NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, here’s the thing – The liberal left is continually whining, moaning and bitching about how much they hate George Bush and how he got us into a war in Iraq premised on lies and deception, etc. We all know the rhetoric – I, for one, am sick of it. Why? Because it ignores the fact that, however we got into Iraq, we are there and need to do some things in order to get out. At least the conservative side says we are there and this is what we are going to try and do to make it better so we can leave. Where are the liberal’s positive ideas, plans and opinions about what to do now? Where are the suggestions about how to end the war and bring our guys home? Is it the liberal position we should just “cut and run” and leave Iraq in chaos with the certainty of civil war and islamofacism ready to step in and create another Talibanesque or Iranian type theocracy of hatred? Shouldn’t we stay and help Iraq build it’s own new government which recognizes the rights of all people (Libs, surely you don’t support a government in Iraq that is a theocracy of Islam under Sharia law that denies women rights to education, driving, etc. or that punishes or bans freedom of religion, freedom of the Press and speech – or do you?). All the negative whining does is serve to make the job in Iraq more difficult and support those who oppose our efforts there. Why not cut out the carping and begin to offer positive ideas about what to do. Get over your anger and hatred and move on into positive efforts to remedy the situation.

So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?

You're absolutely right. People need to stop whining, moaning and bitching about the past. I shot someone in the stomach a few days ago, and now he's pressing charges! I try to tell him, "man, it doesn't matter how we got here, all that matters is where we are now." but he just doesn't listen for some reason.

:rolleyes:

We can only get out when the Iraqi people have a democratically elected government capable of providing them with the necessary services, fighting off the terrorists and preventing civil war. The only way to bring that about is to maintain a strong military presence to defend the government until it can stand on it's own two feet, so we're stuck there. Possibly for five to ten more years.

Thanks W.

dude, i'm a Liberal but i don't say we should leave, that'd fuck Iraq up further than it is already, i'm saying that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, but we're here now might aswell try to stop Iraq from falling into complete anarchy.

Ok, here’s the thing – The liberal left is continually whining, moaning and bitching about how much they hate George Bush and how he got us into a war in Iraq premised on lies and deception, etc. We all know the rhetoric – I, for one, am sick of it. Why? Because it ignores the fact that, however we got into Iraq, we are there and need to do some things in order to get out. At least the conservative side says we are there and this is what we are going to try and do to make it better so we can leave. Where are the liberal’s positive ideas, plans and opinions about what to do now? Where are the suggestions about how to end the war and bring our guys home? Is it the liberal position we should just “cut and run” and leave Iraq in chaos with the certainty of civil war and islamofacism ready to step in and create another Talibanesque or Iranian type theocracy of hatred? Shouldn’t we stay and help Iraq build it’s own new government which recognizes the rights of all people (Libs, surely you don’t support a government in Iraq that is a theocracy of Islam under Sharia law that denies women rights to education, driving, etc. or that punishes or bans freedom of religion, freedom of the Press and speech – or do you?). All the negative whining does is serve to make the job in Iraq more difficult and support those who oppose our efforts there. Why not cut out the carping and begin to offer positive ideas about what to do. Get over your anger and hatred and move on into positive efforts to remedy the situation.

So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?
You see, this is a "everybody-looses" game. When the US went into Iraq, that was the time to ponder things very carefully. What you´ve got now is a country torn apart by ethnic strife. The Curds want federalism because they´ve had a de facto independent nation in Northern iraq for 10 years now; the shiites want federalism because they want to get all the money from their huge oil reserves in the provinces they dominate; and the Sunis just want a centralist state because they know if federalism takes roots, then they will be left with a bunch of baren, oileless land while curds and shiites get richer by the minute. The iraqi constitution will be on rferendum momentarily and will be striken down because the sunnis(who are the majority in three of the provinces) will vetoe it. In the end,you´ll just have a new shiite state(advanced post of Iran´s theocratic regime) a Curd state in perpetual conflict with neighbouring Turkey and a bunch of angry sunnis going around bombing the living shit of everybody else. So, there you have it, the final result of US intervention in the middle east. The best course of action for the US righr now? Leave Iraq, prepare for civil war in the country and stablish a strong military presence in a future curdish state, while trying to allay any fears of curdish separatism from Turkey.

Hey Mauiwowee, do you really think Bush and his boys shouldn't be held responsible for getting us into a totally unnecessary war and costing some 1600 American lives plus billions upon billions of American dollars plus destabilizing the region that produces much of the world's oil, plus removing resources that were being used to hunt Osama from the Afghan theater of war?

The idea of going into Iraq was absolutely retarded. Retards shouldn't be president.

I know this doesn't really answer the question. But I had to say it.

Your idea of what a government would be like under Islamic rule isn't so clear cut.

Islam is actually a very peaceful religion that gives women very good treatment. It's just that whenever you hear about it is from some brutal dictator taking the Islam work out of text and twisting it around to fit it the way he wants.

It's the same with the bible. People can translate it however they want to get their point across.

If Iraq followed the true religion of Islam, it would be a peaceful successful way to govern.

*side note* I do not practice Islam...

And even though I am a liberal I agree with you. Since we are already there, we have to stay there and help. We have to finish what we started.

I know this doesn't really answer the question. But I had to say it.

Your idea of what a government would be like under Islamic rule isn't so clear cut.

Islam is actually a very peaceful religion that gives women very good treatment. It's just that whenever you hear about it is from some brutal dictator taking the Islam work out of text and twisting it around to fit it the way he wants.

It's the same with the bible. People can translate it however they want to get their point across.

If Iraq followed the true religion of Islam, it would be a peaceful successful way to govern.

*side note* I do not practice Islam...

And even though I am a liberal I agree with you. Since we are already there, we have to stay there and help. We have to finish what we started.
You don't practice Islam, and there are precious few majority Muslim nations that even come close to living up to your idea, but somehow you know that a state guided by Islam would be successfull and treat women well?

I'm not saying its going to happen. It won't happen. And no country will take these views

I'm just saying that peoples views on Islam are narrow and that it's not as oppressive as they say.

Just because I don't practice it doesn't mean I don't know anything about it.

Ok, here’s the thing – The liberal left is continually whining, moaning and bitching about how much they hate George Bush and how he got us into a war in Iraq premised on lies and deception, etc. We all know the rhetoric – I, for one, am sick of it. Why? Because it ignores the fact that, however we got into Iraq, we are there and need to do some things in order to get out. At least the conservative side says we are there and this is what we are going to try and do to make it better so we can leave. Where are the liberal’s positive ideas, plans and opinions about what to do now? Where are the suggestions about how to end the war and bring our guys home? Is it the liberal position we should just “cut and run” and leave Iraq in chaos with the certainty of civil war and islamofacism ready to step in and create another Talibanesque or Iranian type theocracy of hatred? Shouldn’t we stay and help Iraq build it’s own new government which recognizes the rights of all people (Libs, surely you don’t support a government in Iraq that is a theocracy of Islam under Sharia law that denies women rights to education, driving, etc. or that punishes or bans freedom of religion, freedom of the Press and speech – or do you?). All the negative whining does is serve to make the job in Iraq more difficult and support those who oppose our efforts there. Why not cut out the carping and begin to offer positive ideas about what to do. Get over your anger and hatred and move on into positive efforts to remedy the situation.

So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?


Here's a plan. Get out. Drop them. They are not our concern. We have our own problems limiting or freedom of press, religion, and speech. Why worry about theirs?

GWB screwed them up. Send him there to help them out.

So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?

What do you mean by us? Us neocons, or us americans? The "us" which are in iraq, for instance most certainly don't include the ones which are resonsible for this mess. If they want to get out of iraq, i suggest they do something about their government.

I know this doesn't really answer the question. But I had to say it.

Your idea of what a government would be like under Islamic rule isn't so clear cut.

Islam is actually a very peaceful religion that gives women very good treatment. It's just that whenever you hear about it is from some brutal dictator taking the Islam work out of text and twisting it around to fit it the way he wants.

It's the same with the bible. People can translate it however they want to get their point across.

If Iraq followed the true religion of Islam, it would be a peaceful successful way to govern.

*side note* I do not practice Islam...

And even though I am a liberal I agree with you. Since we are already there, we have to stay there and help. We have to finish what we started.


Have you acutely read anything about Islam? How Mohammed spread this peace loving religion for one. Or how women are treated in Islamic countries.

Personally you're right whining doesn't get us anywhere. And you're also right about pulling out of Iraq now won't help, but nothing we do over there will. It's just gonna fall apart. So cost us more money and lives it doesn't matter. Decrease the surplus population!

Mauiwowee, you call it cutting and running--I call it the inevitable result of a poorly planned and thought out invasion plan. Disaster is what happens when you plan for the best case scenario instead of the worst case. It's also what happens when you have incompetents in charge of the whole shebang.

In my opinion, we don't have any choice but to pull out. You act as though if the US stays in Iraq, a modern, democratic society will emerge. Well sorry to disappoint you, but even with the pressure we've been putting on the Iraqis who are nominally in charge, we've got an Islamist Republic a la Iran emerging, and we'll be lucky if it's that stable, even if we stay. Women will be disenfranchised under the new Constitution, because Islamic law will be the basis for law--for them, the situation was better under Saddam, and that's saying something.

Think about that last bit again. We will have made life for half of the population of Iraq worse than it was under Saddam Hussein. That gives you an idea of just how badly our government has fucked this one up.

Further, as long as our military is there without sufficient strength or numbers to secure the nation as a whole, it's not only a target for the insurgency, it's a big recruiting poster for them. If we want the Iraqis to work this out, we've got to reduce our presence, because we're giving the insurgents fuel to feed on.

I felt long ago that civil war, along with three separate states, was inevitable, because we didn't go in with sufficient numbers to secure the country. The longer this goes, the more sanguine I look. I wish I'd been wrong.

You don't practice Islam, and there are precious few majority Muslim nations that even come close to living up to your idea, but somehow you know that a state guided by Islam would be successfull and treat women well?

Well I actually do practice, and theoretically, a state guided by Islam in its true form is supposed to treat women as equals, but I honestly don't believe that religion and government should be intermingled, because there are way too many crazies then who have power. In Saddam Hussein's favor, not that there is much good that could be said about him, but he did try to secularize Iraq, and yes, he had to supress the Shi'ites to do so, because they are generally the most conservative and fundamentalist Muslims (apart from the Wahabis). The result of his efforts was that women had more freedom in Iraq than anywhere else in the Middle East, not exactly up to par with what they would have in a western nation, but on the way there. Now that the US invaded Iraq and screwed everything up, the Shi'ites have been given the main balance of power, and they are the least secular of the bunch, so I forsee a huge mess for decades to come.

I should mention that the Kurds are actually quite secular as well, they tend to be Christian or Sunni, and in fact allow women in their armies and so forth.

Well I actually do practice, and theoretically, a state guided by Islam in its true form is supposed to treat women as equals, but I honestly don't believe that religion and government should be intermingled, because there are way too many crazies then who have power. In Saddam Hussein's favor, not that there is much good that could be said about him, but he did try to secularize Iraq, and yes, he had to supress the Shi'ites to do so, because they are generally the most conservative and fundamentalist Muslims (Iran, Taliban, etc.). Now that the US invaded Iraq and screwed everything up, the Shi'ites have been given the main balance of power, and they are the least secular of the bunch, so I forsee a huge mess for decades to come.

I should mention that the Kurds are actually quite secular as well, they tend to be Christian or Sunni, and in fact allow women in their armies and so forth.
I agree that Saddam was a secular leader. One more reason not to take him out IMHO. I disagree that the sunni are in general more secular than the Shi'ites. Look at Saudi Arabia. Also the Taliban were Sunni.

Ok, here’s the thing – The liberal left is continually whining, moaning and bitching about how much they hate George Bush and how he got us into a war in Iraq premised on lies and deception, etc. We all know the rhetoric – I, for one, am sick of it. Why? Because it ignores the fact that, however we got into Iraq, we are there and need to do some things in order to get out. At least the conservative side says we are there and this is what we are going to try and do to make it better so we can leave. Where are the liberal’s positive ideas, plans and opinions about what to do now? Where are the suggestions about how to end the war and bring our guys home? Is it the liberal position we should just “cut and run” and leave Iraq in chaos with the certainty of civil war and islamofacism ready to step in and create another Talibanesque or Iranian type theocracy of hatred? Shouldn’t we stay and help Iraq build it’s own new government which recognizes the rights of all people (Libs, surely you don’t support a government in Iraq that is a theocracy of Islam under Sharia law that denies women rights to education, driving, etc. or that punishes or bans freedom of religion, freedom of the Press and speech – or do you?). All the negative whining does is serve to make the job in Iraq more difficult and support those who oppose our efforts there. Why not cut out the carping and begin to offer positive ideas about what to do. Get over your anger and hatred and move on into positive efforts to remedy the situation.

So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?


Why do WE have to have a plan to get us out? It's your dumb-ass conservative creepazoid Dubya who got us INTO the mess in the first place, supported by lies...WHAT'S HIS...OR YOUR...PLAN FOR GETTING US OUT??

Can't you conservatives ever, FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE accept accountability for your actions and policies, and the human suffering they cause? You fucked it up. You fix it. AND ACCEPT BLAME FOR IT.

Why? Because it ignores the fact that, however we got into Iraq, we are there and need to do some things in order to get out. At least the conservative side says we are there and this is what we are going to try and do to make it better so we can leave.

Does anyone else think this could lead to the US accusing any country it does not like of WMD, invade, say "whoops... no WMD but while we're here we may as well affect regime change to one that would suit us better".

