PDA

View Full Version : Democrats: "FAILURE IS THE ONLY OPTION!"



Dixie - In Memoriam
11-28-2006, 08:35 PM
I've been observing the posts of late, watching the ebb and flow of emotion as pinheads coped with the shock of their win, along with a sense of lost purpose and need to re-group to come up with a plan, since they hadn't formulated one. It was weird to see pinheads try to keep trash talking Bush and realizing that didn't matter now, the spotlight was now on them for a strategy and solution, and they couldn't define one from the platitudes of Kerry, Kennedy and Murtha.

They scurried away for a while, to their little liberal meccas, and deciphered Mien Kampf, or reread Lenin. Finally, they have returned with the profoundly brilliant and well-though out strategy of how we leave Iraq with dignity and honor! It is through understanding..."Failure" is the only option!

When Iraq is discussed, it is always discussed in light of it being a failure, an established set-in-stone failure, and there is simply nothing we can do to change this fact of reality. Since it has been rubber stamped and sealed for eternity as a failure, it opens the doors to so many options for Iraq strategy, like impeaching Bush. In the end, the secret surprise liberal strategy for Iraq, was to proclaim it a failure and liken it to Vietnam, and refuse to even discuss the matter further.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think America voted to "lose" Iraq. I don't think they voted Iraq a failure, either. I think people want to see Iraq resolved, and in a way that is best for us and Iraq, if possible. Failure, is not what is best for America in Iraq, and it's not best for the nation of Iraq. Failure only benefits two distinct groups of people, the radical fundamentalist nuts we are at war with, and the Left-Wing Pinheads.

maineman
11-28-2006, 08:37 PM
only the badly defeated, yet still koolaid soaked right defines leaving Iraq with as few a number of additional US casualties and letting Iraqis solve Iraq's problems as "failure".

Cypress
11-28-2006, 08:41 PM
No military victory is possible, Dickster. Even Henry Kissinger says it.

You and Bush have fucked us. Royally.

Cypress
11-28-2006, 08:46 PM
Your president has been reduced to irrelevancy, Dixie. He's powerless to affect any changes in Iraq. Sending 20 or 30 thousand more troops won't fundamentally change anything.

As for diplomacy: nobody on the planet respects him. They won't listen to him. Even if he wanted to try his hand at diplomacy.

Your war will end, when one side is victorious in the civil war. Bottom line. Or, when Iran, Syria, and regional neighbors of Iraq can construct a diplomatic solution.

Bush is relegated to the sidelines, blathering on endlessly about "staying the course". Nobody of any consequence is listening to him anymore. Deal with it.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-28-2006, 08:55 PM
badly defeated, yet still koolaid soaked right

Hmmm... you must have watched a different election than I did. And I guess those koolaid drinkers musta been busy making a batch on election day, and just forgot to show up, huh?

leaving Iraq with as few a number of additional US casualties and letting Iraqis solve Iraq's problems

No one I know of, wants more additional US casualties. No one has ever been opposed to letting Iraqis solve Iraq's problems, and when we eliminate the insurgents from outside influence, this can happen. We can't allow Iran and Syria to ally with Sadr and overthrow the democracy, so we can't really just leave the Iraqi people to sort it all out. We are allies with Iraq, and we are obligated to honor our word to them. If we fail to do this, how will it bode for our relationship with other allied countries in the region?

maineman
11-28-2006, 08:59 PM
are you ever gonna explain where you got the hairbrained idea that Iranian persian shiites would provide support to Iraqi arab sunnis fighting their shiite brethren?

maineman
11-28-2006, 09:01 PM
badly defeated, yet still koolaid soaked right

Hmmm... you must have watched a different election than I did. And I guess those koolaid drinkers musta been busy making a batch on election day, and just forgot to show up, huh?



no...I watched the one where we swept to majorities in both chambers when YOU had been so certain that YOUR side wouldn't even lose a single seat, that you bet me $100 on that..... which you reneged on, as everyone knew you would.

LadyT
11-28-2006, 09:03 PM
I don't think they voted Iraq a failure, either. I think people want to see Iraq resolved, and in a way that is best for us and Iraq, if possible. Failure, is not what is best for America in Iraq, and it's not best for the nation of Iraq. Failure only benefits two distinct groups of people, the radical fundamentalist nuts we are at war with, and the Left-Wing Pinheads.

Clearly failure is not what's best for America. Which is why the left was so insistant about not invading Iraq. But the sad reality is that Iraq is a mess and a gigantic failure on just about every level possible:

- We've destabilized a country
- Our actions have become the rallying point for Al Qaeda
- Al Qaeda's presence has increased in Iraq because of the invasion
- The Sunni's and Shiites are engaging in a cival war (or whatever the fuck monkey boy calls it)
- We've empowered Iran
- Oh and lastly: there was no WMD program so the entire basis for the invasion is mute.

You can sit there and give us you're self righteous retarded BS about "fighting for democracy" or "fighting for freedom" or any other Hannity talking point, but the fact is we've messed up royally and our presence IS NOT helping the situation. Its getting worse. Its time to pull out. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

BRUTALITOPS
11-28-2006, 09:08 PM
No military victory is possible, Dickster. Even Henry Kissinger says it.

You and Bush have fucked us. Royally.

Um, a military victory is very possible... just bomb the shit out of them.

I believe you mean, political, moral, or social victory.

Cypress
11-28-2006, 09:10 PM
badly defeated, yet still koolaid soaked right

Hmmm... you must have watched a different election than I did. And I guess those koolaid drinkers musta been busy making a batch on election day, and just forgot to show up, huh?

leaving Iraq with as few a number of additional US casualties and letting Iraqis solve Iraq's problems

No one I know of, wants more additional US casualties. No one has ever been opposed to letting Iraqis solve Iraq's problems, and when we eliminate the insurgents from outside influence, this can happen. We can't allow Iran and Syria to ally with Sadr and overthrow the democracy, so we can't really just leave the Iraqi people to sort it all out. We are allies with Iraq, and we are obligated to honor our word to them. If we fail to do this, how will it bode for our relationship with other allied countries in the region?


"We can't allow Iran and Syria to ally with Sadr and overthrow the democracy, so we can't really just leave the Iraqi people to sort it all out. We are allies with Iraq, and we are obligated to honor our word to them."


So, you lied when 18 freakin months ago you said there were only a few dead enders left oppossing us in Iraq, and that they were withering away.

If there were only a few dead enders left, the 300,000 man strong Iraqi army should be able to handle them. But, of course you were just lying for the last three years.


May 23, 2005, Fullpolitics.com:

-Mainemain: Your side said that the insurgency was just a handful of foreigners and that it would wither away when Saddam was captured

-Dixie: And they have been.... slowly but surely they are dwindling.

-Maineman: Your side said that the insurgency was just a handful of disgrunteled Ba'athists and that it would wither away when Saddam was captured

-Dixie: And they are.... it takes time. Are you so ignorant of warfare as to think that we are engaged in some heavy military conflict with an enemy we can't defeat, like Vietnam? I thought you were more intelligent Maine.

-Maineman: Your side said that the insurgency was just a handful of foreigners and that it would wither away when elections were held

-Dixie: AND THEY DID MAINE! Most of the fucking world came to their senses when they saw 8 million Iraqi people defy the threat of extreme danger to affirm democracy in Iraq! What the fuck are you still doing opposed to it?

LadyT
11-28-2006, 09:13 PM
Um, a military victory is very possible... just bomb the shit out of them.

I believe you mean, political, moral, or social victory.

Not when the name of the war is "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Killing all the people would technically be a loss. Unless by Iraqi Freedom you mean: Freeing them of life.

Cypress
11-28-2006, 09:14 PM
Um, a military victory is very possible... just bomb the shit out of them.

I believe you mean, political, moral, or social victory.

That would be a tactical short term military victory, and a strategic catasrphic blunder in the long run.

The minute we bomb iraq into a parking lot, is the minute that enraged militant elements embedded in the Pakistani government, hand some of their nukes over to al qaeda to conduct nuclear attacks in the US. And every arab state on the planet throws our military out of their country under a hail of Kalishnakov bullets.

Onceler
11-28-2006, 09:23 PM
"I've been observing the posts of late, watching the ebb and flow of emotion as pinheads coped with the shock of their win, along with a sense of lost purpose and need to re-group to come up with a plan, since they hadn't formulated one"

That's an odd take on what has happened. The win was certainly no shock for me, though I am pleased by the final margin (39 million Democrat votes, compared to 28 million Republican...ouch!) I also feel absolutely no sense of lost purpose, and see virtually none of that in the national Dem leadership. They are ready to move forward with the initiatives that they talked about for the ENTIRE CAMPAIGN: congressional reform, funding stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, helping families pay for college tuition with targeted tax relief, incenting alternative energy development, and pursuing a new course in Iraq.

As for the last one, most agree that any sort of victory is ill-defined and pretty much untenable. Stability is the goal at this point; if you & Bush have your way, we'll be fighting a guerilla war for the next decade. Partitioning needs to be on the table; timetables need to be on the table. Giving the Iraqi government an ultimatum has to be on the table. Saddam is disarmed (was when we got there), and the regime has been changed. Isn't that the "victory" that you were looking for when you sold this thing as our most effective strategy in the war against terror?

BRUTALITOPS
11-28-2006, 10:07 PM
Not when the name of the war is "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Killing all the people would technically be a loss. Unless by Iraqi Freedom you mean: Freeing them of life.

Well that's the whole point, our current war really isn't a war.... it isn't a military operation anymore.... if it was about blowing things up and destorying everyone we would win hands down... we WOULD EASILY win militarily.

This is a political operation, not a military one.

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-28-2006, 10:08 PM
Shock of victory? For MONTHS, it was stated that Democrats would likely take back The House, and The Senate was anyone's guess. I guess Dixie only watches Fox News, and even then, only the parts he likes to see.

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-28-2006, 10:08 PM
Grind, it has always been a political operation.

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-28-2006, 10:12 PM
The Bush Admin killed any hope of "victory" in Iraq when they WILLFULLY shut out The State Department, and the scant few EXPERTS on Iraq that we have.

They INSISTED that Rumsfeld run the entire operation, and HIS idea for WINNING THE PEACE was that Iraqis would immediately join hands and sing:

"Ding-Dong, Hussein is dead, the wicked Saddam is dead".

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-28-2006, 10:14 PM
The simple FACT is that there are no satisfying answers to deal with Iraq. We need to deal with the best REALISTIC answer, rather than the prettiest IDEOLOGICAL "answer".

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-28-2006, 10:15 PM
For those of you who want to see a right-wing success story, look up "The War on Drugs".

Thank GOD we don't have to deal with drugs any longer!

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-28-2006, 10:28 PM
But the sad reality is that Iraq is a mess and a gigantic failure on just about every level possible:

We liberated 25 million people.
Closed countless rape rooms and torture chambers.
Stopped the filling of countless mass graves.
Stopped the feeding of dissidents into wood chippers.
Stopped the videotaping of rape and torture for sick pleasure of the Husseins.
Gave women a chance to express a political voice for the first time in history.
Iraqis turned out 12 million people to vote under threat of death.
Iraqis had 70% participation in democratic elections for a parliament.
Iraqis have seated a parliament and adopted a constitution.
Iraqis have trained a 300,000-man security force while combating insurgents.

Oh yeah... and we eliminated a major pain in the ass of the US and our allies in that region. We no longer have to worry about what Saddam is doing or what he is planning... whether he will gas thousands of his own people again, or invade his neighbors... whether he will develop a nuke like Armagedongoninsane, or allow alQaeda free reign in the Kurdish region. None of these things are of any concern anymore, and it's something I don't think a lot of pinheads like to factor in, when 'looking objectively' at Iraq.

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-28-2006, 10:47 PM
Dixie, you need medical help.

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-28-2006, 10:50 PM
Dixie, little Clue:

Women were more free in Iraq BEFORE the invasion. You are confusing Iraq with Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Not uncommon for spin-regurgitating partisans such as yourself.

Perhaps, one day...when you're a big boy, you'll choose to LEARN about something bfore speaking of it.

BRUTALITOPS
11-28-2006, 11:04 PM
Grind, it has always been a political operation.

Thus why it is innane for cypress to comment on how it is evident we can't win this militarily, when that is not how we have ever been fighting this war.

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-28-2006, 11:09 PM
Shit, the very fact that this war is nothing more than the realization of PNAC doctrine, makes it nothing more than a political action.

The only "threat" this invasion was expected to ameliorate was the threat of a loss of US economic dominance, when one of the world's greatest oil powers was to find itself no longer constrained by sanctions.

This invasion was designed to open Iraqi markets to The US, markets we otherwise didn't have a CHANCE of penetrating.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-28-2006, 11:59 PM
It had nothing to do with markets, idiot.

It had to do with radical religious nutjobs who have decided it's their god's will to fly commercial airplanes full of innocent people into our buildings! That it is their 'manifest destiny' to bring about the Apocalypse, so that their god can return, and obliterating Israel is the first step.

It had to do with a simple but logical approach to obtaining stability and peace in the region, through countering the religious radical fundamental ideology, with the ideology of freedom and democracy. It had to do with cutting Iran off, from further spreading the hate-filled message of the Islamofascists, and planting democratic government in the heart of their beloved Caliphate.

This is not a war of Christians against Muslims, as many of you pinheads want to claim, the overwhelming majority of Muslims have nothing to do with this, and don't support it. Because of the nature of their religion (I guess), they seem to have a hard time standing up and denouncing the radicals. But many fairly dominant Muslim countries, have sided with the US in Iraq, and the War on Terror. Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, all support the US and our coalition in the War on Terror, and the war in Iraq.

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-29-2006, 12:22 AM
Iraq was a SECULAR nation, you fucking moron. The religious extremists WANTED us to invade Iraq.


You have got to be the most politically ignorant person on this, or any other, planet.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 01:02 AM
Iraq was a SECULAR nation, you fucking moron.

Damn, for a "secular" nation, they sure do seem to have a lot of problems between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, huh?

The religious extremists WANTED us to invade Iraq.

No, the religious extremists want to establish a Caliphate there.


You have got to be the most politically ignorant person on this, or any other, planet.

You have got to be the most politically ignorant person on this, or any other, planet.

Well, it doesn't seem that way to me, it seems like you are the one who is ignorant. Iraq can't be collapsing in utter chaos of civil war between Muslim sects, if they are secular, it's a contradiction of logic, yet that is what you just said. Then... just when I thought you had said the most stupid thing ever, you kept typing! You claim that the fundamentalist radicals, who wish to establish an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east, actually WANTED us to invade and plant a Democracy there. That's almost as funny as claiming Liberals WANTED Bush to invade Iraq!

AnyOldIron
11-29-2006, 02:53 AM
Dixie, Iraq was a defeat that was lost before the invasion was launched, through poor strategic thinking and a perspective on ME politics tinted by idealistic dreams of the 'power of democracy'.

We need to be looking outside Iraq for victories in the battle against Islamic extremism, and simply make the best of a bad situation within Iraq.

AnyOldIron
11-29-2006, 02:57 AM
You claim that the fundamentalist radicals, who wish to establish an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east, actually WANTED us to invade and plant a Democracy there.

9/11 was a provokation, AQ etc certainly wanted the US to attack a Muslim country so that they could point to the attack to justify their actions and garner support and recruits. As the US learnt with Castro, if you want to make a people rally round, give them a common enemy.

AQ etc probably understood ME politics better than the idealogues in the WH and knew that the schisms in Iraqi society would negate the idea of a welcomed invasion and a nice cosy transition via a ballot.

Onceler
11-29-2006, 06:23 AM
"Damn, for a "secular" nation, they sure do seem to have a lot of problems between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, huh? "

Wow...your stupidity continues to amaze. You realize that there CAN be religious people residing in a secular nation, don't you?

maineman
11-29-2006, 06:47 AM
Damn, for a "secular" nation, they sure do seem to have a lot of problems between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, huh?

and that mean old secular baathist, Saddam, as big an asshole as he was, was doing a great job at keeping a lid on those problems that WE, by our invasion, conquest and occupation, have starting boiling not only in Iraq, but now throughout the region. Good JOB!

No, the religious extremists want to establish a Caliphate there.

no...they knew that they needed to incite the muslim world against the west, and what better way to do that than to have the Great Satan invade, conquer and occupy an oilrich muslim nation. The problem was....how to get them to do that. The answer: fly three airplanes into buildings in America and watch the moron in the white house use that as an excuse to enact the PNAC agenda. You gotta admit...their plan worked perfectly. Good JOB!

Well, it doesn't seem that way to me, it seems like you are the one who is ignorant. Iraq can't be collapsing in utter chaos of civil war between Muslim sects, if they are secular, it's a contradiction of logic, yet that is what you just said. Then... just when I thought you had said the most stupid thing ever, you kept typing! You claim that the fundamentalist radicals, who wish to establish an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east, actually WANTED us to invade and plant a Democracy there. That's almost as funny as claiming Liberals WANTED Bush to invade Iraq!

your willfull ignorance is profound. I realize that it all stems from a complete inability to admit error, but getting rid of Saddam was a really stupid thing to do. As bad of a guy as he was, he was very good at keeping a lid on sectarian infighting within Iraq(which we are incapable of doing). He was very good at keeping Islamic extremists out of his country (which we are incapable of doing). And he was very good at keeping a lid on Iranian regional hegemony (which we are incapable of doing). All three of those initiatives would significantly aid us in our war against islamic extremism, but we fucked that all up and now, putting Humpty Dumpty together again is not possible. Good JOB!

Blackflag
11-29-2006, 07:27 AM
Iraq was a SECULAR nation, you fucking moron. The religious extremists WANTED us to invade Iraq.


You have got to be the most politically ignorant person on this, or any other, planet.

Quoted for Truth

Cypress
11-29-2006, 08:01 AM
It had nothing to do with markets, idiot.

It had to do with radical religious nutjobs who have decided it's their god's will to fly commercial airplanes full of innocent people into our buildings! That it is their 'manifest destiny' to bring about the Apocalypse, so that their god can return, and obliterating Israel is the first step.

It had to do with a simple but logical approach to obtaining stability and peace in the region, through countering the religious radical fundamental ideology, with the ideology of freedom and democracy. It had to do with cutting Iran off, from further spreading the hate-filled message of the Islamofascists, and planting democratic government in the heart of their beloved Caliphate.

This is not a war of Christians against Muslims, as many of you pinheads want to claim, the overwhelming majority of Muslims have nothing to do with this, and don't support it. Because of the nature of their religion (I guess), they seem to have a hard time standing up and denouncing the radicals. But many fairly dominant Muslim countries, have sided with the US in Iraq, and the War on Terror. Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, all support the US and our coalition in the War on Terror, and the war in Iraq.


Yay Bush!!! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: Bush, Bush, he's our man! If he can't do it, nobody can!

uscitizen
11-29-2006, 09:06 AM
And that is the sad truth Cypress. No one else can do it for Iraq. It all depends on the Iraqi people.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 09:58 AM
"Damn, for a "secular" nation, they sure do seem to have a lot of problems between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, huh? "

Wow...your stupidity continues to amaze. You realize that there CAN be religious people residing in a secular nation, don't you?

I realize you don't understand what "secular" means. Iraq is clearly a predominately Muslim nation. Saddam claimed to run a secular dictatorship, but he was a Sunni Muslim, who often played favorites with the Sunnis and discriminated against the Shiia. Now, you can say Iraq was anything you want, you could claim that Iraq was a Christian Monarchy and Saddam was the brother of Jesus, but without something to support your idiocy, you've not made a valid point.

Onceler
11-29-2006, 10:04 AM
I realize you don't understand what "secular" means. Iraq is clearly a predominately Muslim nation. Saddam claimed to run a secular dictatorship, but he was a Sunni Muslim, who often played favorites with the Sunnis and discriminated against the Shiia. Now, you can say Iraq was anything you want, you could claim that Iraq was a Christian Monarchy and Saddam was the brother of Jesus, but without something to support your idiocy, you've not made a valid point.

I know what secular means, Dix. It is YOU who does not understand what "secular state" means. It does not mean "atheistic state," or that the leaders are not religious on a personal level, or that the populace is not fervently religious, either under one religious or a variety of religions.

But please...feel free to keep professing your ignorance on this topic - among others - for all to see....

uscitizen
11-29-2006, 10:20 AM
And God told bush to invade Iraq, what does that make the USA ?

maineman
11-29-2006, 10:27 AM
I love it when Dixie uses someone's quote in his signature, but somehow cannot refute any of the arguments in the post from whence the quote was extracted.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 10:33 AM
I know what secular means, Dix. It is YOU who does not understand what "secular state" means. It does not mean "atheistic state," or that the leaders are not religious on a personal level, or that the populace is not fervently religious, either under one religious or a variety of religions.

But please...feel free to keep professing your ignorance on this topic - among others - for all to see....


Maybe you could explain it? You tell us what "secular" doesn't mean, but you don't bother explaining what it does mean. According to the dictionary I have, it means, not pertaining to religion. This seems to be an odd way to describe a country in a civil war between two religious factions. I'm sure there is some secret spin move you morons put on this, to make Iraq secular, when every indication suggests they are not. I suppose you are presuming Iraq is secular because it's not an Islamic theocracy, but that doesn't make something "secular" at all.

I'll certainly continue professing common sense on this topic, and exposing your lack of competence for all to see. Whenever you feel like explaining how a predominately Muslim country, run by a Sunni dictator, and now on the verge of a civil war between two Muslim factions, is "secular" by any measure, you just go right ahead, I am waiting to hear the explanation.

Cypress
11-29-2006, 10:42 AM
Maybe you could explain it? You tell us what "secular" doesn't mean, but you don't bother explaining what it does mean. According to the dictionary I have, it means, not pertaining to religion. This seems to be an odd way to describe a country in a civil war between two religious factions. I'm sure there is some secret spin move you morons put on this, to make Iraq secular, when every indication suggests they are not. I suppose you are presuming Iraq is secular because it's not an Islamic theocracy, but that doesn't make something "secular" at all.

I'll certainly continue professing common sense on this topic, and exposing your lack of competence for all to see. Whenever you feel like explaining how a predominately Muslim country, run by a Sunni dictator, and now on the verge of a civil war between two Muslim factions, is "secular" by any measure, you just go right ahead, I am waiting to hear the explanation.

Are you aware that a Government can be secular, while the nation is highly religious? The United States has a secular government, while its population is very religious.

Same in Iraq. The socialist Bathists were notoriously secular, and even hostile to fundamentalist islam. And even though the Iraqis themselves were very religious, there was never any significant anti-americanism terrorist aspect to it: In nearly 40 years of islamic terrorism, I can't think of any attack on americans that involved iraqi citizens. The anti-american muslim terrorists tend to come from saudi arabia, pakistan and egypt - i.e., countries where our petro-dollars and foreign aid prop up authoritarian regimes.

Onceler
11-29-2006, 10:44 AM
"This seems to be an odd way to describe a country in a civil war between two religious factions. "

Your stupidity actually offends me at times...that's very rare. What does the fact that Iraq is now in a civil war (you admitted it...ha ha!), have to do with what the government WAS before we invaded? You're desperate. As I said, having a secular government does NOT mean that the people who live under that government are not religious, or that the leaders of that government do not personally practice religion.

Understand? Probably not. You understand very little.

But AT LEAST you FINALLY admit that IRAQ IS IN A CIVIL WAR!!!!

Cypress
11-29-2006, 10:50 AM
Yep, Dixie is learning. He finally admits it's a civil war


"DIXIE: "Maybe you could explain it? You tell us what "secular" doesn't mean, but you don't bother explaining what it does mean. According to the dictionary I have, it means, not pertaining to religion. This seems to be an odd way to describe a country in a civil war between two religious factions. "

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 11:07 AM
Yep, Dixie is learning. He finally admits it's a civil war

Nope, I didn't do that. I know you hang on my every word, and you want to derive that from my statement, but I was actually articulating your point back to you, in context of 'secularism' as it relates to a 'civil war' between religious factions. For the sake of argument, let's say that I "finally admit" Iraq is in a civil war... well, who is fighting the war? Secular factions? If Iraq were secular, this would seem to be the case, but it's not.

Again, the FACTS... Saddam Hussein was a Sunni dictator, who played favorites with Sunnis, and discriminated against Shiia Muslims. The overwhelmingly predominate religious belief in Iraq, is Muslim. Saddam claimed to have run a "secular regime" but as I have pointed out, routinely discriminated based on religious faction. He was not a theocratic, Iraq wasn't a Muslim theocracy like Iran, but that doesn't make Iraq "secular" by any means, it just makes them a "non-radical", mostly Muslim nation.

maineman
11-29-2006, 11:15 AM
I would love to see Dixie walk up to any member of the ba'ath party in any arab state and tell them they were not a "secular" organization

maineman
11-29-2006, 11:16 AM
Is Dixie next going to say that Syria is not a secular state?

Onceler
11-29-2006, 11:22 AM
"For the sake of argument, let's say that I "finally admit" Iraq is in a civil war... well, who is fighting the war? Secular factions? If Iraq were secular, this would seem to be the case, but it's not. "

Nobody talks themselves into a circle better than Dixie.

Okay, I'll play along, and go with your account that you didn't say Iraq was in a civil war, even though you said Iraq was in a civil war.

Again...what does THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN IRAQ BEFORE WE INVADED?

I have to take stupid pills before I get into a debate with you...

Onceler
11-29-2006, 11:26 AM
Bush is a born-again Christian leader, in a secular nation that is populated by fervent Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al. Bush and his followers routinely bring religion into their policy decisions, whether it's regarding war, abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, faith-based initiatives or any one of a # of issues. Funding from religious groups has been instrumental in bringing Bush & many Republicans to elected office.

Yet, America is still considered a secular nation.

Does that help at all?

uscitizen
11-29-2006, 11:30 AM
Damn Oncelor you are going to cause Dix to go into mental overload....

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 11:40 AM
"For the sake of argument, let's say that I "finally admit" Iraq is in a civil war... well, who is fighting the war? Secular factions? If Iraq were secular, this would seem to be the case, but it's not. "

Nobody talks themselves into a circle better than Dixie.

Okay, I'll play along, and go with your account that you didn't say Iraq was in a civil war, even though you said Iraq was in a civil war.

Again...what does THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN IRAQ BEFORE WE INVADED?

I have to take stupid pills before I get into a debate with you...


Iraq was a DICTATORSHIP... controlled by a SUNNI Muslim! That's what it was before we invaded. The fact that Saddam played favorites with his type of Muslim over the Shiias, is why there is so much turmoil now. To pretend that Saddam was some peaceful secular ruler, is nothing more than believing Saddam's rhetoric and refusing to accept reality. I can't argue with you if you won't accept reality, there is really no point in it. The word "secular" means "not pertaining to religion" and this does not describe the way Saddam played favorites with Sunnis and discriminated against Shiia. It also doesn't describe the warring factions in Iraq at this time.

Cypress
11-29-2006, 11:43 AM
Dixie, you're having an arugment with yourself. Today you're saying Iraq was not secular, mere weeks ago you said Iraq was secular:


Justplainpolitics, archives:

-DIXIE: “When you also factor in the strategic significance of Iraq, the strategic military significance in combating radical Islamofascists, as well as the ideological strategery of planting democracy in an Arab country with the least difficulty... (think of trying to establish a democracy in Iran or Pakistan, as opposed to a secular Iraq) The war in Iraq becomes a very logical move, and vital to the war on terror.

************************************************** **


-Maineman: Dixie...since you agree that AQ's strategic mission is to destroy secular governments that exist in the territory comprising the former Islamic caliphate...can you please give me one good reason why Saddam would give WMD's (even if he had them, which we now know he did not) to an organization whose mission was the destruction of his government?


-DIXIE: We've been through this before. If Saddam had been all gung-ho to sell WMD's to alQaeda, they would have struck us on 9/11 with them! Saddam didn't trust alQaeda, for the very reason you point out, but that doesn't mean Saddam's regime wasn't conspiring with alQaeda, they were. Whether this was done without Saddam's knowledge, I have no way of knowing, but it did happen.

You've made some valid and credible points about the tenuous relationship between alQaeda and Saddam, and I agree with much of what you are saying

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 11:45 AM
Bush is a born-again Christian leader, in a secular nation that is populated by fervent Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al. Bush and his followers routinely bring religion into their policy decisions, whether it's regarding war, abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, faith-based initiatives or any one of a # of issues. Funding from religious groups has been instrumental in bringing Bush & many Republicans to elected office.

Yet, America is still considered a secular nation.

Does that help at all?


You need to let Maine know this, he thinks we are a "Christian Army" and has said so many times. I would also have to argue that a nation based on the premise that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator, certain rights, is not exactly "secular" by definition. One final factor, Bush is an elected representative of the people, and Saddam was a tyrant dictator. Bush is powerless to call America "secular" or "Christian" or anything else, Saddam had the authority to proclaim Iraq whatever he wished.

uscitizen
11-29-2006, 11:48 AM
Damn, I smell wood burning....

maineman
11-29-2006, 11:55 AM
Like I said....I would LOVE to see Dixie tell any member of the Ba'ath Party that their organization was not a SECULAR one.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 12:07 PM
Dixie, you're having an arugment with yourself. Today you're saying Iraq was not secular, mere weeks ago you said Iraq was secular:

And you are misunderstanding context once again. I guess some people just can't grasp 'context' and have to be simple-minded idiots. In the context of the radicalized middle east, Iraq presented the least radicalized, most secular-conducive environment for democracy to flourish.

The point I am now trying to establish, is that the word "secular" is subjective, much like the word "pretty". I can say that someone is "pretty" and it doesn't mean they are the most beautiful person who ever lived, they may be, but that isn't what is meant by stating they are "pretty". I can also say that someone is "pretty" and you could disagree and say they are not. But, if I am comparing their "prettiness" with a bunch of gorillas, they wouldn't have to be all that "pretty" to be considered "prettier" than the apes. And if I were someone who thought apes were "pretty", perhaps they are the most beautiful person to ever live, from my perspective.

Secularism is much the same way, we can define it in any number of ways and they are all largely subjective to our own personal preferences. If we stick to the defined parameters for the word "secular" and assume it means "not pertaining to religion" as the dictionary teaches, then Iraq, with the very real Sunni/Shiia conflict, can't be defined as "secular" and because they weren't a radicalized nut job theocracy, they could be portrayed as somewhat "secular" in nature. It depends on how you chose to look at the glass. It also depends on whether or not you buy Saddams rhetoric, he claimed Iraq was secular.

What I know is, we had a Sunni Muslim dictator in Saddam, who ruled with an iron fist, did many wonderful and glorious things for Sunnis, discriminated against Shiias, gassed and killed Kurdish Christians, and cause so much bitter hatred between the Muslim factions, that we are now having civil conflict within the "secular" nation. I'm sorry, that doesn't fit the definition of a "secular nation."

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 12:12 PM
Like I said....I would LOVE to see Dixie tell any member of the Ba'ath Party that their organization was not a SECULAR one.


So the Ba'ath Party is the final arbiter over whether Iraq is secular or not? Because they claim to be secular, that means it is so? If they tell us they are, we should just disregard all of the discrimination and atrocities against the Shiia, Christians and Jews, and pretend they are telling the truth?

What sort of goofball are you?

Cypress
11-29-2006, 12:26 PM
Dixie, you're having an arugment with yourself. Today you're saying Iraq was not secular, mere weeks ago you said Iraq was secular:

And you are misunderstanding context once again. I guess some people just can't grasp 'context' and have to be simple-minded idiots. In the context of the radicalized middle east, Iraq presented the least radicalized, most secular-conducive environment for democracy to flourish.

The point I am now trying to establish, is that the word "secular" is subjective, much like the word "pretty". I can say that someone is "pretty" and it doesn't mean they are the most beautiful person who ever lived, they may be, but that isn't what is meant by stating they are "pretty". I can also say that someone is "pretty" and you could disagree and say they are not. But, if I am comparing their "prettiness" with a bunch of gorillas, they wouldn't have to be all that "pretty" to be considered "prettier" than the apes. And if I were someone who thought apes were "pretty", perhaps they are the most beautiful person to ever live, from my perspective.

Secularism is much the same way, we can define it in any number of ways and they are all largely subjective to our own personal preferences. If we stick to the defined parameters for the word "secular" and assume it means "not pertaining to religion" as the dictionary teaches, then Iraq, with the very real Sunni/Shiia conflict, can't be defined as "secular" and because they weren't a radicalized nut job theocracy, they could be portrayed as somewhat "secular" in nature. It depends on how you chose to look at the glass. It also depends on whether or not you buy Saddams rhetoric, he claimed Iraq was secular.

What I know is, we had a Sunni Muslim dictator in Saddam, who ruled with an iron fist, did many wonderful and glorious things for Sunnis, discriminated against Shiias, gassed and killed Kurdish Christians, and cause so much bitter hatred between the Muslim factions, that we are now having civil conflict within the "secular" nation. I'm sorry, that doesn't fit the definition of a "secular nation."


Dixie: "What I know is, we had a Sunni Muslim dictator in Saddam, who ruled with an iron fist, did many wonderful and glorious things for Sunnis, discriminated against Shiias, gassed and killed Kurdish Christians, and cause so much bitter hatred between the Muslim factions....

You just yesterday posted some 2003 pictures from the kurdish provinces, in an attempt to show that smiling, happy iraqis were getting along with each other.

We told you before you invaded, that Iraq was a land that was a tinderbox of sectarian and tribal conflict. You should have listened.

Dixie: ....that we are now having civil conflict within the "secular" nation.

Yes, it is a civil war, of your and Bush's making.

Onceler
11-29-2006, 12:28 PM
I get it...it was Saddam's "Sunni Muslim-ness" & the fact that he "ruled with an iron fist" that kept Iraq from being secular.

Dixie, I just want to make sure we get you on record, here: under your definition of "secular nation," the government HAS to be a representative democracy, and the leader CANNOT have any personal religious beliefs at all?

Do I have that right?

uscitizen
11-29-2006, 12:33 PM
Damn Oncellor you are determined to find out if spontaneous human combustion is a myth or not aren't you ? ;)

maineman
11-29-2006, 12:43 PM
So the Ba'ath Party is the final arbiter over whether Iraq is secular or not? Because they claim to be secular, that means it is so? If they tell us they are, we should just disregard all of the discrimination and atrocities against the Shiia, Christians and Jews, and pretend they are telling the truth?

What sort of goofball are you?

the Ba'ath Party, which was founded in 1944 as a definitively secular organization, and which was the ruling party of Iraq at the time of our ill-advised invasion, conquest and subsequent occupation, is most definitely a more appropriate arbiter as to the secular nature of pre-invasion Iraq than a redneck neocon from Alabama. Yeah.

maineman
11-29-2006, 01:23 PM
and what about discrimination against Jews or Christians would make Iraq something other than a secular nation? Wasn't Nazi Germany a "secular nation"?

Was America - during the glory days of your buddies in the KKK when blacks were hanging like strange fruit from the trees all over the south - NOT a "secular nation"?

Under apartheid, was South Africa NOT a "secular nation"?

It would seem that you feel that "secular" is synonymous with fair and just. Or are you just finding it difficult to stay on message when standing in the tiny little spot in the corner that you've painted yourself into?

uscitizen
11-29-2006, 01:35 PM
You guys keep it up and we will be reading about poor dixie in the Enquirer...

maineman
11-29-2006, 01:47 PM
You guys keep it up and we will be reading about poor dixie in the Enquirer...

I doubt they would be so short of quality copy that they would run a story about a one hour photo guy throwing a hissy fit at the Piggly Wiggly.

uscitizen
11-29-2006, 01:49 PM
I was figuring all this thinking would cause him to burst into flames burning down his and the whole trailer park.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 02:03 PM
It would seem that you feel that "secular" is synonymous with fair and just.

No, I think it means.... not pertaining to religion. I stated that above, perhaps you missed it. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, who played favor with other Sunni Muslims, while discriminating brutally against Shiia Muslims, Christians, and anything other than Sunni Muslims.

In so far as Iraq's official government, it was considered a secular dictatorship, as opposed to a non-secular or religious dictatorship, or theocracy. This doesn't mean Iraq was secular in practicallity. The overwhelming majority of the country is Muslim, mostly Shiia variety, who were routinely persecuted by the Sunni dictator. This doesn't sound like "secular" to me, it sounds fairly well-rooted in religion. This is the opposite of not pertaining to religion.

Forgive my inability to swallow the koolaid here, but I can't figure out how "sectarian violence" between religious sects, can be defined as secular. It doesn't appear that Iraq is a "secular" nation at all, it appears that much of the problems in Iraq, is because of the jealousy between Sunnis, who ruled the roost under Saddam, and Shiias, who are the legitimate majority in the country. This jealousy and animosity is fueled by the nature of Saddam Hussein's rule as a Sunni Muslim dictator, in spite of the official Ba'ath Party line about secularism.

The thing that amazes me about pinheads, is how they can completely turn on a point, depending on what they are arguing at the moment... if we were discussing the strategic importance of establishing a democracy in a "secular" Arab country, unlike Pakistan, Syria, or Iran, you maintain we are going to inflame the Arab street, incite the radical terrorists, help them recruit more... for what? A secular regime with no religious ties? Yeah, right! Why would they care so much, if that were the case?

Here's some cake to go with cake you're already eating, it appears you have enough koolaid to wash it all down.

Damocles
11-29-2006, 02:09 PM
Sectarian has a religious conotation... as it means:

1. of or pertaining to sectaries or sects.
2. narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.
3. narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc


Secular means:

1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.

3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

So, a sectarian government would be religious, sectarian violence is of a religious nature... A secular government however does not define itself by religion.

maineman
11-29-2006, 02:14 PM
Again.... what does the fact that sunnis and shiites are killing each other after we foolishly invaded Iraq and deposed their SECULAR government have to do with the fact that Saddam and the Ba'ath party ran a secular nation-state?

What does the fact that Iraq was nasty to shiites and kurds before the fact have to do with whether or not the government of Iraq - the nation-state itself - was secular?

Was America not secular when you all in the south were stringing up blacks?

Was Nazi Germany not secular when it was gassing Jews?

Was America not secular when we were stealing the land from the native Americans and violating treaties with them left and right?

No one is saying that Al Qaeda is secular...no one is saying that Iraq today - in the midst of a religious civil war that we set in motion - is secular... all we are saying is that Iraq WAS secular. Iraq WAS doing a great job at keeping a lid on sectarian strife. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Islamic extremists out of the country. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Iran in check. We are doing a shitty job at all three of those tasks and we NEED to be able to do a good job at all three of those tasks or risk watching the entire region blow up.....

maineman
11-29-2006, 02:28 PM
and given the fact that your "dumb as a sack of hair" president is in charge of doing those tasks for the next two years, it pretty much means we're fucked....and that really pisses me off.

Jarod
11-29-2006, 03:12 PM
If I set out with a goal of riding a nation of WMD, I invade and find that none exist... How is it failure to bring the troops home?

Mission was accomplished before the war was begun.

uscitizen
11-29-2006, 03:52 PM
3 missions, no WMD, remove SAdam, establish democracy.
All done, boys can come home now.

Onceler
11-29-2006, 04:15 PM
Hey...Dixie ignored my last question!

I'll ask a new one: Dixie...do you think a secular government can reign over a country of fervently religious people?

Simple yes or no will do, thanks...

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 07:08 PM
Hey...Dixie ignored my last question!

I'll ask a new one: Dixie...do you think a secular government can reign over a country of fervently religious people?

Simple yes or no will do, thanks...

Yes

Cancel7
11-29-2006, 07:13 PM
Yes

Dixie, seeing that you, like me, stayed home from Iraq and left the fighting to the "menfolk", I'm wondering, have you seen Michael Kors new lace-up boot? I'm thinking that in the soft beige, with your red, fabu.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 07:35 PM
Again.... what does the fact that sunnis and shiites are killing each other after we foolishly invaded Iraq and deposed their SECULAR government have to do with the fact that Saddam and the Ba'ath party ran a secular nation-state?

Well, apparently, he didn't run a very "secular" state, because the Sunnis who are now out of power, are jealous of the Shiias who dominate. Had Saddam ruled Iraq in secular fashion, there would have been no difference between Sunnis and Shiia, and with Democracy, everyone would have an equal representation, so the Sunnis would have no problem with it. The point of contention for them now, is their lack of power, which they had under Saddam.


What does the fact that Iraq was nasty to shiites and kurds before the fact have to do with whether or not the government of Iraq - the nation-state itself - was secular?

Well, as I said, from a purely political standpoint, Iraq was indeed considered a secular dictatorship. The Ba'ath Party does claim to be secular. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, who played favorites with Sunni Muslims, and was more than "nasty" to shiites and kurds. Let's please be intellectually honest enough to understand, Iraq was a dictatorship, and "the government" was subject to the whim of the ruler, Saddam. His iron-fisted actions against Shiites and Kurds, is "the official government policy" under a dictatorship, that's how it works. Therefore, if Saddam wasn't secular, neither was his government.

Was America not secular when you all in the south were stringing up blacks?

Irrelevant.

Was Nazi Germany not secular when it was gassing Jews?

Irrelevant.

Was America not secular when we were stealing the land from the native Americans and violating treaties with them left and right?

Irrelevant.

No one is saying that Al Qaeda is secular...no one is saying that Iraq today - in the midst of a religious civil war that we set in motion - is secular...

Really? You're not saying that? I could have sworn I've read "secular Iraq" a few times from you alone, as well as other pinheads who keep saying it.


all we are saying is that Iraq WAS secular.

No, actually, they weren't, as I've gone over already. When the dictator is Sunni Muslim, and he openly persecutes and commits genocide on Shiites and Kurds who don't share his Muslim belief, that is not "secular" government, sorry.

Iraq WAS doing a great job at keeping a lid on sectarian strife. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Islamic extremists out of the country. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Iran in check.

Saddam was brutally slaughtering his own people, feeding them into wood-chippers, and making videos to watch for entertainment, his sons routinely raped young Iraqi women, and tortured people daily. There are over 300,000 corpses in Iraq, where Saddam used poison gas to kill people like rats in the street. That's how he was "doing a great job" you fucktard! As for extremists in his country, he was allowing them to train in the Kurdish north, we know this for a fact, and you can run away from that all you like, he fucking had control over ALL his country. Iran hasn't been "in check" since 1976, we've already discussed this as well, who the hell are you trying to fool with this bunch of bullshit?

We are doing a shitty job at all three of those tasks and we NEED to be able to do a good job at all three of those tasks or risk watching the entire region blow up.

Yes, and your party was elected to help find solutions and do a better job, like you CLAIMED you could do! So far, all I see is an attempt to write off Iraq as a failure, and denial of fucking reality on what is going on there.

Onceler
11-29-2006, 07:41 PM
"Yes, and your party was elected to help find solutions and do a better job, like you CLAIMED you could do! So far, all I see is an attempt to write off Iraq as a failure, and denial of fucking reality on what is going on there."

You're just not paying attention. There has been more active, vibrant discussion about different options for Iraq over the past 2-3 weeks than we've had in years under Bush; everything from partitioning, to more troops, to less troops, to withdrawal. Where have you been? Do you read any papers?

As for the "reality of what is going on there," I'd say the person who posts pictures of purple fingers & 3-year old versions of happy Iraqis isn't exactly one to expound on that one.....

maineman
11-29-2006, 08:03 PM
Again.... what does the fact that sunnis and shiites are killing each other after we foolishly invaded Iraq and deposed their SECULAR government have to do with the fact that Saddam and the Ba'ath party ran a secular nation-state?

Well, apparently, he didn't run a very "secular" state, because the Sunnis who are now out of power, are jealous of the Shiias who dominate. Had Saddam ruled Iraq in secular fashion, there would have been no difference between Sunnis and Shiia, and with Democracy, everyone would have an equal representation, so the Sunnis would have no problem with it. The point of contention for them now, is their lack of power, which they had under Saddam.
the fact that sunnis and shiites do not get along is no reflection on whether or not Saddam and his ba'ath party ran their government by any religious principles. They did not.


What does the fact that Iraq was nasty to shiites and kurds before the fact have to do with whether or not the government of Iraq - the nation-state itself - was secular?

Well, as I said, from a purely political standpoint, Iraq was indeed considered a secular dictatorship. The Ba'ath Party does claim to be secular. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, who played favorites with Sunni Muslims, and was more than "nasty" to shiites and kurds. Let's please be intellectually honest enough to understand, Iraq was a dictatorship, and "the government" was subject to the whim of the ruler, Saddam. His iron-fisted actions against Shiites and Kurds, is "the official government policy" under a dictatorship, that's how it works. Therefore, if Saddam wasn't secular, neither was his government.
Saddam was hardly religious in any manner. He did not follow any of the teachings of Islam.... he was the poster boy for secular dictators

Was America not secular when you all in the south were stringing up blacks?

Irrelevant.

not if you say that governments who discrminate are not secular

Was Nazi Germany not secular when it was gassing Jews?

Irrelevant.
why is gassing jews any different or more "secular" than gassing kurds or shiites?

Was America not secular when we were stealing the land from the native Americans and violating treaties with them left and right?

Irrelevant.

ditto

No one is saying that Al Qaeda is secular...no one is saying that Iraq today - in the midst of a religious civil war that we set in motion - is secular...

Really? You're not saying that? I could have sworn I've read "secular Iraq" a few times from you alone, as well as other pinheads who keep saying it.

you have read "secular Iraq" from me only in terms of Saddam's regime. A few months ago, I was the one suggesting that the new government was NOT a secular government but a theocracy and you were arguing against me. Make up your fucking mind you flip flopper!

all we are saying is that Iraq WAS secular.

No, actually, they weren't, as I've gone over already. When the dictator is Sunni Muslim, and he openly persecutes and commits genocide on Shiites and Kurds who don't share his Muslim belief, that is not "secular" government, sorry.
Saddam had no "muslim beliefs". He was a sunni as a matter of ethnicity, not faith.... He was an evil terrible man who avoided mosques like the plague. He was, as I have said, the posterboy for secular dictators

Iraq WAS doing a great job at keeping a lid on sectarian strife. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Islamic extremists out of the country. Iraq WAS doing a great job in keeping Iran in check.

Saddam was brutally slaughtering his own people, feeding them into wood-chippers, and making videos to watch for entertainment, his sons routinely raped young Iraqi women, and tortured people daily. There are over 300,000 corpses in Iraq, where Saddam used poison gas to kill people like rats in the street. That's how he was "doing a great job" you fucktard! As for extremists in his country, he was allowing them to train in the Kurdish north, we know this for a fact, and you can run away from that all you like, he fucking had control over ALL his country. Iran hasn't been "in check" since 1976, we've already discussed this as well, who the hell are you trying to fool with this bunch of bullshit?

::yawn:: Saddam had no control over the kurdish north and, as has been shown here recently, you agreed with me that he had no reason whatsoever to be nice to islamic extremists whose long range strategic goal was the dissolution of his regime. Re: Iran... 1976??????? the Iran-Iraq war went on from 1980-88.... they did not have much time for regional hegemony when they were busy fighting Iraqis, and the lack of any significant Iranian influence is noteworthy. Who's fooling whom?

We are doing a shitty job at all three of those tasks and we NEED to be able to do a good job at all three of those tasks or risk watching the entire region blow up.

Yes, and your party was elected to help find solutions and do a better job, like you CLAIMED you could do! So far, all I see is an attempt to write off Iraq as a failure, and denial of fucking reality on what is going on there.

the reality of what is going on over there is that your party has so badly fucked the region up and our standing in the world community has been so degraded that we are at a point where "winning" the Iraq war is a meaningless phrase relegated to the bone pile along with other fictional bits like Santa Claus and the fucking easter bunny. The solution is to allow Iraqis to solve the problems of Iraq. The solution is to allow Iraqis to determine their own destiny. We went in to get rid of WMD's (there were none) mission accomplished. We went in to depose Saddam (he has been sentenced to death by a -kangaroo- court of his own people) mission accomplished. We went in to establish a vibrant Jeffersonian democracy in the fertile triangle that would shine like a beacon of freedom. Well....two out of three ain't bad. We did establish an operational democracy (according to YOU, anyhow, who claim that two elections and a bunch of purple fingers a democracy doth make)...we have spent over two years training an Iraqi army of 300K soldiers. We don't spent one eighth that time training our own soldiers before shipping THEM off to die in Iraq, why should the ragheads need anymore time? THe insurgency (according to you) is a handful of deadenders in their final throes..and now that we got all that cool info when we killed Zarqawi, the insurgency is going to be dead any day now (arccording to you).... so all in all...I'd say it's time to stop spilling American blood. (unless YOU care to go over and spill some of that yellow stuff of yours) and bring our boys home and let Iraqis settle their differences in their own way. THAT is MY idea of a great way to stop the losses we are suffering there because of YOUR fuckup.

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-29-2006, 09:32 PM
Dixie, you fucking moron.

You are trying to pretend that "secular nation" means "The people of the nation aremostly not religious. That is utter bullshit.

The US is a SECULAR nation. Turkey is a SECULAR nation. Iraq WAS a SECULAR nation.


A SECULAR nation is one in which the GOVERNMENT is not founded it religion.

It is IRRELEVANT how much of THE OPOPULACE IS RELIGION.


As per usual, you stick your foot in your mouth trying to make those you dislike look bad...and, as per usual, you only manage to have it joined by the other foot.

Agnosticus_Caesar
11-29-2006, 09:36 PM
Ooh, the typo demons are fucking with me.

It is IRRELEVANT how much of THE OPOPULACE IS RELIGION. = It is IRRELEVANT how much of THE POPULACE IS RELIGIOUS.

Enjoy, Dixie. My typing skills have almost degraded to the point where they are only several orders of magnitude above and beyond your reasoning capacity.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-29-2006, 09:53 PM
It happens when you post drunk, I understand.

maineman
11-30-2006, 06:32 AM
It happens when you post drunk, I understand.

what then, pray tell, is YOUR excuse? That it happens when you post stupid?

Onceler
11-30-2006, 07:22 AM
what then, pray tell, is YOUR excuse? That it happens when you post stupid?


Hey, it's pretty hard to type on that waterproof keyboard as you live your entire life at the bottom of a giant vat of koolaid, much less see what you're typing (pretty dark down there in all of that Goofy Grape...)

uscitizen
11-30-2006, 07:29 AM
Are we talking enriched electric Koolaid ?
I never have really understood what the koolaid drinking thing has really meant.
I know it is a slam, but not fully why it is a slam.

Onceler
11-30-2006, 07:42 AM
Are we talking enriched electric Koolaid ?
I never have really understood what the koolaid drinking thing has really meant.
I know it is a slam, but not fully why it is a slam.


Do you remember that tragedy with Jim Jones down in Guyana? He had a cult, and when the authorities were moving in on him, he commanded all of his followers to drink poisoned kool-aid, which killed all of them.

Saying someone is "drinking the koolaid" is basically a euphemism for following someone blindly, without question or critical thought.

You know - what Dixie does with his hero in blue jeans...

uscitizen
11-30-2006, 07:45 AM
Thanks Oncellor, strange that cons would use that line against liberals then ? Just more projection of their own faults I suppose.

LadyT
11-30-2006, 08:05 AM
FYI,
The current issue of Newsweek has a great summary of the Sunni/Shiite make up in the middle east.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 09:52 AM
Saying someone is "drinking the koolaid" is basically a euphemism for following someone blindly, without question or critical thought.

You know - what Dixie does with his hero in blue jeans...

I bet if we did a comparative study, there have been more Bush policies I was opposed to, than Democrat policies you've been opposed to, over the past 6 years. I don't know a lot of Republicans who "drank the koolaid" on Harriet Myers, Guest Worker, or government spending.

So, where is your list of things you walked away from the koolaid bowl on?

maineman
11-30-2006, 09:57 AM
Democrats haven't been in power for quite some time. There is no koolaid in our bowl.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 10:00 AM
The people not able to use 'critical thought' here, are Liberals. Read through this thread, some very valid and legitimate points have been made, and can't be refuted by pinheads, in fact, the more you yammer on, the worse you box yourself in with contradiction of logic. You'll say that you want to 'stabilize Iraq' yet you want to withdraw all US forces! You say that you want us to prevail in Iraq, but then state that we can't possibly prevail. Iraq is in the midst of civil war between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, yet they are a "secular" country! Saddam was a evil and ruthless madman, but Iraq was doing just great before we came along! Radical nutjobs are taking over the governments of the middle east, yet Democracy is not a wise idea to counter the nuts!

You people are nothing more than walking, talking, contradictions! You don't bother 'critically thinking' about a damn thing, if Bush supports it, you oppose it, and it doesn't matter if the end results are exactly what you were after. That is blind koolaid-drinking loyalty.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 10:01 AM
There is no koolaid in our bowl.

ROFLMFAO! ..........Did you drink it all up?

maineman
11-30-2006, 10:07 AM
Dixie...They WERE a secular country. Saddam and the baathists were notoriously secular. You can make a big deal about sunnis fighting shiites as some "proof" that Iraq was not nor is not "secular, but it is foolish. YOu can point out that Saddam favored sunnis, and discriminated against shiites, but Hitler discriminated against Jews and Nazi Germany was certainly a secular nation state.

And no one said that Iraq was doing great under Saddam...what has been said is that America was better off with Saddam in power than it is with the region in turmoil which is the direct result of our removing him from power. Thus, your war was profoundly counter-productive to our national interests.

If Catholics and Protestants started a sectarian war in Alabama, would that, all of a sudden, make Alabama or the US NOT secular?

maineman
11-30-2006, 10:08 AM
There is no koolaid in our bowl.

ROFLMFAO! ..........Did you drink it all up?


no...it evaporated after sitting there untouched for all those years.

maineman
11-30-2006, 10:12 AM
and Dixie...don't you recall how, when I complained that the new constitution of Iraq effectively created a theocracy, you vehemently argued that Iraq was completely secular?

Why the flip flop?

uscitizen
11-30-2006, 10:16 AM
I thought we just passed the cup to the bushies ? and they have been bogarting it ever since....

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 10:31 AM
Dixie...They WERE a secular country. Saddam and the baathists were notoriously secular. You can make a big deal about sunnis fighting shiites as some "proof" that Iraq was not nor is not "secular, but it is foolish. YOu can point out that Saddam favored sunnis, and discriminated against shiites, but Hitler discriminated against Jews and Nazi Germany was certainly a secular nation state.

And no one said that Iraq was doing great under Saddam...what has been said is that America was better off with Saddam in power than it is with the region in turmoil which is the direct result of our removing him from power. Thus, your war was profoundly counter-productive to our national interests.

If Catholics and Protestants started a sectarian war in Alabama, would that, all of a sudden, make Alabama or the US NOT secular?


You keep saying they were a secular country, but the nation is comprised of mostly Muslims, and the Sunni Muslim leader was tormenting and persecuting Shiia Muslim people, while rewarding and favoring Sunni Muslims. He gave Sunnis the good jobs, while he gassed and murdered Christian Kurds. "Secular" means, not pertaining to religion, yet religion was the criteria for Saddam's discrimination and how he ruled his country. The region is in turmoil, precisely because of this favoritism toward Sunnis under Saddam, and the jealousy of the Sunnis over the lack of power they now have.

You and Saddam can continue to gulp the koolaid and pretend that Iraq was "secular" when it was anything BUT! You can even go so far as Saddam, and claim Iraq was a democracy! They voted for Saddam regularly! The fact that Iraq wasn't a radical theocracy, doesn't mean they were "secular".

IF we elected a Southern Baptist as our president, and gave him the power to override the Constitution and have full authority like a dictator, and he decided that only Southern Baptists could hold positions of power and authority, while he ordered the gassing of Methodists, and routinely discriminated against Catholics and Jews... this is not a "secular government" by any stretch of the imagination. I don't give a damn what it was called, or how people wanted to categorize it, if that is what was happening, it ain't "secular" at all. This is the case with Iraq. Supposedly, it was a secular dictatorship, but the dictator was Sunni and only Sunnis had power or authority in Iraq, so you essentially had a Sunni "theocracy" if you want to be honest.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 10:38 AM
and Dixie...don't you recall how, when I complained that the new constitution of Iraq effectively created a theocracy, you vehemently argued that Iraq was completely secular?

Why the flip flop?

Because Saddam has been overthrown, there is no dictator. In place of the dictator, is a Constitution, and a functional parliamentary democracy, with fair and legitimate democratic elections for representatives of the people. These representatives will not rule with a single mind, like Saddam, and they will be far less likely to discriminate against ANY particular sect, since they are comprised of all the sects. This makes Iraq much closer to "secular" now, than it was under Saddam.

maineman
11-30-2006, 10:45 AM
Dixie: you just got done saying that THIS was a liberal "contradiction"

Iraq is in the midst of civil war between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, yet they are a "secular" country!

what is it? Is Iraq secular or not? you can't have it both ways...that is a "contradiction"!

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 11:09 AM
Dixie: you just got done saying that THIS was a liberal "contradiction"

Iraq is in the midst of civil war between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, yet they are a "secular" country!

what is it? Is Iraq secular or not? you can't have it both ways...that is a "contradiction"!


Well, if you read my entire argument, you would understand, I am arguing that Iraq was not completely "secular" under Saddam Hussein. This doesn't mean that Iraq was completely "non-secular" or a theocratic government, just that they were not "secular" or at least not, from the perspective of how Saddam ruled. You are the pinheads who seem to want to have it black or white, and fail to see the nuance. You will idiotically argue that Iraq was totally secular, yet the country is in the midst of civil war between two religious sects, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, if Iraq were secular.

And yes, I think you can "have it both ways" here, from a purely geopolitical perspective, Iraq was a dictatorial government, not beholden to any particular religious institution, rather the will of the dictator. So, from this purely technical standpoint, one could say Iraq was a "secular" government, and not a theocratic government. I have not argued that point, I accept that you can consider Iraq a secular government, and from this perspective, that would be a correct statement. However, my point was to illustrate how Saddam operated a government in anything but "secular" fashion, and as a result, we are seeing the current turmoil. In a dictatorship, "the government" is whatever the fuck the dictator says it is, at any given time! Like I said, Saddam claimed Iraq was a "democracy" too! Do you believe that as well?

Onceler
11-30-2006, 11:11 AM
Harriet Myers...every time you ask a Bush supporter how they disagree with Bush, that's the 1st thing that comes up. Real bold opposition there; perhaps the most unqualified candidate that has ever come up for SCOTUS in modern history, and they took a brief, albeit reluctant, koolaid break for her.

Dix, you would get TROUNCED in a koolaid bowl with me. I have been a vocal critic of Democrats & the Democratic party, on a consistent basis. I started threads asking for Pelosi & Reid to be replaced in the Dem leadership, and criticizing Dems for not electing more centrist, visionary leaders (though Pelosi has impressed me much more since the election). I have railed Hillary & begged Dems not to nominate her in '08. I have railed Kerry on everything from the way he ran his campaign, to his wishy washiness on the Iraq War, to ignoring the envronment as an issue, to wanting to be all things to all people...the list goes on. I have begged Democrats to emphasize the idea of "smaller, smarter government" that Clinton & Gore worked so hard at in the '90's; I am a fiscal conservative and think our goals can be achieved without higher taxes, and with more gov't efficiency. I have railed against people like Rosie O'Donnell, who I think hurts the progressive cause.

And you haven't even seen me when the Dems are in power. I doubt there was a more vocal critic of Clinton & the Dems when they were in power in the '90's. I am cynical about politicians in general, and their motives. I would never...not in ONE MILLION YEARS, start a thread like your love letter to George Bush on FP.

You, on the other hand, have been one of the most shameless koolaid-guzzling simpletons that I have ever seen, on every big issue over the past 6 years. On Iraq, it has gone beyond koolaid; you have contradicted yourself, inverted arguments, made one blown prediction after another, and made every excuse in the book. You have been Bush's biggest apologist & cheerleader, every step of the way, and always in complete denial of the reality of the situation.

In a "koolaid bowl," Dixie, you lose, and lose really, really badly........

maineman
11-30-2006, 11:30 AM
so the presence of governmental subjegation of a religious group makes that government, all of a sudden, not secular. Have I got that right?

and all of this is nothing more than obfuscation on your part in any case. At issue is not whether Iraq was or is secular as opposed to partially secular or some other hair-splitting, word parsing blather...... the point is: Iraq is in the midst of a bloody civil war. That sectarian violence that WE unleashed is now threatening to spread throughout the middle east. Regardless of how the Iraqi Professional Flautist's Association views the overthrow of Saddam, it is MY assertion that AMERICA would be better off today if we had not invaded Iraq. Sunnis and shiites would still be living together in Iraq without hundreds dying every day in a civil war. Al Qaeda would still not be roaming the streets of Baghdad, and Iran would still be held in check by a sunni dictatorship immediately on its western flank.... AND AMERICA WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFERED 25 THOUSAND DEAD AND WOUNDED AND WOULD NOT HAVE FLUSHED A HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS DOWN THE TOILET THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR A MYRIAD OF MORE APPROPRIATE THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY HAD SOME MATERIAL POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE WAR ON TERROR AND ON OUR SAFETY.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 12:01 PM
Well Oncie, I don't know what you've "been vocal" or "railed about" because you're going by a new moniker these days. Maybe you are a Flip-flopper, like Kerry? That would make it easy to claim you were FOR something you were also AGAINST. I was talking about pinheads in general... those like Desh, who fervently believe Republicans stole the elections, and Dick Cheney is an alien extraterrestrial. Pinheads like AC, who have read some book by Chomsky or Lenin, and think they have all the answers, and any of the 90% opposing opinions are just ignorant stupidity, not worthy of discussion. Pinheads like Jarod, who think the Iraq war was about oil and Haliburton contracts, because that's what Michael Moore and Al Franken told them to believe. Pinheads who insist to this day, of saying things like "Impeached Clinton for a Blowjob!" when they know that was not the issue. Those are the koolaid drinking pinheads I am talking about, and they wrote the fucking book on it!

It's amazing, to hear the pinheads here, you'd assume I am representative of the most extreme right wing, but every one of those online political surveys put out by libertarians, I score somewhat in the center. My personal ideology often conflicts with my political ideology, and my political ideology is changeable. Many times, I have posted an "argument" from a 'devils advocate' standpoint, because I believe it is important to look at all aspects of an issue.

We are characters on a message board, and I separate who I am personally, with who I am here, this is a place for intellectual thought, debate, mental stimulation, an electronic soap-box, and I thoroughly enjoy it, or I wouldn't do it. One of the great misconceptions, though, is that Dixie is anything like you perceive him to be, in real life.

maineman
11-30-2006, 12:01 PM
...and the war was something that YOU supported and STILL think was a fabulous idea.... you continue to act as Bush's publicist and apologist and continue to be unrepentant for your unflagging support for this terrible terrible mistake.

YOU are the one who will be on the wrong side of history. History will view this war as the single worst foreign policy blunder of the modern age. This ill advised idiotic war that YOU have waved pompoms for 24/7 since before the invasion has completely destabilized the region and may very well end up plunging all of the middle east into sectarian conflict.

But you STILL refuse to admit you were in error. You STILL refuse to admit that this war has been a mistake.

Damocles
11-30-2006, 12:08 PM
Well Oncie, I don't know what you've "been vocal" or "railed about" because you're going by a new moniker these days. Maybe you are a Flip-flopper, like Kerry? That would make it easy to claim you were FOR something you were also AGAINST. I was talking about pinheads in general... those like Desh, who fervently believe Republicans stole the elections, and Dick Cheney is an alien extraterrestrial. Pinheads like AC, who have read some book by Chomsky or Lenin, and think they have all the answers, and any of the 90% opposing opinions are just ignorant stupidity, not worthy of discussion. Pinheads like Jarod, who think the Iraq war was about oil and Haliburton contracts, because that's what Michael Moore and Al Franken told them to believe. Pinheads who insist to this day, of saying things like "Impeached Clinton for a Blowjob!" when they know that was not the issue. Those are the koolaid drinking pinheads I am talking about, and they wrote the fucking book on it!

It's amazing, to hear the pinheads here, you'd assume I am representative of the most extreme right wing, but every one of those online political surveys put out by libertarians, I score somewhat in the center. My personal ideology often conflicts with my political ideology, and my political ideology is changeable. Many times, I have posted an "argument" from a 'devils advocate' standpoint, because I believe it is important to look at all aspects of an issue.

We are characters on a message board, and I separate who I am personally, with who I am here, this is a place for intellectual thought, debate, mental stimulation, an electronic soap-box, and I thoroughly enjoy it, or I wouldn't do it. One of the great misconceptions, though, is that Dixie is anything like you perceive him to be, in real life.
If you go by the theme, Dr. Suess characters, you can pretty easily figure out who the Onceler is... *cough* his initials are *cough* Lorax *cough*...

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 12:11 PM
Sunnis and shiites would still be living together in Iraq without hundreds dying every day in a civil war.

LOL... Yeah, because Saddam would pay the Sunnis to feed the disgruntled Shiites into the wood chippers! Problem Solved! No Civil War!

You are making excuses, and supporting the idea of leaving a brutal and tyranic dictatorship in place, with no apparent regard whatsoever, for the nightmare those people were living under Saddam!

so the presence of governmental subjegation of a religious group makes that government, all of a sudden, not secular. Have I got that right?

A "government" controlled by a Sunni Muslim, who routinely subjugated Shiites and appointed only Sunnis as his deputies and administrators, or any position of authority, based solely on the fact that they were a particular religious sect.... is anything BUT not pertaining to religion, as IS the definition of secular.

Is that clear enough?

DigitalDave
11-30-2006, 12:14 PM
Now look what this war has done. We got muslims in our own country getting into congress and wanting to swear on teh Koran rather than the bible. All your fault Dix, all your fault.

maineman
11-30-2006, 12:14 PM
Dixie could cut down a forest of Truffala trees and not get it

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 12:19 PM
Now look what this war has done. We got muslims in our own country getting into congress and wanting to swear on teh Koran rather than the bible. All your fault Dix, all your fault.


LOL, it doesn't bother me, I didn't elect him. If it's a problem for you, I suggest you seek out the Liberal Pinhead district he was elected in, and lodge your complaints there.

maineman
11-30-2006, 12:21 PM
Sunnis and shiites would still be living together in Iraq without hundreds dying every day in a civil war.

LOL... Yeah, because Saddam would pay the Sunnis to feed the disgruntled Shiites into the wood chippers! Problem Solved! No Civil War!

You are making excuses, and supporting the idea of leaving a brutal and tyranic dictatorship in place, with no apparent regard whatsoever, for the nightmare those people were living under Saddam!

so the presence of governmental subjegation of a religious group makes that government, all of a sudden, not secular. Have I got that right?

A "government" controlled by a Sunni Muslim, who routinely subjugated Shiites and appointed only Sunnis as his deputies and administrators, or any position of authority, based solely on the fact that they were a particular religious sect.... is anything BUT not pertaining to religion, as IS the definition of secular.

Is that clear enough?

the number of shiites fed into wood chippers in the past decade by baathist pales in comparison to the number of Iraqis that have been slaughtered and will be slaughtered by this violence we have unleashed. Part of your "story" has always been the demonization of Saddam. He needed to be Hitler and not just Idi Amin in your eyes so that our actions would be justified. Saddam is not the worst dictator on the planet since Hitler...we let many worse than him stay in power because it served OUR national interest. Life in Iraq under Saddam was nowhere NEAR the hell that life in Iraq is today.

So tell me....Nazi Germany was not a secular nation state? Is that correct?

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 12:23 PM
If you go by the theme, Dr. Suess characters, you can pretty easily figure out who the Onceler is... *cough* his initials are *cough* Lorax *cough*...

OMG! For real? Well, I guess I should have guessed it! But why did Lummox change names? Hmmmmmmmmm............

LadyT
11-30-2006, 12:27 PM
You, on the other hand, have been one of the most shameless koolaid-guzzling simpletons that I have ever seen, on every big issue over the past 6 years. On Iraq, it has gone beyond koolaid; you have contradicted yourself, inverted arguments, made one blown prediction after another, and made every excuse in the book. You have been Bush's biggest apologist & cheerleader, every step of the way, and always in complete denial of the reality of the situation.

:whip: :ouch:

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 12:35 PM
the number of shiites fed into wood chippers in the past decade by baathist pales in comparison to the number of Iraqis that have been slaughtered and will be slaughtered by this violence we have unleashed. Part of your "story" has always been the demonization of Saddam. He needed to be Hitler and not just Idi Amin in your eyes so that our actions would be justified. Saddam is not the worst dictator on the planet since Hitler...we let many worse than him stay in power because it served OUR national interest. Life in Iraq under Saddam was nowhere NEAR the hell that life in Iraq is today.

So tell me....Nazi Germany was not a secular nation state? Is that correct?


Oh, I suspect the Ba'ath party wasn't involved in any feeding of Shiites into wood chippers, being they were secularist. The Sunni Dictator in Baghdad, most certainly fed Shiites into the chipper, and videotaped it for future enjoyment. You don't know how many he fed into wood chippers, because you weren't there, and it wasn't like CBS News was reporting it daily. 300,000 was the latest count of corpses uncovered in Iraq, and we've barely scratched the surface. It is estimated, in his 30-year reign, Saddam murdered as many as a million people.

Excuse me for not buying your premise that Iraq would be "better off" under Saddam, than with a legitimate and democratically elected government. As for Iraq's 'secularity' it is more secular now, than under Saddam. The Constitution allows for freedom of religion, and prohibits discrimination. Under Saddam, a Sunni Muslim had far more clout in Iraq, and a Shiite was routinely fed into the wood chipper. Iraq was "secular" like Iraq was a "democracy" and that is evidenced by Saddam's very actions.

maineman
11-30-2006, 12:43 PM
It is estimated by YOU who, as I said, needs to demonize Saddam into something much worse than he actually was (which was pretty fucking bad, no doubt). methinks you have the totals from the Iran-Iraq war tossed in, but hell....if we are going to demonize Saddam, let's make him responsible for the holocaust while we're at it, eh?

And don't twist my words. I agree with you that a legitimate secure peaceful democratic Iraq would be in America's best interest. What I said was, that having Saddam in place would be better than having an Iraq (AS IT IS) where the sectarian violence was rampant and threatening to spread to the rest of the middle east, an Iraq (AS IT IS) where AQ could run rampant killing civilians and foreign nationals at will, and an Iraq (AS IT IS) so weakened by strife and warfare that it could not act as a regional foil to Iranian hegemony.

Iraq under Saddam was better for American interests than Iraq as it presently sits.

And that is entirely your fault....you and your cute boyfriend in bluejeans.

uscitizen
11-30-2006, 12:46 PM
Dixie, why dis Bush I ignore all those Sadam attrocities at the time they happened, but now they have become big issues with Bushites ?

DigitalDave
11-30-2006, 12:51 PM
LOL, it doesn't bother me, I didn't elect him. If it's a problem for you, I suggest you seek out the Liberal Pinhead district he was elected in, and lodge your complaints there.

Damn you, I was hoping to get a rise out of ya but didn't seem to work. Screw you!

Cypress
11-30-2006, 01:08 PM
It's over, Dixster.

You lost. Iraq is in chaos. Everyone knows it. You aren't going to put this genie back in the bottle.

You lost, you ape-shit crazy rightwing pathological lying Bush-bootlicker.

The Terri Schiavo days are over. No one likes you or your President any more. Nobody on the planet respects him, or even listens to him besides 20 million GOP kool aid drinkers. He's irrelevant. A lame duck.

But please do stay vocal about your denial over Iraq - we still need to win back the presidency in two years. May I suggest you nominate a leading Iraq war apologist who wants to escalate the conflict and send more troops? McCain or Guiliani? Thanks

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 01:24 PM
Dixie, why dis Bush I ignore all those Sadam attrocities at the time they happened, but now they have become big issues with Bushites ?

I don't know think he ignored them, it's just hard to do anything about it when you are the governor of Texas. Clinton certainly didn't ignore Saddam atrocities, he bombed the hell out of Saddam and signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for replacing the brutal regime with Democracy, so I think the powers in charge, were well-aware of the atrocities, and were taking appropriate measures against them. This went on for over 12 years in the UN, before Bush ever became president. Most of the legitimate justification for taking action against Saddam, was based on his history of genocide with his own people, so I don't see where you get that this is suddenly a new issue with the right.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 01:27 PM
McCain or Guiliani?

I think you better be praying for Newt, either of those two candidates will beat Hillary like a rented mule.

maineman
11-30-2006, 01:41 PM
I don't know think he ignored them, it's just hard to do anything about it when you are the governor of Texas. Clinton certainly didn't ignore Saddam atrocities, he bombed the hell out of Saddam and signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for replacing the brutal regime with Democracy, so I think the powers in charge, were well-aware of the atrocities, and were taking appropriate measures against them. This went on for over 12 years in the UN, before Bush ever became president. Most of the legitimate justification for taking action against Saddam, was based on his history of genocide with his own people, so I don't see where you get that this is suddenly a new issue with the right.

I think if you READ the question you would see that it referred to BUSH I (Bush the First...Bush the Elder..... George Herbert Walker Bush)

uscitizen
11-30-2006, 01:54 PM
First Dixies Brain then his eyesight goes huh ? Must be advanced HIV. so sad...

maineman
11-30-2006, 04:40 PM
And Dixie always seems to think that having the United States roll into Iraq with an invading and conquering army, occupy it, and try to shove a multicultural jeffersonian democracy down the Iraqi's throats at the point of a gun is the same thing as Bill Clinton being willing to help Iraqis rise up themselves and overthrow Saddam.

I wonder if America would be the great country we are today if, in 1776, France and Spain had invaded the eastern seaboard, kicked out the british and "helped" the colonists write a constitution and hold elections all while their armies remained on our soil?

Onceler
11-30-2006, 04:49 PM
OMG! For real? Well, I guess I should have guessed it! But why did Lummox change names? Hmmmmmmmmm............

Just for kicks, Rebel. Same as LadyT & ConnecticutStud...why go w/ the same name? I figured everyone knew Dr. Seuss...maybe they banned that one down in 'bama because of its "environmentalist propoganda"....

Besides, I figured YOU would guess who it was, due to the decisive nature with which I have handled you & your endless series of contradictions in debate...

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 10:48 PM
And Dixie always seems to think that having the United States roll into Iraq with an invading and conquering army, occupy it, and try to shove a multicultural jeffersonian democracy down the Iraqi's throats at the point of a gun is the same thing as Bill Clinton being willing to help Iraqis rise up themselves and overthrow Saddam.

Well, that's not what happened. We didn't force those 12 million people to the polls to participate in democracy at the point of a gun. In fact, they were threatened with death by the terrorists, who wanted to cram radicalism down their throat at the detonation of an IED.

We had to invade, in order to overthrow the regime with our military, and since we had to also occupy when we invaded, we did that too. We didn't specify what kind of democracy the Iraqis adopted, we had little or no input into the Constitution they formed.

I know you want to run away from the ILA of 1998, but the ultimate objectives of that policy have now been met, and that is something you simply can't refute... well, you can, but you look really stupid.

Come to think of it, every time I see you post that stupid rant about "forcing democracy down their throats at gunpoint" I envision this American soldier frog-marching a poor Iraqi to the polls to make him vote! Anyone with any sense, knows this scenario didn't happen. Iraqis were given a chance at democracy, and they responded... nothing was "forced down their throat at gunpoint" and your continued silly assertions of such, are without merit.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-30-2006, 11:02 PM
Besides, I figured YOU would guess who it was, due to the decisive nature with which I have handled you & your endless series of contradictions in debate...

Lol.... LOL.... LMAO....ROFLMAO!! ....Bwahahahahaha! Woooohhoooohoooohooo!! OMG! LMFAO!!! .....AHAHAHHAHAHHhhhHAAaaaa!!!! .....whooohooohooo heeee hheeee heeeee!! OMG FLMAO!! .....Hahha ha ha haa..

....decisive nature with which I have handled you....

OMG...LMAOooo...LMFAO!!! HahahAAhAhhahaAAAhahhahaAAhahaha!!! Oooohooooohhooo.... Oh... Oh... LMFAOooooooo!! Hahahaha Hahahahaa!!

Lummox, you are more funny than Borat!

maineman
12-01-2006, 05:14 AM
I ask again:

"I wonder if America would be the great country we are today if, in 1776, France and Spain had invaded the eastern seaboard, kicked out the british and "helped" the colonists write a constitution and hold elections all while their armies remained on our soil?"

and of course, the "ultimate pobjective" of the ILA has NOT been met. Iraq is not some multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the fertile triangle...but rather a civil war torn mess from which Bush and his ISG are desperately attempting to extract us....but make no mistake. We will leave Iraq worse than when we found it... and we will certainly leave the region worse than when we occupied it, and we will certainly leave the region even more hated than when we invaded it.

maineman
12-01-2006, 07:40 AM
Besides, I figured YOU would guess who it was, due to the decisive nature with which I have handled you & your endless series of contradictions in debate...

Lol.... LOL.... LMAO....ROFLMAO!! ....Bwahahahahaha! Woooohhoooohoooohooo!! OMG! LMFAO!!! .....AHAHAHHAHAHHhhhHAAaaaa!!!! .....whooohooohooo heeee hheeee heeeee!! OMG FLMAO!! .....Hahha ha ha haa..

....decisive nature with which I have handled you....

OMG...LMAOooo...LMFAO!!! HahahAAhAhhahaAAAhahhahaAAhahaha!!! Oooohooooohhooo.... Oh... Oh... LMFAOooooooo!! Hahahaha Hahahahaa!!

Lummox, you are more funny than Borat!

wow.... same display of Dixie's marginal intellect...so many more keystrokes to do it in.

Cypress
12-01-2006, 07:42 AM
Excuse me for not buying your premise that Iraq would be "better off" under Saddam, than with a legitimate and democratically elected government.

At this point - half a trillion dollars later, and 22,000 dead and wounded american soldiers later - I am more interested in whether America "is better off" with having left a contained Saddam Hussein in power. The answer, clearly, is yes.

uscitizen
12-01-2006, 07:44 AM
You know we are not far from the Iraq "war" costing as much as the Vietnam "war". Even adjusting the VN war dollars for inflation.

Cypress
12-01-2006, 07:57 AM
You know we are not far from the Iraq "war" costing as much as the Vietnam "war". Even adjusting the VN war dollars for inflation.


sad and pathetic.

maineman
12-01-2006, 08:09 AM
oh...but Dixie will tell you about the rape rooms....

and neglect to tell you that women, in general, are treated much worse under the current Iraqi constitution than they were under Saddam. Women were able to hold positions of authority before.... the literacy rate for women in Iraq was the highest in the region.

but Dixie will tell you about the mass graves.....

and neglect to tell you that they were, by and large, casualties of war... a war in which the US supported Saddam's murderous behavior.... and Dixie will certainly neglect to tell you about the incredible numbers of Iraqis who have died in the three short years that America has occupied that country..... and he will certainly not own up to to the fact that they are dying NOW at a rate that far exceeds anything Saddam ever acheived.... and certainly MUCH more rapidly than any annual Iraqi death rate following the first gulf war. Dixie won't own up to that.

No.... Dixie will not tell you about that....Dixie will not admit to the fact that, as bad a guy as Saddam was, the region is worse off with him gone. There is more instability...there is more islamic extremism... there is more sectarian violence...there is even more hatred for the United States....and all of those consequences are self inflicted wounds upon America...they all were avoidable and they all are the responsibility of Bush and his koolaid drinking followers like Dixie. They should be ASHAMED. they SHOULD BE punished.

Dixie - In Memoriam
12-01-2006, 09:21 AM
Women in Iraq didn't vote in a legitimate democracy. Uday and Qusay, routinely raped young Iraqi women, and no one in Iraq had authority over Saddam. You can argue that the region would have been better off with Saddam still in power, but you can't prove this, and it's a bit ridiculous, given he had waged wars of aggression against two of his neighbors, and threatened a third.

Only a true Saddam apologist would classify the thousands of Kurds who were gassed to death in the streets, and dumped into mass graves, as "casualties of war". Only a simple-minded idiot would believe that Saddam didn't have intentions of reconstituting his WMD programs in his lust for power. And only someone who doesn't have a lick of faith in the power of freedom and democracy, would argue that Iraq was "better off" under the rule of a tyrant.

You can sit here day in and day out, drumming up, dreaming up, and blustering about these unrealistic scenarios you presume would have happened, had we not taken out Saddam, you have no basis for any of this speculation. Who knows? If we had paid Hitler a little money, and sent Neville Chamberlain to talk to him, I am sure we could have avoided all the American casualties at Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge. Europe would have been a beacon of prosperity, had we just left Hitler in place, and found another way to deal with the problems. This is what sort of insane idiocy you are flapping your gums about!

Dixie - In Memoriam
12-01-2006, 09:41 AM
It's as if you are standing in the middle of a bombed out Berlin, sobbing and crying about all the devastation we caused, and asking if THIS was what the war was all about? Pointing to the rubble and debris, and claiming Europe would have been better off, had we not destroyed Germany. Insisting that our actions are going to piss off the Nazi's worldwide, and cause us problems for years to come.

You are looking at Iraq, as you look at nearly EVERYTHING, through your soda straw perspective! You are simply unable to see or envision anything other than the negatives of the present and short term, and this is all you can focus on. To you, Iraq can never be any better than the worst thing you see through your soda straw. You simply lack the capacity to see anything else.

I don't know how Iraq will turn out, for all I know, they could escalate the civil war, kill millions of people, then decide to split their country up amongst the various sects, and end up with 3 dictators we have to worry about, instead of just one. I have to put my faith in democracy and freedom, and hope that this scenario doesn't happen. I have a lot of confidence in the power of democracy, but it sure would help to not have to deal with the Saddam apologists, and the persistent tearing down of what is being built.

maineman
12-01-2006, 09:55 AM
how many women in Iraq were raped by those two boys? do you think that more women per capita were raped during those years in Iraq or in America? Women voting was not my point...women's opportunities in the work place was my point...women's literacy was my point... on both of those points, women in Iraq were better off than any other muslim country. I am not a Saddam apologist. He was an asshole. but you cannot escape the fact that many more Iraqis have died in the three years we have been there than in even the most extreme estimates for the three years prior to our arrival. I am not a simple minded idiot. But only a simple minded idiot would think that Saddam was the only tinhorn leader in the free world who was dreaming of a WMD program. While we were bogged down in Iraq, another little tinhorn threatened to test ICBM's and we rattled our sabres and he bitchslapped us like a girlieman by ignoring our demands that he refrain and he tested them on our birthday..and then, when we didn't do a fucking thing about that, because we had lost all our credibility in the world by fucking up Iraq, he tested nukes after we told him not to..... Oh yeah.... incurring 25K dead and wounded and flushing a half a trillion dollars down the shitter to stop a tinhorn like Saddam - who was really far away from anything like a nuke or a missile that could hit the US - and ignoring Kim Jong Il completely made all sorts of sense. Good JOB.

It is not dreaming to suggest that Iraq would not be engulfed in sectarian violence if we had not invaded. It is clearly fact. It is not dreaming to suggest that Iraq would not have had islamic extremists in every province killing Iraqis and foreign nationals if we had not invaded. It is clearly fact.

This war has been counterproductive - like many said it would be.

This war has not made us safer by one iota - just as many warned it would not.

This war has created a civil war that would not have happened had we not invaded. Henry Kissinger says it's a civil war. King Abdullah says it's a civil war and that is will engulf Lebanon and the Palestinian territories within a year..... but Dixie... the fucking redneck oracle from Birmingham says everything is just dandy...that this is all working out marvelously and that the war was obviously a wonderful thing to do...and that there is just some minor bickering going on in Iraq now and it is NOT a civil war and that the Iraqi people are WAY better off now that we invaded them and booted out their nasty leader and their nasty son...and that this blood in the streets is no big deal.

Good JOB dixie....

Jarod
12-01-2006, 10:09 AM
Maybe you could explain it? You tell us what "secular" doesn't mean, but you don't bother explaining what it does mean. According to the dictionary I have, it means, not pertaining to religion. This seems to be an odd way to describe a country in a civil war between two religious factions. I'm sure there is some secret spin move you morons put on this, to make Iraq secular, when every indication suggests they are not. I suppose you are presuming Iraq is secular because it's not an Islamic theocracy, but that doesn't make something "secular" at all.

I'll certainly continue professing common sense on this topic, and exposing your lack of competence for all to see. Whenever you feel like explaining how a predominately Muslim country, run by a Sunni dictator, and now on the verge of a civil war between two Muslim factions, is "secular" by any measure, you just go right ahead, I am waiting to hear the explanation.


Are you not bright enought to understand that even if a people are religous, the government can be secular?.....not pertaining to religion???

uscitizen
12-01-2006, 10:39 AM
Iraq would certainly have not been dealing with Iran had Sadam still been in power. Thanks bush for combining the islamic forces that oppose us ;)

Dixie - In Memoriam
12-01-2006, 10:42 AM
Women voting was not my point...

No, it wasn't your point, was it? It was MY point!

I am not a Saddam apologist.

Yes you are!

He was an asshole.

Then you're an apologist for an asshole!

But you cannot escape the fact that many more Iraqis have died in the three years we have been there than in even the most extreme estimates for the three years prior to our arrival.

Many more Americans died between 1862-1865, than the preceding 3 years... Many more Europeans and Americans died between 1942-1945 than the preceding 3 years, as well. I don't see this as being a valid parameter to use, in determining what is "best" in the long term.

I am not a simple minded idiot.

That is debatable.

Dixie - In Memoriam
12-01-2006, 10:50 AM
Are you not bright enought to understand that even if a people are religous, the government can be secular?.....not pertaining to religion???

Oh, I am bright enough to understand that! Are you bright enough to understand, a government controlled completely by a dictator, is no more "secular" than the dictator who controls it? Saddam was a Sunni Muslim. He routinely gave positions of authority and security, to Sunni Muslims, and routinely committed genocide on those who weren't. This is not "secular government" by any definition I can find.

You can continue to argue that Saddam claimed Iraq was a "secular government" but Saddam also claimed Iraq was a "democracy" because they had national elections. Do you believe Iraq was a legitimate democracy under Saddam? Yes or no?

maineman
12-01-2006, 10:55 AM
It's as if you are standing in the middle of a bombed out Berlin, sobbing and crying about all the devastation we caused, and asking if THIS was what the war was all about? Pointing to the rubble and debris, and claiming Europe would have been better off, had we not destroyed Germany. Insisting that our actions are going to piss off the Nazi's worldwide, and cause us problems for years to come.

You are looking at Iraq, as you look at nearly EVERYTHING, through your soda straw perspective! You are simply unable to see or envision anything other than the negatives of the present and short term, and this is all you can focus on. To you, Iraq can never be any better than the worst thing you see through your soda straw. You simply lack the capacity to see anything else.

I don't know how Iraq will turn out, for all I know, they could escalate the civil war, kill millions of people, then decide to split their country up amongst the various sects, and end up with 3 dictators we have to worry about, instead of just one. I have to put my faith in democracy and freedom, and hope that this scenario doesn't happen. I have a lot of confidence in the power of democracy, but it sure would help to not have to deal with the Saddam apologists, and the persistent tearing down of what is being built.

your mischaracterizations as to my perspective are just that...and they come from a man who clearly has some problems with "perspective" since your views as to what will transpire in the world have been as uniformly consistently wrong as any prognosticator I have ever known.

Here is some of what I know: I know that sunnis and shiites are slaughtering each other in Iraq. I know that Lebanon teeters on the brink of falling into the same sort of sectarian strife. I know that the Palestinian territories teeter on the same brink. I know that Islamic extremists now have free run of all of Iraq where they did not before. I know that Iran is stronger now than it ever was before and that its influence and handiwork is clearly visible in the rapid expansion of the power and influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon that has occurred in the time since our invasion of Iraq.

I believe that all of those things have happened as a direct result of our removal of Saddam and occupation of Iraq.

On the other side of the globe, I know that Kim Jong Il has slapped us rudely across the face and now has a nuclear warhead and ICBM's to fly them towards America. I believe that America would have been more capable of a more forceful and effective response to his actions had we not lost the moral high ground in the world community by foolishly invading Iraq without the blessings of the international community.

