Ain't Democracy Grand???

[memyselfI]

Increasingly radicalized 'Islamic' governments elected in Iran, now in the Palestinian territories, and possibly in Iraq. Thanks DUHbya.

Let freedom ring...

:rolleyes: :shake: ROFL

[mlyonsd]

Didn't Matt Helm get banned for posting stupid shit like this?

[patteeu]

Hamas won in the palestinian territories because Fatah was supremely corrupt. Since Fatah grew out of a terrorist organization and since they were unable or unwilling to control Hamas, I don't see how Hamas' victory is any big catastrophe. Now Hamas will have the chance to play ball with Israel politically. And if they refuse to give up their stated goal to eliminate Israel and their violent approach to the relationship, it will be that much easier for Israel to identify and locate their leaders. Who were the good guys in the palestinian elections anyway? :shrug:

[CHIEF4EVER]

Oh, D-enise, I am surprised to see you here. I thought you might be out protesting someones military funeral or something........:p

[Radar Chief]

Who were the good guys in the palestinian elections anyway? :shrug:

.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Hamas won in the palestinian territories because Fatah was supremely corrupt. Since Fatah grew out of a terrorist organization and since they were unable or unwilling to control Hamas, I don't see how Hamas' victory is any big catastrophe. Now Hamas will have the chance to play ball with Israel politically. And if they refuse to give up their stated goal to eliminate Israel and their violent approach to the relationship, it will be that much easier for Israel to identify and locate their leaders. Who were the good guys in the palestinian elections anyway? :shrug:

Bingo. But why do you insist on letting facts and logic get in the way of a perfectly good left wing rant? C'mon dude, be a team player.

Left unsaid of course is the supposition on D-enise' part of the "election" in Iran. Now THERE is a fair and democratic process. :rolleyes:

Sample ballot from the Iranian elections:



Please place an X for your choice.

______I vote for the Shiite majority.

______I and my family prefer to vote for someone who isn't a complete nutball and likewise prefer to be incarcerated, tortured and murdered.

[MarcBulger]

I guess Nancy Palosi would have better ideas,,,maybe she does but so far I have heard nothing from the Left on defending this nation.

[penchief]

I think the whole Mideast mess may have been avoided if we somehow had worked to create a Palestinian state long ago and used it as the launching ground for democracy in the Arab World. I've said this many times over the past few years. We could have done it peacefully while at the same time taking away much of the justification for the radicalization of Islam instead of inflaming it in the way we have over the years. The invasion of Iraq has only helped to further radicalize Islamic extremism.

In that respect, denise is probably correct. We're getting democracy but we're not getting the positive results that we, along with Israel, could have hoped for if we had taken a more pragmatic approach.

Of course, forsight is not one of our strong suits. We tend to prefer crisis management.

[Radar Chief]

I think the whole Mideast mess may have been avoided if we somehow had worked to create a Palestinian state long ago and used it as the launching ground for democracy in the Arab World. I've said this many times over the past few years. We could have done it peacefully while at the same time taking away much of the justification for the radicalization of Islam instead of inflaming it in the way we have over the years. The invasion of Iraq has only helped to further radicalize Islamic extremism.

In that respect, denise is probably correct. We're getting democracy but we're not getting the positive results that we, along with Israel, could have hoped for if we had taken a more pragmatic approach.

Of course, forsight is not one of our strong suits. We tend to prefer crisis management.

Are you sure everything is as you, and apparently Denise, want to believe? (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KAR442735.htm)

