The Official Iraq War thread (ticket, country, house, single)

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape

boo boo, have you read the Qur'an? I haven't, and I don't think you have either. From what I've heard, though, from people who have actually read it, it seems like it is as self-contradicting as the Bible. Therefore, not all Muslims hold those beliefs that you are bashing "Muslim politics" for. Just as not all Christians are radical fundamentalists, neither are all Muslims. Some Christians are pro-homosexuality and pro-abortion, while others are not. If you talk to most Muslims living in the United States, you will find that they probably don't believe women are property, just as most Christians don't (even though the Bible says that).

And these are the former kind of Christians I am talking about. They avoid what the bible clearly states, which is that killing human beings and homosexuality are sins.

I haven't read the Koran as a whole, because having read one boring religious text book is bad enough. I still have a fairly good idea of what Muslims generally believe, many of these beliefs arent too different from christians, only their beliefs about capital punishment and sin are much more strict and conservative.

What? Yes they should, this is a democracy.

Yes, a Democracy, and religious influence on politics should have a limit, our GOP is for the most part bought and paid for by the Christian right, and they have quite a hold on congress, even now that the Democrats have taken over the HOR, the Senate still has many Christians on its payroll, and vice versa. The only branch of our goverment where evangelicals don't have a strong influence is the Judiciary (thank god). My main concern about our GOP is that America is not too far from becoming a Theocracy. And right now the Republican presidential candidates are doing the best they can to win back the Evangelical right.

Yes, this has to do with the Iraq war, because boo boo seems to be implying that just because Islam has the potential for sexism and homophobia (just like Christianity does) Muslims in the Middle East shouldn't be allowed to govern themselves.

Thats not at all what I said, I'm saying that they have a strong religious bias, and this is what prevents democracy from working in the middle east, and this is a problem we're trying to solve in Iraq.

Muslims in the east have the right to govern themselves, but a lot of them don't know how democracy works, because they were born into theocracy, thats really all they know. And guess what? We're trying to show them how to do it in Iraq. I guess thats a really bad thing we're doing, right?

And lest we forget, Moderates are afraid to speak out on such matters because of the peer pressure they get from extremists. You really need to do your homework if you think the Bush administration is completely responsable for everything that has went wrong in Iraq.

Obviously the elections in Iraq have proven that democracy is elusive in the Middle East. I don't think us staying there will in any way be able to change that. We tried to establish a democracy, it didn't work, sending more troops and staying there longer isn't going to magically fix that.

It didn't work because its still in the works, you're not even giving it a chance.

I've never heard any "lefty" say anything close to that. But I don't think an Islamic theocracy is worse than a Christian theocracy. They are both equally horrible.

A Christian theocracy would never so bad to the point that they would have their policemen prevent young girls from leaving a burning schoolhouse because they don't have veils on.

Which is the case in Saudi Arabia. Can't you not at least try to see where I'm getting at?

I'd be interested in reading the Qur'an, because it seems to be strikingly similar to the Bible. Of course, if I check it out at my library I will have FBI agents tapping my phone and ****.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Ok, I have a lot more to say, but I've already typed way too much. Currently with the Iraq war we are ****ed either way. Problems will happen if we leave, but they're happening while we're there, and to a greater magnitude. A lot of the violence is happening because we are there

I see it getting even worse if we leave, because its gotten to the point where they are more at war with each other than with us. And if we leave they will have something new to get pissed off about, and it really will be with us. You expect them to automatically forgive us for invading if we leave? That if we leave its all gonna be strawberries and daisies when it comes to our relations with Iraq?

and I don't think we'll ever get it under control. Therefore, we should pull out before we just cause more problems, since we aren't doing any good right now. And that whole "pulling out will damage our reputation" thing is crap.

What I meant by that was our reputation with them, the extremists. If we leave now it will come back to bite us in the ass, I garantee it.

Why the hell is our reputation worth the lives of thousands of US soldiers and even more Iraqi civilians?

Because worsening our reputation with middle eastern countries who are developing nuclear weapons like Iraq and Syria will put even more at risk.

And like the Unfan said, our reputation was ****ed the moment we invaded Iraq when most of the world told us not to. A reputation doesn't count for ****, either way.

Thats where you are completely wrong, in foreign affairs, reputation is everything. Everything.

Because our reputation influences what other countries think of us, and as a result it influences how these countries will treat us, and thats going to influence how we treat them, etc.

I thank you for not using the whole "if we leave the terrorists will follow us home" line that the conservatives love, because that is obviously total bull****.

Yeah, they're already here.

[Alexander the Grape]

ok... here we go. I'll try and keep this short.

Originally Posted by boo boo

And these are the former kind of Christians I am talking about. They avoid what the bible clearly states, which is that killing human beings and homosexuality are sins.

I haven't read the Koran as a whole, because having read one boring religious text book is bad enough. I still have a fairly good idea of what Muslims generally believe, many of these beliefs arent too different from christians, only their beliefs about capital punishment and sin are much more strict and conservative.

Its hard to get much more conservative than the Bible. The problem with the Bible (and likely the Qur'an) is that it is self contradicting, so it allows for any irrational moron to interpret it however they want. For example, the Bible says thou shalt not kill, but also lists 100 minor offenses for which people should be stoned. But we already have a thread for that, so I'll shut up.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Yes, a Democracy, and religious influence on politics should have a limit, our GOP is for the most part bought and paid for by the Christian right, and they have quite a hold on congress, even now that the Democrats have taken over the HOR, the Senate still has many Christians on its payroll, and vice versa. The only branch of our goverment where evangelicals don't have a strong influence is the Judiciary (thank god). My main concern about our GOP is that America is not too far from becoming a Theocracy. And right now the Republican presidential candidates are doing the best they can to win back the Evangelical right.

