I didn’t rely on common sense only, something that a few are too proud to use in my opinion, though.
I’ve seen quite a few reports and interviews where this was communicated either indirectly or even literally from the terrorists mouth- which is not surprising.
The irony is, of course, that the proud conservatives here will laugh about this and dismiss it as propaganda (e.g. “they really want Kerry/Obama, it’s all lies”)
I might add: I have nothing against McCain, he was my favorite republican anno 2000. I like him.
But he’s too old for the job as far as I see. And the real problem I see is this Hag who could emerge one day as Bush’s true heir.
[quote]Actus wrote:
I don’t know - I like McCain, I think his heart is in the right place, but man, his acceptance speech last night was painful to watch. He is really a horrible public speaker. I think Obama is going to roast him in the debates. On the other hand, you can’t get much worse of a public speaker than GWB, and he won twice…[/quote]
McCain and Obama will BOTH suck at the debates. They both “ummm” and “uhh” a whole damn lot.
The VP debates, how ever, will be fucking EPIC.
I wonder if it’s possible to switch the Veeps and Presidents on the ticket… that’d certainly make things more fun/interesting.
[quote]lixy wrote:
3) If you have in mind the folks shooting at Americans soldiers in Iraq, you may want to consider their position. Chances are that you’d be shooting at them too if you were in their shoes.[/quote]
They have shoes?
If I lived in a country where two sects were fighting over who got to install their version of a sectarian theocracy, and the invaders were installing some semblance of an inclusive democracy…
Especially since I would be a religious minority there.
I’d sign up for the Iraqi Security forces, get trained by the US of A, and kick some militia ass. Joining - let’s say - Sadr’s woman murdering milita (don’t forget to cover that head), wouldn’t even be entertained, in my mind.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
The terrorists and terrorist states will be celebrating in the streets if Barack Hussien Obabma gets this election.
Don’t you say that everytime there is an election?
Actually, it was exactly the other way.
GWB was the best thing that could happen to radical Islamists around the world.
Many of them prayed for his reelection.
[/quote]
They just want to get martyred. It’s not like they give a crap about the issues and stuff.
Yeah, they all just want to get “martyred”- No, you have no clue at all.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If I lived in a country where two sects were fighting over who got to install their version of a sectarian theocracy, and the invaders were installing some semblance of an inclusive democracy…
Especially since I would be a religious minority there.
I’d sign up for the Iraqi Security forces, get trained by the US of A, and kick some militia ass. Joining - let’s say - Sadr’s woman murdering milita (don’t forget to cover that head), wouldn’t even be entertained, in my mind.[/quote]
Maybe. That might be the rational position, but there’s also a very irrational reaction to having foreign troops on your streets, even if they’re there to help.
George Orwell had a great bit in “Down and Out in Paris and London” where he talks about a big group of homeless men hooting and intimidating the parishioners during a sermon they’re forced to attend after being given bread and tea. Same thign.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If I lived in a country where two sects were fighting over who got to install their version of a sectarian theocracy, and the invaders were installing some semblance of an inclusive democracy…
Especially since I would be a religious minority there.
I’d sign up for the Iraqi Security forces, get trained by the US of A, and kick some militia ass. Joining - let’s say - Sadr’s woman murdering milita (don’t forget to cover that head), wouldn’t even be entertained, in my mind.
Maybe. That might be the rational position, but there’s also a very irrational reaction to having foreign troops on your streets, even if they’re there to help.
George Orwell had a great bit in “Down and Out in Paris and London” where he talks about a big group of homeless men hooting and intimidating the parishioners during a sermon they’re forced to attend after being given bread and tea. Same thign.[/quote]
I suppose I look at in a different manner than most anti-Iraq war folks.
Morally, I believe it’s justifiable to privately aid those in Iraq who would rather live under a more democratic government than either Saddam’s, or a post-Saddam sectarian theocracy. Both forms of government are brutal, and oppressive, after all.
However, at the same time, we’re our own nation with our own obligations. That means our government, practicing at it’s most basic level, must protect us and our property above all others.