Anti-Qaeda protest in Iraq, local anger mounts

24 Jan 2006 17:03:50 GMT
Source: Reuters

SAMARRA, Iraq, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Hundreds of Iraqis staged a demonstration in the restive city of Samarra on Tuesday in a show of defiance against al Qaeda militants they blamed for killing dozens of police recruits last week.
Nationalist rebels and tribal leaders in the city north of Baghdad had already let it be known they were joining forces to try to expel the foreign-influenced Islamists from the area, part of a trend in Sunni Arab areas that U.S. commanders have pointed to optimistically as a sign of political development.
The protesters, estimated by police to number 700 to 1,000 and organised by the Iraqi Islamic Party and Muslim Scholars Association, major forces in Sunni politics, accused al Qaeda of killing some 40 local men who were hauled off a bus near Samarra last week after leaving a police academy in Baghdad and killed.
The killing late last year of the head of one of the city's main tribal leaders had prompted an alliance against al Qaeda involving local nationalist insurgents, residents said, similar to movements seen in other Sunni strongholds.
"They should not target civilians," said one local militant who says he speaks for a nationalist insurgent group in Samarra and goes by the name of Abu Mohammed.
"Nationalist groups made it clear that either they observe that or we will have to force them to get out of our areas."
In the western desert centre of Ramadi a suicide bombing that killed 80 police recruits three weeks ago has prompted attacks by rebel and tribal forces on al Qaeda figures and tit- for-tat assassinations, residents there say.
TRIBAL LEADER
Samarra appears less tense but residents following the situation closely said on Tuesday that anger among people in the city is increasing against al Qaeda, whose Jordanian leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is said by Iraqi defense chiefs to have moved from around Ramadi to Diyala province, just east of Samarra.
They said it began when Qaeda members killed the popular sheikh Hikmat al-Mumtaz, head of the Albu Baz tribe in Samarra, who had spoken out against insurgent attacks on civilians, such as al Qaeda's suicide assaults on Shi'ite neighbourhoods.
His tribesmen force confessions from suspected killers and publicised their supposed links to al Qaeda around the city.
After last week's killing of the police recruits, one resident said: "They will not allow Qaeda members to operate in Samarra any more ... They want to put pressure on them to leave.
"If need be, they may start killing known al Qaeda members."
In Ramadi, residents said this week there was "all-out war" between local, more secularly inclined rebels, opposed to the U.S. occupation and Shi'ite-led government, and al Qaeda.
The bloodshed is the latest example of a trend U.S. military commanders and diplomats have been pointing to optimistically in recent months as a sign that some militants may be ready to pursue negotiable demands through the new Sunni Arab engagement in parliament after taking part in last month's election.
On Thursday, three local Islamist groups around Ramadi -- the 1920 Brigades, the Mujahideen Army and the Islamic Movement for Iraq's Mujahideen -- also met to distance themselves from their fellow Islamists in Qaeda, joining the shift against al Qaeda led by more secular, tribal and nationalist groups.
Both sides have distributed leaflets in the city of half a million claiming killings of opponents.

[penchief]

Are you sure everything is as you, and apparently Denise, want to believe? (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KAR442735.htm)

I think you are misenterpreting what I am saying.

[Radar Chief]

I think you are misenterpreting what I am saying.

Then please explain.

[Chief Henry]

My $$$ on Israel...

[patteeu]

I think the whole Mideast mess may have been avoided if we somehow had worked to create a Palestinian state long ago and used it as the launching ground for democracy in the Arab World. I've said this many times over the past few years. We could have done it peacefully while at the same time taking away much of the justification for the radicalization of Islam instead of inflaming it in the way we have over the years. The invasion of Iraq has only helped to further radicalize Islamic extremism.

In that respect, denise is probably correct. We're getting democracy but we're not getting the positive results that we, along with Israel, could have hoped for if we had taken a more pragmatic approach.

Of course, forsight is not one of our strong suits. We tend to prefer crisis management.

They tried that in 1947, but the Arab states weren't content with a two state solution and wanted Israel too.

[Chiefs Express]

A truer statement couldn't have been said.



memyselfi
Irresponsible War Dissenter

[Radar Chief]

A truer statement couldn't have been said.



memyselfi
Irresponsible War Dissenter

I have a suggestion for a new “emoticon”, “smilie” or whatever you want to call it, to be displayed whenever D-enise’s name is typed in place of Denise. Tell me whath’cha think.

Sorry, I posted the wrong D-enise "smilie".

[oldandslow]

I am confused by this. I thought the President assured all of us that "democracies don't attack democracies."

