Thread: Bring Saddam Back!

No, it wouldn't work. Some people still hate him, but he did keep order in Iraq before the freedom wars.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

No, it wouldn't work. Some people still hate him, but he did keep order in Iraq before the freedom wars.
[/b]

But they hate the Americans more than Saddam!

Originally Posted by loveapple

But they hate the Americans more than Saddam!
[/b]

Not true there is a huge difference in the Iraq people and the Insurgents.

Intresting point, and I get the idea. After all, Iraq was off Way better with saddam then how it is at the moment. But I think no one really want Saddam back. America wouldn't allow it. American only allows dictators to rule that do not sit in the way of their political -their apperance in the world- or their economical goals.

What would be good for Iraq is for the Patriots in Iraq to settle their own government, the problems between the groups in iraq is highy exaggerated, they have lived together for longer then america exists. Way longer. Iraq can build itself. America has to leave, now. Thanks to America every day 100 people get killed, 10 of them Americans themselves. Everyone is accepting, for people of parlament in England to high army ranking commanders that the war failed and retreat is the only option left.


EDIT: Hilarious, do you think they Love America? I think 90% of all of the voilance in iraq is caused by America, directly or indirectly. If the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afganistan would end now, the amount of violence would drop in a few months. Most of the people in Iraq arn't religious extremist, they just hate the occupation forces, like I would hate the fucking nazi's if they barged into my house.

I don't think America would admit its fault in the whole war itself by putting Saddam back up on the throne. Everything else will happen before that's gonna become reality.
And I am not too much into this whole thing, but common sense tells me that it wasn't better with Saddam, and it isn't better with the Americans and who-not in the country. There is pain - mental and physical pain, it just exists in a different way, but pretty much in the same extend I believe..

Originally Posted by Slight

I don't think America would admit its fault in the whole war itself by putting Saddam back up on the throne. Everything else will happen before that's gonna become reality.
And I am not too much into this whole thing, but common sense tells me that it wasn't better with Saddam, and it isn't better with the Americans and who-not in the country. There is pain - mental and physical pain, it just exists in a different way, but pretty much in the same extend I believe..
[/b]

Regime change needed to come from within Iraq not imposed by the US, who have made a very bad situation much worse, but what's new?

Thats a tricky situation though;

A) Saddam is given back and continues to threaten every one like when he said he had weapons of mass destruction.

B) He isn't given back and the terrorists still bomb ect.

Both ways don't seem good.

Originally Posted by loveapple

Regime change needed to come from within Iraq not imposed by the US, who have made a very bad situation much worse, but what's new?
[/b]

I don't see anyway why the Americans feel to be the "helper" all the time ... it's non of their business what's going on in other countries.

Originally Posted by Slight

I don't see anyway why the Americans feel to be the "helper" all the time ... it's non of their business what's going on in other countries.[/b]

That's what I always thought, too. Let them work it out on their own.
But when they start threatening us or our allies, that's when you have to step in and try to do what's right - though I think Bush's ideas of what's right is arguable in some instances.

Originally Posted by loveapple

As all else seems to have failed in Iraq, I wonder if in the end the Americans might be forced to release Saddam and set him up as leader of the country once more? At least under his rule there was law and order and not daily suicide bombings etc.

[/b]

How is using sarin gas (a WMD) to kill many thousands of your own innocent citizens "law and order"? What about putting people through paper shredders in front of their family members because they were merely suspected of being oppositional? Giving your sons free reign to pick out women in public and rape them? Funding suicide bombers in Israel? Taking over Kuwait? Shooting missiles at Israel? Ruling through fear? Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah? Sending representatives to meet with Al Qaeda? Could you please tell me what in the world you are talking about?

This war is about the rest of history, and we are going to have a rest of history without the Hussein regime in power. The people of Iraq will eventually be very appreciative, as a huge chunk of them already are. They will always resent you for your apathy regarding their future freedom and well being.

Originally Posted by loveapple

But they hate the Americans more than Saddam!
[/b]

No, you do. They don't.

Originally Posted by Universal

This war is about the rest of history, and we are going to have a rest of history without the Hussein regime in power. The people of Iraq will eventually be very appreciative, as a huge chunk of them already are. They will always resent you for your apathy regarding their future freedom and well being.
No, you do. They don't.
[/b]

You keep saying this, Universal Mind, but you present ABSOLUTELY NO reputable evidence to support your claims about this supposed support of the Iraqi people. The US are ALREADY suffering such heavy casualties that a withdraweral is even being tossed around in the public arena by high-placed officials within the US administration. And, make no mistake, WHEN the US does withdraw, which is likely to be fairly soon, there WILL be civil war and absolute chaos unless a permanent and LARGE peacekeeping force replaces them.

Originally Posted by Universal

Giving your sons free reign to pick out women in public and rape them?[/b]

Oh! You mean like the reported instances, and no doubt MANY unreported ones, of similar things being done by US soldiers?

Originally Posted by Universal

Shooting missiles at Israel? ... Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah? [/b]

Oh, man, this is such a common misconception. Hisbollah are NOT a terrorist organisation. They are a stable regime governing Lebanon, they build schools, hospitals, etc. Not only that, but they were able to DEFEAT Israel in the recent war, while not (to my knowledge) mistreating any of the Israeli Prisoners of War they captuyred, the same CAN'T be said of America's conduct towards POWs. Hisbollah is a legitamate, stable, and for the Middle East, remarkably non-oppressive regime.

Originally Posted by Universal

How is using sarin gas (a WMD) to kill many thousands of your own innocent citizens "law and order"? What about putting people through paper shredders in front of their family members because they were merely suspected of being oppositional? ... Ruling through fear? [/b]

Actually, it's a very stable form of Law and Order. I don't agree with it, and neither do you, but at least it avoided the carnage and anarchy that is currently running rampant through Iraq. And I'm not alone in this opinion, either: The US put Saddam in place, and don't even TRY to suggest they did not foresee the future nature of his government. The lesser of evils.

