3rd year anniversary of Iraq Invasion

[15357]

No but they selectivly broadcast things in order to give a unrealistic impression of a situation to the general public.

Perhaps, but one could argue that doing the opposite thing (like implying that the US Army is ****ed and terrorists are going to be attacking the day after tommorow) is worse.

 

[Ikerous]

There is virtually NO anti-war sentiment expressed in mainstream US media

Keith Olbermann (msnbc) ftw

 

[satch919]

Keith Olbermann (msnbc) ftw

Yup. MSNBC has been pretty good about reporting the protests and Bush's lagging poll numbers.

 

[Alexferris]

I don't think it's really the JOB of mainstream media to broadcast the facts. The media is more of an entertainment outlet, and it's sad yeah, but if they didn't spice up their schedule, and just listed a thousand bulletins of hard facts, it would be boring, and people simply wouldn't watch. The fact that you want US citizens to feel shitty about their country and goverment is pretty ****ed up, at least from my view point. I can understand letting them know that their government probably isn't doing the best job, but hell it's a lot better than anything anyone else has done before.

If you want the facts, look for them yourself and start demonstrating.

 

[Razor]

yes because god forbid anyone should complain about the deaths of over 100,000 civilians :upstare: once again lemonchicken you prove you have no business being in the politics section

I have to agree with pomegranate. There is virtually NO anti-war sentiment expressed in mainstream US media ..flip on CNN or any network news .. the same shit is constantly being rugurgitated: "everything is A-OK, lets support our troops ...oh beautiful, for gracious skies, for amber waves of grain..."


frankly I find it sickening

How many of the protestors were protesting against the 300,000 that Saddam killed?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Anti War Protests Fizzle

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3618103

"Anti-war protesters in SLC, elsewhere lament apathy"

Yeah just because not everyone agrees with you does not mean they are apathetic.


Throughout the morning, a group of eight women dressed in pink-and-black outfits occasionally broke out in chants. "Resist, resist, raise up your fist," shouted Raphael Cordray of Salt Lake, one of the "Pom Poms Not Bomb Bombs" cheerleaders. "Show 'em that you're pissed. Resist, resist, fight the capitalists."

How insightful. I see a bright future for these ladies in their hopes for violent socialist revolution.

 

[DeusExMachina]

It's a catchy chant.

 

[satch919]

How many of the protestors were protesting against the 300,000 that Saddam killed?

Truthfully, it's because it wasn't our people.

The majority of soceity doesn't like to see war and death but it happens so much around the globe that we couldn't stop and protest every time someone was offed by their government. We protest because our government sent our people to war based on falsities.

 

[pomegranate]

How many of the protestors were protesting against the 300,000 that Saddam killed?

Yes, because that is exactly how protest in democracy works - you protest towards your own government about things that are being done by another government against another third party, thousands of miles away. Obviously people aren't really that bothered.

But when people are being killed in your name, using £/$billions of your tax revenue, and making you into potential terrorist target, then you tend to be a bit more likely to express your concerns. I'm sure you can understand that. So what's the point of your rhetoric?

 

[Captain M4d]

I attended a protest in Portland, Maine today. Somebody mooned us, and I yelled, "BUTTS FOR PEACE!" It was a good time even though it was cold as hell. I felt so happy and enthusiastic for doing a good cause; I didn't let any heartless ignoramus get me down. I just smiled and gave them the peace sign as they flipped me off or gave me a thumbs down. It's sad to see some people are so unhappy with their lives that they just try to impose it on those who do have happiness. 'Tis a shame, but it's the truth I guess.

 

[CptStern]

How many of the protestors were protesting against the 300,000 that Saddam killed?

i think pomegranate nailed it pretty good:

Yes, because that is exactly how protest in democracy works - you protest towards your own government about things that are being done by another government against another third party, thousands of miles away. Obviously people aren't really that bothered.

But when people are being killed in your name, using £/$billions of your tax revenue, and making you into potential terrorist target, then you tend to be a bit more likely to express your concerns. I'm sure you can understand that. So what's the point of your rhetoric?

I'd also like to add: hypocrisy can be a two way street

where was the outrage when saddam, at the height of his ruthlessness was considered by the US as a friend and ally?

Anti War Protests Fizzle

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3618103

"Anti-war protesters in SLC, elsewhere lament apathy"

Yeah just because not everyone agrees with you does not mean they are apathetic.


