Convert or Die!!!

[Cantousent]

You've reached into your bag o' tricks and that's the best you could do? pathetic. You'd be better off citing the Spanish troubles with honest to goodness home-brewed terrorism.

 

...but the fact that we have nothing in our country that even remotely resembles the sectarian violence in Iraq in either straight numbers or as a percentage of the population. You live in a country that shields your right to spit out this sort of ridiculous vitriol. Give me a break.

 

"I'm fairly certain that in most countries that have such deep devides you'd find the same thing, not just between Shiites and Sunnis, but between catholics, WASP's, Flying spagettii monsterarians, british Jedi, Jews, neo-nazis..."

 

Hell, why didn't you cite the Oklahoma City bombing. It would still be ridiculously stupid on its face, but at least it would be a snappier, clever argument. Oh, liberals don't use clever and underhanded arguments. Merely nuanced.

[Xard]

Everytime I read something like this, I question whether religion or any other faith based system does anything except create intolerance and hatred.

 

We obviously have a long way to go. I only hope we don't obliterate ourselves first.

Religion = evil

 

Whats the main cause of wars, death, destruction and the suffering it brings right now? Religion.

 

If there was such a thing as god/s and I was their god, I would have deserted my flock a long time ago for bastardizing my message of peace and kindness.

 

Convert or die. This is the way of love and peace.

 

That's pretty short-sighted.

 

Fundamentalists suck, especially islamic and fallout ones :sad:

Edited March 7, 2007 by Xard

[Dark_Raven]

Fundamentalists and the zealots have the largest voice and usually better at brain washing people to their views.

[Tale]

Fundamentalists and the zealots have the largest voice and usually better at brain washing people to their views.

You think it's brain washing? You give people too much credit. It's far easier than you think.

[Dark Moth]

You've reached into your bag o' tricks and that's the best you could do? pathetic. You'd be better off citing the Spanish troubles with honest to goodness home-brewed terrorism.

 

...but the fact that we have nothing in our country that even remotely resembles the sectarian violence in Iraq in either straight numbers or as a percentage of the population. You live in a country that shields your right to spit out this sort of ridiculous vitriol. Give me a break.

 

"I'm fairly certain that in most countries that have such deep devides you'd find the same thing, not just between Shiites and Sunnis, but between catholics, WASP's, Flying spagettii monsterarians, british Jedi, Jews, neo-nazis..."

 

Hell, why didn't you cite the Oklahoma City bombing. It would still be ridiculously stupid on its face, but at least it would be a snappier, clever argument. Oh, liberals don't use clever and underhanded arguments. Merely nuanced.

I'll say it again...you are the wind beneath my wings, Cant.

[Gfted1]

Saddam was an Iraqi, not an outsider. Only the Iraqis will be able to bring stability to their region if they choose it and not any outside power that forces it upon them, may that be the US or not. Do I need to explain everything to you or are you just acting thick-headed on purpose?

 

No Sand, you have to explain everything because you are dangerously stupid, wrong about everything and nobody understands you. Most of the time I realize you're simply flamebaiting but every once in a while the specter of doubt creeps in and I wonder if you are a "challenged" person. If so, fire me a PM and Ill stop correcting you.

 

So, to address the latest drivel you typed:

 

1) Saddam's party was the minority of Iraqis.

2) Saddam murdered and oppressed any and all that opposed him and forced everyone into stability.

3) He was almost universally despised by his people.

 

Now, as you sit there scratching your head in confusion lets consider why this worked. Did the Iraqi populous think "This guy is a brutal dictator but hey, hes an Iraqi so we'll let it slide" or did they think "Hey this guy will kill me, my family and the family camel if I open my mouth. I better shut up."? Im fairly confident any populous could be subjected were the occupier willing to exert enough force, Iraqi in origin or not.

 

Now we could also go into how Al Queda is also purposely destabilizing the situation between the Sunni's and Shiites to exacerbate the the entire countries problems but I think we've discussed enough for now.

[Sand]

I'll say it again...you are the wind beneath my wings, Cant.

 

Here I thought it was just gas.