Originally Posted by The

You keep saying this, Universal Mind, but you present ABSOLUTELY NO reputable evidence to support your claims about this supposed support of the Iraqi people. The US are ALREADY suffering such heavy casualties that a withdraweral is even being tossed around in the public arena by high-placed officials within the US administration. And, make no mistake, WHEN the US does withdraw, which is likely to be fairly soon, there WILL be civil war and absolute chaos unless a permanent and LARGE peacekeeping force replaces them.
Oh! You mean like the reported instances, and no doubt MANY unreported ones, of similar things being done by US soldiers?
Oh, man, this is such a common misconception. Hisbollah are NOT a terrorist organisation. They are a stable regime governing Lebanon, they build schools, hospitals, etc. Not only that, but they were able to DEFEAT Israel in the recent war, while not (to my knowledge) mistreating any of the Israeli Prisoners of War they captuyred, the same CAN'T be said of America's conduct towards POWs. Hisbollah is a legitamate, stable, and for the Middle East, remarkably non-oppressive regime.
Actually, it's a very stable form of Law and Order. I don't agree with it, and neither do you, but at least it avoided the carnage and anarchy that is currently running rampant through Iraq. And I'm not alone in this opinion, either: The US put Saddam in place, and don't even TRY to suggest they did not foresee the future nature of his government. The lesser of evils.
[/b]

Here is some information about a survey done in Iraq on how Iraqis felt about Hussein. Are you going to be shocked when you see that he was a pretty hated person?

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2...aq_archive.html

Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization? Uh, yeah they are. Do you agree with their tactics? It is amazing that you can put so much time into trashing the United States and then turn around and say that Hezbollah is an okay bunch of dudes. There is no way you are serious about that.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...llah+terrorist

The free reign to rape is not something U.S. soldiers have. If a few have done that, they are not the whole military. Hussein, on the other hand, allowed it and even engaged in it. Get it?

At least you admit that forces are needed in Iraq. Putting the U.N. in there would be fine with me. We tried to do that in the first damn place. But sudden withdrawal would be the biggest disaster of all time.

Originally Posted by Universal

The free reign to rape is not something U.S. soldiers have. If a few have done that, they are not the whole military. Hussein, on the other hand, allowed it and even engaged in it. Get it?[/b]

Whether or not theyre are MEANT to be raping is sort of besides the point. The point is, it happens, and I'm betting that in the many unreported cases involving US troops, nothing is done about it.

Originally Posted by Universal

At least you admit that forces are needed in Iraq. Putting the U.N. in there would be fine with me. We tried to do that in the first damn place. But sudden withdrawal would be the biggest disaster of all time.[/b]

Doesn't matter. It's going to happen anyway because, quite simply: The US LOST the War on Iraq. They may have occupied the country, but they've lost the damned war, just as Napoleon did when he invaded Russia. And, the UN is stretched thinly enough as it is. REGARDLESS of whether I agree with the invasion in the first place, the fact remains that America has fucked up Iraq so bad that they can't STAY, and if they leave, it's going to turn to shit.

Originally Posted by Universal

Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization? Uh, yeah they are. Do you agree with their tactics? It is amazing that you can put so much time into trashing the United States and then turn around and say that Hezbollah is an okay bunch of dudes. There is no way you are serious about that.[/b]

There IS such a way. I suggest you do some research into Hisbollah and their aims and principles. You might be suprised. They MAY be dead-set against the destruction of Israel, but let's face it: The methods they use are no worse than those used by Israel.

Originally Posted by The

Whether or not theyre are MEANT to be raping is sort of besides the point. The point is, it happens, and I'm betting that in the many unreported cases involving US troops, nothing is done about it.
Doesn't matter. It's going to happen anyway because, quite simply: The US LOST the War on Iraq. They may have occupied the country, but they've lost the damned war, just as Napoleon did when he invaded Russia. And, the UN is stretched thinly enough as it is. REGARDLESS of whether I agree with the invasion in the first place, the fact remains that America has fucked up Iraq so bad that they can't STAY, and if they leave, it's going to turn to shit.
There IS such a way. I suggest you do some research into Hisbollah and their aims and principles. You might be suprised. They MAY be dead-set against the destruction of Israel, but let's face it: The methods they use are no worse than those used by Israel.
[/b]

I have accused you this whole time of only bitching about the U.S. and our allies, but now you are making it very clear that you actually side with our ruthlessly evil enemies, like Hezbollah. I edited in some links since you posted your response, so make sure you look at them.

The U.S. has not lost the war in Iraq. You actually sound like you want to believe that. Why? The full process of forming stable democracy from a long severely oppressed population under a brainwashing, terrorist, genocidal dictatorship that rules through paranoia takes a long time. The full results of what we are doing now will not show themselves for decades. Which reminds me... I recently asked you specifically what kind of government you would like to see develop in Iraq. You said you are against democracy there. Do you favor an oppressive dictatorship like the one they had a few years ago? What kind of government would you like to see there, or do you not care as long as it is chosen by at least one member of the country?

As for Hezbollah, how is being obsessed with the destruction of Israel not terrorist? Can you name one country the United States wants to blow off the face of the Earth? No, you can't. If there were one, it would have been done. Imagine Hezbollah with our power. What a horrifying thought. But Israel with our power would be nothing like that. Israel defends itself, and that is legitimate. Blowing yourself up in a crowed restaurant so you can screw virgins is not a matter of self defense. It is pure evil.

Here are 1.8 million articles about Hezbollah and suicide bombing.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=h...suicide+bombing

I think you should do more thinking about what side you want to take in this. Hezbollah does not want you to be free. We do.