Is it the liberal position we should just “cut and run” and leave Iraq in chaos with the certainty of civil war...
I am not sure so correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the conservatives want to “cut and run” from Kosovo, a faslely started war, as well?
Libs, surely you don’t support a government in Iraq that is a theocracy of Islam under Sharia law that denies women rights to education, driving, etc. or that punishes or bans freedom of religion, freedom of the Press and speech – or do you?
Is it just me or does this sound an awful lot like the "You don't want Saddam back do you?" argument? And both of these sound like like Squealer asking the other animals if they want Jones back, don't they?
So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?
First off why do we need to present you a plan? President Bush either needs to develop a plan himself or have the Pentagon make one, because this falls on his shoulders as CinC to pull the American troops out of any situation that they are in. But, if it was my responsibility, which you are assuming that it is, to get Americans out of Irag and Afghanistan, then it would have to be to give the Generals troop levels and equipment that they need, and work twice as hard to get the Iraqi defense forces up to the equivelent amount of people that it takes us to handle by ourselves.But then again I don't develop American military doctrine, now do I?

And also, I don't call you "neo-con", so don't call me "lib".

I agree that Saddam was a secular leader. One more reason not to take him out IMHO. I disagree that the sunni are in general more secular than the Shi'ites. Look at Saudi Arabia. Also the Taliban were Sunni.

Saudi is actually Wahabi, not sunni, they are a sectarian ofshoot of sunnism that unfortunately gained a lot of power when the Saud rulers converted to their doctrines. As in christianity where you have catholicism, protestantism, and then various fringe groups, sunnis and shi'ites are the main branches, then you have wahabis, sufis, ahmediyyas, and so forth. As for the Taliban, you are right, I apologise, I did not realise that they were also claiming to be sunnis, but upon doing a bit of research, I have discovered they were also following Wahabism. As such, they shouldn't be considered sunni, and sunni religious leaders have issued fatwas to this effect, but such edicts tend to not get widely publicised outside of the middle east.

Have you acutely read anything about Islam? How Mohammed spread this peace loving religion for one. Or how women are treated in Islamic countries.


Um... yes. I'm not going to debate something I don't know about. I took a few classes on it and I know this is very cliche, but a close friend of mine is muslim.

I agree with Nazz on this one. We are in a hole and trying to dig ourselves out.

The best thing to do is just jump out of the hole before the walls cave in on us. Personally, I think the US is in a lot of trouble right now, and we need to cut back anywhere we can.

So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?
Stay, finish the job, bring our troops home with honor, and force Iraq to bring up a stable government.

Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq?
A. Bush had an exit strategy to get out of the Vietnam War.

Q. What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq?
A. Bush had an exit strategy to get out of the Vietnam War.

Oh, shit!!! ROTFLMFAO!!! I'm USING that joke!!

I just had a mouthful of Pepsi when I read that! Thanks!! Asshole! :D

Don't thank me, thank Zjore, who I stole the joke from. But that's OK, because he stole it from some website.

Why should we have a plan, since we didn't want to be there in the first place. I think it's up to you to present a plan.

We shouldn't be there in the first place, however now that we are there we can't just run and leave the region to chaos. On the other hand, the chances that the Iraqis will create a government in the near future which satisfies Bush are slim to none. We can't just march in and expect them to understand secular democracy. The people on the inside must decide they want this government, and themselves overthrow whatever (theocratic) dictator is running the country. Right now they haven't decided to become secular, and now amount of urging is going to stop them from creating a theocracy.

It's really a no-win situation.

However, I think you should stop pushing burden on liberals and live up to the fact that this war has become a quagmire with no good solutions. When there's no way out don't expect someone else to come up with a plan, own up to your own mistakes.

Don't even try talking to liberals. They are not advanced enough in the mind to understand how to debate without blaming Bush. Any thread that is about Iraq always turns into anti-america and anti-bush thread. Liberals are really smart, aren't they :rolleyes:

Most people here don't understand what it is like living under a dictator. What they want is to stay out of Iraq while letting Saddam stay in power and kill more of his people. Have you see pictures of what Saddam did to prisoners? Liberals would want to continue that. They also would rather not allow the Middle East gain a democracy while getting fat in their country that assures them a right to vote and some human rights.

I'm so sick of these topics that I've stopped debating liberals. They outnumber us on this board so what's the point. They don't even listen just keep on screaming.

Don't even try talking to liberals. They are not advanced enough in the mind to understand how to debate without blaming Bush. Any thread that is about Iraq always turns into anti-america and anti-bush thread. Liberals are really smart, aren't they :rolleyes:
Ya know what I like about you?

It's that you don't result to petty insults. You can craft a well sealed argument which doesn't rely on warped numbers or opinions, and still make the other side feel respected.

I like that.

Don't even try talking to liberals. They are not advanced enough in the mind to understand how to debate without blaming Bush. Any thread that is about Iraq always turns into anti-america and anti-bush thread. Liberals are really smart, aren't they :rolleyes:

How have you managed 1700 posts with content like this. It is possible to slip under moderator radar for awhile, but 1700 posts is a lot.

Most people here don't understand what it is like living under a dictator. What they want is to stay out of Iraq while letting Saddam stay in power and kill more of his people. Have you see pictures of what Saddam did to prisoners? Liberals would want to continue that. They also would rather not allow the Middle East gain a democracy while getting fat in their country that assures them a right to vote and some human rights.

The middle east won't gain a secular democracy, at best they will get a theocratic republic. A great system of human rights just isn't going to happen there.

Don't even try talking to liberals. They are not advanced enough in the mind to understand how to debate without blaming Bush. Any thread that is about Iraq always turns into anti-america and anti-bush thread. Liberals are really smart, aren't they :rolleyes:

Most people here don't understand what it is like living under a dictator. What they want is to stay out of Iraq while letting Saddam stay in power and kill more of his people. Have you see pictures of what Saddam did to prisoners? Liberals would want to continue that. They also would rather not allow the Middle East gain a democracy while getting fat in their country that assures them a right to vote and some human rights.

I'm so sick of these topics that I've stopped debating liberals. They outnumber us on this board so what's the point. They don't even listen just keep on screaming.
Have you seen pictures of what Saudis and Iranians do to prisoners? That's where Iraq is heading.

How have you managed 1700 posts with content like this. It is possible to slip under moderator radar for awhile, but 1700 posts is a lot.

If they banned me, then they would have to ban all liberals. Aren't you making fun of Bush, calling him an idiot, moron, half-wit, dubba (:p), and other names. Why can't I call liberal's not smart?


The middle east won't gain a secular democracy, at best they will get a theocratic republic. A great system of human rights just isn't going to happen there.

How do you know that? huh. If I can remember, back in the 1800s and 1900s, people wouldn't have thought Russia would ever become democratic again? Were the right? Heck not. Give Middle East a chance and they will become more secure and democratic.

How do you know they won't gain secular democracy? Can you tell the future no. I'll bet you here, within 50 years, Middle East will be more democratic then it has ever been. You can't refute that claim. Look at all the pressure know for other countries to turn democratic. With the elections in Iraq and Palestine, other nation's are starting to yield. Saudi Arabia had their first historical local elections, Eygpt is actually having a presidential election that's not rigged (though its not the best still, but its coming too), and Liberaron (can't remember how to spell name but it was the country that Syria withdrew from) had it's elections.

Please tell me how this is for the worst.

Ya know what I like about you?

It's that you don't result to petty insults. You can craft a well sealed argument which doesn't rely on warped numbers or opinions, and still make the other side feel respected.

I like that.


I can't tell if your being sarcastic or for real. I can't really tell these things without a smily. ;)

Now now children, let's not get too excited or you'll be sent to bed without any dinner.

If you really want to know who I support, then I'll make it clear.

I support anyone who is against the vicious brutal, uncalled for violent attacking of innocent children with baseball bats.

If you lend your support to my counter political movement of All Against the Vicious Attacking of Children with Baseball Bats (AAVACBB) then It is with gratitude that I congratulate you on how consistent you are upon this thread.

BTW it is essential to take every possible move against the foolish United Front Against Callous Assaulting of Minors with Cricket Bats (UFACAMCB)... Just can't stand them.

Have you seen pictures of what Saudis and Iranians do to prisoners? That's where Iraq is heading.

Exactly how is Iraq heading that way? Show me proof, not unsourceless claims.

Now now children, let's not get too excited or you'll be sent to bed without any dinner.

If you really want to know who I support, then I'll make it clear.

I support anyone who is against the vicious brutal, uncalled for violent attacking of innocent children with baseball bats.

If you lend your support to my counter political movement of All Against the Vicious Attacking of Children with Baseball Bats (AAVACBB) then It is with gratitude that I congratulate you on how consistent you are upon this thread.

BTW it is essential to take every possible move against the foolish United Front Against Callous Assaulting of Minors with Cricket Bats (UFACAMCB)... Just can't stand them.

What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

Just putting into analogy just how different the two sides are in this debate

Or in other words,

1:hands up who here likes to see people die?

2: Hands up who here if they were to be given the responsibility of deciding for potentially thousands of people, how they would die, what they die for, when they die, and who... would they have a clue what to do?

mmmmmk, it's called armchair politics.

When in the dark don't play with matches...

So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?
You know what I hate? Pants, no one should wear pants, especially trolls. Trolls look horrible in pants.

If they banned me, then they would have to ban all liberals. Aren't you making fun of Bush, calling him an idiot, moron, half-wit, dubba (:p), and other names. Why can't I call liberal's not smart?
Because we're being accurate and you're being libelous. Bush has done some stupid crap in office. Most, not all, but most liberals on this forum are pretty bright.




How do you know that? huh. If I can remember, back in the 1800s and 1900s, people wouldn't have thought Russia would ever become democratic again? Were the right? Heck not. Give Middle East a chance and they will become more secure and democratic.


So in about a century Iraq may become democratic? And when exactly did we invade Russia to bring about regime change and precipitate this century long transformation to a democracy?


How do you know they won't gain secular democracy? Can you tell the future no. I'll bet you here, within 50 years, Middle East will be more democratic then it has ever been. You can't refute that claim. Look at all the pressure know for other countries to turn democratic. With the elections in Iraq and Palestine, other nation's are starting to yield. Saudi Arabia had their first historical local elections, Eygpt is actually having a presidential election that's not rigged (though its not the best still, but its coming too), and Liberaron (can't remember how to spell name but it was the country that Syria withdrew from) had it's elections.

Please tell me how this is for the worst.
Look who they're electing. Palestinians in Gaza overwhelmingly supported HAMAS for fuck's sake. Mubarak, if his government allows him to lose the election, will probably be replaced by radical Islamists. Syria pulled out of Lebanon, and all that did was get Hezbollah to start bombing Christian neighborhoods. That region, if allowed to, would democratically elect Osama Bin Laden.

You want a plan?

Put the troops on the first planes and ships home. Cut and run. Thats my plan.

You dont like it? So what? If you want to help iraq so much, move over there, sell your possessions and try to buy some people to fight the insurgents, raise money for the starving iraqi's, whatever you want. If you think they should be helped, you go do it. Don't make me, and my tax dollars too, do it.

There are over 150 nations that dont require our military babying them through everything, why is iraq any different? Because we fucked them up in the first place? Well, if you think that they are so much better off now, then we have already given them too much. Its not fair to all the other oppressed peoples.

If they banned me, then they would have to ban all liberals. Aren't you making fun of Bush, calling him an idiot, moron, half-wit, dubba (:p), and other names. Why can't I call liberal's not smart?

If George Bush was a regular poster on NS, I would be forbidden from referring to him as an idiot, a moron, or a half-wit. You are making generalized insults to a large portion of the posters on this forum, and the moderators won't stand for it.

How do you know that? huh. If I can remember, back in the 1800s and 1900s, people wouldn't have thought Russia would ever become democratic again? Were the right? Heck not. Give Middle East a chance and they will become more secure and democratic.

They do not have the economic or societal makings of a democratic society. They are religiously and financially dependent on those in positions of authority, so they will continue to be socially and economically controlled.

I can't tell if your being sarcastic or for real. I can't really tell these things without a smily. ;)

If you cant tell, then you aren't not smart either.

Exactly how is Iraq heading that way? Show me proof, not unsourceless claims.
Look at who makes up the government. Shiite Islamists, mainly. Look at the Sunnis. They're playing host to Islamist terrorists from throughout the region. Listen to the BBC, read the news, get informed and you'll know I'm right. I've heard interviews with Iraqi women who are afraid the protection from Islamists that they enjoyed under Saddam will disappear under the new, hyper-religious government.

Because we're being accurate and you're being libelous. Bush has done some stupid crap in office. Most, not all, but most liberals on this forum are pretty bright.

How do you know that I'm not accurate? If I remember I can say that all you guys talk about is crap. And if most liberals were smart they would actually listen. So tell me do you think conservatives that elected Bush are stupid? They were the ones to elect him.


So in about a century Iraq may become democratic? And when exactly did we invade Russia to bring about regime change and precipitate this century long transformation to a democracy?

No, in half-century will be seeing Iraq as stable as Western countries, though it will probably come more like 30-40 years before.


Look who they're electing. Palestinians in Gaza overwhelmingly supported HAMAS for fuck's sake. Mubarak, if his government allows him to lose the election, will probably be replaced by radical Islamists. Syria pulled out of Lebanon, and all that did was get Hezbollah to start bombing Christian neighborhoods. That region, if allowed to, would democratically elect Osama Bin Laden.