Obviously I agree. You just said that Christians (not Christianity) should have no influence on the government, so I was just giving you some crap.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Thats not at all what I said, I'm saying that they have a strong religious bias, and this is what prevents democracy from working in the middle east, and this is a problem we're trying to solve in Iraq.

Muslims in the east have the right to govern themselves, but a lot of them don't know how democracy works, because they were born into theocracy, thats really all they know. And guess what? We're trying to show them how to do it in Iraq. I guess thats a really bad thing we're doing, right?

It didn't work because its still in the works, you're not even giving it a chance.

By telling the Iraqis how they're supposed to govern themselves we aren't exactly allowing them to govern themselves. Saying that they need our help to govern themselves is pretty much saying that they can't govern themselves. There will never be a true democracy in Iraq while we occupy the country. Like how there have been accusations of the US fixing the elections in Iraq (which would make it even more reminiscent of Vietnam). Others boycotted the election because they believed it would not be fair with the US's involvement.

The first election was 2 and a half years ago and there was another one about a year after that. All the elections did was create the explosion of violence that everyone is now referring to as the "civil war." What is going to change if we wait another 2 and half years? How are our troops possibly going to inspire democracy in the Iraqis?

I completely agree that Iraq's histoy of theocracy is hardly conducive for democratic action, but I just don't see how are troops are changing anything.

Plus: "82 per cent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of US and other coalition troops and less than one per cent believe that the coalition troops are responsible for any improvement in security" Real democratic, eh?

Originally Posted by boo boo

A Christian theocracy would never so bad to the point that they would have their policemen prevent young girls from leaving a burning schoolhouse because they don't have veils on.

Which is the case in Saudi Arabia. Can't you not at least try to see where I'm getting at?

It depends on how the government interprets the Bible. Obviously an Islamic theocracy is horrible as well, I already mentioned that.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Now you're just being ridiculous.

ummm... I was joking. Just to let you know, those things have happened though. The Patriot Act is competition with the Iraq War for the worst thing to happen under the Bush Administration. Oh, and that is the first time I have mentioned Bush. I never said that the Iraq war is solely Bush's fault. Neither is the Patriot Act.

Originally Posted by boo boo

I see it getting even worse if we leave, because its gotten to the point where they are more at war with each other than with us. And if we leave they will have something new to get pissed off about, and it really will be with us. You expect them to automatically forgive us for invading if we leave? That if we leave its all gonna be strawberries and daisies when it comes to our relations with Iraq?

What I meant by that was our reputation with them, the extremists. If we leave now it will come back to bite us in the ass, I garantee it.

lulz, the end reminded me of that guy from the Men's Warehouse or whatever.

I already quoted a survey that said the vast majority of Iraqis really want us out of there. Do you think that they will automatically forgive us for invading if we stay there? We made a mistake going in, and being too stubborn to recognize that isn't going to help them forgive us.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Because worsening our reputation with middle eastern countries who are developing nuclear weapons like Iraq and Syria will put even more at risk.

Thats where you are completely wrong, in foreign affairs, reputation is everything. Everything.

Because our reputation influences what other countries think of us, and as a result it influences how these countries will treat us, and thats going to influence how we treat them, etc.

Ok, maybe a reputation can be important, but the rest of the world wants us out of Iraq too. So how exactly is staying in there supposed to make them happy?

Originally Posted by boo boo

Yeah, they're already here.

Probably, and us staying in Iraq isn't stopping more from coming over here. I'd like to see anyone try to prove that.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by boo boo

So what? Is that a reason not to do anything about it at all?

I don't care why we went, I dont agree with the timing or the conditions of the war or how it was executed. But I believe that Saddam should have been dealt with eventually, and who else would have? The UN? Don't make me laugh.

The citizens of Iraq, they could have revolted. People call for revolution when they're tired of their government. A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. But we went in their for our own purposes I highly doubt Bush gave a fuck, if he did he has quite a few countries to fix, but he won't.

Originally Posted by boo boo

We went to war with Iraq under false pretenses, this is true. Our main concern was getting Osama Bin Ladin and somehow it changed to Iraq for very superficial reasons. Maybe they didnt have WMDs (though I know for a fact they had chemical weapons at their disposal, which was used on the Kurds during the Iraq-Iran war) but they were in the process of making Nuclear and Biological weapons, it would have taken a long time for them to have become a truly serious threat, but its a good thing we didnt let it get to the state that Iran and North Korea is now, whom we should have dealt with first, and a long time ago I might add.

The main point, regardless of our intentions, deceptions and mistakes. Removing Saddam from power was a very good thing, and while establishing a democracy admist the civil war that has emerged has proven to be a big obstacle, leaving Iraq in its current state would be absolutely insane. It would cause massive devastation to our reputation and it would make matters even worse for Iraqi civilians.

We don't care about it, we care about the oil. Just look at what happened with Mohammed Mosaddeq, a democratically elected president who came into power after the overthrow of Shah. The US didn't like his policies of nationalizing the oil reserves in his country, so we came through and restored the Shah to power and overthrew his democratical government. After all that oil isn't his right, its ours? We don't like what hes doing with it, so we overthrow it.

Originally Posted by boo boo

And these are the former kind of Christians I am talking about. They avoid what the bible clearly states, which is that killing human beings and homosexuality are sins.

I haven't read the Koran as a whole, because having read one boring religious text book is bad enough. I still have a fairly good idea of what Muslims generally believe, many of these beliefs arent too different from christians, only their beliefs about capital punishment and sin are much more strict and conservative.