Originally Posted by Universal

I have accused you this whole time of only bitching about the U.S. and our allies, but now you are making it very clear that you actually side with our ruthlessly evil enemies, like Hezbollah. I edited in some links since you posted your response, so make sure you look at them. [/b]

Throughout this ENTIRE post, you've saturated your writing with (highly controversial) invective and blanket statements in order to strengthen your viewpoint.

Hisbollah are not "ruthlessly evil". All the Israeli POWs they captured were not executed or mistreated as would have been done by a "terrorist" organisation.

In the Israeli-Lebanon war, the actual outcome was the one which I preferred: the Israeli invasion was repulsed. Do I "side" with Hisbollah? Not exactly. But I think that of the two sides, they are less unjustified.

Originally Posted by Universal

The U.S. has not lost the war in Iraq. You actually sound like you want to believe that. Why? The full process of forming stable democracy from a long severely oppressed population under a brainwashing, terrorist, genocidal dictatorship that rules through paranoia takes a long time. The full results of what we are doing now will not show themselves for decades.[/b]

America does not have a democracy, so god(s)(or-lack-thereof) know(s) how they expect to set one up somewhere else. And in ANY case, Universal Mind, this whole point is completely IRRELEVANT, even if I DID agree with it, which I don't:

The US will, in the next few years or even sooner, withdraw from Iraq. The UN does not have the resources to put in place a sufficient peacekeeping operation. So, it simply doesn't MATTER what the long-term effects would be from what "America is doing now" because it's all gone to shit, and America is about to withdraw.

Originally Posted by Universal

Which reminds me... I recently asked you specifically what kind of government you would like to see develop in Iraq. You said you are against democracy there. Do you favor an oppressive dictatorship like the one they had a few years ago? What kind of government would you like to see there, or do you not care as long as it is chosen by at least one member of the country?[/b]

Argh! This is exactly myt point! Why does it MATTER what type of government I, or even YOU for that matter, would like to see in Iraq? The middle eastern area needs to be left alone to develop its own civil society. This might take decades, even a century, and may be intermittantly bloody. We should be helping the middle east to MODERNISE, sure. But, trying to import western political/social values into a foreign society is just plain stupid.

Originally Posted by Universal

As for Hezbollah, how is being obsessed with the destruction of Israel not terrorist? Can you name one country the United States wants to blow off the face of the Earth? No, you can't. If there were one, it would have been done.[/b]

Name one country? Oh, okay. Communist North Korea. Oh, no... wait a minute, they tried destroying that already, it didn't work. How about... Vietnam? Oh, wait, that didn't work either, the US lost that war too.

Originally Posted by Universal

Imagine Hezbollah with our power. What a horrifying thought. But Israel with our power would be nothing like that. Israel defends itself, and that is legitimate. Blowing yourself up in a crowed restaurant so you can screw virgins is not a matter of self defense. It is pure evil.[/b]

This is COMPLETE CRAP. Hisbollah has not been involved in any suicide bombings since 1999, and has even gone so far as to publicly denounce such attacks. As for Israel? Really, don't get me started on Israel's wartime atrocities. In fact, Hisbollah even denounced the attacks on the World Trade Center.

What you need to understand is that Hisbollah has changed IMMENSELY over the last decade.

Originally Posted by Universal

I think you should do more thinking about what side you want to take in this. Hezbollah does not want you to be free. We do.[/b]

Well, here's something you might be suprised by:

Here are some excerpts from The Hizballah Program, an article published in the Jerusalem Quarterly, which many regard to be the Manifesto of Hisbollah. Note: this letter was published in the 80's, long BEFORE Hisbollah's recent transformation and departure from terrorist tactics.

"We are an umma which adheres to the message of Islam. We want all the oppressed to be able to study the divine message in order to bring justice, peace and tranquillity to the world. This is why we don't want to impose Islam upon anybody, as much as we that others impose upon us their convictions and their political systems. We don't want Islam to reign in Lebanon by force as is the case with the Maronites today. This is the minimum that we can accept in order to be able to accede by legal means to realize our ambitions, to save Lebanon from its dependence upon East and West, to put an end to foreign occupation and to adopt a regime freely wanted by the people of Lebanon.

This is our perception of the present state of affairs. This is the Lebanon we envision. In the light of our conceptions, our opposition to the present system is the function of two factors; (1) the present regime is the product of an arrogance so unjust that no reform or modification can remedy it. It should be changed radically, and (2) World Imperialism which is hostile to Islam.

We consider that all opposition in Lebanon voiced in the name of reform can only profit, ultimately, the present system. All such opposition which operates within the framework of the conservation and safeguarding of the present constitution without demanding changes at the level of the very foundation of the regime is, hence, an opposition of pure formality which cannot satisfy the interests of the oppressed masses. Likewise, any opposition which confronts the present regime but within the limits fixed by it, is an illusory opposition which renders a great service to the Jumayyil system. Moreover, we cannot be concerned by any proposition of political reform which accepts the rotten system actually in effect. We could not care less about the creation of this or that governmental coalition or about the participation of this or that political personality in some ministerial post, which is but a part of this unjust regime.

The politics followed by the chiefs of political Maronism through the 'Lebanese Front' and the 'Lebanese Forces' cannot guarantee peace and tranquillity for the Christians of Lebanon, whereas it is predicated upon 'asabiyya (narrow-minded particularism), on confessional privileges and on the alliance with colonialism. The Lebanese crisis has proven that confessional privileges are one of the principal causes of the great explosion which ravaged the country. It also proved that outside help was of no use to the Christians of Lebanon, just when they need it most. The bell tolled for the fanatic Christians to rid themselves of denominational allegiance and of illusion deriving from the monopolization of privileges to the detriment of other communities. The Christians should answer the appeal from heaven and have recourse to reason instead of arms, to persuasion instead of confessionalism. [/b]

In comparison, let's look at a quote by the illustrious dunce, George W. Bush:

Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction. [/b]

Now, let's see...