Stands to reason we shouldn't have a thing in the world to worry about from Hamas. After all the President has certainly been right about everything else. Patteau and Jake tell me so.

[Radar Chief]

I am confused by this. I thought the President assured all of us that "democracies don't attack democracies."


Link?

[patteeu]

I am confused by this. I thought the President assured all of us that "democracies don't attack democracies."

Stands to reason we shouldn't have a thing in the world to worry about from Hamas. After all the President has certainly been right about everything else. Patteau and Jake tell me so.

If patteeu told you it's so, then you can take it to the bank. I can't vouch for Patteau though.

[BIG_DADDY]

Nuke em and be done with it.

[Chiefs Express]

I have a suggestion for a new “emoticon”, “smilie” or whatever you want to call it, to be displayed whenever D-enise’s name is typed in place of :Peace:. Tell me whath’cha think.

I think that you should make it a Poll. I'd vote for it!

It looks like an angry unemployed housewife.

[oldandslow]

Link?

RC-- The exact quote is:

Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

You can find it in paragraph 28 of this speech...toward the end of the paragraph...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-4.html

The quote is, of course, complete BS. Free nations attack, they have attacked each other, and at least the US has built WMD.

[beavis]

Nuke em and be done with it.
I'm disappointed in you man. It seems to me that this thread is a perfect opportunity to post everyone's favorite pic of mememe.

[Radar Chief]

RC-- The exact quote is:

Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

You can find it in paragraph 28 of this speech...toward the end of the paragraph...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-4.html

The quote is, of course, complete BS. Free nations attack, they have attacked each other, and at least the US has built WMD.

Thanks O&S, context helps. I know what you’re talk’n ‘bout now.
And of course you’ve never said anything extreme to the point of ridiculous specifically to make a point, particularly when debating, have you. ;)

[oldandslow]

Nah, not me!!!!! :evil:

[Donger]

I should be noted that Hitler rose to power through quasi-democratic means, as well.

[BIG_DADDY]

I'm disappointed in you man. It seems to me that this thread is a perfect opportunity to post everyone's favorite pic of mememe.

:evil:

[beavis]

:evil:
It's still funny. ROFL

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I should be noted that Hitler rose to power through quasi-democratic means, as well.

As Metallica once said, "you know it's sad but true".

[go bowe]

I have a suggestion for a new “emoticon”, “smilie” or whatever you want to call it, to be displayed whenever D-enise’s name is typed in place of :Peace:. Tell me whath’cha think.hey now...

true hippies (circa 1968) everywhere are insulted by that suggestion...

besides, doesn't denise already have a smilie?

[Radar Chief]

hey now...

true hippies (circa 1968) everywhere are insulted by that suggestion...

besides, doesn't denise already have a smilie?

Sorry go bo,
I posted the wrong “smilie” for D-enise. I meant to post this one Denise, with the attached one as an alternative.
I think the attached one fits her better.

[BIG_DADDY]

It's still funny. ROFL

That was a picture of her before she put on 60 pounds.

[go bowe]

Sorry go bo,
I posted the wrong “smilie” for D-enise. I meant to post this one Denise, with the attached one as an alternative.
I think the attached one fits her better.yeah, i like it too...

but i wouldn't start a poll about it on the main page, you'll get neg-repped into oblivion just for bringing her up...

and it will be even worse if she actually posts on that thread in the main forum...

egadddds!

the mere thought is appalling... :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Radar Chief]

yeah, i like it too...

but i wouldn't start a poll about it on the main page, you'll get neg-repped into oblivion just for bringing her up...

and it will be even worse if she actually posts on that thread in the main forum...

egadddds!

the mere thought is appalling... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh, I think it’d initially get a laugh.
Then she’d show up play’n the victim and the neg rep would roll.
I wouldn’t purposely subject’em to her on the main board anyway. Those guys seem to have a weaker constitution that us die hards. ;)

[Nightwish]

Left unsaid of course is the supposition on D-enise' part of the "election" in Iran. Now THERE is a fair and democratic process. :rolleyes:
Okay, let me get this straight -- if they have an election, but the party they elect isn't what we consider to be "the good guys," then the election wasn't legit? Is that how you're going to spin it if the elected Shiites in Iraq return to their traditional ways? How's that going to look after all the trumpeting from the right about "successful" elections in Iraq? Are they only successful for as long as you (collectively, the right wing) are still under the illusion that it went your way?

