[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[SirNitram]

I merely pointed that out to show he was being an asshole. The real reason I've stopped responding to his posts are because his constant use of "poisoning the well" tactics and engaging in blatant ad hominem attacks. He knows full well that if he can peg me as a "Bush apoligist" that it instantly calls my credibility into question and gives him an advantage in any debate. Maybe he feels this is a "smart tactic" but I'm not interested in it.

It's generally a very stupid idea to lie about the actions of a supermod to his face. Granted, it's smarter than lying behind my back, but.

If you have no rebuttal, you have conceeded. That is how the whole shebang works. If you have a rebuttal, post it, you dickless wonder.

[Broomstick]

And what about "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam"?

I think they will grow out of that phase in the long run. And I also think the key word there being undisputed which gives some leeway for law makers for the tenets of islam over which there is dispute.

Oh, how cuuuuuuuuuute! He thinks the Iraqi will "grow out" of Islam! (Where are the butterfly and puppy-dog-and-kitten smilies? We need those here, too)



If, after 200+ years, the United States hasn't "outgrown" the Christian bias of its founders - despite being relatively tolerant and secularized Christians for their time - why the fuck do you think Iraq will "outgrow" an Islamic bias? What paternalistic bullshit. The Iraqis are not children to "outgrow" a "phase" they're going through - they're adult believers in Islam. And adult believers in "strong-man" goverment. Not to mention a healthy smattering of adults willing to die to repel an invasion of their country, however benevolent such an invasion might be.

[Darth Wong]

And what about "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam"?

I think they will grow out of that phase in the long run.

Based on what? Imagine what America would be like if the Constitution contained a clause saying "Congress shall pass no law which contradicts the Bible." Even with every conceivable effort taken to separate church and state, Americans still interpret the Constitution to permit the influence of religion over state laws and actions, more than 200 years later.

And I also think the key word there being undisputed which gives some leeway for law makers for the tenets of islam over which there is dispute.

Oh right, so if the Constitution contained a clause saying "No law can be passed which contradicts the undisputed rules of Christianity", that would have no negative effects on church-state separation?

[KHL]

Look fucknut first of all, my original statement was "Just about anything we do would be better".

Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. This right-wing logic strikes me as odd. "The Iraqi people want to be free! In fact, they want freedom so much that they want us to come in and occupy their country for a totally indeterminate amount of time!"

What about the hundreds of thousands or possibly millions that were likely to die under Saddam and Sons? What about the millions that had already died? What about the Mass graves? What about the torcher chambers (i'm talking REAL torture not Abu Graihb)? What about the children starving while Saddam built his lavish palaces?

You are honestly going to imply that things were better under Saddam?

[Lord of the Abyss]

What about the hundreds of thousands or possibly millions that were likely to die under Saddam and Sons? What about the millions that had already died? What about the Mass graves? What about the torcher chambers (i'm talking REAL torture not Abu Graihb)? What about the children starving while Saddam built his lavish palaces?

You are honestly going to imply that things were better under Saddam?

Well, it was certainly better off for women; they were some of the best off in the ME.

Why does Abu Ghraib not qualify as "real torture" ? Some of them died or were crippled; that's real enough for me.

[SirNitram]

What about the torcher chambers (i'm talking REAL torture not Abu Graihb)?

Interesting. You feel being hung by your arms in medieval positions until you die, small children being raped, and other such things are not 'real' torture? What would you define as torture then, little apologist?

[Ace Pace]

What about the hundreds of thousands or possibly millions that were likely to die under Saddam and Sons? What about the millions that had already died? What about the Mass graves? What about the torcher chambers (i'm talking REAL torture not Abu Graihb)? What about the children starving while Saddam built his lavish palaces?

You are honestly going to imply that things were better under Saddam?

Well, it was certainly better off for women; they were some of the best off in the ME.

I'd just wait for Shep to come in with a few links on how the situation of women has actully droped. See, Sadamm ran a mostly seculer goverment(compared to the region), now in many areas you find women being stoned unless they are in ritual Islamic dress.

[Broomstick]

You have Cuba, an actual threat(in the imagined mind of a Neo-con)

Make no mistake - Cuba certainly has been a real threat in the past. Castro damn near started a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis back in the early 60's. It's pretty clear from documents from the former USSR that if Castro had had the means to launch missiles at the US he would have... which might have something to do with why the USSR kept the means to launch them under their control, not Castro's.

