[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[KHL]

Very good KHL. Finally something.

Your information with Ontario is outdated. Premier McGuinty recently rejected the proposition to introduce Sharia arbitration. These kind of arbitrations have existed for the Jewish and Catholics for awhile, for family disputes. It would have been voluntary but the concern was that women would have been pressured to go to a Sharia arbitration rather than family court. It would not have superseded civil or criminal law.

Thats true, but the point I was trying to make is that simply using religion as a source of law doesn't mean that a Theocracy is going to be established. As I said before, many laws in many nations have their roots in religious belief. And further such laws aren't neccessarily a detriment to society.

In Iraq, that's what we're worried about, passing of actual Islamic laws, which would have had no chance to pass in the legislature in Ontario even if McGuinty hadn't trashed the whole proposal. And yes, the concern was that Sharia would become the law of the land by practise if not legally because Muslim women would be pressured by their community to go to Sharia arbitration rather than family court, and the Premier seems to agree with my viewpoint.

No argument there.

People flamed you for mentioning the constitution because a constitution alone is not sufficient to show that Iraq is headed for a good future. Yes, I myself did nitpick at the mention of Islam, and the constitution is not a bastion of Sharia. It however has many "outs" that religious leaders can use to sneak Sharia in, and that is the worry. I showed a few chinks in the armor of the constitution, and that's enough for concern. The "undisputed" rules of Islam... one could argue that there are no disputed rules of Islam under a particular intepretation. There are ways to go around semantics, to semantic whore (as you well know) and placing faith in the country because a constitution appears to be carefully worded enough is ridiculous. It is a cause for optimism, nothing more.

Well, the primary thing is that the people appear to be behind the concept of democracy. Obviously the constitution alone won't mean jack if the people don't support it. Iraq is primarily an Islamic nation, so a complete seperation of church and state wasn't likely to happen. As I said, religious leaders likely will try to influence certain decisions, but that is no different than religious leaders in any other country.

As for disputes regarding Islam, there are actually many different sects, each having differeing views. By limiting it to undisputed tenets of Islam, this constitution should help alleviate somewhat issues between sunnis and shiites, at least on matters of religion in government.

As well, nobody mentioned a "Taliban style regime". That is your strawman. The fact that Islam is in the constitution at all opens the door to Islamic law, or elements of it.

Many people have stated in this thread that this constitution is tantamount to establishing a theocracy in Iraq. I would characterize such a government as being a "Taliban style" regime. If it makes you feel better, replace "Taliban style" with theocracy. It doesn't change my argument.

Fifty thousand insurgents were killed or arrested over seven months. That doesn't mean the insurgency is dying down. In fact, the insurgency seems to be growing stronger. If you are not aware, the US military is continually going back and retaking towns which it had secured in the past.

We are mopping up groupings of insurgents where we find them. A few dozen here, maybe a hundred or so once a while. Sure they can take up residence in one of the dozens of small towns where there is no military presence, but as these safeholds are discovered we are systematically wiping them out. But you don't see anything like Fallujah or Najaf where there are thousans of insurgents in control of a large city.

Go down and click on "Makeshift bombs grow more sophisticated" and there is reference to 100 attacks a day and 50 of those being improvised explosive devices, and certain devices growing more and more sophisticated, enough to worry senior US Generals.

Basically, they are getting better at making/using bombs. I mean is this really news? Ofcourse the more you do something the better you are going to be at it. It doesn't mean the insurgency is any stronger or weaker than it was previously, only that their bomb making has improved.

The only way to cut down on these types of attacks is to locate and terminate the specialists who make them. Roadside bombs may grab headlines, but they aren't going to bring down the Iraqi government.

Again, if the insurgency was dying down, or under control as you said, why is the US military going back and retaking towns which it had supposedly secured a year, a year and a half ago? Moreover, why are there not significant troop pullouts? There is insufficient manpower in Iraq, and the insurgency is not being defeated.

The U.S. Military doesn't have enough personnel to establish a garrison in every small town in Iraq. The town mentioned in your link only has a few thousand people in it. It would hardly be difficult for an armed insurgent group to move in and take up residence. As these pockets are discovered, they are wiped out and the remnants congregate elsewhere as we continue to atrit insurgent resources.

I have yet to see your source for the 150,000 Iraqi troop figure.

Here you go.

Yes I know that the terrorists have since denied its authenticity, but you can believe what you want.

Better to reference specific parts in the letter, and attach it to concrete examples of why you think this letter is authentic.

Not sure what exactly you are looking for there... The letter looks like your typical Al Qaeda Jihad letter. It basically comes down to either you believe its authentic, or you don't. I'm sure there are many here who will choose to believe that the U.S. government "made up" the whole thing. I'm inclined to believe it is authentic, because if there were evidence that it weren't we'd likely have seen that evidence proudly proclaimed on a left wing website somewhere.

What's been wrong this whole thread is you continually refusing to provide any kind of objective evidence. If you had posted like this from the beginning rather than whine about persecution or semantic whore, there would have been no problems. Or had conceded without a snide remark, which by the way deserves an apology.

Brian

If I wasn't forced to answer stupid questions about Clinton, whom I introduced as a mere historical footnote, or constantly having to fend off the whole "You're just a Bush apologist" and other various ad hominem bullshit I could have posted like this before.

[Coyote]

I'm not saying that things are going great over there right now. Yes things could have been done better, but the bottom line is at the point we're at, things are progressing. Every day that we are there training their armed forces and rebuilding infrastructure is another nail in the coffin of the insurgency.

To an extent, this is true, and I have seen the progress there with my own eyes. But in the meantime, the slow and pondering pace of the progress comes at a cost-- people are being ground up in this process, US and allied troops, Insurgents, and civilians alike. Because of that, the leadership needs to be more responsible and held accountable-- they got involved in something they did not fully comprehend, and now the bill is being written in blood.

We will continue to train and better equip the Iraqi armed forces while the resources of the insurgency are starved out.

This is a problematic assertion-- how do you know the insurgency will be 'starved out'? This is one of the problems our leaders have in comprehending this problem. The insurgency has many fathers (Iraqi nationalism, pan-Arab Nasserist nationalism, religious fanaticism, Ba'ath Party loyalty, and a simple desire to kill people who are seen as scary strangers) and can draw on a variety of resources that we are not address.

Some of the fuel on this fire is 'soft' power-- ideologies, ideas, religious movements-- and those are hard to shut down without a very, very aware and comprehensive understanding of the environment. It goes beyond mere money or tools of power, which is what our leaders have limited their comprehension to.