[Stinger]

We're getting democracy but we're not getting the positive results that we, along with Israel, could have hoped for if we had taken a more pragmatic approach.

Of course, forsight is not one of our strong suits. We tend to prefer crisis management.

Just curious looking down the road as it were , when Hamas acts out with a terrorist attack or whatever, they are now a duly elected government, it's now not a fringe group attacking Israel. Would it not be correct that Israeli can say that this nation, this Democratic nation, has just attacked us, and would Isreal have a greater reason to respond to this, a more justified reason in doing so?

[penchief]

Just curious looking down the road as it were , when Hamas acts out with a terrorist attack or whatever, they are now a duly elected government, it's now not a fringe group attacking Israel. Would it not be correct that Israeli can say that this nation, this Democratic nation, has just attacked us, and would Isreal have a greater reason to respond to this, a more justified reason in doing so?

I can see what you're getting at and agree in principle. But do they have autonomy? Do they really have their own independent nation? Isn't that one of their primary grievances? I suspect until they have their own state it would be difficult to deal with them as you would another autonomous nation?

While I believe that Israel has the right to respond to any attack I don't think this situation gets better in the near future. While much of the blame lies with Palestinian terrorism a lot of the blame also lies in the history of the region and the lack of forsight by Israel and the West.

Let's not forget that upon being elected, one of Bush's first acts was to withdraw from the peace process basically insinuating that it's their problem to work out for themselves. Meanwhile, that disengagement led to nothing but increased violence and escalating bad blood for over three years. That, along with the invasion of Iraq, has done a lot to radicalize the region.

[Mr. Kotter]

Increasingly radicalized 'Islamic' governments elected in Iran, now in the Palestinian territories, and possibly in Iraq. Thanks DUHbya.

Let freedom ring...

:rolleyes: :shake: ROFL

Are you seriously suggesting that the status quo in the region is preferable to the concept of democratic self-rule?

[oldandslow]

Are you seriously suggesting that the status quo in the region is preferable to the concept of democratic self-rule?

I am suggesting it. Palestine was better before Hamas was elected into power yesterday. Further, Sadaam may be far preferrable to whatever Ayatolla is elected in Iraq. I am certain he was better than the powers that be in Iran.

Bush's foreign policy is a disaster. Even if we win - we lose. Nation building in a culture foreign to a colonist power has never worked.

[Mr. Kotter]

I am suggesting it. Palestine was better before Hamas was elected into power yesterday. Further, Sadaam may be far preferrable to whatever Ayatolla is elected in Iraq. I am certain he was better than the powers that be in Iran.

Bush's foreign policy is a disaster. Even if we win - we lose. Nation building in a culture foreign to a colonist power has never worked.

If you wish to support totalitarianism and despots, over democracy, be my guest. I don't like some of the short-term results in the region, but this is a long-term investment. There appears to be a strengthening of the reform-minded secularists in the region--in Iran, Iraq, and elsewhere. Given time, the people will see that as a preferable alternative.

It must strike you as odd, then, that when Woodrow Wilson called for the right to self-determination and self-rule, he was applauded by progressives and leftists for such visionary leadership--even though he was ridiculed by the conservatives and the right for what they saw as naive idealism.

Today, roles have switched nearly 180 degrees. Why? IMO, it's due to blind hatred of President Bush.

[oldandslow]

Oh my...where to begin.

First you make the claim that reform minded secularists are growing in the area...This is dishonest and you know it. Not one country in the region is becoming "more" progressive. Indeed, I would argue that Islamic fundamentalism is growing exponentially. Further, even Isreal has become more orthodox and conservative. There are many econcomic, religious, historical and cultural reasons for this - but I suspect you know this as well.