Yeah but the christians who are opposed to it also probably work on sunday and shave, I think that says alot about how strictly they follow the bible, they still use it to their own needs like most christians do.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Thats not at all what I said, I'm saying that they have a strong religious bias, and this is what prevents democracy from working in the middle east, and this is a problem we're trying to solve in Iraq.

Muslims in the east have the right to govern themselves, but a lot of them don't know how democracy works, because they were born into theocracy, thats really all they know. And guess what? We're trying to show them how to do it in Iraq. I guess thats a really bad thing we're doing, right?

And lest we forget, Moderates are afraid to speak out on such matters because of the peer pressure they get from extremists. You really need to do your homework if you think the Bush administration is completely responsable for everything that has went wrong in Iraq.

Iraq was wrong before we went in, but we havn't helped make it better and I don't think were going to make it better. Let them rule how they want to, plenty of nations rule they way they did, we never once stepped in and probably won't unless they have something we want/we feel like taking it over. You can't tell people of certain religious, especially a dominate religions they can't rule because they're biased due to their beliefs, that wouldn't be very fair would it?

Originally Posted by boo boo

A Christian theocracy would never so bad to the point that they would have their policemen prevent young girls from leaving a burning schoolhouse because they don't have veils on.

Which is the case in Saudi Arabia. Can't you not at least try to see where I'm getting at?

Because christians are a shining example of valuing life, the crusades? Religion has no place in a position of power, religion can be a positive force in peoples lives, give them something so they can sleep at night but lets look at history, religion as a whole not just a specific one has done more bad than good.

Originally Posted by boo boo

I see it getting even worse if we leave, because its gotten to the point where they are more at war with each other than with us. And if we leave they will have something new to get pissed off about, and it really will be with us. You expect them to automatically forgive us for invading if we leave? That if we leave its all gonna be strawberries and daisies when it comes to our relations with Iraq?

No, and even if we do successfully launch a democracy do you think they're going to forgive us for killing as man of them as we did? Nations revolt, i'm sure they would've been happier with a revolution and overthrowing Sadam than a nation coming in unasked and invading and killing.

Originally Posted by boo boo

What I meant by that was our reputation with them, the extremists. If we leave now it will come back to bite us in the ass, I garantee it.

I don't think we'll ever have a good reputation with extremists, their books teach them to hate. You know how many islams consider suicide bombing justified? Alot and honestly, I think our reputation with the world is more important.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Because worsening our reputation with middle eastern countries who are developing nuclear weapons like Iraq and Syria will put even more at risk.

They don't want us there, other nations didn't either, if we pulled out now, even though its way way way too late and continues to get later at least we can show we're not a bunch of stubborn idiots. Thousands of soldiers dying because Bush is too proud to admit he was wrong is stupid.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Thats where you are completely wrong, in foreign affairs, reputation is everything. Everything.

Because our reputation influences what other countries think of us, and as a result it influences how these countries will treat us, and thats going to influence how we treat them, etc.

Yeah but that doesn't change the fact our reputation is terrible right now, Bush has single-handedly turned america into such a terror-obsessed country, with his patriot acts and everything. I'm surprised he doesn't come outright and announce his own SS. I have criticized this a few times, but still I think the fact every band has an anti-bush song says alot, you really can't dispute it anymore, his presidency has been a complete failure.

Originally Posted by boo boo

Yeah, they're already here.

I don't understand that, because harboring terrorists would make us a terrorist state by US standards, and we knowingly harbor them, we've even had terrorists work for us, hell we've even supported them remember Nicaraugua? In 1985, Ronald Regan declared Nicaragua an imminent threat to US safety. Nicaragua, a dirt poor Latin American country with no unconventional weaponry, was an IMMINENT THREAT to the greatest military force in history. This is what Ronald claimed. Why? Why were they such a big threat? Because they attempted to establish a democratic government WITHOUT the help of the United States. The Sandistinis were a democratically elected government who received no support from the United States, but DID allow Cuban contractors to build air fields in their country. Well, we can't have that. A country becoming democratic without the US's help? That's bad business, it sets an example for other countries. "Hey, we can become free and truly democratic without having the United States pulling the strings". So what did Ronnie do about this? Well, naturally, he armed terrorists to commit horrible atrocities against civilians in favor of the Sandistinis. In fact, you can read accounts of children who watched their mothers have their breasts cut off. Watched their fathers be lined up and executed. Horrible atrocities, all sponsored by your friendly neighborhood United States. This actually caused a big fuss in the 80's because, the money that Ronald Regan was giving to the Contas (the terrorists) was coming from the profit which his administration made by ILLEGALLY selling weapons to Iran. It is commonly referred to as the Iran-Contra Affair. While the hearings were taking place to see who was in the wrong during these sales and fundings, good old Oliver North was in his office shredding classified documents which undoubtedly incriminated the president, as well as himself and many others. Oh yeah, what does Oliver North do nowadays? He hosts a TV show on FAUX News of course. The United States has no interest in bringing democracy to anyone, that is a total facade. It appeals to patriotic Americans with a hard on for the word democracy. We crush democracies, we don't support them. I mean I guess its not surprising, since the United States Government is probably one of the most evil organizations on the planet as far as killing people, and this country has become so greedy and tried to hide it under their 'war against terror' and everything which are just fronts for our own needs.

[joyboyo53]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

The citizens of Iraq, they could have revolted. People call for revolution when they're tired of their government. A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. But we went in their for our own purposes I highly doubt Bush gave a fuck, if he did he has quite a few countries to fix, but he won't.


