What happened to the good old days in Iraq? When the country was run by a thug who attempted to assasinate a sitting American president. When the women were raped by these same thugs and then poured in golden honey and them naked bodies, then put in a pit with wild dogs who woould eat these women alive. The torture chambers. These libs never lived in Iraq but they sure do miss good old Iraq.
Saddam called for a holy war before going and hiding in that worm hole - but I don't expect you libs to have ever been told that. Whe war is against all Muslim scum whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, France, England, Canada, Germany, Russia, USA...
I despise liberals. They don't have any primitive instincts for the survival of a Christian Nation.
Saddam called for a holy war before going and hiding in that worm hole - but I don't expect you libs to have ever been told that. Whe war is against all Muslim scum whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, France, England, Canada, Germany, Russia, USA...
I despise liberals. They don't have any primitive instincts for the survival of a Christian Nation.
Patriot said:
DNA testing, Pat. How do you think they get DNA?
Let's be very clear here ... if your goal in Iraq is to liberate the people from Saddam and to bring them Western-style democracy, this is just another really stupid decision on your gov'ts part. But, of course, democracy and liberation have nothing to do with it .... right???
You guys really couldn't be doing much more to make them hate you. Why don't you just print off Bin Laden's phone number and pass it around? Save yourselves some time and blood.
The only thing your gov't is interested in right now is getting these elections over with. They want to be able to turn and smile at the camera and say 'We did it!' no matter how exaggerated such an assertion will be. When they say 'we need to win this war' it is all about appearances and nothing further.
but returning residents may find that the measures make Fallujah look more like a police state than the democracy they have been promised.
Yes, doc. And because security has to be more stringent as of 12-10-2004, surely that means Fallujah will remain in that 'police state' FOREVER...right?
It's amusing to watch you, XP, and a few others selectively posting only negative links...with the very occasional upbeat link tossed in when either the good news is so overwhelming it can't be ignored, or the "doc mercer is a defeatist tool with an agenda" heat gets too high.
As far as your article, I noticed a story the other day that said some of the Fallujah fighting petered out because the insurgents ran out of ammunition. Hmm...sounds like the same arguement I made to the left months ago, and was shouted down because the insurgents were awash in materiel. But maybe it's all a hoax.
Aw hell, why not post a link anyways ...
<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END-->http://www.theday.com/eng/web/store/itm.aspx?re=93849665-CF31-42A8-9F94-1759CAF376CA&itm=art
Is that suddenly going to change over the next few weeks...and our military will find themselves facing hordes of well armed insurgents?
Anyways...the point is, the hard part is done in Fallujah, and Baghdad simply isn't the war zone it's portrayed to be by the screaming Left. Dangerous? Sure as hell. But is it a real war zone...like Beirut circa 1975? Sure as hell not. If we wanted to treat these cities like war zones, they'd be rubble. Fact is, they're not.
Are U.S. troops being killed in battle? Yes. At historically low rates for the intensity of the conflict? Yes. Is slow progress being made? Yes. Will the Left caterwaul about elections not being possible...just like they were impossible in Afghanistan? Of course. Will the process be perfect? No. But is it worth trying? Yes. Is it an improvement? Yes.
We're changing the very landscape our enemies inhabit, the Mideast. They struck us here, but we're changing their world. A hundred years from now, history is going to look back at these times and laud us for the victory we are marching toward. I'm proud to be living in these times. America is trying something no one else in the world would dare, and we are **** on for it today. But the victory will be all the more sweet down the road.
Yes, doc. And because security has to be more stringent as of 12-10-2004, surely that means Fallujah will remain in that 'police state' FOREVER...right?
It's amusing to watch you, XP, and a few others selectively posting only negative links...with the very occasional upbeat link tossed in when either the good news is so overwhelming it can't be ignored, or the "doc mercer is a defeatist tool with an agenda" heat gets too high.
As far as your article, I noticed a story the other day that said some of the Fallujah fighting petered out because the insurgents ran out of ammunition. Hmm...sounds like the same arguement I made to the left months ago, and was shouted down because the insurgents were awash in materiel. But maybe it's all a hoax.
Aw hell, why not post a link anyways ...
<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END-->http://www.theday.com/eng/web/store/itm.aspx?re=93849665-CF31-42A8-9F94-1759CAF376CA&itm=art
Is that suddenly going to change over the next few weeks...and our military will find themselves facing hordes of well armed insurgents?
