NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that we've been "spreading democracy" throughout the Middle East for over two years, where have we gotten? What have we gotten accompished? We freed an entire nation from a brutal dictator. Hundreds of thousands of people are happy now that the brutal regime of Saddam is gone. But who helped him rise to power? The CIA. If we hadn't have meddled in Middle Eastern affairs to begin with, we wouldn't even be at war.

And many Iraqis are not happy we came. True the majority are, but many are not. Those that kill our soldiers mainly. What is the price of this remote freedom? What are we gaining? We are only losing reputation. The U.S. is hated throughout Islam, and support for the Iraq war is waning in Europe. So far it's cost us $164,555,584,3924...$164,555,590,4833...$164,555,603,3803 (http://costofwar.com/). You can see where we could have spent the money to actually benefit humanity. That is only the monetary cost.

It has cost us the lives of over 1565 of our brave soldiers fighting this needless war.

It has cost well over 20,000 lives of innocent Iraqi civilians in the "most precise bombing campaign in history."

It has cost us the reputation once so respected after WWII even through the 1990's though it began to wane long before that.

It has cost us our own Freedom.

Why we are fighting this war? I can't count the reasons given to us. I think it had something to do first about WMDs, then since that wasn't good enough, it was something to do with Iraq and 9/11 but that's total bullshit. Then it was some ambiguously worded reason presented in the mangled English of our own Appointed President. (51% is not a mandate either (though there was voter fraud in 2004))

Someone please tell me this war is worth it. Preferrably someone not white, male or evangelical. And tell me it will be the last.


Don't fret precious I'm here, step away from the window
Go back to sleep
Safe from pain and truth and choice and other poison devils,
See, they don't give a fuck about you, like I do.

Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums

I’ll be the one to protect you from your enemies and all your demons
I'll be the one to protect you from a will to survive and a voice of reason
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and your choices son
They're one in the same, I must isolate you…
Isolate and save you from yourself …
--Later,
with Peace, Love and Understanding

Mmmmmm...Iraqi beef...mmmmmm

Freedom is different than compliance. All of the wars that we have fought have not to do with freedom, but with compliance. We choose to fight those who do not comply with our own special interests. Basically, if you're worth money and don't do what we tell you to, you could be the target of the next War for Freedom

The real reason is obviously that the world is running out of oil an China and India are rapidly becoming industrialized, just imagine if all those 2.3 billion people start driving SUVs--that would be like 10 new Americas. The US has to subjugate the middle east and central asia under our iron fist in order to ensure control over their oil fields and guarantee the continued survivial of the american empire.

You're right. We should've been more inprecise - that way we'd cause more damage while spending less money.

But Iraq was retarded. We should've dedicated that time and money to the Canadian front.

Price tag of freedom: $2.99 (Are they out of their mind?)

The real reason is obviously that the world is running out of oil an China and India are rapidly becoming industrialized, just imagine if all those 2.3 billion people start driving SUVs--that would be like 10 new Americas. The US has to subjugate the middle east and central asia under our iron fist in order to ensure control over their oil fields and guarantee the continued survivial of the american empire.

exactly why the gas prices have been skyrocketing. orrr it could've been a political move to boost a drooping approval rating combined with the preexisting scorn against muslims. but no, it has to be oil. everything is just that simple!

Price tag of freedom: $2.99 (Are they out of their mind?)

it's actually $6.66

1. To say that the majorist of Iraqi's are happy about the us occupation is a bit off. It might be true, but its really hard to prove. It would be much safer, and probably more correct, to say many do.

2. I doubt the CIA helped saddam get into power. The US, and the west in general, supported Shah Reza mohammed pahlavi(Did I mix it up?), the ruler of Iran, from 53 to 79. Saddam came into power in the mid-70's. The Americans only began to support saddam during the Iraq-Iran war, after the 1979 iranian revolution.

3. 20,000, even 100,000, would be pale in comparison to Vietnam or any other war with bombing modern bombers(ww2 and past).