If you take Brian's numbers of "likely" 180,000 insurgents, and then subtract the 60,000 or so reported killed, you've cut quite a large chunk out of their force. I personally feel that the estimate is on the high side, and if I'm correct then they are in even worse shape.

But this assumes that the insurgents (of all stripes) are a finite pool of manpower. We have yet to see mass employment of female suicide bombers, but when they start fighting at the same level of involvement as the men (assuming this happens) what are people going to do when the insurgency effectively doubles?

Remember, the intial insurgent attacks? They were controlling entire cities such as Fallujah and Najaf. Now you don't hear about things like that. Anymore its a suicide bombing here, an ambush of soldiers there. These aren't displays of power they are terrorist attacks. This indicates to me a weakening of the insurgency as they aren't able to mount the large scale operations that they had previously.

Terrorist and small-scale attacks may indicate weakness; it may also indicate a shift in tactics and procedures. Small-scale hit and run attacks increases individual terrorist survival, with more experience. The result of this is not yet decided. Do not underestimate them, the Arabs are very smart people. They read our history and they are aware of our weaknesses.

Our presence may be disliked, but the insurgents' terror attacks against the Iraqi people aren't winning them any friends amongst the populace either.

For the most part, my experience with the Iraqi people was that they are frustrated that things are going slowly; they have an overstimation of our ability to control events and wonder why we're taking so long to deal with the problem. They do appreciate our increasing attemnpts to establish law and order and they really appreciate that we show respect to the Iraqi Army and other professionals. They do not "hate us all" as some would have us believe, but they are quite frustrated with our plodding progress.

The basic premise of democracy is taking hold in Iraq.

The basic premise of democracy was partially born in Iraq. At the end of the Mohommed era, and the ascension of the first four Caliphs, assumption of power to the Caliphate was done by voting. Voting for Caliph is, if you dig deep enough, part of the underpinning of rightful leadership under Sunni tradition. This vein of pure gold has not been tapped by our leaders, who think they are "introducing" Iraqis to democracy for the first time. Constitutional democracy, maybe, but not neccessarily the basic concept.

The people are continuing to vote in large numbers... This indicates that insurgency has not only failed to turn Iraqis against the idea of democracy, but that the opposite has in fact occured. This alone is reason for optimisim that Iraq can function as a democracy and that the people are willing to get behind it.

The people are eager for law and order. The desire for stability and law in the region also runs deep; again, these are the first people to draft a code of law for society. Islamic Hadith (sort of 'oral tradition', a poor translation) also touts the philosophy that "it is better to suffer 99 years of tyranny than one year of anarchy". They want things ot settle.

Simply acknowledging Islam having a place as part of the government doesn't mean that the people will be living under a Taliban style regime.

Considering the surrounding environment, it does not bode well, either. We've committed ourselves to a long-term stability project here, another thing I don't know if the leadership has really thought trough to logical conclusions.

I didn't include what you wrote about the Constitution because I largely don't have a problem with what you wrote, although I do feel that a certain amount of overly-optimistic naivetee is displayed. The people there define themselves along tribal, ethnic, and religious lines, pretty much in that order, and so any Constitution will be warped and twisted to show what they want it to reflect. The potential for abuse is quite high, and again we have no easy date right over the horizon that we can point to as the end.

[Surlethe]

And further such laws aren't neccessarily a detriment to society.

Can you come up with an instance where a law based on religion is not detrimental to society?

[Keevan_Colton]

And further such laws aren't neccessarily a detriment to society.

Can you come up with an instance where a law based on religion is not detrimental to society?

More than that, I suggest you go take a quick flick through the Quran here and see what kind of shit is in the holy book that's to be refrence material for what laws can be in Iraq...

[KHL]

And further such laws aren't neccessarily a detriment to society.

Can you come up with an instance where a law based on religion is not detrimental to society?

Thou shalt not kill?

[SirNitram]

And further such laws aren't neccessarily a detriment to society.

Can you come up with an instance where a law based on religion is not detrimental to society?

Thou shalt not kill?

One based on religion, dumbass, not several billion years of evolution making it clear killing off your own is bad.

[Surlethe]

And further such laws aren't neccessarily a detriment to society.

Can you come up with an instance where a law based on religion is not detrimental to society?

Thou shalt not kill?

Wrong. Thou shalt not kill is not based on religion; it's based on humanism. There's a difference.

[brianeyci]

Thats true, but the point I was trying to make is that simply using religion as a source of law doesn't mean that a Theocracy is going to be established. As I said before, many laws in many nations have their roots in religious belief. And further such laws aren't neccessarily a detriment to society.

Religious laws are not a detriment to society? Since when, what examples are there? And no, "Thou shalt not kill" is not a religious law, since moral concepts like compassion, innocent until proven guilty, not killing except in self defense are not intrinsic to religion itself. Introducing this redundant term of "religion" brings along the whole fuckload of baggage... if you follow one "religious" law, why not follow another "religious" law? What makes one "religious" law superior to another? Religion is a superfluous term that can only harm, not help secular law because of its association with the religion's holy text.

In Iraq, that's what we're worried about, passing of actual Islamic laws, which would have had no chance to pass in the legislature in Ontario even if McGuinty hadn't trashed the whole proposal. And yes, the concern was that Sharia would become the law of the land by practise if not legally because Muslim women would be pressured by their community to go to Sharia arbitration rather than family court, and the Premier seems to agree with my viewpoint.

No argument there.

Then you concede that religious law, even something as seemingly unharmful as a voluntary arbitration, will cause pressure on the practitioners of the religion no matter how casual to obey religious law over secular law even if they had a choice?

Well, the primary thing is that the people appear to be behind the concept of democracy. Obviously the constitution alone won't mean jack if the people don't support it. Iraq is primarily an Islamic nation, so a complete seperation of church and state wasn't likely to happen. As I said, religious leaders likely will try to influence certain decisions, but that is no different than religious leaders in any other country.

Complete separation of church and state could have happened if they had kept the pre-war constitution and bill of rights, which has already been mentioned in this thread. They could have just introduced a whole bunch of admendments to remove the undesirable parts rather than scrapped the whole constitution itself.

As for disputes regarding Islam, there are actually many different sects, each having differeing views. By limiting it to undisputed tenets of Islam, this constitution should help alleviate somewhat issues between sunnis and shiites, at least on matters of religion in government.

Again relying on the definition of "undisputed" is naive. Words have more than one meaning, and "undisputed" may mean "undisputed" by a certain intepretation. It opens the door for religion to enter politics.