Anyways...the point is, the hard part is done in Fallujah, and Baghdad simply isn't the war zone it's portrayed to be by the screaming Left. Dangerous? Sure as hell. But is it a real war zone...like Beirut circa 1975? Sure as hell not. If we wanted to treat these cities like war zones, they'd be rubble. Fact is, they're not.
Are U.S. troops being killed in battle? Yes. At historically low rates for the intensity of the conflict? Yes. Is slow progress being made? Yes. Will the Left caterwaul about elections not being possible...just like they were impossible in Afghanistan? Of course. Will the process be perfect? No. But is it worth trying? Yes. Is it an improvement? Yes.
We're changing the very landscape our enemies inhabit, the Mideast. They struck us here, but we're changing their world. A hundred years from now, history is going to look back at these times and laud us for the victory we are marching toward. I'm proud to be living in these times. America is trying something no one else in the world would dare, and we are **** on for it today. But the victory will be all the more sweet down the road.
JDeuce said:
I'm not a worldnetdaily.com reader so you'll have to forgive me for being unable to find much positive information coming out of a country that was wrongly invaded.
Good for you and your prediction. But this article isn't about whether or not the insurgency is still fighting the US troops, but about the irony of the security measures being taken in Fallujah that run counter to establishing democracy and making them into your image. Just pointing out the hypocrisy, peaches.
You may happen to think this a noble cause, but I happen to find it terribly arrogant. You write this like it's to be congratulated, but how would you feel if they were trying to do the same in the U.S.? Having been raised American, do you not feel a certain kinship to your culture and its traditions? Can you explain to me why you don't respect the same likelihood among Arabs? If they want democracy, or western-style consumerism or whatever, that's up to them, not you and yours.
Jointpleasure:
It must be a pleasurable joint ya toking on:
"If the US dropped a nuke anywhere, I will assume that the intelligence reports our nation deems credible"
Our flappin Intelligence reports ??? Same ones that forced Powell to lie in front of the UN so Bush could invade Iraq ... are we talking those same Intelligence type reports???
It must be a pleasurable joint ya toking on:
"If the US dropped a nuke anywhere, I will assume that the intelligence reports our nation deems credible"
Our flappin Intelligence reports ??? Same ones that forced Powell to lie in front of the UN so Bush could invade Iraq ... are we talking those same Intelligence type reports???
Xpanda:
Well said!!!
I ask the Bushies- ya know, the REAL INTELLECTUAL CROWD - how they would feel if N Korean tanks were in Washington, DC due to Jung feelings its time for a REGIME CHANGE ...
Man, the BS responses are classical .. they give ya that stare that Bush has made famous when asked a simple question such as: "Please name 3 mistakes you have made your 1st term .."
Ya wonder why they hate us? We set up puppet regimes all over the world ... arm em to the Max ... and then bomb the crap out of their countries down the road
Democracy starts from within .. not from some Ex Coke Head with a hardon to get "the man who tried to kill Daddy"
Well said!!!
I ask the Bushies- ya know, the REAL INTELLECTUAL CROWD - how they would feel if N Korean tanks were in Washington, DC due to Jung feelings its time for a REGIME CHANGE ...
Man, the BS responses are classical .. they give ya that stare that Bush has made famous when asked a simple question such as: "Please name 3 mistakes you have made your 1st term .."
Ya wonder why they hate us? We set up puppet regimes all over the world ... arm em to the Max ... and then bomb the crap out of their countries down the road
Democracy starts from within .. not from some Ex Coke Head with a hardon to get "the man who tried to kill Daddy"
The war is certainly not going well, but eventually there will be democracy in iraq. When that happens the future for the children and many generations to come will be better off.
Just because it hasnt been easy, doesnt mean that it wont end up working out. People need more patience and less political posturing.
Just because it hasnt been easy, doesnt mean that it wont end up working out. People need more patience and less political posturing.
primetime21 said:
Would you mind lending me your crystal ball? I want to know if I'm going to get laid this weekend or not.
Whether democracy happens in Iraq (presumably elections occuring in January will be enough 'proof' for most Americans, as was the case in Afghanistan) still does not condone the fact that this particular form of government, based on the mantra 'by the people, for the people,' was, in fact, forced on the people through might and tyranny. The method used to turn Iraq democratic has been, in and of itself, undemocratic.