Throughout the morning, a group of eight women dressed in pink-and-black outfits occasionally broke out in chants. "Resist, resist, raise up your fist," shouted Raphael Cordray of Salt Lake, one of the "Pom Poms Not Bomb Bombs" cheerleaders. "Show 'em that you're pissed. Resist, resist, fight the capitalists."

How insightful. I see a bright future for these ladies in their hopes for violent socialist revolution.

? utah? utah of all states come on man they're not exactly known for being progressive/tolerant

there were over 500 rallies across the US alone

then there's:

UK

italy

spain

sweden

turkey

Hungary

pakistan

switzerland

south korea

poland

canada

bangladesh

to name a few




oh and incidentily at yesterday's rally in Toronto there was a counter protest mounted by 4 anti-protest protestors waving american flags

 

[Razor]

Yes, because that is exactly how protest in democracy works - you protest towards your own government about things that are being done by another government against another third party, thousands of miles away. Obviously people aren't really that bothered.

But when people are being killed in your name, using £/$billions of your tax revenue, and making you into potential terrorist target, then you tend to be a bit more likely to express your concerns. I'm sure you can understand that. So what's the point of your rhetoric?

That's the problem, Saddam kills 300,000 of his own people and the world doesn't take notice "oh, they're only Arabs anyway, let them kill themselves" but when 2000 American soldiers die, then you have protests. All these protestors had to do was protest enmass outside the Whitehouse and say "we want sanctions against Iraq, we want Saddam to pay for his war crimes against humanity" but, nothing. The reason being, when Saddam was committing warcrimes, it wasn't plastered all over the news everytime he did it, otherwise all western media would show is the escapades of one Saddam Hussein day and night.

 

[pomegranate]

... but that doesn't excuse leaders taking no notice when people DO protest.
So again I ask what is the relevance of what you're saying? That the protests are morally empty or hypocritical? Perhaps, but we're still meant to be a democracy(ies).
But I should point out that the biggest protests were before the war, and I would hazard to guess that most people were at that point protesting against the expected loss of life on both sides, in our names, rather than the danger to 'our boys'.

 

[Solaris]

That's the problem, Saddam kills 300,000 of his own people and the world doesn't take notice "oh, they're only Arabs anyway, let them kill themselves" but when 2000 American soldiers die, then you have protests. All these protestors had to do was protest enmass outside the Whitehouse and say "we want sanctions against Iraq, we want Saddam to pay for his war crimes against humanity" but, nothing. The reason being, when Saddam was committing warcrimes, it wasn't plastered all over the news everytime he did it, otherwise all western media would show is the escapades of one Saddam Hussein day and night.

There was oposition to the US sponsoring of Sadam, not on the scale of the anti-war movement atm, but there was a little. And protesting in a place where neither party can here you is a tad pointless.

 

[CptStern]

That's the problem, Saddam kills 300,000 of his own people and the world doesn't take notice

of course not ..because the west has a vested interest in keeping it silent

"oh, they're only Arabs anyway, let them kill themselves" but when 2000 American soldiers die, then you have protests.

that phenomenom is almost exclusive to countries that have soldiers in the line of fire

All these protestors had to do was protest enmass outside the Whitehouse and say "we want sanctions against Iraq, we want Saddam to pay for his war crimes against humanity" but, nothing.

when exactly are you talking about? before the first war? during the iran-iraq war I remember protests at the iraqi canadian embassy ..but you're talking about 30 years Razor ..the US called saddam friend for at least half that time ..no one seemed to care that their country was aiding a butcher kill his own people ..in fact when this photo was taken it was mere days after saddam had used chemical weapons against iranian soldiers

The reason being, when Saddam was committing warcrimes, it wasn't plastered all over the news everytime he did it, otherwise all western media would show is the escapades of one Saddam Hussein day and night.

they did ....after the US had no more use for him



none of this excuses the war in iraq

 

[SAJ]

Iraq invasion, third anniversary(back on topic).

(Thanks to Steve Bell for the picture)

 

[K e r b e r o s]

what does that have to do with anything?

Oh, plenty CptStern. The Liberals are all about peace, and withdrawal -- yet, why are these people, this group of values representing the bastion that is the liberal left, cracking and becoming violent?

Where is there reasoning ... for a reasonable debate?

come on, I've seen their videos and racked up hundreds of posts on their forums ..they hope by disrupting the protests they'll blur their message and ultimately shut them up ..it's the mob version of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nahnahnahnahnah"

A bad case of reflection on behalf of the anarchists and liberals, no doubt.