HAMAS is now done. HAMAS was built to get rid of Israel out of Palestine territory. Now that Israel has pulled out of Gaza, what do you think they are going to get supported for? They freaking kill their own people. They are losing their support. From what I remember,this President actually is trying for peace. Funny isn't it.

How do you know that Islamists will take control? The other elections haven't put islamist jehadist into control?

Look at who makes up the government. Shiite Islamists, mainly. Look at the Sunnis. They're playing host to Islamist terrorists from throughout the region. Listen to the BBC, read the news, get informed and you'll know I'm right. I've heard interviews with Iraqi women who are afraid the protection from Islamists that they enjoyed under Saddam will disappear under the new, hyper-religious government.

Really? I didn't know that women liked their daughters to be snatched up at the middle of the night and rapped by Saddam's henchmen?

Sunnis have some delegation in the constitution. Yes we could do better to let them come in, but we can only help limitly for a group that refuses to join.

How do you know that I'm not accurate? If I remember I can say that all you guys talk about is crap. And if most liberals were smart they would actually listen. So tell me do you think conservatives that elected Bush are stupid? They were the ones to elect him.

Uninformed is a much better word for it. And yes, I believe most conservatives arent as informed or intelligent about politics, but I think the same about most liberals. The people on this forum know a good amount about politics and such, however.

Well, most.

If George Bush was a regular poster on NS, I would be forbidden from referring to him as an idiot, a moron, or a half-wit. You are making generalized insults to a large portion of the posters on this forum, and the moderators won't stand for it.

Okay I'm making fun of liberals that don't post in this board. What you going to do about that? :p


They do not have the economic or societal makings of a democratic society. They are religiously and financially dependent on those in positions of authority, so they will continue to be socially and economically controlled.

Wasn't Europe once like that? Look at it now. There pratically socialist. ;)

If you cant tell, then you aren't not smart either.

If you can't tell I had a sarcastic smile after my post.

Uninformed is a much better word for it. And yes, I believe most conservatives arent as informed or intelligent about politics, but I think the same about most liberals. The people on this forum know a good amount about politics and such, however.

Well, most.

Okay then I'd like to know if you think conservatives that vote for Bush on the forum are uninformed?

Really? I didn't know that women liked their daughters to be snatched up at the middle of the night and rapped by Saddam's henchmen?

Im taking a wild stab, but I would be willing to guess that the rape rate in iraq, including what you just said there, is still less than in america.

You act like have the populace was being killed, tortured, or raped. No, it was a small number. The benefits outweighed the downfalls, at least by middle eastern standards.

How do you know that I'm not accurate? If I remember I can say that all you guys talk about is crap. And if most liberals were smart they would actually listen. So tell me do you think conservatives that elected Bush are stupid? They were the ones to elect him. Most people who voted for Bush were voting against their own economic and political self interest. I'd call that pretty dumb. Some were genuinely helped by Bush. The upper middle class, the wealthy, and the tremendously rich. Also those who own stock in haliburton and companies that produce goods for the military. Christian conservatives voted for him too, because somehow deaths from an pointless war are more pleasing to Jesus than two gay guys kissing.




No, in half-century will be seeing Iraq as stable as Western countries, though it will probably come more like 30-40 years before.Yeah, cause they're off to such a great start already.




HAMAS is now done. HAMAS was built to get rid of Israel out of Palestine territory. Now that Israel has pulled out of Gaza, what do you think they are going to get supported for? They freaking kill their own people. They are losing their support. From what I remember,this President actually is trying for peace. Funny isn't it.

How do you know that Islamists will take control? The other elections haven't put islamist jehadist into control?

Hamas and the majority of Palestinians see ALL of Israel as their land. You have, by this post, shown a complete ignorance of middle eastern politics. No wonder you're a Bush man. He's just as in the dark as you are.

Okay then I'd like to know if you think conservatives that vote for Bush on the forum are uninformed?

Im not going to make a generalization like that. Give me specific ones, and I will be willing to tell you, in private, what I think of them. Its inappropriate to say what I think about them on the forums, thats called flamebait.

Really? I didn't know that women liked their daughters to be snatched up at the middle of the night and rapped by Saddam's henchmen?

Sunnis have some delegation in the constitution. Yes we could do better to let them come in, but we can only help limitly for a group that refuses to join.
Women under Saddam's government had roughly equal rights to men. Women under the islamists that are poised to take power will be virtually chattel to be raped by anyone who wants and then stoned for adultery.

Im taking a wild stab, but I would be willing to guess that the rape rate in iraq, including what you just said there, is still less than in america.

You act like have the populace was being killed, tortured, or raped. No, it was a small number. The benefits outweighed the downfalls, at least by middle eastern standards.

So you say that the population was better off being scared to death by being taken away and tortured by Saddam's Special Police. Also they was better off with a man that mass killed his own people. Good job. You should get a cookie.

I can't believe this thread even got this far.

The origional poster, for all the logic he's using, is essentially saying "George W. Bush threw a bowling ball off of a tall building. All you gravatationists said that it was going to hit the ground and probably kill whoever it landed on. All you do is bitch and whine and complain about his ignorance of gravity and callous disregard for the safety of the pedestrians below. Well the fact is that he's dropped the ball and it's hurddling towards the ground as we speak. So what are you gravitationists going to do about it? What's your idea for keeping the bowling ball from hitting and killing someone? If we just leave it alone now, the bowling ball is going to break the pavement and possibly injure and kill someone. All your whining and mathematics do is to distract from the efforts catch the bowling ball. The people hanging out of third floor windows getting ready catch that bowling ball are being dishonored and demoralized by your efforts to point out that it is not humanly possible to catch a bowling ball dropped from a height of 800 feet. If we close the sidewalk until after the ball drops then the bowling ball wins."

It does seem pointedly inequitable to demand that liberals come up with an exit strategy for a conflict in which we did not wish to participate in the first place... however, here is mine.

Given unlimited resources, I would create a time machine, go back to where we got involved in the first place, and make sure we didn't.

There you go, I have saved many thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and kept us out of a war that we had no business being in in the first place. The Iraqi people are no worse off than they are now, or than they will be with a theocratic government, and they STILL aren't asking us to come over there and save them. The UN is being allowed to do its job, with our support. Cindy Sheehan is happily at home having dinner with her son. Just about the only person who is sad is W because he couldn't go beat up the guy who insulted his daddy, but with therapy, he will get over it.

Most people who voted for Bush were voting against their own economic and political self interest. I'd call that pretty dumb. Some were genuinely helped by Bush. The upper middle class, the wealthy, and the tremendously rich. Also those who own stock in haliburton and companies that produce goods for the military. Christian conservatives voted for him too, because somehow deaths from an pointless war are more pleasing to Jesus than two gay guys kissing.

Okay tell me what is our economic and political self-interest? Having flip-flopping liberals in office.


Yeah, cause they're off to such a great start already.

Better off then a lot other countries were in their first year of democratic.



Hamas and the majority of Palestinians see ALL of Israel as their land. You have, by this post, shown a complete ignorance of middle eastern politics. No wonder you're a Bush man. He's just as in the dark as you are.

Please, do you think Palestinians really want to keep on fighting. NO! You obviously don't know anything. You just think that because some small minority is fighting Israel, that the population supports them. Yeah they should support a group that has led Palestine into nothing but misery and chaos. Now what you just said at the end, you should be banned for, as actually pointed that at a specific person.

So you say that the population was better off being scared to death by being taken away and tortured by Saddam's Special Police. Also they was better off with a man that mass killed his own people. Good job. You should get a cookie.

Yes, they were. You want to show some numbers of how many actually disappeared from the secret police? And how many of them didnt have a legitimate reason for having that done? Im curious how many were randomly killed by these secret police. I really doubt that many were.

And if you mean mass killing the kurds, I consider that at least mostly justified. Not that he had done it in the last decade, but when he did, they were acting up. The US was telling them they should try to overthrow saddam. They were thought to be supporting the Iranians in the war. They were highly problematic, saddam dealt with them. He dealt with them harsh, but sometimes its better to use a sledgehammer than a flyswatter.

Women under Saddam's government had roughly equal rights to men. Women under the islamists that are poised to take power will be virtually chattel to be raped by anyone who wants and then stoned for adultery.

Equal right to be taken to his son and rapped. That's what was their right under him.

So you say that the population was better off being scared to death by being taken away and tortured by Saddam's Special Police. Also they was better off with a man that mass killed his own people. Good job. You should get a cookie.

A) that's exactly what we're doing to them now, plus we've let in the terrorists.
B) The Kurds were not "his own people. We provoked them to rise against Saddam and then abandoned them. How do you think Bush would react if some group tried to violently drive out the Federal government and overthrow the State government? I don't think he'd settle for cops with billyclubs.

Okay tell me what is our economic and political self-interest? Having flip-flopping liberals in office.

As opposed to having flip-flopping conservatives like bush?


Better off then a lot other countries were in their first year of democratic.


Their first year of democratic? What?

Equal right to be taken to his son and rapped. That's what was their right under him.

Which, relative to the population, happened very little. Now who is whining?

A) that's exactly what we're doing to them now, plus we've let in the terrorists.
B) The Kurds were not "his own people. We provoked them to rise against Saddam and then abandoned them. How do you think Bush would react if some group tried to violently drive out the Federal government and overthrow the State government? I don't think he'd settle for cops with billyclubs.

I can see it now. "President bush calls for the national guard to go into oakland, where mass riots have broken out. World condemns bush for the genocide of the african-americans."

Yes, they were. You want to show some numbers of how many actually disappeared from the secret police? And how many of them didnt have a legitimate reason for having that done? Im curious how many were randomly killed by these secret police. I really doubt that many were.

And if you mean mass killing the kurds, I consider that at least mostly justified. Not that he had done it in the last decade, but when he did, they were acting up. The US was telling them they should try to overthrow saddam. They were thought to be supporting the Iranians in the war. They were highly problematic, saddam dealt with them. He dealt with them harsh, but sometimes its better to use a sledgehammer than a flyswatter.

I wish I could show it to you but you know what, most of that information is gone because Saddam didn't keep that kind of records. His police just destroyed them.

Just to let you know, there was a man that hid in a hole in his house for 10 years to escape those police. You know what he did, nothing. Absolutely nothing against Saddam. He didn't even know why they were after them.

So from that post I can tell you supported that action. You really are a sick man.

Wasn't Europe once like that? Look at it now. There pratically socialist. ;)

Europe has gone through two and a half centuries of social revolution, economic revolution, and constant warfare to reach where they are. European development was sparked by massive amounts of resources not available to the Middle East. The only resource available to the Middle East is oil, and we are approaching the end of the oil age.

The Middle East doesn't stand a chance.

I can see it now. "President bush calls for the national guard to go into oakland, where mass riots have broken out. World condemns bush for the genocide of the african-americans."

Na, if Bush would spare national guard members for service in a predominantly black area they'd be in New Orleans right now, instead of Iraq.

A) that's exactly what we're doing to them now, plus we've let in the terrorists.
B) The Kurds were not "his own people. We provoked them to rise against Saddam and then abandoned them. How do you think Bush would react if some group tried to violently drive out the Federal government and overthrow the State government? I don't think he'd settle for cops with billyclubs.

A) How are we doing that? Are we torturing them on a mass-scale? Abu-Grahb was one of those rare incidents where people that had a hatred of Iraqis just went beserk.

B) You think Bush would use chemical and biological weapons against those uprisers. Well that shows a lot about you.

I wish I could show it to you but you know what, most of that information is gone because Saddam didn't keep that kind of records. His police just destroyed them.

Just to let you know, there was a man that hid in a hole in his house for 10 years to escape those police. You know what he did, nothing. Absolutely nothing against Saddam. He didn't even know why they were after them.

So from that post I can tell you supported that action. You really are a sick man.

I doubt the police were after the man for absolutely nothing. Source it.

So what you are saying, in regards to the rape, is that we should assume the numbers are incredibly high? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I support a leader fighting against dissent. He took out those who were against him in some way. He didnt randomly kill people. And as for the rapes, its sad, but it happens world-wide. Its not a reason to go to war.

As opposed to having flip-flopping conservatives like bush?




Their first year of democratic? What?

1) How is he flip-flopping? I'm pretty sure that he sticks with his policy, not going when things look bad to the other side.

2) Democratic government. People actually had a say in the government and weren't rulled by a dictator.

Which, relative to the population, happened very little. Now who is whining?

Most of his henchmen went out doing these kind of things. But of course they can't reach all the women, there aren't enough of them to get all the women.

Also I think you are suggesting that you don't care for people that got brutally rapped by Saddam's men.

A) How are we doing that? Are we torturing them on a mass-scale? Abu-Grahb was one of those rare incidents where people that had a hatred of Iraqis just went beserk.

B) You think Bush would use chemical and biological weapons against those uprisers. Well that shows a lot about you.

If you support the insurgents, the US will either raid your home, shoot you, or blow you up, depending on how much you support them. They just do it more publically.

And bush doesnt need to use chemical weapons(and want to show any proof that saddam used bio weaponry against his population?). Bush has control of the strongest military in the world.

A) How are we doing that? Are we torturing them on a mass-scale? Abu-Grahb was one of those rare incidents where people that had a hatred of Iraqis just went beserk.

So you're one of those Malus-pumilists huh (those who believe it was the work of a few "bad apples")?

The violence in Abu-Grahb and Gitmo were almost identical, and indicate a systematic cause rather than a spontaneous one.

B) You think Bush would use chemical and biological weapons against those uprisers. Well that shows a lot about you.