You posit that - Given time people will see this as an attractive alternative. - You have no evidence of this and I have plenty of evidence to the contrary. This region has been at war for millenia - at least 3500 years. When given the opportunity to vote they do so based on the centuries long cultural relevancies that matter to them - not on some western ideal that YOU or I or anyone else holds in high regard.

Quoting one of the single most racist presidents of the 20th century to make your point is not helping. WW was all for European self determination. Look at his policies in Mexico and Central America to see how he felt about folks whose skin was tinted a bit differently.

Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. Elections in the absence of this key societal context can produce authoritarian regimes and abuses as easily as they can produce genuine people power. Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad. And by either creating or failing to deal with hated foreign occupations, he has sown the seeds for militant Islamist movements that gain popularity because of their nationalist credentials

[memyselfI]

Oh my...where to begin.

First you make the claim that reform minded secularists are growing in the area...This is dishonest and you know it. Not one country in the region is becoming "more" progressive. Indeed, I would argue that Islamic fundamentalism is growing exponentially. Further, even Isreal has become more orthodox and conservative. There are many econcomic, religious, historical and cultural reasons for this - but I suspect you know this as well.

You posit that - Given time people will see this as an attractive alternative. - You have no evidence of this and I have plenty of evidence to the contrary. This region has been at war for millenia - at least 3500 years. When given the opportunity to vote they do so based on the centuries long cultural relevancies that matter to them - not on some western ideal that YOU or I or anyone else holds in high regard.

Quoting one of the single most racist presidents of the 20th century to make your point is not helping. WW was all for European self determination. Look at his policies in Mexico and Central America to see how he felt about folks whose skin was tinted a bit differently.

Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. Elections in the absence of this key societal context can produce authoritarian regimes and abuses as easily as they can produce genuine people power. Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad. And by either creating or failing to deal with hated foreign occupations, he has sown the seeds for militant Islamist movements that gain popularity because of their nationalist credentials

Fantastic post. One of the networks (MSNBC?) had a story which told of all of the gains that the fantatical and radical elements of 'Islam' had made politically not only in the Palestinian elections but in Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Lebanon and how these gains were running completely counter to what the WH was planning for the region.

DUHbya can be given credit for one thing... that is further radicalizing an already radical region. If I doubted how serious this is I don't any longer. I saw Ed Rollins, A-list Republican hack, on CNN saying how concerned he is and how he feels the WH has misplayed and mistaken their strategy in the region. Scary stuff...when one of their own starts waiving red flags. :shake: :cuss: :mad:

[Lurch]

Fantastic post. One of the networks (MSNBC?) had a story which told of all of the gains that the fantatical and radical elements of 'Islam' had made politically not only in the Palestinian elections but in Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Lebanon and how these gains were running completely counter to what the WH was planning for the region.

DUHbya can be given credit for one thing... that is further radicalizing an already radical region. If I doubted how serious this is I don't any longer. I saw Ed Rollins, A-list Republican hack, on CNN saying how concerned he is and how he feels the WH has misplayed and mistaken their strategy in the region. Scary stuff...when one of their own starts waiving red flags. :shake: :cuss: :mad:

I have a friend who gives me the Democratic talking points each day; you're doing a noble job, attempting to promote them.

[penchief]

I have a friend who gives me the Democratic talking points each day; you're doing a noble job, attempting to promote them.

And you are doing a nice job reinforcing the hollow claims of those who point the finger and say something like, "talking points! talking points!"

Say something original that eminates from your own mind and not something that you hear from Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly and then we can take you seriously.

You seem like a decent fellow. Just try being yourself instead of a mouthpiece for ideologues simply because you lack self-confidence.

[Lurch]

And you are doing a nice job reinforcing the hollow claims of those who point the finger and say something like, "talking points! talking points!"

Say something original that eminates from your own mind and not something that you hear from Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly and then we can take you seriously.

