Tuesday, May 09, 2006

More Liberal Justifications for War?

From the mailbag we get a snippy little piece of socialist liberal journalism of the flavor BBC. Pure evil American aggressor hit piece, but the comments after the article are what set me off. Here is my reply:

It stuff like this that prove how insane and marginal you Moonbats are:
Back in 1939, had I been one Adolf Scrub Hitler (ed: Scrub = Bush), the argument would be something like this. "Poland has been threatening Germany and Germans living in Poland (as indeed they had). Germany was under threat of attack at any time. Therefore, I had the right to strike first, to defend myself. Britain and France had both promised to "come to the assistance" of Poland. They were taking sides with the aggressor!!! Therefore, I was acting defensively in attacking both of them first; to protect myself. Therefore, WW2 was the fault of Poland, Britain and France, not Germany, who was only acting in self-defense under the pre-emptive Scrub Doctrine."
First, the whole Bush is Hitler thing is not only psychotic, but extremely distaste full. More Bush hatred twisting the mind into a degenerate state. Second, by your inane argument, Hitler would have insisted on free elections in Poland by 1942, oh wait, he simply enslaved them all. So, Neville, what does constitute a threat? I missed the part where the Poles encouraged terrorist acts in Germany...

Now regarding the issue of the article, do you not think the more important question is the legality of Iran's nuclear activity? Is that not the real question? Or have Liberals embraced a world with unfettered nuclear proliferation... Furthermore, if liberal idiots are perfectly willing to ignore nuclear proliferation by nutters, what grounds have they to claim any illegality under 'international law', which has now become a joke, of the U.S. or Israel actually enforcing non-proliferation? Of course this in itself is a joke as Israel does not exactly comply with nonproliferation, but then again, not many Israelis proposing as their national focus the destruction of a neighboring country.

I see in the article that the reason there would not be a Security Council resolution authorizing force is the obviously peace loving ChiComs and Russians. Why is that? Saving the world are they? From the evil George Bush? Or maybe they are making a tidy profit equipping Iran with they technology necessary to fulfill there nuclear ambition. The author is a dense brick. Why do so many journo's end up siding with communists? Hmmmm... But to reinforce the propagandists point of view is this delicious excerpt from the article:
Ms Wilmshurst accepted that Israel might regard itself as threatened, given the remarks made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But she added: "Israel would have to take an objective, realistic view as to whether there was a real threat, and I am doubtful at the moment."
You have found a friend Neville! The epitome of insane peacenik Moonbats. Doubtful indeed. Yes, lets take an objective, realistic view of a psychotic megalomaniac, who is threatening to erase you and all you're relations from the planet, and come up with the conclusion there is nothing to worry about. Brilliant! Give her a Nobel Peace prize! And people wonder why the contempt for liberal socialist peaceniks grows daily...

2 comments:

Jay.Mac said...

Don't forget the six million Polish killed in the Holocaust (half of them Jewish).
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/

What's the world come to when these people look at Iran and think there's nothing to worry about?

Carlos said...

Could not agree with you more. The same people embrace from a distance egalitarian communism, which is the philosophy underpinning the worst genocide in history, go figure. It's incomprehensible.