N Korean situation: How's Obama doing?

maineman said:
Actually, I realize that this may be hard for you to comprehend, but it is possible for the majority of people to not only favor democracy, but to also be enraged that their homeland is occupied by an invading, conquering foreign armed force. The fact that Iraqi citizens turned out in large numbers to vote in elections in absolutely NO WAY proves your ridiculous, unsubstantiated - and heretofore refuted - allegation that the insugency was mostly foreign terrorists. You made a stupid unfounded assertion, and now you won't just admit that you pulled something out of your ass that might have fit your own preferred partisan storyline, but when that assertion emerged from that dark, dank, well traveled tunnel, it didn't pass the smell test. You just refuse to admit you were wrong, and I've got some free time on my hands now that the house is done and the next round of visitors doesn't arrive for a while, so I intend to rub your nose in it until you do.
Click to expand...

Sorry house boy, you're not rubbing my nose in anything.

The people who were "enraged" that we toppled Saddam, were the insurgents! Were some people nervous that the US was going to bail on them again, allowing some tyrant to murder tens of thousands of their loved ones? Sure they were, but they embraced western style democracy. The fact that a large number of Iraqis turned out the vote, is evidence a large number favored democracy over tyranny. They fact they didn't vote in a Sunni government is evidence this large number was not affiliated with the insurgency. The fact that they didn't break out into civil war, as you frequently predicted would happen, is evidence that the majority in Iraq embraced western style democracy and rejected the insurgency.

Now, what you want to do, is myopically hang on some tiny trivial detail that Dixie got wrong, and Dixie being wrong about something is FAR FAR more important than the topic of discussion or anything else we can talk about. This latest "spin" that Iraqis were both, pissed off beyond belief at the US, AND grateful the US took out Saddam... this is laughable to me. Even YOU don't believe this, that's why you had to qualify it by admitting it may be hard to believe. Yep, it's hard to believe, maineman.... probably because it defies logic and isn't anywhere near truthful. But that has never stopped you before!
 
Dixie said:
Sorry house boy, you're not rubbing my nose in anything.

The people who were "enraged" that we toppled Saddam, were the insurgents! Were some people nervous that the US was going to bail on them again, allowing some tyrant to murder tens of thousands of their loved ones? Sure they were, but they embraced western style democracy. The fact that a large number of Iraqis turned out the vote, is evidence a large number favored democracy over tyranny. They fact they didn't vote in a Sunni government is evidence this large number was not affiliated with the insurgency. The fact that they didn't break out into civil war, as you frequently predicted would happen, is evidence that the majority in Iraq embraced western style democracy and rejected the insurgency.

Now, what you want to do, is myopically hang on some tiny trivial detail that Dixie got wrong, and Dixie being wrong about something is FAR FAR more important than the topic of discussion or anything else we can talk about. This latest "spin" that Iraqis were both, pissed off beyond belief at the US, AND grateful the US took out Saddam... this is laughable to me. Even YOU don't believe this, that's why you had to qualify it by admitting it may be hard to believe. Yep, it's hard to believe, maineman.... probably because it defies logic and isn't anywhere near truthful. But that has never stopped you before!
Click to expand...

That is 100% pure conjecture. Your conclusions aren't supported by the claims you make above - not one iota.

You can't back up your initial claim. You have nothing to go on for that. Your "well, MOST of the people sure seemed happy, so it couldn't have been THEM" argument is laughable.
 
Dixie said:
Sorry house boy, you're not rubbing my nose in anything.

The people who were "enraged" that we toppled Saddam, were the insurgents! Were some people nervous that the US was going to bail on them again, allowing some tyrant to murder tens of thousands of their loved ones? Sure they were, but they embraced western style democracy. The fact that a large number of Iraqis turned out the vote, is evidence a large number favored democracy over tyranny. They fact they didn't vote in a Sunni government is evidence this large number was not affiliated with the insurgency. The fact that they didn't break out into civil war, as you frequently predicted would happen, is evidence that the majority in Iraq embraced western style democracy and rejected the insurgency.

Now, what you want to do, is myopically hang on some tiny trivial detail that Dixie got wrong, and Dixie being wrong about something is FAR FAR more important than the topic of discussion or anything else we can talk about. This latest "spin" that Iraqis were both, pissed off beyond belief at the US, AND grateful the US took out Saddam... this is laughable to me. Even YOU don't believe this, that's why you had to qualify it by admitting it may be hard to believe. Yep, it's hard to believe, maineman.... probably because it defies logic and isn't anywhere near truthful. But that has never stopped you before!
Click to expand...