...in stead of trying to shut them up they should try to counter their points ..which they never do (I know from experience)

They've tried, but then the almost child like liberal protestors (most of them teenagers or angry mid-life crisis'd 30-40 year old men) start throwing fists, or start pushing people.

That by far, is the most immature act to be witnessed as a rally/counter-rally. The side that does that, looses its *Intelligent Award*.

 

[CptStern]

Oh, plenty CptStern. The Liberals are all about peace, and withdrawal -- yet, why are these people, this group of values representing the bastion that is the liberal left, cracking and becoming violent?

:upstare: yes because random people in a crowd represent all "liberals" ..your logic rarely holds up to even casual scrutiny ..again I ask what does that have to do with anything?

Where is there reasoning ... for a reasonable debate?

:upstare: I can single handedly take on every last PW when it comes to the war in iraq ..not because I'm a good debater but rather because they doesnt have a stitch of evidence to support them ..nonewhatsoever

A bad case of reflection on behalf of the anarchists and liberals, no doubt.

? that makes no sense ..you're saying they dont answer my points because I dont put it across in an understandable manner? what's so hard to understand about this:

"bush lied"

They've tried, but then the almost child like liberal protestors (most of them teenagers or angry mid-life crisis'd 30-40 year old men) start throwing fists, or start pushing people.

you're a raving lunatic kerberos ..seriously you are fast becoing the right wing version of kathkasung ...have you ever been to a protest? 2 years ago I went with my brothers, friends and their kids ..all together there were 4 kids in our group under the age of 8 ..and we were the norm ..everywhere you looked there were people from all walks of life ...are these "rabid liberals prone to throwing fists"? ..you have absolutely NO clue of what you're talking about ..out of curiosity where do you live?

That by far, is the most immature act to be witnessed as a rally/counter-rally. The side that does that, looses its *Intelligent Award*.

what act? what the hell are you talking about?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

yes because random people in a crowd represent all "liberals"

According to certain scientific journals, a random group of people represents a statistics of beliefs and emotions.

again I ask what does that have to do with anything?

This example of liberal violence against other protestors is a clear sign of their hypocrasy, and lack of will to hold a debate. They fear being proved wrong, and this has to do with the debate of the Protest Warriors because they've, along with others besides them, have been victims of these sorts of attacks whenever they try to hold debates with the Liberal left.

This example of liberal violence also furthers, that you cannot really go to the Liberal Left for another side of the arguement. As is, you usually catch a fist or a flip of the bird. This has a lot to do with debates and protests. The Liberals are by far more extreme and its been proven time and again.

This has a lot to do with how we approach these kinds of people, and we're all sick of catering to these nutjobs logic of, "OMG your a fear monger"/ten minutes later/"OMG TEH PHEAR MY LEET FIST HAXORS, NYA DIE DIE DIE CONSERVATIVE".

there is debate

And there are also debates you won't let us see. Post where you've debated them.

you're saying they dont answer my points because I dont put it across in an understandable manner? what's so hard to understand about this

Its not that its hard to understand, its that its hard to get you to understand. You want us to recognize your points, and you won't return the favor due to your Liberal Elitist viewpoints.

We can't understand that about you, CptStern. I'm sure the people at **************s can't understand that either.

..seriously you are fast becoing the right wing version of kathkasung

And becoming Kathkasung is a bad thing?

...have you ever been to a protest?

Yep, and at all of them, the Liberals either left or got violent. None of them wanted to talk, but yell, burn flags, and eat hot dogs.

what act? what the hell are you talking about?

The act of starting fights at rallies because the other side threatens your viewpoints with their own. We were talking about the protest warriors and what they've recorded about the Liberal left, but you seem to have forum ADD so ...

 

[Solaris]

According to certain scientific journals, a random group of people represents a statistics of beliefs and emotions.

Yes but thats not a random group of people.

And becoming Kathkasung is a bad thing?

For you it would be an improvement.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yes but thats not a random group of people.

The numbers random enough ... what if the people in those homes had left? Again, something the Lancet did not consider.

For you it would be an improvement.

This I agree with. It's not such a bad thing after all.

 

[Solaris]

The numbers random enough ... what if the people in those homes had left? Again, something the Lancet did not consider.

You know nothing of Statistics.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

And you know nothing of possibility.