Question: If the US was so concerned about remaking the ME democratic (and it is true that no two democracies have gone to war against one another, lending credibility to the idea that democracy is the best form of gov't for lasting peace) why not just fund a pro-democracy movement in Iraq? The US are seasoned vets at inspiring regime change from within. They didn't need to go to war to do this.
Answer: This war isn't about democracy. It never was. The US could give a crap if Iraq is democratic in five years or not. (In fact, I would think that an Iraqi democracy would be the US's worst nightmare, since the people will not likely stand for high degrees of brown-nosing the US.) This war was about military bases and scaring the bejeezus out of Arabs. Period.
I'm not a worldnetdaily.com reader so you'll have to forgive me for being unable to find much positive information coming out of a country that was wrongly invaded.
You should start reading WND then...because when you limit your news sources to CNN and the New York Times, of course you'll see a gloomy picture of Iraq. But the truth is good things are starting to happen in Iraq...and they'll eventually get better (much to your dismay I'm sure).
And I love how the left immediately attacks the source of any articles instead of the actual article content. At least when republicans rip something Maureen Dowd or Juan Cole wrote to shreds, they deconstruct her argument...and then the source. Doesn't seem to happen from the left...I mostly hear "Aww, Fox News. WorldNetDaily. Right wing sites...pffft..."
But this article isn't about whether or not the insurgency is still fighting the US troops, but about the irony of the security measures being taken in Fallujah that run counter to establishing democracy and making them into your image. Just pointing out the hypocrisy, peaches.
And you missed my point yet again, snuggles. The reason I brought up the ammunition was not to tout my ability to analyze, but to point out that its highly unlikely Fallujah will be filled with insurgents again since they're running out of ammo very quickly. They're in retreat and re-group mode, which is a perfect chance for us to chase them down and wipe more of them out. But the Fallujah job isn't completely finished yet. With that in mind...
Of course extra security measures are going to be taken for the INTERIM...NOT permanently. What do you think would happen if US troops completely pulled out of Fallujah right now? It's not like the Marines can say "wow...that was a tough one, but we're done with that ****" and then completely abandon the place. It's still in the building phase...and we're still training Iraqi soldiers on exactly how to keep the place in order. Until then, things will have to be a little bit strict. But even this 'police state' is far better than the conditions they were living in under the former regime.
You may happen to think this a noble cause, but I happen to find it terribly arrogant.
That's because you don't understand why we're there in the first place...and it's not to 'impose' our own version of democracy on their people. Let me break it down to you.
When we declared there was a war on terror...that included ALL countries who harbored ANY terrorists or supported them financially...and that doesn't only mean Al Qaeda. Saddam has paid $25k to families of suicide bombers...which, well, pretty much places him into that category, doesn't it?
Secondly, Saddam's regime was in violation of numerous UN resolutions...which he was supposed to meet in order to be allowed to continue his reign. Yet he eventually went back to his old tricks, and years of UN sanctions or censure didn't change his mind. That alone was enough justification for us going into Iraq.
Lastly, he wasn't exactly the most noble humanitarian on the planet...was he? He brutally killed tens of thousands of his own people. I thought the lefties were the people who were the humanitarians...where's your bleeding heart for the deceased? Or do you think scam commissions like "Human Rights Watch" would eventually be able to sit down with him and make him say "Gee, I never looked at my behavior like that before...my bad..."
You write this like it's to be congratulated, but how would you feel if they were trying to do the same in the U.S.?
They did, and they still are. The ultimate goal of these whackos is to transform the entire world to Islam. To do that, they have to first topple the biggest obstacle standing in their way...us. It's not going to happen.
And btw...please share your thoughts on the USA taking out Hitler's regime during WW2. By your logic, that was a tragic mistake...and egregious violation of international law. After all...I'm sure the Germans just loved living under the SS, and would be much better off today had the US not acted...right?
You should start reading WND then...because when you limit your news sources to CNN and the New York Times, of course you'll see a gloomy picture of Iraq. But the truth is good things are starting to happen in Iraq...and they'll eventually get better (much to your dismay I'm sure).
And I love how the left immediately attacks the source of any articles instead of the actual article content. At least when republicans rip something Maureen Dowd or Juan Cole wrote to shreds, they deconstruct her argument...and then the source. Doesn't seem to happen from the left...I mostly hear "Aww, Fox News. WorldNetDaily. Right wing sites...pffft..."