The fact that 65% of the country is Shia also helps!!
 
Dixie said:
Sorry house boy, you're not rubbing my nose in anything.

The people who were "enraged" that we toppled Saddam, were the insurgents! Were some people nervous that the US was going to bail on them again, allowing some tyrant to murder tens of thousands of their loved ones? Sure they were, but they embraced western style democracy. The fact that a large number of Iraqis turned out the vote, is evidence a large number favored democracy over tyranny. They fact they didn't vote in a Sunni government is evidence this large number was not affiliated with the insurgency. The fact that they didn't break out into civil war, as you frequently predicted would happen, is evidence that the majority in Iraq embraced western style democracy and rejected the insurgency.

Now, what you want to do, is myopically hang on some tiny trivial detail that Dixie got wrong, and Dixie being wrong about something is FAR FAR more important than the topic of discussion or anything else we can talk about. This latest "spin" that Iraqis were both, pissed off beyond belief at the US, AND grateful the US took out Saddam... this is laughable to me. Even YOU don't believe this, that's why you had to qualify it by admitting it may be hard to believe. Yep, it's hard to believe, maineman.... probably because it defies logic and isn't anywhere near truthful. But that has never stopped you before!
Click to expand...

I don't believe I have ever expressed the belief that Iraqis were "grateful" that the US tookout Saddam. It's laughable that you need to put words in my mouth in order to have a discussion with me. And what I "predicted" was chronic simmering sectarian violence that would stand in the way of Dubya's - and yours - dream of multicultural peaceful democracy in a country that had been created by europeans who had no idea about the enmity that existed between the two groups of folks that lived within the "country" they arbitrarily drew on the map.
 
Last edited:
And you WERE wrong about the assertion that the insurgency was mostly foreign terrorist. It was mostly Iraqi sunnis, and some radical shiites and a small portion of foreign fighters. Clearly, as we have known for years, your knowledge about the middle east could fit in a coffee cup and there'd still be room for a cup of coffee. You are the classic case of the axiom, "a little knowledge is dangerous".
 
Having democracy crammed down their throats by an occupying army of infidels and a foreign "provisional authority" was never going to change that fact.
Click to expand...

Ten years, and the functioning western style democracy still exists. Ten years, and no civil war, as you frequently predicted...promised... swore was going to happen! There HAS been sectarian violence, mostly instigated by terrorist elements inside and outside of Iraq. You see, this is the FIRST democracy in the Arab world, so not everyone is going to embrace it and be happy about it. People who lost their power to rule in tyranny over others, didn't embrace change, they liked being in power and calling the shots. Radical religious nutjobs didn't want democracy, they wanted a theocracy. But the religious nuts and former tyrants were outnumbered and overwhelmed, by Iraqis who yearned for western style democratic government.

I am sorry that you think of democracy and freedom as something that has to be crammed down one's throat, or that human beings don't have an inherent desire for freedom and democracy, OR that a majority of Iraqis view us as occupying infidels and not liberators. It's sad to see an American so oblivious to this concept, or so wrapped up in their own little egotistical political world, they can't face the truth.
 
If what's going on now in Iraq isn't civil war, then I'm straight.

Where the hell does Dixie come up wi h this shit?
 
maineman said:
And you WERE wrong about the assertion that the insurgency was mostly foreign terrorist. It was mostly Iraqi sunnis, and some radical shiites and a small portion of foreign fighters. Clearly, as we have known for years, your knowledge about the middle east could fit in a coffee cup and there'd still be room for a cup of coffee. You are the classic case of the axiom, "a little knowledge is dangerous".
Click to expand...

I don't know that I am wrong. You presented a speculation from a think tank, which suggests a "maybe," and that's all. We had legitimate classified intelligence from the CIA, which turned out to be totally inaccurate, but apparently, some think tank in Washington is able to flawlessly deliver facts by their mere speculations.... that's pretty astounding to me, we should disband the CIA and put think tanks in charge of our intelligence!

Here's the deal, a relatively small portion of the population in Iraq, predominantly the people who benefited from Saddam being in power, joined with outside elements of religious fanaticism to make up the bulk of the insurgency. I don't care where they were born or lived, it doesn't matter. They were universally opposed to the establishment of western style democracy in Iraq, and they FAILED to prevent it. Hey.... maybe THAT's why you feel such a strong connection with them?
 
