Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by PatMeebles at 2006-03-25 04:58:59

ShadowSD said:

Had a Democrat or conventional Republican (like Bush Senior) been elected, we NEVER would have invaded Iraq after 9/11. Only the neo-cons advocated something so stupid, and neo-cons had Bush's ear from the beginning. Bush should have been honest in 2000 that he was running as a neo-con, but he didn't because that never would have won the election, so he ran as a salt-of-the-earth, honest and uncorrupt traditional conservative.

Al Gore was more hardline on Iraq than Bush was. If Al Gore were elected, we would be in Iraq anyway.

ShadowSD said:

Many people in Iran feel the exact same way about Ahmadinejad, who did not campaign as the foreign policy neo-con he is, but as a salt-of-the-earth, honest and uncorrupt traditional conservative.

Didn't the elections turnout not even pass 30%?

ShadowSD said:

I hope this article opens your eyes, as it did mine:

Interesting article. But Ahmadinejad still wants to wipe Isreal off the map. As to why the media doesn't report this, I don't know.

ShadowSD said:

The problem with the democracy argument is that I never bought that either. You can't impose democracy by definition, and any grade schooler can figure that out by glancing at a Social Studies textbook.

What I don't buy is that we forced democracy down their throats. The barrel of the gun wasn't turned on them to force voting; the barrel was turned away towards terrorists who wanted to stop the voting (I don't mention insurgents because they themselves protected Sunni voters from AQ). There was a higher turnout for elections than the 2004 American elections. We didn't force the Sunnis to participate. They finally realized that it's much better for everyone if they participate democratically.

ShadowSD said:

Can you name one time in history democracy has successfully been imposed to replace fascist laws and dogma? Anytime in human history a culture has tried to unilaterally interfere with a less developed society, the results were invariably disasterous.

Japan. And yes, we controlled it by ourselves.

ShadowSD said:

PatMeebles said:

OBL wants to overthrow the Saudis. Islamists, yes. Al Qaeda, no. Oil country that we're stuck having to deal with, hell yes.

I was just going by the same standard you provided for Saddam Hussein, being supportive of a regime (Sudan) that was linked to Al Qaeda. Many of the most powerful people connected with the Saudi goverment are members of the Bin Laden family. Like it or not, that is a link to Al Qaeda. If such tangential reasoning rings hollow to you, you understand why I am hesitant to use tangential reasoning to suggest Hussein was aiding Al Qaeda.

Actually, I have to completely disagree with the idea of being a Bin Laden automatically meaning a connection with AQ. Just look at his niece, who was doing nudie pictures in a bathtub (well, nudity by OBL's standards). Bin Laden's family is vast, and they have disowned him. It's a tangent, but Zarqawi's tribe has also disowned him.

ShadowSD said:

PatMeebles said:

Well, Al Qaeda was in the US because it wanted to attack us. Al Qaeda was in Iraq training in places like Salman Pak (a government-run training ground with 747's used in hijacking lessons) and recruiting fighters to fight in Afghanistan

The 9/11 hijackers did their flight training in the US, so they were using US planes to train, and this is undisputed (unlike the Salmon Pak claims) Does that in and of itself make our government responsible?

Also, Al Qaeda later recruited Americans like Johnny Walker to fight against the US in Afghanistan? Is our government responsible for that?

Once again, no, because this was all done to attack us.

ShadowSD said:

PatMeebles said:

Not if we're blamed for the world's problem, like we are for sectarian violence (I didn't realize that the mere presence of US troops would cause Shiites and Sunnis to hate each other becasue of their race.)

No one is saying that, those sectarian tensions have always existed in Iraq. What people are saying is that US troops are responsible for overthrowing Hussein, whose iron-fisted dictatorship was the only thing keeping those tensions in check. (Which was one of the main reasons George Bush Sr. and James Baker gave fifteen years ago when turning down the opportunity to topple Hussein)

Well, yes. Luckily, those tensions haven't brioled over into a full-scale Civil War. The sects have mostly turned in weapons for political dealings. And things were going much better until the mosque bombing. But even after that, religious and political leaders of all parties (at least the mainstream ones that count) called for peaceful demostrations and comdemned retaliatory violence. So while the sectarian violence has recently flared up and tensions are very high, considering the circumstances, We should be happy that the majority of Iraqis have not taken up arms and that political negotiations are still underway. Granted, it's going to be much harder now, but it's not hopeless.