Well let's see, I know a lot about the Iraq War subject. And one common misconception that I keep finding is that everyone thinks we are wasting our time over there, however we have a ccomplished something never even thought of before, a Democracy in the middle east. I have seen the schools, hospitals, roads and every other bit of infastructure we have helped create and which was not there before the War.

US MILITARY IS KILLING INNOCENT IRAQIES,STOP!! THIS CRUCIAL KILLING.....FOR SELFISH REASONS....LIVE PEACEFULLY.

quote:

Originally posted by Banturon:
Well let's see, I know a lot about the Iraq War subject. And one common misconception that I keep finding is that everyone thinks we are wasting our time over there, however we have a ccomplished something never even thought of before, a Democracy in the middle east. I have seen the schools, hospitals, roads and every other bit of infastructure we have helped create and which was not there before the War.

They don't care for us or our democracy. They frankly don't want us there, they don't give a damn if we come with peace or with war. Why are we in a place where we aren't wanted?

Well... In Iraq they have a saying, "Me against my brother. The two of us against our neighbor, the 3 of us against the world."

And thats how they live here. The Sunnis and the Shiites hate each other, they both hate the Kurds and they all hate Iran and neither country really cares for America.

But I will say that the residents in Baghdad do not seem to mind us so much. It is really hard to tell though. Iraqis will often give the answer they think you most want to hear.

I would say that we are doing as well as we can here.

as you please, just make sure you do understand others statements next time before attacking them.

whats the magic word?

Misunderstood! simple misunderstanding of each other, now drop it because it's getting really old.

quote:

HAHAHA, wow....this is why i had to comment on this. I was comarping RULERS, not GOVERNMENTS, how many times do i have to say that. Your response to my comparison had everything to do with government and NOTHING to do with nationality.

I'll try to make his clearer for your sake, but it astounds me that you still haven't understood.
As a rebuke to my comment you used an example wich isn't valid due to circumstances. I pointed out what circumstances made your rebuke invalid in my view, and you somehow arrived at the brilliant conclusion that I was talking about forms of government.
You see, the conversation had nothing to do with political theory, the conversation was limited to me discrediting one of your statements, but you took it out of context displaying a lack of understanding and knowledge on the subject.

quote:

When i questioned you statement on foreign procedence of a country's PM

Wrong, you don't even remember what you said do you? You questioned me as to why i stated the nationality along with the country he was under rule.

quote:

well it sure would be bizarre to be the french prime minister of another country wouldn't it???

quote:

I know we weren't talking about forms of government, but you turned the conversation in that direction with your idiotic statement, please think of the implications of your words before making such bold claims.

HAHAHA, wow....this is why i had to comment on this. I was comarping RULERS, not GOVERNMENTS, how many times do i have to say that. Your response to my comparison had everything to do with government and NOTHING to do with nationality.

quote:

That was monarchy, it isn't comparable. Mostly because it was an imposed form of government, depended largely on military power, and arranged marriages.

This is retarted....you are further making yourself look like an idiot.

yes many political bodies have existed incorporating many nationalities, however the modern nation state forbodes it, unfortunatly.....there was uproar here when a Swede became manager of the national football team, nationalism is the bane of the modern world.

quote:

If i was talking about forms of government then your statement would apply. I'm refereing to the person in charge. Don't you have better things to do with your time than to worry about pointless issues or do you just find it amusing making yourself act like a 3 year old? I'm done, have a nice day.

pointless? it has everything to do, if you had any knowledge at all about what your talking about I wouldn't have to point these things out for you, but you don't even seem to know your own arguments.

When i questioned you statement on foreign procedence of a country's PM you invoked 17th and 18th century european monarchy as an example, if you had any sort of historical knowledge you would undoubtedly know that monarchy was a form of government that didn't represent a nations population, rather the interests of the select few that composed the upper estament of society.
The idea behind democracy is that it is supposed to represent the will's of a country's populace, thus the requirement for a leader of the same nationality. Monarchic rulers didn't fulfill this role, thus your exemplification of the bourbonic dynasty is completely invalid.

In practice, nationality is no guarantee of common interests, but it does help, thus it is a requisite. I know we weren't talking about forms of government, but you turned the conversation in that direction with your idiotic statement, please think of the implications of your words before making such bold claims.

Now I'm done, You have a nice day..

quote:

That was monarchy, it isn't comparable. Mostly because it was an imposed form of government, depended largely on military power, and arranged marriages.

