NationStates Jolt Archive

GW pulled out one his faves again today. You might remember it from State of the Unions speeches past. When discussing the growing unrest he states: (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-bush-iraq-problems,0,923795.story?coll=ny-nationhomepage-headlines)

"We've got tough work there because, you see, there are terrorists there who would rather kill innocent people than allow for the advance of freedom. That's what you're seeing going on. These people hate freedom. And we love freedom. And that's where the clash occurs."

Let's see. It's now both Sunni's and Shi'ites in revolt. Native Iraqis from both sides of the ethnic divide united in a common cause.

They are fighting to have an army of occupation leave their soil because they do not like foreign rule.

Naturally - this mindset of theirs is because "they hate freedom".

Rrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttt.

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

Well, look on the bright side: at least we finally united the Shi'ites and the Sunnis...

So, George Bush "loves freedom". Since he said "we," is it safe to assume that the rest of the Administration "loves freedom" too? If so, then I guess the way to show your love of something is to systematically demolish it: Ashcroft-Style!

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

well there's a man who badly needs his hair pulled.

but seriously - the man's a menace.


*edit - 4 simultaneous posts*
I refer to the comment of the oroginal poster

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.Is it a silver bullet or a stake through the heart that does away with a troll?

GW pulled out one his faves again today. You might remember it from State of the Unions speeches past. When discussing the growing unrest he states: (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-bush-iraq-problems,0,923795.story?coll=ny-nationhomepage-headlines)

"We've got tough work there because, you see, there are terrorists there who would rather kill innocent people than allow for the advance of freedom. That's what you're seeing going on. These people hate freedom. And we love freedom. And that's where the clash occurs."

Let's see. It's now both Sunni's and Shi'ites in revolt. Native Iraqis from both sides of the ethnic divide united in a common cause.

They are fighting to have an army of occupation leave their soil because they do not like foreign rule.

Naturally - this mindset of theirs is because "they hate freedom".

Rrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttt.

Gawd, Zep. Haven't you learnt anything?
The Iraqis are experiencing GW Bush brand Genuine Texas Style Freedom™! If you can find anything freer, you'll get an all expenses paid trip to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba!

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.Is it a silver bullet or a stake through the heart that does away with a troll?

I'm pretty sure it's not that complicated ;)

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

Actually - it seems that YOU can't get enough of reading it.


And naturally, your only rebuttal is a personal attack on me instead of any refutation of the contents of the post.


So please. Explain to everyone here how people that want an army of occupation out of their land are "freedom haters"

Go ahead.

Try.

I dare you.

-Z-

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

Panhandlia, quite a few of us are fully aware that you don't read the links that you post, so no, we don't expect you to read the ones we do. :roll:

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

Which is untrue Pan?

That GW said that? I posted the link. I just watched it on MSNBC. I watched it earlier on CNN.

Is that untrue?

Or is it that people who don't like being occupied are "freedom haters"

Please back up your answer with a compelling argument.

-Z-

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.Is it a silver bullet or a stake through the heart that does away with a troll?

I'm pretty sure it's not that complicated ;) :lol:

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

Panhandlia, quite a few of us are fully aware that you don't read the links that you post, so no, we don't expect you to read the ones we do. :roll:

I actually do read them...I am not sure you actually believe what you post, but hey, who am I to judge you for being so wrong so often about so much?

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

Panhandlia, quite a few of us are fully aware that you don't read the links that you post, so no, we don't expect you to read the ones we do. :roll:

I actually do read them...I am not sure you actually believe what you post, but hey, who am I to judge you for being so wrong so often about so much?

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

Panhandlia, quite a few of us are fully aware that you don't read the links that you post, so no, we don't expect you to read the ones we do. :roll:

I actually do read them...I am not sure you actually believe what you post, but hey, who am I to judge you for being so wrong so often about so much?

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.



When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.

Is this your rationale for not answering my request for you to tell me where I stated a mistruth?

You accusation was addressed to me.

Back it up.

-Z-

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.



When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Ooh, I could have some fun with this. But that would take me dangerously close to being just like Myrth. Fortunately for Myrth, he/she has his/her little catch-phrase to keep company. You must be a sad lonesome little person. :lol:

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

Panhandlia, quite a few of us are fully aware that you don't read the links that you post, so no, we don't expect you to read the ones we do. :roll:

I actually do read them...I am not sure you actually believe what you post, but hey, who am I to judge you for being so wrong so often about so much?



When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.



When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Ooh, I could have some fun with this. But that would take me dangerously close to being just like Myrth. Fortunately for Myrth, he/she has his/her little catch-phrase to keep company. You must be a sad lonesome little person. :lol:

Why won't you answer my husbands quite reasonable question?

When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.

Is this your rationale for not answering my request for you to tell me where I stated a mistruth?

You accusation was addressed to me.

Back it up.

-Z-

You are dealing in opinions. Plain and simple. Since you don't like the current occupant of the White House (not that we should care, since you happen to be in Canada, right?,) you seem to feel like those of us who live in the US have some kind of obligation or need to take your opinion either seriously, or into account. Newsflash: your opinion has no bearing here in the US.

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

Panhandlia, quite a few of us are fully aware that you don't read the links that you post, so no, we don't expect you to read the ones we do. :roll:

I actually do read them...I am not sure you actually believe what you post, but hey, who am I to judge you for being so wrong so often about so much?

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?

When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.Mmm, Panhandlia misses the point.

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.



When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Ooh, I could have some fun with this. But that would take me dangerously close to being just like Myrth. Fortunately for Myrth, he/she has his/her little catch-phrase to keep company. You must be a sad lonesome little person. :lol:

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO BE A NEO-CON
STEP 1 - Ignore all independent thought and higher reasoning
STEP 2 - When faced with question exposing Fox News brainwashing, make personal attacks

REMEMBER - Bush is God, O'Reilly is his divine messenger

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.



When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Ooh, I could have some fun with this. But that would take me dangerously close to being just like Myrth. Fortunately for Myrth, he/she has his/her little catch-phrase to keep company. You must be a sad lonesome little person. :lol:

Why won't you answer my husbands quite reasonable question?

