The Official Iraq War thread (lyrics, alternative, country, dance)

[sleepy jack]

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'll hate us no matter what, so why stay there and be directly there in front of them and have our soldiers personally subject to their hate? They'll hate us no matter what, why not leave? Because our leaders don't care to.

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.

After 9/11 there was not a country in Europe that didn't want to reach out and help us.
To go from having the whole world at your side, to having them view you as their biggest threat to peace, in under 5 years, takes some terrible desicion making. However, when the French left Algeria in the 60's, they didn't loose any prestige. Why would we? Other than the fact that we don't have much to start with, why? Other countries learned after WWII to release imperial possessions. The United States is still stuck in the late 19th, early 20th century mindset.

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.

Once again, your logic is absolutely horrendous. Were you born with this horrible logic or did you develop it naturally. No one is comparing Iraq to Nicaragua. Nicaragua was another country with a stable democracy that was not US funded and backed. The US can't have that. We have a monopoly on democracy, and you have to come to us if you want one. No one said anything about Iraq being like Nicaragua, you just can't distinguish when someone is comparing one country to another, and when someone is using another country as an example to counter the reasoning you are supporting, and the reasoning we were given to go into Iraq. We don't support democracies, saying we were going there to bring them democracy is bull.

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.

What does it have to do with Iraq? My god man, can't you read the post. WE DON'T SUPPORT DEMOCRACIES WE CRUSH THEM. We didn't go to Iraq to establish democracy. You think its good that we went there and took Saddam out of power and put in place a democracy. That is bullshit. We hate democracies.

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.

Our government knows that these terrorists are in our borders. They talk with them, they protect them from the FBI. And the only reason our policies have changed since 9/11 is to launch a massively successful propaganda campaign to scare the hell out of people so we will support anything the government does as long as it is eradicating terror. The recent 'terror threat' in London is a great example. It is ridiculous how much this was overblown. Ex-CIA intelligence experts say that the 'bombs' in those Mercedes would have done HORRIBLE damage...to the interior of the Mercedes. But of course the media and government display it as some kind of reaffirmation of the horrible threat posed to us by terror. It is working too, you've fallen victim to it, quite easily it seems too. You even justify wars with it, just like warmongers in Washington want you to.

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.

No, we shouldn't ever invade countries and occupy them for years and expend their natural resources.
To justify that you have to be a gung-ho patriot.

[ZeppelinAir]

ok not sure what has been said but think about the war, we went because of reasons to believe theere weapons of mass Destruction or so we were told. we will never know the exact reason for years to come, but many of the ideas told of why we invaded such as oil, taking out sadam(not sure about spelling)and religion. But think about the surrounding countries and the problemds we have had in the past, Iran will give us trouble in the future and with Iraq and Afganastan(spelling?) on our side we allies with close points to Iran, this war could revolve around another bigger war to come. Not a good thought but it is highly possible.

If we pull the troops now it may do more damage than if we leave them in for another year, cause soon as we pull out(no matter what really) the Terrorist will strike, by some chance that we ruin there will to fight from the attacts on them it will be a complete succses, if not than we will have a future ally when the goverment over there gets the act to gather and takes out all left over resistants.

thats my opinion anyway

[Bane of your existence]

People talk waaaaaaaaay too much about why we went there, and not enough about what we've done wrong since. I've never heard of such a poorly planned war.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Did you not see Eminem? What about Immortal Technique? or Mos Def?

Rock N Roll begat R&B which begat Soul which begat Funk which begat Hip Hop. It's in The Bible.

[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.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

They'll hate us no matter what, so why stay there and be directly there in front of them and have our soldiers personally subject to their hate? They'll hate us no matter what, why not leave? Because our leaders don't care to.

I really hate repeating myself. THEY WILL HATE US MORE IF WE LEAVE. We invaded their country, blew it up and killed a lot of people, now we're trying to help clean up some of our own mess. If we leave, they will certainly hold a grudge against us for leaving it to them. They say they wont to be left alone, but we know enough how illogical and hypocritical they are. If we leave they will turn it around and call us cowards and deserters.

After 9/11 there was not a country in Europe that didn't want to reach out and help us. To go from having the whole world at your side, to having them view you as their biggest threat to peace, in under 5 years, takes some terrible desicion making.