But this article isn't about whether or not the insurgency is still fighting the US troops, but about the irony of the security measures being taken in Fallujah that run counter to establishing democracy and making them into your image. Just pointing out the hypocrisy, peaches.
And you missed my point yet again, snuggles. The reason I brought up the ammunition was not to tout my ability to analyze, but to point out that its highly unlikely Fallujah will be filled with insurgents again since they're running out of ammo very quickly. They're in retreat and re-group mode, which is a perfect chance for us to chase them down and wipe more of them out. But the Fallujah job isn't completely finished yet. With that in mind...
Of course extra security measures are going to be taken for the INTERIM...NOT permanently. What do you think would happen if US troops completely pulled out of Fallujah right now? It's not like the Marines can say "wow...that was a tough one, but we're done with that ****" and then completely abandon the place. It's still in the building phase...and we're still training Iraqi soldiers on exactly how to keep the place in order. Until then, things will have to be a little bit strict. But even this 'police state' is far better than the conditions they were living in under the former regime.
You may happen to think this a noble cause, but I happen to find it terribly arrogant.
That's because you don't understand why we're there in the first place...and it's not to 'impose' our own version of democracy on their people. Let me break it down to you.
When we declared there was a war on terror...that included ALL countries who harbored ANY terrorists or supported them financially...and that doesn't only mean Al Qaeda. Saddam has paid $25k to families of suicide bombers...which, well, pretty much places him into that category, doesn't it?
Secondly, Saddam's regime was in violation of numerous UN resolutions...which he was supposed to meet in order to be allowed to continue his reign. Yet he eventually went back to his old tricks, and years of UN sanctions or censure didn't change his mind. That alone was enough justification for us going into Iraq.
Lastly, he wasn't exactly the most noble humanitarian on the planet...was he? He brutally killed tens of thousands of his own people. I thought the lefties were the people who were the humanitarians...where's your bleeding heart for the deceased? Or do you think scam commissions like "Human Rights Watch" would eventually be able to sit down with him and make him say "Gee, I never looked at my behavior like that before...my bad..."
You write this like it's to be congratulated, but how would you feel if they were trying to do the same in the U.S.?
They did, and they still are. The ultimate goal of these whackos is to transform the entire world to Islam. To do that, they have to first topple the biggest obstacle standing in their way...us. It's not going to happen.
And btw...please share your thoughts on the USA taking out Hitler's regime during WW2. By your logic, that was a tragic mistake...and egregious violation of international law. After all...I'm sure the Germans just loved living under the SS, and would be much better off today had the US not acted...right?
JDeuce said:
I don't watch CNN and the last time I picked up the Times was for its Sunday crossword. Which, by the way, is impossible to finish.
Worldnetdaily is an absolutely ridiculous newssource. It is 98% Op-Ed (I believe it calls the ACLU the American Communist Lovers of Unions or some such childish rant) and should not be taken seriously. If this is where you are getting your news from, may I suggest FoxNews for you instead? It's still right-wing biased, but at least it's not patently retarded in every single sentence.
Ummm ... what were your references to CNN and the NYT all about, then?
Worldnetdaily deserves the criticism it gets. If I got my news from ToysRUs, would you not be right in raising an eyebrow?
Ummm ... I'm not criticising the fact that security measures exist in Fallujah. I am criticising what form those security measures take. Do you not think that taking DNA and forcing people to wear a badge with their name and address on it is ridiculously, completely invasive? You would you allow your gov't to subject you to such measures, even if you were under attack?
No shît.
You wrote, originally:
"We're changing the very landscape our enemies inhabit, the Mideast. They struck us here, but we're changing their world. A hundred years from now, history is going to look back at these times and laud us for the victory we are marching toward. I'm proud to be living in these times. America is trying something no one else in the world would dare, and we are **** on for it today."
I replied in kind.
If you would like to have a discussion on the merits and/or reasons for the invasion, let's start another thread. I do think that has been hashed ad nauseum around here, however, and would thik it would take us another month to go over it all.
No, that is not their goal. Since you claim this, why don't you try to prove it? While you're in Google looking for Worldnetdaily aricles to back up this fallacious statement, type in "Salafism" and "Caliphate" ... you'll learn some stuff.
How would stopping a country that is belligerently invading other countries for reasons other than self-defence be a violation of international law?