• America is not a peaceful nation.
• America attacks other countries.
• America has weapons of mass destruction.

Hmmmmmm...

Saddam was a total bitch, maybe a bigger bitch then bush, very maybe. But he wasn't as stupid as Bush to launch a pointless war that would result in a bloody occupation for years. And Saddam also didn't have the power that Bush had, to send soldiers into Iraq that saw all turban wearing people as terrorist.

It is a fact that america killed more innocent people then terrorist and Saddam combined. An estimated 650 000. Even if you devide that by ten, you win by far of the terrorists, and maybe even beat Saddam.

-

And Saddam might use some torture, but so is America. I know in what kind of a country I would rather live. I would rather live in a country with a dictator but free of war, than in a country dictated by an occupation force, a country with still no working democracy (half the iraq parlament is exile in jemen or someting because of their safety, and a total of zero iraqees were involved in writing their consitution), a country where 100 of my fellow inhabitants die every day, a country opressed by checkpoints of the trigger-happy occupants, a country bombed to the stone age. Even if the people in Iraq would have freedom, then can't use it if they are dead, or straped to a water-board.

However, since the government in iraq failed (how much have you heard about it lately, strange isn't it?), it is easy to say that Iraq has no democracy, not even a real government at all. The war failed. Not just the goal of exporting something America doens't have, democracy, but america also failed all moral goals, all responsability as the most powerful nation in the world. They have failed not just the countries they have invaded and mislead, they have also failed their own country.

Throughout this ENTIRE post, you've saturated your writing with (highly controversial) invective and blanket statements in order to strengthen your viewpoint.

Hisbollah are not "ruthlessly evil". All the Israeli POWs they captured were not executed or mistreated as would have been done by a "terrorist" organisation.

If that is true, it is not sufficient grounds for ignoring the terrorism that they do commit. Did you read my 1.8 million articles about Hezbollah and suicide bombings?



[/quote] In the Israeli-Lebanon war, the actual outcome was the one which I preferred: the Israeli invasion was repulsed. Do I "side" with Hisbollah? Not exactly. But I think that of the two sides, they are less unjustified.
America does not have a democracy, so god(s)(or-lack-thereof) know(s) how they expect to set one up somewhere else. And in ANY case, Universal Mind, this whole point is completely IRRELEVANT, even if I DID agree with it, which I don't: [/quote]

America does not have a democracy? We have a democratic republic. I have lived here my whole life except for a few months in Germany. I know first hand that I am very free. This part of the argument is just silly.

I said that you side with Hezbollah because you are taking up for them, but have yet to condemn them, and you have had nothing good to say about the United States. You are on the wrong side.

[/quote] The US will, in the next few years or even sooner, withdraw from Iraq. The UN does not have the resources to put in place a sufficient peacekeeping operation. So, it simply doesn't MATTER what the long-term effects would be from what "America is doing now" because it's all gone to shit, and America is about to withdraw. [/quote]

We are not about to withdraw from Iraq. We have taken out a humongous number of terrorists, and that alone is good. We have put Iraqi democacy in motion, and it will grow much stronger in time. What we are doing will pay off greatly, even for New Zealand.

[/quote] Argh! This is exactly myt point! Why does it MATTER what type of government I, or even YOU for that matter, would like to see in Iraq? The middle eastern area needs to be left alone to develop its own civil society. This might take decades, even a century, and may be intermittantly bloody. We should be helping the middle east to MODERNISE, sure. But, trying to import western political/social values into a foreign society is just plain stupid. [/quote]

So you are against democracy. Now that you have talked about that, tell me what kind of government you think SHOULD be there. What would be acceptable to you? If a suicide bombing loving dictator who wants to develop nuclear weapons and despises the United States, or better yet (just a hypothetical for the sake of argument), New Zealand, comes to power, will you be okay with that?

[/quote] Name one country? Oh, okay. Communist North Korea. Oh, no... wait a minute, they tried destroying that already, it didn't work. How about... Vietnam? Oh, wait, that didn't work either, the US lost that war too. [/quote]

If we want to blow North Korea off the face of the Earth, why are they still there? You do realize that we could blow North Korea and North Vietnam back to the stone age within one hour, don't you? Silly argument.

[/quote] This is COMPLETE CRAP. Hisbollah has not been involved in any suicide bombings since 1999, and has even gone so far as to publicly denounce such attacks. As for Israel? Really, don't get me started on Israel's wartime atrocities. In fact, Hisbollah even denounced the attacks on the World Trade Center. [/quote]

You believe that, huh? Well then, I guess their a bunch of okay dudes. I haven't killed anybody since 1999, so I guess I am no longer what you can call a serial killer. Will you take up for me too?

Now, let's see...

• America is not a peaceful nation.
• America attacks other countries.
• America has weapons of mass destruction.

Hmmmmmm...
[/quote]

You need to learn the difference between mindless terrorism and legitimate, effective war strategy. If Al Qaeda or your buddies in Hezbollah had nukes, guess what they would do with them. But we can blow up the world many times over. That is a fact. That is how much power we have. And is the Middle East a big sheet of glass with oil refineries all over it? Is North Korea still there? Go figure.

Originally Posted by Universal

If that is true, it is not sufficient grounds for ignoring the terrorism that they do commit. Did you read my 1.8 million articles about Hezbollah and suicide bombings?[/b]

Have YOU read these articles? I guarantee, not a single reputable one will be talking about any suicide bombings committed by Hisbollah after 1999.

