
"Liberate" is the way an invader describes an invasion, including, if
I'm not mistaken, the Iraqi liberation of Kuwait.  Never invaded
Nicaragua?  Only with more word games: can you say "send in the
Marines?"  


Oh, good: word games.  If you let the aggressor pick the words,
there's scarcely ever been a reprehensible military action.



That's a convenient technique, much seen on alt.atheism: define those
who disagree with you according to a straw-man extreme that matches
virtually nobody.


Very noble and patriotic.  I'm sure the fine young Americans who
carpet-bombed Iraqi infantry positions from over the horizon,
destroyed Iraq's sewer and water infrastructure from the safety of the
sky or further, or who bulldozed other Iraqi infantry into their
trenches [or more importantly the commanders who ordered them to] were
just thrilled to be risking death (if not risking it by much) in the
defense of the liberty of ... well, wealthy Kuwaitis.  Can't have
those oil-fields under a tyrant's heel if that tyrant is antagonistic
to US interests... 


Having pigeon-holed "peace-niks" (in this context, "people who
disagree with me about the conduct of the Gulf War") into
"peace-at-all-cost-hitler-supporting-genocide-abetting-wimps", you can
now express righteous indignation when "they" refuse to fit this mold
and question the conduct of the war on legitimate terms.  HOW DARE
THEY!


Yes, hypocrisy indeed!  Those violent peace-niks!  (Care to list an
example here?)


Wow: instant '80's nostalgia!  [Of course, "peace-nik" itself is a
'50's Cold War derogatory term equating those who promote pacifism
with Godless Pinko Communists].  Yes indeed, I felt my freedoms
mightily threatened by Iraq... 