4. The war has not cost us freedom. It has put certain restrictions on it.

5. Voter fraud in 2004 is not proven.

6. Your thread discriminates on the fields of race, sex, and religion. Good job, way to make you look more intelligent.

exactly why the gas prices have been skyrocketing. orrr it could've been a political move to boost a drooping approval rating combined with the preexisting scorn against muslims. but no, it has to be oil. everything is just that simple!

Gas prices have nothing to do with the US gas reserves. The US is a government. Gas prices have to do with companies. The companies will not lower gas prices if they dont absolutly have to. They raise it as high as they can, while still getting enough customers to get the highest total cash. Even if they had 10 times more oil, there would be no signifigant lowering of price, if any.

The US needs large oil reserves, just as a crack addict needs...well, crack. He will do anything to get it, even if it will screw him over in the long run.

exactly why the gas prices have been skyrocketing. orrr it could've been a political move to boost a drooping approval rating combined with the preexisting scorn against muslims. but no, it has to be oil. everything is just that simple!
Well that and the fact that George Bush is Ariel Sharon's bitch, and loyally fights Israel's wars for it.

Well that and the fact that George Bush is Ariel Sharon's bitch, and loyally fights Israel's wars for it.
Because everything is a Jewish conspiracy?

You've all got it wrong. Freedom costs a buck oh five. ($1.05 US)

oh yeah, another very simplistic explanation, especially since Iraq had launched SCUDs at Israel in Gulf War I in the first place, but nevermind that.

anyway, to those people who say that 160 billion bucks should've spent on humanity: do you realize that flooding that type of money into the market would be retarded? the money shouldn't have been spent at ALL in the first place. not on welfare or whatever program and not on the war. but we're at war with people dying and living in fear, and we're arguing over numbers and statistics to help advance our politics. ain't it great? :(

Because everything is a Jewish conspiracy?
How is it a conspiracy? The US's infite support for Israel is pretty blatant you know the demonizing of Syria, the support for Israel keeping illegal settlements, etc. Iraq was Israel's major strategic rival.

You've all got it wrong. Freedom costs a buck oh five. ($1.05 US)

You can't put a price on freedom.

Illegal settlements? I thought human beings should have the right to move where they want so long as they can legitimately purchase the property?

You've all got it wrong. Freedom costs a buck oh five. ($1.05 US)
Thats true. Freedom isn't free. There's a hefty fucking fee.

How is it a conspiracy? The US's infite support for Israel is pretty blatant you know the demonizing of Syria, the support for Israel keeping illegal settlements, etc. Iraq was Israel's major strategic rival.
I agree with the fact that Israel seems to have a carte blanche with America, but to say we invaded Iraq just because of Ariel Sharon seems pretty far fetched.

Illegal settlements? I thought human beings should have the right to move where they want so long as they can legitimately purchase the property?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242

I agree with the fact that Israel seems to have a carte blanche with America, but to say we invaded Iraq just because of Ariel Sharon seems pretty far fetched.
I said the main reasons were geostrategic control and oil. Helping Israel was just a side benifit especially for Likudnik neocons like Pearle and Wolfowitz and loonier segments of Bush's christian base who thinks support for Israel will bring on the rapture.

1. To say that the majorist of Iraqi's are happy about the us occupation is a bit off. It might be true, but its really hard to prove. It would be much safer, and probably more correct, to say many do.

2. I doubt the CIA helped saddam get into power. The US, and the west in general, supported Shah Reza mohammed pahlavi(Did I mix it up?), the ruler of Iran, from 53 to 79. Saddam came into power in the mid-70's. The Americans only began to support saddam during the Iraq-Iran war, after the 1979 iranian revolution.

3. 20,000, even 100,000, would be pale in comparison to Vietnam or any other war with bombing modern bombers(ww2 and past).

4. The war has not cost us freedom. It has put certain restrictions on it.

5. Voter fraud in 2004 is not proven.

6. Your thread discriminates on the fields of race, sex, and religion. Good job, way to make you look more intelligent.

I guess it's hard for you to sense sarcasm. Voter fraud for 2004 is proven--some 6,000 people in a certain Ohio county voted for Bush when the total population was just over 2,000. Hmm? And what about the optical scanning mishaps. None of this surfaced and I'm not going to find it again, you can if you want, because the "liberal media" hushed these incidents down.

And your evidence for point #3 is not substantial at all. The weapon advancement since, oh, 1973, has increased dramatically. Those "modern bombers" can't compete with a LGM today's strike bombers carry. But 20,000 is helluva lot more than say, 50 or better yet 0.

And the CIA did indeed help Saddam rise to power. "...the young Saddam Hussein was 'among party members colluding with the CIA in 1962 and 1963.' The United States thereafter actively sopported the Ba'th Party's successful coup of 1963, which led to a slaughter of Iraqi Communist Party members using lists produced by American intelligence sources." --Rashid Khalidi Resurrecting Empire p 41.

What have we gotten out of those "certain restrictions"? Bush can't claim they've stopped terrorist attacks unless he gives us solid evidence, which has never and will never show up.

Define "majorist." I'd like to know what it means. Good job, way to make you look more intelligent. Not to mention you argue against your main point there.

You still didn't tell me if invading Iraq was worth it, you just attacked my credibility without doing research yourself.

I guess it's hard for you to sense sarcasm. Voter fraud for 2004 is proven--some 6,000 people in a certain Ohio county voted for Bush when the total population was just over 2,000. Hmm? And what about the optical scanning mishaps. None of this surfaced and I'm not going to find it again, you can if you want, because the "liberal media" hushed these incidents down.

And your evidence for point #3 is not substantial at all. The weapon advancement since, oh, 1973, has increased dramatically. Those "modern bombers" can't compete with a LGM today's strike bombers carry. But 20,000 is helluva lot more than say, 50 or better yet 0.

And the CIA did indeed help Saddam rise to power. "...the young Saddam Hussein was 'among party members colluding with the CIA in 1962 and 1963.' The United States thereafter actively sopported the Ba'th Party's successful coup of 1963, which led to a slaughter of Iraqi Communist Party members using lists produced by American intelligence sources." --Rashid Khalidi Resurrecting Empire p 41.

What have we gotten out of those "certain restrictions"? Bush can't claim they've stopped terrorist attacks unless he gives us solid evidence, which has never and will never show up.

Define "majorist." I'd like to know what it means. Good job, way to make you look more intelligent. Not to mention you argue against your main point there.

You still didn't tell me if invading Iraq was worth it, you just attacked my credibility without doing research yourself.

I think it was worth it, but I dont support the war. I dont want to waste the time explaining it, but I am a liberal who voted for kerry in 2004. Dont preach to me.

I have seen claims of voter fraud, but nothing explicit. If there was explicit voter fraud, there would have been re-votes. Especially if they were as blatant as you make them sound.

Not all 20,000-100,000 were killed by bombs. Civilians are killed in war. You stated the numbers as if they were incredibly high. They arent.

We cannot know everything the government is doing to stop terrorism. Both because of secrecy, and its just too much to say. I dont support the patriot act, I just wanted to point out that we havn't lost our freedom.

Majorist was a typo, asshole.

Illegal settlements? I thought human beings should have the right to move where they want so long as they can legitimately purchase the property?

Article 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Taken from the Fourth Geneva Convention.

4. The war has not cost us freedom. It has put certain restrictions on it.

Oddly enough, most of the restrictions put in place by the patriot act were only slightly worse than the ones already in place the were put there in the name of the War on Drugs.

I think it was worth it, but I dont [sic] support the war. I dont [sic] want to waste the time explaining it, but I am a liberal who voted for kerry[sic] in 2004. Dont[sic] preach to me.

I have seen claims of voter fraud, but nothing explicit. If there was explicit voter fraud, there would have been re-votes. Especially if they were as blatant as you make them sound.

Not all 20,000-100,000 were killed by bombs. Civilians are killed in war. You stated the numbers as if they were incredibly high. They arent[sic].

We cannot know everything the government is doing to stop terrorism. Both because of secrecy, and its just too much to say. I dont[sic] support the patriot act, I just wanted to point out that we havn't lost our freedom.

Majorist was a typo, asshole.

Golly, I didn't know "majorist" was a typo. Thanks. 20,000 sure is a lot more than the 3,000 we lost, eh? And 20,000 is on the low side. And why are you denying explicit voter fraud if you voted for Kerry? Heck, your vote could've gone to Bush without you knowing it.

The way the government is "fighting terrorism" now, is actually retrograding to the stated agenda. Fighting it with force, especially in Iraq should be the last thing they should have done. If you are really as liberal as you claim, and truly want to know why I think what I think, I recommend you read Imperial Hubris by Anonymous.
--Later,
with Peace, Love and Understanding

Golly, I didn't know "majorist" was a typo. Thanks. 20,000 sure is a lot more than the 3,000 we lost, eh? And 20,000 is on the low side. And why are you denying explicit voter fraud if you voted for Kerry? Heck, your vote could've gone to Bush without you knowing it.

The way the government is "fighting terrorism" now, is actually retrograding to the stated agenda. Fighting it with force, especially in Iraq should be the last thing they should have done. If you are really as liberal as you claim, and truly want to know why I think what I think, I recommend you read Imperial Hubris by Anonymous.
--Later,
with Peace, Love and Understanding

I dont support this war, if that is what you are implying. I am simply pointing out some holes in your info. Besides, its not all liberals versus all conservatives, all democrats against all republicans, or anything.

Yes, the Iraqi's lost many more than we did. This is true in every war of ours since the civil war, and some before. We prefer artillery/naval bombardment/bombing to actual fighting. Its a smart tactic, for winning. Im personally in favor of larger bombing of Iraq, but its hard for me to explain myself without getting into deep detail.

Your very question shows your motive. Because my canidate lost, I should believe in fraud? What the hell kind of logic is that? I believe that there might have been voter fraud, but it is very hard to tell if it is so. I have not heard any accusations of voter fraud in california, partially because we didnt use computerized systems(touch screens).

I don't agree with our war on terrorism, and I think Iraq made things worse in that war. The war on Iraq was a seperate thing from the war on terrorism though, at least in my eyes. I am in the most liberal state in the country, in the most liberal area in the country, and constantly visit the most liberal place in the world(berkeley). I know how you think, and I agree with parts of it.

Someone please tell me this war is worth it. Preferrably someone not white, male or evangelical. And tell me it will be the last.

with Peace, Love and Understanding
What's so "understanding" about your prejudice against whites, males and people of faith? What's wrong with this picture?

The war will be worth it. It will not be the last. And you, sir, are a bigot.

What's so "understanding" about your prejudice against whites, males and people of faith? What's wrong with this picture?

The war will be worth it. It will not be the last. And you, sir, are a bigot.

I was wonderin if E would get on this thread.

He/she can't be a bigot because his/her dismissive was directed at white, christian males and as I was taught repeatedly at my skrool of higher learnin, it is not possible to be bigoted against that group of people because the members of that group have ALL the power in the world! ALL!!!! :rolleyes:

What's so "understanding" about your prejudice against whites, males and people of faith? What's wrong with this picture?

The war will be worth it. It will not be the last. And you, sir, are a bigot.

GOD. That was a f*cking joke, okay? I was expressing that I didn't want only biased opinions such as those presented by most evangelicals, I'm not descriminating, it's a fact. Like crime and black people, it's not becuase they're black, I know plenty of cool black people, it's the white people who've oppressed the blacks for centuries that the've had to resort to crime. And when will the war be worth it? Ever? No. So, I'm sorry I put that hypocritical half-serious sentence in there, so what are your opinions? What are the opinions of white, male evangelicals? Thank you.

GOD. That was a f*cking joke, okay? I was expressing that I didn't want only biased opinions such as those presented by most evangelicals, I'm not descriminating, it's a fact. Like crime and black people, it's not becuase they're black, I know plenty of cool black people, it's the white people who've oppressed the blacks for centuries that the've had to resort to crime. And when will the war be worth it? Ever? No. So, I'm sorry I put that hypocritical half-serious sentence in there, so what are your opinions? What are the opinions of white, male evangelicals? Thank you.

Thanks for the invite. :) Freedom has a high price tag in blood, it demands nothing less and the only people who think we can have it without bloodshed are those who have grown up in the comfort of western nations. Quite often university ejumacated. Quite often but not always the most pampered of our societies.
That ain't directed specifically at you 45, just a generalization to which there will of course be many exceptions.

The price of freedom is the blood of the valiant, the innocent, and tyrants. And if freedom is actually achieved it's generally considered to be worth it upon reflection. As to whether the Iraq war is or will be worth it, that's hard to say. From an isolationist American perspective, no. From an evangelisting perspective, probably (evil is deminished in power). From an Iraqi perspective, I imagine that is determined largely by how things actually turn out. If the fall in to the chaos of perpetual civil war, or under the oppressive rule of a theocratic dictatorship consolidating power, no. If in a generation, they are powerful economically, stable and growing, they probably will see it as worth it.

... what are your opinions? What are the opinions of white, male evangelicals? Thank you.
Not much of a "joke."

Not being an "evangelical," I have no idea what their opinions are.

I was wonderin if E would get on this thread.

He/she can't be a bigot because his/her dismissive was directed at white, christian males and as I was taught repeatedly at my skrool of higher learnin, it is not possible to be bigoted against that group of people because the members of that group have ALL the power in the world! ALL!!!! :rolleyes:
Yup. Them lil Japanese critterz iz 'bout as "white" as they come. Ditto for the Chinese and East Indians.

Now that we've been "spreading democracy" throughout the Middle East for over two years, where have we gotten? {snip}man... I'm glad France and Spain didn't think the same way when America was fighting for her independance from a Tyrannical King.

I guess it's hard for you to sense sarcasm. Voter fraud for 2004 is proven--some 6,000 people in a certain Ohio county voted for Bush when the total population was just over 2,000. Hmm? And what about the optical scanning mishaps. None of this surfaced and I'm not going to find it again, you can if you want, because the "liberal media" hushed these incidents down.

Actually it was a population of 20,000, but the blogger who originally posted it originally thought it'd be more interesting to 'asjust' the numbers. The most voter fraud was in Milwaukee. That, oddly, is ignored. Nobody seems to care about voter fraud in the smaller electoral states. Choking on their own sour grapes i suppose.


And your evidence for point #3 is not substantial at all. The weapon advancement since, oh, 1973, has increased dramatically. Those "modern bombers" can't compete with a LGM today's strike bombers carry. But 20,000 is helluva lot more than say, 50 or better yet 0.
And if you count the ones who weren't holding guns and bombs it is even less. One sad fact of war - people die. Especially with an opponent who would use them as shields. Saddam himself accepted the help of American 'Human Shields'. His subordinates had no problem helping civilians 'volunteer' for this role after hostilities started. We do more than any force in history has done to reduce it, but it is impossible to eliminate. Any expectation of such so is no more than the musings of a childish mind.


And the CIA did indeed help Saddam rise to power. "...the young Saddam Hussein was 'among party members colluding with the CIA in 1962 and 1963.' The United States thereafter actively sopported the Ba'th Party's successful coup of 1963, which led to a slaughter of Iraqi Communist Party members using lists produced by American intelligence sources." --Rashid Khalidi Resurrecting Empire p 41.
Must be very frustrating to live in a world that is not static and not know it, huh? Imagine that a person can change over fifty (or even five) years. What audacity! Maybe you'd like to blame the unibomber's gradeschool teacher for showing him how to write since he eventually used that skill to create his manifesto! How totally ignorant of that teacher!

Not to mention that sometimes when fighting slimeballs you have to associate with some uncomfortable alliances to do the job. Did you forget about the Iran situation? Iran taking over Iraq would have been a disaster and would have occured. The US exsentially assisted in creating a detente.

Oh, and finally, if you are going to credit a source you should find one who is not some grossly biased Arab nationalist cheerleader like Khalidi.


What have we gotten out of those "certain restrictions"? Bush can't claim they've stopped terrorist attacks unless he gives us solid evidence, which has never and will never show up.

Define "majorist." I'd like to know what it means. Good job, way to make you look more intelligent. Not to mention you argue against your main point there.

You still didn't tell me if invading Iraq was worth it, you just attacked my credibility without doing research yourself.
Most of your claims are unascertained, the one you cited was from a biased source. There is no need to dispariage your credibility when you have not established any.

As far as 'worth it' goes it is too soon to say. The potential is there, but roses do not spring from shit overnight.

Actually it was a population of 20,000, but the blogger who originally posted it originally thought it'd be more interesting to 'asjust'[sic] the numbers. The most voter fraud was in Milwaukee. That, oddly, is ignored. Nobody seems to care about voter fraud in the smaller electoral states. Choking on their own sour grapes i suppose.


And if you count the ones who weren't holding guns and bombs it is even less. One sad fact of war - people die. Especially with an opponent who would use them as shields. Saddam himself accepted the help of American 'Human Shields'. His subordinates had no problem helping civilians 'volunteer' for this role after hostilities started. We do more than any force in history has done to reduce it, but it is impossible to eliminate. Any expectation of such so is no more than the musings of a childish mind.


Must be very frustrating to live in a world that is not static and not know it, huh? Imagine that a person can change over fifty (or even five) years. What audacity! Maybe you'd like to blame the unibomber's gradeschool teacher for showing him how to write since he eventually used that skill to create his manifesto! How totally ignorant of that teacher!

Not to mention that sometimes when fighting slimeballs you have to associate with some uncomfortable alliances to do the job. Did you forget about the Iran situation? Iran taking over Iraq would have been a disaster and would have occured. The US exsentially assisted in creating a detente.

Oh, and finally, if you are going to credit a source you should find one who is not some grossly biased Arab nationalist cheerleader like Khalidi.


Most of your claims are unascertained, the one you cited was from a biased source. There is no need to dispariage your credibility when you have not established any.

As far as 'worth it' goes it is too soon to say. The potential is there, but roses do not spring from shit overnight.

I'm having a hard time sensing what position you are taking. I think all you're trying to do is discredit my information no matter what side you must take. Like voter fraud, you say it was worse than I first said, then you say that 20,000 is way too many civilian deaths. And guess what? That statistic I found 20,000 as civilian deaths was on the low side. Take a look if you want (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) since you're too lazy to get off your ass and do research of your own before you discredit my information. What actions led to this "shit" to just popup. And over 2 years isn't exactly "overnight."

Indeed my sources may be biased, but who's to say what's biased? What you think is neutral, I would say is biased. It's all a matter of opinion, but it's kind of hard to argue with fact, which I presented.

Last time I checked, "civilians" don't usually hold guns and fight in battle, so you are dead wrong on that matter. I'll reiterate, what with all the DU ammunition f*cking up Iraqi babies that number will rise, and soon I'll be saying 30,000.

How about you do your own research before you discredit mine.

I'm sorry I couldn't fill in your voter fraud information gap, but with your lack of research on the other issues, I doubt your points are true. How about you establish your own credibility, that way I may not have to correct your every mistake.

I guess it's hard for you to sense sarcasm. Voter fraud for 2004 is proven--some 6,000 people in a certain Ohio county voted for Bush when the total population was just over 2,000. Hmm? And what about the optical scanning mishaps. None of this surfaced and I'm not going to find it again, you can if you want, because the "liberal media" hushed these incidents down.
Your point? The same type of thing happened in Madison and Milwuakee for Kerry. Hell, there's some evidence that points to massive voter fraud in favor of Kerry in Chicago.

man... I'm glad France and Spain didn't think the same way when America was fighting for her independance from a Tyrannical[sic] King.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I never alluded to spreading of democracy in general, hence the term "in the Middle East," and that refers to the past half century when we gave guns to one side, and guns to the other side, and said "go kill each other." We put Saddam in charge of Iraq in the first place hoping he might do something good. Then we tried to overthrow him--and we finally succeeded after about 20 years or so. This isn't only an isolated incident. There have been many democratically elected governments in Latin America that the CIA helped to overthrow, many of which, the U.S. helped them gain power in the first place--like Iraq.

Your point? The same type of thing happened in Madison and Milwuakee for Kerry. Hell, there's some evidence that points to massive voter fraud in favor of Kerry in Chicago.

show me

This thread would have been more interesting and entertaining (not to mention original :rolleyes:) if you'd just had "ACHTUNG JUDEN" in big red letters and gotten thrown out for spamming and trolling.

6 dollars and 47 cents

Actually it was a population of 20,000, but the blogger who originally posted it originally thought it'd be more interesting to 'asjust' the numbers. The most voter fraud was in Milwaukee. That, oddly, is ignored. Nobody seems to care about voter fraud in the smaller electoral states. Choking on their own sour grapes i suppose.


don't you understand that it is only voter fraud if it helps republicans
and that "bipartisan" means do it the way the dumbocrats want or they will cry to their Media buddies who will publish their lies without checking the facts first?

What is the price tag of Freedom?

Freedom is priceless. Men and women have fought and died for it for many, many years in many, many wars.

And tell me it will be the last.

Unfortunately it will not be. As long as there are governments in the world who will deny freedom to their people, there will be people who will fight for that freedom.

I was expressing that I didn't want only biased opinions such as those presented by most evangelicals, I'm not descriminating, it's a fact.

Are you implying non-white, female, non-evangelicals are not biased in their opinions? True, you are not discriminating but you are showing you are a bigot.

Originally Posted by Achtung 45
Now that we've been "spreading democracy" throughout the Middle East for over two years, where have we gotten? {snip}

Afghanistan has a democratically elected government and is free of the theocratic Taliban.

Iraq is free of the brutal dictator and has held free elections.

The Palestinians have a freely elected government.

Lebanon will be having free elections and will no longer be under the thumb of doctorial Syria.

Saudi Arabia has, for the first time, had elections for municipal offices.

Shall I continue?

I was wonderin if E would get on this thread.

He/she can't be a bigot because his/her dismissive was directed at white, christian males and as I was taught repeatedly at my skrool of higher learnin, it is not possible to be bigoted against that group of people because the members of that group have ALL the power in the world! ALL!!!! :rolleyes:

lol

BTW...Eutrusca I think I love you!

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I never alluded to spreading of democracy in general, hence the term "in the Middle East," and that refers to the past half century when we gave guns to one side, and guns to the other side, and said "go kill each other." We put Saddam in charge of Iraq in the first place hoping he might do something good. Then we tried to overthrow him--and we finally succeeded after about 20 years or so. This isn't only an isolated incident. There have been many democratically elected governments in Latin America that the CIA helped to overthrow, many of which, the U.S. helped them gain power in the first place--like Iraq.

But if we did put Saddam in power then is it not our responsibilty to take him out of power when it is clear he is evil. Yes, yes, the natural response to this is, "You shouldn't have put him in power in the first place!! Bush is Satan!" but if it is true that the CIA did, then not being able to jump in a timemachine and change that fact means we needed to do it in the present. :)

lol

BTW...Eutrusca I think I love you!
Ummm ... [ turns scarlet ] :D