Oh, and to remind your arrogant self of the facts, there were Allies involved in WWII and y'all didn't think the cause was worthy until three years after the rest of us and, even then, it took an attack on your soil to make it happen. So save your holier-than-though, America-to-the-rescue rhetoric for someone who knows nothing about history.
Christ on a bike...what a week.
Just got rid of a houseguest who was here for a very, very, very, very, very....
very long time...and put them onto a bird headed back for Europe.
And now I feel like complete crap. Not sure if its the goofy weather, but what better way to recuperate than sit at home and see if I win my basketball plays of the night (oh yeah...and respond to an XP rant)?
Worldnetdaily is an absolutely ridiculous newssource.
I don't *only* read WND for news. I read them for editorials, because a lot of them are dead on (ESPECIALLY Victor Davis Hanson...absolutely brilliant analyst).
I do watch Fox News, but it isn't very *right wing* to be honest. The reason so many people think it's right is because they're used to watching the usual CNN or CBS lefty broadcasts. Can anyone who thinks Fox News is right site one single specific instance where they were blatantly right when reporting the news? I'm not talking about op-shows like the O'Reilly Factor...I'm talking about news anchors. Just one.
Anyone? Bueller?
Ummm ... what were your references to CNN and the NYT all about, then?
I told you...if you post articles from the NYT or CNN, I'll be able to expose the content for what it really is...leaning far left. The problem is dems like to skip that step when responding to something from WND or Newsmax...because they can't argue what's in front of them.
In all fairness, I've noticed you do seem to take the time to analyze whatever someone writes and try to respond point by point. Only fools with an insidious agenda like Ba'athist Doc (ie doc mercer) don't.
Do you not think that taking DNA and forcing people to wear a badge with their name and address on it is ridiculously, completely invasive?
Show me a credible link which states it is mandatory for all citizens of Fallujah to submit DNA and wear name tags. By credible, I mean members of the US Military confirming it. Until then, I ain't buying it.
No, that is not their goal. Since you claim this, why don't you try to prove it?
Okay. How about this quote from a fundamentalist Egyptian journo?
“After the complete breakdown of democracy, Western civilization has nothing else to give humanity....The dominance of Western man has reached its end. The time has come for Islam to take the lead,” writes Qutb.
Ever heard of him?
Mmm...actually, tell you what. Why don't you just check this essay out instead?
http://www.jbuff.com/c081403.htm
This quote from there sums it up pretty well:
Radical Islamists murder and kill all over the world and not only in Israel. Only this week they attacked a hotel in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country on earth. They do this because they wish to achieve world domination. If this cannot be done by peaceful means, then the Islamists will try to do it with terror.
He's right. Don't tell me you need a link to where Bin Laden (or other fundamentalists) calls on other muslims to wipe out the 'infidel' in the name of Islam. To them, infidels are anyone who is NOT a Muslim. And btw...that includes even the most anti-war, anti-American peace-nik (ie you).
How would stopping a country that is belligerently invading other countries for reasons other than self-defence be a violation of international law?
You mean like when we intervened in 1991 to save Kuwait from Saddam's invasion? I'm glad to see you are finally understanding our reasons for going to war this time.
You'll love this: my biggest criticism of GW v1.0 was he did a shitty job of finishing off that first war; he let Saddam rise back to power. Just a huge blunder on his part. Thankfully, his son had the sack to finish the job.
there were Allies involved in WWII and y'all didn't think the cause was worthy until three years after the rest of us and, even then, it took an attack on your soil to make it happen.
...and the Allies still would not have won without the help of the USA. We didn't do it alone, but were one of the major factors in the defeat of the Axis.
Just got rid of a houseguest who was here for a very, very, very, very, very....
very long time...and put them onto a bird headed back for Europe.
And now I feel like complete crap. Not sure if its the goofy weather, but what better way to recuperate than sit at home and see if I win my basketball plays of the night (oh yeah...and respond to an XP rant)?
Worldnetdaily is an absolutely ridiculous newssource.
I don't *only* read WND for news. I read them for editorials, because a lot of them are dead on (ESPECIALLY Victor Davis Hanson...absolutely brilliant analyst).
I do watch Fox News, but it isn't very *right wing* to be honest. The reason so many people think it's right is because they're used to watching the usual CNN or CBS lefty broadcasts. Can anyone who thinks Fox News is right site one single specific instance where they were blatantly right when reporting the news? I'm not talking about op-shows like the O'Reilly Factor...I'm talking about news anchors. Just one.