IF Castro could hurt us now he probably would... but he can't. The USSR used him as a thorn in the side of the US, but was always careful to keep him on a short leash. Now, with the demise of the USSR, he simply doesn't have the means or an ally to give him the means. He will be able to live out his life on Cuba, the big fish of a little pond, but his threat has largely been neutralized through economic tactics.

The same was happening to Saddam. A little more problematic, as Iraq is not an island, nor is it a mere 90 miles off the US coast, but clearly his ambition was being throttled by sanctions - sanctions supported by the majority of the nations on Earth (yes, there were background deals and cheating going on - welcome to the real world - but they were having little effect on the effort to isolate the regime). The day before the US invaded Saddam was far less of a threat to anyone outside Iraq than he had been for 20 years.

The prinicpal of containing unpleasent regimes is effective - it's starving out North Korea, and convinced Kaddafi of Lybia to change his ways somewhat and make reparations for some things to "come in from the cold" and rejoin the global community. It's kept Castro under control. Yes, it's hard on the inahbitants of the countries involved -- but then so is war. Which is worse? Guess that depends on who is doing the suffering and dying, doesn't it?

It does, however, take time. It requires long-term patience. In some cases, it involves waiting for someone to die (such as Castro). This really cranks the handle of those who want to Fix Things NOW!!! - a sin that Americans seem particularly prone to.

For myself - I would have preferred continuing sanctions and a firm watch on Saddam to the present war. Less opportunity for heroics and medals... but a lot fewer people ending up in boxes or hobbling on artificial limbs.

[Ace Pace]

Oh agreed that Cuba was a threat, but I find that people still find modern Cuba a threat somehow and I thought I was understood when I mentioned Neo-cons who are (atleast to my knowledge) a post 80's group.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Oh agreed that Cuba was a threat, but I find that people still find modern Cuba a threat somehow and I thought I was understood when I mentioned Neo-cons who are (atleast to my knowledge) a post 80's group.

Actually, I think they go back to the 60's.

[Broomstick]

What about the hundreds of thousands or possibly millions that were likely to die under Saddam and Sons?

How many have been killed by the American Democratic Regime? Let's see... there were all those native tribes... that nasty civil war business when an uprising was put down... lots of Mexicans when the US appropriated places like New Mexico, Arizona, and California... Hmm... should we count WWII or not? Sure, the Japanese attacked a US territory (a formerly sovereign nation annexed after the demise of the royal family), but no one in Europe directly threatened us... then there's Korea and Viet Nam...

Don't pretend the hands of the US are entirely clean of blood. Don't delude yourself that we can't match Saddam's death toll. We aren't automatically the good guys - that's a title you have to earn over and over again, and so far, in this war, we haven't been doing that good a job of it.

What about the Mass graves?

And how is that our responsibility? What about them? They weren't really news to anyone paying attention. There are mass graves throughout the former Yugoslavia dating from after the breakup - why aren't we imposing democracy and insisting on regime change and occupying those countries right now?

What about the torcher chambers (i'm talking REAL torture not Abu Graihb)?

Abu Graibh was real torture, my child - you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Perhaps not the worst of torture, but torture nonetheless.

What about the children starving while Saddam built his lavish palaces?

What about the Americans with no health insurance and little or no access to care while Bush and his buddies get rich?

What about people living in knee-deep human shit in the New Orleans Superdome for a week, with no clean water and running out of food while the fucking government authorities spin their sound bites and worry about being on time for a lavish dinner?

You can throw up horrific examples of corruption and abuse in ANY country on the planet... so why go to war with one nation and not another. What justifies an invasion of Iraq? Why was it so fucking important to drop bombs and shoot people in Iraq right now?

You are honestly going to imply that things were better under Saddam?

There are folks who'd like a regime change in the US - should they invade and force one at the point of a gun?

[Darth Wong]

Oh agreed that Cuba was a threat, but I find that people still find modern Cuba a threat somehow and I thought I was understood when I mentioned Neo-cons who are (atleast to my knowledge) a post 80's group.

Actually, I think they go back to the 60's.

The Neo-Con movement had its roots in Zionist lobbyists pushing for America to aggressively support Israel. That's why hardline support for Israel is still such an absolute sticking point with Neo-Cons.