Tear gas is a chemical weapon. SWAT teams use it, dare I say it, liberally. And any explosive is a WMD.

Ok, here’s the thing – The liberal left is continually whining, moaning and bitching about how much they hate George Bush and how he got us into a war in Iraq premised on lies and deception, etc.
...
So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?

The first thing we should have done was reelect our great president, who got us into a war in Iraq premised on lies and deception, etc. That ought to have helped; I'm sure the above qualifies him as someone we can rely on to give us an exit strategy.

Oh, wait.

Europe has gone through two and a half centuries of social revolution, economic revolution, and constant warfare to reach where they are. European development was sparked by massive amounts of resources not available to the Middle East. The only resource available to the Middle East is oil, and we are approaching the end of the oil age.

The Middle East doesn't stand a chance.

Oh really. If I remember, Europe isn't very resource rich compared to other nations. They got most of their resources from America.

But your right, we can't give resources to ME :rolleyes:

Conservatives hate us for our freedoms.

Most of his henchmen went out doing these kind of things. But of course they can't reach all the women, there aren't enough of them to get all the women.

Also I think you are suggesting that you don't care for people that got brutally rapped by Saddam's men.

I care for them as much as I care for people who are raped every day in the world. It happens, its sad, but its not a reason to spend billions of dollars and thousands of american lives to stop. If they had wanted to revolt so bad, I bet they could have. They seem to be doing well against the US, and we have a much better army than saddam.

Okay tell me what is our economic and political self-interest? Having flip-flopping liberals in office.




Better off then a lot other countries were in their first year of democratic.





Please, do you think Palestinians really want to keep on fighting. NO! You obviously don't know anything. You just think that because some small minority is fighting Israel, that the population supports them. Yeah they should support a group that has led Palestine into nothing but misery and chaos. Now what you just said at the end, you should be banned for, as actually pointed that at a specific person.
1) Flip flopping? You're seriously going to bring up that old media soundbite LIE from the campaign? At least Kerry isn't dumb enough to think that our school's students should be learning religion in science class. At least Kerry wouldn't get in the way of medical technology by banning theraputic cloning and stem cell research.

Bush is as much of a flip flopper as kerry. Remember when he said anyone tied to the Valerie Plame incident would be shitcanned. Then when it turned out to be Rove Bush flip flopped and said that Rove wouldn't be shitcanned.

You're obviously brainwashed and cannot think for yourself if you'll condem Kerry for flip flopping, but won't condem bush for doing the exact same thing under more serious circumstances.


2) Iraq is in slow-motion civil war between Shi'ite islamists and Sunni islamists. The only thing keeping that mess together is coalition military power. When we're gone, so's Iraq.

3) Keep blabbing your ignorant bull. The last Palestinian elections are STILL on hold because Abu Mazen knows he'll lose more control to HAMAS.

1) How is he flip-flopping? I'm pretty sure that he sticks with his policy, not going when things look bad to the other side.

2) Democratic government. People actually had a say in the government and weren't rulled by a dictator.

1. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263

There are plenty more websites on the subject. Bush has a long history of flip-flopping.

2. Sorry, when you say things like that while excluding choice words, its hard to understand you.

If you support the insurgents, the US will either raid your home, shoot you, or blow you up, depending on how much you support them. They just do it more publically.

Actually that is untrue. Most are taken as prisoners and sent to prison.

And bush doesnt need to use chemical weapons(and want to show any proof that saddam used bio weaponry against his population?). Bush has control of the strongest military in the world.

Obviously you are really don't know much. I'm sad to even talk to you. Also do I really need to show you proof that Saddam gassed his people (my bad about Biological [can't remember if he used that too] but he did use chemical)
Just go do a google about that.

Where are the liberal’s positive ideas, plans and opinions about what to do now? Where are the suggestions about how to end the war and bring our guys home? Is it the liberal position we should just “cut and run” and leave Iraq in chaos with the certainty of civil war and islamofacism ready to step in and create another Talibanesque or Iranian type theocracy of hatred?
There is not just one liberal position. Some liberals advocate a foolish cut-and-run strategy. Most others advocate finishing the job there, without permitting the insurgents to take over. A precious few left-wingers, such as me, supported the war in the first place and support its conclusion when the job is done.

1) How is he flip-flopping? I'm pretty sure that he sticks with his policy, not going when things look bad to the other side.

He was against a Homeland Security Department.
Then he was for it.

He was against the McCain Feingold campaign finance bill.
But then he was for it.

Bush said he was for free trade.
But then he put on steel tariffs.
Then he was against the tariffs again.

Bush said the states should decide about gay marriage.
Then he was for changing the Constitution.

Bush said he would put mandatory caps on Carbon Dioxide.
Then he said he wouldn’t.

Bush said he’d leave no child behind.
But refused to fund it, leaving millions of children of behind.

Bush said he was against an independent 9/11 commission.
But then reluctantly agreed to one.

Bush said we were going to war in Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein.
But when it turned out there weren’t any WMD’s, he said the war was to fight al Qaeda.
But then he admitted there was no evidence of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda
So then he said the war was to bring Western style democracy to the entire Middle East.

He said he wouldn’t invade Iraq without a vote in the UN.
But then he invaded without a vote.

He said he was ushering in an era of personal responsibility.
But refuses to take responsibility for all his flip-flops.

I wish I could show it to you but you know what, most of that information is gone because Saddam didn't keep that kind of records. His police just destroyed them.

Just to let you know, there was a man that hid in a hole in his house for 10 years to escape those police. You know what he did, nothing. Absolutely nothing against Saddam. He didn't even know why they were after them.

So from that post I can tell you supported that action. You really are a sick man.
Now you're outright lying. Human rights watch has the records. I've seen them. Keep talking shit. Your credibility is already gone.

Oh really. If I remember, Europe isn't very resource rich compared to other nations. They got most of their resources from America.

The most important of the resources was food. Europe had a great deal, the Middle East does not.

But your right, we can't give resources to ME :rolleyes:

We can't afford to give the amount of resources it would take.

Sorry to say, I'm not going to debate anymore. I answer one post and then have 5 posts to read. It would be much easier to answer everyone arguements if this was one-on-one, but that's not going to happen. I can't argue with 3 people won't let me finish the first round of the debate. Anyways I have to go get ready for a party. So see ya.

Actually that is untrue. Most are taken as prisoners and sent to prison.

Hence the raiding part. Guess what? The same is true for saddam. Just because people were taken away, there is no reason to believe they were all killed.

Obviously you are really don't know much. I'm sad to even talk to you. Also do I really need to show you proof that Saddam gassed his people (my bad about Biological [can't remember if he used that too] but he did use chemical)
Just go do a google about that.

What part of mine are you arguing against? Yes, there was a chemical attack in halabjah(although thats disputed by CIA analysts). So what? If things got to as bad a point as they were in iraq, Bush would have the military out there "keeping control" with bullets and tear gas. Things just dont get that bad here.

Conservatives hate us for our freedoms.

No, as Bush put it "they hate us for out freedom." So he's getting rid of our freedom so that they won't hate us anymore. ;)

Sorry to say, I'm not going to debate anymore. I answer one post and then have 5 posts to read. It would be much easier to answer everyone arguements if this was one-on-one, but that's not going to happen. I can't argue with 3 people won't let me finish the first round of the debate. Anyways I have to go get ready for a party. So see ya.

Maybe if you didnt make outlandish, and outright wrong arguments, you wouldnt have so many people arguing against you, from both "libs" and "conservatives".

I care for them as much as I care for people who are raped every day in the world. It happens, its sad, but its not a reason to spend billions of dollars and thousands of american lives to stop. If they had wanted to revolt so bad, I bet they could have. They seem to be doing well against the US, and we have a much better army than saddam.

It's funny how when conservatives are trying to justify war they're all for humanitarian spending, but then we hear conservatives saying "the government shouldn't waste tax payer dollars to rebuild New Orleans." Or "it's sad that children are dying of starvationg and dyptheria in 3rd world nations, but the government isn't a charity, it's not our government's job to fix the worlds problems."

Apparently humanitarianism is only a good thing when it means you get to blow a lot of people up.

1) Flip flopping? You're seriously going to bring up that old media soundbite LIE from the campaign? At least Kerry isn't dumb enough to think that our school's students should be learning religion in science class. At least Kerry wouldn't get in the way of medical technology by banning theraputic cloning and stem cell research.

Bush is as much of a flip flopper as kerry. Remember when he said anyone tied to the Valerie Plame incident would be shitcanned. Then when it turned out to be Rove Bush flip flopped and said that Rove wouldn't be shitcanned.

You're obviously brainwashed and cannot think for yourself if you'll condem Kerry for flip flopping, but won't condem bush for doing the exact same thing under more serious circumstances.


2) Iraq is in slow-motion civil war between Shi'ite islamists and Sunni islamists. The only thing keeping that mess together is coalition military power. When we're gone, so's Iraq.

3) Keep blabbing your ignorant bull. The last Palestinian elections are STILL on hold because Abu Mazen knows he'll lose more control to HAMAS.

1) No that's not flip-flopping. Show me proof where he says that he want's to teach religion instead of evolution in the school studies. Show me where it says he banned stem cell research. Instead he said that he would not allow government fund to fund research but private companies could at their own will. That's saying we won't subsidize it.

2) I highly doubt that a civil war will occur. Yes they are fighting, but most Shi'ite are very friendly to Sunni. It happens to be that a minority wants you to think what you are already thinking. Good job you've been brainwashed.

3) How are Palestine's election's on hold? I remember that they already occured.

I'm so glad Bush is a uniter, not a divider. Imagine how bad this flamewar would be if he wasn't.

Now you're outright lying. Human rights watch has the records. I've seen them. Keep talking shit. Your credibility is already gone.

Then that's good. You've seen them, then you probably have realised all those abuses and such. Oh yeah, how could human rights get all the abuses? Wouldn't Saddam's men burn paper's first. It's not like they want to be caught.

My credibility stands. I think this is the normal reaction when someone opposes the majority of the community. My bad for opposing you almighty. :rolleyes:

You're absolutely right. People need to stop whining, moaning and bitching about the past. I shot someone in the stomach a few days ago, and now he's pressing charges! I try to tell him, "man, it doesn't matter how we got here, all that matters is where we are now." but he just doesn't listen for some reason.

:rolleyes:

hi-fucking-larious rofl :D

The most important of the resources was food. Europe had a great deal, the Middle East does not.



We can't afford to give the amount of resources it would take.

Considering that this is where the UN excels, I think they should be put to work.

That's the UN's job.

[QUOTE=Space Union]2) I highly doubt that a civil war will occur. Yes they are fighting, but most Shi'ite are very friendly to Sunni. It happens to be that a minority wants you to think what you are already thinking. Good job you've been brainwashed.

Brainwashed by whom? our beliefs are the supposed minority. Though most analysts disagree with you, saying there probably will be civil war. But you know better than them.

Dont you have a party to get ready for? Or can your D&D group wait for their lvl 12 thief?

What part of mine are you arguing against? Yes, there was a chemical attack in halabjah(although thats disputed by CIA analysts). So what? If things got to as bad a point as they were in iraq, Bush would have the military out there "keeping control" with bullets and tear gas. Things just dont get that bad here.

I guess genocide doesn't really impact you much.

I doubt Bush would bring in bullets. Come on, why don't you think before you post.

Considering that this is where the UN excels, I think they should be put to work.

That's the UN's job.

The UN is already doing it in asia, africa, and south america, as well as europe. The Middle east is where they are least wanted, so thats that.

1) No that's not flip-flopping. Show me proof where he says that he want's to teach religion instead of evolution in the school studies. Show me where it says he banned stem cell research. Instead he said that he would not allow government fund to fund research but private companies could at their own will. That's saying we won't subsidize it.

2) I highly doubt that a civil war will occur. Yes they are fighting, but most Shi'ite are very friendly to Sunni. It happens to be that a minority wants you to think what you are already thinking. Good job you've been brainwashed.

3) How are Palestine's election's on hold? I remember that they already occured.
1) I didn't say he wanted to teach religion instead of evolution. His comments make it clear he wants to teach religion ALONGSIDE evolution. You're right that he didn't ban stem cell research, but he did prohibit federal funding of same. (See, when reasonable people make a mistake they admit it)

2) It's already happening. Open your eyes. Sunni militants killed a shitload of Shia this morning. There's a split opening up in the Shia population, the whole country is gone to shit.

3) There were supposed to be elections a couple of months ago. Abbas put them on hold because he was afraid HAMAS would sweep them. HAMAS swept the Gaza elections not too long ago. Look it up.

I'm so glad Bush is a uniter, not a divider. Imagine how bad this flamewar would be if he wasn't.

I'm also thankful he's bringing dignity (http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/a/189374.htm) back to the White House.

I guess genocide doesn't really impact you much.

I doubt Bush would bring in bullets. Come on, why don't you think before you post.

If people were armed, and actively trying to overthrow the government, I have no doubt that bush would let the army begin firing.

And genocide impacts me. What saddam did was in no way genocide. A large group of people were dissenting against him. He killed a number of them. He wasnt trying to kill kurds, he was trying to kill dissenters.

[QUOTE=Space Union]2) I highly doubt that a civil war will occur. Yes they are fighting, but most Shi'ite are very friendly to Sunni. It happens to be that a minority wants you to think what you are already thinking. Good job you've been brainwashed.

Brainwashed by whom? our beliefs are the supposed minority. Though most analysts disagree with you, saying there probably will be civil war. But you know better than them.

Dont you have a party to get ready for? Or can your D&D group wait for their lvl 12 thief?