You seem like a decent fellow. Just try being yourself instead of a mouthpiece for ideologues simply because you lack self-confidence.

Okay, I'm not gonna play this denise, TJ, and other nut job approach, so I'll lay it out for you: is it really beyond the realm of possibility that this short -term reaction, is more due to the corruption of the intial 'democratic' regimes in this area, that voters will eventually second guess their election of terrorist officials to positions of real power, once they realize the consequences? And, then, at the end of the day, realistic and pragmatic voters will do what we had hoped they would do all along? I think that's the scenario that will play out. Perhaps, I'm an idealist though. ;)

Bush, and others, may over-estimate the ME's willingness to quickly embrace democracy, but in the end game do we have any other choice than to educate them and trust them?

[penchief]

Okay, I'm not gonna play this denise, TJ, and other nut job approach, so I'll lay it out for you: is it really beyond the realm of possibility that this short -term reaction, is more due to the corruption of the intial 'democratic' regimes in this area, that voters will eventually second guess their election of terrorist officials to positions of real power, once they realize the consequences? And, then, at the end of the day, realistic and pragmatic voters will do what we had hoped they would do all along? I think that's the scenario that will play out. Perhaps, I'm an idealist though. ;)

Bush, and others, may over-estimate the ME's willingness to quickly embrace democracy, but in the end game do we have any other choice than to educate them and trust them?

First off, when you mention the word, "pragmatic," you are speaking music to my ears. But if you believe that Bushco, Cheneyburton & Associates come anywhere near pragmatism you are sadly mistaken.

Second, it has less to do with the corruption of the "democratic" regimes in the region. It has more to do with the history of countries like Israel and the United States, among others, who have democratic roots but don't practice what they preach.

You see, the MidEast is no different than Central America before it, if you discount the fact that Central America posed the threat of accepting communism instead of the threat of cutting off oil supplies, the problem really lies with this country's unwillingness to shed it's eco-political retrogressions.

We cannot continue to endorse regimes that profit from the misery of their "subjects" while at the same time purport to endorse democracy and freedom. That represents hypocricy at it's apex.

[Lurch]

First off, when you mention the word, "pragmatic," you are speaking music to my ears. But if you believe that Bushco, Cheneyburton & Associates come anywhere near pragmatism you are sadly mistaken.

Second, it has less to do with the corruption of the "democratic" regimes in the region. It has more to do with the history of countries like Israel and the United States, among others, who have democratic roots but don't practice what they preach.

You see, the MidEast is no different than Central America before it, if you discount the fact that Central America posed the threat of accepting communism instead of the threat of cutting off oil supplies, the problem really lies with this country's unwillingness to shed it's Eco-political retrogressions.

We cannot continue to endorse regimes that profit from the misery of their "subjects" while at the same time purport to endorse democracy and freedom. That represents hypocricy at it's apex.

You are gettin' more from me than most...

I don't discount that there has been some "networking" involved with the awarding of government contracts during the WOT, but is that really any different than any other time in US history--at least since Jackson began the "spoils" system.

Secondly, Democracy is a patient and elusive endeavor. Direct democracy is not realistic, so the republican form we have is no one's fault but our own. So accept it, fix it, or shut the fukk up. And they aren't accepting it, or fixing it....so....

Thirdly, have you noticed the trend in Central America? After flirting with socialism, many Central American countries are now slowly working toward realistic and pragmatic democracies. You expect less in the ME?

I agree that endorsing despotic regimes in not desireable; but compared to the alternatives, at the time, they were preferable. The appearance of hypocisy in such circumstances is understandable, given the complexity of US diplomatic relations in the region over the past 60-70 years.

[penchief]

You are gettin' more from me than most....

I am on my way out the door but I can't resist posting a response.


I don't discount that there has been some "networking" involved with the awarding of government contracts during the WOT, but is that really any different than any other time in US history--at least since Jackson began the "spoils" system.

If networking is your soft and cuddly word for war profiteering I can accept that as being on par with Nixon's military industrial complex but I am not willing to compare it to something that happened before our nation was connected with the rest of the world. As George Bush II, himself, said when referring to FISA, "that was a different time."