When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Could this be considered trolling? Of course not, Myrth is a liberal, and the mods would never discipline one of their own.

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.



When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Ooh, I could have some fun with this. But that would take me dangerously close to being just like Myrth. Fortunately for Myrth, he/she has his/her little catch-phrase to keep company. You must be a sad lonesome little person. :lol:

Why won't you answer my husbands quite reasonable question?

When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Because, unlike you, I have a life besides the internet, and I don't have a team of like-minded parrots helping.

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?
So long as you promise to open your eyes then! :roll:

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.

Is this your rationale for not answering my request for you to tell me where I stated a mistruth?

You accusation was addressed to me.

Back it up.

-Z-

You are dealing in opinions. Plain and simple. Since you don't like the current occupant of the White House (not that we should care, since you happen to be in Canada, right?,) you seem to feel like those of us who live in the US have some kind of obligation or need to take your opinion either seriously, or into account. Newsflash: your opinion has no bearing here in the US.

Ah yes.

you care enough to read my post and call me a liar.

You just don't care enough to back that up.

Chicken. You know you would if you could, because you would just love to one-up me.

Why?

Becuase I've swept the floor with you far too many times. You don;t have to admit it. But we both know that it's true.

And I, along with anyone else who read this, will know that the reason you don't back up your accusation is because you can't.

Because people who resort to only petty insults and ad-hominem attacks as the basis of their argument generally do so when they know that they have already lost.

-Z-

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.

No, I suppose we never do tire of trying to inform the misinformed of the truth! Problem with that? :roll:

When you start posting actual truths, notify me, otay?
So long as you promise to open your eyes then! :roll:

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.



When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Ooh, I could have some fun with this. But that would take me dangerously close to being just like Myrth. Fortunately for Myrth, he/she has his/her little catch-phrase to keep company. You must be a sad lonesome little person. :lol:

Why won't you answer my husbands quite reasonable question?

When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

Could this be considered trolling? Of course not, Myrth is a liberal, and the mods would never discipline one of their own.Soon he's going to get so shrill that the glass in his computer moniter will crack. Could someone please give him a rough breakdown of the mods political allignment?

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.

Is this your rationale for not answering my request for you to tell me where I stated a mistruth?

You accusation was addressed to me.

Back it up.

-Z-

You are dealing in opinions. Plain and simple. Since you don't like the current occupant of the White House (not that we should care, since you happen to be in Canada, right?,) you seem to feel like those of us who live in the US have some kind of obligation or need to take your opinion either seriously, or into account. Newsflash: your opinion has no bearing here in the US.

Ah yes.

you care enough to read my post call me a liar.

You just don't care enough to back that up.

Chicken. You know you would if you could, because you would just love to one-up me.

Why?

Becuase I've swept the floor with you far too many times. You don;t have to admit it. But we both know that it's true.

And I, along with anyone else who read this, will know that the reason you don't back up your accusation is because you can't.

Because people who resort to only petty insults and ad-hominem attacks as the basis of their argument generally do so when they know that they have already lost.

-Z-

Hey, if thinking that way allows you to sleep better tonight, who am I to deny you that pleasure. You'd still be wrong, but at least you would sleep well.

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.

Is this your rationale for not answering my request for you to tell me where I stated a mistruth?

You accusation was addressed to me.

Back it up.

-Z-

You are dealing in opinions. Plain and simple. Since you don't like the current occupant of the White House (not that we should care, since you happen to be in Canada, right?,) you seem to feel like those of us who live in the US have some kind of obligation or need to take your opinion either seriously, or into account. Newsflash: your opinion has no bearing here in the US.

Erm, I fail to see where the opinion is:

freedom

n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints

FACT.

Bush: "they hate freedom"

FACT.

Iraqis are fighting against the forces occupying their country.

FACT.

Fighting an occupation force != hating freedom.

FACT.


Do you understand now? Do you need me to explain it with sock puppets?

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.

Is this your rationale for not answering my request for you to tell me where I stated a mistruth?

You accusation was addressed to me.

Back it up.

-Z-

You are dealing in opinions. Plain and simple. Since you don't like the current occupant of the White House (not that we should care, since you happen to be in Canada, right?,) you seem to feel like those of us who live in the US have some kind of obligation or need to take your opinion either seriously, or into account. Newsflash: your opinion has no bearing here in the US.

Erm, I fail to see where the opinion is:

freedom

n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints

FACT.

Bush: "they hate freedom"

FACT.

Iraqis are fighting against the forces occupying their country.

FACT.

Fighting an occupation force != hating freedom.

FACT.


Do you understand now? Do you need me to explain it with sock puppets?

You forgot your tired little mantra!

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.

Is this your rationale for not answering my request for you to tell me where I stated a mistruth?

You accusation was addressed to me.

Back it up.

-Z-

You are dealing in opinions. Plain and simple. Since you don't like the current occupant of the White House (not that we should care, since you happen to be in Canada, right?,) you seem to feel like those of us who live in the US have some kind of obligation or need to take your opinion either seriously, or into account. Newsflash: your opinion has no bearing here in the US.

Erm, I fail to see where the opinion is:

freedom

n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints

FACT.

Bush: "they hate freedom"

FACT.

Iraqis are fighting against the forces occupying their country.

FACT.

Fighting an occupation force != hating freedom.

FACT.


Do you understand now? Do you need me to explain it with sock puppets?

You forgot your tired little mantra!

You forgot to answer the question!

Congratulations, Myrth, you have mastered the art of being a liberal
1. say something that makes no sense
2. repeat until:
a. the other person turns away
b. you pass out from lack of oxygen.

Good job.

Is this your rationale for not answering my request for you to tell me where I stated a mistruth?

You accusation was addressed to me.

Back it up.

-Z-

You are dealing in opinions. Plain and simple. Since you don't like the current occupant of the White House (not that we should care, since you happen to be in Canada, right?,) you seem to feel like those of us who live in the US have some kind of obligation or need to take your opinion either seriously, or into account. Newsflash: your opinion has no bearing here in the US.