Many people have stated in this thread that this constitution is tantamount to establishing a theocracy in Iraq. I would characterize such a government as being a "Taliban style" regime. If it makes you feel better, replace "Taliban style" with theocracy. It doesn't change my argument.

Too bad I didn't mention theocracy. I mentioned Sharia law, but there are many intepretations of Sharia law. Your argument does change, you are moving the goalposts because Taliban Sharia is not the same as other kinds of Sharia.

We are mopping up groupings of insurgents where we find them. A few dozen here, maybe a hundred or so once a while. Sure they can take up residence in one of the dozens of small towns where there is no military presence, but as these safeholds are discovered we are systematically wiping them out. But you don't see anything like Fallujah or Najaf where there are thousans of insurgents in control of a large city.

Or the insurgents are getting smarter and avoiding congregating in large groups that can easily be wiped out. And this whole premise relies on the insurgents "running out" of recruits, which is frankly ludicrious for the reasons mentioned by Coyote and considering the current conditions which are worse than pre-war. People want security, food, water, shelter, and jobs, and poverty will keep churning out those fence-sitters to join the insurgency.

Basically, they are getting better at making/using bombs. I mean is this really news? Ofcourse the more you do something the better you are going to be at it. It doesn't mean the insurgency is any stronger or weaker than it was previously, only that their bomb making has improved.

No, it shows that the insurgency is getting more sophisticated. You can't spout generalities like "the more you do something the better you are at doing it" without showing the generality applies to this specific situation. Are the same people making the same bombs? This point weakens your assertion that the insurgency is being defeated by showing a growing level of sophistication in attacks, and isn't about "better bomb making."

The only way to cut down on these types of attacks is to locate and terminate the specialists who make them. Roadside bombs may grab headlines, but they aren't going to bring down the Iraqi government.

As long as the Americans are around.

The U.S. Military doesn't have enough personnel to establish a garrison in every small town in Iraq. The town mentioned in your link only has a few thousand people in it. It would hardly be difficult for an armed insurgent group to move in and take up residence. As these pockets are discovered, they are wiped out and the remnants congregate elsewhere as we continue to atrit insurgent resources.

Again assuming the insurgency has a finite pool of manpower, which given that the size of the insurgency estimates have kept going up and up rather than down, there is no historical proof that the insurgents are begining to lose manpower faster than they can recruit.

I have yet to see your source for the 150,000 Iraqi troop figure.

Here you go.

You were then talking about security forces in Iraq in general rather than the army itself. The police in particular has been atrocious in defending, preferring to abandon towns entirely rather than fight and die holding police stations. My information might be outdated, and the police has no doubt reformed since Najif and Fallujah (sp), but the original point was about the Iraqi army. Police do not carry rifles, they do not wear body armor or uniforms, and do not have the training in small unit tactics to defeat the insurgents if it came down to a civil war. Most likely police units would dissolve. Also the police has been heavily infiltrated by the insurgency.

Not sure what exactly you are looking for there... The letter looks like your typical Al Qaeda Jihad letter. It basically comes down to either you believe its authentic, or you don't. I'm sure there are many here who will choose to believe that the U.S. government "made up" the whole thing. I'm inclined to believe it is authentic, because if there were evidence that it weren't we'd likely have seen that evidence proudly proclaimed on a left wing website somewhere.

It's not about made up or not. The insurgency in Iraq has stated themselves that it was fake. Why do you believe the insurgency over the administration, or the administration over the insurgency?

Debate is not about "feeling" or "gut". If you can't show at least some concrete evidence that the letter represents the real state of the insurgents on the ground, it's not a reliable piece of evidence.

If I wasn't forced to answer stupid questions about Clinton, whom I introduced as a mere historical footnote, or constantly having to fend off the whole "You're just a Bush apologist" and other various ad hominem bullshit I could have posted like this before.

You're still lying. It's been pointed numerous times that removal of Saddam Hussein and the legacy of Saddam Hussein extended beyond the Clinton Administration, and that Bush's policy of preemptive strike is not the same as Clinton's policy. Why didn't you just concede when someone mentioned the difference?

I'm beginning to think you're a troll. It's taken you so long just to show one piece of evidence, and you harped on the connection between Clinton as "removal is removal". What about this fucknut. Someone is going to kick your ass but places the condition that you've got to start the fight first. Then another person comes and says he's going to kick your ass but he starts the fight right away. Is "a fight a fight" dumbass? Of course not, there's a big difference between the first kind of fight and the second kind of fight and especially in what guy 1 said compared to guy 2.

Brian

[KHL]

Religious laws are not a detriment to society? Since when, what examples are there? And no, "Thou shalt not kill" is not a religious law, since moral concepts like compassion, innocent until proven guilty, not killing except in self defense are not intrinsic to religion itself. Introducing this redundant term of "religion" brings along the whole fuckload of baggage... if you follow one "religious" law, why not follow another "religious" law? What makes one "religious" law superior to another? Religion is a superfluous term that can only harm, not help secular law because of its association with the religion's holy text.

Please note I said not neccessarily a deteriment to society. Moral concepts such as those you mentioned may not be intrinsic to religion itself but they are a basic tenet of most religions. This is what I was referring to.

Then you concede that religious law, even something as seemingly unharmful as a voluntary arbitration, will cause pressure on the practitioners of the religion no matter how casual to obey religious law over secular law even if they had a choice?

That pressure to follow Islamic tradition would exist regardless of the term Islam being included in the constitution. I've always said that seperation of church and state would be ideal, but you take what you can get. Like it or not, religion is very important to most Iraqis, so its inclusion in Iraqi Law isn't exactly surprising.

Again relying on the definition of "undisputed" is naive. Words have more than one meaning, and "undisputed" may mean "undisputed" by a certain intepretation. It opens the door for religion to enter politics.

The door is always open for religion to enter politics. The wording was specifically chosen as a compromise for those who wanted Islam to be simply a source of law, and those that wanted it to be the only source. I believe it is specifcally worded that way to allow law makers some wriggle room regarding Islam rather than the other way around.

Many people have stated in this thread that this constitution is tantamount to establishing a theocracy in Iraq. I would characterize such a government as being a "Taliban style" regime. If it makes you feel better, replace "Taliban style" with theocracy. It doesn't change my argument.

Too bad I didn't mention theocracy. I mentioned Sharia law, but there are many intepretations of Sharia law. Your argument does change, you are moving the goalposts because Taliban Sharia is not the same as other kinds of Sharia.

I said many people in this thread have called it a theocracy which is true. And I never said it would be an exact clone of Taliban Sharia, I said Taliban like. Anymore nits you want to pick?

