actual facts to back up your smarmy and oh-so-tired accusations? Yeah, I didn’t think so. That’s why you had to fall back on HuffPo for your so-called information. If you actually had facts, you wouldn’t need to use those sites as sources and would actually come up with something that couldn’t be refuted so easily

    The fact Clinton rounded up everyone responsible for the World Trade Center bombing

    Really? Everyone? Really?? Ya know, had he concentrated on his job and actually done that, instead of worrying about how he was going to hide Monica from his wife, the World Trade Center might still be standing. But I guess we’ll never really know now, will we?

    Bush was talking about Iraq and not Al Qaeda before 9/11.

    Nice try at revisionism. Perhaps you may want to take a look at some of these quotes here, tough guy. Gosh, why in the world would the next administration focus on Iraq with these sorts of remarks coming from the previous administration??

    I bitched and moaned when asked to backup my points? Nope… Rosetta totally dropped the Bush did no coke and is a lair part of the discussion when did back them up with my links.

    Your links provided no proof. All they were were assumptions made by asshats who soooooo want it to be true that they mistake their opinions for fact. Much like you, in fact. Hmmmm…….

    What was your point that my statements are opinions? That your statements are facts and not opinions?

    I clearly stated that my opinions were just that, opinions. I clearly stated that they were assumptions and suppositions. You seem to think that your opinions equal facts (see your previous whining about no one responding to your so-called “facts” about Bush’s drug use.)

    You were specifically asked for proof for your accusations. You came back with opinions, half-truths and flat-out misrepresentations disguised as facts. And yet, we’re the ones working from some so-called playbook?

    Yes, it is to laugh. Thank you for reminding us all just how deeply the cognitive dissonance runs in those of the moonbat, leftist persuasion.

  26. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    Wiserbud…

    LOL

    You tried to nail me for the word “probably” and it was in quote from another source. Then you called said source a liar but still have no counter information yourself.

    If you had read the links and looked at the sources they were based on and watched the videos you would see George’s patten from his actions. Oh, you would have also learned that Bush did not in fact show up for the drug test and soon left the national guard afterword.

    Forget all about that… Take another look at the quote from George himself from the CNN source…

    “Bush Thursday denied using illegal drugs over the past 25 years, but refused to discuss his younger years for fear of sending “a signal to children that whatever I may have done is okay.””

    He telling you he has not taken illegal drugs in the last 25 years but before that well no comment. Translated, I was taking drugs as a youngest! Case closed!

    The rest of your comment made little sense but your response to my one statement – “Bush was talking about Iraq and not Al Qaeda before 9/11.” lacked any counter point at all. Revisionism? Your link had nothing to do with my point! George was not taking about Al Qaeda but Iraq and WDM’s before 9/11. He changed to the terrorism angle in Iraq which was wrong like the WDM’s after 9/11. Your original point was that Clinton did not around them all up but Bush was not focused on Al Qaeda himself and has not gotten Bin Laden either. Quit trying to blame other people for Bush’s mistakes that so like kindergarten shit.

    First you complain that I did not backup my points (which did) then say my links are easily refuted but I still waiting for someone to do so that. Hint.. Calling them lies and name calling is not refuting.

    This is waste of my time and work is almost over so we return you back to your regularly scheduled program of name calling…

  27. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    I really need to stop since see my spellings is going to shit.

  28. wiserbud said

    Boy are you dumb. Seriously, you are really really dumb.

    First of all, yeah, I knew that was going to be your response regarding “probably.” And if you could read, you would have noticed I already addressed that.

    But, moving on…..

    So, what you’re saying, in a long-winded, roundabout, meandering sort of way is that you think George did drugs more recently than he will admit to, but you have no proof.

    Gotcha. And thanks for your honesty. That wasn’t difficult, was it?

    Hint.. Calling them lies and name calling is not refuting.

    By the way, I did not call them lies. (Again, reading comprehension not so much your string suit, huh?) I just don’t see any actual facts here. You want to believe it so badly that you just won’t recognize that. Speaks volumes about your honesty and integrity.

    your response to my one statement – “Bush was talking about Iraq and not Al Qaeda before 9/11.” lacked any counter point at all. Revisionism? Your link had nothing to do with my point!