And simply posting a half-assed link to a google search which includes the terms "Hisbollah" and "Suicide Bombing", and then coming back and saying you've found 1.8 million articles about it, is pathetic and completely irrelevant. See, look, I can do the same thing with:
"America" and "Suicide Bombing" (Returns 6.68 million results)
OR
"Feminist" and "Suicide Bombing" (Returns 1.66 million results)
OR
"Chocolate" and "Suicide Bombing" (Returns 3.41 million results)

Do you get my point? This google-posting method of evidentiary substantiation is weak and rather ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Universal

America does not have a democracy? We have a democratic republic. I have lived here my whole life except for a few months in Germany. I know first hand that I am very free. This part of the argument is just silly. [/b]

America has a two-party system. Americans have no direct say in the choice of presidential candidates, nad absolutely no say whatsoever in important policy decisions. A two-party First-Past-The-Post political system in no way, shape or form is able to accurately or fairly represent the political beliefs of the nation it purports to democratically govern.

Simply fobbing my argument off as "just plain silly" soesn't add a single iota of strength to your reasoning, but comes off as high-handed and dismissive. Something which, given the tenuous and controversial nature of your claims, you cannot afford to adopt.

Originally Posted by Universal

I said that you side with Hezbollah because you are taking up for them, but have yet to condemn them, and you have had nothing good to say about the United States. You are on the wrong side.[/b]

So your definition of "siding" includes anyone who doesn't speak up against the organisation which you are accusing them of siding with?

Do you realise what an absurd chain of logic this involves? I haven't spoken up against the animal-worshiping tribes of rural Uganda, that doesn't mean I SIDE with them. Have you ever heard of something called "neurality"? The rhetoric you're uttering rubns along the lines of the completely laughable statement of bush:

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. "

This idea is completely and plainly ABSURD. To make such a statement is tantamount to claiming that during World War Two, Switzerland was pro-nazi! Or even that before Pearl Harbour, AMERICA was pro-nazi! Do you realsie how stupid this idea is? Surely, you must!

Originally Posted by Universal

We are not about to withdraw from Iraq. We have taken out a humongous number of terrorists, and that alone is good. We have put Iraqi democacy in motion, and it will grow much stronger in time. What we are doing will pay off greatly, even for New Zealand. [/b]

You haven't done a single goddamn thiong of the sort. The reguime put in place by America is weak and already starting to fragment. Weekly casualties, both Iraqi and American, are rising! The area's gone to hell in a handbasket, and even senior officials in the US administration are speaking PUBLICLY about American withdraweral in the short to mid-term future. When such statements are publicly made, this is a CLEAR indication of how shitty things are getting!

Originally Posted by Universal

So you are against democracy. Now that you have talked about that, tell me what kind of government you think SHOULD be there. What would be acceptable to you? If a suicide bombing loving dictator who wants to develop nuclear weapons and despises the United States, or better yet (just a hypothetical for the sake of argument), New Zealand, comes to power, will you be okay with that? [/b]

Again, you've completely missed my point. I haven't said a single thing about my political beliefs, because in the case of Iraq, a country with a completely different political and religious culture, the form of government I would prefer over my own country is completely IRRELEVANT with regards to what sort of government would be most suitable for Iraq.

Like I have said, re-said, re-re-said etc., the middle eastern area should be left alone to develop their own political and civil culture over time. More modernised nations should be helping to modernise these countries, and improve the quality of life and economic advancement of their citizens, but we should not be trying to enforce our own political and cultural values upon them. That makes us no better than Saddam himself!

Originally Posted by Universal

If we want to blow North Korea off the face of the Earth, why are they still there? You do realize that we could blow North Korea and North Vietnam back to the stone age within one hour, don't you? Silly argument. [/b]

Nork Korea and Vietnam are "still there" because of POLITICAL REALITY. America cannot act completely unchecked because of the world's second superpower: China. And this is my point. America is not all-powerful (thank god(s)(or-lack-thereof).

And again, just simply fobbing my arguments off as "silly" without coherant reasoning to the contrary does not strengthen your position!

Originally Posted by Universal

You believe that, huh? Well then, I guess their a bunch of okay dudes. I haven't killed anybody since 1999, so I guess I am no longer what you can call a serial killer. Will you take up for me too?[/b]

I think you need to accept the practical reality that an organisation such as hisbollah can change and reform over time. I strongly believe they have, and are still doing, this. Try not to hold such a simplistic, biased and and shallow understanding of anything which is foreign to you.

Originally Posted by Universal

You need to learn the difference between mindless terrorism and legitimate, effective war strategy. If Al Qaeda or your buddies in Hezbollah had nukes, guess what they would do with them. But we can blow up the world many times over. That is a fact. That is how much power we have. And is the Middle East a big sheet of glass with oil refineries all over it? Is North Korea still there? Go figure.[/b]

Ha!

The guts of what you just said is that America is allowed to act in a manner which would be regarded, if it were any other country, as "terrorist"! This is sheer two-facedness, hypocracy!

Have YOU read these articles? I guarantee, not a single reputable one will be talking about any suicide bombings committed by Hisbollah after 1999.

And simply posting a half-assed link to a google search which includes the terms "Hisbollah" and "Suicide Bombing", and then coming back and saying you've found 1.8 million articles about it, is pathetic and completely irrelevant. See, look, I can do the same thing with:
"America" and "Suicide Bombing" (Returns 6.68 million results)
OR
"Feminist" and "Suicide Bombing" (Returns 1.66 million results)
OR
"Chocolate" and "Suicide Bombing" (Returns 3.41 million results)

The difference is that the articles I referred you to are actually about suicide bombings committed by Hezbollah, or at least a huge portion of them are. The articles you named just mention the two terms together. That is not the case with Hezbollah and suicide bombing. And I don't care about the 1999 bullshit. That is pathetic. Manson hasn't had anybody killed since, what, 1969 or something? Is he an okay dude now because it's been so long? Hitler hasn't killed anybody since 1945. If he were alive, would you be taking up for him too?