Erm, I fail to see where the opinion is:

freedom

n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints

FACT.

Bush: "they hate freedom"

FACT.

Iraqis are fighting against the forces occupying their country.

FACT.

Fighting an occupation force != hating freedom.

FACT.


Do you understand now? Do you need me to explain it with sock puppets?

You forgot your tired little mantra!

You forgot to answer the question!

You call it occupation, I call it liberation...unless you would like Saddam, Uday and Qusay to get back to business. Oh, wait...nevermind, the two junior stooges are dead. Here, I will do it for you.

When you start having independent thoughts, let us know. Until then, we'll just copy and paste the same thing to you over and over again. After all, that's what the Bush administration does.

There, now your post is complete.

Hey, if thinking that way allows you to sleep better tonight, who am I to deny you that pleasure. You'd still be wrong, but at least you would sleep well.

Wow! That sure told me!



Gosh - I'm sure THAT convinced everybody else too...




I'm cut... deeply. :roll:




You want to call somebody a liar Pan, you better be able to back it up if you want to be viewed as the credible person.



So either back it up or admit that you are not credible.



Or just do what you always do and run away.

-Z-

Hey, if thinking that way allows you to sleep better tonight, who am I to deny you that pleasure. You'd still be wrong, but at least you would sleep well.

Wow! That sure told me!



Gosh - I'm sure THAT convinced everybody else too...




I'm cut... deeply. :roll:




You want to call somebody a liar Pan, you better be able to back it up if you want to be viewed as the credible person.



So either back it up or admit that you are not credible.



Or just do what you always do and run away.

-Z-Well I dunno Zep, I think that Panhandlia made some good points there. I've been swung around out of my ideological entrenchment... I'm voting Republican!

You call it occupation, I call it liberation...unless you would like Saddam, Uday and Qusay to get back to business. Oh, wait...nevermind, the two junior stooges are dead.

oc·cu·pa·tion
n.
1. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
2. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.


lib·er·ate
tr.v. lib·er·at·ed, lib·er·at·ing, lib·er·ates

1. To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control.

... :roll:

Well I dunno Zep, I think that Panhandlia made some good points there. I've been swung around out of my ideological entrenchment... I'm voting Republican!

I didn't know the point on top of his head was that compelling...



Gee, maybe I should rethink all this too!


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....


No.


I'm rich enough to be a Republican.


But I think I'd still rather set my head on fire and let you put it out with a sledgehammer...

-Z-

Hey, if thinking that way allows you to sleep better tonight, who am I to deny you that pleasure. You'd still be wrong, but at least you would sleep well.

Wow! That sure told me!



Gosh - I'm sure THAT convinced everybody else too...




I'm cut... deeply. :roll:




You want to call somebody a liar Pan, you better be able to back it up if you want to be viewed as the credible person.



So either back it up or admit that you are not credible.



Or just do what you always do and run away.

-Z-

Sigh...unlike you, I don't come here trying to convince anybody. I tell you what I think, I give you links to columns I find interesting, which happen to agree with my thought process, and you take it so personally. Hell, I don't even expect you and your fellow Kool-Aid drinkers to read the articles I post...and yes, I read every single one of them before I post them. More importantly, I don't bring a choir along to repeat my every statement.

That last part is what makes this whole thing sad...you need...let me see...so far I count 5...to counter me. And I am not even trying hard here, what with 3 other screens open, as I do my nightly research; that is, when I am not out at night, doing work or engaged in sports. This is a distraction for me...not the "sacred mission" you and your fellow liberal drones seem to think it is.

But furthermore, you and your coven are working hard in an effort to spread something Jean Francois Revel has written about, in a book called "Anti-Americanism." Here, read a review of it, and realize what you are doing.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD03Aa02.html

Well I dunno Zep, I think that Panhandlia made some good points there. I've been swung around out of my ideological entrenchment... I'm voting Republican!

I didn't know the point on top of his head was that compelling...



Gee, maybe I should rethink all this too!


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....


No.


I'm rich enough to be a Republican.


But I think I'd still rather set my head on fire and let you put it out with a sledgehammer...

-Z-But Zep, I don't understand. If you have the moeny, surely you're not going to pass up a chance to look down with scorn on the poor?

And I am not even trying hard here

It shows.

I'm rich enough to be a Republican.


-Z-
and a you brag enough to be a Democrat, if only you were man enough to be an American, or smart enough to know when to keep quite. If you want a clue about real occupation, look up some information about the Japanese in China, or the Germans in Europe. You know nothing about American fighting forces, or what is really going on over in Iraq. Meanwhile, your pathetic attempt to denegrate the President of the U.S. only distracts your felow liberals from the sorry attempt at a "government" you got going up there.

Did you see John Stewart's show last night? He had the video clip for this:

"We've got tough work there because, you see, there are terrorists there who would rather kill innocent people than allow for the advance of freedom," Bush said in a speech in El Dorado, Ark. "That's what you're seeing going on. These people hate freedom. And we love freedom. And that's where the clash occurs."

His response was a silent one; quirky subtle smile, eyebrow raised.

The audience broke up, howling with laughter.

I'm rich enough to be a Republican.


-Z-
and a you brag enough to be a Democrat, if only you were man enough to be an American, or smart enough to know when to keep quite. If you want a clue about real occupation, look up some information about the Japanese in China, or the Germans in Europe. You know nothing about American fighting forces, or what is really going on over in Iraq. Meanwhile, your pathetic attempt to denegrate the President of the U.S. only distracts your felow liberals from the sorry attempt at a "government" you got going up there.Back up every point of that. What makes you think he is not "man enough" to be American? Suddenly we have to live up to YOUR standards or someone else's just to be American? Hell, I'd rather not be. And about keeping Q-U-I-E-T, people don't have to shut up just because you think they should. Freedom of Speech. And if Z knows NOT of what is really going on in there, might you tell us what is? We'd sure like to know. :roll: .