We don't care about it, we care about the oil. Just look at what happened with Mohammed Mosaddeq, a democratically elected president who came into power after the overthrow of Shah. The US didn't like his policies of nationalizing the oil reserves in his country, so we came through and restored the Shah to power and overthrew his democratical government. After all that oil isn't his right, its ours? We don't like what hes doing with it, so we overthrow it.




Yeah but the christians who are opposed to it also probably work on sunday and shave, I think that says alot about how strictly they follow the bible, they still use it to their own needs like most christians do.



Iraq was wrong before we went in, but we havn't helped make it better and I don't think were going to make it better. Let them rule how they want to, plenty of nations rule they way they did, we never once stepped in and probably won't unless they have something we want/we feel like taking it over. You can't tell people of certain religious, especially a dominate religions they can't rule because they're biased due to their beliefs, that wouldn't be very fair would it?



Because christians are a shining example of valuing life, the crusades? Religion has no place in a position of power, religion can be a positive force in peoples lives, give them something so they can sleep at night but lets look at history, religion as a whole not just a specific one has done more bad than good.



No, and even if we do successfully launch a democracy do you think they're going to forgive us for killing as man of them as we did? Nations revolt, i'm sure they would've been happier with a revolution and overthrowing Sadam than a nation coming in unasked and invading and killing.



I don't think we'll ever have a good reputation with extremists, their books teach them to hate. You know how many islams consider suicide bombing justified? Alot and honestly, I think our reputation with the world is more important.



They don't want us there, other nations didn't either, if we pulled out now, even though its way way way too late and continues to get later at least we can show we're not a bunch of stubborn idiots. Thousands of soldiers dying because Bush is too proud to admit he was wrong is stupid.



Yeah but that doesn't change the fact our reputation is terrible right now, Bush has single-handedly turned america into such a terror-obsessed country, with his patriot acts and everything. I'm surprised he doesn't come outright and announce his own SS. I have criticized this a few times, but still I think the fact every band has an anti-bush song says alot, you really can't dispute it anymore, his presidency has been a complete failure.



I don't understand that, because harboring terrorists would make us a terrorist state by US standards, and we knowingly harbor them, we've even had terrorists work for us, hell we've even supported them remember Nicaraugua? In 1985, Ronald Regan declared Nicaragua an imminent threat to US safety. Nicaragua, a dirt poor Latin American country with no unconventional weaponry, was an IMMINENT THREAT to the greatest military force in history. This is what Ronald claimed. Why? Why were they such a big threat? Because they attempted to establish a democratic government WITHOUT the help of the United States. The Sandistinis were a democratically elected government who received no support from the United States, but DID allow Cuban contractors to build air fields in their country. Well, we can't have that. A country becoming democratic without the US's help? That's bad business, it sets an example for other countries. "Hey, we can become free and truly democratic without having the United States pulling the strings". So what did Ronnie do about this? Well, naturally, he armed terrorists to commit horrible atrocities against civilians in favor of the Sandistinis. In fact, you can read accounts of children who watched their mothers have their breasts cut off. Watched their fathers be lined up and executed. Horrible atrocities, all sponsored by your friendly neighborhood United States. This actually caused a big fuss in the 80's because, the money that Ronald Regan was giving to the Contas (the terrorists) was coming from the profit which his administration made by ILLEGALLY selling weapons to Iran. It is commonly referred to as the Iran-Contra Affair. While the hearings were taking place to see who was in the wrong during these sales and fundings, good old Oliver North was in his office shredding classified documents which undoubtedly incriminated the president, as well as himself and many others. Oh yeah, what does Oliver North do nowadays? He hosts a TV show on FAUX News of course. The United States has no interest in bringing democracy to anyone, that is a total facade. It appeals to patriotic Americans with a hard on for the word democracy. We crush democracies, we don't support them. I mean I guess its not surprising, since the United States Government is probably one of the most evil organizations on the planet as far as killing people, and this country has become so greedy and tried to hide it under their 'war against terror' and everything which are just fronts for our own needs.

man we aint that bad. i mean seriously, the government is kinda corrupt and not perfect but they arent just pure evil. sounds like somebody needs a hug... where is synapse when you need him.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

The citizens of Iraq, they could have revolted. People call for revolution when they're tired of their government. A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. But we went in their for our own purposes I highly doubt Bush gave a fuck, if he did he has quite a few countries to fix, but he won't.

I already said we went to Iraq under false pretenses, thats pretty much a fact. It dosen't change the fact that taking Saddam out of power was a good thing.

We don't care about it, we care about the oil. Just look at what happened with Mohammed Mosaddeq, a democratically elected president who came into power after the overthrow of Shah. The US didn't like his policies of nationalizing the oil reserves in his country, so we came through and restored the Shah to power and overthrew his democratical government. After all that oil isn't his right, its ours? We don't like what hes doing with it, so we overthrow it.

Actually we do care about it, because if we didn't we would have pulled out a long ass freaking time ago, if it was just for Oil, why still be there now, why continue to risk ourselves and burn a sh*tload of money if we already got what we came for? Why not just build rigs, kill everybody that gets in the way and make bail, if we are truly so selfish.

I also wouldn't compare Saddam to the Prime Minister of Iran from over 50 years ago, the scenarios are pretty different.

Yeah but the christians who are opposed to it also probably work on sunday and shave, I think that says alot about how strictly they follow the bible, they still use it to their own needs like most christians do.

But Muslims don't do it as often, they take it much more literally, this is why Muslim extremism is such a big deal and while Christian extremism is just something to joke about on the Howard Stern show.

Iraq was wrong before we went in, but we havn't helped make it better and I don't think were going to make it better. Let them rule how they want to

Fine, lets let them build another theocratic police state, it will almost be like we were never there in the first place.

plenty of nations rule they way they did, we never once stepped in and probably won't unless they have something we want/we feel like taking it over.