Or the insurgents are getting smarter and avoiding congregating in large groups that can easily be wiped out. And this whole premise relies on the insurgents "running out" of recruits, which is frankly ludicrious for the reasons mentioned by Coyote and considering the current conditions which are worse than pre-war. People want security, food, water, shelter, and jobs, and poverty will keep churning out those fence-sitters to join the insurgency.

If the insurgents were as smart as you claim they'd stop the bombings all together, lull us into a false sense of security so that we begin to withdraw our troops, build their strength and then attempt to topple the government. No, I think you are giving them far too much credit. As I mentioned earlier, the repeated attacks against civilian populaces is only going to hurt their reputation amongst the populace.

No, it shows that the insurgency is getting more sophisticated. You can't spout generalities like "the more you do something the better you are at doing it" without showing the generality applies to this specific situation. Are the same people making the same bombs? This point weakens your assertion that the insurgency is being defeated by showing a growing level of sophistication in attacks, and isn't about "better bomb making."

All it shows as that the insurgency is getting better at making bombs. This can be chalked up to simple improvement through experience. It isn't neccesarily that the same people are making all the bombs, rather that there is knowledge shared among the bomb makers as to the means by which the more sophisticated devices are created.

As long as the Americans are around.

As I said earlier, the insurgents window of "success" is closing rapidly. The more troops we train, the better equiped the new government will be to handle these terrorists themselves.

Again assuming the insurgency has a finite pool of manpower, which given that the size of the insurgency estimates have kept going up and up rather than down, there is no historical proof that the insurgents are begining to lose manpower faster than they can recruit.

The fact that the scale of insurgent attacks is going down indicates a severe drain in manpower. The more innocents they kill the less support they will have. Sure they've got the Americans to hate now, but what happens when the Iraqi Army begins to take on security responsibility? That will severely hurt their recruiting pitch.

You were then talking about security forces in Iraq in general rather than the army itself. The police in particular has been atrocious in defending, preferring to abandon towns entirely rather than fight and die holding police stations. My information might be outdated, and the police has no doubt reformed since Najif and Fallujah (sp), but the original point was about the Iraqi army. Police do not carry rifles, they do not wear body armor or uniforms, and do not have the training in small unit tactics to defeat the insurgents if it came down to a civil war. Most likely police units would dissolve. Also the police has been heavily infiltrated by the insurgency.

As training increases, so will the effectiveness of Iraqi Security forces.

It's not about made up or not. The insurgency in Iraq has stated themselves that it was fake. Why do you believe the insurgency over the administration, or the administration over the insurgency?

Debate is not about "feeling" or "gut". If you can't show at least some concrete evidence that the letter represents the real state of the insurgents on the ground, it's not a reliable piece of evidence.

Its not my only "evidence". I included it as a look inside the insurgency and the information contained within is consistent with the rest of my evidence.

You're still lying. It's been pointed numerous times that removal of Saddam Hussein and the legacy of Saddam Hussein extended beyond the Clinton Administration, and that Bush's policy of preemptive strike is not the same as Clinton's policy. Why didn't you just concede when someone mentioned the difference?

More straw manning from your camp. Please provide a quote where I said Bush's policy was the "same" as Clintons. All I said was that regime change in Iraq was U.S. policy which it was. I've acknowledged from the start that the methodology by which each president went about achieving that goal was different.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll. It's taken you so long just to show one piece of evidence, and you harped on the connection between Clinton as "removal is removal". What about this fucknut. Someone is going to kick your ass but places the condition that you've got to start the fight first. Then another person comes and says he's going to kick your ass but he starts the fight right away. Is "a fight a fight" dumbass? Of course not, there's a big difference between the first kind of fight and the second kind of fight and especially in what guy 1 said compared to guy 2.

Brian

You can believe whatever the fuck you want. As to your analogy, while guy 2's methods differs from those of Guy 1, it doesnt change the fact that they both wanted to "kick my ass" and that was the point I was trying to make jackass.

[brianeyci]

Please note I said not neccessarily a deteriment to society. Moral concepts such as those you mentioned may not be intrinsic to religion itself but they are a basic tenet of most religions. This is what I was referring to.

It doesn't matter that they are "basic" to most religions, because the inclusion of religion is a superfluous term and brings with it the rest of the baggage.

Then you concede that religious law, even something as seemingly unharmful as a voluntary arbitration, will cause pressure on the practitioners of the religion no matter how casual to obey religious law over secular law even if they had a choice?

That pressure to follow Islamic tradition would exist regardless of the term Islam being included in the constitution. I've always said that seperation of church and state would be ideal, but you take what you can get. Like it or not, religion is very important to most Iraqis, so its inclusion in Iraqi Law isn't exactly surprising.

No, except that this makes your evidence, the constitution, a weak piece of evidence at best.

The door is always open for religion to enter politics. The wording was specifically chosen as a compromise for those who wanted Islam to be simply a source of law, and those that wanted it to be the only source. I believe it is specifcally worded that way to allow law makers some wriggle room regarding Islam rather than the other way around.

Again, weak piece of evidence for the future of Iraq because this so-called wiggle room can be manipulated either way.

Many people have stated in this thread that this constitution is tantamount to establishing a theocracy in Iraq. I would characterize such a government as being a "Taliban style" regime. If it makes you feel better, replace "Taliban style" with theocracy. It doesn't change my argument.

Too bad I didn't mention theocracy. I mentioned Sharia law, but there are many intepretations of Sharia law. Your argument does change, you are moving the goalposts because Taliban Sharia is not the same as other kinds of Sharia.

I said many people in this thread have called it a theocracy which is true. And I never said it would be an exact clone of Taliban Sharia, I said Taliban like. Anymore nits you want to pick?

Take a hint dumbass, SD.net is not one huge homogeneous entity. I'm different than other people, I don't speak for other people and they don't speak for me. I never called it a theocracy. The closest I said was "Can anybody say Sharia law" and that meant certain aspects of Sharia law could sneak into Iraqi law.

If the insurgents were as smart as you claim they'd stop the bombings all together, lull us into a false sense of security so that we begin to withdraw our troops, build their strength and then attempt to topple the government. No, I think you are giving them far too much credit. As I mentioned earlier, the repeated attacks against civilian populaces is only going to hurt their reputation amongst the populace.

Topple the government because of a false sense of security? Grow a brain, the insurgency is not a single entity but rather mult-faceted. There's no order of battle, no chain of command like that. Insurgents are getting smarter because battle experience has taught them to leave a city before an impending siege, which the insurgents sniff a mile away (if civilians can sniff it so can insurgents). Even back in Fallujah fighters left most of the city empty rather than stay.