And the CIA has never suggested that a majority of the insurgents were foreign terrorist either... Just you, and maybe Hannity and Limbaugh... Two other morons who don't know dick about the middle east.
 
maineman said:
Dixie completely ignored post #100.... Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I admitted Iraq has sectarian violence, and guess what? They always will have sectarian violence, until the world is rid of the 5th century thinking of radical Islamists. If we could transplant Iraq into Iowa, that wouldn't happen, but we can't. So this is the price Iraqis have to pay for freedom, and they accept that, just like we accepted the price we had to pay for our freedom.

What DID NOT happen, was civil war in Iraq, something you repeatedly promised would happen.
 
Dixie said:
No, I didn't. I admitted Iraq has sectarian violence, and guess what? They always will have sectarian violence, until the world is rid of the 5th century thinking of radical Islamists. If we could transplant Iraq into Iowa, that wouldn't happen, but we can't. So this is the price Iraqis have to pay for freedom, and they accept that, just like we accepted the price we had to pay for our freedom.

What DID NOT happen, was civil war in Iraq, something you repeatedly promised would happen.
Click to expand...

That is patently untrue. I predicted sectarian violence in a country that was created by europeans with no understanding of the enmity that will always exist between sunnis and shiites. They knew about as little as you do about the middle east... A stable peaceful democracy cannot exist if the people cannot refrain from constant chronic acts of terrorism against each other.
 
maineman said:
And the CIA has never suggested that a majority of the insurgents were foreign terrorist either... Just you, and maybe Hannity and Limbaugh... Two other morons who don't know dick about the middle east.
Click to expand...

Again, you RUN to some trivial error I might have made, and intensely focus on THAT, because THAT is what's important in this discussion, right? It's just WAYYYY more important to point out a mistake Dixie made, and keep harping on that, instead of having an intelligent conversation about Iraq. Reason being, you are getting your ass kicked all over the board on Iraq and democracy, so we HAVE to divert the conversation, you can't handle this ass whoopin, it's too much!
 
Dixie said:
Again, you RUN to some trivial error I might have made, and intensely focus on THAT, because THAT is what's important in this discussion, right? It's just WAYYYY more important to point out a mistake Dixie made, and keep harping on that, instead of having an intelligent conversation about Iraq. Reason being, you are getting your ass kicked all over the board on Iraq and democracy, so we HAVE to divert the conversation, you can't handle this ass whoopin, it's too much!
Click to expand...

Pipe down. You've been obliterated on this thread. You made the initial claim that the insurgents were mainly foreign fighters, which you haven't been able to support with any evidence whatsoever.

And you have split the hair that we weren't "at war with Iraq" for 10 years, just "at war." As thought that makes any difference to anyone, anywhere.
 
maineman said:
That is patently untrue. I predicted sectarian violence in a country at was created by europeans with no understanding of the enmity that will always exist between sunnis and shiites. They knew about as little as you do about the middle east... A stable peaceful democracy cannot exist if the people cannot refrain from constant chronic acts of terrorism against each other.
Click to expand...

No sir. You boldly predicted Civil War in Iraq. REPEATEDLY! You were WRONG! It's been over 10 years and no civil war. So now, you backtrack and try to claim you meant "sectarian violence" which is going to exist in the middle east regardless of what we do or don't do, and regardless of whether Iraqis have democracy and freedom or not.
 
If you want to continue to claim that kumbaya singing, hand holding, peaceful, collaborative Jeffersonian democracy, planted by Dubya's army is now blossoming in Iraq, you are free to do so... Just realize your fantasy vision is not shared by many many people, most of whom have forgotten more about the middle east since breakfast this morning than you have ever known.
 
maineman said:
Dixie completely ignored post #100.... Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
No sir. You boldly predicted Civil War in Iraq. REPEATEDLY! You were WRONG! It's been over 10 years and no civil war. So now, you backtrack and try to claim you meant "sectarian violence" which is going to exist in the middle east regardless of what we do or don't do, and regardless of whether Iraqis have democracy and freedom or not.
Click to expand...

You better go check your facts. There has been fighting between the Sunnis and Shites since 2003 and it in fact is escalating.
 
I always stated that civil war was a distinct possibility in the years that would follow our pullout. We haven't been gone all that long and clearly, peace has not come to Iraq. Jeffersonian democracy does not exist there. Sunnis and Shiites continue to kill one another in large numbers. Civil unrest is the norm in Iraq. If white supremacists were blowing up black churches every month in America, and blacks were retaliating by blowing up buses filled with white people, and our government was not having any effect in attempting to stem that chronic violence...where government forces were actually participating in the bloodshed on occasion...some might very well call that sort of chronic, continuous mass bloodshed a civil war. I certainly wouldn't argue with such an assessment. Apparently, you would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top