Republicans aren't particularly richer than the Democrats, 43% of those making 100,000+ dollars voted for Gore in the election, after all. 54% voted for Bush, thats an 11% increase.

The real thing is that Democrats are poorer than Republicans - a 20% gap for those making under 15,000 vote difference in 2000, rather than the 11% gap in voting for those making over 100,000.

Otay, people, I've watched this charade and kangaroo court long enough. Yes, Panhandlia did not give a counter argument. However, the arguments against him have been a tidal wave of barely disguised personal shots beneath clever langauge and snide remarks. (And, the ever-pleasant rolling-eyes-face.) So, without further adieu...

lib·er·ate
tr.v. lib·er·at·ed, lib·er·at·ing, lib·er·ates

1. To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control.
I shifted the accent for you, buddy.

And yes, these rebelling Iraqis do hate freedom, or the western concept thereof. Personal freedom strikes terror into these men's hearts, but for different reasons.

1.)The Sunni's in Fallujah and the rest of the Triangle...
The Sunni minority has long held favor with the Baath Party (Saddam's), over the Shiite majority. They were the priveledged, the beneficiaries of Saddam's regime. A democratic state would shift the power from their ethnic domination, and hand it to the Shiite majority and Kurdish north, both with grudges against the Sunnis. The Sunnis will fight the new government at every stage, to get back their power, wealth, and perhaps safety. They committed the atrocities, and now they are vulnerable to their victims. Just as Nazi loyalists didn't love democracy after they lost, neither will the Baath allied-Sunnis.

2.)The al-Sadr supporters...
Al-Sadr's father was killed by Saddam's hitmen, and he became a radical cleric who styles himself as a new Ayatollah Khomeni. He seeks to establish a Shiite theocracy, much like in Iran. As a hard line cleric, he wishes to remove most freedom from women, and to enforce the extremely strict version of Islamic morality he subscribes to upon everyone in the nation. He has proclaimed himself "the beating arm of Hamas" in Iraq, and with statements like that, how can anyone consider this man anything but a terrorist bent on inflicting his views upon all he might encounter. In a rational, established nation, he would be sidelined, but his father's status elevated beyond his value, and now he is making a power grab.

So, these forces do not value freedom, they are power grabbing for various reasons. The US is there to establish a democratic government, to give these people freedom, but people like the Baath loyalists and the al-Sadr reactionaries are trying to carve out personal dominions.

*takes breath*

Sigh...unlike you, I don't come here trying to convince anybody. I tell you what I think, I give you links to columns I find interesting, which happen to agree with my thought process, and you take it so personally. Hell, I don't even expect you and your fellow Kool-Aid drinkers to read the articles I post...and yes, I read every single one of them before I post them. More importantly, I don't bring a choir along to repeat my every statement.


Who say's "i'm trying to convince people?" Read the original post - I just stated what I thought about Bush's statement.

When it comes to the posts of others, if I wish to debate the contents of the post I do that.

What I DON'T do is just step into a thread and call people a liar without backing it up.

That is your tactic. And that is the only thing I "take personally".

Because you made it personal.


That last part is what makes this whole thing sad...you need...let me see...so far I count 5...to counter me. And I am not even trying hard here, what with 3 other screens open, as I do my nightly research; that is, when I am not out at night, doing work or engaged in sports. This is a distraction for me...not the "sacred mission" you and your fellow liberal drones seem to think it is.

You think I need help? With YOU?!

ROTFLMFAO!

To counter what? All you did was point your finger at me and try to call me a liar. You offered nothing else of any substance at all.

What the hell is there that I need to counter?

I just am trying to get you to back up YOUR claim.

But you still haven't.






But furthermore, you and your coven are working hard in an effort to spread something Jean Francois Revel has written about, in a book called "Anti-Americanism." Here, read a review of it, and realize what you are doing.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD03Aa02.html

Once again - it's the link king.

"Here read what somebody else wrote that I think I agree with."

You have yet to make a compelling argument on you own about ANYTHING on this board.

You just post links that support your point of view, and throw insults towards people that don't agree with them.

That gives you all the personal credibility of... well... a politician.

Which you may not care about.

Which is your right.

But you want to call others drones when you can't demonstrate the ability to string any coherent original thoughts of your own together?

That is funny!

Now either answer - or run away.

Like you always do.



Anything that isn't one or the other will just be ignored.


-Z-

Otay, people, I've watched this charade and kangaroo court long enough. Yes, Panhandlia did not give a counter argument. However, the arguments against him have been a tidal wave of barely disguised personal shots beneath clever langauge and snide remarks. (And, the ever-pleasant rolling-eyes-face.) So, without further adieu...



I never asked anyone else to step in.

I made a post.

I was called a liar without any foundation to back that up.

That is a personal attack that deserves response.


Does it not?


Someone wants to call me a liar had better put up or shut up.

Anyone elses comments are not my concern. Just the person who stoops to low blows like that.

He made it personal. I responded in kind.

Have I goaded him along? sure.

I think I have that right under the circumstances.

Fair enough?

-Z-

Why should US style freedom be force upon them?
When so many of them are attacking the occupying force, it seems logical to assume that they want the freedom to choose the future for their country.

Iraq shouldn't be one nation. The only reason it is one nation is because the British decided the borders, and didn't care about the fact that there were 3 opposing forces.
Saddam just oppressed the infighting. Now the oppressing force is gone, the country will split. Without fear and the threat of the Republican Guard looming over them, there is nothing to stop the inevitable civil war.
It will go the same way as India and Pakistan. The same way as Yugoslavia.

lib·er·ate
tr.v. lib·er·at·ed, lib·er·at·ing, lib·er·ates

1. To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control.
I shifted the accent for you, buddy.

Replacing oppression with foreign control kinda cancels out the whole 'liberation' thing...

I'm rich enough to be a Republican.


-Z-
and a you brag enough to be a Democrat, if only you were man enough to be an American, or smart enough to know when to keep quite. If you want a clue about real occupation, look up some information about the Japanese in China, or the Germans in Europe. You know nothing about American fighting forces, or what is really going on over in Iraq. Meanwhile, your pathetic attempt to denegrate the President of the U.S. only distracts your felow liberals from the sorry attempt at a "government" you got going up there.