All it shows as that the insurgency is getting better at making bombs. This can be chalked up to simple improvement through experience. It isn't neccesarily that the same people are making all the bombs, rather that there is knowledge shared among the bomb makers as to the means by which the more sophisticated devices are created.

If the insurgency is getting better at making bombs, that makes the case for the insurgency's strength more ironclad. "Strength" is not necessarily numerical superiority, but technical prowress, tactics, strategy, and so on.

As I said earlier, the insurgents window of "success" is closing rapidly. The more troops we train, the better equiped the new government will be to handle these terrorists themselves.

Historical precedent is showing the estimates of the number of insurgents getting larger, not smaller. Also the attacks are growing more sophisticated, and hit-and-run tactics are being used more often.

Define this window of "success".

The fact that the scale of insurgent attacks is going down indicates a severe drain in manpower. The more innocents they kill the less support they will have. Sure they've got the Americans to hate now, but what happens when the Iraqi Army begins to take on security responsibility? That will severely hurt their recruiting pitch.

You ignore the point that scale is not a good indicator of gurellia warfare. I've shown more sophistication in attacks, and can provide quotes which show the numbers of insurgents increasing rather than decreasing over time. What do you have? The fact that the insurgents don't get together in huge brigades to be stomped by American tanks? It would be stupid for the insurgency not to adapt, and that's exactly what they've done. They know that the Americans can't garrison every town everywhere, so they've spread out. That doesn't make the insurgency weaker.

As training increases, so will the effectiveness of Iraqi Security forces.

Again another generality. "As training increases, I'll get smarter." You have to show the generality applies to the situation, and show a more effective Iraqi security force over time or the generality doesn't apply. Why am I even saying this are you too stupid to realize that generalities don't apply unless you can show a connection between the generality and the situation?

It's not about made up or not. The insurgency in Iraq has stated themselves that it was fake. Why do you believe the insurgency over the administration, or the administration over the insurgency?

Debate is not about "feeling" or "gut". If you can't show at least some concrete evidence that the letter represents the real state of the insurgents on the ground, it's not a reliable piece of evidence.

Its not my only "evidence". I included it as a look inside the insurgency and the information contained within is consistent with the rest of my evidence.

Again you're avoiding the point, which is if you can't pull specific facts out of the letter and show that the insurgency is behaving the way the letter describes, then the letter is a piece of bullshit.

You're still lying. It's been pointed numerous times that removal of Saddam Hussein and the legacy of Saddam Hussein extended beyond the Clinton Administration, and that Bush's policy of preemptive strike is not the same as Clinton's policy. Why didn't you just concede when someone mentioned the difference?

More straw manning from your camp. Please provide a quote where I said Bush's policy was the "same" as Clintons. All I said was that regime change in Iraq was U.S. policy which it was. I've acknowledged from the start that the methodology by which each president went about achieving that goal was different.

Bottom line: The U.S. wanted Saddam out of power. Period.

Ignoring the differences between the way the two administration wanted Saddam out of power implicitly. "Spell-it-out" is for retards KHL, or did you think nobody would jump on your statement? Are you seriously so stupid that you don't see the above statement as alluding that Clinton's policy was the same as Bush's? Why do you think so many people saw the subtext of your message and not the literal sense? Grow a brain.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll. It's taken you so long just to show one piece of evidence, and you harped on the connection between Clinton as "removal is removal". What about this fucknut. Someone is going to kick your ass but places the condition that you've got to start the fight first. Then another person comes and says he's going to kick your ass but he starts the fight right away. Is "a fight a fight" dumbass? Of course not, there's a big difference between the first kind of fight and the second kind of fight and especially in what guy 1 said compared to guy 2.

Brian

You can believe whatever the fuck you want. As to your analogy, while guy 2's methods differs from those of Guy 1, it doesnt change the fact that they both wanted to "kick my ass" and that was the point I was trying to make jackass.

So stupid, if someone says that they'll only kick your ass if you start the fight first, or if somebody else says they'll kick your ass and starts fighting right away, both are the same? Grow a brain retard, the first is self defense, the second is unwarranted.

You see the bold, that's your "holier than thou" attitude showing up again.

Brian

[brianeyci]

I can't believe I'm going to have to explain your Clinton statement to you. Maybe it will go through your thick skull with this.

Imagine someone's funeral. The guy was killed by a murderer. Someone else walks into the room and starts saying "his brother wanted him dead too." Obviously people are going to think the guy thinks his brother killed him.

Guess what, I thought that you were blaming Clinton for the deaths that are solely on Bush's hands, just like the above hypothetical scenario. This started as a thread about 2000 American Soldiers killed. Mentioning it as a "historical footnote" is extremely improper and you can't expect people not to draw inferences.

Brian

[KHL]

It doesn't matter that they are "basic" to most religions, because the inclusion of religion is a superfluous term and brings with it the rest of the baggage.

Look I'm not going to debate where the roots of Morality lie. The point is that "religion" isn't a bad thing to have. Most religions encourage generosity to the poor, compassion for the sick and weak, respect among family members etc. While a person can be moral and not be religious, the fact remains that these religions do teach morality.

No, except that this makes your evidence, the constitution, a weak piece of evidence at best.

There you go again, zero in on the Islamic reference and ignore all of the other provisions in the constitution that would provide for health care, protection of personal freedoms, etc.

Take a hint dumbass, SD.net is not one huge homogeneous entity. I'm different than other people, I don't speak for other people and they don't speak for me. I never called it a theocracy. The closest I said was "Can anybody say Sharia law" and that meant certain aspects of Sharia law could sneak into Iraqi law.

Take your own advice dipshit. I wasn't just addressing my post to you which is why I included the terminology that I did. I never said that YOU personally called it a theocracy. And here is another news flash for you. If they did implement Sharia Law, then it would be a defacto theocracy because laws would center around the Islamic religion, rather than simply taking influence from it.

As for "certain aspects of Sharia law sneaking into Iraqi law", Hell certain aspects of Sharia Law nearly snuck into Canadian law! Until it actually happens, then pointing to things that could potentially be abused is not evidence that they will be abused.

If the insurgents were as smart as you claim they'd stop the bombings all together, lull us into a false sense of security so that we begin to withdraw our troops, build their strength and then attempt to topple the government. No, I think you are giving them far too much credit. As I mentioned earlier, the repeated attacks against civilian populaces is only going to hurt their reputation amongst the populace.