I never said we didn't make terrible decisions, but the bad decisions was the way we went to war, how we executed it, how we timed it. The idea of simply going to war with Iraq wasn't the bad decision, that was a good one.

However, when the French left Algeria in the 60's, they didn't loose any prestige. Why would we?

PLEASE. STOP with the historical comparisons. Not every country is exactly the same.

Other than the fact that we don't have much to start with, why? Other countries learned after WWII to release imperial possessions. The United States is still stuck in the late 19th, early 20th century mindset.

I doubt it, weither you want to believe it, things HAVE changed since 9/11.

Bill Maher says otherwise, but Bill Maher is an idiot.

Once again, your logic is absolutely horrendous. Were you born with this horrible logic or did you develop it naturally. No one is comparing Iraq to Nicaragua.

Then why bring it up, how is it relevent?

Nicaragua was another country with a stable democracy that was not US funded and backed. The US can't have that. We have a monopoly on democracy, and you have to come to us if you want one.

And its simple, there was a time when we did let other countrys that had been revolutionized govern themselves, and this lead to communism. Bad mistake. The UN was developed to deal with these kinds of problems, but they don't.

No one said anything about Iraq being like Nicaragua, you just can't distinguish when someone is comparing one country to another, and when someone is using another country as an example to counter the reasoning you are supporting, and the reasoning we were given to go into Iraq. We don't support democracies, saying we were going there to bring them democracy is bull.

You're wrong. We know better than to repeat what happened with Israel circa 1948. This wont be a fecade, if it was it would make things worse with other middle eastern countries, and the last thing we need is to have to deal with more of them.

What does it have to do with Iraq? My god man, can't you read the post. WE DON'T SUPPORT DEMOCRACIES WE CRUSH THEM.

Your talking points suck. Your rebutting style usually consists of taking a post like mine, and changing one word like its clever or something. Now you're even worse, repeating the same incredibly stupid phrase over and over.

We didn't go to Iraq to establish democracy. You think its good that we went there and took Saddam out of power and put in place a democracy. That is bullshit. We hate democracies.

THEN WHY DO WE HAVE ONE? Huh?

Our government knows that these terrorists are in our borders. They talk with them, they protect them from the FBI.

Good fiction, good fiction.

And the only reason our policies have changed since 9/11 is to launch a massively successful propaganda campaign to scare the hell out of people so we will support anything the government does as long as it is eradicating terror.

I smell a bad movie plot.

Enjoy your kool-aid.

The recent 'terror threat' in London is a great example. It is ridiculous how much this was overblown. Ex-CIA intelligence experts say that the 'bombs' in those Mercedes would have done HORRIBLE damage...to the interior of the Mercedes. But of course the media and government display it as some kind of reaffirmation of the horrible threat posed to us by terror. It is working too, you've fallen victim to it, quite easily it seems too. You even justify wars with it, just like warmongers in Washington want you to.

I don't trust the goverment, never did. Furthermore what does the way British media handleed the recent terror threat in London have to do with us?

No, we shouldn't ever invade countries and occupy them for years and expend their natural resources.
To justify that you have to be a gung-ho patriot.

I'm very anti-patriotism. This isn't about patriotism, its security and common sense.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Rock N Roll begat R&B which begat Soul which begat Funk which begat Hip Hop. It's in The Bible.

02-bright_eyes-when_the_president_talks_to_god-myb.mp3
Folk song, proved you wrong.

Originally Posted by boo boo

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

Who gives a shit? Thousands of parents have had their children taken
from them and killed for a lie. They were killed to better the lives
of corrupt politicians, you should care. Apathy is America's problem.

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.

We aren't spreading democracy to the Middle East, you're ignorant to
history so the fact that you disagree with with my assertion that the
US doesn't support democracies doesn't really matter to me. Had you
maybe, read a book, something, you would agree as well. You don't
though, so you've got to let a 16 year old kid on a music forum school
you on history. It's pretty sad.

You need to learn how to look ahead.

Iraq is the Iraqi's problem, not ours. They posed no threat to us.

