Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape (Post 378488)

Don't give us that bull****. Of course Iraq was doing bad under Saddam Hussein, and of course he was a horrible leader who committed horrible atrocities against his people.

That is not why we invaded Iraq.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

leaving Iraq in its current state would be absolutely insane. It would cause massive devastation to our reputation and it would make matters even worse for Iraqi civilians.

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 378560)

Going in caused massive damage to our reputation. At this point both toughing it out or leaving would look bad regardless. Expand on what you think the probable outcome of either decision would be?

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378584)

Islamists just look desperately for excuses to hate america, if we stay, they will hate us for occupying their country, if we leave, they will hate us for leaving their country in ruins and not doing anything to help them. And we insist on helping them even though they continue to blow themselves up and kill our troops, if we ever do leave early, its will probably be because we've gotten fed up with their bullsh*t.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378587)

Islamism is the term used for Muslim politics. Which itself is extremism any way you look at it.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378595)

Muslims political beliefs are much more conservative than Christians, now imagine that if you will. This is not generalization, its fact, the Koran is simply based on conservative moral standards, just like the Bible. But the disregard for civil rights when it comes to women, homosexuals, jews, and secular religions is much worse. We shouldn't have tollerance for ideologies based on intolerance and oppression, this is why everybody hates Evangelical Christians, so why is it all of a suddon bigoted to call out Islam for its teachings about women and homosexuals? A double standard if you ask me.

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 378642)

What? Have you even read the bible? I think the reason the bible hasn't caused some outright sexist politics in America is because christians are too mentally handicapped to bother reading what the book says.

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 378644)

What are you talking about? In what way is the bible sexist?

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 378642)

What? Have you even read the bible? I think the reason the bible hasn't caused some outright sexist politics in America is because christians are too mentally handicapped to bother reading what the book says.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378599)

I don't think Christians should have any influence on our goverment

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378595)

But isn't it a little hypocritical how some lefties try to stop Christian influence in politics, but have no problem with Islamic theocracy? Which is even worse.

Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape (Post 378790)

boo boo, have you read the Qur'an? I haven't, and I don't think you have either. From what I've heard, though, from people who have actually read it, it seems like it is as self-contradicting as the Bible. Therefore, not all Muslims hold those beliefs that you are bashing "Muslim politics" for. Just as not all Christians are radical fundamentalists, neither are all Muslims. Some Christians are pro-homosexuality and pro-abortion, while others are not. If you talk to most Muslims living in the United States, you will find that they probably don't believe women are property, just as most Christians don't (even though the Bible says that).

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378800)

And these are the former kind of Christians I am talking about. They avoid what the bible clearly states, which is that killing human beings and homosexuality are sins.

I haven't read the Koran as a whole, because having read one boring religious text book is bad enough. I still have a fairly good idea of what Muslims generally believe, many of these beliefs arent too different from christians, only their beliefs about capital punishment and sin are much more strict and conservative.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378800)

Yes, a Democracy, and religious influence on politics should have a limit, our GOP is for the most part bought and paid for by the Christian right, and they have quite a hold on congress, even now that the Democrats have taken over the HOR, the Senate still has many Christians on its payroll, and vice versa. The only branch of our goverment where evangelicals don't have a strong influence is the Judiciary (thank god). My main concern about our GOP is that America is not too far from becoming a Theocracy. And right now the Republican presidential candidates are doing the best they can to win back the Evangelical right.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378800)

Thats not at all what I said, I'm saying that they have a strong religious bias, and this is what prevents democracy from working in the middle east, and this is a problem we're trying to solve in Iraq.

Muslims in the east have the right to govern themselves, but a lot of them don't know how democracy works, because they were born into theocracy, thats really all they know. And guess what? We're trying to show them how to do it in Iraq. I guess thats a really bad thing we're doing, right?

It didn't work because its still in the works, you're not even giving it a chance.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378800)

A Christian theocracy would never so bad to the point that they would have their policemen prevent young girls from leaving a burning schoolhouse because they don't have veils on.

Which is the case in Saudi Arabia. Can't you not at least try to see where I'm getting at?