[/quote] America has a two-party system. Americans have no direct say in the choice of presidential candidates, nad absolutely no say whatsoever in important policy decisions. A two-party First-Past-The-Post political system in no way, shape or form is able to accurately or fairly represent the political beliefs of the nation it purports to democratically govern. [/quote]

That does not mean lack of democracy. That IS democracy. The people keep the two party system alive. If the majority of the nation wanted to get rid of that, it would be gone over night. Pretty much everybody in the United States who can even name the President is either a Republican or a Democrat. That is how people here think. Most of my friends are Libertarian like I am, but most Americans are either left or right the whole way. It has nothing to do with lack of freedom.

[/quote] Simply fobbing my argument off as "just plain silly" soesn't add a single iota of strength to your reasoning, but comes off as high-handed and dismissive. Something which, given the tenuous and controversial nature of your claims, you cannot afford to adopt. [/quote]

The same could be said of what you just said. In my previous paragraph, I illustrated the incorrect nature of your claim. So now I will say it again... This part of the conversation is just plain silly.

[/quote] So your definition of "siding" includes anyone who doesn't speak up against the organisation which you are accusing them of siding with? [/quote]

No, you left out the other relevant details I mentioned. That must be pretty convenient. I said that you have repeatedly taken up for Hezbollah and not once condemned them, and you have obsessively put down the United States, not once saying anything to take up for us. That is bias, and you cannot argue that it is not. Bias is a matter of taking sides. You are biased toward Hezbollah. How disgusting is that?

[/quote] Do you realise what an absurd chain of logic this involves? I haven't spoken up against the animal-worshiping tribes of rural Uganda, that doesn't mean I SIDE with them. Have you ever heard of something called "neurality"? The rhetoric you're uttering rubns along the lines of the completely laughable statement of bush: [/quote]

You are not neutral. You are biased. It is reminiscent of when I condemned Leo for posting his pedophilia propaganda here, and you did NOTHING in response except condemn me for my condemnation of his speech about how nothing about pedophilia is any worse than consenting adult sex. It is bias, and bias toward the evil side. Why do you want to be that sick?

[/quote] "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. " [/quote]

I don't agree with that philosophy. But now that you brought it up, you have clearly shown that you are "with the terrorists", Hezbollah. If you are not, then do one of four things: 1. Take up for the United States for once. 2. Stop putting down the United States. 2. Condemn Hezbollah for once. 3. Stop taking up for Hezbollah. As long as you continue to do NONE of that, you will be showing bias, not neutrality.

[/quote] This idea is completely and plainly ABSURD. To make such a statement is tantamount to claiming that during World War Two, Switzerland was pro-nazi! Or even that before Pearl Harbour, AMERICA was pro-nazi! Do you realsie how stupid this idea is? Surely, you must! [/quote]

Man, you really went off on a rampage with your mischaracterization of my point. Do you realize how absurd that is?

[/quote] You haven't done a single goddamn thiong of the sort. The reguime put in place by America is weak and already starting to fragment. Weekly casualties, both Iraqi and American, are rising! The area's gone to hell in a handbasket, and even senior officials in the US administration are speaking PUBLICLY about American withdraweral in the short to mid-term future. When such statements are publicly made, this is a CLEAR indication of how shitty things are getting! [/quote]

Most of our officials are not saying that stuff, so what does that prove? This war is about the rest of history, and it will pay off greatly in time. The insurgents don't want the people of Iraq to be free, just like you don't, and they are going ape shit. They go more ape shit as time goes on because the democratic system is lasting and growing. The spirit of freedom is alive and making itself obvious. That will never go away, and that is a huge threat to Islamofascism, which you don't condemn.

You really sound like you want us to fail. Why do you want that?

[/quote] Again, you've completely missed my point. I haven't said a single thing about my political beliefs, because in the case of Iraq, a country with a completely different political and religious culture, the form of government I would prefer over my own country is completely IRRELEVANT with regards to what sort of government would be most suitable for Iraq. [/quote]

You have said that you don't want democracy for Iraq because their culture is not made for it. So for the third time, what would you consider acceptable? What is their culture made for? Don't act like you have no opinion on this. You brought up the subject of what kind of government is not acceptable for Iraq. So I am asking you what IS? Would an oppressive dictatorship with nukes that funds suicide bombings against Israel and their allies be okay with you? What would? You brought up the subject of acceptable government for Iraq. Name some forms of government you WOULD find acceptable.

[/quote] Like I have said, re-said, re-re-said etc., the middle eastern area should be left alone to develop their own political and civil culture over time. More modernised nations should be helping to modernise these countries, and improve the quality of life and economic advancement of their citizens, but we should not be trying to enforce our own political and cultural values upon them. That makes us no better than Saddam himself! [/quote]

So what kind of government WOULD work there? I know you think democracy would not. What would? You went beyond saying the West should not impose government. You said that Iraqis are not cut out for democracy because their culture would not mix well with it.

[/quote] Nork Korea and Vietnam are "still there" because of POLITICAL REALITY. America cannot act completely unchecked because of the world's second superpower: China. And this is my point. America is not all-powerful (thank god(s)(or-lack-thereof). [/quote]

A war between the U.S. and China would be the end of the world. China does not want that. If we sent North Korea back to the stone age today, we would not get attacked by China. We don't want to blow North Korea off the face of the Earth. We just want to get rid of the government. The civilian factor is part of what is stopping us. War is serious stuff. If we were so indifferent to civilians, we would never use precision bombs. That concept is not that hard to comprehend.

[/quote] And again, just simply fobbing my arguments off as "silly" without coherant reasoning to the contrary does not strengthen your position! [/quote]

Oh, I was thinking I made some other points too.

