Abuses as bad as under dictator, claims Allawi
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"Sir Rodney Smithers" wrote
I do agree that all politicos are crooks, but there is a world of
difference between Bush and Kerry.
Boy is there ever. Even the most whacked-out Nader enthusiast could not
pretend that there was no difference between Bush & Kerry, although some
of the Baradnick people tried... or at least, they said they believed
it....
... I for one would prefer a moderate Republican or Democrat over the
two extremes we had to chose from in the last election.
If you tink Kerry is "extreme" then you are guilty of believing the
Bush-Cheney spinmeisters instead of your own two eyes... maybe because
your eyes were shut tight...
Doug Kanter wrote:
Kerry doesn't enter into this issue at the moment.
Of course he does. All the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders have to offer is a
continual chorus of "Clinton was worse! Kerry would have been worse!
Sqwaa-aark! Polly wanna cracker!"
.....The Middle East is what it is, and no amount of force can change
that.
That's not true. The Middle East *will* change if we apply enough force at
the right places. Say for example we nuke the place. That would certainly
bring about a very large change.
A slightly less extreme alternative would be to kill 30% of the male
population of one or two given countries... that would render it far more
difficult... maybe impossible... for them to wage any kind of war. And it
would certainly alter the politics of the region quite drastically.
In Iraq, we are in effect taking a can of peas, slapping a label on it
that says "chicken soup", and wondering why the can still contains peas.
I like that analogy. Mind if I use it too?
Thanks
DSK
Be my guest.
|