Or if we sincerely view them as a threat. With Iraq it was both, what we were told about their alledged involvement with 9/11 and WMDs were generally not true. But they were harboring terrorists, before the war and especially after, some with the intention of coming here. Like I said, I don't care what our true reasons were.

You can't tell people of certain religious, especially a dominate religions they can't rule because they're biased due to their beliefs, that wouldn't be very fair would it?

I can tell them that they shouldn't establish a goverment that enforces their beliefs on others, every nation that is a Muslim theocratic state is a horrible place to be, try living as a woman in Saudi Arabia for a year.

Because christians are a shining example of valuing life, the crusades?

So, we shouldn't deal with Islamist nations because of something that Christians did.... Over 700 years ago?

Religion has no place in a position of power, religion can be a positive force in peoples lives, give them something so they can sleep at night but lets look at history, religion as a whole not just a specific one has done more bad than good.

Be realistic please. Religion isnt gonna be "wished away". Its here and a part of life. And I have no problem with Religion existing as long as it dosen't control the goverment.

No, and even if we do successfully launch a democracy do you think they're going to forgive us for killing as man of them as we did?

Compare that to just leaving, making a big mess and leaving THEM to clean it up. You think thats better?

Nations revolt, i'm sure they would've been happier with a revolution and overthrowing Sadam than a nation coming in unasked and invading and killing.

Because we all know how well revolutions turn out.

I don't think we'll ever have a good reputation with extremists, their books teach them to hate. You know how many islams consider suicide bombing justified? Alot and honestly, I think our reputation with the world is more important.

They look for excuses to hate us, they're gonna hate us weither we stay in Iraq or not, thats a fact. But they will have a brand new reason to hate us if we just plain got up and left, after everything that has happened.

They don't want us there, other nations didn't either, if we pulled out now, even though its way way way too late and continues to get later at least we can show we're not a bunch of stubborn idiots. Thousands of soldiers dying because Bush is too proud to admit he was wrong is stupid.

Other nations didnt want us to invade, but they're not gonna forgive us if we leave. In fact that will become just another excuse.

Yeah but that doesn't change the fact our reputation is terrible right now

So lets make it worse.

Bush has single-handedly turned america into such a terror-obsessed country

At least give 9/11 some credit, oh wait, I forgot that Bush was responsable for that too.

with his patriot acts and everything. I'm surprised he doesn't come outright and announce his own SS.

Please, Bush is not Hitler, such comparisons should never be made.

I have criticized this a few times, but still I think the fact every band has an anti-bush song says alot, you really can't dispute it anymore, his presidency has been a complete failure.

Like I give a sh*t what Fat Mike says.

I don't understand that, because harboring terrorists would make us a terrorist state by US standards, and we knowingly harbor them, we've even had terrorists work for us, hell we've even supported them remember Nicaraugua? In 1985, Ronald Regan declared Nicaragua an imminent threat to US safety. Nicaragua, a dirt poor Latin American country with no unconventional weaponry, was an IMMINENT THREAT to the greatest military force in history. This is what Ronald claimed. Why? Why were they such a big threat? Because they attempted to establish a democratic government WITHOUT the help of the United States.

Iraq was no Nicaragua, not with a guy who had the production of Nuclear energy in the works and owned many palaces and enough cash to build underground tunnels and bunkers spanning everywhere through Bagdad and with god knows what stored there.

The Sandistinis were a democratically elected government who received no support from the United States, but DID allow Cuban contractors to build air fields in their country. Well, we can't have that. A country becoming democratic without the US's help? That's bad business, it sets an example for other countries. "Hey, we can become free and truly democratic without having the United States pulling the strings". So what did Ronnie do about this? Well, naturally, he armed terrorists to commit horrible atrocities against civilians in favor of the Sandistinis. In fact, you can read accounts of children who watched their mothers have their breasts cut off. Watched their fathers be lined up and executed. Horrible atrocities, all sponsored by your friendly neighborhood United States. This actually caused a big fuss in the 80's because, the money that Ronald Regan was giving to the Contas (the terrorists) was coming from the profit which his administration made by ILLEGALLY selling weapons to Iran. It is commonly referred to as the Iran-Contra Affair.

What does any of this have to do with our current state in Iraq? I never said America could do no wrong, I'm a Cherokee, I should f*cking know.

While the hearings were taking place to see who was in the wrong during these sales and fundings, good old Oliver North was in his office shredding classified documents which undoubtedly incriminated the president, as well as himself and many others. Oh yeah, what does Oliver North do nowadays? He hosts a TV show on FAUX News of course. The United States has no interest in bringing democracy to anyone, that is a total facade. It appeals to patriotic Americans with a hard on for the word democracy. We crush democracies, we don't support them.

Our policies changed since 9/11. Terrorism within our borders was never a big deal until then, since then we ARE concerned with what happens in the middle east and what happens in Iraq, because it directly influences the terrorists that come here. National Security is our top priority, so what goes on in Iraq and elsewhere is very important.

I mean I guess its not surprising, since the United States Government is probably one of the most evil organizations on the planet as far as killing people, and this country has become so greedy and tried to hide it under their 'war against terror' and everything which are just fronts for our own needs.

Man you really know how to completely miss the point. I'm not at all what you would call a gung ho patriot. I'm not at all proud of the many bad things my country has done, and my politics generally lean left. But remembering the bad things that we shouldn't have done isn't going to justify not doing something we SHOULD have done.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by boo boo

I already said we went to Iraq under false pretenses, thats pretty much a fact. It dosen't change the fact that taking Saddam out of power was a good thing.