Topple the government because of a false sense of security? Grow a brain, the insurgency is not a single entity but rather mult-faceted. There's no order of battle, no chain of command like that. Insurgents are getting smarter because battle experience has taught them to leave a city before an impending siege, which the insurgents sniff a mile away (if civilians can sniff it so can insurgents). Even back in Fallujah fighters left most of the city empty rather than stay.

Can you fucking read? I said lull is into a false sense of security so that we would withdraw our troops which would then give them the chance to topple the government. You can say the "majority" of fighters left the city, which I find hard to believe given the fact that we had it surrounded for quite some time. I'm sure some small numbers got out, but as reported at least 1200-1600 were either too stupid, or simply unable to leave.

All it shows as that the insurgency is getting better at making bombs. This can be chalked up to simple improvement through experience. It isn't neccesarily that the same people are making all the bombs, rather that there is knowledge shared among the bomb makers as to the means by which the more sophisticated devices are created.

If the insurgency is getting better at making bombs, that makes the case for the insurgency's strength more ironclad. "Strength" is not necessarily numerical superiority, but technical prowress, tactics, strategy, and so on.

First of all, you need to figure out which way you are going to portray the insurgency. Either they have, for the most part, a large overall "strategy" able to utilize that numerical superiority, or they are multi faceted disjointed groups with "no order of battle, no chain of command" as you described above. They cannot be both.

You earlier made a state that there were over 100 "attacks" a day from bombs of various types. Quite frankly, that doesn't indicate a very large number of insurgents doing the work. Id venture that having 1,000 people would be overkill to pull off 100 "bombing" attacks. It really doesn't bode well for your purported number of insurgents. We know there is no shortage of explosives in Iraq. If there were really as many as you say, we should be seeing several hundred attacks per day or more.

As I said earlier, the insurgents window of "success" is closing rapidly. The more troops we train, the better equiped the new government will be to handle these terrorists themselves.

Historical precedent is showing the estimates of the number of insurgents getting larger, not smaller. Also the attacks are growing more sophisticated, and hit-and-run tactics are being used more often.

Define this window of "success".

The "window of success" is the transitional period where there is enough instability in the government that they might succeed in collapsing it. As time goes by and the Iraqi Security forces become better trained, more experienced, and better equiped and as support for the new Iraqi government grows this window will close. Over 1 millinon more Iraqis voted in the latest constitutional election than voted in the previous one. Thats quite a swing that I don't think the insurgency can match.

You ignore the point that scale is not a good indicator of gurellia warfare. I've shown more sophistication in attacks, and can provide quotes which show the numbers of insurgents increasing rather than decreasing over time. What do you have? The fact that the insurgents don't get together in huge brigades to be stomped by American tanks? It would be stupid for the insurgency not to adapt, and that's exactly what they've done. They know that the Americans can't garrison every town everywhere, so they've spread out. That doesn't make the insurgency weaker.

Gurrella warfare is only effective in a major engagement if it is in support of a larger military offensive. Many people want to compare this conflict to Vietnam, but the major difference is that there is no NVA that is able to engage us in large scale conflicts. Unless Iran were to risk being bombed into the stoneage and enter the war on the side of the insurgents, their overall effect is very small.

The fact that insurgency is so spread out is a weakness not a strength. Numbers lose their effectiveness when split up. We continue to mop up small groups of insurgents (such as operation "Steel Curtain" yesterday) while their remnants scurry from town to town. Divide and conquer.

As training increases, so will the effectiveness of Iraqi Security forces.

Again another generality. "As training increases, I'll get smarter." You have to show the generality applies to the situation, and show a more effective Iraqi security force over time or the generality doesn't apply. Why am I even saying this are you too stupid to realize that generalities don't apply unless you can show a connection between the generality and the situation?

Its common fucking sense. The better trained a soldier is, the more effective he tends to be. You bring in green troops, you teach them how to properly aim, shoot, and maintain their weapons and they get better at handling them. You teach them how to organize and work as a team and they become more effective at fighting as a team. You give them "on the job training" by sending them on missions with U.S. troops (as is usually the case when we go on mop up missions such as the afore mentioned "Steel Curtain"). It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that the effectiveness of the Iraqi Armed forces will go up.

But I guess in your world only the insurgents are "getting smarter" and that the Iraqi armed forces can only get dumber right?

Again you're avoiding the point, which is if you can't pull specific facts out of the letter and show that the insurgency is behaving the way the letter describes, then the letter is a piece of bullshit.

The letter provides many insights and contains specific facts regarding the insurgent activities. Go read the letter yourself. I'm submitting it in its entirety as evidence If there is something specific you wish to discuss or dispute within it, then feel free to bring it up.

Ignoring the differences between the way the two administration wanted Saddam out of power implicitly. "Spell-it-out" is for retards KHL, or did you think nobody would jump on your statement? Are you seriously so stupid that you don't see the above statement as alluding that Clinton's policy was the same as Bush's? Why do you think so many people saw the subtext of your message and not the literal sense? Grow a brain.

Stop blamming me for your jumping to conclusions. I haven't posted anything that wasn't true. I said that U.S. Policy was for regime change and it was. Further, Clinton would have been all for the removal of Saddam by military means, just not American military means. Military assistance was specifically pro-scribed for in the act that Clinton signed.

Before you go jumping off the diving board into the illogical conclusion pool again, I'm NOT blaming Clinton for Bush going in after Saddam. Bush clearly took the whole Iraqi Regime policy to "The next level". But I just wanted to illustrate we didn't go from point A to point C without first hitting point B.

So stupid, if someone says that they'll only kick your ass if you start the fight first, or if somebody else says they'll kick your ass and starts fighting right away, both are the same? Grow a brain retard, the first is self defense, the second is unwarranted.

You see the bold, that's your "holier than thou" attitude showing up again.

Brian

Your analogy is flawed. You seem to imply that the first guy would only want to "kick my ass" if I threw a punch and started the fight and that otherwise he was content to stand by otherwise.

The reality is that the while the first guy would only"kick my ass" himself if I started the fight, he at the same time was looking to find someone else to "kick my ass" for him and was offering incentives for them to do so.

It doesn't change the fact that both guys wanted to "kick my ass," it was just a difference of oppinion on how best to accomplish that.

[brianeyci]

Until you reply to my "funeral" analogy, I'm not continuing the debate. This whole shitstorm started because of you mentioning Clinton, so I want to see you defend that before I waste any more time.