    Ummmm, hey, idiot? My point is that NO ONE was focused on Al Qaeda, not even your beloved Clinton! They were all talking about Iraq! Read the quotes, you fucking moron. To say that Bush should have been focused on Al Qaeda instead of Iraq prior to 9/11, when considering what everyone from Clinton’s administration was warning him about Iraq is the most dishonest and, quite frankly, immature comment you’ve made so far.

    And I guarantee that if Iraq had continued to attack us (yes, idiot, they were actually shooting at our planes, in direct violation of the Cease-fire agreement and what many considered to be on-going acts of war) or even stepped up their attacks while Bush focused on Al Qaeda, you’d be here now calling him incompetent because he didn’t do anything about Iraq.

  29. Rosetta said

    MJ “Revoltingpawn”,

    Would you rather take a cross-country road trip with Bush or Ted Kennedy as your driver?

    I’m asking this as a serious question because I would like to know your answer and I would like to see if you can answer it in less than 250 words.

    GO!

  30. Rosetta said

    MJ “revoltingpawn”,

    Two more easy questions for you:

    1) Would you rather live under a brutal dictator or a neophyte democracy?

    2) Who would you rather chaperone your 17 year-old daughter on an overnight trip, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush?

    Thank you in advance for providing short answers to these simple questions.

  31. MJ "revoltingpawn" said

    Wisebud…

    I wish this debate (use that term loosely) was in person since I know you would be doing no name calling but pissing in your pants.

    “So, what you’re saying, in a long-winded, roundabout, meandering sort of way is that you think George did drugs more recently than he will admit to, but you have no proof.”

    I am not thinking anything but reading George’s own words telling you that he did do drugs while in college by not answering the question because don’t want kids to get the wrong idea. Sorry if don’t believe George himself and I couldn’t be at one of his frat parties getting photos of him snorting away. Oh, wait you said recently so you are admitting he did drugs at one time? I never said for certainly he was doing drugs now but pointing out actions of his that would suggest otherwise. If remember I was only pointing out Bush’s past coke use because the Obama and coke images. All my links were based on past and not recent drug use except for the booze thing. If you guys would stop with the name calling, snide remarks, and address the actual points maybe could figure what you fuckers are trying to say.

    “My point is that NO ONE was focused on Al Qaeda, not even your beloved Clinton!”

    I understand no one was focused on Al-Qaeda but the problem is that you blamed Clinton for 9/11 – “Clinton lying about his blow-job (as well as the many other items than brought that to light, by the way) are directly responsible for the nearly 3000 people who were murdered on 9/11 by those who should have been brought to justice years before.”

    That quote just sums it up how ignorant you really are and have no business in being taken seriously. Your logic is that Clinton should have rounded up all of Al-Qaeda during his term but yet Bush has not done so as of today. Bush, why do I never hear the name Bin Landen is your speeches no more? No shit Saddam and Iraq was a concern. My point is if Bush was not so worried about invading Iraq again which was not a security threat (and looked at other options first) maybe he could have looked into that Al-Qaeda thing that the Clinton team briefed him on during the transition or read the intelligence reports that came out later instead of going on vacation after vacation. Sure lay all the blame on Clinton.

    This leads to your last unbelievable comment…

    “And I guarantee that if Iraq had continued to attack us (yes, idiot, they were actually shooting at our planes, in direct violation of the Cease-fire agreement and what many considered to be on-going acts of war)”

    Iraq was taking pop shots at our planes flying over THEIR TERRITORY. That is called resistance which would be expected. You bomb their AAA defenses and not invade them again. Do you have any clue on what are real national security threats to us? Iraq had no ability to step up their attacks on us. Clue… When we did invade the only thing holding us back on our march to Baghdad was how fast our tanks could go.

    You do not go to war before of provocation from someone else since we be in 30 different wars right now. You go to war to protect your homeland or if their is agreed international interests involved AND have no other recourse. Sorry, Iraq does not qualify. Sure you could go to war cause you don’t like them, want to take their oil, or because you can have a easy victory for the home team but someone else can pay the 3 trillion dollars and die instead of our troops.

    Rosetta, stop trolling… (kinda ironic after your first comment here)

    Ok, really am done here for real and you can have one more round of name calling.

  32. mesablue said

    MJ,

    How old were you in 1991? Asking for context.

  33. Rosetta said

    I wish this debate (use that term loosely) was in person since I know you would be doing no name calling but pissing in your pants.

    Hahahahah!!!!11! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE, WISERBUD!!