Anyone? Bueller?
Ummm ... what were your references to CNN and the NYT all about, then?
I told you...if you post articles from the NYT or CNN, I'll be able to expose the content for what it really is...leaning far left. The problem is dems like to skip that step when responding to something from WND or Newsmax...because they can't argue what's in front of them.
In all fairness, I've noticed you do seem to take the time to analyze whatever someone writes and try to respond point by point. Only fools with an insidious agenda like Ba'athist Doc (ie doc mercer) don't.
Do you not think that taking DNA and forcing people to wear a badge with their name and address on it is ridiculously, completely invasive?
Show me a credible link which states it is mandatory for all citizens of Fallujah to submit DNA and wear name tags. By credible, I mean members of the US Military confirming it. Until then, I ain't buying it.
No, that is not their goal. Since you claim this, why don't you try to prove it?
Okay. How about this quote from a fundamentalist Egyptian journo?
“After the complete breakdown of democracy, Western civilization has nothing else to give humanity....The dominance of Western man has reached its end. The time has come for Islam to take the lead,” writes Qutb.
Ever heard of him?
Mmm...actually, tell you what. Why don't you just check this essay out instead?
http://www.jbuff.com/c081403.htm
This quote from there sums it up pretty well:
Radical Islamists murder and kill all over the world and not only in Israel. Only this week they attacked a hotel in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country on earth. They do this because they wish to achieve world domination. If this cannot be done by peaceful means, then the Islamists will try to do it with terror.
He's right. Don't tell me you need a link to where Bin Laden (or other fundamentalists) calls on other muslims to wipe out the 'infidel' in the name of Islam. To them, infidels are anyone who is NOT a Muslim. And btw...that includes even the most anti-war, anti-American peace-nik (ie you).
How would stopping a country that is belligerently invading other countries for reasons other than self-defence be a violation of international law?
You mean like when we intervened in 1991 to save Kuwait from Saddam's invasion? I'm glad to see you are finally understanding our reasons for going to war this time.
You'll love this: my biggest criticism of GW v1.0 was he did a shitty job of finishing off that first war; he let Saddam rise back to power. Just a huge blunder on his part. Thankfully, his son had the sack to finish the job.
there were Allies involved in WWII and y'all didn't think the cause was worthy until three years after the rest of us and, even then, it took an attack on your soil to make it happen.
...and the Allies still would not have won without the help of the USA. We didn't do it alone, but were one of the major factors in the defeat of the Axis.
Well. This is a positive start to a response to an XP rant, no?JDeuce said:
Funny, because I never once thought CNN was left wing until I heard you guys give say so. It's more pro-dem than pro-repub, okay, but that doesn't make it left wing. There is no such thing as left wing mainstream American media. There all corporate ass-kissers at the trough. Ratings is their priority and they choose their target audience the same way WalMart and McDonalds do -- the lowest common denominator.
I can only speak for the website, but will get back to you next month when Fox rears its ugly head up here.
Re-read this statement and tell me you aren't predisposed to believe CNN and NYT are biased. You're saying you needn't even read the content, though you say you can critique it, and will know it is left-leaning.
Throw me a worldnetdaily article and I'd be happy to critique it. Or, you could do a search for the WND threads Patriot has started and read me critiquing the content. I believe he threw one up the other day that had Stephen Hayes whoring his Saddam/AQ book again. You'll note that I was the only one who critiqued the content, and I believe I was the only liberal to respond in the thread.
Remember, being anti-Bush is not automatically leftist. Neither is being pro-Dem.
This is a fair request and I will do what I can.
I will see your World Domination Essay and raise you a Salafist Thesis:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/warwithoutborders/salafist.html
I am wholeheartedly anti-war and a peacenik, but I am not anti-American. If I were, I would not talk with them on a regular basis.
No chance do you get off this easy. You flip-flop around wars as though each one, if you keep hopping around enough, can somehow be loosely connected to this one. Yes, WWII and pushing back Saddam from Kuwait have more in common than either do with this war. But you tried to claim that this war and WWII have the same altruistic motives which is complete bunk.You mean like when we intervened in 1991 to save Kuwait from Saddam's invasion? I'm glad to see you are finally understanding our reasons for going to war this time.
If anything, the US is the latest belligerent country attacking a country for reasons other than self-defence. There's your parallel.