Do you understand the meaning of 'imperialism'? The British didn't
plan on pulling out of India. The Belge didn't plan on pulling out of
the Congo. We don't plan on pulling out of the area we stole from
Mexico in the 1850's, imperialism doesn't work like that.

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.

Yes, capitalism has always been the root of imperialism. Lands were
invaded and used to supply natural resources for the invading
countries industrial machine. That is how it worked back then, and it
is how the US works now. We are ruling the Iraqis with an Arab facade.
The fact that you think 'arab facade' is fiction again shows your
ignorance to history. Read.

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

Good for you, I'm not sure that democracy has a thing to do with you
collecting disability, that is more a socialist aspect of our country
than democratic.

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

What about it changed? In the 1850's we did it with Mexico.
In the 1950's we did it with Iran.
In the 1980's we did it in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and that was
Reaganite politics, which George Bush practises.
Our policy didn't change. If it did, explain how.

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.

One example? Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, we refused to support Fidel
Castro overthrow his dictator in Cuba because his dictator allowed US
companies to control Havana and make tons of money. Thats 4 examples,
and those are off the top of my head. I'd find more if I took the time
to search it. We hate democracies that aren't US supported, and when
you have the US controlling your democracy, it isn't really a
democracy. We overthrew Mossadeq because Iran set an example,
Nicaragua set an example, it is possible to have a functional
democracy without the US pulling the strings. That is why we overthrow
them. We are not in the democracy business. We are in the business of
installing pro-American leaders who will allow us to exploit their
countries. Why do you think we hate Hugo Chavez so much? He won't let
the US exploit Venezuelan oil. We can't have that, which is why we try
and assassinate him.

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.

You fail to realize that history is important, mostly because you're
enormously uneducated in history so you cannot see that the things
which happen in Nicaragua in the '80s, what happened in Iran in the
'50s, is happening today. The circumstances are exactly the same. The
wording is essentially the same. Switch 'communism' to 'terrorism' and
change 'White-Man's burden' to 'spreading democracy'. Its the same
thing boo boo. But good job at not realizing how much of a role
history plays, you play right into the governments hands. If the
people in the 80's hadn't forgotten the Iran-Contra Affair, Reagan
would have had a lower approval rating than GW now. If you actually
knew your countries history you'd be skeptical, but the comments you
make later in this post, which I will reply to, just prove how
ignorant you are to your own country's history.

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

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

You highly doubt it? The only reason it was a mistake was because the
public found out about it. The politicians were making out like
bandits, why wouldn't they do it again? I mean, they already have.

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

Fiction? Are you really THAT ignorant to history? Lord Curzon, the
British foreign secretary said after WWI. "We must create an 'Arab
facade' ruled and administrated under British guidance and controlled
by a native Mohammedan, and as far as possible an Arab staff." This
should all, he continued, "be veiled by constitutional fictions."

This is exactly what we are doing today. The Iraqi council consists of
25 men, all appointed by the Director of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance Paul Bremer. So the government is ruled by 25
men, all appointed by an American representing American interests. Arab
facade? Of course it is. If you're too naive to see that, fine, but
don't say what I've written is 'fiction'. Aran facade is the exact
word used by Lord Curzon after WWI. Learn some history boo boo.

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.

We don't harbor terrorists? Again, your ignorance to history digs you
into a hole here.

Orlando Bosch- Former CIA-backed terrorist who is responsible for the
bombing of a civilian Cuban airliner which killed all 73 people on
board, including 5 North Korean Olympic fencers, also responsible for
the bombing of a Polish civilian airliner, for which he was arrested
in 1968 in Venezuela. While on parole, he fled to the United States
with the help of the US Ambassador to Venezuela, when he arrived in
Florida he was arrested by the INS for violating parole, however, when
he threatened to reveal information about his work with the CIA,
George H. W. Bush pardoned him. He now lives in Miami, Florida. He has
been described by the FBI as an 'anti-Castro terrorist umbrella
organization' and the former Attorney General Dick Thornburg called
him an 'unrepentant terrorist'. The government protects him though,
which I suppose obliterates your point outright. But there's more.