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378800)

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378800)

I see it getting even worse if we leave, because its gotten to the point where they are more at war with each other than with us. And if we leave they will have something new to get pissed off about, and it really will be with us. You expect them to automatically forgive us for invading if we leave? That if we leave its all gonna be strawberries and daisies when it comes to our relations with Iraq?

What I meant by that was our reputation with them, the extremists. If we leave now it will come back to bite us in the ass, I garantee it.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378800)

Because worsening our reputation with middle eastern countries who are developing nuclear weapons like Iraq and Syria will put even more at risk.

Thats where you are completely wrong, in foreign affairs, reputation is everything. Everything.

Because our reputation influences what other countries think of us, and as a result it influences how these countries will treat us, and thats going to influence how we treat them, etc.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378800)

Yeah, they're already here.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

You can't delete this one, its official. :pimp:

And Ethan has given me the OK and he will observe this thread carefully to make sure it dosen't get out of hand, lets keep our cool with these discussions, Ethan will delete any posts that cross the line.

I'm gonna pick up from where we left off on the sex offender thread.



So what? Is that a reason not to do anything about it at all?

I don't care why we went, I dont agree with the timing or the conditions of the war or how it was executed. But I believe that Saddam should have been dealt with eventually, and who else would have? The UN? Don't make me laugh.



We went to war with Iraq under false pretenses, this is true. Our main concern was getting Osama Bin Ladin and somehow it changed to Iraq for very superficial reasons. Maybe they didnt have WMDs (though I know for a fact they had chemical weapons at their disposal, which was used on the Kurds during the Iraq-Iran war) but they were in the process of making Nuclear and Biological weapons, it would have taken a long time for them to have become a truly serious threat, but its a good thing we didnt let it get to the state that Iran and North Korea is now, whom we should have dealt with first, and a long time ago I might add.

The main point, regardless of our intentions, deceptions and mistakes. Removing Saddam from power was a very good thing, and while establishing a democracy admist the civil war that has emerged has proven to be a big obstacle, leaving Iraq in its current state would be absolutely insane. It would cause massive devastation to our reputation and it would make matters even worse for Iraqi civilians.



I don't know how anyone could justify keeping him alive other than for one reason. Information, but then again, it was Saddam Hussein, his stubborness was legendary and he probably wouldn't have been much use to the Iraq goverment. They did kinda rush his execution though.

Originally Posted by Frances (Post 378585)

Islamists? I hope you mean extremists.

Originally Posted by Frances (Post 378598)

Hypocritical?

Hypocritical is saying
"Islamists just look desperately for excuses to hate america".
Then saying, "Islamism is the term used for Muslim politics. Which itself is extremism any way you look at it".
Then changing your post.
Then saying "Look. I have no problem with Islam as a religion."

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378603)

Well I didn't mean to imply that all Muslims hate America, because I don't believe that, so yes I used the wrong word. I just generally associate Muslim politics with extremism, since moderates really have little or no influence on middle eastern politics, its almost like they don't even exist.

I think Islamist theocracy is the biggest problem facing the middle east. All nations deserve goverment that can at least try to be objective.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378800)

And these are the former kind of Christians I am talking about. They avoid what the bible clearly states, which is that killing human beings and homosexuality are sins.

I haven't read the Koran as a whole, because having read one boring religious text book is bad enough. I still have a fairly good idea of what Muslims generally believe, many of these beliefs arent too different from christians, only their beliefs about capital punishment and sin are much more strict and conservative.



Yes, a Democracy, and religious influence on politics should have a limit, our GOP is for the most part bought and paid for by the Christian right, and they have quite a hold on congress, even now that the Democrats have taken over the HOR, the Senate still has many Christians on its payroll, and vice versa. The only branch of our goverment where evangelicals don't have a strong influence is the Judiciary (thank god). My main concern about our GOP is that America is not too far from becoming a Theocracy. And right now the Republican presidential candidates are doing the best they can to win back the Evangelical right.



Thats not at all what I said, I'm saying that they have a strong religious bias, and this is what prevents democracy from working in the middle east, and this is a problem we're trying to solve in Iraq.

Muslims in the east have the right to govern themselves, but a lot of them don't know how democracy works, because they were born into theocracy, thats really all they know. And guess what? We're trying to show them how to do it in Iraq. I guess thats a really bad thing we're doing, right?