What are you talking about? Prove me wrong then. Let's see if a civil war will happen.

For your info, I don't lay D&D you idiot. But you have such knowledge about it you must be their biggest fan. But your right I'm leaving now.

[QUOTE=Chellis]

What are you talking about? Prove me wrong then. Let's see if a civil war will happen.

For your info, I don't lay D&D you idiot. But you have such knowledge about it you must be their biggest fan. But your right I'm leaving now.

I cant prove you wrong, unless I have a time machine. You cant prove me wrong either, so that was a moot point you made.

And thanks for the flaming.

Then that's good. You've seen them, then you probably have realised all those abuses and such. Oh yeah, how could human rights get all the abuses? Wouldn't Saddam's men burn paper's first. It's not like they want to be caught.

My credibility stands. I think this is the normal reaction when someone opposes the majority of the community. My bad for opposing you almighty. :rolleyes:
The white house has many of his abuses available on their website. I've posted a link to Human Rights Watch's list of Iraqi evidence that Saddam gassed the Kurds when someone on this board said Iran did it. The proof is out there straight from the Iraqi records.

Keep lying pal. I want everyone on this board to know where you stand.

You know, I'm not gonna say Saddam was a good guy or anything, but, from what I understand, the US kept supporting him financially when he gassed his own people, so it seems kinda hypocritical to me that we keep bringing that up, since our country was partly responsible for it too.

I'de rather have a government rather than Anarchy....

the neocons are making a mess out iraq as it stands. The new constitution being drafted is a joke and as it stands it will turn the place into more of a warzone than it already is. Cutting and running for it is suddenly not such a bad idea for the righties, which is what they are doing in trying to get that constitution rushed through, already contradicting their original goal to bring their patented brand of americanized christian fundamentalist democracy to the country.

Don't even try talking to liberals. They are not advanced enough in the mind to understand how to debate without blaming Bush. Any thread that is about Iraq always turns into anti-america and anti-bush thread. Liberals are really smart, aren't they :rolleyes:

Most people here don't understand what it is like living under a dictator. What they want is to stay out of Iraq while letting Saddam stay in power and kill more of his people. Have you see pictures of what Saddam did to prisoners? Liberals would want to continue that. They also would rather not allow the Middle East gain a democracy while getting fat in their country that assures them a right to vote and some human rights.

I'm so sick of these topics that I've stopped debating liberals. They outnumber us on this board so what's the point. They don't even listen just keep on screaming.
I agree. To be anti-war was to be, objectively, pro-Hussein.

But it's rather hypocritical to lament that liberals don't listen to your arguments, while claiming that they are simple minded.

The middle east won't gain a secular democracy, at best they will get a theocratic republic. A great system of human rights just isn't going to happen there.
It happened in the West, in South America; it can happen there. The cultures of the Middle East have been allowed to stagnate for too long.

Wasn't Europe once like that? Look at it now. There pratically socialist. ;)
Is that not a good thing?

And if you mean mass killing the kurds, I consider that at least mostly justified. Not that he had done it in the last decade, but when he did, they were acting up. The US was telling them they should try to overthrow saddam. They were thought to be supporting the Iranians in the war. They were highly problematic, saddam dealt with them. He dealt with them harsh, but sometimes its better to use a sledgehammer than a flyswatter.
This is unacceptable! 280,000 Kurds were killed by Hussein. Most of them were non-combatants. Under current international law, massacres of civilians are not considered legitimate targets.

Let me remind you liberals that you have your hands in this too. Bill Clinton along with liberal democrats made regime change the official US policy. They did it on the grounds that Hussein had wmd's. Remember, 17 UN resolutions. You are just shocked by men of action, that's all. Men who's word means something. You know when substance is more important than empty rhetoric.

Yes, the US backed up Hussein. Yes, the US back up the Muja Haddin(Bin Laden was only a soldier at the time). Remember Ayatollah Kommeini. Remember the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.
The US backed up Stalin during WWII, would you also like to condemn us for that as well.

What did the Taliban do to merit an invasion? The only thing I can think of is allowing terrorists to train there and refusing to give up Al Quaeda leaders. The Taliban was never accused of cooperating in or planning the 911 attacks.

Ever heard of Abu Nadal? No didn't think you had. Anyway, before 911, he was the most wanted man in the world. His office was in down town Baghdad. Ever heard of Zarquawi, he was treated in a v.i.p hospital in Iraq shortly after being wounded in Afganistan. I suppose the reward money Hussein gave to terrorists in Israeli bombings didn't count because only jews were killed. Other people killed by them terrorists were just incidental so we can't condemn Saddam for their deaths. The bottom line is that if you didn't think Saddam was a direct threat to the US your politcal and economic views start out as empty and childish to say the least. Liberal racists, so let me get this right, you don't think arabs are genetically advanced enough to benefit from liberal forms of government or are they just culturally to backward? Hmmm?

I have to say that the idea of 'bringing' democracy to Iraq seems a bit ridiculous to me to be honest. Democracy is something that people need to acquire themselves, you can't just hand it to them. Sure, you can give them a vote, but what'll they do with it? They'll probably look to their leaders (be they religious or otherwise), whom ofcourse don't wish to relinquish power, which puts you soundly back on square one.
Unless people can combine the notion of being free with the idea what to with that freedom, you have no basis for a healthy democracy. The problem with this is that it usually takes a lot of time to establish (several generations) and requires a higher level of general education than is now to be had in Iraq. This is true for other countries besides Iraq, its just that they're very prominently on the foreground at the moment.

Also, I don't see the huge problem with the breaking up of Iraq. Sure, you'd get a few countries where there used to be one and the politics are polarized aspects of the general politics of the bigger country. Countries aren't static things with static borders, nor should they ever be. there have been enough civil wars in the past to prove that point.

whew, got that off my chest, back into lurk mode

2) I highly doubt that a civil war will occur. Yes they are fighting, but most Shi'ite are very friendly to Sunni. It happens to be that a minority wants you to think what you are already thinking. Good job you've been brainwashed.

Brainwashed by whom? our beliefs are the supposed minority. Though most analysts disagree with you, saying there probably will be civil war. But you know better than them.

Dont you have a party to get ready for? Or can your D&D group wait for their lvl 12 thief?


What are you talking about? Prove me wrong then. Let's see if a civil war will happen.

For your info, I don't lay D&D you idiot. But you have such knowledge about it you must be their biggest fan. But your right I'm leaving now.

Chellis and Space Union: Both of you need to calm down immediately. If I see you two at again, you'll both receive official warnings. Got it?

Why are all the conservatives who have shown themselves in this thread so angry? It's like they are barely able to contain their rage at the evil liberals.

The white house has many of his abuses available on their website. I've posted a link to Human Rights Watch's list of Iraqi evidence that Saddam gassed the Kurds when someone on this board said Iran did it. The proof is out there straight from the Iraqi records.

Keep lying pal. I want everyone on this board to know where you stand.

Why are we arguing over this? I want people to see that because it proves my point.

And my friend, how am I lying? I'm glad people know where I stand about Iraq policy. ;)

Euroslavia: Okay, I won't fight anymore.

Yeah, those whiny fucking liberals really should shut up and let Bush continue to carry on his wonderful war. :rolleyes:

People like Senator Chuck Hagel. Damn commie.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/18/hagel.iraq/

And my friend, how am I lying?
Well, you lied when you said that all the records of the human rights abuses were destroyed. You also apparently lied when you said you had a party to go to.

Well, you lied when you said that all the records of the human rights abuses were destroyed. You also apparently lied when you said you had a party to go to.

Sorry, I misread a report and was under the assumption that it was destroyed when the "luiting period" occured in Iraq. Never mind then.

Also what are you talking about? I went to the party. I went at 5:10 and came back 7:00. I've been gone for 2 hours.

Yeah, those whiny fucking liberals really should shut up and let Bush continue to carry on his wonderful war. :rolleyes:

People like Senator Chuck Hagel. Damn commie.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/18/hagel.iraq/


I cant wait to see the pendulum swing right back into your right wing face asshole!

I cant wait to see the pendulum swing right back into your right wing face asshole!

1. Don't flame.

2. I was obviously being sarcastic.

3. Read the link on who Chuck Hagel is and what he said. Conservative Republican Senator that says Iraq ia turning into another Vietnam. (And he's a 'Nam Vet with 2 purple hearts.)

Well I actually do practice, and theoretically, a state guided by Islam in its true form is supposed to treat women as equals, but I honestly don't believe that religion and government should be intermingled, because there are way too many crazies then who have power. In Saddam Hussein's favor, not that there is much good that could be said about him, but he did try to secularize Iraq, and yes, he had to supress the Shi'ites to do so, because they are generally the most conservative and fundamentalist Muslims (apart from the Wahabis). The result of his efforts was that women had more freedom in Iraq than anywhere else in the Middle East, not exactly up to par with what they would have in a western nation, but on the way there. Now that the US invaded Iraq and screwed everything up, the Shi'ites have been given the main balance of power, and they are the least secular of the bunch, so I forsee a huge mess for decades to come.

I should mention that the Kurds are actually quite secular as well, they tend to be Christian or Sunni, and in fact allow women in their armies and so forth.


The Koran says explicitly that men and women are created unequal; not “Adam and Eve” but “Men and Women”. It also says that if your wife is disobedient, you should set her on the bed and chastise her, though you should not beat her too severely. These do not sound like examples of “Equal” to me.

This will be a hard sell on your part, I know the contents of the Koran well, I can muddle through Arabic or Turkish.

Saddam was a Moslem, but not a Communist political leader and not a religious leader. I can not say he is better than the Shiites, but the world is certainly better off without him, whatever some fools say. Such fools should spend some time with the victims of his regime, by which I mean paved under cement.

I am not sure so correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the conservatives want to “cut and run” from Kosovo, a faslely started war, as well?

Is it just me or does this sound an awful lot like the "You don't want Saddam back do you?" argument? And both of these sound like like Squealer asking the other animals if they want Jones back, don't they?

First off why do we need to present you a plan? President Bush either needs to develop a plan himself or have the Pentagon make one, because this falls on his shoulders as CinC to pull the American troops out of any situation that they are in. But, if it was my responsibility, which you are assuming that it is, to get Americans out of Irag and Afghanistan, then it would have to be to give the Generals troop levels and equipment that they need, and work twice as hard to get the Iraqi defense forces up to the equivelent amount of people that it takes us to handle by ourselves.But then again I don't develop American military doctrine, now do I?

And also, I don't call you "neo-con", so don't call me "lib".


America should be ashamed of what Clinton did to Serbia. Some Frenchmen published a picture of a starving refuge with some barbed wire and everyone is talking about “Ethnic Cleansing”. Well, the Photographer was actually surrounded by barbed wire to protect him from the refuges and the refuges were all passing by under their own free will, to pretty much anywhere they pleased.

How many “Executions” have been proven, sixteen. Why were they executed? Accusations of Terrorism. Were they guilty? As far as anyone knows.

Serbia was a victim of terrorism, invaded by the same bunch of people who worked with Hitler and built towers with Christian Skulls as a monument to Islamic Tolerance and we accused them of Ethnic Cleansing? We should have Bombed Kosovo!

For that matter, we should bomb the “Rebels” that France is protecting in Northern Ivory Coast. Serbia and Lebanon are repeating themselves.

This is unacceptable! 280,000 Kurds were killed by Hussein. Most of them were non-combatants. Under current international law, massacres of civilians are not considered legitimate targets.

You want to source that number? From what I've seen, its 100,000+ killed or disappeared. Sad, but hardly the numbers you claim.

The Koran says explicitly that men and women are created unequal; not “Adam and Eve” but “Men and Women”.

Hmm ...

3:195 "... I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female, you are equal to one another ..."

4:124 "As for those who lead a righteous life, male or female, while believing, they enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice"

16:97 "Anyone who works righteousness, male or female, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their full recompense for their righteous works."

Bukhary may have said "Women are naturally, morally and religiously defective", but not Allah.

Don't be a Hadithist. Hadith is a stain upon Islam.

As for the woman beating, you're wrong there too.

4:34 "The men are made responsible for the women, and Allah has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is Allah's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. Allah is Most High, Supreme."

At first glance this verse may appear as if promoting physical abuse of women. But when reading 4:34 carefully one realizes that it actually prohibits abuse and beating of women by using the best psychological approach.

The advise to first talk and then avoid sexual contact, provides the necessary time and space for both parties to cool off, reason, examine the problem and reach a favorable agreement for both of them.

Abuse of a wife will not happen if the man learns to follow the clear commandments of Allah in this verse and in the order decreed. Abuse will only happen when a man does not follow these commandments, and thus fails to cool off and reason with himself or with his wife.

I, for one, am a Liberal Hawk. In case you didn't know that means I like having a strong military and being proactive in International Affairs. In my opinion we are in a standstill. There is no damn reason not to support our troops, the war, well...its not really a war on any conventional scales, more like an engagement and psychologically played.

Now that the small personal facts are there...

We are there, and quite frankly, I highly doubt any actual plan has been made for withdrawl. As I see it we will stay until our job is done, and that is ensuring a security in ratio to the nations size. Right now I see a ratio of chaos the is out of reasonable proportions and that must be fixed, but to really fix it, it needs to be done by the Iraqi Armed Forces to show Insurgents and others that the nations own Armed Forces can take care of the task. Although the US Forces are doing a goodjob, they must soon severe the cord of being one of the primary engagement forces and become more of a backup for the Iraqi Forces. In this sense the Iraqi's can call in US Forces to help if the situation really needs it. The logical thing to do would be not to rush train Iraqi Forces but to actually train them and condition them. Equip them to reasonable and logical standards, they don't all have to have M-16A2 rifles, but to some extent each should be trained in basic rifle uses with an AK-74/47 and other varients of Russian/Chinese weaponry that is no doubt in circulation in that area. They should also be more specialized in a chosen area then currently done so, but to do so would require "proper" trainers and training. When this is done and the Iraqi's are trained and equipped to logical standards then they can truly begin to do actual tasks on there own two feet.