Actually we do care about it, because if we didn't we would have pulled out a long ass freaking time ago, if it was just for Oil, why still be there now, why continue to risk ourselves and burn a sh*tload of money if we already got what we came for? Why not just build rigs, kill everybody that gets in the way and make bail, if we are truly so selfish.

I also wouldn't compare Saddam to the Prime Minister of Iran from over 50 years ago, the scenarios are pretty different.



But Muslims don't do it as often, they take it much more literally, this is why Muslim extremism is such a big deal and while Christian extremism is just something to joke about on the Howard Stern show.



Fine, lets let them build another theocratic police state, it will almost be like we were never there in the first place.



Or if we sincerely view them as a threat. With Iraq it was both, what we were told about their alledged involvement with 9/11 and WMDs were generally not true. But they were harboring terrorists, before the war and especially after, some with the intention of coming here. Like I said, I don't care what our true reasons were.



I can tell them that they shouldn't establish a goverment that enforces their beliefs on others, every nation that is a Muslim theocratic state is a horrible place to be, try living as a woman in Saudi Arabia for a year.



So, we shouldn't deal with Islamist nations because of something that Christians did.... Over 700 years ago?



Be realistic please. Religion isnt gonna be "wished away". Its here and a part of life. And I have no problem with Religion existing as long as it dosen't control the goverment.



Compare that to just leaving, making a big mess and leaving THEM to clean it up. You think thats better?



Because we all know how well revolutions turn out.





They look for excuses to hate us, they're gonna hate us weither we stay in Iraq or not, thats a fact. But they will have a brand new reason to hate us if we just plain got up and left, after everything that has happened.



Other nations didnt want us to invade, but they're not gonna forgive us if we leave. In fact that will become just another excuse.



So lets make it worse.





At least give 9/11 some credit, oh wait, I forgot that Bush was responsable for that too.



Please, Bush is not Hitler, such comparisons should never be made.



Like I give a sh*t what Fat Mike says.



Iraq was no Nicaragua, not with a guy who had the production of Nuclear energy in the works and owned many palaces and enough cash to build underground tunnels and bunkers spanning everywhere through Bagdad and with god knows what stored there.



What does any of this have to do with our current state in Iraq? I never said America could do no wrong, I'm a Cherokee, I should f*cking know.



Our policies changed since 9/11. Terrorism within our borders was never a big deal until then, since then we ARE concerned with what happens in the middle east and what happens in Iraq, because it directly influences the terrorists that come here. National Security is our top priority, so what goes on in Iraq and elsewhere is very important.



Man you really know how to completely miss the point. I'm not at all what you would call a gung ho patriot. I'm not at all proud of the many bad things my country has done, and my politics generally lean left. But remembering the bad things that we shouldn't have done isn't going to justify not doing something we SHOULD have done.

I'll reply to this later, but maybe if you should do some more editing and quit sidestepping issues just so you can get the last word, "Like I give a sh*t what Fat Mike says.?" 1. How the hell was that a counter at all? 2. Its more than just fat mike.

And yes, I believe we do all know how well revolutions turn out.

[James Earl Jones]

On 9/11, the terrorists should have flown a plane into the white house and killed all of the right people.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by James Earl Jones

On 9/11, the terrorists should have flown a plane into the white house and killed all of the right people.

[sleepy jack]

I already said we went to Iraq under false pretenses, thats pretty much a fact. It dosen't change the fact that taking Saddam out of power was a good thing.

Taking Saddam out of power wasn't why we went into Iraq. Weapons programs was not why we went into Iraq. al-Queda links is not why we went into Iraq. We went into Iraq so gain control of natural resources. We've been doing it for years, justifying our imperialism with so many righteous excuses, but really invading to control the hot-item resources of the year. In the 1850's with Mexico it was cotton, now it's petroleum. Our war in Iraq is nothing new, and our moral-obligation reasoning is nothing new. In the 21st century our obligation is to spread democracy, in the 20th and 19th centuries it was White-Man's burden. Only the terminology has changed.

Secondly, even if our reasoning, after all the other reasons we were given failed, was to remove Saddam from power, that is none of our business.

Actually we do care about it, because if we didn't we would have pulled out a long ass freaking time ago, if it was just for Oil, why still be there now, why continue to risk ourselves and burn a sh*tload of money if we already got what we came for? Why not just build rigs, kill everybody that gets in the way and make bail, if we are truly so selfish.

Actually, we don't care. We don't have any intention of pulling out, ever. The US is constructing the biggest foreign embassy in the world, directly in Bahgdad. We want to be in control of Iraq, and the government will almost certainly get away with it. Also you mention burning shitloads of money. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove don't care. Are you kidding me? You think this war has driven them personally into debt? You think Haliburton is losing money because of this war. YOU and ME have to pay for this, not the politicians in Washington.

I also wouldn't compare Saddam to the Prime Minister of Iran from over 50 years ago, the scenarios are pretty different.

Boy, you've got bad logic. Just because I mention Saddam and Muhhamed Mossadeq in the same post doesn't mean they are being compared. The reason I mentioned Mohhamed Mossadeq was to demonstrate the fact that the US does not support democracies, we crush them. Which kinda contradicts the reasons that YOU seem to be using as justification for this war. We do not foster democracies, we crush them. No comparison was being made between Saddam and Mossadeq. Mossadeq was a democratically elected leader, and we overthrew him because he had plans to nationalize his oil fields. Instead, we reinstated a dictatorship with a brutal Shah. Quit using your silly logic to refute points.

But Muslims don't do it as often, they take it much more literally, this is why Muslim extremism is such a big deal and while Christian extremism is just something to joke about on the Howard Stern show.

