How about "IF we lose, they will follow us home"

Cosmo wrote:

...
If that's the case... then we should install a Saddam Hussein over there to keep the peace.

I completely agree, but that would be politically incorrect.

Cosmo wrote:

...
I'm not misunderstanding invasion versus occupation... I'm having difficulties understanding what you are saying.
The WHOLE situation in Iraq... invasion and occupation has lead to a change from the Sunni based power to a Shi'ite based. Shi'ites like the Iranians. That is handing Iraq to Iran... by letting their Shi'ite majority decide, via free election, who to put into power. They chose a Shi'ia power base... boy, there's a surprize.
The al Maliki government is Shi'ia. Muqtada al Sadr... Shi'ia, seeking refuge in Iran to avoid getting swept up in the Surge. Their hero is Ayatollah Khomeni. Democracy has lead to Iraq moving towards Iran. Iraq will not get 'Overthrown by an Isalmic-fascist regime'... they will freely elect one.

Name one truly fascist regime that was freely elected into power and remained in power through continued elections.

Facism and democracy are diametrically opposed. As long as the people of Iraq are accurately represented at the voting booths, a truly fascist government cannot exist.

The Hussein dictatorship fought off the Iranian take over... we have facilitated it. That is irony.

Again, I didn't say the removal of Saddam has helped us in any way. There's a reason why his presence was not entirely bad, and that reason was central government that was the closest thing to secularism that the middle east had to offer.
...

And as for Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq... they weren't there under Hussein. How did they get there now?

You're thinking in absolutes and still not differentiating between the invasion and the occupation. The invasion led to Al Qaeda and the Taliban moving into Iraq, but an early withdrawal will guarantee their unrestricted autonomy.

..
and this statement:
"I know you dislike Bush immensely, but you are letting that cloud your understanding of the entire situation."
Too fucking retarded to even address.

That's good. Get it all out.

So we were told that this evil organization has these cells that may or may not be waiting with held breath until the flag goes up the flag pole and the shades get opened and closed five times while the guy in the car at the corner gas station toots the horn seventeen times while the leader in a cave in the mountains of Afgan calls the shots. But they all rushed back to Iraq to wage this war against the infidels? Right!

So they are either waiting in America, Canada, Aussieland, and every other nation that is fighting this tough country called terrorism, for the perfect day. Orrrrr, they are fighting the war back in Iraq. Interesting that they can fester a story like this and have educated people buy in to it. Maybe they are like rats that sneek on the ships as they come back from over seas.

"You know Bill, I was worried about those cells here in America. But since the president took the fight to them, I haven't heard a peep about those sleeper cells."
"Cause you know Jim, that they are just waiting for the perfect day to spring another good plan on us. I don't think we have upset them enough yet with what we are doing over there. Didn't you hear we took the battle to them? They would be foolish to wake up one of those dreaded sleeper cells in the US with most of our forces over there. They are just that stupid!"
"Thanks Bill, you put my mind at ease."

Milestone wrote:

You are correct....and it even goes deeper. These people are also conditioned by their religion. They kill in the name of Muhammid. They believe they are martyrs when they suicide bomb a school full of children of a different religious tribe.

We are soooo incorrect in thinking that these people can handle democracy. The only way to keep Iraq stable is to rule the way that Sadaam did. We may not like it, but it's true.

So 'stable' is killing those that are different and oppose you? Hell then it's already stable.

Specifics wrote:

Do you not think it would be a lot easier if America got its heads together and wrote a book, spelling out point by point, idiot proof style, how the rest of the world should live, then maybe there wouldnt be all this misunderstanding and we could all kick back under the stars and stripes and the whole world could be a Utopian state like the USA.....come on guys, share the wealth, we all know America is the brains of this world.

A book?

Hell no.

Maybe a movie.

Cosmo wrote:

...
Think about it...
The Iraqi population is 60% Shi'ite and growing as immigration quotas set by Hussein are dropped.
In a free election... the one with the most votes win (except in America). The Shi'ites will seek the advice of their religious leader as to whom to vote for... I basing this on the past elections where this happened.
Shi'ites will win because there is no way that 20% is ever going to be greater than 60%.

If this were true about shi'ites, then Iran wouldn't need to aggressively censor free speech within its own borders. Extremism doesn't represent the population as a whole.