And lest we forget, Moderates are afraid to speak out on such matters because of the peer pressure they get from extremists. You really need to do your homework if you think the Bush administration is completely responsable for everything that has went wrong in Iraq.



It didn't work because its still in the works, you're not even giving it a chance.



A Christian theocracy would never so bad to the point that they would have their policemen prevent young girls from leaving a burning schoolhouse because they don't have veils on.

Which is the case in Saudi Arabia. Can't you not at least try to see where I'm getting at?



Now you're just being ridiculous.



I see it getting even worse if we leave, because its gotten to the point where they are more at war with each other than with us. And if we leave they will have something new to get pissed off about, and it really will be with us. You expect them to automatically forgive us for invading if we leave? That if we leave its all gonna be strawberries and daisies when it comes to our relations with Iraq?



What I meant by that was our reputation with them, the extremists. If we leave now it will come back to bite us in the ass, I garantee it.




Because worsening our reputation with middle eastern countries who are developing nuclear weapons like Iraq and Syria will put even more at risk.



Thats where you are completely wrong, in foreign affairs, reputation is everything. Everything.

Because our reputation influences what other countries think of us, and as a result it influences how these countries will treat us, and thats going to influence how we treat them, etc.



Yeah, they're already here.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

So what? Is that a reason not to do anything about it at all?

I don't care why we went, I dont agree with the timing or the conditions of the war or how it was executed. But I believe that Saddam should have been dealt with eventually, and who else would have? The UN? Don't make me laugh.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

We went to war with Iraq under false pretenses, this is true. Our main concern was getting Osama Bin Ladin and somehow it changed to Iraq for very superficial reasons. Maybe they didnt have WMDs (though I know for a fact they had chemical weapons at their disposal, which was used on the Kurds during the Iraq-Iran war) but they were in the process of making Nuclear and Biological weapons, it would have taken a long time for them to have become a truly serious threat, but its a good thing we didnt let it get to the state that Iran and North Korea is now, whom we should have dealt with first, and a long time ago I might add.

The main point, regardless of our intentions, deceptions and mistakes. Removing Saddam from power was a very good thing, and while establishing a democracy admist the civil war that has emerged has proven to be a big obstacle, leaving Iraq in its current state would be absolutely insane. It would cause massive devastation to our reputation and it would make matters even worse for Iraqi civilians.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378800)

And these are the former kind of Christians I am talking about. They avoid what the bible clearly states, which is that killing human beings and homosexuality are sins.

I haven't read the Koran as a whole, because having read one boring religious text book is bad enough. I still have a fairly good idea of what Muslims generally believe, many of these beliefs arent too different from christians, only their beliefs about capital punishment and sin are much more strict and conservative.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

Thats not at all what I said, I'm saying that they have a strong religious bias, and this is what prevents democracy from working in the middle east, and this is a problem we're trying to solve in Iraq.

Muslims in the east have the right to govern themselves, but a lot of them don't know how democracy works, because they were born into theocracy, thats really all they know. And guess what? We're trying to show them how to do it in Iraq. I guess thats a really bad thing we're doing, right?

And lest we forget, Moderates are afraid to speak out on such matters because of the peer pressure they get from extremists. You really need to do your homework if you think the Bush administration is completely responsable for everything that has went wrong in Iraq.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

A Christian theocracy would never so bad to the point that they would have their policemen prevent young girls from leaving a burning schoolhouse because they don't have veils on.

Which is the case in Saudi Arabia. Can't you not at least try to see where I'm getting at?

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

I see it getting even worse if we leave, because its gotten to the point where they are more at war with each other than with us. And if we leave they will have something new to get pissed off about, and it really will be with us. You expect them to automatically forgive us for invading if we leave? That if we leave its all gonna be strawberries and daisies when it comes to our relations with Iraq?

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

What I meant by that was our reputation with them, the extremists. If we leave now it will come back to bite us in the ass, I garantee it.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

Because worsening our reputation with middle eastern countries who are developing nuclear weapons like Iraq and Syria will put even more at risk.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

Thats where you are completely wrong, in foreign affairs, reputation is everything. Everything.