I don't know about you, but when I hear about fundamentalist Christians bombing abortions clinics, I don't let out a gut-busting laugh. Maybe you do, but not me.

Fine, lets let them build another theocratic police state, it will almost be like we were never there in the first place.

We don't have any intention of leaving, once again. We will do the same thing with Iraq that the UK did with the Middle East after WW1. We will install an Arab facade. A group of US-controlled Arab leaders who will give Iraqi's the impression they are being self-governed. Do you know anything about T.E Lawrence? Arab facade was, I believe, the exact word used by the British to describe their policy in the Middle East.

Or if we sincerely view them as a threat. With Iraq it was both, what we were told about their alledged involvement with 9/11 and WMDs were generally not true. But they were harboring terrorists, before the war and especially after, some with the intention of coming here. Like I said, I don't care what our true reasons were.

You don't care what our true reasons were? You don't care that we sent thousands of Americans to die for a lie? Tell their mothers that. I bet they care. Also, the USA harbors terrorists, we have no evidence however, that Saddam did.

can tell them that they shouldn't establish a goverment that enforces their beliefs on others, every nation that is a Muslim theocratic state is a horrible place to be, try living as a woman in Saudi Arabia for a year.

Yeah, Saudi Arabia is a terrible place to live. But they're our buddies! Why? Well, they have rich citizens and the largest oil fields in the Middle East of course.

So, we shouldn't deal with Islamist nations because of something that Christians did.... Over 700 years ago?

We shouldn't be in charge of 'dealing' with any nations. Kuwait and Iran, two countries which have been invaded by, and border Iraq, said they did not feel threatened by them whatsoever. Yet the US, the greatest military force on the planet dozens of thousands of miles away, view them as an imminent threat? You've got to have a propogandameister to get Americans to believe that. I guess you fell for it.

Be realistic please. Religion isnt gonna be "wished away". Its here and a part of life. And I have no problem with Religion existing as long as it dosen't control the goverment.

Religion existing accounts for millions of deaths every century, and the religious WANT it to control the government. They aren't satisfied with just believing, they want it to be policy that you believe. Hell, GW senior says he doesn't think that atheists should be allowed citizenship. Religion DOES control the government. Who do you think is the Republicans biggest constituency? Evangelicals. Republicans appeal to them, they love their fundie fan-base.

Compare that to just leaving, making a big mess and leaving THEM to clean it up. You think thats better?

How do you know what happens if we leave? It is already in the midst of a civil war, civilians are dying constantly, Americans are dying constantly, it really can't get much worse. Us pulling out, well, we don't know what'll happen. But we do know what happens if we stay, and it is certainly not any better.

Because we all know how well revolutions turn out.

Talk about horrible logic. Are you always this fallacious when it comes to arguing? I mean, you could at least have posted a picture of a bad revolutionary, you didn't even do that. You posted a picture of a man who wasn't even a part of the Bolshevik revolution. You should have mentioned the true revolutionaries, Lenin and Trotsky, both of whom were progressive-minded men who DESPISED Stalin and did everything in their power to keep him OUT of power. You don't care about that though, you just want to make factually incorrect, logically ridiculous points, right?

How about a nice list of all those great revolutionaries who brought about change for their people.

Simon Bolivar
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Miguel Hidalgo
Patrick Henry
Jose de San Martin
Fransisco de Miranda
Toussainte L'Ouverturre
Jose Maria Morrelos
Bernardo O'Higgins
Antonio Jose de Sucre
Juan Pablo Duarte
Jose Bonifacio
Jose Miguel Carrera
Spartacus
Manuel Rodriguez
Maximillian Robespierre
Pedro I
Leon Trotsky
Mahatma Ghandi
Nelson Mandela
Tupac Katari
T. E. Lawrence
Sitting Bull
Qui Jin
Osceola
Nat Turner
Francois Mackandel

I could continue, and continue, and continue. Point is, you argue with terrible logic, like, the worst.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Taking Saddam out of power wasn't why we went into Iraq. Weapons programs was not why we went into Iraq. al-Queda links is not why we went into Iraq.

If so then this brings in a new question. Who gives a sh*t?

We went into Iraq so gain control of natural resources. We've been doing it for years, justifying our imperialism with so many righteous excuses, but really invading to control the hot-item resources of the year. In the 1850's with Mexico it was cotton, now it's petroleum. Our war in Iraq is nothing new, and our moral-obligation reasoning is nothing new. In the 21st century our obligation is to spread democracy, in the 20th and 19th centuries it was White-Man's burden. Only the terminology has changed.

Regardless of our reasons, Iraq would have been a threat down the road (its good to look ahead) and Democracy should be spread to the middle east, it dosen't have to be by force, but we should show them how it works, and that it can work, right now we're giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Secondly, even if our reasoning, after all the other reasons we were given failed, was to remove Saddam from power, that is none of our business.

You need to learn how to look ahead.

Actually, we don't care. We don't have any intention of pulling out, ever.

The US is constructing the biggest foreign embassy in the world, directly in Bahgdad. We want to be in control of Iraq, and the government will almost certainly get away with it.

What state do you live in? I'm sure we got it by invading it.

Sadly, its capitalism at work, thats just the way it is. They would be better under our rule than Saddams. Only they won't be under our rule, because we have no plains of taking over Iraq.

Also you mention burning shitloads of money. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove don't care. Are you kidding me? You think this war has driven them personally into debt? You think Haliburton is losing money because of this war. YOU and ME have to pay for this, not the politicians in Washington.

I don't pay taxes and I collect disability, so just change that to "you have to pay for it". Isn't democracy great?