[/quote] I think you need to accept the practical reality that an organisation such as hisbollah can change and reform over time. I strongly believe they have, and are still doing, this. Try not to hold such a simplistic, biased and and shallow understanding of anything which is foreign to you.
Ha! [/quote]

They are more than foreign. They are our enemies, and they are suicide bombers. We are at war with Islamofascist terrorists, and the group you keep taking up for fits into that category. You should try to understand the crisis we are dealing with and think for at least two seconds about maybe why we are handling things the way we are instead of just sitting in nice little protected (by the United States) New Zealand and being so biased, simplistic, shallow, and hateful in regard to that which you refuse to open your mind enough to understand.

[/quote] The guts of what you just said is that America is allowed to act in a manner which would be regarded, if it were any other country, as "terrorist"! This is sheer two-facedness, hypocracy!
[/quote]

Nope. I am against mindless targettings of masses of civilians for the achievement of unrealistic goals and for the purpose of just venting anger and/or screwing virgins. You have yet to show that you are. I am for overthrowing terrorist governments that support and fund mindless suicide bombings against the innocent and are reported by six governments and the United Nations to have WMD's, which they have used for their terrorist purposes in the past. I am also for freeing the unfree. I am for a future of freedom wherever possible. You are for none of those things.

HMMMM. Something's wrong with the quoting software on the forum. I appear to have done everything right, but it's not doing the quoting thingie. And BBcode is one, becasue the links worked. Weird.

The difference is that the articles I referred you to are actually about suicide bombings committed by Hezbollah, or at least a huge portion of them are. The articles you named just mention the two terms together. That is not the case with Hezbollah and suicide bombing.

completely wrong. Did you actually READ any of the results your google search turned up?

Okay, here's the first ten from the search as examples:
Result Number 1) This article from the Washington post only makes one single reference to Hesbollah in a caption beneath a picture. The picture is of an attack on a US military barraks, NOT A CIVILIAN TARGET. In other words, this was an attack on a legitimate military target.
Number 2) This article from CBS news is entitled "Where are the suicide bombers" and is discussing why Hesbollah have NOT employed suicide bombing tactics in the recent Israeli-Lebanon war! It has the same photograph and caption from the above article. In the body of the article, there is an acknowledgement that in the recent Israel-Lebanon war, Hesbollah's tactics are guerilla-style warfare which have NOT included suicide bombings! The article later on makes reference to the same attack on US barraks, a NON-CIVILIAN TARGET, that was mentioned in the first article.
Number 3) is a sub-page of Number 2)
Number 4) is a wikipedia article about suicide attacks in which the ONLY references to Hisbollah are in regards to atacks on non-civilian targets.
Number 5) is another wikipedia article to the bombing of US barraks, the same attack referred to in Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Number 6) is an article which talks of the bombings carried out in the 80's against military targets.
Number 7) is another article which only briefly mentions Hisbollah, and only in reference to bombings way back in the 80s.
Number 8) is about Argentina and only has a very distant connection to Hisbollah.[/url]
Number 9) is about the bombings during the 80's, and about Hesbollah's radical ex-leader Ahmed Qassirs who was chucked out and denounced by the group nearly a decade ago during Hisbollah's reforms.
Number 10) is an Amazon.com page about a video documentary mentioned in number 10) about discredited Qassir's leadership of Hisbollah in the 80's.

If you'd take the time to stop making assumptions and critically read the "articles about Hisbollah suicide bombing" your search turned up, you'd discover that every single one of the articles is either talking about Hisbollah in the 80s and their attacks on military targets, or is about the recent Iraqi-Lebanon war discussing why the terrorist tactics of the 80s have NOT been employed during that war!

And I don't care about the 1999 bullshit. That is pathetic. Manson hasn't had anybody killed since, what, 1969 or something? Is he an okay dude now because it's been so long? Hitler hasn't killed anybody since 1945. If he were alive, would you be taking up for him too?

Wrong. these are both bad examples. Why? Becuase UNLIKE Manson and Hitler, Hisbollah, for the past decade, have been even MORE POWERFUL than they were in the 80s, and, if they so chose, in a MUCH better position to carry out suicide attacks. That they HAVEN'T and have undergone a massive and thorough reform, and are now targeting their efforts at helping their citizens, building hospitals and schools, and defending their people against Israeli destruction of residential areas and attacks on civilian targets, shows that Hisbollah of 2006 is a COMPLETELY different organisation, with a completely different membership and leadership, than that of the 80s!

That does not mean lack of democracy. That IS democracy. The people keep the two party system alive. If the majority of the nation wanted to get rid of that, it would be gone over night. Pretty much everybody in the United States who can even name the President is either a Republican or a Democrat. That is how people here think. Most of my friends are Libertarian like I am, but most Americans are either left or right the whole way. It has nothing to do with lack of freedom.

It's not democracy! A two-party system simply offers a choice between two massively powerful partes that basically serves to discourage any difference of opinion. Somebody is either Red or Blue. It's not democracy at all! Hell, many AMERICANS would agree with me on this issue, even if they were to disagree with all of my other points in this discussion!

No, you left out the other relevant details I mentioned. That must be pretty convenient. I said that you have repeatedly taken up for Hezbollah and not once condemned them, and you have obsessively put down the United States, not once saying anything to take up for us. That is bias, and you cannot argue that it is not. Bias is a matter of taking sides. You are biased toward Hezbollah. How disgusting is that?

I'm certainly biased against the United States. I'd be the first to admit that. But I'm not biased towards Hisbollah, I'm merely trying to teach you more about the organisation about which you've displayed a hugely opinionated viewpoint based on outdated and largely incorrect information.

