Democrats: "FAILURE IS THE ONLY OPTION!"

Dixie, little Clue:

Women were more free in Iraq BEFORE the invasion. You are confusing Iraq with Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Not uncommon for spin-regurgitating partisans such as yourself.

Perhaps, one day...when you're a big boy, you'll choose to LEARN about something bfore speaking of it.
 
Shit, the very fact that this war is nothing more than the realization of PNAC doctrine, makes it nothing more than a political action.

The only "threat" this invasion was expected to ameliorate was the threat of a loss of US economic dominance, when one of the world's greatest oil powers was to find itself no longer constrained by sanctions.

This invasion was designed to open Iraqi markets to The US, markets we otherwise didn't have a CHANCE of penetrating.
 
It had nothing to do with markets, idiot.

It had to do with radical religious nutjobs who have decided it's their god's will to fly commercial airplanes full of innocent people into our buildings! That it is their 'manifest destiny' to bring about the Apocalypse, so that their god can return, and obliterating Israel is the first step.

It had to do with a simple but logical approach to obtaining stability and peace in the region, through countering the religious radical fundamental ideology, with the ideology of freedom and democracy. It had to do with cutting Iran off, from further spreading the hate-filled message of the Islamofascists, and planting democratic government in the heart of their beloved Caliphate.

This is not a war of Christians against Muslims, as many of you pinheads want to claim, the overwhelming majority of Muslims have nothing to do with this, and don't support it. Because of the nature of their religion (I guess), they seem to have a hard time standing up and denouncing the radicals. But many fairly dominant Muslim countries, have sided with the US in Iraq, and the War on Terror. Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, all support the US and our coalition in the War on Terror, and the war in Iraq.
 
Iraq was a SECULAR nation, you fucking moron. The religious extremists WANTED us to invade Iraq.


You have got to be the most politically ignorant person on this, or any other, planet.
 
Iraq was a SECULAR nation, you fucking moron.

Damn, for a "secular" nation, they sure do seem to have a lot of problems between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, huh?

The religious extremists WANTED us to invade Iraq.

No, the religious extremists want to establish a Caliphate there.


You have got to be the most politically ignorant person on this, or any other, planet.

You have got to be the most politically ignorant person on this, or any other, planet.

Well, it doesn't seem that way to me, it seems like you are the one who is ignorant. Iraq can't be collapsing in utter chaos of civil war between Muslim sects, if they are secular, it's a contradiction of logic, yet that is what you just said. Then... just when I thought you had said the most stupid thing ever, you kept typing! You claim that the fundamentalist radicals, who wish to establish an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east, actually WANTED us to invade and plant a Democracy there. That's almost as funny as claiming Liberals WANTED Bush to invade Iraq!
 
Dixie, Iraq was a defeat that was lost before the invasion was launched, through poor strategic thinking and a perspective on ME politics tinted by idealistic dreams of the 'power of democracy'.

We need to be looking outside Iraq for victories in the battle against Islamic extremism, and simply make the best of a bad situation within Iraq.
 
You claim that the fundamentalist radicals, who wish to establish an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east, actually WANTED us to invade and plant a Democracy there.

9/11 was a provokation, AQ etc certainly wanted the US to attack a Muslim country so that they could point to the attack to justify their actions and garner support and recruits. As the US learnt with Castro, if you want to make a people rally round, give them a common enemy.

AQ etc probably understood ME politics better than the idealogues in the WH and knew that the schisms in Iraqi society would negate the idea of a welcomed invasion and a nice cosy transition via a ballot.
 
"Damn, for a "secular" nation, they sure do seem to have a lot of problems between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, huh? "

Wow...your stupidity continues to amaze. You realize that there CAN be religious people residing in a secular nation, don't you?
 
Damn, for a "secular" nation, they sure do seem to have a lot of problems between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, huh?

and that mean old secular baathist, Saddam, as big an asshole as he was, was doing a great job at keeping a lid on those problems that WE, by our invasion, conquest and occupation, have starting boiling not only in Iraq, but now throughout the region. Good JOB!

No, the religious extremists want to establish a Caliphate there.

no...they knew that they needed to incite the muslim world against the west, and what better way to do that than to have the Great Satan invade, conquer and occupy an oilrich muslim nation. The problem was....how to get them to do that. The answer: fly three airplanes into buildings in America and watch the moron in the white house use that as an excuse to enact the PNAC agenda. You gotta admit...their plan worked perfectly. Good JOB!

Well, it doesn't seem that way to me, it seems like you are the one who is ignorant. Iraq can't be collapsing in utter chaos of civil war between Muslim sects, if they are secular, it's a contradiction of logic, yet that is what you just said. Then... just when I thought you had said the most stupid thing ever, you kept typing! You claim that the fundamentalist radicals, who wish to establish an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east, actually WANTED us to invade and plant a Democracy there. That's almost as funny as claiming Liberals WANTED Bush to invade Iraq!

your willfull ignorance is profound. I realize that it all stems from a complete inability to admit error, but getting rid of Saddam was a really stupid thing to do. As bad of a guy as he was, he was very good at keeping a lid on sectarian infighting within Iraq(which we are incapable of doing). He was very good at keeping Islamic extremists out of his country (which we are incapable of doing). And he was very good at keeping a lid on Iranian regional hegemony (which we are incapable of doing). All three of those initiatives would significantly aid us in our war against islamic extremism, but we fucked that all up and now, putting Humpty Dumpty together again is not possible. Good JOB!
 