What you're assuming is that the people of Iraq will elect away their ability to elect by electing a fascist.

...

Now... guys like al Sadr idolized Ayatollah Khomeni. Who do you think he will advise his followers to vote for? It's not rocket science... it's simple logic. And as long as the leaders do the will of the majority (which is to seek unrestricted vengance on the Sunni bastards that have oppressed them for the past 30 years and to raise their nation to the praise of Allah), they will remain in power. The worst thing for America in that part of the world... a Shi'ite influenced bloc with massive oil reserves.
You may call them 'Islamo-fascists'... but, that does not mean they are.

The first half of the paragraph is dedicated to describing how the majority of shi'ite iraqis want to wipe out the sunnis and put extremist leaders into power, but then you end it with a "but that doesn't mean they're islamo-fascists."

I think you know that they are islamo-fascists, but you want to act as though the term "islamo-fascists" is some closed-minded label that you are above using.

After all, you described them to be people who shouldn't have control of massive oil reserves. And that's because they are not islamo-fascists?

So, you're confused about what islamo-fascism is. But, that's OK. I think you are still capable of understanding my point. And my point is that if the common majority of shi'ites really wanted a lifestyle of violent instability, the Iranian government wouldn't need to maintain an oppressive police state to remain in power.

You make it sound as though the Iranian people would freely elect an extremist government that supports terrorism. I don't think that to be the case. I think if they could vote away the current establishment, they most definitely would.

...

And if the freely elected nation of Iraq... which we basically set up... invites the Taliban in... what can we say? We're the ones who created this situation and have proclaimed it to be the model of the entire region.

Taliben in? Yes. Autonomy? No.

sponger wrote:

If this were true about shi'ites, then Iran wouldn't need to aggressively censor free speech within its own borders. Extremism doesn't represent the population as a whole.

What you're assuming is that the people of Iraq will elect away their ability to elect by electing a fascist.

...


The first half of the paragraph is dedicated to describing how the majority of shi'ite iraqis want to wipe out the sunnis and put extremist leaders into power, but then you end it with a "but that doesn't mean they're islamo-fascists."

I think you know that they are islamo-fascists, but you want to act as though the term "islamo-fascists" is some closed-minded label that you are above using.

After all, you described them to be people who shouldn't have control of massive oil reserves. And that's because they are not islamo-fascists?

So, you're confused about what islamo-fascism is. But, that's OK. I think you are still capable of understanding my point. And my point is that if the common majority of shi'ites really wanted a lifestyle of violent instability, the Iranian government wouldn't need to maintain an oppressive police state to remain in power.

You make it sound as though the Iranian people would freely elect an extremist government that supports terrorism. I don't think that to be the case. I think if they could vote away the current establishment, they most definitely would.

...


Taliben in? Yes. Autonomy? No.

...
Please do not take one sentance and comment on it, taking it out of the context of the overall idea.
Now... Shi'ites are Shi'ites... what don't you understand about that?
...
I never said they 'Shouldn't be in control of their resources'... I said it would be the worst thing for America... not for an Iranian/Iraqi bloc. I think they should have a say in what they want to do with THEIR resources. It's not their fault we're fucking addicted to the shit... that's our fault.
And as for the term, 'Islamo-Fascists'... I believe that is a term used by is 'Lame-O-People' to scare us into believing that the boogie man wears a turban.
If fucking Iranians want Western Style freedoms... why do they continually elect guys like Ahamejinadad? Because Iran is run by their church... their Shi'ite church, that's why. Their President is the head of their government, not of Iran. The Grand ayatollah gets that job. and they love their God... and they believe their God... and they will follow their God. You make it sound like the Iranian people are peace loving consumer wannabes... if that's the case, why are we chomping at the bit to nuke their asses?
...
Hoping for the best outcome is not a sound foriegn policy.

Milestone wrote:

Well, things were alot more stable when Sadaam was in power. He had to rule that way to keep order.

Politically correct people don't like it, but it's fact. That's how you have to rule 3 religous groups in a population that believe that God wants them to kill eachother.

How many religious groups are there in America...England...France...

It's time the kids grew up, no?

Clearly this was not the correct method, but certainly Saddam's method was not better. It was the illusion of stability.