Secondly, Democracy is a patient and elusive endeavor. Direct democracy is not realistic, so the republican form we have is no one's fault but our own. So accept it, fix it, or shut the fukk up. And they aren't accepting it, or fixing it....so.....

Democracy is elusive because governments only wish to practice it when it is in their own interest, including this American administration. Just look at how they have pared away at the edges of our own democracy in this country. While they persist in suggesting that those digressions are in our own interest, anyone with eyes and ears can see that it is only in their best interests.

I am not going to accept it and I am not going to shut the fukk up. I am going to continue speaking my mind because I feel it is important to do so.

Thirdly, have you noticed the trend in Central America? After flirting with socialism, many Central American countries are now slowly working toward realistic and pragmatic democracies. You expect less in the ME?

I agree that democracy is a natural progression. But democracy has to bud from within. It cannot be imposed. We, as America, can plant the seed but we cannot transplant it. We cannot do so especially if we are not willing to do it honestly. We must be sincere or we will surely fail.


I agree that endorsing despotic regimes in not desireable; but compared to the alternatives, at the time, they were preferable. The appearance of hypocisy in such circumstances is understandable, given the complexity of US diplomatic relations in the region over the past 60-70 years.

I totally disagree. While most would take the patriotic stand on this issue and say "hurrah," I say that there is no good reason to support despotism. We, as a nation, have only done so in the past because it has been of economic benefit. Well, I am ready to suggest that those days are past. It is now time to consider the socio-political ramifications of our actions above the economic benefit. It is now time for our country to take the high road that we have always professed to take.

[Logical]

Are you seriously suggesting that the status quo in the region is preferable to the concept of democratic self-rule?

:hmmm:

Over 2000 US soldiers dead post Saddam's regime

Countless Iraqies dead post Saddam's regime

Iraq is now filled with terrorists post Saddam's regime

Iraq has much less in the way of human services, utilities, clean water post Saddam's regime

Much less oil coming out of Iraq post Saddam's regime

Oil prices have doubled post Saddam's regime

The US has pissed away upwards of 300 billion dollars post Saddam's regime

Civil war grows more imminent every day between the three factions

Maybe the status quo was better?

[Chiefs Express]

:hmmm:

Over 2000 US soldiers dead post Saddam's regime

Countless Iraqies dead post Saddam's regime

Iraq is now filled with terrorists post Saddam's regime

Iraq has much less in the way of human services, utilities, clean water post Saddam's regime

Much less oil coming out of Iraq post Saddam's regime

Oil prices have doubled post Saddam's regime

The US has pissed away upwards of 300 billion dollars post Saddam's regime

Civil war grows more imminent every day between the three factions

Maybe the status quo was better?

All of these facts are what you read daily in the liberal media.

Yep, you have a point there.......NOT!

[Chiefs Express]

Fantastic post. One of the networks (MSNBC?) had a story which told of all of the gains that the fantatical and radical elements of 'Islam' had made politically not only in the Palestinian elections but in Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Lebanon and how these gains were running completely counter to what the WH was planning for the region.

DUHbya can be given credit for one thing... that is further radicalizing an already radical region. If I doubted how serious this is I don't any longer. I saw Ed Rollins, A-list Republican hack, on CNN saying how concerned he is and how he feels the WH has misplayed and mistaken their strategy in the region. Scary stuff...when one of their own starts waiving red flags. :shake: :cuss: :mad:

Your opinion on this matter, or any matter relating to the government of the United States is worth less than the time it took for you to form the words. You have so much hatred for this country one would think that you are one of the radical refuge from Iraq.

[CHIEF4EVER]

:hmmm:

Over 2000 US soldiers dead post Saddam's regime

Less casualties than a normal 3 month period in Vietnam. How long have we been in Iraq?

Countless Iraqies dead post Saddam's regime

Countless more dead BECAUSE OF SoDamn Insane.

Iraq is now filled with terrorists post Saddam's regime

As it was DURING SoDamns regime.

