Just had this exchange with a freeper friend:
>>By the way, just last year Qaddafi was hatching a plot to assassinate Saudi >>>Arabia's crown prince.
>>
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/29/>us_renews_ties_with_libya_despite_alleged_murder_plot/>>I have a question. When the U.S. is involved, why do leftists always stick up >>for the brutal dictator?
Man that is offensive. Especially when you consider the Saudi Royals are no friends of Human Rights Watch either. It's almost like you are sticking up for one brutal dictator by saying another tried to kill him. As far as I'm concerned, Bandar and Qaddafi could kill each other.
Man that is funny too. Leftists like Human Rights watch hold us all over the fire. American, Iraqi, Lybian, Saudi. You just accused me of standing up for one dictator by practically standing up for another yourself. Either way, I don't know many leftists defending dictators.
Where was I sticking up for Qaddafi? I just said this breakthrough
was the result of years of effort on the part of some other countries.
Again, it is much easier to take the masturbatory route of arguing with yourself than with me, isn't it. You used to be a smart guy. Logical. I think this tendency toward straw men and rhetorical questions is a stylistic thing you are picking up from the right-wing media you are steeped in.
It doesn't replace thinking for yourself.
>>It's disgusting.
Yes it is whenever someone stands up for a brutal dictator.
Link to "Rummy and Saddam pic"
That picture was from around the time he was killing his own people and we were sending him this stuff:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm
Of course this wasn't the Carter or Clinton administrations. It was Reagan. When the US is involved with Brutal Dictators, it is Republicans, not "leftists" who are in charge.
See how much more satisfying an argument based on facts is?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