The constitution is going to be tough as with three different groups, and at least one wishing succession, a formal constitution would have to be rigorously upheld in a very un-democratic way. In this sense you must be able to apply non-combatant forces of the US, statisticians, political scientist, logical backgroups, and foremost I believe at least some form of Civil Rights infastructure build. The "general" problem when Iraq becomes its own country in the not to distant future will be biasm in the courts and police and military and...etc. etc. These problems are overall hard to avoid since, realistically, there are still those in the US that think the South is the Confederacy, etc. etc. As you can see it must be 4-7 generations at least until the Iraqi's can put aside there difference without splitting in the middle as much as having small facations that are no longer loud minorities, but small and quiet and extinct groups. Personally I feel the answer would to grant semi-autonomy to the three ethnic groups. Let them elect leaders of there choice for there own regions and then let them elect national leaders, but having more power in states-rights. I know some of you moan at this, thinking, CIVIL WAR, and Nation State rivaleries that could go over the edge. Well odds are probably for that. This is another case in which an extremely strong, trained, and equipped Iraqi Armed Forces would have to be able to claim no strong ties to any groups to avoid certain problems. When this happens the Armed Forces will be able to combat radicals that wish only harm to Iraq and those supporting the radicals, in which they would accomplish making Iraq more like the US, unfortunately. In short (which this is) the only answer is stay until we finish our damn job. We went over there, big mistake, but not the time to complain anymore, its time to start planning our way to making Iraq strong, not how to get out. The only way we will get out without collasping Iraq is if we plan on making it strong enough to stand on its own two feet.

So my liberal brethern and my conservative friends, let us think of this "war" as it should be seen, not get in or out, but make Iraq strong enough to stand up and then, maybe, the Iraqi's could usher us out on there own, and by Iraqi's I mean a combined and majority of the Iraqi Government.

Thanks for your time.
~A Liberal Hawk

!Yeah, thats all opinion, but what else could it be? (don't answer that last question.)!

:headbang: This is getting annoying. BOTH sides. I could beat anyone in this entire game as far as my right-wingedness and support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. But even I recognize that the in-fighting amongst ourselves is ridiculous.
My words for the liberals is "QUIT YOUR DANG WHINING!!!" You guys are the whiniest bunch of people on planet earth, (not to mention the fact that most of you are incapable of having a rational discussion, or when you do, cannot win a debate, and also feel insecure without fighting in large groups.)
To Conservatives, I would say- Anyone with their head on straight knows we will not defeat the terrorists at the rate we're going. We have allowed our hands and our military's hands to be bound by political correctness and touchy-feely attitudes towards terrorists and Islam in general. I, personally have no problem with the real religion. But we have not heard one condemnation from anyone who is Muslim. Don't anyone try to tell you otherwise, for it is not true. We must win this war, the same way we beat Nazi Germany. We bomb the living daylights out of the terrorists, wherever they are. We give three days notice and time for evacuation of the Sunni Triangle, and bomb the place til there's nothing but rubble. I don't care what mosque you just destroyed. No one spared the Cathedrals of Europe. I don't care if the "Holy Quran" is desecrated. No one cares about desecration of the Bible or Torah. We must quit trying to make war "clean". War is not clean, it is HELL. And we'd better rain hell on the terrorists until they are no more. Yes, many innocent lives were lost in WWII, and many innocent lives have and will be destroyed in this war. War innately does that. But if we don't show absolute strength against terrorism, they will not go away. They understand, and will submit to complete force, for it is all they understand. YOU CANNOT PLAY FOOTSIE WITH THE TERRORISTS!!! YOU MUST KILL THEM!!! :sniper: IF ISLAM IS REALLY A RELIGION OF PEACE THEN THE GOOD ARABS WILL NOT BECOME NEW TERRORISTS, PUSHED TO THE EDGE (as some predict if we actually use manly strength)
IF ISLAM IS REALLY A RELIGION OF PEACE, THEN THE MUSLIMS OF THE WORLD HAD BETTER START FIGHTING THE TERRORISTS. :mp5:
IF ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE, THEN THE FAMILIES OF THE TERRORISTS WILL DISOWN THEM.
IF ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE, THEN THE MUSLIMS OF THE MIDDLE EAST WILL KILL THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES, INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR AMERICA OR ISRAEL TO DO IT, SO THAT THEY CAN BLAME THEIR PROBLEMS ON ISRAEL AND AMERICA.
IT IS TIME TO (as our Founding Fathers in America would say) "STAND UP TO THEM WITH MANLY FORCE".
I close my case.

But we have not heard one condemnation from anyone who is Muslim.

What the bloody fuck are you talking about?

http://www.cmcla.org/press_r/condem_attacks.htm
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-03/29/article05.shtml
http://www.americanmuslimwoman.com/id14.html
http://www.freemuslims.org/
http://www.isboston.org/v3.1/viewitem.asp?DocID=850&ItemTypeID=6
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011182.php
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=37428&theType=NB
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1410339.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1422666.htm
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=1062
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

See ... this is the problem ... we Liberals may whine a bit, but you Neocons go through life not seeing past your own nose.

I support a leader fighting against dissent. He took out those who were against him in some way. He didnt randomly kill people. And as for the rapes, its sad, but it happens world-wide. Its not a reason to go to war.

Somehow I doubt you would support it if Bush sent the ATF, FBI, DEA, Secret Service, etc. in to "take out" Cindy Sheehan or Micheal Moore or other liberals who are dissenting against his policy, but it is OK for Sadam to do so? I also seem to believe that if Bush embarked on a campaign to "take out" the liberals, you would support the invasion of the U.S. by another country which sought to take Bush out of power and put an end to his actions in taking out dissidents. The convuleted logic of liberalism gives me a headache, it really is a mental disorder.

Why are all the conservatives who have shown themselves in this thread so angry? It's like they are barely able to contain their rage at the evil liberals.

Conservative politics are based on two things. Fear and anger. Nothing else. Sometimes you'll get them in what passes for an honest moment in their circles and they'll claim that it's materialism, but it isn't. Most conservatives benifit more from taxes than taxes cost them. If the Federal government were to truly implement the tax policies that conservatives advocate then they would quickly go broke when the tax subsidies, financed by more lucrative primarily liberal states, dried up.

They're afraid that their culture has become obsolete and is being abandoned. They call it "decline in moral values."

They're afraid that they will become a minority, they cry "America for Americans," and "they're takin' our jobs."

They're angry that something they do might be of benifit to someone else, so they decry "the nanny state."

They're afraid and angry that they've denied themselves lives of peace, prosperity, happiness, and love by following hateful cantankerous decietful leaders in religion and politics so they describe the sins of every Republican and minister as an excess of a virtue and the virtues of Democrats and liberals as being the moderated version of the sin it would be if it were done to excess.

I, for one, am a Liberal Hawk. In case you didn't know that means I like having a strong military and being proactive in International Affairs. In my opinion we are in a standstill. There is no damn reason not to support our troops, the war, well...its not really a war on any conventional scales, more like an engagement and psychologically played.

Now that the small personal facts are there...

We are there, and quite frankly, I highly doubt any actual plan has been made for withdrawl. As I see it we will stay until our job is done, and that is ensuring a security in ratio to the nations size. Right now I see a ratio of chaos the is out of reasonable proportions and that must be fixed, but to really fix it, it needs to be done by the Iraqi Armed Forces to show Insurgents and others that the nations own Armed Forces can take care of the task. Although the US Forces are doing a goodjob, they must soon severe the cord of being one of the primary engagement forces and become more of a backup for the Iraqi Forces. In this sense the Iraqi's can call in US Forces to help if the situation really needs it. The logical thing to do would be not to rush train Iraqi Forces but to actually train them and condition them. Equip them to reasonable and logical standards, they don't all have to have M-16A2 rifles, but to some extent each should be trained in basic rifle uses with an AK-74/47 and other varients of Russian/Chinese weaponry that is no doubt in circulation in that area. They should also be more specialized in a chosen area then currently done so, but to do so would require "proper" trainers and training. When this is done and the Iraqi's are trained and equipped to logical standards then they can truly begin to do actual tasks on there own two feet.

The constitution is going to be tough as with three different groups, and at least one wishing succession, a formal constitution would have to be rigorously upheld in a very un-democratic way. In this sense you must be able to apply non-combatant forces of the US, statisticians, political scientist, logical backgroups, and foremost I believe at least some form of Civil Rights infastructure build. The "general" problem when Iraq becomes its own country in the not to distant future will be biasm in the courts and police and military and...etc. etc. These problems are overall hard to avoid since, realistically, there are still those in the US that think the South is the Confederacy, etc. etc. As you can see it must be 4-7 generations at least until the Iraqi's can put aside there difference without splitting in the middle as much as having small facations that are no longer loud minorities, but small and quiet and extinct groups. Personally I feel the answer would to grant semi-autonomy to the three ethnic groups. Let them elect leaders of there choice for there own regions and then let them elect national leaders, but having more power in states-rights. I know some of you moan at this, thinking, CIVIL WAR, and Nation State rivaleries that could go over the edge. Well odds are probably for that. This is another case in which an extremely strong, trained, and equipped Iraqi Armed Forces would have to be able to claim no strong ties to any groups to avoid certain problems. When this happens the Armed Forces will be able to combat radicals that wish only harm to Iraq and those supporting the radicals, in which they would accomplish making Iraq more like the US, unfortunately. In short (which this is) the only answer is stay until we finish our damn job. We went over there, big mistake, but not the time to complain anymore, its time to start planning our way to making Iraq strong, not how to get out. The only way we will get out without collasping Iraq is if we plan on making it strong enough to stand on its own two feet.

So my liberal brethern and my conservative friends, let us think of this "war" as it should be seen, not get in or out, but make Iraq strong enough to stand up and then, maybe, the Iraqi's could usher us out on there own, and by Iraqi's I mean a combined and majority of the Iraqi Government.

Thanks for your time.
~A Liberal Hawk

!Yeah, thats all opinion, but what else could it be? (don't answer that last question.)!

Thanks, easily the best answer to my original question (actually, one of the few actual answers to my question), and one with some reasoned logic behind it.

I love when conservatives spew rhetoric about womyn's rights: The vanguards of sexism, homophobia and racism, talking about womyn's rights. Fucking hilarious!

You know...now that gas has hit the three dollar mark in most states...higher in some...

Im wondering how many Conservative Bushies will try to pretend that he has nothing to do with it, or make exscuses for him not releasing some of the national reserve to lower prices.
Since the Neocons dont seem to care about anything except jesus, and their wallets...lets see how they react when they go to fill thier gas guzzling suv's
and have to spend a hundred bucks to do it.
Lets see how concerned they truly are about democracy in a country that most of them will never see, when this fiasco starts to personally cost them their precious dollars.

As for the original question:

Basically, youre asking "Well ...why dont you liberals have any good ideas?"

Look...we told you all along this was a bad idea, and we wanted no part of it.
We told you that this was a war based on profit, and the people of Iraq, dont mean shit to Bush, or anyone else in power.
Now that Iraq is on the brink of a civil war, you expect us to have the answers, that you couldnt come up with?

The answer is this:

Bush has put our own safety at risk with this war.
Iraq will become much more of a threat to American security if we pull out now.

Since there are NOW terrorist cells operating in Iraq, WHERE NONE EXISTED BEFORE invasion...to leave abruptly would tip the scale in Iraq towards civil war.....although this might be inevitable anyway, considering the unwillingness of the Sunni's to agree to the new Constitution.

The only solution is to keep working on this horrible shitstorm that fucking idiot Bush got us into, and build up Iraq's security forces, until they can police themselves.
At that point, America can withdraw its troops.

Thanks for fucking it up for everyone Bush...you asshole.

I decrie the nanny state because I don't believe my kids should be resposible for your kids. I don't want my kids dependent on anybody. Did you see those people in New Orleans. Alot of them look like they have depending far to long on others. Most of those needing help will probably get it from family, friends, and charities.

Read that, charities. In other words churches and other religious people for the most part. Look around the world, american churches and the american people do more for the poor than the rest of the world combined. Yea, yea, I see that europeans like to think of charity in terms of gross domestic product, but that don't change the facts baby. So don't go talking about conservatives being afraid somebody else may benefit from their labor. Remember, us conservatives are the ones filling up those churches and donating the money and more importantly the time. Do you think that the beaurocrats are the ones that know where the little old lady down the street lives.

Now that Iraq is on the brink of a civil war, you expect us to have the answers, that you couldnt come up with?


Well, you are the enlightened, intelligent, all knowing, non-dumbass, non-greedy, non-jerks. If the conservatives fucked it up so bad going in to start with and you knew better, doesn't it make sense you know better how to get out? Apparently not, you'll just keep blasting the dumb fucks who got us in, but offer no solution on how to get out, despite your enlightened ability to see the dumb fuckedness of the conservatives. You stand to the side and say you dumb ass conservatives and Bush lovers, you got into the mess now get out on your own, and while you try to do so, we're gonna stand here and chant about your ignorance, cheer when you face a setback, and not lift a single damn finger to assist you. Oh, we know better than you, but we're sure as hell not gonna share that information or help. We're just gonna bitch about your errors, but stand back and watch you make them. Us, help you, ha! that's a laugh. Why should the people who know best help the people the decry for knowing the least? That would dumb, to help those that need it most. Oh, by the way, don't forget to send some tax money to the local homeless shelter and soup kitchen. They need help.

