Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
BonoVoxSupastar said:Too much ignorance for me, I'm outta here.
I wanna stop reading too. But it's like a train wreck, not able to look away!
BonoVoxSupastar said:Too much ignorance for me, I'm outta here.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Too much ignorance for me, I'm outta here.
Islam is by definition fanatacism, it looks to a future where every human is in submission to Allah, he is not pro-USA he is pro-Allah, he keeps outside from matters of government which is wise since when the government fucks up who else do the people turn to, he preaches moderation but only as far as it benefits him.struckpx said:
Well, tell me anywhere other than Israel, in the Middle East where it isn't that way??
Sistani is pro-US, anti al-Sadr, and very moderate. He does not preach the idea of fanatacism as well.
Define liberal please? Is it love of liberty - to support individualism, secularism and freedom. To oppose encroachments upon liberty?struckpx said:
This is the thing that pisses me off about you. If it isn't liberal, its wrong.
struckpx said:
And stop bringing up my age. I am 68.
struckpx said:
This is the thing that pisses me off about you. If it isn't liberal, its wrong.
So, for all of you to sit around here and defend him is outrageous.
I will compare the two when it exposes your fallacy because Saddam commited more than enough documented crimes to make the case without inventing imaginary ones, a world with Saddam actually needing to rearm to back up his rhetoric against an ascendant nuclear neighbour (Iran began it's nuclear activities before 2003) is a frightening thought - why not make a case based on that scenario, it may be moot but at least it is more plausible than your example.struckpx said:
There's a difference between someone who had knowingly killed hundreds of thousands of his own, and then you or me. Don't compare the two.
A_Wanderer said:Islam is by definition fanatacism, it looks to a future where every human is in submission to Allah, he is not pro-USA he is pro-Allah, he keeps outside from matters of government which is wise since when the government fucks up who else do the people turn to, he preaches moderation but only as far as it benefits him.
I am not going to make apologies for retrogressive superstition, religion is not a beautiful thing and watching Sunni terrorists slaughter Shiites for being heretical and worthy of death followed by a Shiite squad massacre a Sunni household only reinforces it.
A_Wanderer said:Yeah but your not going forward are you, it's the fact that many of these social indicators are going backwards. The flight of the Iraqi middle class is a huge issue, it shifts the demographics in a very bad way and no matter how much wooing you have for immediate security it eliminates the possibility for a peaceful unified Iraq to emerge.
The short sightedness in looking to back religious leaders as a tool of social control is staggering, especially at the same time Iraqi trade unions are getting royally fucked over by the state, that isn't freedom it is bordering on clerical fascism (religious leaders controlling a state which exists for the sole purpose of ensuring business runs smoothly).
struckpx said:
Iraq has one thing going for itself, oil.
And here we are in 2005, the elected Iraq government just ratified an oil accord with an oil trust that gives every citizen a stake in the country, the sheiks in Anbar province have unanimously rejected al Zarqawi and AQ in Iraq and the Golden Mosque still has a dome and all thanks to the success in rebuilding Iraqs oil infrastructure and investing enough material support and protection during that critical phase between the invasion and 2004 before the insurgency could become entrenched.struckpx said:
Iraq has one thing going for itself, oil. That is what all of its energy must be put towards, for that is where most of its revenues and jobs will amount from.
A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reform, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.
A_Wanderer said:And here we are in 2005, the elected Iraq government just ratified an oil accord with an oil trust that gives every citizen a stake in the country, the sheiks in Anbar province have unanimously rejected al Zarqawi and AQ in Iraq and the Golden Mosque still has a dome and all thanks to the success in rebuilding Iraqs oil infrastructure and investing enough material support and protection during that critical phase between the invasion and 2004 before the insurgency could become entrenched.
You want oil then buy it from Saddam, he was willing to sell and it is obvious that everyone in the world was willing to buy.
Irvine511 said:didn't you people read the article!?!?!
we just need to give time for the surge to work. STING2 has said, repeatedly, that it takes 10 years for a counterinsurgency to work.
I see you agree with Bin Laden now, how very convenient.Irvine511 said:didn't you people read the article!?!?!
we just need to give time for the surge to work. STING2 has said, repeatedly, that it takes 10 years for a counterinsurgency to work.
just look at Afghanistan in the 1980s. the Soviets occuped a Mulsim country of 20m people and maintained a force between 80-100,000 people, and managed to lose 14,000, but they were only there for nine years. see? if they had the balls to stick it out for just one more year ... because nothing major happened to the soviet union in 1990, did it? the country didn't totally collapse, did it?
struckpx said:
i agree. more time needs to be given to let the government in iraq mature.
A_Wanderer said:I see you agree with Bin Laden now, how very convenient.
A_Wanderer said:I see you agree with Bin Laden now, how very convenient.
(except for Liberal Democrats)Irvine511 said:
if the Soviets had any BALLS there never would have bin a Bin Laden!
Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!
Irvine511 said:
come on, people! we know the task at hand. Saddam was a monster, and destroying his government was easy, now we just need to give the liberated Iraqis 30-40 years and an endless supply of dead American kids and tax dollars to build a totally friendly democracy.
struckpx said:
alright that comment makes me mad. the men and women who die there are giving their lives for us who live here. we honor them, look up to them. don't act like they are numbers, for they are more than that. although, overall our numbers have been very successful regarding overall casualties in iraq.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Show me how this statement is anything but ignorance.
I dare you.
Irvine511 said:
i agree! our young men and women are heros who should be honored for being sent by our president to die policing an Arab civil war created by our president when he decided to overthrow Saddam for purely political reasons.
the truth: only a genuine Empire could have sucessfully invaded and occupied Iraq. it would take a real Empire, with compulsory conscription, tand 4 imes the current level of troops and the willingness to use crushing, Saddam-like violence in order to subjugate the population into bending to the requirements of a democracy.
no American has the stomach for that. no American wants that to be the business of the United States.
a pity the sentimental neocon fools didn't listen to the libeals to begin with.
it's all over next March.
You did it in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia etc.struckpx said:
it would take years to move out of iraq. so, i don't know where you get this philosophy that we can pack it up and jet out.