[Broomstick]

Oh agreed that Cuba was a threat, but I find that people still find modern Cuba a threat somehow and I thought I was understood when I mentioned Neo-cons who are (atleast to my knowledge) a post 80's group.

The Cuban air force and coast guard do ocassionally open fire on civilians in international waters. The most recent incident involved Brothers to the Rescue, a group operating out of Florida that rescues people attempting to escape Cuba by sea, as well as anyone else getting into trouble in those waters such as Haitians and tourists and people shipwrecked on sandbars. Two US airplanes were shot down about midway between Florida and Cuba - radar traces clearly showed this. In addition, they had contacted Cuban air traffic to let them know they were on a humanitarian mission. That happened in the late 1990's. There have been reports of boats being fired on as well.

Of course, Castro claims we do similar things. Well, we don't shoot down their civilian pilots - they don't allow civilians to be pilots. And boats are heavily regulated in Cuba. But you get the idea.

Granted, it's not exactly a shooting war, but the mutal hostility of the two nations is quite real and it does claim lives.

The anti-Cuba neo-cons do date back to the 1960's. They are, in fact, the origin of the persistant conspiracy theory that Castro backed the Kennedy assassin in retaliation for the Cuban missile crisis and the Bay of Pigs, both of which occured under JFK's presidency (he was quite the busy fellow - did all that and never even finished his first term of office)

[The Kernel]

KHL's debate tactics seem to center around finding something wrong with the Saddam regime equals proving that any action of force on the part of the US is justified. As Broomstick's excellent rebutal to his specific points proves, most of the issues raised are not solved under the US occupation, yet apparently they justified a completely unmeasured forceful response by the US against Saddam.

Let me break this down into simple terms for you KHL--as far as dictators go, Saddam was a relatively good one. He made some good social strides in his time (the US touted him as THE "benevolent dictator" before the UN as proof that consorting with tyrannical regimes was justified) and ran a secular regime. The Iran-Iraq war certainly wasn't a good thing, but that was twenty years ago, and we were the ones that egged Saddam on in that conflict. The vast majority of the blood spilled under Saddam's reign is at least partially the responsibility of the United States.

Now Saddam DID do some nasty things in his day. He had a secret police that arrested political dissenters, but no more so than modern China and it certainly wasn't anything approaching Stalinist Russia. Most of the Iraqi deaths that occured under Saddam were Kurds that were killed during uprisings, which need I remind you ALSO occured because of the US? Or did you forget how Bush Sr. promised the Kurds aid after the first Gulf War, then withdrew it and sat back as Saddam slaughtered them? Kinda funny how just about every one of Saddam's atrocities have the US involved in some way isn't it?

The point here is that at the time of the second Gulf War, Iraq was relatively stable. Saddam wasn't killing people en mass, his government was relatively stable and no major conflicts had occured in years. There was no reason at the time to do anything but practice the same containment that we had been doing since the first Gulf War.

Did you ever wonder why Shrubby had to play up his reasons for invading Iraq with bullshit about WMD's and terrorism? Because he knew that nobody would get behind it otherwise as Saddam's regime wasn't really a threat to anyone.

So instead of presenting evidence of some good done by our occupation, you instead speak of things like "feelings" and "opinions" about Iraq getting better. Perhaps you should instead open your feeble mind to the possibility that Democracy isn't some magic concept that makes everything better automatically and that maybe, just maybe, Saddam was the best solution for the Iraqis at the time. He may have been a ruthless dictator, but his absense has left Iraq without clear and strong leadership which has led to a bloody civil war which may not end for years and lead Iraq into a worse political situation then it had under Saddam.

Of course I'm only writing this to show others the absurdity of your views, I don't expect you to actually understand or accept any of this, or even read it really. You've shown quite well that you like to pick and choose the arguments you reply to, as well as demonstrating a charming Wall of Ignorance, not to mention broken record syndrome ("SADDAM IS A BAD MAN! HE IS BAD I TELL YOU!").

[Durandal]

What about the hundreds of thousands or possibly millions that were likely to die under Saddam and Sons?

Over what period of time? 2 years? I seriously doubt it.

What about the millions that had already died? What about the Mass graves? What about the torcher chambers (i'm talking REAL torture not Abu Graihb)? What about the children starving while Saddam built his lavish palaces?

What about them? The Iraqis were in no shortage of weapons; fucking everyone there has an AK-47. If they were so dissatisfied with Hussein, they could have risen up and deposed him themselves. There's 20 million of them. And given the pitiful excuse for a military that Hussein had, it wouldn't have been too difficult for a well-organized rebellion to take over.