 

(j/k)

[Dark Moth]

Only after a can of Hormel Chili.

[Sand]

No Sand, you have to explain everything because you are dangerously stupid, wrong about everything and nobody understands you. Most of the time I realize you're simply flamebaiting but every once in a while the specter of doubt creeps in and I wonder if you are a "challenged" person. If so, fire me a PM and Ill stop correcting you.

 

So, to address the latest drivel you typed:

 

1) Saddam's party was the minority of Iraqis.

2) Saddam murdered and oppressed any and all that opposed him and forced everyone into stability.

3) He was almost universally despised by his people.

 

Now, as you sit there scratching your head in confusion lets consider why this worked. Did the Iraqi populous think "This guy is a brutal dictator but hey, hes an Iraqi so we'll let it slide" or did they think "Hey this guy will kill me, my family and the family camel if I open my mouth. I better shut up."? Im fairly confident any populous could be subjected were the occupier willing to exert enough force, Iraqi in origin or not.

 

Now we could also go into how Al Queda is also purposely destabilizing the situation between the Sunni's and Shiites to exacerbate the the entire countries problems but I think we've discussed enough for now.

 

It doesn't matter if Saddam's party was the minority or what he did. He was an Iraiqi. An Iraqi dealing with Iraqi business and Iraqi affairs. It was his country, it was the Iraqis country, not the US nor was it the place of the US to interfere, especially interfering on the basis of the false and misleading inteliigence documents that led to the invasion. Unless a country is a direct threat to the US what goes on inside that country is no one's business except for that country's leaders and the population that resides there. Iraq was no direct threat to the US or its allies at the time in which we invaded.

 

The US removal of Saddam has led Iraq into chaos and destruction, with hundreds of Iraqis getting killed each month. It is irrelevant who is causing the destabilizing, may it be Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran, or even Mother Goose. What is relevant that the catalyst for the destabilization that allowed thousands of Iraqi deaths to happen is squarely the invasion which the Bush Administration and Congress are responsible for. The military has failed to maintain control. The Bush Administration has failed in stabilizing the region. Congress have failed to rein in the Bush Administration from going down this path of destruction.

 

The question now is what to do with this mess and the only viable solution lies in the hands of the Iraqis and no one else.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Sand

[Gfted1]

It doesn't matter if Saddam's party was the minority or what he did. He was an Iraiqi. An Iraqi dealing with Iraqi business and Iraqi affairs. It was his country, it was the Iraqis country, not the US nor was it the place of the US to interfere, especially interfering on the basis of the false and misleading inteliigence documents that led to the invasion. Unless a country is a direct threat to the US what goes on inside that country is no one's business except for that country's leaders and the population that resides there. Iraq was no direct threat to the US or its allies at the time in which we invaded.

 

The US removal of Saddam has led Iraq into chaos and destruction, with hundreds of Iraqis getting killed each month. It is irrelevant who is causing the destabilizing, may it be Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran, or even Mother Goose. What is relevant that the catalyst for the destabilization that allowed thousands of Iraqi deaths to happen is squarely the invasion which the Bush Administration and Congress are responsible for.

 

Wow, thats a superawesome synopsis of what you type every single time. Really, just put it in your sig already and you will save loads of time. However, it does not address what we are talking about, that only an Iraqi can bring control to Iraq. I feel any population can be brought under control by any occupier IF the occupier applies the necessary force to do so. You know, like Saddam did.

[Walsingham]

How can it be irrelevant who's doing the killing? If the US invaded France, and I went across the channel and started shooting Frenchmen is that the USA's fault?

[Sand]

Then why has the Bush administration failed to do what Saddam succeeded in? We have a much larger force and support of the local government.

[Gfted1]

Because we are unwilling to use the same model to control people as brutal dictators.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Gfted1

[Sand]

And that is what is leading the destabilization of the country. The first step is to force stabilization. Without a stable environment in which people can feel safe in, or at least not have to worry about getting blown up while going to market, there can be no progression towards a more amiable solution. As long as the chaos and destruction is allowed to remain the US will see no significant progress made.

 

Dictators can impose order at the cost of freedom, but one cannot have freedom without order being established first.