Emmanuel Constant- Founder of FRAHP, a Hatian death squad responsible
for the deaths of over 4000 Hatians who supported ousted president
Jean-Baptiste Aristade. When Aristade was restored to power he fled to
the US, where he was arrested. However, once again he threatened to
divulge information about his workings with the CIA in the 90's, Bill
Clinton ordered him to be freed. Now he lives in Queens, New York.
That is twice that your point has been proven incorrect because of
your ignorance to history.

[sleepy jack]

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.

The idea that Iraq should have been dealt with may be somewhat valid.
The point that it should have been dealt with by us, however, is
absurd.

Sources please?

Anthony Arnove, ed. Iraq Under Seige, 2nd Edition (South End Press, 2002)

Carl Kaysen et al, War with Iraq (American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, Committee on International Security Studies, 2002)

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?

That threat was dealt with. I'm not defending Saddam, he was a brutal
tyrant. He wasn't our business however. It isn't our job to police the
world. None of this is why we went in there in the first place. We do
not care about Iraqi civilians. We've killed 150,000 of them, they're
not our concern in Iraq. Companies like Haliburton, Lockheed Martin,
Boeing Company, General Dynamics Corporation, Raytheon Company, and
Science Applications International Company, companies which government
officials and their buddies have major stock in, benefit HUGELY from
war. They make money like you wouldn't believe. War means big money
for them.

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

Yeah it is.

Are you some kind of soothsayer? Us leaving Iraq, and thus
eliminating American casualties from the equation by removing them
from the midst of the ruthless religion/civil war taking place in Iraq
is worse than what is happening there today? It is already in a bloody
civil war, people are dying by the hundreds everyday. Their is warfare
in the streets of the city, it doesn't get worse than that.

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.

Well, if it weren't for human reproduction capabilities, Stalin never
would have been born, so I guess that means that sex is a bad thing by
your logic. Luckily, as I have already said, your logic is absolutely
terrible. Healthy countries need revolution. It's what brings about
change.

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.

The good old days? Many of those on that list revolted AFTER the
Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which was NOT a bad thing. The people
were living in poverty under the Czar, they were still on the
serf-system, a system which the rest of the world outgrew 600 years
earlier before the renaissance and after the Crusades. They were
better under the Czar? Thats a ridiculous statement. They were fine
under Lenin, and unfortunately, against all the revolutionaries
wishes, Stalin gained power. Stalin, as a singular ruler, was
undoubtedly bad for Russia, but in the late-60's, even Russia
realized how much of a demon Stalin was. Now the country is a
super-power, under the Czar they were a faltering medevil state. I
don't support Stalin, or like him, but the Communist leaders were
better for Russia than the Czars were.

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.

It is almost tiring to have to mention constantly the fact that you
cannot follow a train of thought. The Crusades were never used as
reason to establish that Iraq wasn't a threat. I don't know how you
are reading these posts, but that wasn't even insinuated. In
conjunction with that statement I said religion should NEVER be in
position of power. Iraq was not under Sharia rule. Iran is, but we
didn't invade them. Your so illogical its ridiculous.

Originally Posted by boo boo

I really hate repeating myself. THEY WILL HATE
US MORE IF WE LEAVE. We invaded their country, blew it up and killed a
lot of people, now we're trying to help clean up some of our own mess.
If we leave, they will certainly hold a grudge against us for leaving
it to them. They say they wont to be left alone, but we know enough
how illogical and hypocritical they are. If we leave they will turn it
around and call us cowards and deserters.

How do you know they'll hate us more if we leave? They hate us now,
who cares if they 'hate us more'? The point is, we cannot be
absolutely sure of the alternative to staying there, but we are there
now, and it will not be worse. American casualties will be eliminated,
thats a good thing. We will stop throwing money into this useless war,
that is a good thing. Well, I take that back. That would be a good
thing for the citizens of American, but for the leaders who are making
money like crazy, it would be a bad thing, which is why we stay.

I never said we didn't make terrible decisions, but the bad
decisions was the way we went to war, how we executed it, how we timed
it. The idea of simply going to war with Iraq wasn't the bad decision,
that was a good one.

Going into Iraq to control their natural resources was a terrible
idea. Just because they dress it up by saying 'Saddam was horrible!"
doesn't make it a just-war. We were the agressors upon a country which
posed no threat to us. Nazi's were hung for that at Nuremburg.