You are honestly going to imply that things were better under Saddam?

They're certainly not noticeably better under our occupation. Women's rights have actually decreased, we still haven't restored working electricity to pre-occupation levels, fresh water is considered a luxury anywhere but Baghdad, and the Sunnis and Shi'ites are a hop, skip and a jump away from an all-out civil war.

My grandparents lived in Italy under Mussolini. You know what they say when I ask them about it? "The trains ran on time, and you could leave your door unlocked at night." When the Italians got sick of the fascists, they threw them out. They pelted Mussolini's carcass with rotten tomatoes in a town square.

You're "SADDAM WAS EVIL" diatribe completely misses the point. If the Iraqis wanted freedom so much, why didn't they rise up and take it? They had numbers and weapons, after all.

The answer is simple: because they were mostly content. If Hussein was killing people off at the rate you seem to think he was, the whole country would be devoid of life. You can't simultaneously declare that a country of 20 million is crying out for freedom and then say that they are incapable of securing it themselves. You can't say that people want freedom and then expect that they'll eagerly accept an occupation.

It's a shitty deal, but we suck at nation building. Period. We have no business doing it. The only people who should be building nations are the citizens of those nations. This "democratize the Middle East" crap is a fool's errand.

[brianeyci]

How do you expect me to prove something with infininate possibilities? First of all, I said just about anything which means that there are exceptions, but I do not find them anywhere remotely likely. Secondly the phrase "just about anything" is a figure of speech and not meant as a literal declaration. I don't recall anyone demanding that someone prove that "anybody but bush" would be a better president.

However, as I said before I CAN point to what we are doing over there:

http://www.iraqigovernment.org/constitution_en.htm

You're just admitting the weakness of your own argument by saying there's infinite possibilities, that your entire argument is crap because its based on possibilities, not accurate and logical predictions. Why don't you prove that Saddam's reign was better than what the Americans will accomplish in Iraq, using logic and examples of what's going on in Iraq right now compared with the past? I know what a fucking figure of speech is dipshit, when you say "just about anything the Americans create will be better" I know you mean within the realm of possibility. Stop fucking semantic whoring and give evidence that Iraq is headed towards a better future than under Saddam other than "democracy is great" wankfest.

What are these exceptions? Civil war? Terrorism continuing to spiral out of control? Worse electricity and running water than before Saddam? All these are not exceptions, they are very real possibilities.

I could paste the section detailing guaranteed freedoms here as "proof" but you can look it up in the link easy enough.

These so-called guaranteed freedoms are not so great as you claim.

Problem one

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

Can anybody say Sharia.

Problem two

Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality.

Can anybody say anti-gay laws.

Brian

[Broomstick]

Thing is, there are at least two groups in Iraq for whom one can, possibly, argue that things are better under US occupation than under Saddam: the Iraqi Kurds and the Swamp Arabs... but does KHL mention either? No. He is, presumably, aware of the Kurds, at least. Won't be shocked if he's never heard of the Swamp Arabs, as they aren't nearly as well known.

So there's a freebie for you, KHL - try finding some sort of proof that either of those two groups are better off under US occupation than under Saddam. But that's as much as I'm going to help you here - from this point on you sink or swim on your own.

[KHL]

What about the hundreds of thousands or possibly millions that were likely to die under Saddam and Sons?

Over what period of time? 2 years? I seriously doubt it.

Does it really matter over what period of time? As time progresses under the new government, the average number of deaths should go down. The same couldn't be said of Saddam's regime.

What about the millions that had already died? What about the Mass graves? What about the torcher chambers (i'm talking REAL torture not Abu Graihb)? What about the children starving while Saddam built his lavish palaces?

What about them? The Iraqis were in no shortage of weapons; fucking everyone there has an AK-47. If they were so dissatisfied with Hussein, they could have risen up and deposed him themselves. There's 20 million of them. And given the pitiful excuse for a military that Hussein had, it wouldn't have been too difficult for a well-organized rebellion to take over.

The Key word being a "well organized" rebellion which would be tough to build from scratch. If you recall, there were numerous small rebellions in Iraq, especially following our expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. These rebellions were all sumarily crushed. Further, the rebels didn't just have their own lives to think about. If Saddam's regime found out who they were, then they could also expect their familys to bear punishment. Such things are deterimental to a rebellion. It would have taken a high ranking general to turn on Saddam in order to have any realistic shot at toppling his regime.

