littlefuzzy wrote:You know what, screw it... I had some stuff typed out, but I'm not going to bother.

I believe the correct all-American term for it is... owned!
littlefuzzy wrote:Questionable source = Press TV is state-funded and is a division of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).
Shooting (only one of the) messenger(s). Typically for people with no answers.
littlefuzzy wrote:Iraq was a trouble spot ever since the end of the Gulf War.
Iraq was a trouble spot ever since Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush helped him to get into power, and provided him with enough moolah and weapons to wage war with Iran (1981-1989).
littlefuzzy wrote:They weren't complying with UN inspections,
Israël ignored 69 UN resolutions. Next on the target list?
littlefuzzy wrote:and intelligence from many other countries was showing signs of WMD potential.
Nonsense. Other countries were parrotting American forged 'intelligence' (particularly the UK).
littlefuzzy wrote:Saddam was violating human rights left and right,
The same goes for America's good friends in China, Saudi-Arabia, Columbia, Honduras and two dozen other countries where the US aided ruthless dictators in the past.
littlefuzzy wrote:massacres of Kurds and other groups, the invasion of Iran, and so on - hundreds of thousands to more than a million dead.
Made possible by the USA. And they didn't bat an eye when Hussein started the war with Iran. On the contrary, they sold him the neccesary weapons to attack Iran. Of course, in secret, the Reagan-administration also secretly provided weapons to Iran as well. They needed the money to sponsor right-wing terrorist death squads against the Sandanista government in Nicaragua. You might recall that story as 'Iran-Contra'.
All the reasons you're giving above weren't used by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq War. Because not only wouldn't it hold up legally (under international law), but also the American public couldn't care less about all that. They needed to rile up the public with bogus claims about non-existing weapons of mass destruction and outright lies about non-existing connections between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
littlefuzzy wrote:Anyway, have a nice life... Someone who falls for troll-bait is a sucker, not a troll. I guess I'm a sucker... Oh well...
I guess you're one of the people who can be "fooled again", to quote Junior. I can only compliment on your excellent self-knowledge. Have a nice life yourself and enjoy your daily dose of kool-aid.
Lazario wrote:And they are the only ones now, I feel, who can actually make a dent in this debate. I don't hear of many soldiers speaking out, one way or another. Until they do, a huge (if not majority) opinion in America will sadly fall in Little Fuzzy's camp.
Not true. Soldiers are never allowed to speak out against their missions. They're not trained to think critically and question authority. They're trained to obey whomever is giving the orders. If they didn't do that, the army would fall apart.