Boy, you've got bad logic. Just because I mention Saddam and Muhhamed Mossadeq in the same post doesn't mean they are being compared. The reason I mentioned Mohhamed Mossadeq was to demonstrate the fact that the US does not support democracies, we crush them.

Yeah, because in the centuries since this nation was founded, our polices never changed.

Which kinda contradicts the reasons that YOU seem to be using as justification for this war. We do not foster democracies, we crush them.

No we don't. That was one example of something we did. At this point your hate for America has gone way beyond the laws of logic and common sense. If we hate democracy so much, why do we govern ourselves with a democracy? Wouldn't free trade be easier if all the nations were democracies, wouldn't it be easier for us? Wouldn't it be easier for US citezins and hell, wouldn't it be easier for those in power? What f*cking reason do we have to "crush them"? Stop copying and pasting stuff from MoveOn.Org.

No comparison was being made between Saddam and Mossadeq. Mossadeq was a democratically elected leader, and we overthrew him because he had plans to nationalize his oil fields. Instead, we reinstated a dictatorship with a brutal Shah. Quit using your silly logic to refute points.

And we helped Osama.

Its not like I've forgotten the bad things we have done. I'm telling you dammit, this is different, this is not Mexico circa 1850, this is not Iran circa 1950s, this is NOT Cambodia, its NOT Nicaragua. Its a very different situation and you fail to realise that.

I don't know about you, but when I hear about fundamentalist Christians bombing abortions clinics, I don't let out a gut-busting laugh. Maybe you do, but not me.

YouTube - CNN Sept. 11 live on air video 9/11
YouTube - CNN 9-11 Attacks Coverage

We don't have any intention of leaving, once again. We will do the same thing with Iraq that the UK did with the Middle East after WW1.

I highly doubt we will make a mistake like that again.

We will install an Arab facade. A group of US-controlled Arab leaders who will give Iraqi's the impression they are being self-governed. Do you know anything about T.E Lawrence? Arab facade was, I believe, the exact word used by the British to describe their policy in the Middle East.

You should be a fiction writer, because thats all this is.

You don't care what our true reasons were? You don't care that we sent thousands of Americans to die for a lie? Tell their mothers that. I bet they care. Also, the USA harbors terrorists, we have no evidence however, that Saddam did.

We don't harbor terrorists, not with any knowledge of the terrorists, where and who they are and what they intend to do. But I guess what you mean by harboring terrorists is that they simply live here, why is that? Because we welome so many immigrants? Nah, can't be.

Yeah, Saudi Arabia is a terrible place to live. But they're our buddies! Why? Well, they have rich citizens and the largest oil fields in the Middle East of course.

And thats something I think is wrong, I think they should be dealt with.

This is your problem, you think I'm defending the goverment and its policies, Bush and his policies, I'm not. I don't like Bush or his supporters, I think he's a mediocre president. All I'm doing is defending the idea that Iraq should have been dealt with. And you're throwing a hissy fit over it.

We shouldn't be in charge of 'dealing' with any nations. Kuwait and Iran, two countries which have been invaded by, and border Iraq, said they did not feel threatened by them whatsoever.

Sources please?

Yet the US, the greatest military force on the planet dozens of thousands of miles away, view them as an imminent threat? You've got to have a propogandameister to get Americans to believe that. I guess you fell for it.

They invaded Kuwait, tried to kill off a whole ethnic group (Kurds) and lied to the UN many times about developing weapons. How in the hell are they not a threat?

Religion existing accounts for millions of deaths every century, and the religious WANT it to control the government. They aren't satisfied with just believing, they want it to be policy that you believe. Hell, GW senior says he doesn't think that atheists should be allowed citizenship. Religion DOES control the government. Who do you think is the Republicans biggest constituency? Evangelicals. Republicans appeal to them, they love their fundie fan-base.

Wow, I never knew this, ever. I sure learn a lot from you.

How do you know what happens if we leave? It is already in the midst of a civil war, civilians are dying constantly, Americans are dying constantly, it really can't get much worse. Us pulling out, well, we don't know what'll happen. But we do know what happens if we stay, and it is certainly not any better.

Yeah it is.

Talk about horrible logic. Are you always this fallacious when it comes to arguing? I mean, you could at least have posted a picture of a bad revolutionary, you didn't even do that. You posted a picture of a man who wasn't even a part of the Bolshevik revolution. You should have mentioned the true revolutionaries, Lenin and Trotsky, both of whom were progressive-minded men who DESPISED Stalin and did everything in their power to keep him OUT of power. You don't care about that though, you just want to make factually incorrect, logically ridiculous points, right?

If it weren't for the revolution, Stalin would have never rose to power in the first place. They were actually better off living under the Russian Empire.

How about a nice list of all those great revolutionaries who brought about change for their people.

Simon Bolivar
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Miguel Hidalgo
Patrick Henry
Jose de San Martin
Fransisco de Miranda
Toussainte L'Ouverturre
Jose Maria Morrelos
Bernardo O'Higgins
Antonio Jose de Sucre
Juan Pablo Duarte
Jose Bonifacio
Jose Miguel Carrera
Spartacus
Manuel Rodriguez
Maximillian Robespierre
Pedro I
Leon Trotsky
Mahatma Ghandi
Nelson Mandela
Tupac Katari
T. E. Lawrence
Sitting Bull
Qui Jin
Osceola
Nat Turner
Francois Mackandel

Those were the gold old days, unfortunately now, the only people who call for revolution are Communists or Muslims, and with them revolution generally ends in disaster.

I could continue, and continue, and continue. Point is, you argue with terrible logic, like, the worst.

Says the guy who thinks that pointing out things that Christians did 700 years ago is a good way to prove that Iraq wasn't a threat.