[Xard]

Then why has the Bush administration failed to do what Saddam succeeded in? We have a much larger force and support of the local government.

 

Because USA is poor at colonialism. All "experts" and researchers (europeans, americans etc.) agree on this.

[Calax]

Then why has the Bush administration failed to do what Saddam succeeded in? We have a much larger force and support of the local government.

 

Because USA is poor at colonialism. All "experts" and researchers (europeans, americans etc.) agree on this.

Oh the IRONY of it is painful

[Volourn]

"The US removal of Saddam has led Iraq into chaos and destruction,"

 

Nah. Iraq was already in chaos, and destruction. When Saddam first got in power, Iraq was the most advanced of the ME countries even rivalling (if not surpassing) Isreal in that regard. Saddam's descisions during his rule changed all that. The wars HE started led to millions of Iraqis dying not to mention those Iraqis that he targted for mass killings, cost the country billions of dollars, and sapped the life out of the country.

 

He, himself, with all his power lived in constant fear of assassinations even using body doubles at times due to this fear. Not exactly as powerful as he claimed. I don't see Bush and other world leaders using body doubles.

 

He also didn't control the whole country most evidenced by the Kurdish areas. Let's not forget the destruction of the Iraqi Marshlands.

 

But, yeah, Saddam's rule was a symbol of peace, harmony, and progress.

 

 

L0L0L0L0L0L0LLIPOP

Edited March 7, 2007 by Volourn

[Sand]

But, yeah, Saddam's rule was a symbol of peace, harmony, and progress.

 

If you say so, but I only said that it was more stable than the current situation.

[Volourn]

That's highly debateable just by using the smalla mount of examples I give. There's a host more of evdience to eb found within Saddam's 20+ years of 'rule'.

[Walsingham]

But, yeah, Saddam's rule was a symbol of peace, harmony, and progress.

 

If you say so, but I only said that it was more stable than the current situation.

 

I'm not certain a stalinist regime predicated upon fear and constant random death qualifies as stable as such. Not in the same way the the MCC board could be said to be stable. Or a chemical compound. Or platform.

[Sand]

Were suicide bombers, where up a hundred people being killed and/or injured, a daily or weekly occurance during Saddam's rule?

 

In any case, there will only be peace in Iraq when the Iraqis want it, no later or sooner than that. The only right thing to do now is to leave that country and let the Iraqis make this decision on their own.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Sand

[taks]

Were suicide bombers, where up a hundred people being killed and/or injured, a daily or weekly occurance during Saddam's rule?

nope, but in his prisons, or when he was gassing them himself...

 

In any case, there will only be peace in Iraq when the Iraqis want it, no later or sooner than that. The only right thing to do now is to leave that country and let the Iraqis make this decision on their own.

unfortunately, if we just up and left things would spiral out of control and we'd end up with another saddam with a different name. japan took 7 years of occupation, btw. that is the unfortunate consequence of the reality of the current situation...

 

taks

[Sand]

Well, that was then and this is now, Taks. If bush want to occupy that nation, fine, but let him do it without American tax dollars and American troops. I seriously hope that Congress actually gets off their duff and make binding resolutions that will bring our forces home and reallocate resources away from Iraq. The US involvement in Iraq is a failure. Just turn on the news and you can see that.

[Dark_Raven]

Then why has the Bush administration failed to do what Saddam succeeded in? We have a much larger force and support of the local government.

 

Because USA is poor at colonialism. All "experts" and researchers (europeans, americans etc.) agree on this.

Too many bleeding hearts and being democratic tends to make one weak when a situation calls for an iron fist.

[Atreides]

And that is what is leading the destabilization of the country. The first step is to force stabilization. Without a stable environment in which people can feel safe in, or at least not have to worry about getting blown up while going to market, there can be no progression towards a more amiable solution. As long as the chaos and destruction is allowed to remain the US will see no significant progress made.

 

Dictators can impose order at the cost of freedom, but one cannot have freedom without order being established first.

The real threat of having you, and everyone you know and your camel killed ain't exactly an environment which promotes feelings of safeness.