Liberalism, it's a mental disorder.

Hmm ...

3:195 "... I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female, you are equal to one another ..."

4:124 "As for those who lead a righteous life, male or female, while believing, they enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice"

16:97 "Anyone who works righteousness, male or female, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their full recompense for their righteous works."

Bukhary may have said "Women are naturally, morally and religiously defective", but not Allah.

Don't be a Hadithist. Hadith is a stain upon Islam.

As for the woman beating, you're wrong there too.

4:34 "The men are made responsible for the women, and Allah has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is Allah's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. Allah is Most High, Supreme."

At first glance this verse may appear as if promoting physical abuse of women. But when reading 4:34 carefully one realizes that it actually prohibits abuse and beating of women by using the best psychological approach.

The advise to first talk and then avoid sexual contact, provides the necessary time and space for both parties to cool off, reason, examine the problem and reach a favorable agreement for both of them.

Abuse of a wife will not happen if the man learns to follow the clear commandments of Allah in this verse and in the order decreed. Abuse will only happen when a man does not follow these commandments, and thus fails to cool off and reason with himself or with his wife.


I see a word in 4:35, that is very similar to a word used elsewhere to describe how “Allah” will deal with us infidels. The word is usually translated as “Chastise”, not “Reason”. If my eternity in hell will consist of being “Reasoned With” I frankly see no “Reason” to convert.

3:195 looks something like “Let not control in the land of those who disbelieve deceive thee”. I would like to know which Koran you are quoting from.

As for “Women who lead a righteous life”, he must be referring to the dark eyed virgins and little boys who never grow old, you know the ones that are waiting in paradise to serve murderers. Frankly, I see that as a good reason for women to not “Lead Righteous Lives”.

You know...now that gas has hit the three dollar mark in most states...higher in some...

Im wondering how many Conservative Bushies will try to pretend that he has nothing to do with it, or make exscuses for him not releasing some of the national reserve to lower prices.
Since the Neocons dont seem to care about anything except jesus, and their wallets...lets see how they react when they go to fill thier gas guzzling suv's
and have to spend a hundred bucks to do it.
Lets see how concerned they truly are about democracy in a country that most of them will never see, when this fiasco starts to personally cost them their precious dollars.

As for the original question:

Basically, youre asking "Well ...why dont you liberals have any good ideas?"

Look...we told you all along this was a bad idea, and we wanted no part of it.
We told you that this was a war based on profit, and the people of Iraq, dont mean shit to Bush, or anyone else in power.
Now that Iraq is on the brink of a civil war, you expect us to have the answers, that you couldnt come up with?

The answer is this:

Bush has put our own safety at risk with this war.
Iraq will become much more of a threat to American security if we pull out now.

Since there are NOW terrorist cells operating in Iraq, WHERE NONE EXISTED BEFORE invasion...to leave abruptly would tip the scale in Iraq towards civil war.....although this might be inevitable anyway, considering the unwillingness of the Sunni's to agree to the new Constitution.

The only solution is to keep working on this horrible shitstorm that fucking idiot Bush got us into, and build up Iraq's security forces, until they can police themselves.
At that point, America can withdraw its troops.

Thanks for fucking it up for everyone Bush...you asshole.


How is this, burn less gas. I would think that all of the Hippies would be driving cars that run on hemp oil by now.

Invading Iraq is a good idea, as long as we use this invasion to benefit ourselves instead of pretending that Shiites and Sunnis can live in peace, with each other or anyone else. No, instead we have to be morally superior and help them.

If Saddam conquered Iraq, the first thing he would do is kill everyone who disagreed with him and take whatever he wants for his own. In fact, that is exactly what he did.

Since the liberals are blaming us for this anyway, lets do it. Take all the oil in Iraq and kill everyone who disagrees with us, starting with the liberals...

Please, do you think Palestinians really want to keep on fighting. NO! You obviously don't know anything. You just think that because some small minority is fighting Israel, that the population supports them. Yeah they should support a group that has led Palestine into nothing but misery and chaos. Now what you just said at the end, you should be banned for, as actually pointed that at a specific person.

Assumption + Ignorance + Arrogance = Space Union

I haven't seen you prove a single word you've said so far.

Well, you are the enlightened, intelligent, all knowing, non-dumbass, non-greedy, non-jerks. If the conservatives fucked it up so bad going in to start with and you knew better, doesn't it make sense you know better how to get out? Apparently not, you'll just keep blasting the dumb fucks who got us in, but offer no solution on how to get out, despite your enlightened ability to see the dumb fuckedness of the conservatives.

Hey..Im not the man who decided to invade a country, to topple a government, that his own father,(a much smarter man) wanted no part of, for the very same reason we are experiencing now.

Maybe you missed the part of my earlier post where I mentioned that the building of security forces in Iraq, is the only viable option that would not harm the very security of our country?

If you still dont understand what Im saying..let me spell it out:

Bush has placed us in a no-win situation.
Were are stuck in Iraq now, like it or not, until this ends, one way or another.
The reasons we went there.. were wrong.
The actions we have taken there...have been wrong.
The reasons we are still there...are entirely upon the shoulders of Bush and the NeoCons.

There IS no solution..other than to ensure that the Government of Iraq, can hunt down rebel Sunni's, in order to stop them from inciting a civil war, wich would further destabilize and already unstable country.


You stand to the side and say you dumb ass conservatives and Bush lovers, you got into the mess now get out on your own,

Dont pretend you know anything about me.

I will certainly say "Bush is a dumb fuck!" but there is no "do it on your own" anymore.
This war effects us all..you..me...everyone.
I resent my country being forced into this kind of shitstorm without a good reason..and as of yet...I still havent heard ONE good reason why Bush did what he did.
What amazes me, is how many horrible things he can do this country, and its ideals, and how many people like you applaud him for them.



Oh, we know better than you, but we're sure as hell not gonna share that information or help.

Heres a little clue for you....

The Neocons didnt want anyones help.
If they did, they might have listened to the UN when they opposed the invasion.
The ENTIRE world gave its advice at the start..and Bush ignored them.
Suddenly, you point the finger at me?

We're just gonna bitch about your errors, but stand back and watch you make them.

Of course we are....all advice given to the Bushies has fallen on deaf ears. Bush isnt listening to any other opinions but his own....what other option is there?

Do you know anything about the aids epidemic in Africa?
Do you know what Bush said the solution is?
Abstinence.

Thats not gonna stop a rape-gang.
Thats not going to stop 30 female circumsicions a day, with the same uncleaned knife.
Its not going to stop ignorance that thinks raping a virgin will cure you of your aids.

What fucking good does offering advice to them do?
They clearly arent listening to us.. or you.


Liberalism, it's a mental disorder.

If thats true...then Conservatism is nothing but greed and ignorance.

Somehow I doubt you would support it if Bush sent the ATF, FBI, DEA, Secret Service, etc. in to "take out" Cindy Sheehan or Micheal Moore or other liberals who are dissenting against his policy, but it is OK for Sadam to do so? I also seem to believe that if Bush embarked on a campaign to "take out" the liberals, you would support the invasion of the U.S. by another country which sought to take Bush out of power and put an end to his actions in taking out dissidents. The convuleted logic of liberalism gives me a headache, it really is a mental disorder.

There is a difference in the two. I meant people actively working against the government. The kurds were seperatists, mostly hated saddam, wanted real seperation, etc. Civil war killed hundreds of thousands of americans, one of the major reasons being to keep the union intact.

Its also the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. In a democracy, reasonable dissent is expected. In a dictatorship, such dissent is different, because it implies being against the current government. Taking them out is heavy-handed, and saddam used a large hand, but it worked for him. And compared to the rest of the ME, Iraq was a nice nation to live in. So in the circumstances, I support a good deal of what saddam did. I would expect much more of the US, and any western nation.

Ok, here’s the thing – The liberal left is continually whining, moaning and bitching about how much they hate George Bush and how he got us into a war in Iraq premised on lies and deception, etc. We all know the rhetoric – I, for one, am sick of it. Why? Because it ignores the fact that, however we got into Iraq, we are there and need to do some things in order to get out. At least the conservative side says we are there and this is what we are going to try and do to make it better so we can leave. Where are the liberal’s positive ideas, plans and opinions about what to do now? Where are the suggestions about how to end the war and bring our guys home? Is it the liberal position we should just “cut and run” and leave Iraq in chaos with the certainty of civil war and islamofacism ready to step in and create another Talibanesque or Iranian type theocracy of hatred? Shouldn’t we stay and help Iraq build it’s own new government which recognizes the rights of all people (Libs, surely you don’t support a government in Iraq that is a theocracy of Islam under Sharia law that denies women rights to education, driving, etc. or that punishes or bans freedom of religion, freedom of the Press and speech – or do you?). All the negative whining does is serve to make the job in Iraq more difficult and support those who oppose our efforts there. Why not cut out the carping and begin to offer positive ideas about what to do. Get over your anger and hatred and move on into positive efforts to remedy the situation.

So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?

my plan?

bring the UN in. this is exactly what it's military capabilities were created for. however, the UN shouldn't be paying for it - they voted against the war and did everything they could to stop it. so, the americans should foot the bill. maybe they can pay for it with some of the billions of dollars that bremner claims has simply dissapeared.

so, yeah, that's my plan - swap the yankee troops for united nations ones, preferably arab or at least muslim ones, and send washington the bill for whatever it costs to clean this up.

that will never happen, of course. the americans aren't going anywhere until they've done what they went in there to do - get a stranglehold on the oil fields.

of course, that's the optimistic viewpoint. more realistically is that iraq will be used as a staging ground for an invasion into iran meaning that the americans have no exit plan for one simple reason - they have no serious plans on exiting, they're just setting up a kangaroo democracy with a couple of loyal oligarchs at the top of the pyramid....we've seen this dozens of times.....it shouldn't surprise anyone....

meaning that the only really good plan to get out of iraq is to nail the republicans at the next midterms.

:
IF ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE, THEN THE MUSLIMS OF THE MIDDLE EAST WILL KILL THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES,

hrmmmn.

Um... yes. I'm not going to debate something I don't know about. I took a few classes on it and I know this is very cliche, but a close friend of mine is muslim.

islam spread through the middle east, africa, asia and parts of europe in a way not dissimilar to the way that christianity spread through north and south america, africa, parts of asia and especially northern europe......

the muslims had their janisseries. the christians had their crusades. the muslims had their caliphs. the christians had their popes.

you cannot credibly claim that one has been worse than the other.

islam spread through the middle east, africa, asia and parts of europe in a way not dissimilar to the way that christianity spread through north and south america, africa, parts of asia and especially northern europe......

the muslims had their janisseries. the christians had their crusades. the muslims had their caliphs. the christians had their popes.

you cannot credibly claim that one has been worse than the other.


I'd be willing to bet that Christianity can claim responsibility for the higher death toll.

Crusades, and Inquisitions, and conquering of small nations...etc...

So tell me do you think conservatives that elected Bush are stupid? They were the ones to elect him.

i think that's the general consensus.


No, in half-century will be seeing Iraq as stable as Western countries, though it will probably come more like 30-40 years before.

who you jivin' with that cosmic debris?


HAMAS is now done. HAMAS was built to get rid of Israel out of Palestine territory. Now that Israel has pulled out of Gaza, what do you think they are going to get supported for? They freaking kill their own people. They are losing their support. From what I remember,this President actually is trying for peace. Funny isn't it.

i only responded to this because of this comment.

WOW.

my head can't stop shaking.

i'm going to presume that this has been dissected like crazy. if not, i'll come back for it.

but....WOW.

... whining, moaning and bitching ... what’s your plan to get us out?

You have a good point. Now that the USA has committed its military and its wealth to 'spreading democracy' throughout the world, what can be done to extricate the USA from the quagmire? I would suggest the following:

a) Iraq is not a country; it is the product of a British map-maker who had no idea about the ethnic groups of the area. I would organise a plebiscite and have the people there decide on the future of an Iraq. The Kurds (an Indo-European people who were promised their own country during WW 1 and who suffered so much under S. Hussein should be given their independence. The Sunni Arabs who seem to have no desire to join the majority Shi'ite Arabs should join Kuwait in a republic (oust the Kuwaiti royal family which is very anti-democratic). The Shi'ites would then have their own country, possibly a theocracy.
b) I would enlist the aid of Arab governments (Jordan, UAE, etc.) to help the new Sunni and Shi'ite states. The USA might stay for a time in Kurdistan to help them economically, but would finally be able to leave, having given the Iraqis a chance for their own future.
c) I would then pass legislation that would prohibit the USA from sending anyone to war without the express declaration of war by the US Congress. Young people in the military are not fodder for some megalomanical political leader who wants to raise his popularity by a foreign war. Their role in USA society is to protect the country. (I do not disagree with the attack on Afghanistan since the Taliban were harbouring al Qaeda. But I would withdraw from there as soon as is feasible.)
d) I would also pass legislation making it a federal offense to mistreat and/or kill prisoners. The rule of law is not a liberal idea - it is a reaffirmation of what the USA was established for. The Geneva conventions protect US troops as it protects enemy troops.
e) I would make every effort to restore trust in the USA and in the intentions of the government. This is a major point. It is not a good thing for other peoples to fear the USA just because the US has military power.
f) I would join with every other nation to prevent 'internet espionage' - this is a great danger to the USA and to other nations. Nations who support hacker spies should suffer stiff economic consequences.