    Hey toughguy, I’ll assume that my few serious but simple questions were too much for your little BDS brain to process which is typical liberal moron dumbfuckery.

    Also, you lose 150 HuffPoints for not using the phrase “chickenhawk” or “ChimpyMcBushitlerHalliburtonDieblod”. Amateur.

    You know why your party will always be the bitch of our party? We have all the guns and money and you have all the hybrid cars and smelly ugly chicks.

    That fact that your kind isn’t extinct is an argument against natural selection.

    And MJ “Revoltingpawn”? You know that incredibly hot girl from college that you were totally in love with but were too much of a pimply-faced pussy to talk to? I fucked her.

  34. wiserbud said

    Wisebud…

    Okay, first off, it’s wiserbud, not wisebud. I know that you have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your reading comprehension skills are minimal at best, but at least get that right, for God’s sake.

    I wish this debate (use that term loosely) was in person since I know you would be doing no name calling but pissing in your pants.

    Mostly from my uncontrollable laughter at your pathetic attempts to make a sane, rational, fact-based argument, as well as your posturing as some kind of “tough guy.” Other than that, yeah, not so much.

    Sorry if don’t believe George

    So, once again, you’re admitting that you’ve got nothing but your own personal beliefs and opinions to back up your specious claims. Thanks. But I think that’s already been pretty well established, over and over again. But I do appreciate your honesty. That’s actually rather rare in people like you. Your mommy must be so proud of you.

    That quote just sums it up how ignorant you really are and have no business in being taken seriously. Your logic is that Clinton should have rounded up all of Al-Qaeda during his term but yet Bush has not done so as of today.

    Ummmm, moron? Al Qaeda actually attacked us and our interests numerous times during Clinton’s administration. Perhaps you heard about it. It was in all the papers (oooh, right. That reading thing again. Sorry.) And each time, Clinton bit his lower lip, dropped a few tears and told us all that he would do everything in his power to brings those responsible to justice. Then, he dropped a missile on an aspirin factory in Iraq. And went back to sticking cigars into Monica’s twat. And forgot all about them until the next attack.

    Bush, on the other hand, went after them immediately after 9/11 and has been pretty successful in rounding them up and/or obliterating them. And, surprises of surprises, there have been no more attacks on our soil since 9/11! Incredible, I know, but somehow I think Bush has done more to eliminate Al Qaeda than Clinton ever did.

    I guess you didn’t bother to read the quotes I linked about what was being said about Iraq by Clinton and his team before and after the transition, huh? (oooooh, right. That reading thing again. Damn. Once again, sorry about that.)

    Iraq was taking pop shots at our planes flying over THEIR TERRITORY. That is called resistance which would be expected.

    No. Once again (and, as is becoming quite the habit with you) you’re wrong. According to the cease-fire agreement brokered by the UN, that was a no fly zone and we were patrolling it to insure that Saddam didn’t violate his part of the agreement. Which he did. And by firing at our planes, he was engaging in acts of war that gave us every right to attack them. But we didn’t, until the situation changed after 9/11. No longer could we play games with people who were trying to inflict harm on us. It was time to eliminate the threat, not just mitigate or live with it.

    Thankfully, we had a President who understood that and actually took action, as opposed to just talking about it like a tough guy. (hmmm, sounds familiar! Hey, you aren’t Billy C., are you?)

    You do not go to war before of provocation from someone else since we be in 30 different wars right now. You go to war to protect your homeland or if their is agreed international interests involved AND have no other recourse. Sorry, Iraq does not qualify. Sure you could go to war cause you don’t like them, want to take their oil, or because you can have a easy victory for the home team but someone else can pay the 3 trillion dollars and die instead of our troops.

    Wow. This is just unreadable. You really have serious issues with getting your thoughts straight, don’t you?

    Okay, I’ll make this easy for you. It wasn’t about oil or the easy victory or because we didn’t like them. It was about continuing provocations by Iraq against us and our interests. Saddam made it perfectly clear that he intended to do us as much harm as possible, as often as possible. (Or does paying the families of suicide bombers to kill citizens in our ally’s homelands not count for you?) Since we were still, technically, at a state of war with Iraq (look it up, or, even better, maybe have your kindergarten teacher explain it to you), any provocation from them was justification for the invasion.

    Sorry for using so many big words. I guess I can expect another completely nonsensical answer from you because of that. Oh well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: