No Reward for Being Right on Iraq

maineman said:
for Dixie to attempt to equate the naturally occurring religious diversity that exists in America with the forced cohabitation of sunnis and shiites within the borders of the european constructed "nation" of Iraq is pretty lame. For Dixie to suggest that there is simmering "violence" between American religious organizations that, in any way, mirrors the ongoing slaughter that defines everyday Iraq is reprehensible.
Click to expand...

LOL... Forced cohabitation? No... various sects of Muslims are not required to cohabitate together, nor is anyone forbidden from leaving Iraq. Again we have an emotive display for the sake of show. I never said our differences "mirror" theirs. Again, an absurd claim for the sake of show. There is no "ongoing slaughter" in Iraq. There is an occasional disruption from insurgent elements who are only in Iraq because they were so embolden by the outpouring of support from liberals like yourself.

Meanwhile, Iraqis share the commonality of diversity with the US, and this is where western-style democratic government works the best. Many people argue it is our strongest asset, our diversity. So you can keep yapping it up about how the diversity in Iraq is going to prevent western-style democracy from working, but that's exactly when such a system works to near perfection, and we are the example of that.
 
Howey said:
The people of Iraq are in no better shape than they were ten years ago. The only difference is there was a different dictator in power and the population of the nation was about 300,000 greater.
Click to expand...

You've got to be a fucking idiot if you actually believe this, no other way to put it.
 
Dixie said:
There is no need to put "freed" in quotes, we literally freed them from tyranny and helped them establish the first democracy in the Arab world. It does not matter how many bombs went off... does the bombing in Boston have anything to do with Americans embracing freedom? Does it have anything to do with Americans being dissatisfied with the system of government? How about the bombings that rock Israel each day, are these because the Israelis don't want to be free?

This is just an absurd emotive standard you've set, because you are a liberal.... must attack Bush... must attack Iraq....

You know... here's the thing, the Iraqis have been battling people now for 10 years, who are FAR more committed to wrecking their freedom and liberty than liberals, and they have managed to prevail. If the Right had been as successful against the Left over the past 10 years, you would be looking for a hole to hide in.
Click to expand...
IF as many bombs went off in America as have in Iraq at the same time, NO we would not be a free country. Your are right Dixie, we got rid of Saddam Hussein, and in doing so we got rid of the ONLY person that kept Islamist extremists from gaining a foothold Iraq. Now the Shii'a have control, Sunni are discriminated against. Iranians are traveling to Iraq in greater and greater numbers. In 10 years Iraq and Iran will be allies.
 
Dixie said:
LOL... Forced cohabitation? No... various sects of Muslims are not required to cohabitate together, nor is anyone forbidden from leaving Iraq. Again we have an emotive display for the sake of show. I never said our differences "mirror" theirs. Again, an absurd claim for the sake of show. There is no "ongoing slaughter" in Iraq. There is an occasional disruption from insurgent elements who are only in Iraq because they were so embolden by the outpouring of support from liberals like yourself.

Meanwhile, Iraqis share the commonality of diversity with the US, and this is where western-style democratic government works the best. Many people argue it is our strongest asset, our diversity. So you can keep yapping it up about how the diversity in Iraq is going to prevent western-style democracy from working, but that's exactly when such a system works to near perfection, and we are the example of that.
Click to expand...

forced cohabitation is precisely what is happening in Iraq ever since the European power brokers created the country of "Iraq" out of the spoils of the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI. There is no nationalistic bond which binds "Iraqis" together. The lines in the sand the Europeans drew put natural, centuries long enemies together within one country. If those stuffed shirts in London at the end of the "great War" had not had their heads up their asses, they would have created three countries instead of just one. Then, assholes like Saddam would only have been able to fuck around with the sunnis in "Sunnistan" and not the kurds in "Kurdistan" or the shiites in greater Iran. Trying to cram Jeffersonian democracy down the throats of folks who really would rather kill each other than live peacefully with one another is idiocy.... a theory proposed by an idiot, and one which idiots like Dixie, slathering with Dubya jism on his lips, mindlessly support.
 
maineman said:
forced cohabitation is precisely what is happening in Iraq ever since the European power brokers created the country of "Iraq" out of the spoils of the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI. There is no nationalistic bond which binds "Iraqis" together. The lines in the sand the Europeans drew put natural, centuries long enemies together within one country. If those stuffed shirts in London at the end of the "great War" had not had their heads up their asses, they would have created three countries instead of just one. Then, assholes like Saddam would only have been able to fuck around with the sunnis in "Sunnistan" and not the kurds in "Kurdistan" or the shiites in greater Iran. Trying to cram Jeffersonian democracy down the throats of folks who really would rather kill each other than live peacefully with one another is idiocy.... a theory proposed by an idiot, and one which idiots like Dixie, slathering with Dubya jism on his lips, mindlessly support.
Click to expand...

Those suckers created a lot of problems!
 
maineman said:
forced cohabitation is precisely what is happening in Iraq ever since the European power brokers created the country of "Iraq" out of the spoils of the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI. There is no nationalistic bond which binds "Iraqis" together. The lines in the sand the Europeans drew put natural, centuries long enemies together within one country. If those stuffed shirts in London at the end of the "great War" had not had their heads up their asses, they would have created three countries instead of just one. Then, assholes like Saddam would only have been able to fuck around with the sunnis in "Sunnistan" and not the kurds in "Kurdistan" or the shiites in greater Iran. Trying to cram Jeffersonian democracy down the throats of folks who really would rather kill each other than live peacefully with one another is idiocy.... a theory proposed by an idiot, and one which idiots like Dixie, slathering with Dubya jism on his lips, mindlessly support.
Click to expand...

Well see, here's the thing, we don't destroy current borders and boundaries and restore ancient borders and boundaries anywhere on this planet. Does this happen in the universe you live in? The USA used to be a hodgepodge of Spanish, French, English, and Mexican territories. Again, thank you for pointing out yet another similarity between Iraq and early America!

Do you realize what a moron you sound like when you say things like this? : There is no nationalistic bond which binds "Iraqis" together. Uhm... what about being IRAQIS? Damn you are dumb!

Trying to cram Jeffersonian democracy down the throats of folks...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know you like to say this a lot, it probably sounds really cool to you, but it makes you look like a doofus. When 70% of the population in Iraq, risked death threats and assassination attempts to go VOTE in a purely Jeffersonian-style Democratic election, it KILLED this line forever. From that day forward, your repeating this line has been a testament to how fucking ignorant and stupid you are, and you continue to display that with pride. So you keep right on saying it, and I'll keep right on making fun of you for it.

Again... If we aren't going to combat an ideology with a counter-ideology, what is your plan? You're shooting down the idea of battling radical Islam with democracy and freedom, and you don't think we can force our ideology at the point of a bayonet, so what is your plan for dealing with these people and this threat? Capitulate? Stick our head in the sand? It was decided way before Bush, the BEST idea, was to try and plant democracy in the middle east, because western-style democracies don't tend to attack one another.
 
I would suggest that you take the time to read a very basic text, "The Arab Mind", by Raphael Patai. He talks a lot about the widening spheres of loyalty that arabs live within. First is family, then clan, then sect, then faith, and only then comes nation. Any nationalistic bond between sunnis and shiites in Iraq is all but obliterated by the enmity that exists between their sects. There may very well be elections and a democratically elected government, but there will always be a level of violent unrest that will simmer and bubble and explode periodically in the slaughter of innocents. I realize that you're cool with that and, as long as wikipedia lists the type of Iraqi government as "representative democracy", you'll claim victory, even if thousands of civilians routinely die in a never ending blood feud.

And I have no problem with trying to plant democracy ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE. I just have a problem when we start the process by shock, awe, invasion, conquest and forced occupation.

edit from this morning's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/w...es-at-sunni-protest-site-in-iraq.html?hp&_r=0

another peaceful day in kumbaya town.
 
Last edited:
maineman said:
I would suggest that you take the time to read a very basic text, "The Arab Mind", by Raphael Patai. He talks a lot about the widening spheres of loyalty that arabs live within. First is family, then clan, then sect, then faith, and only then comes nation. Any nationalistic bond between sunnis and shiites in Iraq is all but obliterated by the enmity that exists between their sects. There may very well be elections and a democratically elected government, but there will always be a level of violent unrest that will simmer and bubble and explode periodically in the slaughter of innocents. I realize that you're cool with that and, as long as wikipedia lists the type of Iraqi government as "representative democracy", you'll claim victory, even if thousands of civilians routinely die in a never ending blood feud.

And I have no problem with trying to plant democracy ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE. I just have a problem when we start the process by shock, awe, invasion, conquest and forced occupation.
Click to expand...

If you are going to study the Arabs/Islamists because they are our enemies that is one thing but for you to do so to go about singing praises about the scum and demeaning this nation's goals is another.
Perhaps you should find another hobby/cause..:)
 
OnearmSword said:
If you are going to study the Arabs/Islamists because they are our enemies that is one thing but for you to do so to go about singing praises about the scum and demeaning this nation's goals is another.
Perhaps you should find another hobby/cause..:)
Click to expand...

Islamic extremists are certainly our enemies... arabs are not. I have lived with arabs in an arab country. The overwhelming majority of them were delightful folks.
 
Dixie said:
There is no nationalistic bond which binds "Iraqis" together. Uhm... what about being IRAQIS?
Click to expand...

Being a part of a religious sect trumps the name of whatever entity with borders you live within. That can change anytime and has through centuries.

Your religious identity doesn't.

God. You're such a dumbfuck!~
 
maineman said:
democrats were certainly doing more than just TALK about OBL and AQ... Clinton actually was conducting predator drone surveillance of him (Condi stopped that) and Clinton actually launched a missile strike to try and kill him.

Bush? He played golf and worried about star wars and porn.
Click to expand...

With all due respect brother .. democrats should take a pause before giving themselves too much congratulations on Iraq or the Bush foreign policy at all. In fact they'd be better off staying quiet as a mouse about the Bush foreign policy.

Obama is conducting the Bush foreign policy .. on steroids .. and democrats are quiet as a mouse about it.

Quite obviously, democratic opposition to Bush was all about politics .. not humanity, nor any sense of antiwar sentiment or principle.

Obama attacks and destroys Libya .. without congressional approval .. and uses AL Queda to do it. Not a peep from democrats.

NDAA, Patriot Act .. No problem.

Kill Americans without trial .. No problem.

Drone planet earth while murdering hundreds of innocent children and thousands of innocent people .. and use the known terrorist tactic of double-tap drone strikes in the process .. no problem.

Whatever Obama does .. no problem.

The hypocrisy couldn't be clearer.
 
maineman said:
Islamic extremists are certainly our enemies... arabs are not. I have lived with arabs in an arab country. The overwhelming majority of them were delightful folks.
Click to expand...

Question: Should Timothy McVeigh been treated as an enemy combatant?

Should the non-muslim christian-raised white guys who walk into movie theaters and schools and murder everyone in sight be treated as enemy combatants?
 
blackascoal said:
Question: Should Timothy McVeigh been treated as an enemy combatant?

Should the non-muslim christian-raised white guys who walk into movie theaters and schools and murder everyone in sight be treated as enemy combatants?
Click to expand...

which enemy of the US were they fighting for?
 
maineman said:
I would suggest that you take the time to read a very basic text, "The Arab Mind", by Raphael Patai. He talks a lot about the widening spheres of loyalty that arabs live within. First is family, then clan, then sect, then faith, and only then comes nation. Any nationalistic bond between sunnis and shiites in Iraq is all but obliterated by the enmity that exists between their sects. There may very well be elections and a democratically elected government, but there will always be a level of violent unrest that will simmer and bubble and explode periodically in the slaughter of innocents. I realize that you're cool with that and, as long as wikipedia lists the type of Iraqi government as "representative democracy", you'll claim victory, even if thousands of civilians routinely die in a never ending blood feud.

And I have no problem with trying to plant democracy ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE. I just have a problem when we start the process by shock, awe, invasion, conquest and forced occupation.

edit from this morning's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/w...es-at-sunni-protest-site-in-iraq.html?hp&_r=0

another peaceful day in kumbaya town.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, when we look at the makeup of America, we find Christians, Muslims, people who hate black folks, people who love black folks and hate people who hate black folks, Jew haters and jew lovers, Nazis and skinheads, Hindus and Buddhists, homosexuals and homophobes, democrat socialists and right wing loons, anarchists and libertarians. And on and on.... we are a widely diverse nation of various beliefs, some of which are violently opposed to one another. Yes, sometimes this diversity results in violence and we have to deal with it, but we all live in the USA, and we're all Americans. This experiment has worked because we have western-style Jeffersonian democracy.

I totally understand how the Arab mind works, and I totally get that different sects of Muslims don't like each other. But what you don't seem to get is, this is precisely where western-style Jeffersonian democracy works best! When you have stark diversity among the population, but you have to find someway to function as a nation, you can't beat Jeffersonian democracy, nothing else has ever been so successful. So you are totally not explaining why this dynamic in Iraq means Jeffersonian democracy will fail. It hasn't failed here, and we're FAR more diverse. It hasn't failed anywhere else because of cultural diversity.

Thousands of citizens die daily in the US, some are indeed the result of hate crime. Rival gangs battle and shed blood in the streets of every major city, every single day. This has NEVER been a reason to destroy Jeffersonian democracy or conclude it doesn't work. Even the Civil War, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, wasn't thrown up as an argument for doing away with Jeffersonian democracy. In fact, when the South seceded, they adopted a western-style Jeffersonian model for the new government. Never before, has Jeffersonian democracy failed because of diversity, but you are making the argument it just can't work in Iraq because of the diversity of the population. It's an argument made from ignorance and it has been nuked, right before your very eyes.
 
NOVA said:
Didn't they already make it crystal clear to you that the main and fundamental reason they set bombs in Boston was because of their religion....?
Click to expand...

Is the religion of Islam our enemy?

What enemy of ours was McVeigh fighting for? What enemy of ours was Holmes fighting for?
 
blackascoal said:
Question: Should Timothy McVeigh been treated as an enemy combatant?

Should the non-muslim christian-raised white guys who walk into movie theaters and schools and murder everyone in sight be treated as enemy combatants?
Click to expand...


What enemy would that be ?.....McVeigh was insane in his own way....he had personal vendetta against the Fed. Gov. of the US....
He wore a "White Power" T-shirt purchased at a Ku Klux Klan rally to protest against black servicemen who wore what he viewed as "Black Power" T-shirts around the army base. Assumiing
he had a similar right...he was wrong....he was not allowed to wear the similar shirt...his loathing for government grew and taxes became a pet peeve, etc.....
He was sinking further in his own madness in his own mind for his own reasons....
His act of terror was for no one but himself....not for any religion, or white power movement, or foreign entity......
 
Dixie said:
Here's the thing, when we look at the makeup of America, we find Christians, Muslims, people who hate black folks, people who love black folks and hate people who hate black folks, Jew haters and jew lovers, Nazis and skinheads, Hindus and Buddhists, homosexuals and homophobes, democrat socialists and right wing loons, anarchists and libertarians. And on and on.... we are a widely diverse nation of various beliefs, some of which are violently opposed to one another. Yes, sometimes this diversity results in violence and we have to deal with it, but we all live in the USA, and we're all Americans. This experiment has worked because we have western-style Jeffersonian democracy.

I totally understand how the Arab mind works, and I totally get that different sects of Muslims don't like each other. But what you don't seem to get is, this is precisely where western-style Jeffersonian democracy works best! When you have stark diversity among the population, but you have to find someway to function as a nation, you can't beat Jeffersonian democracy, nothing else has ever been so successful. So you are totally not explaining why this dynamic in Iraq means Jeffersonian democracy will fail. It hasn't failed here, and we're FAR more diverse. It hasn't failed anywhere else because of cultural diversity.

Thousands of citizens die daily in the US, some are indeed the result of hate crime. Rival gangs battle and shed blood in the streets of every major city, every single day. This has NEVER been a reason to destroy Jeffersonian democracy or conclude it doesn't work. Even the Civil War, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, wasn't thrown up as an argument for doing away with Jeffersonian democracy. In fact, when the South seceded, they adopted a western-style Jeffersonian model for the new government. Never before, has Jeffersonian democracy failed because of diversity, but you are making the argument it just can't work in Iraq because of the diversity of the population. It's an argument made from ignorance and it has been nuked, right before your very eyes.
Click to expand...

ah well... the argument that never ends...

let's just end it. let's just agree to disagree. you can continue to believe that shock, awe, invasion, conquest and occupation is the american way to spread democracy around the world, and I will continue to think otherwise. neither of us will be around in fifty years to see if our various predictions about the world at that time came true or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top