Please, do you think Palestinians really want to keep on fighting. NO! You obviously don't know anything. You just think that because some small minority is fighting Israel, that the population supports them. Yeah they should support a group that has led Palestine into nothing but misery and chaos. Now what you just said at the end, you should be banned for, as actually pointed that at a specific person.

do i really want to explain the israel-palestine conflict to this kid?

ugh.

here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_timeline

there is a lot of information there for you.

So you're one of those Malus-pumilists huh (those who believe it was the work of a few "bad apples")?

The violence in Abu-Grahb and Gitmo were almost identical, and indicate a systematic cause rather than a spontaneous one.


"sure i worked at auschwitz, but it's not my fault. i was just following orders."

i recognize the difference in scale.

Ok, here’s the thing – The liberal left is continually whining, moaning and bitching about how much they hate George Bush and how he got us into a war in Iraq premised on lies and deception, etc. We all know the rhetoric – I, for one, am sick of it. Why? Because it ignores the fact that, however we got into Iraq, we are there and need to do some things in order to get out. At least the conservative side says we are there and this is what we are going to try and do to make it better so we can leave. Where are the liberal’s positive ideas, plans and opinions about what to do now? Where are the suggestions about how to end the war and bring our guys home? Is it the liberal position we should just “cut and run” and leave Iraq in chaos with the certainty of civil war and islamofacism ready to step in and create another Talibanesque or Iranian type theocracy of hatred? Shouldn’t we stay and help Iraq build it’s own new government which recognizes the rights of all people (Libs, surely you don’t support a government in Iraq that is a theocracy of Islam under Sharia law that denies women rights to education, driving, etc. or that punishes or bans freedom of religion, freedom of the Press and speech – or do you?). All the negative whining does is serve to make the job in Iraq more difficult and support those who oppose our efforts there. Why not cut out the carping and begin to offer positive ideas about what to do. Get over your anger and hatred and move on into positive efforts to remedy the situation.

So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?
I'm sure somebody has already pointed this out, but "cutting and running" isn't the only way for us to witness the construction of a Sharia-driven radical theocracy over there...that's exactly what the blood of our troops has purchased for us. They died so that terrorists could be stronger, America could be less safe, women in Iraq could lose the rights they've had for a generation, and religious oppression could be enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution.

But I guess I can't "support the troops" unless I am asking them to fight and die for such things, huh? If I suggest that perhaps our men and women in uniform deserve better than to have their lives spent to help strengthen everything America opposes, I guess that means I hate America, right? I had better shut up and sing the praises of King George The Lesser, because otherwise I'm a pot-smoking hippie who hates the troops and makes Baby Jeebus cry.

I'm sure somebody has already pointed this out, but "cutting and running" isn't the only way for us to witness the construction of a Sharia-driven radical theocracy over there...that's exactly what the blood of our troops has purchased for us. They died so that terrorists could be stronger, America could be less safe, women in Iraq could lose the rights they've had for a generation, and religious oppression could be enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution.

But I guess I can't "support the troops" unless I am asking them to fight and die for such things, huh? If I suggest that perhaps our men and women in uniform deserve better than to have their lives spent to help strengthen everything America opposes, I guess that means I hate America, right? I had better shut up and sing the praises of King George The Lesser, because otherwise I'm a pot-smoking hippie who hates the troops and makes Baby Jeebus cry.

Jeez..when you say it like that..it sounds so....dirty.

Damn us dirty Liberals!

Jeez..when you say it like that..it sounds so....dirty.

Damn us dirty Liberals!
What's sad is that "liberal" seems to be the word applied to anybody who opposes the disaster in Iraq. I would think a lot of conservatives would be bothered by that, since it implies that only liberals are capable of good sense, honest critique, caring about troops and veterans, and being something other than a dupe of dishonest and incompetant politicians.

I can't believe this thread even got this far.

The origional poster, for all the logic he's using, is essentially saying "George W. Bush threw a bowling ball off of a tall building. All you gravatationists said that it was going to hit the ground and probably kill whoever it landed on. All you do is bitch and whine and complain about his ignorance of gravity and callous disregard for the safety of the pedestrians below. Well the fact is that he's dropped the ball and it's hurddling towards the ground as we speak. So what are you gravitationists going to do about it? What's your idea for keeping the bowling ball from hitting and killing someone? If we just leave it alone now, the bowling ball is going to break the pavement and possibly injure and kill someone. All your whining and mathematics do is to distract from the efforts catch the bowling ball. The people hanging out of third floor windows getting ready catch that bowling ball are being dishonored and demoralized by your efforts to point out that it is not humanly possible to catch a bowling ball dropped from a height of 800 feet. If we close the sidewalk until after the ball drops then the bowling ball wins."

That's a fantastic analogy! :D

Somehow I doubt you would support it if Bush sent the ATF, FBI, DEA, Secret Service, etc. in to "take out" Cindy Sheehan or Micheal Moore or other liberals who are dissenting against his policy, but it is OK for Sadam to do so? I also seem to believe that if Bush embarked on a campaign to "take out" the liberals, you would support the invasion of the U.S. by another country which sought to take Bush out of power and put an end to his actions in taking out dissidents. The convuleted logic of liberalism gives me a headache, it really is a mental disorder.

neither moore nor sheehan are violent threats. the kurds were running an armed resistance movement, with american backing.

the difference is crystal clear.

furthermore, there is some question as to whether that attack ever even happened.

I decrie the nanny state because I don't believe my kids should be resposible for your kids. I don't want my kids dependent on anybody. Did you see those people in New Orleans. Alot of them look like they have depending far to long on others. Most of those needing help will probably get it from family, friends, and charities.

Read that, charities. In other words churches and other religious people for the most part. Look around the world, american churches and the american people do more for the poor than the rest of the world combined. Yea, yea, I see that europeans like to think of charity in terms of gross domestic product, but that don't change the facts baby. So don't go talking about conservatives being afraid somebody else may benefit from their labor. Remember, us conservatives are the ones filling up those churches and donating the money and more importantly the time. Do you think that the beaurocrats are the ones that know where the little old lady down the street lives.


.....because it's a good tax write-off?

How is this, burn less gas. I would think that all of the Hippies would be driving cars that run on hemp oil by now.


i think most of us are driving BICYCLES.....

dude, i'm a Liberal but i don't say we should leave, that'd fuck Iraq up further than it is already, i'm saying that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, but we're here now might aswell try to stop Iraq from falling into complete anarchy.
WE have to support our troops -- regardless of how they got there.

I would like to see more right wing idiots over there fighting, rather than the poor people who joined to try to get out of poverty. I have a 20 year old cousin in Walter Reed with SERIOUS injury from shrapnel (some in his brain they CAN"T remove).

Now that we started the mess - we do have to finish it, but I ask WHERE IS OSSAMA??? That was why we went in to begin with - and he was NEVER in Iraq.

For all you Bible Thumpers who say the hurricane is gods retribution for sin city -- I say the hurricane is gods retribution for our war in iraq - blood for oil and all that -- the nation is now in an oil crisis rather than having any more.

I for one am a liberal.Never posted on the board before,but this one caught my eye.First off I dont think we should have gone on a wild goose chase,obviously Bin Laden was never in Iraq.Oil men in office means Oil wars people,seriously think about it.Also we're following maps Bin Laden was using over 3 years ago and terrorists are nomadic,do you think hes really still somewhere on these maps?My last point is hes shoving our ways down the throats of those from a foreign land,Im sorry these people seemed okay with how Hussien was ruling them.Bush just made a gigantic blunder in forcing his ways and now were stuck in Iraq longer.He's almost trying Hitlerization on weaker countries,his way or no way.
To be honest we should just pull out and leave the Iraqi citizens alone.They need to do things there own way.If Islam (I do not practice) would be a great influence on how they run themselves,its cool.Just give them a chance to find there path.Pull our troops out,people are tired of hearing that loved ones or friends have been killed,trust me.
President Bush is trying to play the game Risk with our world,real lives are at stake here Prez.Theres no do overs in real life.

*snip*

Oh ... I see you're just anti-Islam. I shall leave you to your ignorance. Enjoy it.

My 3:195 is from Abdullah Yusuf Ali ... where's your translation from ... Jihadwatch?

Once upon a time I considered myself pleasantly free from the influence of the internet. I'd check my email, play the occasional video game, and maybe download a little porn when the girl was away. Now here I am, having blown a whole hour at work, bound and determined to have my little say in this raging debate. :)

I think the opening question was a good one. Perhaps it was deliberately framed to start the sort of argument that we're seeing unfold between sociopathic conservativism and raging liberalism, but I'm going to attempt an answer anyways.
I'm a leftist. I don't like the term liberal, because as an american, I feel that niether party speaks to my political beliefs, and I'm generally disgusted with the state of our political system. I do not believe that there can be any debate as to whether or not the US can leave Iraq. We are morally and economically bound to rebuild this nation. In my mind, if I am visiting a friend, and I spill my drink breaking the glass in the process, I am now responsible for cleaning it up. We broke Iraq, and now we need to put it right. In this particular case, the cost of NOT doing so is a great deal worse then a sticky gin and tonic on the floor, instead, we risk a massively unstable country in the heart of an economically critical region that really doesn't like Americans. Why does Iraq matter? Oil. If not for Oil, why not bring our crusade of goodness and love to Africa where the people desperately need relief from their psychotic warlords and dictators?

You can't change the past, but the Iraq war speaks poorly of conservative philosophy in two important ways. First, we were lied to about something that directly affects the lives of thousands of citizens, and is costing us billions of dollars at a time when we can ill-afford to waste money. Second, our policies are morally inconsistent with our own values and with international law. I understand that men must do manly things, and aparently if you from certain parts of this country its even more important, but the international community, like a neighbor hood is founded on some basic assumptions that hold society together. In order to acomplish anything, I must be able to assume that I can get up in the morning, and walk to the local coffee place without being attacked by random passerbys. War is not something that can be taken lightly, and one should never engage in it without just cause. This means investigating every alternative, and being 100% sure that your pretense is valid. Had Bush said to me from the outset, "we're gonna invade Iraq, because I don' like them thar hats they got on, and I think that 'splosions are purty!" I would have been really annoyed, probably protested, made repeated decrarations that it was immoral and unjust, but at least I would have a foundation. Democracy CANNOT function in the absense of truth. We cannot make informed decisions unless the government is open and honest with us. You can debate social issues all you want to, there is a fuzziness there that invites debate, and thats your job as citizenry. But when it comes to matters of state, we MUST be informed, and informed properly. Don't tell me that Iraq has WMDs when you don't know, tell me that we're not sure. Show me the evidence, tell me that you believe we need access to those oil reserves and be honest with me regarding the costs. Then allow me to decide in the light of reason, not uncertainty.

I'm gonna stop there, though I'll ramnble on more if asked ;)

America should be ashamed of what Clinton did to Serbia. Some Frenchmen published a picture of a starving refuge with some barbed wire and everyone is talking about “Ethnic Cleansing”. Well, the Photographer was actually surrounded by barbed wire to protect him from the refuges and the refuges were all passing by under their own free will, to pretty much anywhere they pleased.

That is what I was trying to do, bring up a falsly started war that neocons wanted to run away from after we cluster fucked it.

Ok, here’s the thing – The liberal left is continually whining, moaning and bitching about how much they hate George Bush and how he got us into a war in Iraq premised on lies and deception, etc. We all know the rhetoric – I, for one, am sick of it. Why? Because it ignores the fact that, however we got into Iraq, we are there and need to do some things in order to get out. At least the conservative side says we are there and this is what we are going to try and do to make it better so we can leave. Where are the liberal’s positive ideas, plans and opinions about what to do now? Where are the suggestions about how to end the war and bring our guys home? Is it the liberal position we should just “cut and run” and leave Iraq in chaos with the certainty of civil war and islamofacism ready to step in and create another Talibanesque or Iranian type theocracy of hatred? Shouldn’t we stay and help Iraq build it’s own new government which recognizes the rights of all people (Libs, surely you don’t support a government in Iraq that is a theocracy of Islam under Sharia law that denies women rights to education, driving, etc. or that punishes or bans freedom of religion, freedom of the Press and speech – or do you?). All the negative whining does is serve to make the job in Iraq more difficult and support those who oppose our efforts there. Why not cut out the carping and begin to offer positive ideas about what to do. Get over your anger and hatred and move on into positive efforts to remedy the situation.

So tell me libs, like it or, we’re in Iraq, what’s your plan to get us out?

Is this serious?!!? Why the hell should the liberals be held responsible for the Bu$h administrations whacked out policy? The majority of liberals have been against the Iraqi invasion from day one.

And you think we should be searching for solutions?!?!? I have a great solution:

Next time, don't be so brazenly stupid when conducting activities that put so much on the line. Have a plan of attack, as well as a plan for exit.

Stupid conservatives......DUH! :mp5:

i think most of us are driving BICYCLES.....

Hell yes, I hate driving or riding in cars, I prefer to ride my bike wherever I want to go. It's good for you and it's better for the enviroment than cars

1. Don't flame.

2. I was obviously being sarcastic.

3. Read the link on who Chuck Hagel is and what he said. Conservative Republican Senator that says Iraq ia turning into another Vietnam. (And he's a 'Nam Vet with 2 purple hearts.)

only skim read it, sorry dude. And i felt a bit trollish.