Brian

[KHL]

Until you reply to my "funeral" analogy, I'm not continuing the debate. This whole shitstorm started because of you mentioning Clinton, so I want to see you defend that before I waste any more time.

Brian

I thought your initial Analogy was dumb, but the funeral one is even worse. Here goes:

I can't believe I'm going to have to explain your Clinton statement to you. Maybe it will go through your thick skull with this.

Imagine someone's funeral. The guy was killed by a murderer. Someone else walks into the room and starts saying "his brother wanted him dead too." Obviously people are going to think the guy thinks his brother killed him.

Guess what, I thought that you were blaming Clinton for the deaths that are solely on Bush's hands, just like the above hypothetical scenario. This started as a thread about 2000 American Soldiers killed. Mentioning it as a "historical footnote" is extremely improper and you can't expect people not to draw inferences.

Brian

obviously people are going to think the guy thinks his brother killed him...

Ok, thats pretty poorly worded but I'll try to answer it.

Your analogy is again flawed. First you apparently imply that some people at the funeral don't know that the man was killed by a "murderer" who isn't his brother. This is a case of simple ingorance as to the facts. We don't have that situation here. Everybody knows it was Bush and not Clinton who sent in the troops to take out Saddam.

Second, the worded phrase "His Brother wanted him dead too" implys that his brother wanted him dead. It doesn't mean that he actually killed him, but he did want him dead. Anyone who heard such a statement would and should think that "Hey, his brother wanted him dead too". Anyone dumb enough to think "OMG He is saying he killed his brother!" should be kicked out of the funeral.

Stop blaming me for your ridiculous leap in logic. Obviously Clinton isn't to "blame" for the 2000 deaths because it was Bush who made the decision to go in. However, the point I was trying to make was that removal of Saddam was a U.S. policy instituted by Clinton and expanded upon by Bush.

[brianeyci]

obviously people are going to think the guy thinks his brother killed him...

Ok, thats pretty poorly worded but I'll try to answer it.

Your analogy is again flawed. First you apparently imply that some people at the funeral don't know that the man was killed by a "murderer" who isn't his brother. This is a case of simple ingorance as to the facts. We don't have that situation here. Everybody knows it was Bush and not Clinton who sent in the troops to take out Saddam.

There are Republitards that blame Clinton for Bush's decisions. Yes, even blame Clinton for Bush going into Iraq. For example, "If Clinton had dealt with Osama..." so on. If you're not one of them mentioning Clinton in this thread at all was in very poor taste.

Second, the worded phrase "His Brother wanted him dead too" implys that his brother wanted him dead. It doesn't mean that he actually killed him, but he did want him dead. Anyone who heard such a statement would and should think that "Hey, his brother wanted him dead too". Anyone dumb enough to think "OMG He is saying he killed his brother!" should be kicked out of the funeral.

Not if people dispute the murder verdict. There are people who blame Clinton for Bush's woes, for example for Clinton's downsizing of the military. They're called Republitards.

Stop blaming me for your ridiculous leap in logic. Obviously Clinton isn't to "blame" for the 2000 deaths because it was Bush who made the decision to go in. However, the point I was trying to make was that removal of Saddam was a U.S. policy instituted by Clinton and expanded upon by Bush.

It's not a leap of logic to think when someone mentions Clinton in a thread about 2000 dead American troops, a thread for either mocking Bush or mourning the American dead, that he would be blaming Clinton.

Brian

[KHL]

obviously people are going to think the guy thinks his brother killed him...

Ok, thats pretty poorly worded but I'll try to answer it.

Your analogy is again flawed. First you apparently imply that some people at the funeral don't know that the man was killed by a "murderer" who isn't his brother. This is a case of simple ingorance as to the facts. We don't have that situation here. Everybody knows it was Bush and not Clinton who sent in the troops to take out Saddam.

There are Republitards that blame Clinton for Bush's decisions. Yes, even blame Clinton for Bush going into Iraq. For example, "If Clinton had dealt with Osama..." so on. If you're not one of them mentioning Clinton in this thread at all was in very poor taste.

I was trying to enlighten the ill informed about the history of U.S. policy on the issue. Thats why it helps if you actually read someones post instead of flying off the handle because Clinton was mentioned.

Second, the worded phrase "His Brother wanted him dead too" implys that his brother wanted him dead. It doesn't mean that he actually killed him, but he did want him dead. Anyone who heard such a statement would and should think that "Hey, his brother wanted him dead too". Anyone dumb enough to think "OMG He is saying he killed his brother!" should be kicked out of the funeral.

Not if people dispute the murder verdict. There are people who blame Clinton for Bush's woes, for example for Clinton's downsizing of the military. They're called Republitards.

I'm not one of those people. Clinton made mistakes just as Bush did. My participation in this tread wasn't about assigning blame, rather about the achievement of a goal.

Stop blaming me for your ridiculous leap in logic. Obviously Clinton isn't to "blame" for the 2000 deaths because it was Bush who made the decision to go in. However, the point I was trying to make was that removal of Saddam was a U.S. policy instituted by Clinton and expanded upon by Bush.

It's not a leap of logic to think when someone mentions Clinton in a thread about 2000 dead American troops, a thread for either mocking Bush or mourning the American dead, that he would be blaming Clinton.

Brian

Thats what happens when you don't read someones post. The mention of Clinton in a thread about 2000 dead Americans doesn't mean jack shit when you leave out the context. IF I would have said "Clinton would never have done this and he was the bestest president ever!!!111!!" would that still be blaming Clinton?

No, the whole "blaming Clinton" thing was a figment of your imagination. Sadly, it inspired this thought in others and the end result is I'm painted as a "Bush Apologist". Thanks Buddy. 'preciate it.

Further, Your statement that this thread should be about "mocking Bush or mourning the American dead" simpy shows the narrowmindedness of your point of view. What about the possibility that these men will be looked at as heros making a noble sacrifice?

People die every day for far less worthwhile reasons than the ones these men are fighting for in Iraq.What if in 20 years Iraqis are dedicating the "Iraqi Liberation Monument" commemorating 20 years of Democracy in Iraq? Do you view the deaths in the same way? I don't. The truly sad thing would be to leave before the job is finished. Then the lives of these men would truly have been "wasted".

[brianeyci]

No, the whole "blaming Clinton" thing was a figment of your imagination. Sadly, it inspired this thought in others and the end result is I'm painted as a "Bush Apologist". Thanks Buddy. 'preciate it.

You assumed people understood your position, you should have explained it as soon as SirNitram and others got involved that you didn't blame Clinton for the deaths. Instead you kept arguing about "removal is removal no matter what" so it's your own fault you got titled. You got titled because of broken record debating not because of your political views (at least, that's why I think you got titled, I don't speak for moderators). And you're still wrong, removal is not removal, there are different types of removal.

