Well, we know what Hannah Arendt wrote about Eichmann, and my guess is that if Stalin had even been in the dock, ordinary Russians would have been shocked to see a stumpy, pock-marked, brown-toothed little bully.

Skinny? Well, they'll have to weigh him when they measure the length of the rope. We wouldn't want him to choke instead of snapping.

You guys have actually read Hannah Arendt? And you really believe all the crap on this website? It this all some kind of really elaborate farce?
Wake up people; your hero, Ronald Reagan, killed more innocent people than Saddam Hussein ever dreamed of. Richard Nixon probably killed 10 times as many.
Not that a simple body count would have any moral standing among this group, even if you guys did agree on the facts of the matter; I just wish more of you could be a little more honest and open in your preaching the righteousness of American foreign policy, and just admit the fact that its a simple matter of screwing others to maintain and American society that is becoming increasing difficult to maintain by force alone.

Grug:

It's not whether you kill, but whom.

Actually, it's becoming easier to maintain by force alone as the rest of the world collapses.

But I'm interested in the Reagan/Saddam thing. Usually I can decode moonbat, but you've got be stumped. Are you using a special meaning for "killed" or for "innocent?"

I'd like to see Grug present some numbers on the amount of people he feels Reagan killed and the amount of people he feels Saddam killed. Estimates for Saddam range from 300-500,000 (not including the million or so during the Iran-Iraq war). So, Grug, are you saying that Reagan killed over 1.5 million people? Where? That's almost a fifth of the entire Nicaraguan population, you'd think somebody would have noticed before now.
Grug, you're coming off with the usual "You're stupid! America's evil! I'm patriotic! Why won't you listento me when I say the you're all evil and stupid?!" troll rant. Instead, try presenting some facts that have been presented by people other than the Chomsky/Zinn cabal. After all, if a fact is true, other people should be able to research it and verify it.

I'm also entertained that Nixon comes with responsibility for 15 million deaths, but LBJ apparently gets off scott free.

Can someone also explain to me how we've been maintaining American society by "force alone"?

why do you let the lab rats control you this way ? i know it's fun to mock the glorious ignorance of our leftist brethren, but this obvious trolling should be ignored.

sig:

We answer them. They leave. The only trolls who stay are the Christophobic Darwinists.

Siggy:
I'm at work. I'm bored. 'Nuff said.

It''s way past time for Saddam to try and "escape".

Jim:

Your comment reminds me of my dad's preferred solution to the problem of Guantanamo: Let the terrorists out into the yard for some exercise and surreptitiously (and "accidentally") leave the gate unlocked. Someone will inevitably notice this, and as they all run through the gates shouting "Praise Allah, we are free!" and suchlike...mow them down.

Matt:

No, give them Spanish phrasebooks and let them into Cuba. THEN they'll get mowed down.

And after they're mowed down they can get some that vaunted free Cuban medical care.

old ways are best ways; put a little cyanide into the cous-cous and bob's your uncle.

Grug:

American society needs to be maintained by force? Where, exactly? In Compton? In Scarsdale? In North Dakota?

I'm intrigued - why do you believe such a thing? Are you a fugitive? A radical tax protestor? A graduate assistant who has run squarely into the Peter Principle?

Apparently we're "forcing" smaller nations to sign free trade agreements, nukes at the ready, so that American companies can move their production facilities to low-labor-cost areas and exploit the natives by giving them jobs.

Curse us !!

Death to Coca~Cola !!

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at December 10, 2005 6:24 AM

Lou, "We wouldn't want him to choke instead of snapping."

Why not? Choking would be a more drawn out, more unpleasant death.

"The only trolls who stay are the Christophobic Darwinists."

Yep, still here.
Actually, I don't think we're "Christophobic," whatever that means, but we can't resist putting our fist into the tar baby that is the evolution debate when you provoke us.

Of course you can't help it--that's the point.

Although actually, now that I think about it, I've managed to ignore the provocations for a while now. But there's always newer readers who serve as fodder for the bait.