PLEASE. STOP with the historical comparisons. Not every country
is exactly the same.

No, I won't stop with historical comparisons. History is more relevant
in examine the present than anything else. The context, the language,
the execution, it is all exactly the same as it was during the
imperialist times. You're not supposed to be well-educated on
imperialist times for just this reason, you will be too blind to draw
historical comparisons and view the outcomes of those desicions.
Ignorance is bliss however, you're a shining example.

I doubt it, weither you want to believe it, things HAVE changed
since 9/11.

Bill Maher says otherwise, but Bill Maher is an idiot.

The only thing that has changed since 9/11 is the fear Americans have,
which the government exploits, enormously successfully I might add.
They've got you justifying their ridiculous wars through fear.

What has Bill Maher got to do with this?

Then why bring it up, how is it relevent?

Nicaragua is an example of a democracy we overthrew.
Yet we are supposed to believe its a good thing for the US to bring
democracy to the Middle East, its some moral obligation we have. Kinda
like White-Man's Burden in the 19th century

If we are so interested in spreading democracy, then why do we
overthrow them when they are established without our help? You answer
that with your logic. The reason we overthrow them is because they set
the example that you can have a democracy without the US pulling the
strings. Thats a bad example as far as the US is concerned, the more
countries whose strings we can pull the better. We'd rather have a
pro-US ruthless dictator, than an anti-US democratically elected
president. That is a fact.

And its simple, there was a time when we did let other countrys
that had been revolutionized govern themselves, and this lead to
communism. Bad mistake. The UN was developed to deal with these kinds
of problems, but they don't.

How does the UN not deal with things? What have they NOT dealt with?
If a country wants to establish a Marxist economy, whats wrong with
that? Its no better or worse than an Adam Smith economy. When the UN
doesn't feel the need to 'deal with' something, that doesn't mean that
the US has to become vigilantes and deal with it ourselfs. Our leaders
should be tried for what they've done.

You're wrong. We know better than to repeat what happened with
Israel circa 1948. This wont be a fecade, if it was it would make
things worse with other middle eastern countries, and the last thing
we need is to have to deal with more of them.

It won't be a facade? It already is, remember Paul Bremer?
What has Israel got to do with this at all?

Your talking points suck. Your rebutting style usually consists
of taking a post like mine, and changing one word like its clever or
something. Now you're even worse, repeating the same incredibly stupid
phrase over and over.

THEN WHY DO WE HAVE ONE? Huh?

Geez your logic sucks. Your ignorant to history, and you look like a
fool when you say 'fiction fiction' and then are proved 100% wrong.
How is that for talking points?

Good fiction, good fiction.

Orlando Bosch? Emmanuel Constant? Are these fictional characters who I made up?
If you don't feel like a fool then there is some kind of disconnect
between synapses in your brain.

[sleepy jack]

I smell a bad movie plot.

Really, so the fact that we are continually being told that we could
be attacked at any minute. No one is safe, put your faith in the
government. Relinquish your civil liberties in the name of fighting
terror. People only do that when they are scared. When you can get
people to agree on giving up their right to privacy in the name of
fighting terror, you've launched a successful propaganda campaign.
Enjoy your kool-aid.

I don't trust the goverment, never did. Furthermore what does
the way British media handleed the recent terror threat in London have
to do with us?

The British media? This was American media pal, unless

ABC, CNN, FOX, etc. etc. are considered British media to you. The BBC
didn't distort the info at all.
In America you're supposed to be scared though, which is why they make
it seem like these gasoline filled Mercedes' would have demolished
London or something. It would have fucked up the interior of the car,
not much else. You'd never hear that though.

I'm very anti-patriotism. This isn't about patriotism, its
security and common sense.

The reason you think its about security is because you aren't smart
enough to distinguish propaganda from truth. That's your problem.

[CAPTAIN CAVEMAN]

Originally Posted by matious

Justice will be served
And the battle will rage
This big dog will fight
When you rattle his cage
And you’ll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.
`Cause we`ll put a boot in your ass
It`s the American way


<3 toby keith

ARE YOU FOR SERIOUS?

Those are actually lyrics he's used?