 

[CptStern]

According to certain scientific journals, a random group of people represents a statistics of beliefs and emotions.

yes because a handful of people in a crowd of 30,000 makes for an acurate estimate ...again what protests have you been to?

This example of liberal violence against other protestors is a clear sign of their hypocrasy, and lack of will to hold a debate. They fear being proved wrong, and this has to do with the debate of the Protest Warriors because they've, along with others besides them, have been victims of these sorts of attacks whenever they try to hold debates with the Liberal left.

isolated incidents kerberos ..oh and I've yet to meet a right winger that has ever brought a valid point to the table in justifying the war in iraq ..the fact that you and your cronies can never best me is a testament to that

This example of liberal violence also furthers, that you cannot really go to the Liberal Left for another side of the arguement. As is, you usually catch a fist or a flip of the bird. This has a lot to do with debates and protests. The Liberals are by far more extreme and its been proven time and again.

:upstare: yes because all liberals want to smash people's face in ..I've never had a need to lash out at a right winger ..in fact I've been the target of quite a few hate campaigns by right wingers in this very forum

"proven time and again" source?, evidence? proof? you're raving looney kerberos

This has a lot to do with how we approach these kinds of people, and we're all sick of catering to these nutjobs logic of, "OMG your a fear monger"/ten minutes later/"OMG TEH PHEAR MY LEET FIST HAXORS, NYA DIE DIE DIE CONSERVATIVE".

you really sound absolutely rediculous ..I have countless examples of people telling me to drop dead because they disagree with me ..I've had many people banned because of death threats or ehathaveyou ...yet I'm still around, I've never been banned

typical kerberos response: "well the owners of this site are liberals and they secretly agree with you" :rolling:

And there are also debates you won't let us see. Post where you've debated them.

the search button on PW has been disabled for months now, I am NOT searching through hundreds of pages

Its not that its hard to understand, its that its hard to get you to understand. You want us to recognize your points, and you won't return the favor due to your Liberal Elitist viewpoints.
We can't understand that about you, CptStern. I'm sure the people at **************s can't understand that either.

I disprove the right's points all the time, I dont avoid them I answer them directly ..unlike you. I wish some of you would address my points but you never do, you attack specific words that have little or nothing to do with the topic. I truely wish for an intelligent debate about FACTS but that never happens because my opponents are lacking

And becoming Kathkasung is a bad thing?

if raving inartculate posts about shadow organizations and gigantic leaps of logic are good ..then yes

Yep, and at all of them, the Liberals either left or got violent. None of them wanted to talk, but yell, burn flags, and eat hot dogs.

:upstare: where exactly? I've been to dozens and have NEVER seen a violent act ...not one ..and most had crowds in excess of 5000

The act of starting fights at rallies because the other side threatens your viewpoints with their own. We were talking about the protest warriors and what they've recorded about the Liberal left, but you seem to have forum ADD so ...

isolated incidents by fringe elements ..surely in your idiotic state you can recognize the different between a handful of people and millions wouldwide ..if what you say is true then it would systematic ..which it isnt

 

[K e r b e r o s]

again what protests have you been to?

I've been to many here in the states, none in Canada though, although I'm going to assume they're the same unless proven otherwise.

isolated incidents kerberos

No, they're pretty wide spread actually. Funny, the administration sought to ban the Pro.TestWarri.or name. Oh yea, "Big Brother" is in the house ... Frankly, there not the only people to have documented them.

I've never had a need to lash out at a right winger ..in fact I've been the target of quite a few hate campaigns by right wingers in this very forum

I've been the target of a few "OMG I HATE HIS ENGLISH" campaigns. Hmm, we have something in common I'm afraid. I think it's the fact we're both targeted, humilated, and made fun of because of either our beliefs ... or english.

I did'nt really think about like that.

I am NOT searching through hundreds of pages

Tell me the name that you used on their forums, I'll do a search for myself.

 

[CptStern]

I've been to many here in the states, none in Canada though, although I'm going to assume they're the same unless proven otherwise.

yes but there's a world of difference between a protest in NYC and one in Salt Lake Utah

No, they're pretty wide spread actually. Funny, the administration sought to ban the Pro.TestWarri.or name. Oh yea, "Big Brother" is in the house ...