*yawn*


You're attempt to get in on the personal attacks bores me.

I'm rich enough to be a Republican.


-Z-
and a you brag enough to be a Democrat, if only you were man enough to be an American, or smart enough to know when to keep quite. If you want a clue about real occupation, look up some information about the Japanese in China, or the Germans in Europe. You know nothing about American fighting forces, or what is really going on over in Iraq. Meanwhile, your pathetic attempt to denegrate the President of the U.S. only distracts your felow liberals from the sorry attempt at a "government" you got going up there.


*yawn*


You're attempt to get in on the personal attacks bores me.

Great.

You are better than anyone else here.

You win.

Or is that you have the benifit of cronyism.

Oh well.

Whatever.

-P-

-U-

Back up every point of that. What makes you think he is not "man enough" to be American? Suddenly we have to live up to YOUR standards or someone else's just to be American? Hell, I'd rather not be. And about keeping Q-U-I-E-T, people don't have to shut up just because you think they should. Freedom of Speech. And if Z knows NOT of what is really going on in there, might you tell us what is? We'd sure like to know. :roll: .
1. I love the American concept of Freedom of Speech, but as I have seen pointed out numerous times by the leftist opressors here, "There is no freedom of Speech here, privately owned server, blah blah blah.

2. I never told him to not speek, I just suggested that a real man knows when to hold his tounge.

3. It's not my place to tell you what is really going on there. It is your job to find out for yourself.

I'm rich enough to be a Republican.


-Z-
and a you brag enough to be a Democrat, if only you were man enough to be an American, or smart enough to know when to keep quite. If you want a clue about real occupation, look up some information about the Japanese in China, or the Germans in Europe. You know nothing about American fighting forces, or what is really going on over in Iraq. Meanwhile, your pathetic attempt to denegrate the President of the U.S. only distracts your felow liberals from the sorry attempt at a "government" you got going up there.


*yawn*


You're attempt to get in on the personal attacks bores me.

Great.

You are better than anyone else here.

You win.

Or is that you have the benifit of cronyism.

Oh well.

Whatever.

-P-

-U-


It's not my fault Panhandlia decided to make it personal.

And not my fault he chose to run away rather than back up his claim.




Now are YOU going to actually address the issue on point?

Or are personal attacks all that you have in your holster too?


-Z-

On the topic at hand, contrary to what the left thinks, the minority does not decied the opinion of the nation, therefore, the minority, i.e. the lunatics in the "freedom fighters"/terrorists, will not establish the official Iraqi stance. As much as the left loves the ideas of my fellow soldiers/marines/saliors dying in Iraq, this is our job. The small minority rioting in Iraq is not beacuse the majority of Iraqis want America out. If you would like, I will provide your email addresses to my friends, soldiers and civilians, working in Iraq, and you can ask them informed questions, and recieve informed answers, instead of throwing out your tired little idealogical bombs.

*turns from hallway to re-enter thread, takes one look, stops, puts on his trusty FlameMaster3000 flamehelmet, steps into thread*

...I leave a thread for a couple of hours, and look what happens!

*brief inner dialogue: stay and yell at Pan/Snubis/Raysia/all the other NS conservatives (we know you're the same person! :D ) vs. run like all hell*

*"run like all hell" wins, tears off down hall faster than George Bush running from an unscripted interview*

Back up every point of that. What makes you think he is not "man enough" to be American? Suddenly we have to live up to YOUR standards or someone else's just to be American? Hell, I'd rather not be. And about keeping Q-U-I-E-T, people don't have to shut up just because you think they should. Freedom of Speech. And if Z knows NOT of what is really going on in there, might you tell us what is? We'd sure like to know. :roll: .
1. I love the American concept of Freedom of Speech, but as I have seen pointed out numerous times by the leftist opressors here, "There is no freedom of Speech here, privately owned server, blah blah blah.
And this 'privately owned server' is relevant... how? You're not the owner; you don't decide what gets said.

2. I never told him to not speek, I just suggested that a real man knows when to hold his tounge.
Firstly, it's speak, secondly, it's tongue, and thirdly, need I remind you that what a 'real man' is, is an opinion, NOT a fact. Therefore, it is irrelevant.

3. It's not my place to tell you what is really going on there. It is your job to find out for yourself.Sorry, but you don't get out so easily. Either you tell us what is really going on, or we have no reason to believe you, and your claims that we don't know what is really going on remain unsupported. Back it up, please.

On the topic at hand, contrary to what the left thinks, the minority does not decied the opinion of the nation, therefore, the minority, i.e. the lunatics in the "freedom fighters"/terrorists, will not establish the official Iraqi stance. As much as the left loves the ideas of my fellow soldiers/marines/saliors dying in Iraq, this is our job.
So it's their job to die for a faulty cause; to die for a war re-opened on the basis of non-existant objects? I'd quit that kind of job.
The small minority rioting in Iraq is not beacuse the majority of Iraqis want America out.Sorry, but it's not as small as you would like to portray it as. There is rather a large amount of Iraqis rioting in Iraq, and that's because they don't want foreign invaders in their country. Mind you, Iraq was stable pre-Saddam. Hell, I might have even supported the war if it weren't based on a lack of certain, nameless objects.

If you would like, I will provide your email addresses to my friends, soldiers and civilians, working in Iraq, and you can ask them informed questions, and recieve informed answers, instead of throwing out your tired little idealogical bombs.Only if they're drafted, because people who voluntarily went into this war are usually biased, and will provide biased answers to questions. Biased answers are hardly informed answers.

On the topic at hand, contrary to what the left thinks, the minority does not decied the opinion of the nation, therefore, the minority, i.e. the lunatics in the "freedom fighters"/terrorists, will not establish the official Iraqi stance. As much as the left loves the ideas of my fellow soldiers/marines/saliors dying in Iraq, this is our job. The small minority rioting in Iraq is not beacuse the majority of Iraqis want America out. If you would like, I will provide your email addresses to my friends, soldiers and civilians, working in Iraq, and you can ask them informed questions, and recieve informed answers, instead of throwing out your tired little idealogical bombs.