I don’t see how spending our soldiers’ lives, and our money, loyally serves the American interest. I wish the Iraqis luck. But, I don’t see how spending my neighbor’s coin and childrens’ lives on a conflict that doesn’t threaten them, to be moral.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Yeah, they all just want to get “martyred”- No, you have no clue at all.[/quote]
I know humor doesn’t cary well in this medium, but You my man, are the one who is clueless.
So, do you always take yourself this seriously, or did I just look like an easy target?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If I lived in a country where two sects were fighting over who got to install their version of a sectarian theocracy, and the invaders were installing some semblance of an inclusive democracy…
Especially since I would be a religious minority there.
I’d sign up for the Iraqi Security forces, get trained by the US of A, and kick some militia ass. Joining - let’s say - Sadr’s woman murdering milita (don’t forget to cover that head), wouldn’t even be entertained, in my mind.
Maybe. That might be the rational position, but there’s also a very irrational reaction to having foreign troops on your streets, even if they’re there to help.
George Orwell had a great bit in “Down and Out in Paris and London” where he talks about a big group of homeless men hooting and intimidating the parishioners during a sermon they’re forced to attend after being given bread and tea. Same thign.
I suppose I look at in a different manner than most anti-Iraq war folks.
Morally, I believe it’s justifiable to privately aid those in Iraq who would rather live under a more democratic government than either Saddam’s, or a post-Saddam sectarian theocracy. Both forms of government are brutal, and oppressive, after all.
However, at the same time, we’re our own nation with our own obligations. That means our government, practicing at it’s most basic level, must protect us and our property above all others.
I don’t see how spending our soldiers’ lives, and our money, loyally serves the American interest. I wish the Iraqis luck. But, I don’t see how spending my neighbor’s coin and childrens’ lives on a conflict that doesn’t threaten them, to be moral.[/quote]
Agree 100%. Would that you and I and most Americans realized this in 2003 not 2008.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If I lived in a country where two sects were fighting over who got to install their version of a sectarian theocracy, and the invaders were installing some semblance of an inclusive democracy…
Especially since I would be a religious minority there.
I’d sign up for the Iraqi Security forces, get trained by the US of A, and kick some militia ass. Joining - let’s say - Sadr’s woman murdering milita (don’t forget to cover that head), wouldn’t even be entertained, in my mind.[/quote]
Right, because if you’d been born in Iraq, you’d have the exact same views and opinions of the world as you’ve got now.
Who’s the guy in the new avatar?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If I lived in a country where two sects were fighting over who got to install their version of a sectarian theocracy, and the invaders were installing some semblance of an inclusive democracy…
Especially since I would be a religious minority there.
I’d sign up for the Iraqi Security forces, get trained by the US of A, and kick some militia ass. Joining - let’s say - Sadr’s woman murdering milita (don’t forget to cover that head), wouldn’t even be entertained, in my mind.
Right, because if you’d been born in Iraq, you’d have the exact same views and opinions of the world as you’ve got now.
Who’s the guy in the new avatar?[/quote]
If I was a Christian woman who forgot my headcover, I might. Or, just a muslim father who doesn’t want his young son used to blow up sunnis, christians, or shiites in the market.
Not every Iraqi born man and woman is a sectarian Islamic thug. And just because the actual thugs were born in Iraq, doesn’t make it any less justified for a more democratic non-sectarian individual to put a slug between their eyes with a brand US issued weapon.
Wild Bill.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Morally, I believe it’s justifiable to privately aid those in Iraq who would rather live under a more democratic government than either Saddam’s, or a post-Saddam sectarian theocracy. [/quote]
Note that the US has been aiding Saddam and his cronies when his atrocities were at his peak (i.e: war of aggression). Note also that after the invasion, criminal and civil codes were reverted to their 1969 and 1972 version respectively. In practice, dooming what Iraqi women, seculars and others have been working so hard to achieve.