:upstare: oh noes!!1 it's a conspiracy. HL2.et admins MUST be in league with satan the word is censored because we were targeted by PW'ers and for weeks they came and caused shitin our politics forum till they were ultimately banned ...god forbid the admins try to keep flames at a minimum

Frankly, there not the only people to have documented them.

yes they must be in the thousands :upstare: ...btw since when were you so preoccupied with violence against the innocent? you dont seem to care when the innocents are iraqi women and children ..oh no, then it becomes a "regretable mistake"

I've been the target of a few "OMG I HATE HIS ENGLISH" campaigns. Hmm, we have something in common I'm afraid. I think it's the fact we're both targeted, humilated, and made fun of because of either our beliefs ... or english.

yes because death threats are exactly the same as someone making fun of your ability to speak a language :upstare:

oh and I dont make "fun of your english" I make fun of the fact you make little sense but I dont make fun of the fact that your english skills are lacking (you say this, not me)

Tell me the name that you used on their forums, I'll do a search for myself.

ummm ..CptStern ..what else would I call myself? the search button hasnt worked in months ...good luck

 

[SFLUFAN]

The more I see, the more I realize that these ungrateful Iraqi Arabs had exactly what they deserved in Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime. Such a backward, unevolved society deserves dictatorial rule as it is the only thing that prevents them from slaughtering each other.

I thought the war was a bad idea from the start because I knew that "liberating" the Iraqi Arabs were not worth a single American, English, or Australian life and I'm sorry that I was proved right. No Westerner should have to die to give the Arabs freedom that they do not deserve/have not earned.

It is unfortunate that the "true" conservatives like myself failed to make an effective case for this against the liberal socialist "neoconservatives."

 

[CptStern]

idiot, neoconservatives are conservative not liberal

oh and only a fool would believe the US went to iraq to "liberate" iraqis

 

[SFLUFAN]

idiot, neoconservatives are conservative not liberal

They are NOT conservatives. They are Trotsky-inspired liberal interventionists who took on the name "conservative" in order to make them more appealing to the conservative movement.

Their fiscal and foreign policies are pure liberalism - rampant wasteful government spending combined with use of military force to spread "freedom" and "democracy". Their intellectual leadership is made up of former left-wingers who profess a neo-Wilsonian ideology that is in sharp contrast to traditional conservative "realist" foreign policy.

They are liberal when viewed from traditional conservatism.

If the US invaded Iraq to secure oil supplies, then I would support it. But that is obviously not the case, so I can't.

 

[Lemonking]

lol. pwnt
sorry I just had 2 say that
anyway it looks like we should leave Iraq,its just not working as I hoped.

 

[CptStern]

They are NOT conservatives. They are Trotsky-inspired liberal interventionists who took on the name "conservative" in order to make them more appealing to the conservative movement.

so in other words Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fleischer, Bush etc are communist inspired liberals? ...you cant honestly believe that? :rolling:

Their fiscal and foreign policies are pure liberalism - rampant wasteful government spending combined with use of military force to spread "freedom" and "democracy". Their intellectual leadership is made up of former left-wingers who profess a neo-Wilsonian ideology that is in sharp contrast to traditional conservative "realist" foreign policy.

so Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fleischer, Bush etc are former liberals? wow that's news to me

They are liberal when viewed from traditional conservatism.

nooo, they're conservative conservatives

If the US invaded Iraq to secure oil supplies, then I would support it. But that is obviously not the case, so I can't.

then what was the reason? surely you should be able to disprove this

while I agree it was indirectly a reason you went to iraq but none of the evidence panned out ..every single attempt at linking saddam to 9/11 failed because the evidence didnt support it. Iraq was no threat to you or anyone else for that matter, humanitarian concerns were never an issue, and you knew saddam didnt have wmd ..no, iraq was a calculated deception by the bush admin to overthrow saddam and set up a stepping stone into the middle east ..and he used 9/11 as a justification, playing on america sympathies after the worst attack on american soil in history ..pretty dispicable if you ask me



I've laid them out, now the burden is on you to disprove them

spicysalami: you wouldnt know pwned if it bit you in your rather plump ass

 

[K e r b e r o s]

the word is censored because we were targeted by PW'ers and for weeks they came and caused shitin our politics forum till they were ultimately banned ...god forbid the admins try to keep flames at a minimum

The word should not be censored though. That'd be like if someone censored the word Gay, or Palestinian. They're still words, but nonetheless, they're not offensive. At least, not to me.

yes they must be in the thousands

They are, actually. Thank you for seeing things in reality for once.

yes because death threats are exactly the same as someone making fun of your ability to speak a language

I've received both, oh, and, there not always threatening you. Yet somehow, half of them become apart of your victims mentality gimmick of, 'Everybody hates me, nobody likes me'.

oh and I dont make "fun of your english" I make fun of the fact you make little sense but I dont make fun of the fact that your english skills are lacking (you say this, not me)

Right, here we go again. In this thread you stated:

I asked you if english was your second language and said I was willing to overlook that last week

Right CptStern.