You are honestly going to imply that things were better under Saddam?

They're certainly not noticeably better under our occupation. Women's rights have actually decreased, we still haven't restored working electricity to pre-occupation levels, fresh water is considered a luxury anywhere but Baghdad, and the Sunnis and Shi'ites are a hop, skip and a jump away from an all-out civil war.

My grandparents lived in Italy under Mussolini. You know what they say when I ask them about it? "The trains ran on time, and you could leave your door unlocked at night." When the Italians got sick of the fascists, they threw them out. They pelted Mussolini's carcass with rotten tomatoes in a town square.

You're "SADDAM WAS EVIL" diatribe completely misses the point. If the Iraqis wanted freedom so much, why didn't they rise up and take it? They had numbers and weapons, after all.

The answer is simple: because they were mostly content. If Hussein was killing people off at the rate you seem to think he was, the whole country would be devoid of life. You can't simultaneously declare that a country of 20 million is crying out for freedom and then say that they are incapable of securing it themselves. You can't say that people want freedom and then expect that they'll eagerly accept an occupation.

It's a shitty deal, but we suck at nation building. Period. We have no business doing it. The only people who should be building nations are the citizens of those nations. This "democratize the Middle East" crap is a fool's errand.

I can't believe you honestly feel that things were better under Saddam. I think you've been brainwashed by Michael Moore. Yes their are supply problems. Yes their other infrastructure issues. But those will be overcome and the long term benefits easily outweight the short term hardships.

I could just as easily play the same game you are playing. If everything was so great under Saddam, then why didn't the people demand he be put back into power? Why aren't they "rising up" against our soldiers over there and driving us out? Further, why didn't they "rise up" in defense of Saddam when we first went in?

I've detailed above why Iraqis didn't take it themselves. The answer is that many of them did try. And yes it is true that if the majority stood up they could have toppled Saddam themselves. Its the same concept as a single man armed with a 6 shooter surrounded by 20 men armed with their bear hands. In the end, the 20 men could win the fight, but the question is which 6 of them is willing to be the ones that die doing it.

[Ace Pace]

Does it really matter over what period of time? As time progresses under the new government, the average number of deaths should go down. The same couldn't be said of Saddam's regime.

Are you fucking retarded? There is roughly 100000 dead Iraqis since 2003, when Mission Completed.

The insurgency is gaining speed, not losing ground, unlike your claims of Moore brainwashing, its obvious you simply don't have the full picture.

Let me hammer it in simply and not that eloquently.

While what you're saying is very nice and all, the fact is that 100000 Iraqis probebly want their lives back and Saddam in control rather then be dead.

[Broomstick]

I can't believe you honestly feel that things were better under Saddam.

Better for some - the ugly truth being that some people prospered under Saddam, while others died. That is the way of the world, particularly under autocratic rule. If you aren't among the despised and outcast things might not be that bad under dictatorship - as pointed out, the trains run on time and crime tends to be low. Except for things like the ruler's sons randomly kidnapping pretty young girls, but the incidence of such things, considered against the population at large, tend to be low. Again, if you aren't a pretty young girl, or the parent of such, you might well decide that the victimization of other people is a small price to pay for your own prosperity.

Rather like the US population tolerating sub-minimum wages and abuses of illegal immigrants, some of whom die crossing the Arizona desert every month, to be a tolerable evil in return for cheap fruits and vegetables in the grocery stores. Or don't you care about the victims of capitalism?

I think you've been brainwashed by Michael Moore.

Disagreement with KHL /= brain washing

Also keep in mind that in a debate (and this IS a debate forum) a person might adopt a stance contrary to what they actually believe in order to make a point or to engage in a battle of wits. Generally, it's polite to state when you're doing so.

As an example - no, I don't believe life under Saddam was a good thing. Nor do I approve of Moussilini's actions in the 1940's. I can, however, point out that not everything was hellish under them when engaging in a debate without having any desire to live under such rulers and while still prefering my own country to theirs.

Yes their are supply problems. Yes their other infrastructure issues. But those will be overcome and the long term benefits easily outweight the short term hardships.

Except it really sucks for those who die in the short term, doesn't it?

