Nutjob Lefty Alert!!!

So, for some stupid random reason, I got a response to a post I made in June of last year regarding the war in Iraq. Normally, I would try and ignore such things, but this guy basically took quotes from my post and tried to line item and denounce every one. Mind you, his post was after the first legitimate election in Iraq in 50 years. And after recent moves for democracy in Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, among others. No doubt, this guy sees it as a coincidence.

Let me quote this jackass directly.

"Suicide bombers" in Palestine are responding to an unjust and uncontroversially illegal occupation. However irrational and wrong their response may be is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Really? So, based on your stupid, granola-munching logic, if you have a grievance, any response is justifiable. You know what, asshat? Everyone has a grievance, but that does NOT mean that it's "irrelevant" that that a person can strap a bomb to themselves and kill innocent people in a nightclub, or on a city bus. Osama bin Laden also has a grievance that he and several thousand other like-minded fucktards decided it would be a great idea to kill thousands of people.

Oh... and Frederic, or Siva or Dungeon Master, or whatever name you go by... Scott Ritter is the LAST person I would use as a source of material. But perhaps I will: "I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today." Saddam was doing everything he could to violate sanctions, starve his people, and build up his finances (with the blessing of the French, Russians and Germans).

Anyway, here's "Frederic Christie's" genius words: (The parts in quotes are from my original blog post)

"Not allowing weapons inspections, thereby breaking countless UN resolutions. Those resolutions called for severe action if ignored or broken. The fact that we went in despite not having full UN support is proof positive that the UN is ineffective. It's like a kid in high school with a weekend curfew of 11pm that comes in at 3am and doesn't ever get punished. Pretty soon, that kids' going to ignore the curfew all together, because your parents are all talk." A) The resolutions in question did not actually force a violent response but allowed a variety of responses. B) The resolutions in question were rammed down the UN's throat by US diplomacy. C) As recalcitrant as Saddam may have been, the main force blocking inspections was the US - just read Scott Ritter's testimony against the war. The amount of lies that the US government put out was just staggering, and it was not from the intelligence community, who were very forthright about the laughabilty of Bush's charges. D) The UN is a primary agent in a variety of important fields, but insofar as it's ineffective, that's largely the US' fault for blocking almost all of its actions and generally waging a war on it ever since the organization stopped doing as it said. Further, if Saddam proved the UN "ineffective" (despite the incredible steps towards disarmament created only by peace and inspections), surely the US bombing in direct defiance of the UN would do far worse to the organization. "Hussein paid cash money to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. That's terrorist support, plain and simple." A) "Suicide bombers" in Palestine are responding to an unjust and uncontroversially illegal occupation. However irrational and wrong their response may be is irrelevant. B) This rumor has been challenged a number of places - it turns out that Saddam gave plenty to victims of Israeli atrocities as well. C) That sure doesn't justify bombing a country, endangering and terrorizing hundreds of thousands of people (15,000 dead in the most conservative estimates, according to Iraqi Body Count), and proving the worst allegations made by al Qaeda true, thus creating a new opportunity for and a new justification and necessity for WMD proliferation and terror in and out of Iraq. "Hussein harbored countless high-level terrorists in his country, such as Abu Zarqawi. Look his name up if you're interested." That's flatly false. Virtually all of the terror charges have been disputed; for example, "The first time most Americans heard the name of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was when Colin Powell stood before the United Nations to make his case for invading Iraq. While much of Powell's statement turned out to be fictional, Zarqawi is unfortunately quite real." Further, that doesn't justify a unilateral US invasion and the increase in terror created by the war. "Hussein plotted to kill President Bush, Sr. Now, one thing that enfuriates me is hearing those people that say "We went to war because they tried to kill his daddy." Excuse me, but he's a former President of the United States?! If some rogue country attempted to kill President Carter or Clinton or Ford, I would HOPE that we would kick someone's ass over it!!!" First of all, this has been questioned; but then, why is killing 15,000 people to avenge one leader, not to mention endangering the US permanently, justified by this? "Hussein terrorized, mutilated and murdered his own people. Often. For instance, take a look at an ESPN report regarding the Iraqi Olympic Teams and how they were brutalized for not competing up to par." And far worse... Atrocities we eagerly supported all throughtout the 80s and even after the Gulf War.