Here's another:

if I didnt believe my own eyes I'd swear your were speaking in some uncomprehensible language because I dont understand a word you say

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=101430&page=3

You have made fun of my english skills, and now its proven in Granite.

Moving on!

yes but there's a world of difference between a protest in NYC

So, after your arizona NYC comparison, I guess what your trying to tell me between the lines is that you actually don't live in Canada.

oh noes!!1 it's a conspiracy.

You of all people should have more respect for that word. What, with your druid left wing prophecies, you should be hailed as the forums Nostrodomos.

 

[SFLUFAN]

Please note that I said the intellectual leadership of neoconservatism are Trotsky-inspired, not the "practical" leadership of neoconservatism.

There are plenty of articles and evidence to support the theory that the Iraq war is a "left-wing war" as there are many people on the left that, regardless of the overt reasons for the war (WMD), the overthrow of the Stalinist Baathist regime was a "favorable" outcome. If it were truly an imperialist war, then it would have been executed far better than it already has (of course the incompetence of the Bush admin could have something to do with this).

Please see this well-written piece that supports my view that this was an inherently "liberal" war and one that therefore I oppose:

http://www.larrydewitt.net/Coloquio/IraqPart1.htm

 

[SFLUFAN]

From Wikipedia:

Left-wing roots of Neoconservative organizations

The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. Author Michael Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class'". He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution". He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism", which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history." However, few leading neoconservatives cite James Burnham as a major influence, as he differed with them on many issues.[2]

Critics of Lind contend that there is no theoretical connection between Trotsky's "permanent revolution", which is concerned with the pace of radical social change in the third world, and neoconservative support for a "global democratic revolution", with its Wilsonian roots.[3] But Wilsonianism does share with the theory of permanent revolution very similar concerns about the democratization of ostensibly backward parts of the world.

Lind argues furthermore that "The organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins". He draws a line from the center-left anti-Communist Congress for Cultural Freedom to the Committee on the Present Danger to the Project for the New American Century and adds that "European social democratic models inspired the quintessential neocon institution, the National Endowment for Democracy."

 

[SFLUFAN]

Thus, these are my reasons for not considering neoconservatism to be "true" conservatism but rather an offshot of left-wing ideology.

 

[Solaris]

The more I see, the more I realize that these ungrateful Iraqi Arabs had exactly what they deserved in Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime. Such a backward, unevolved society deserves dictatorial rule as it is the only thing that prevents them from slaughtering each other.

I thought the war was a bad idea from the start because I knew that "liberating" the Iraqi Arabs were not worth a single American, English, or Australian life and I'm sorry that I was proved right. No Westerner should have to die to give the Arabs freedom that they do not deserve/have not earned.

It is unfortunate that the "true" conservatives like myself failed to make an effective case for this against the liberal socialist "neoconservatives."

Your a racist pig, seriously how can you debate with this?

 

[SFLUFAN]

Your a racist pig, seriously how can you debate with this?

Racist? Perhaps but there is a certain degree of truth in what I say. Besides, I'm on your side!

 

[Solaris]

Racist? Perhaps but there is a certain degree of truth in what I say. Besides, I'm on your side!

I'm a Trotskyist. And I have have several 'arab' freinds.

 

[SFLUFAN]

I'm a Trotskyist. And I have have several 'arab' freinds.

Sorry to hear about your condition (Trotskyism) - I hope you get over it soon You'll see the light of free-market capitalism as you get older.

And your Arab friends are more than likely highly Westernized Arabs who have adapted to the values of Western socieity in some way. This is in contrast to the society of Iraq that in many respects is still stuck in a time prior to the 20th Century.

That is the key difference.

But seeing as you're a Trotskyist, care to share that 7800GT of yours with me - that is what you're supposed to do right?

 

[Solaris]

Your a racist so you lose by Default, I'm not going to argue race with a racist it's pointless.