Iraq has much less in the way of human services, utilities, clean water post Saddam's regime

Horseshit.

Much less oil coming out of Iraq post Saddam's regime

Really? How much oil was coming to America during the oil for food (oil for weapons from noncompliant countries)?

Oil prices have doubled post Saddam's regime

Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.

The US has pissed away upwards of 300 billion dollars post Saddam's regime

How much did Slick Willie piss away in his ineffectual response to the various violations by the Hussein regime? If you are gonna bitch about presidents pissing away money, bitch about the ones who pissed it away without any committment at all to resolving the problem.

Civil war grows more imminent every day between the three factions

Supposition on your part. I suppose the Sunnis started to vote because civil war was imminent?

[Chiefs Express]

Less casualties than a normal 3 month period in Vietnam. How long have we been in Iraq?

Countless more dead BECAUSE OF SoDamn Insane.

As it was DURING SoDamns regime.

Horseshit.

Really? How much oil was coming to America during the oil for food (oil for weapons from noncompliant countries)?

Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.

How much did Slick Willie piss away in his ineffectual response to the various violations by the Hussein regime? If you are gonna bitch about presidents pissing away money, bitch about the ones who pissed it away without any committment at all to resolving the problem.

Supposition on your part. I suppose the Sunnis started to vote because civil war was imminent?

This response deserves many green reps.

I was just going to put up the :BS: flag.

[penchief]

This response deserves many green reps.

I was just going to put up the :BS: flag.

Not really.

His responses are almost all off base or irrelevant. None of them really respond to Logical's points in an effective way. It sounded more like a weak attempt to counter his points because somebody had to give it a shot.

[go bowe]

:hmmm:

Over 2000 US soldiers dead post Saddam's regime

Countless Iraqies dead post Saddam's regime

Iraq is now filled with terrorists post Saddam's regime

Iraq has much less in the way of human services, utilities, clean water post Saddam's regime

Much less oil coming out of Iraq post Saddam's regime

Oil prices have doubled post Saddam's regime

The US has pissed away upwards of 300 billion dollars post Saddam's regime

Civil war grows more imminent every day between the three factions

Maybe the status quo was better?2000+ dead and how many tens of thousands wounded, many of whom are permanently crippled...

according to the president some 30,000 iraqi civilians have died post saddammit...

lots of terrorists, lots of them post saddammit...

electricity, water, etc. all below pre-war levels...

much less oil...

oil prices have doubled...

pissed away 300 billion with another couple of hundred billion in the works... (maybe not pissed away, but it has been an enormous drain on the treasury, that's for sure)

i'm not sure about civil war... seems entirely possible, but not as certain since sunnis have begun voting and participating in the political process and even more importantly, have begun to turn on the foreign fighters in their midst...

i don't know if the status quo during saddammit's regime was better, but the way the war has been conducted, particularly since "mission accomplished" has raised some questions in my mind...

overall, i'd have to agree with your assessment...

[go bowe]

Not really.

His responses are almost all off base or irrelevant. None of them really respond to Logical's points in an effective way. It sounded more like a weak attempt to counter his points because somebody had to give it a shot.hey, lighten up wouldja?

chiefieforever is my bud...

i might not agree with all of his points, but they are nonetheless sincerely held beliefs and he is entitled to his own point of view...

we should value each other's point of view (except for jettio and marc bulger perhaps)...

btw, your and idiot... :p :p :p

[penchief]

hey, lighten up wouldja?

chiefieforever is my bud...

i might not agree with all of his points, but they are nonetheless sincerely held beliefs and he is entitled to his own point of view...

we should value each other's point of view (except for jettio and marc bulger perhaps)...

btw, your and idiot... :p :p :p

I didn't say they weren't his sincerely held beliefs. And I didn't say I didn't respect them. I just didn't think that his response withstood the test of scrutiny and and it certainly wasn't deserving of a cheering section or "many green reps," for that matter.

I would tend to agree with your assessment more.

Plus, I know I am and idiot.