Because our reputation influences what other countries think of us, and as a result it influences how these countries will treat us, and thats going to influence how we treat them, etc.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 378552)

Yeah, they're already here.

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 379134)

The citizens of Iraq, they could have revolted. People call for revolution when they're tired of their government. A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. But we went in their for our own purposes I highly doubt Bush gave a fuck, if he did he has quite a few countries to fix, but he won't.


We don't care about it, we care about the oil. Just look at what happened with Mohammed Mosaddeq, a democratically elected president who came into power after the overthrow of Shah. The US didn't like his policies of nationalizing the oil reserves in his country, so we came through and restored the Shah to power and overthrew his democratical government. After all that oil isn't his right, its ours? We don't like what hes doing with it, so we overthrow it.




Yeah but the christians who are opposed to it also probably work on sunday and shave, I think that says alot about how strictly they follow the bible, they still use it to their own needs like most christians do.



Iraq was wrong before we went in, but we havn't helped make it better and I don't think were going to make it better. Let them rule how they want to, plenty of nations rule they way they did, we never once stepped in and probably won't unless they have something we want/we feel like taking it over. You can't tell people of certain religious, especially a dominate religions they can't rule because they're biased due to their beliefs, that wouldn't be very fair would it?



Because christians are a shining example of valuing life, the crusades? Religion has no place in a position of power, religion can be a positive force in peoples lives, give them something so they can sleep at night but lets look at history, religion as a whole not just a specific one has done more bad than good.



No, and even if we do successfully launch a democracy do you think they're going to forgive us for killing as man of them as we did? Nations revolt, i'm sure they would've been happier with a revolution and overthrowing Sadam than a nation coming in unasked and invading and killing.



I don't think we'll ever have a good reputation with extremists, their books teach them to hate. You know how many islams consider suicide bombing justified? Alot and honestly, I think our reputation with the world is more important.



They don't want us there, other nations didn't either, if we pulled out now, even though its way way way too late and continues to get later at least we can show we're not a bunch of stubborn idiots. Thousands of soldiers dying because Bush is too proud to admit he was wrong is stupid.



Yeah but that doesn't change the fact our reputation is terrible right now, Bush has single-handedly turned america into such a terror-obsessed country, with his patriot acts and everything. I'm surprised he doesn't come outright and announce his own SS. I have criticized this a few times, but still I think the fact every band has an anti-bush song says alot, you really can't dispute it anymore, his presidency has been a complete failure.



I don't understand that, because harboring terrorists would make us a terrorist state by US standards, and we knowingly harbor them, we've even had terrorists work for us, hell we've even supported them remember Nicaraugua? In 1985, Ronald Regan declared Nicaragua an imminent threat to US safety. Nicaragua, a dirt poor Latin American country with no unconventional weaponry, was an IMMINENT THREAT to the greatest military force in history. This is what Ronald claimed. Why? Why were they such a big threat? Because they attempted to establish a democratic government WITHOUT the help of the United States. The Sandistinis were a democratically elected government who received no support from the United States, but DID allow Cuban contractors to build air fields in their country. Well, we can't have that. A country becoming democratic without the US's help? That's bad business, it sets an example for other countries. "Hey, we can become free and truly democratic without having the United States pulling the strings". So what did Ronnie do about this? Well, naturally, he armed terrorists to commit horrible atrocities against civilians in favor of the Sandistinis. In fact, you can read accounts of children who watched their mothers have their breasts cut off. Watched their fathers be lined up and executed. Horrible atrocities, all sponsored by your friendly neighborhood United States. This actually caused a big fuss in the 80's because, the money that Ronald Regan was giving to the Contas (the terrorists) was coming from the profit which his administration made by ILLEGALLY selling weapons to Iran. It is commonly referred to as the Iran-Contra Affair. While the hearings were taking place to see who was in the wrong during these sales and fundings, good old Oliver North was in his office shredding classified documents which undoubtedly incriminated the president, as well as himself and many others. Oh yeah, what does Oliver North do nowadays? He hosts a TV show on FAUX News of course. The United States has no interest in bringing democracy to anyone, that is a total facade. It appeals to patriotic Americans with a hard on for the word democracy. We crush democracies, we don't support them. I mean I guess its not surprising, since the United States Government is probably one of the most evil organizations on the planet as far as killing people, and this country has become so greedy and tried to hide it under their 'war against terror' and everything which are just fronts for our own needs.