Dixie said:
It had nothing to do with markets, idiot.

It had to do with radical religious nutjobs who have decided it's their god's will to fly commercial airplanes full of innocent people into our buildings! That it is their 'manifest destiny' to bring about the Apocalypse, so that their god can return, and obliterating Israel is the first step.

It had to do with a simple but logical approach to obtaining stability and peace in the region, through countering the religious radical fundamental ideology, with the ideology of freedom and democracy. It had to do with cutting Iran off, from further spreading the hate-filled message of the Islamofascists, and planting democratic government in the heart of their beloved Caliphate.

This is not a war of Christians against Muslims, as many of you pinheads want to claim, the overwhelming majority of Muslims have nothing to do with this, and don't support it. Because of the nature of their religion (I guess), they seem to have a hard time standing up and denouncing the radicals. But many fairly dominant Muslim countries, have sided with the US in Iraq, and the War on Terror. Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, all support the US and our coalition in the War on Terror, and the war in Iraq.
Click to expand...


Yay Bush!!! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: Bush, Bush, he's our man! If he can't do it, nobody can!
 
Onceler said:
"Damn, for a "secular" nation, they sure do seem to have a lot of problems between Sunni and Shiia Muslims, huh? "

Wow...your stupidity continues to amaze. You realize that there CAN be religious people residing in a secular nation, don't you?
Click to expand...

I realize you don't understand what "secular" means. Iraq is clearly a predominately Muslim nation. Saddam claimed to run a secular dictatorship, but he was a Sunni Muslim, who often played favorites with the Sunnis and discriminated against the Shiia. Now, you can say Iraq was anything you want, you could claim that Iraq was a Christian Monarchy and Saddam was the brother of Jesus, but without something to support your idiocy, you've not made a valid point.
 
Dixie said:
I realize you don't understand what "secular" means. Iraq is clearly a predominately Muslim nation. Saddam claimed to run a secular dictatorship, but he was a Sunni Muslim, who often played favorites with the Sunnis and discriminated against the Shiia. Now, you can say Iraq was anything you want, you could claim that Iraq was a Christian Monarchy and Saddam was the brother of Jesus, but without something to support your idiocy, you've not made a valid point.
Click to expand...

I know what secular means, Dix. It is YOU who does not understand what "secular state" means. It does not mean "atheistic state," or that the leaders are not religious on a personal level, or that the populace is not fervently religious, either under one religious or a variety of religions.

But please...feel free to keep professing your ignorance on this topic - among others - for all to see....
 
I love it when Dixie uses someone's quote in his signature, but somehow cannot refute any of the arguments in the post from whence the quote was extracted.
 
Onceler said:
I know what secular means, Dix. It is YOU who does not understand what "secular state" means. It does not mean "atheistic state," or that the leaders are not religious on a personal level, or that the populace is not fervently religious, either under one religious or a variety of religions.

But please...feel free to keep professing your ignorance on this topic - among others - for all to see....
Click to expand...


Maybe you could explain it? You tell us what "secular" doesn't mean, but you don't bother explaining what it does mean. According to the dictionary I have, it means, not pertaining to religion. This seems to be an odd way to describe a country in a civil war between two religious factions. I'm sure there is some secret spin move you morons put on this, to make Iraq secular, when every indication suggests they are not. I suppose you are presuming Iraq is secular because it's not an Islamic theocracy, but that doesn't make something "secular" at all.

I'll certainly continue professing common sense on this topic, and exposing your lack of competence for all to see. Whenever you feel like explaining how a predominately Muslim country, run by a Sunni dictator, and now on the verge of a civil war between two Muslim factions, is "secular" by any measure, you just go right ahead, I am waiting to hear the explanation.
 
Dixie said:
Maybe you could explain it? You tell us what "secular" doesn't mean, but you don't bother explaining what it does mean. According to the dictionary I have, it means, not pertaining to religion. This seems to be an odd way to describe a country in a civil war between two religious factions. I'm sure there is some secret spin move you morons put on this, to make Iraq secular, when every indication suggests they are not. I suppose you are presuming Iraq is secular because it's not an Islamic theocracy, but that doesn't make something "secular" at all.

I'll certainly continue professing common sense on this topic, and exposing your lack of competence for all to see. Whenever you feel like explaining how a predominately Muslim country, run by a Sunni dictator, and now on the verge of a civil war between two Muslim factions, is "secular" by any measure, you just go right ahead, I am waiting to hear the explanation.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that a Government can be secular, while the nation is highly religious? The United States has a secular government, while its population is very religious.

Same in Iraq. The socialist Bathists were notoriously secular, and even hostile to fundamentalist islam. And even though the Iraqis themselves were very religious, there was never any significant anti-americanism terrorist aspect to it: In nearly 40 years of islamic terrorism, I can't think of any attack on americans that involved iraqi citizens. The anti-american muslim terrorists tend to come from saudi arabia, pakistan and egypt - i.e., countries where our petro-dollars and foreign aid prop up authoritarian regimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top