Where did I state that the opinion of those in revolt over the past few days were the majority?

And where have I EVER indicated anything but sadness at the loss of any servicemans life or limb?

You can try and pigeonhole me into some little predefined view you have of liberals if you like, but if you stick around long enough you might just discover that it isn't a mold that I fit into.

Now, back to the topic.

Fact: The followers of al-Sadr are revolting because they want the Americans out in order that Iraq takes control of their own destiny. To quote: "I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army, to help them in the transfer of power to honest Iraqis," al-Sadr said in a statement issued by his office in the southern city of Najaf. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=10&u=/ap/20040407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_sadr_statement)

These are Shi'ites. Those previously oppressed by Saddam. Not foreign terrorists nor Ba'athists who are trying to hold onto power that has been taken from them.

Now, we can debate whether Iraq is ready for the US to leave - and frankly I think that it isn'w unles we want to witness a genocidal implosion.

Or we can debate what other motives the followers of al Sadr might have - for example if you think it might be a personal power grab by al Sadr. That is possible I suppose, but he knows thepecking order of Mullahs. If he DID get the Americans out Al Sistani would still be the head of any Shi'ite council. So I am not inclined to think that this is the case.

The simple fact - as I see it - is that whether you agree with them or not, there are a lot of people in Iraq who want to really be free. For Iraqis to decide the course of the country - not an American installed council.

And people who just don't like foreign troops wandering around their neighbourhoods who perhaps aren't always culturally sensitive (for good personal safety reasons usually - but an unmeant offence is still sometimes offensive).


But when Bush calls these people "Freedom haters" that is NOT an accurate statement of their motivation or intent. That is just false rhetoric that is demeaning to what these people do want - their freedom.

You can argue that you made it possible, and you get to control the timetable. That is another debate again.

But please clarify to me why the Shi'ite followers of al Sadr should be called "freedom haters" by GW, and if you can do that I will retract the original post.

Oh, and the statement that Al-Sadr's prefered form of government might not be ours is not good enough. After all, if Iraq IS truly to be free then that includes choosing their own governance.

-Z-

Only if they're drafted, because people who voluntarily went into this war are usually biased, and will provide biased answers to questions. Biased answers are hardly informed answers.You obvoiusly have no idea what you are talkin about.

GW pulled out one his faves again today. You might remember it from State of the Unions speeches past. When discussing the growing unrest he states: (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-bush-iraq-problems,0,923795.story?coll=ny-nationhomepage-headlines)

"We've got tough work there because, you see, there are terrorists there who would rather kill innocent people than allow for the advance of freedom. That's what you're seeing going on. These people hate freedom. And we love freedom. And that's where the clash occurs."

Let's see. It's now both Sunni's and Shi'ites in revolt. Native Iraqis from both sides of the ethnic divide united in a common cause.

They are fighting to have an army of occupation leave their soil because they do not like foreign rule.

Naturally - this mindset of theirs is because "they hate freedom".

Rrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttt.




No offence freind, but your mantra sounds a lot like GW's mantra. Just my opinion.

Just differnt sides of the same coin. COIN.

Only if they're drafted, because people who voluntarily went into this war are usually biased, and will provide biased answers to questions. Biased answers are hardly informed answers.You obvoiusly have no idea what you are talkin about.

Do you? I have yet to see you say any thing on point.. just bash people you disagree with.. *Shrug*

lib·er·ate
tr.v. lib·er·at·ed, lib·er·at·ing, lib·er·ates

1. To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control.
I shifted the accent for you, buddy.

Replacing oppression with foreign control kinda cancels out the whole 'liberation' thing...
If we just packed up and left today, the country would implode into a genocidal civil war, and probably only end once a dictator more brutal than ever took power. Regardless of your opinions on getting into the war, we have gone in, we have overthrown the regime, and we are now burdened with the fate of Iraq. If we were to just blow in, blow up, and blow out, we would be the worst of villains, and be damning ourselves in 10, 20 years when the black hole of Iraq bit us back.

We cannot simply walk away from Iraq and wash our hands. We went in, assumed power. We have no choice now but to give the people what we had promised. Personally, I don't think the June 30th date is very smart, because it will collapse (IMHO). What I would like to see is a multinational force in Iraq, because that would defuse the US-occupation bomb, and benefit everyone. We would be safer, they would get their promised freedoms, and the world would share the burden. However, that will not happen. Many nations are grudging about our run to war, and we are bitter at their lack of support, and the UN is scared of the violence.

In a bitter cycle, the UN won't help until it's safe, we can't get it safe without backing off our presence, the Iraqis attack when we back off. Repeat.

-------

Other topic:

Al-Sadr is a junior cleric, who cannot rise to power through normal channels in the Shiite religion. However, he is building a Cult of Personality (the Socialogical Charismatic Authority, if you know it [Steph, being PoliSci, I assum you would] and augmenting his Traditional Authority). It appears that he is trying to leverage himself a better angle on the post-US Iraq government, and secure some power.

--------

Another Topic:

Simple tyranny by majority is not freedom. Rule by majority, while protecting the minority, is. Theocracies (which al-Sadr wants) do not have a good record on civil rights, to say the least. While the majority of Shiites may (don't think so, but maybe) desire a theocracry, we also have to protect the Kurds and even the Sunnis in the aftermath. In a theocracry, those groups (plus Christians, Jews, and any foreigner) would soon be under the heel of a religious dictatorship.

It's late, I'm tired, I have homework, and this wasn't supposed to be a debate...

No more from me tonight. G'night!

Simple tyranny by majority is not freedom. Rule by majority, while protecting the minority, is. Theocracies (which al-Sadr wants) do not have a good record on civil rights, to say the least. While the majority of Shiites may (don't think so, but maybe) desire a theocracry, we also have to protect the Kurds and even the Sunnis in the aftermath. In a theocracry, those groups (plus Christians, Jews, and any foreigner) would soon be under the heel of a religious dictatorship.

What Did You Think Was Going To Happen To Iraq? (http://www.lebanonwire.com/0403/04030602IND.asp)

Just differnt sides of the same coin. COIN.

So, you're saying that I think GW hates freedom?

:wink:

Or just that you think I get on him too hard?

Trust me, I'll do the same to Kerry if he wins the election and I don;t agree with something he does.

Has GW done anything I approve of?

Well... almost.

No Child Left Behind would have been a good thing - if he had funded it.

Finally securing the borders better would also have had great benefits - and then Tom Ridge announced last week that he wasn't even given enough to properly secure all of the ports as he was mandated. His budget for securing all of the ports was $3B - less than 4% of just the $87B supplemental funds that GW got to keep the war going. It wasn't enough.

Surely domestic protection deserves full funding too?

I don't agree with messing with the Constitution, or recess appointments.

I DID agree with going into Afghanistan, kicking the Talibam, and smoking al qaeda. But then he got sidetracked...

130,000+ troops in Iraq to capture the guy who didn't knock over the WTC. A few thousand in Afghanistan and Osama still walks free.

I agree with tax cuts - IF they don't turn a surplus into a deficit. Which is what you have. You should pay as you go and get the budget under control first.

So - even when I agreed with GW in principle - he has usually let me down.

You can call it a mantra if you like. I just believe that government needs loud critics to keep them in check.

And I do that in a generally non-partisan manner. You've only seen me after GW because you've only seen me during his tenure.

-Z-

Simple tyranny by majority is not freedom. Rule by majority, while protecting the minority, is. Theocracies (which al-Sadr wants) do not have a good record on civil rights, to say the least. While the majority of Shiites may (don't think so, but maybe) desire a theocracry, we also have to protect the Kurds and even the Sunnis in the aftermath. In a theocracry, those groups (plus Christians, Jews, and any foreigner) would soon be under the heel of a religious dictatorship.

What Did You Think Was Going To Happen To Iraq? (http://www.lebanonwire.com/0403/04030602IND.asp)
I know I said I wasn't going to post, but what are you asking? Personally, I have no problem with Sistani. He may disagree with us, but he seems a reasonable man. It is radicals like al-Sadr that worry me, and the idea that al-Sadr's policies may push the middle-ground Sistani further into the theocratic camp (which we CAN NOT afford).

EDIT: My views on the war are... different to say the least, but I must sleep now.

Also, you notice the huge ratio of "-stan" nations in this thread?

Simple tyranny by majority is not freedom. Rule by majority, while protecting the minority, is. Theocracies (which al-Sadr wants) do not have a good record on civil rights, to say the least. While the majority of Shiites may (don't think so, but maybe) desire a theocracry, we also have to protect the Kurds and even the Sunnis in the aftermath. In a theocracry, those groups (plus Christians, Jews, and any foreigner) would soon be under the heel of a religious dictatorship.

What Did You Think Was Going To Happen To Iraq? (http://www.lebanonwire.com/0403/04030602IND.asp)
I know I said I wasn't going to post, but what are you asking? Personally, I have no problem with Sistani. He may disagree with us, but he seems a reasonable man. It is radicals like al-Sadr that worry me, and the idea that al-Sadr's policies may push the middle-ground Sistani further into the theocratic camp (which we CAN NOT afford).The problem is that Sistani is only middle ground if you're a theocrat. Al Sadr may be more radical than Sistani, but that doesn't automatically make Sistani reasonable.

If we just packed up and left today, the country would implode into a genocidal civil war, and probably only end once a dictator more brutal than ever took power. Regardless of your opinions on getting into the war, we have gone in, we have overthrown the regime, and we are now burdened with the fate of Iraq. If we were to just blow in, blow up, and blow out, we would be the worst of villains, and be damning ourselves in 10, 20 years when the black hole of Iraq bit us back.

We cannot simply walk away from Iraq and wash our hands. We went in, assumed power. We have no choice now but to give the people what we had promised. Personally, I don't think the June 30th date is very smart, because it will collapse (IMHO). What I would like to see is a multinational force in Iraq, because that would defuse the US-occupation bomb, and benefit everyone. We would be safer, they would get their promised freedoms, and the world would share the burden. However, that will not happen. Many nations are grudging about our run to war, and we are bitter at their lack of support, and the UN is scared of the violence.


Oh agreed. However recall that there are different viewpoints. The Iraqis remember when they were oppressed and we were buddy-buddy with Saddam. The Kurds remember the attacks on them by US-provided helicopters when there was supposed to be an embargo against military sales to IRaq. The Kurd and Shi'ites remember Bush the first extolling them to rise up against Saddam, and then sitting back and watching as the Army smacked them down with their tanks and planes.

They remember suffering under the sanctions.

They remember sufering under Saddam. Or prospering in the case of the Ba'athists.

And now we went in and "liberated" them... by shooting up the country and taking it over.

They surely apreciate that Saddam is gone. That they have a chance to be free. They have waited a while for that.

But has it occured to you that those past transgressions might seem a bit fresher to the people who got the crappy end of those deals ? That they don't just forgive and forget all under the "well - that was then and it was in our best interest" which we tend to do? Because they sure as hell know that it wasn't in THEIR best interest!

You are suprised that they are tired of not having control of their lives and want to get on with freedom?

I'm not condoning the uprising. And I don't disagree that an abandoned Iraq would be a mess. But I do understand why they are mistrustful of the US and why they want you out. People do not, after all, always choose the path in their best interest.

But I maintain that dismissing the Shi'ite followers of al Sadr as "freedom hating terrorists" is a patently false and unfair characterization that should be beneath the office of the President.



Other topic:

Al-Sadr is a junior cleric, who cannot rise to power through normal channels in the Shiite religion. However, he is building a Cult of Personality (the Socialogical Charismatic Authority, if you know it [Steph, being PoliSci, I assum you would] and augmenting his Traditional Authority). It appears that he is trying to leverage himself a better angle on the post-US Iraq government, and secure some power.