You know, maybe we should just ban gasoline powered autos in the US. Impound them all, immediately. Sure, there will be supply problems, and other infrastructure problems in the meanwhile, while we find alternative means of tranport and fuel, but those will be overcome and the long term benefits easily outweigh the short term hardships.

Many of the infrastructure issues were caused by the US bombing the shit out of the infrastructure - we brought down bridges, destroyed the power grid, and bombed cities, not Saddam. Whatever the justfication, it was the US that destroyed a lot material stuff. YOU might not know this... but the Iraqis are quite clear on the matter.

And if you are so in favor of this war -- why aren't you fighting it? It's easy to make others bleed for the cause, where is YOUR sacrifice for the betterment of mankind? Our armed forces are not meeting their recruiting goals, I'm sure they'd be glad of your help in this noble cause.

If everything was so great under Saddam, then why didn't the people demand he be put back into power?

There are, in fact, some Iraqis who DO want Saddam back

Why aren't they "rising up" against our soldiers over there and driving us out?

Um... excuse me? Have you missed all those bombs and "improvised explosive devices"? What the fuck did you think those were about?

The insurgents aren't stupid - they know they can't win in an open, frontal assault. So they're trying to bleed us dry with a thousand small attacks. It might even work, given time.

Further, why didn't they "rise up" in defense of Saddam when we first went in?

Quite a few did - that's why some of our boys died. They were shooting real bullets at our boys as they rolled to Bagdad, not tossing M&M's at them.

Do you even bother to read past headlines?

Are you really that stupid? Or just really uninformed?

[KHL]

And what about "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam"?

I think they will grow out of that phase in the long run.

Based on what? Imagine what America would be like if the Constitution contained a clause saying "Congress shall pass no law which contradicts the Bible." Even with every conceivable effort taken to separate church and state, Americans still interpret the Constitution to permit the influence of religion over state laws and actions, more than 200 years later.

And I also think the key word there being undisputed which gives some leeway for law makers for the tenets of islam over which there is dispute.

Oh right, so if the Constitution contained a clause saying "No law can be passed which contradicts the undisputed rules of Christianity", that would have no negative effects on church-state separation?

While I agree that seperation of church and state is ideal, you have to start somewhere. The development as a society of nations in the middle east lags far behind that of Europe and North America. It is unrealistic to expect them to immediately go full bore into Western style democracy. I feel that if given the chance to experience real freedom, their society will evolve and become more tolerant, and thus less fundamentalist in its application of law.

Further, What the constitution does do is explicitly protect certain freedoms and thats a damn sight better than it was under Saddam.

[The Kernel]

Does it really matter over what period of time? As time progresses under the new government, the average number of deaths should go down. The same couldn't be said of Saddam's regime.

Actually it could brainiac. Most of the people killed under Saddam's reign were killed during uprisings. US sponsored uprisings. During the long periods of stability there weren't people dying en mass.

Now it is time for you to provide proof that the civil war will die down in a reasonable time frame.

[KHL]

Ok I concede.

Iraq was better under Saddam. The U.S. is evil and democracy can't work in the middle east.

[Broomstick]

What a snarky, cowardly reply.

Well, OK, concede if you'd rather do that than back up your position.

[brianeyci]

Ok I concede.

Iraq was better under Saddam.

Honestly man would it be that hard to do some research and back up your position? Get some information on Saddam's torture camps, his gassing of Kurds, the supression of rights of Shia, the swamp Arabs (yes Broomstick I heard of these through a documentary, they live on boats right?) and maybe some reconstruction efforts. But no, you quit. Maybe because your original opinion was based on nothing but Bush administration rhetoric, or maybe because you don't have the time or inclination to do some research, but from the way you're quitting it sure fucking looks like its the former and that you're a Republitard .

The U.S. is evil and democracy can't work in the middle east.

Fuck off dipshit, nobody said that the United States was "evil" or that democracy couldn't work in the Middle East. It's all about you trying to be a Bush apologist first by blaming Clinton then by spewing the same thing we hear on television about it being a "noble cause" without providing proof that Iraq is headed towards a better future. I don't know what's more vile, your identical position to Bush, or the fact that when pressed for evidence, you use dishonest debating tactics first by semantic whoring then "conceding" by sniping with a complex cause fallacy by associating "US is evil" with my and other people's argument when "US is evil" was totally unrelated to the argument.

Since you're quitting, thanks for the fun peabrain.



Brian