All that talk about “morality” is just a smokescreen for the gullible. The war on Iraq is about getting American troops and bases on the ground.
[quote]However, at the same time, we’re our own nation with our own obligations. That means our government, practicing at it’s most basic level, must protect us and our property above all others.
I don’t see how spending our soldiers’ lives, and our money, loyally serves the American interest. I wish the Iraqis luck. But, I don’t see how spending my neighbor’s coin and childrens’ lives on a conflict that doesn’t threaten them, to be moral.[/quote]
Charity starts at home, that’s true. But you see, after the US invasion of Iraq, Islamists started pouring in the country. Prior to 2003, there’s been not a single suicide bombing in Iraq. Now, the place claims world records in the field. Al-Qaeda and similar terrorists might only represent a tiny fraction of the so-called insurgency, but it’s apparently enough to convince Americans of the necessity of sending more troops, weapons and money over there.
You have got to hand it to the architects of this Machiavelian scheme. They managed to sell a war of aggression based on lies and are working the OMG!!1!Terrorists 9/11 angle to keep the troops there. What is stunning (and downright twisted if you ask me), is the way the patriot card is blatantly played to silence dissent. So much so that nothing will change regardless of who will end up in the White House next year.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Morally, I believe it’s justifiable to privately aid those in Iraq who would rather live under a more democratic government than either Saddam’s, or a post-Saddam sectarian theocracy.
Note that the US has been aiding Saddam and his cronies when his atrocities were at his peak (i.e: war of aggression). Note also that after the invasion, criminal and civil codes were reverted to their 1969 and 1972 version respectively. In practice, dooming what Iraqi women, seculars and others have been working so hard to achieve.
All that talk about “morality” is just a smokescreen for the gullible. The war on Iraq is about getting American troops and bases on the ground.
However, at the same time, we’re our own nation with our own obligations. That means our government, practicing at it’s most basic level, must protect us and our property above all others.
I don’t see how spending our soldiers’ lives, and our money, loyally serves the American interest. I wish the Iraqis luck. But, I don’t see how spending my neighbor’s coin and childrens’ lives on a conflict that doesn’t threaten them, to be moral.
Charity starts at home, that’s true. But you see, after the US invasion of Iraq, Islamists started pouring in the country. Prior to 2003, there’s been not a single suicide bombing in Iraq. Now, the place claims world records in the field. Al-Qaeda and similar terrorists might only represent a tiny fraction of the so-called insurgency, but it’s apparently enough to convince Americans of the necessity of sending more troops, weapons and money over there.
You have got to hand it to the architects of this Machiavelian scheme. They managed to sell a war of aggression based on lies and are working the OMG!!1!Terrorists 9/11 angle to keep the troops there. What is stunning (and downright twisted if you ask me), is the way the patriot card is blatantly played to silence dissent. So much so that nothing will change regardless of who will end up in the White House next year.[/quote]
You’re right, Saddam knew how to keep the peace in Iraq. And, don’t fool yourself, there were plenty of Islamists in Iraq. But in Saddam’s Iraq, the Islamists were buried alongside their entire family.
…why do you all still believe politicians will do something else than take care of their own agenda this time, and every time there’s an election?
[quote]lixy wrote:
You have got to hand it to the architects of this Machiavelian scheme. They managed to sell a war of aggression based on lies and are working the OMG!!1!Terrorists 9/11 angle to keep the troops there. What is stunning (and downright twisted if you ask me), is the way the patriot card is blatantly played to silence dissent. So much so that nothing will change regardless of who will end up in the White House next year.[/quote]
Question, for Lixy, now that we’re talking about the Iraq war.
The US just handed over the Anbar province the the Iraqi Govt. Members of the Awakening Council were pissed about this because the Shia majority Govt.'s ally The Sunni Islamist Party has been given control over this territory.
The Awakening Council is saying the Sunni Islamist Party amounts to Al-Qaeda. If this is indeed the case, why is it allied with the Shia govt.?
I got my information from a Time article, is the info. even true? (If I find the article I will post it.)