Changes

:That does not answer the specific question above.  Try it again, please. For internal logic to your arguement, you must be consistent.  Four years ago it was fashionable to be pro-Ba'athist, now the real aims of the "liberal" program are obvious, i.e. subverting the liberal democracy in Iraq that has granted universal sufferage and is making  efforts to advance human rights.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:That does not answer the specific question above.  Try it again, please. For internal logic to your arguement, you must be consistent.  Four years ago it was fashionable to be pro-Ba'athist, now the real aims of the "liberal" program are obvious, i.e. subverting the liberal democracy in Iraq that has granted universal sufferage and is making  efforts to advance human rights.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Nobody was pro-Ba'athist a few years ago, just as much as Rumsfeld was pro-Ba'athist when he met Saddam in the 80's. He was perceived as the lesser evil; a few year by many liberals, and in the 80s by many conservatives. You have to accept the fact that in foreign policy you have to sometime work with people who are wrong, but are the best alternative of many even worse ones, and it can be difficult to deterime who is actually the lesser evil. Your allegations are as naive as anti-war allegations against Rumsfeld. Blame me for Realpolitik. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)

:: Nobody was pro-Ba'athist a few years ago, just as much as Rumsfeld was pro-Ba'athist when he met Saddam in the 80's. He was perceived as the lesser evil; a few years ago by many liberals, and in the 80s by many conservatives. You have to accept the fact that in foreign policy you have to sometime work with people who are wrong, but are the best alternative of many even worse ones, and it can be even difficult to deterime who is actually the lesser evil. Your allegations are as naive as anti-war allegations against Rumsfeld. Blame me for Realpolitik. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)

*We again have too beasts here.  It isn't fair to Clinton, per se, to say that. Clinton, if not distracted with his perjury before a Federal Circuit Judge, which is what he was really scared of, not Impeachment, for it was a true Felony, would undoubtedly followed State's advisory and entered the fray in Africa.  We have been working hard, for years, to remove the domestic idealogy from our Foreign Policy...as it costs us billions every year.  The Congress was surprisingly open to aid packages when requested, by Clinton.

*We again have too beasts here.  It isn't fair to Clinton, per se, to say that. Clinton, if not distracted with his perjury before a Federal Circuit Judge, which is what he was really scared of, not Impeachment, for it was a true Felony, would undoubtedly followed State's advisory and entered the fray in Africa.  We have been working hard, for years, to remove the domestic idealogy from our Foreign Policy...as it costs us billions every year.  The Congress was surprisingly open to aid packages when requested, by Clinton.