Further, Your statement that this thread should be about "mocking Bush or mourning the American dead" simpy shows the narrowmindedness of your point of view. What about the possibility that these men will be looked at as heros making a noble sacrifice?

People die every day for far less worthwhile reasons than the ones these men are fighting for in Iraq.What if in 20 years Iraqis are dedicating the "Iraqi Liberation Monument" commemorating 20 years of Democracy in Iraq? Do you view the deaths in the same way? I don't. The truly sad thing would be to leave before the job is finished. Then the lives of these men would truly have been "wasted".

Mourning includes looking as people as heroes, there are different types of mourning, unless you think heroes don't deserve to be mourned over .

And nobody in this thread has suggested "leaving before the job is finished" so why do you mention it. Why do you keep throwing out useless information, rebuttals for arguments that don't exist? Red herrings .

Brian

[KHL]

You assumed people understood your position, you should have explained it as soon as SirNitram and others got involved that you didn't blame Clinton for the deaths. Instead you kept arguing about "removal is removal no matter what" so it's your own fault you got titled. You got titled because of broken record debating not because of your political views (at least, that's why I think you got titled, I don't speak for moderators). And you're still wrong, removal is not removal, there are different types of removal.

Sorry I felt I shouldn't have had to explain what I considered to be obvious. I underestimated the level of Bush Hatred which blinded everyoen to what I was actually saying.

And it is you who are mistaken. Removal IS Removal. Its a simple A = A equation!. There may be differences in method of removal, and the fall out from those methods, but thats an entirely different argument.

Further, Your statement that this thread should be about "mocking Bush or mourning the American dead" simpy shows the narrowmindedness of your point of view. What about the possibility that these men will be looked at as heros making a noble sacrifice?

People die every day for far less worthwhile reasons than the ones these men are fighting for in Iraq.What if in 20 years Iraqis are dedicating the "Iraqi Liberation Monument" commemorating 20 years of Democracy in Iraq? Do you view the deaths in the same way? I don't. The truly sad thing would be to leave before the job is finished. Then the lives of these men would truly have been "wasted".

Mourning includes looking as people as heroes, there are different types of mourning, unless you think heroes don't deserve to be mourned over .

Ofcourse they deserve to be mourned. Thats not what I'm saying. You implied that the only two purposes in this thread are for A) Mocking Bush or B) mourning the lost dead. I instead took option C) looking at what they died for and why their sacrifice was noble.

And nobody in this thread has suggested "leaving before the job is finished" so why do you mention it. Why do you keep throwing out useless information, rebuttals for arguments that don't exist? Red herrings .

Brian

While nobody has come right out and stated that we should "leave before the job is finished", many have implied it.

You've got some balls though talking to me about throwing out "useless information, rebuttals for arguments that don't exist? Red herrings"... The whole fucking Clinton fiasco was one giant red herring that I HOPEFULLY have laid to rest.

[Surlethe]

I underestimated the level of Bush Hatred which blinded everyoen to what I was actually saying.

Let's see some instances of ths "Bush Hatred" and how it's blinded everyone.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I underestimated the level of Bush Hatred which blinded everyoen to what I was actually saying.

Let's see some instances of ths "Bush Hatred" and how it's blinded everyone.

Yes. Let's.

[KHL]

I underestimated the level of Bush Hatred which blinded everyoen to what I was actually saying.

Let's see some instances of ths "Bush Hatred" and how it's blinded everyone.

Yes. Let's.

Who here is denying that they hate Bush?

[Surlethe]

Let's see some instances of ths "Bush Hatred" and how it's blinded everyone.

Yes. Let's.

Who here is denying that they hate Bush?

I didn't ask for a question in reply; I asked for examples, you pinheaded republitard. Furthermore, I asked for examples of that hatred blinding posters. Apparently giving evidence when asked is beyond your miniscule mental capacity.

[brianeyci]

Ofcourse they deserve to be mourned. Thats not what I'm saying. You implied that the only two purposes in this thread are for A) Mocking Bush or B) mourning the lost dead. I instead took option C) looking at what they died for and why their sacrifice was noble.

When you mourn, you usually go through why the other person died, what he died for. In other words whether their sacrifice was noble. Ever been to a funeral? I can't believe I have to explain this to you .

You've got some balls though talking to me about throwing out "useless information, rebuttals for arguments that don't exist? Red herrings"... The whole fucking Clinton fiasco was one giant red herring that I HOPEFULLY have laid to rest.

You just don't get it do you? There was no fucking point in mentioning Clinton in the first place dickweed. That was the original huge red herring. If mentioning the past for example how Bush lied about WMD is insignificant as you claim, why did you mention Clinton in the first place? Different rules apply to Clinton than Bush? You were the one who started the shitstorm, you used broken record debating when people called you out on the "removal was removal". Yes removal was removal, but it is not the same kind of removal. Then you dug your own grave when you "conceded" with a cowardly holier than thou attitude.

Brian

[KHL]

I didn't ask for a question in reply; I asked for examples, you pinheaded republitard. Furthermore, I asked for examples of that hatred blinding posters. Apparently giving evidence when asked is beyond your miniscule mental capacity.

If you want examples of Bush hatred run amoke, go back and read Brian and Nitram's post on pages 1 thru 3 of this thread.

I mentioned the fact that Clinton signed into law a U.S. policy advocating regime change and they went nuts implying that I was a Bush appologist.

This board is decidely left leaning. I don't think there is any dispute about that. I really don't feel like digging through this entire board for Bush hatred that we all know is present in order to "prove" an off the cuff remark.

Lets just forget I said it ok?

[Surlethe]

I didn't ask for a question in reply; I asked for examples, you pinheaded republitard. Furthermore, I asked for examples of that hatred blinding posters. Apparently giving evidence when asked is beyond your miniscule mental capacity.

If you want examples of Bush hatred run amoke, go back and read Brian and Nitram's post on pages 1 thru 3 of this thread.

I mentioned the fact that Clinton signed into law a U.S. policy advocating regime change and they went nuts implying that I was a Bush appologist.

This board is decidely left leaning. I don't think there is any dispute about that. I really don't feel like digging through this entire board for Bush hatred that we all know is present in order to "prove" an off the cuff remark.

Lets just forget I said it ok?

Concession accepted. You owe brianeyci and SirNitram apologies for insinuating they allowed their dislike of Bush to blind their faculties of reason.