Our enemies are real. Al Qaeda is a real enemy. a nuclear North Korea is a real threat. Saddam was not anywhere near as dangerous to American interests and security as those other enemies were and continue to be.

I believe that invading Iraq has made the middle east more unstable, the world less safe, and America poorer, fewer, less safe, and more despised, and I think the war in Iraq did all of that.... and none of that is good.

uscitizen
12-01-2006, 11:02 AM
Darn good Post Maine. And very well said considering the target.

I don't think there was one *%$###@ word in there ;)

maineman
12-01-2006, 11:14 AM
Women voting was not my point...

No, it wasn't your point, was it? It was MY point!

and my point was: women who can vote but aren't allowed to work or hold positions of power and authority that they once held would not consider "voting" to be a step up in that case

I am not a Saddam apologist.

Yes you are!

fuck you you silly little gadfly. I have NEVER apologized for Saddam. By suggesting that Saddam did not gas seven million jews or crucifdy Christ is not apologizing for him...it is being factually honest - which you refuse to do. YOu have continually attempted to demonize Saddam and inflate his evil to make him the worst dictator in the modern era and therefore our moral duty was clear to take him down, when the facts are that there have been numerous dictators as ruthless if not moreso that not only did America not "take down" but did, in fact, support.

He was an asshole.

Then you're an apologist for an asshole!

ditto

But you cannot escape the fact that many more Iraqis have died in the three years we have been there than in even the most extreme estimates for the three years prior to our arrival.

Many more Americans died between 1862-1865, than the preceding 3 years... Many more Europeans and Americans died between 1942-1945 than the preceding 3 years, as well. I don't see this as being a valid parameter to use, in determining what is "best" in the long term.

of course, that is primarily because YOU have never actually been required to do any of the dying. How dare you suggest that you can determine for the Iraqi people that an invasion begun quaintly enough with "shock and awe" and an conquest and occupation that has seen hundreds of thousands of casualties is "best" for THEM in the long run?

I am not a simple minded idiot.

That is debatable.

You can debate anything you want...and I look at your track record of prognostications and I like the fact that a moron like YOU is calling me an idiot...that almost guarantees my admission into Mensa. YOU are the guy who said that Terri Schaivo was nearly conscious and clearly not braindead....you were the guy who was certain that republicans would maintain their majorities in both chambers.... you were the guy who suggested a year ago today that we would be out of Iraq before losing 500 more troops. You go ahead and debate MY intellect all you want. You are a fool who has been dead wrong about everything for quite some time now..... please don't stop....you have no idea how much comic relief you bring to those of us who are so sickened by the horrific performance of your blue jean clad lover.

Dixie - In Memoriam
12-01-2006, 11:44 AM
I believe that invading Iraq has made the middle east more unstable, the world less safe, and America poorer, fewer, less safe, and more despised, and I think the war in Iraq did all of that.... and none of that is good.

This is the kind of mindset which denotes a 'soda straw perspective' to me. I coulda said the same exact thing about Europe, during the bitter battles of WWII, I might have made the same arguments for the South Pacific, when we routinely lost more soldiers in a day, than we have lost in a year in Iraq, and I coulda stood in the fields of Antietam and cried endlessly over what terrible devastation and death our nation had encountered at the hand of Lincoln.

You are taking a simple emotive response to war, and trying to paint it as the "result" of war, as if that were our only objective all along. This is liberal intellectual dishonesty at its finest. You are propagating an illusion of something that is not legitimate or fair. Yes, the bombs continue to explode, violence escalates throughout the middle east, and people are dying. I don't know how long you've followed the regional history, but this isn't something new. What is new to the region, is democracy.

I am sure, because I have read books about it, that after the Civil War, many people were skeptical about reconstruction of the South. I am sure that we had many people with your same soda straw perspectives, and they simply saw the death and devastation caused by the war, and shook their heads in hopelessness and despair, and blamed Lincoln personally. I am positive there were many who didn't accept the outcome of the war, and formed 'insurgent' groups who instigated 'sectarian' violence, most notably, the KKK. I know that many people supported the KKK and opposed democracy and freedom for black people in America. I know this lasted for the better part of the next century, before America resolved the issue with the Civil Rights legislation. I know that, to this day, there are STILL problems faced in America, involving violence and death, as a result of the Civil War, fought well over a century ago. So, my common sense tells me, that in 1868... 1870... you couldn't prejudge history, or make any historic determinations or observations regarding the Civil War, whether it was "best" for America, any more than you can in Iraq in 2006. It's clearly better for America to have a democratic Arab ally in the oil-rich heart of where the radicals want to build a Caliphate, and next door to a nut who is building a nuke to annihilate Israel with. The long-term, "non-soda-straw" perspective, is important to be able to see here.

The common factor is democracy and freedom, and it somehow always seems to prevail. Iraq has tasted it, and they will prevail with our support. In fact, the only way that they won't prevail, is if we abandon them now and allow others to undermine their democracy. The seeds have been planted, the sprouts have emerged, but there is a long way to go, to a bountiful harvest.

I love how Liberals justify not standing up for liberty, freedom and democracy, because we have to be fair to all ideals and ideologies. We are America, and we have always stood for Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy. We are not required to take a back seat to other ideologies, or stand for anything other than what we are as a nation. In short, it's what we do.

Iraq has the potential to be one of the greatest nations on the planet, not just in the middle east. They have huge oil capacity, they have profound historical archeology, they have some of the smartest medical and scientific minds, they have strong sense of national pride in their country, and a cultural diversity much like the US. These things can never be realized in a country controlled by a dictator, they exploit the nations wealth for their own palaces and pleasures, and the people of Iraq never prosper. It is through democracy and freedom, that Iraq will eventually thrive and prosper as a nation, and perhaps provide hope for other Arab nations.

Dixie - In Memoriam
12-01-2006, 11:49 AM
YOU have never actually been required to do any of the dying.

Nope... and it's really too bad you weren't ever required to, as well.

...I might have to change DPQM for this one, you're on a roll lately!

maineman
12-01-2006, 11:53 AM
you are drunk on koolaid.. Strong sense of national pride? How is that? how do three ethnic groups who happened to be living within a line drawn on a map in England earlier this century and who hate each other with obvious passion develop a strong sense of national pride? Iraq COULD be the greatest country since the Roman Empire.... I COULD win powerball. I would not bet thousands of dollars on the latter, and I sure as hell would not have bet 25Kdead and wounded Americans and a half a trillion dollars that could have gone to fighting the real war on terror on the former.

and don't you get it? what denotes a "soda straw perspective" to you is nothing but more funny stuff from Dixie to laugh at. You have been wrong about everything. Don't you get it? EVERYTHING. Not some of the things or a few of the things or even MOST of the things...but EVERYTHING.

Let me ask you a question: if you knew someone who had incorrectly predicted the winners of fifty horseraces in a row, and that person came up to you and asked you who you had your money on in the next race, you told them and they told YOU that you were nuts and that the horse is valentine and on the morning line they got the horse listed at five to nine and that you were a fool to not put all your money on valentine.....what would you do?

maineman
12-01-2006, 11:59 AM
YOU have never actually been required to do any of the dying.

Nope... and it's really too bad you weren't ever required to, as well.

...I might have to change DPQM for this one, you're on a roll lately!

If you want to retell the story of the mythical trip to the marine recruiters and the discovery of the strange blood ailment that kept you from serving your country that mysteriously went away and then, for some odd reason, after the mysterious blood ailment mysteriously went away, you never quite found the time to make it back to the marine corps recruiter to finally actually go serve your country..... if you want to match that up with the story of a guy who left high school and went to a service academy and upon graduation, served his country for over twenty years..... if you want to denigrate his service to his country and suggest that it is too bad that he didn't die for his country...if that is how you "honor the service" of veterans...if you want to match your service to country up against his, PLEASE.... let's tell that story over and over again. I think I come out pretty well in that comparision.....go for it.

Dixie - In Memoriam
12-01-2006, 12:26 PM
Strong sense of national pride? How is that?

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wolf0126/rebuild.html

Statement from the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, December 2002
Sent to the Foreign Secretary on 27 December 2002, the Prime Minister on 11 February 2003, and the Defence Secretary on 20 March 2003

The reconstruction of Iraq

The heritage of Iraq has considerable potential for the crucial task of forging national unity in Iraq, a country with no natural borders and an extremely disparate population which is in severe danger of splitting into a number of warring segments. All these groups do however share a common pride in their past, a pride which was successfully exploited by Saddam Hussein.
The history and archaeology of the country are of major global significance: Iraq is the source of many aspects of Western culture as we know it today.
The archaeological and historical remains are a non-renewable resource.
For all these reasons it is extremely desirable that any reconstruction plans include some provision for safeguarding the archaeological sites, the standing monuments and the artefacts in museums and private collections.
--------------------------------------


Iraqis have a strong sense of national cultural pride, it emanates from their Sumerian and Babylonian heritage, and is one of the reasons most Iraqis want the US to leave as soon as we can. When I say "Iraqis" I mean, the people who live in the region known today, as Iraq. I realize Iraq wasn't a nation in Sumerian times. Just so you are clear about that.

Dixie - In Memoriam
12-01-2006, 12:36 PM
If you want to retell the story of the mythical trip to the marine recruiters and the discovery of the strange blood ailment that kept you from serving your country that mysteriously went away and then, for some odd reason, after the mysterious blood ailment mysteriously went away, you never quite found the time to make it back to the marine corps recruiter to finally actually go serve your country..... if you want to match that up with the story of a guy who left high school and went to a service academy and upon graduation, served his country for over twenty years..... if you want to denigrate his service to his country and suggest that it is too bad that he didn't die for his country...if that is how you "honor the service" of veterans...if you want to match your service to country up against his, PLEASE.... let's tell that story over and over again. I think I come out pretty well in that comparision.....go for it.

No, I don't think I need to tell the story of how I wanted to serve in the Marines like my brother had, but was unable to pass the physical because of a bone marrow disorder, which I eventually had to undergo years of treatment for. I don't think I will embarrass you further, by pointing out the times you categorized this as "avoiding service" or being a coward.

I have not denigrated your service, if you did indeed serve. I don't know, as much as you play your hero card, if you really did serve, you must have not been too great, heroes don't have to brag. I just found the statement funny, and thought I would throw it back at you. The Navy didn't 'require' you to die, if they did, you obviously disobeyed direct orders and should be court martialed.

maineman
12-01-2006, 12:37 PM
so...you are saying that Iraqis have a great deal of sumerian and babylonian pride.

good for you.

lol

maineman
12-01-2006, 12:40 PM
No, I don't think I need to tell the story of how I wanted to serve in the Marines like my brother had, but was unable to pass the physical because of a bone marrow disorder, which I eventually had to undergo years of treatment for. I don't think I will embarrass you further, by pointing out the times you categorized this as "avoiding service" or being a coward.

I have not denigrated your service, if you did indeed serve. I don't know, as much as you play your hero card, if you really did serve, you must have not been too great, heroes don't have to brag. I just found the statement funny, and thought I would throw it back at you. The Navy didn't 'require' you to die, if they did, you obviously disobeyed direct orders and should be court martialed.


just as I have no idea whether this cock and bull story about the terrible bone marrow disorder is worth anything other than a laugh. your brother could have never been near a marine uniform and could be doing time for grand larceny for all I know.

you did avoid serving.

and after calling me a coward and a traitor and a pedophile, don't get too riled up if I turn around and call you names.....

maineman
12-01-2006, 12:43 PM
and you have the nerve to say you have never denigrated my service???? do you want me to go back and dig out all the lines where you said I never did anything other than peel potatoes? really?

I'll stack my service up against yours anyday.

I think the US Navy is a hell of a lot better than the 101st fighting neocon keyboardists

Blackflag
12-01-2006, 01:19 PM
LOL @ the keyboard warrior.

It would have been more accurate for you to use the excuse "they won't let me in cuz I'm gay."

maineman
12-01-2006, 02:16 PM
oh...and please, just so we have a common frame of reference...what sort of posts from me fall under your definition of "playing the hero card"?

I have NEVER claimed to be a hero in any way. I just served my country for a career. There is nothing inherently heroic about that nor would I ever suggest otherwise.

There is nothing heroic, to be sure, but there is something DIFFERENT about it than not serving.

Like, for example, if I had been a hunter all my life, I think I would be more qualified to discuss hunting than someone who had never hunted.

Similarly, I think my service in our military establishment makes me a bit more qualified to discuss things military than someone - like YOU, Dixie - who has NEVER served in our military establishment.

Is that what you mean when you say that I "play the hero card"? That I speak from experience about things you have no experience in? Chill out...it is not heroic, just the facts.