Sure, Bush II had the sack to finish the job (which isnt finished, btw) once he knew Saddam had no real army or arsenal to speak of. Bush I knew Saddam had just gassed a bunch of his own citizens a few years prior while Bush II knew he'd been sitting around playing Scrabble over the past decade.
Bush II is a coward.
Thank you, by the way. We are glad you guys came to help. But you don't have the right to claim the victory like you do. We had been fighting for years before you helped. Imagine if China comes to your aid in Iraq for a few months sometime late next year then takes all the credit for defeating Saddam?
[/QUOTE]
Question: If the US was so concerned about remaking the ME democratic (and it is true that no two democracies have gone to war against one another, lending credibility to the idea that democracy is the best form of gov't for lasting peace) why not just fund a pro-democracy movement in Iraq? The US are seasoned vets at inspiring regime change from within. They didn't need to go to war to do this.
Answer: This war isn't about democracy. It never was. The US could give a crap if Iraq is democratic in five years or not. (In fact, I would think that an Iraqi democracy would be the US's worst nightmare, since the people will not likely stand for high degrees of brown-nosing the US.) This war was about military bases and scaring the bejeezus out of Arabs. Period.[/QUOTE]
Have to disagree about the 2 democracies not fighting opinion. Italy, Nazi Germany, ancient Greece and the U.S. come to mind depending on your definition of democracy.
Personally, if Iraq became worse than Iran with regards to their leadership, so be it. However, if they wish to challenge others in authority (in this case, the U.S.) they must be prepared for the backlash which could result in a punishment up to and including regime termination. Their little ragtag band of thugs would have 100x the amount of problems that the U.S. faces if the roles were reversed.
I have trouble believing the pie-in-the-sky dream for Iraq just based on the Islamic people that I've met over the years. The overwhelming majority would become complacent in the face of danger as they've done time and again. If the U.S. resorted to Saddam-style tactics, I'm sure that Iraqi-led attacks would slow down at least 50%. However, more and more foreigners are going to Iraq to perform their duty so without going into others countries such as Saudi Arabia and executing their immediate family, etc. its kind of a moot point.
Question: If the US was so concerned about remaking the ME democratic (and it is true that no two democracies have gone to war against one another, lending credibility to the idea that democracy is the best form of gov't for lasting peace) why not just fund a pro-democracy movement in Iraq? The US are seasoned vets at inspiring regime change from within. They didn't need to go to war to do this.
Answer: This war isn't about democracy. It never was. The US could give a crap if Iraq is democratic in five years or not. (In fact, I would think that an Iraqi democracy would be the US's worst nightmare, since the people will not likely stand for high degrees of brown-nosing the US.) This war was about military bases and scaring the bejeezus out of Arabs. Period.[/QUOTE]
Have to disagree about the 2 democracies not fighting opinion. Italy, Nazi Germany, ancient Greece and the U.S. come to mind depending on your definition of democracy.
Personally, if Iraq became worse than Iran with regards to their leadership, so be it. However, if they wish to challenge others in authority (in this case, the U.S.) they must be prepared for the backlash which could result in a punishment up to and including regime termination. Their little ragtag band of thugs would have 100x the amount of problems that the U.S. faces if the roles were reversed.
I have trouble believing the pie-in-the-sky dream for Iraq just based on the Islamic people that I've met over the years. The overwhelming majority would become complacent in the face of danger as they've done time and again. If the U.S. resorted to Saddam-style tactics, I'm sure that Iraqi-led attacks would slow down at least 50%. However, more and more foreigners are going to Iraq to perform their duty so without going into others countries such as Saudi Arabia and executing their immediate family, etc. its kind of a moot point.
Have to disagree about the 2 democracies not fighting opinion. Italy, Nazi Germany, ancient Greece and the U.S. come to mind depending on your definition of democracy. [/QUOTE]
No, two democracies have never fought each other. Neither Germany nor Italy were democracies, technically, when they were at war. It's simply because the people generally don't like war and, if left to them, will usually vote against it. One side will, anyway.
(I generally mean 'liberal democracy' where the individual is held in higher standard than the nation-state.)
No, two democracies have never fought each other. Neither Germany nor Italy were democracies, technically, when they were at war. It's simply because the people generally don't like war and, if left to them, will usually vote against it. One side will, anyway.
(I generally mean 'liberal democracy' where the individual is held in higher standard than the nation-state.)