True - but beside the point of whether the reason that he and his followers want the US out because they are "terrorists who hate freedom".

Simple tyranny by majority is not freedom. Rule by majority, while protecting the minority, is. Theocracies (which al-Sadr wants) do not have a good record on civil rights, to say the least. While the majority of Shiites may (don't think so, but maybe) desire a theocracry, we also have to protect the Kurds and even the Sunnis in the aftermath. In a theocracry, those groups (plus Christians, Jews, and any foreigner) would soon be under the heel of a religious dictatorship.

This presupposes that tyranny by majority will occur. It very well might. However we can't predicate everything on such possibilities. Iraq does have a citizenship used to a fairly secular form of government. The assumption that even all the Shi'ites will vote for Sharia Law implemented by a council of Mullahs is not a foregone conclusion.

Zeppistan--you mentioned the Kurds above. Unless I miss my guess, the Kurds haven't been involved in the recent uprisings, and if there's been a success in Iraq, it's been in the continued support of the Kurdish community in northern Iraq. It's good to note that a major reason the Kurds have had a stable society develop over the last ten years or so is the enforcement of the no-fly zones that deterred Hussein from repeating the earlier genocide. Most, if not all, of the violence is being visited upon the coalition by the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims.

Sorry - wasn't trying to imply that the Kurds were part of the uprising. Just pointing out some of the history of Iraq that contributes to the distrust of Americans in that country. MAny people tend to dismiss that history when it comes to the attitudes by Iraqis because to us it is semi-irrelevant old history that happened to others. People who talks as though this issue started with the invasion and only talk about how bad Saddam was.

Because he was that bad.

But there is more to the history from their point of view. We let them suffer under him when it suited us. We let them suffer under us via sanctions. Now GW portrays the US to be the great liberator that flew in to rescue the poor Iraqis, with no mention on how the history might just colour the perception over there.

And now he insults them by the simplistic labelling of people that want the freedom he promised them - just not on his terms.

And that does not sit well with me.

Anyway - I'm toast. Need sleep.

-Z-

Oh no, Zepp, I wasn't accusing you of anything--just pointing out that the Kurds, while screwed over under Bush I, were able to build a stable society given a chance.

One other note to this whole Iraq deal. What people fail to take into account is that Hussein kept the Iraqis under control with an army of a million men and one of the more repressive regimes in recent history. What made Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al think that an army of 150,000 could control those people once they were let loose from the strictures they had suffered under Hussein? Did they really believe that the Sunni minority would sit quietly once they were stripped of their power? Did they believe the Shiite majority would sit quietly and allow a puppet government headed by Ahmed Chalabi be installed? Did they actually believe they would be welcomed as liberators and that crowds would cheer them on their way into Baghdad?

If they didn't, they're liars. If they did, they're incompetent. Either way, they need to go.

Oh, agreed Incertonia .

I just don;t understand why some people refuse to consider that there might be differing opinions on the war from the people in Iraq. It's some sort of condescending attitude of "gosh - don't you understand why we know better than you how to run your lives? Now do as we say, thank us, and none of your lip!"


The sort of people who label those that don't want to live under foreign rule as "freedom haters" and "terrorists". Or, as Friends of Bill refered to them: lunatics.


Would that make the American Revultion an anti-freedom revolt? I mean - that was in resistance to foreign rule too after a fashion....

-Z-

Only if they're drafted, because people who voluntarily went into this war are usually biased, and will provide biased answers to questions. Biased answers are hardly informed answers.You obvoiusly have no idea what you are talkin about.
Yes, I do. Obviously, however, it seems that you do not, since you merely say things without backing them up. I've backed up my text in and of itself, as it is all logical reasoning. You... have not.

You never get tired of reading your own little screed, do you.Is it a silver bullet or a stake through the heart that does away with a troll?

I'm pretty sure it's not that complicated ;)

Fire or acid? o=)

Republicans aren't particularly richer than the Democrats, 43% of those making 100,000+ dollars voted for Gore in the election, after all. 54% voted for Bush, thats an 11% increase.

The real thing is that Democrats are poorer than Republicans - a 20% gap for those making under 15,000 vote difference in 2000, rather than the 11% gap in voting for those making over 100,000.Republicans aren't richer that Democrats but Democrats are poorer than Republicians?

Republicans aren't particularly richer than the Democrats, 43% of those making 100,000+ dollars voted for Gore in the election, after all. 54% voted for Bush, thats an 11% increase.

The real thing is that Democrats are poorer than Republicans - a 20% gap for those making under 15,000 vote difference in 2000, rather than the 11% gap in voting for those making over 100,000.Republicans aren't richer that Democrats but Democrats are poorer than Republicians?

Ah, so it isn't just me who thought what Kwangistar said didn't make sense..lol He appears to be a pretty bright person though.. so, I'm sure he just worded it poorly and didn't convey the point he wanted to... at least I assume.

I think its pretty obvious what he meant to say, i.e.:

-people in higher tax brackets are not particularly inclined to vote for Republicans (11% more vote Rep than Dem.)

-people in the lowest tax bracket are significantly more likely to vote Democrat (20% more vote Dem than Rep.)

I hope nobody minds my rewording it. :)

Republicans aren't particularly richer than the Democrats, 43% of those making 100,000+ dollars voted for Gore in the election, after all. 54% voted for Bush, thats an 11% increase.

The real thing is that Democrats are poorer than Republicans - a 20% gap for those making under 15,000 vote difference in 2000, rather than the 11% gap in voting for those making over 100,000.Republicans aren't richer that Democrats but Democrats are poorer than Republicians?

Ah, so it isn't just me who thought what Kwangistar said didn't make sense..lol He appears to be a pretty bright person though.. so, I'm sure he just worded it poorly and didn't convey the point he wanted to... at least I assume.There IS a point that can be made by those stats, but it sounds more like "Republican's only get marginly more of the rich voters but Democrats get vastly more of the very poor ones."

Ok.. the way you two re-worded makes much better sense.. thanks!

They don't hate freedom; they just have a different definition of freedom than we do.