[MMMMMM]

CA: "Just to clarify, you contend that Iraq and Iran were both fascist regimes during the 1980's when they were at war, but ridicule the notion that the winner of such a conflict could ever be called fascist."


I'm not ridiculing any such notion; check your logic please because you cannot conclude that from what I wrote.

My point is that to call Bush a fascist while not calling Saddam et al fascists is a very skewed outlook. Also, removing great evil at a very reasonable cost is a good thing. And to focus on the casualties (which were low in this surgical war), instead of on the lives saved/to be saved by the removal of Saddam's regime, is misguided at best or highly intellectually dishonest and manipulative at worst.


CA: "Tyrants die or step down under non-violent pressure (e.g., too many people refuse to follow orders) or they just retire or otherwise quit. So?"


Saddam's regime wasn't going to "go away" soon, and Saddam certainly wasn't going to "step down." His sons would have taken the reins had he died (they already were in charge of much of the military and security apparatus). You know all this, so to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest on your part (and you also know my point was made especially with regards to Saddam, since it is a response to Parmenides' cited article discussing Saddam).

By the way, just what do you think the chances of Saddam "stepping down" due to nonviolent political pressure might have been? LOL.L-O-L.