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 379134)

The citizens of Iraq, they could have revolted. People call for revolution when they're tired of their government. A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. But we went in their for our own purposes I highly doubt Bush gave a fuck, if he did he has quite a few countries to fix, but he won't.

Originally Posted by James Earl Jones (Post 379219)

On 9/11, the terrorists should have flown a plane into the white house and killed all of the right people.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 379207)

I already said we went to Iraq under false pretenses, thats pretty much a fact. It dosen't change the fact that taking Saddam out of power was a good thing.



Actually we do care about it, because if we didn't we would have pulled out a long ass freaking time ago, if it was just for Oil, why still be there now, why continue to risk ourselves and burn a sh*tload of money if we already got what we came for? Why not just build rigs, kill everybody that gets in the way and make bail, if we are truly so selfish.

I also wouldn't compare Saddam to the Prime Minister of Iran from over 50 years ago, the scenarios are pretty different.



But Muslims don't do it as often, they take it much more literally, this is why Muslim extremism is such a big deal and while Christian extremism is just something to joke about on the Howard Stern show.



Fine, lets let them build another theocratic police state, it will almost be like we were never there in the first place.



Or if we sincerely view them as a threat. With Iraq it was both, what we were told about their alledged involvement with 9/11 and WMDs were generally not true. But they were harboring terrorists, before the war and especially after, some with the intention of coming here. Like I said, I don't care what our true reasons were.



I can tell them that they shouldn't establish a goverment that enforces their beliefs on others, every nation that is a Muslim theocratic state is a horrible place to be, try living as a woman in Saudi Arabia for a year.



So, we shouldn't deal with Islamist nations because of something that Christians did.... Over 700 years ago?



Be realistic please. Religion isnt gonna be "wished away". Its here and a part of life. And I have no problem with Religion existing as long as it dosen't control the goverment.



Compare that to just leaving, making a big mess and leaving THEM to clean it up. You think thats better?



Because we all know how well revolutions turn out.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...73/Stalin3.jpg



They look for excuses to hate us, they're gonna hate us weither we stay in Iraq or not, thats a fact. But they will have a brand new reason to hate us if we just plain got up and left, after everything that has happened.



Other nations didnt want us to invade, but they're not gonna forgive us if we leave. In fact that will become just another excuse.



So lets make it worse.



:rolleyes:

At least give 9/11 some credit, oh wait, I forgot that Bush was responsable for that too.



Please, Bush is not Hitler, such comparisons should never be made.



Like I give a sh*t what Fat Mike says.



Iraq was no Nicaragua, not with a guy who had the production of Nuclear energy in the works and owned many palaces and enough cash to build underground tunnels and bunkers spanning everywhere through Bagdad and with god knows what stored there.



What does any of this have to do with our current state in Iraq? I never said America could do no wrong, I'm a Cherokee, I should f*cking know.



Our policies changed since 9/11. Terrorism within our borders was never a big deal until then, since then we ARE concerned with what happens in the middle east and what happens in Iraq, because it directly influences the terrorists that come here. National Security is our top priority, so what goes on in Iraq and elsewhere is very important.



Man you really know how to completely miss the point. I'm not at all what you would call a gung ho patriot. I'm not at all proud of the many bad things my country has done, and my politics generally lean left. But remembering the bad things that we shouldn't have done isn't going to justify not doing something we SHOULD have done.

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 379276)

I was just stating that fact bashing our own President is the status quo says alot about how good of a job he's doing.

Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 379301)

I don't keep up with country radio, but Toby Keith has been popular for awhile too if I remember right, and that disgusting Red White and Blue song was everywhere, country fans are conservative for the most part (look what happened with the dixie chicks) so naturally they'd all enjoy it and request it alot. But look at all the artists who came out with anti-bush songs, Eminem, Green Day, Foo Fighters, the Ataris, Sleater-Kinney, Yellowcard, and how many Rock Against Bush compilations have there been now, two or three? I don't understand how you can say being anti-bush doesn't sell.

Originally Posted by boo boo (Post 379312)

All rock bands, do you not see a pattern here?