The Official Iraq War thread (country, house, rock, albums)

[joyboyo53]

people are so intolerant of eachothers beliefs and it causes conflict. why cant everyone just get along? where is the love? where is the humanity?

[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).

Originally Posted by boo boo

I don't think Christians should have any influence on our goverment

What? Yes they should, this is a democracy.

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. 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.

Originally Posted by boo boo

But isn't it a little hypocritical how some lefties try to stop Christian influence in politics, but have no problem with Islamic theocracy? Which is even worse.

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. 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 ****.

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

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****.

[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.

[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]

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.