Be Brave --- Tell Us All You Want to Lose in Iraq
-
Le Centriste wrote:
U.S. had nothing to do in Iraq in the first place.
Maybe. But considering how much the al quida goons are commited to defeating us there, I'd say we picked the right fight. We should fight them when ever and where ever they choose to oppose us. Iraq is as good a place as any to do that. Iran would be better though. Or Pakistan. Or Syria. Or Saudi Arabia.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
This is something I've never understood. We choose to fight the terrorists in someone elses country. So that country's people can die in the crossfire instead of our own. So, in affect, we're saying that the Iraqi people aren't worth anything. That we can just use their country for a battle ground against people that weren't there before we arrived. This war has probably killed more Iraqi citizens than Saddam. I wonder what it is we've done for them.
This statement was never false.
-
Too late. I beat you. It is now you who sucks.
So sayeth the faulty vaccuum.
This statement was never false.
-
This is something I've never understood. We choose to fight the terrorists in someone elses country. So that country's people can die in the crossfire instead of our own. So, in affect, we're saying that the Iraqi people aren't worth anything. That we can just use their country for a battle ground against people that weren't there before we arrived. This war has probably killed more Iraqi citizens than Saddam. I wonder what it is we've done for them.
This statement was never false.
The isn't what happened at all. We invaded Iraq becuase Saddam was a dangerous, unstable madman unwilling to comply with numerous UN mandates and contained only by the presence of massive military force. I opposed the invasion, but not because it was not perfectal justified both militarily,politically and legally. After we had successfully liberated Iraq from Saddam's tyranny, then, other powers in the region, includeing Iran, Syria and al queda, instigated violent terrorist activities to prevent a successful transition to a stable democractic government. The fight with terrorism was brought to us, we did not intentionally invite it. But we are now engaged there. Effectively, there is no difference in us fighting Islamic fundamentalims in IRaq than there was fighting Nazis in France or Japanese in the Phillipines. It is they who choose to make Iraq an issue they wish to fight for. We should oblige them.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Le Centriste wrote:
Hmmm so are you implying that the Republicans are not using similar strategies?
yes, the repubs are using similar strategies, however they're just not using the war.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
yes, the repubs are using similar strategies, however they're just not using the war.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement though, is it.. that your best distinction is that one group is using different means to the same ends as the other group.. Seriously, both parties in this country are f***ed and so are the American people for following them. I don't really see it ever going another direction though. Opinion is too easy to control.
Cheers, Patrick
-
Well, I for one, interpreted his statements to mean that when we do pull out due to it being unwinnable, we'll be citing the Shia Suni violence as the cause.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
we'll be citing the Shia Suni violence as the cause.
Which it pretty much is. We've opened a 1500 year old wound and a few years of locking down Iraq isn't going to fix it. Frankly there's only one way out for the Muslims and that's to either destroy each other or sit down and stop fighting long enough to realize they're killing whole countries over their stupid religious battle.
Cheers, Patrick
-
The isn't what happened at all. We invaded Iraq becuase Saddam was a dangerous, unstable madman unwilling to comply with numerous UN mandates and contained only by the presence of massive military force. I opposed the invasion, but not because it was not perfectal justified both militarily,politically and legally. After we had successfully liberated Iraq from Saddam's tyranny, then, other powers in the region, includeing Iran, Syria and al queda, instigated violent terrorist activities to prevent a successful transition to a stable democractic government. The fight with terrorism was brought to us, we did not intentionally invite it. But we are now engaged there. Effectively, there is no difference in us fighting Islamic fundamentalims in IRaq than there was fighting Nazis in France or Japanese in the Phillipines. It is they who choose to make Iraq an issue they wish to fight for. We should oblige them.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
You've got a point, but I wonder if it takes a dangerous unstable madman to control that region.
This statement was never false.
-
You've got a point, but I wonder if it takes a dangerous unstable madman to control that region.
This statement was never false.
Frankly, I think it is entirely appropriate for us to give at least one muslim nation the opportunity to prove otherwise. We did, indeed, create strong men like Saddam to aide us during the Cold war. He was ultimately our responsibility to deal with. But if the middle east cannot reform, what choice are we ultimately going to have but to wage a much more lethal conflict against them. The status quo of ever more deadly and destructive terrorist attacks from "stateless" terrorist simply cannot be endured perpetually. If they can't reform voluntarily, they will have to be reformed involuntarily.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Frankly, I think it is entirely appropriate for us to give at least one muslim nation the opportunity to prove otherwise. We did, indeed, create strong men like Saddam to aide us during the Cold war. He was ultimately our responsibility to deal with. But if the middle east cannot reform, what choice are we ultimately going to have but to wage a much more lethal conflict against them. The status quo of ever more deadly and destructive terrorist attacks from "stateless" terrorist simply cannot be endured perpetually. If they can't reform voluntarily, they will have to be reformed involuntarily.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Lofty goals. If only we have the resources to go the distance. Do you think there would be a threat to the states if we didn't have our hands in all of their cookie jars?
This statement was never false.
-
Lofty goals. If only we have the resources to go the distance. Do you think there would be a threat to the states if we didn't have our hands in all of their cookie jars?
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
If only we have the resources to go the distance.
We have far more than enough. It is silly to think otherwise.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Do you think there would be a threat to the states if we didn't have our hands in all of their cookie jars?
We were drawn into being the custodian of all the cookie jars by the circumstances of the 20th century. If not for us the world would still be ruled by European imperial powers. We can damn well put our hands into any cookie jar we feel the need to.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
If only we have the resources to go the distance.
We have far more than enough. It is silly to think otherwise.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Do you think there would be a threat to the states if we didn't have our hands in all of their cookie jars?
We were drawn into being the custodian of all the cookie jars by the circumstances of the 20th century. If not for us the world would still be ruled by European imperial powers. We can damn well put our hands into any cookie jar we feel the need to.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Sounds like Imperialism by fiat. What have we done for them lately?
This statement was never false.