If i was talking about forms of government then your statement would apply. I'm refereing to the person in charge. Don't you have better things to do with your time than to worry about pointless issues or do you just find it amusing making yourself act like a 3 year old? I'm done, have a nice day.

quote:

Seems like everyone on this web site is liberal as hell....it's good for me, i love being challenged.

no

quote:

try the bourbon family who had French kings rule over many european countries like England and Spain and oh France.

That was monarchy, it isn't comparable. Mostly because it was an imposed form of government, depended largely on military power, and arranged marriages.

Er, the Democratic Rampage one? I think that's what you mean.

lets shift this discussion over with the other board, im tired of going back and forth, thanks CLPO.

I'm actually libertarian.

Anyways, on with discrediting your statements. That's what debating is, isn't it? Discredit your opponent enough so you don't have to bother digging up facts. Jeez, don't you watch the Colbert Report? We're at war with the Islamofactists (okay, that's all I got).

quote:

Most of your arguements have been discredited long ago or cannot be proven becasue they are little consperacy theories people love so much to conjur up and say they are intelligent for doing so.

Just like "Iraq is a danger to American freedom"? I think that was discredited when we stomped the Iraqi Army without even putting troops on the ground back during the Gulf War.

Now, as for you claim that Russia supported Iraq, I must disagree. According to the source you gave, most of Iraq's support came from the former Soviet Union. Indeed, many in Russia still continued to support Iraq after the Soviet Union collapsed, but that is not the same as government support. Using that logic, we're to blame for the Taliban's regime since the CIA supplied fighters in Afghanistan with Stinger missiles to fight against the Soviets. Oops?

Given the evidence, however, I won't contest the claim you make about Chirac. But I don't see the problem. As is stated in the article, many nations supported Iraq at one point, namely in its war against Iran. Now, I will agree that no other nation gave Iraq nuclear reactors, but in order to call that a bad thing, you need to prove why Iraq can't have nuclear reactors. Or nuclear weaponry for that matter. Because we can't trust them with it? That's a poor argument. We can't trust Israel with nukes (because they'll blow people up for almost anything remotely hostile) yet they most likely possess nuclear technology. Pakistan and India both have nukes and they've been on the verge of using them numerous times. See, there's this little thing we like to call mutually assured destruction, and it's what stops people from using nukes on other people who have nukes. Giving nuclear reactors to Iraq was not a bad thing. No worse than giving weapons to the Contra rebels or Afghan mujahideen, eh?

quote:

Notice i put IF in the sentence to make sure that i wasn't making an assumption.

My bad, I didn't see the if. But considering you called me a tool of the media, I think you can understand my annoyance.

quote:

i would like to hear some more of YOUR facts on the war

All right, what would you like to hear? Anything? I believe you said all my opinions were already discredited, so what would be the point in me saying anything if you'll just ignore it and call me a tool of the left-wing media?

Oh, and why do you act as if your opinions untouchable? I'll discredit whoever I want. You're just making it too easy for me.

Seems like everyone on this web site is liberal as hell....it's good for me, i love being challenged.

proof, anyone?

quote:

French Prime minister of France before he became the prime minister was closely dealing with Saddam and also selling him nuclear components.

Rumsefeld? anyone?

Now to address someone who actually attacks the issues. CLPO, it's nice you can pick out my sentences and discredit them with your opinions , I didn't hear one arguement againts the war in this last post.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324053.stm
There is your proof, and it's even a liberal biased media scource!

quote:

You haven't heard any of this because if all you do is watch the news and read the news paper you won't get all the facts.

Notice i put IF in the sentence to make sure that i wasn't making an assumption.

quote:

All right, what's wrong with that? Must I agree with you to be right? I am interested why you can't believe I came to those opinions on my own.

Most of your arguements have been discredited long ago or cannot be proven becasue they are little consperacy theories people love so much to conjur up and say they are intelligent for doing so.

Instead of attacking everything i have to say, i would like to hear some more of YOUR facts on the war if you don't have anymore then i think its about time we call it quits?

wow...the intelligence is just too much here.

Speed, french refering to his nationality, and no it wouldn't be wierd at all to be a french prime minister of another country why don't you try the bourbon family who had French kings rule over many european countries like England and Spain and oh France. I don't have time to respond to your rediculous posts, try attacking the issues.