I'm not supporting Hisbollah in this thread. All I am saying, is that out of hisbollah and Israel, I think that Hisbollah is the less unjustified of the two. I am biased against America, and certainly against Israel, but neutral towards Hisbollah.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. "
I don't agree with that philosophy. But now that you brought it up, you have clearly shown that you are "with the terrorists", Hezbollah. If you are not, then do one of four things: 1. Take up for the United States for once. 2. Stop putting down the United States. 2. Condemn Hezbollah for once. 3. Stop taking up for Hezbollah. As long as you continue to do NONE of that, you will be showing bias, not neutrality.

Firstly, you can't count. "four things"? You only listed three.

Secondly, why should I be forced to support or refrain from putting down the United States? By asking me to do this to disprove that I support Hisbollah, you're NOT disagreeing with the "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. " philosophy. You're AGREEING with it! Surely you can see this?

By asking me to stop supporting Hisbollah, you're assuming that I do support hisbollah. But that's not what I'm doing, I'm trying to INFORM you about hisbollah, a subject which, like I've said, you've got a whole bunch of totally misplaced misconceptions. I don't know where you get these ideas from, whether it's propaganda, or word of mouth, but they're completely wrong!

Most of our officials are not saying that stuff, so what does that prove? This war is about the rest of history, and it will pay off greatly in time. The insurgents don't want the people of Iraq to be free, just like you don't, and they are going ape shit. They go more ape shit as time goes on because the democratic system is lasting and growing. The spirit of freedom is alive and making itself obvious. That will never go away, and that is a huge threat to Islamofascism, which you don't condemn.

Most of your officials aren't highly placed enough to be ALLOWED to say such things because they might say them in such a manner that panics the american public! That it's even been VOICED in the public arena is hugely significant!

And about this tired cliche'd "rest of history" phrase you keep chucking around? Like I've said, it's completely irrelevant! The situation in Iraq is rapidly and inevitably deteriorating. Even IF I agreed that america's presence is good in the long term, whcih I do not, it doesn't matter, because withing two years max, they'll likely be gone, and Iraq will turn into anarchy!

You really sound like you want us to fail. Why do you want that?

I haven't said anything of the sort. At the moment, the LAST thing Iraq needs is American withdraweral. Because of the humoungous fuck-ups america's made, a military presence is NEEDED in the region (TYhough I'd rather a UN presence than an American), or else the region's going to collapse into civil war.

What I'm saying, is that America's failure is INEVITABLE at this point in time.

In any case, I'm not saying I WANT America to fail. I'm saying they already HAVE failed.

You have said that you don't want democracy for Iraq because their culture is not made for it. So for the third time, what would you consider acceptable? What is their culture made for? Don't act like you have no opinion on this. You brought up the subject of what kind of government is not acceptable for Iraq. So I am asking you what IS? Would an oppressive dictatorship with nukes that funds suicide bombings against Israel and their allies be okay with you? What would? You brought up the subject of acceptable government for Iraq. Name some forms of government you WOULD find acceptable.

Again, you've missed my point. What I consider, or what YOU consider, is acceptable isn't relevant! Iraq needs to develop its own civil and political society, and can only do so sufficiently without western countries with people such as you and I, trying to impose our own values on thim. This process will take time, and is about "The Rest Of History"!!!!!. Hope you don't mind me stealing your little motto?

So what kind of government WOULD work there? I know you think democracy would not. What would? You went beyond saying the West should not impose government. You said that Iraqis are not cut out for democracy because their culture would not mix well with it.

Again, my speculation on what political system would work in middle eatern arabic islamic nations such as Iraq is irrelevant an inappropriate. But I'm not saying that democracy WOULDNT work. What I'm saying is that WHATEVER will "work", whether democracy or something completely different, has to be arrived at through a process of IRAQI political, social, and cultural development, rather than just an alien power such as the US imposing a system on the country point-blank.

A war between the U.S. and China would be the end of the world. China does not want that. If we sent North Korea back to the stone age today, we would not get attacked by China. We don't want to blow North Korea off the face of the Earth. We just want to get rid of the government. The civilian factor is part of what is stopping us. War is serious stuff. If we were so indifferent to civilians, we would never use precision bombs. That concept is not that hard to comprehend.

Thank you. You've CONCEEDED the point I made in response to your question. Finally, some progress!

They are more than foreign. They are our enemies, and they are suicide bombers. We are at war with Islamofascist terrorists, and the group you keep taking up for fits into that category.

No, Hisbollah is not and does not. I've repeatedly demonstrated that to you, and rebuffed your non-founded claims to the contrary. Simply persisting to apply an inappropriate label because the label is so CRUCIAL to your reasoning doesn't display any degree of logical integrity.

Your stubborn labelling of Hisbollah is wrong. As such, your entire argument is based on a misunderstanding, lack of knowledge and comprehension, about what you're talking about.

Nope. I am against mindless targettings of masses of civilians for the achievement of unrealistic goals

Hisbollah does not fall under this category, as I have repeatedly tried to teach you.

I am for overthrowing terrorist governments that support and fund mindless suicide bombings against the innocent and are reported by six governments and the United Nations to have WMD's, which they have used for their terrorist purposes in the past. I am also for freeing the unfree. I am for a future of freedom wherever possible. You are for none of those things.

I could make the exact same bland,and clichéd propagandised rant in relation to my argument. See, watch:

"I am for the freedom of peoples from foreign occupation, and the freedom to develop their own political culture and society. I am for the freedom of a people from the oppressive occupation by a culturally foreign power, and from the anarchy which results, freedom from the rapes of civilians and torture of prisoners of war by that occupating power. I am for a future of freedom of a people wherever possible. You are for none of those things."

FREEDOM!
[/sardonicism]

Such propagandised rants add nothing to the strength (or lack thereof) of your argument. Bland, idealistic propaganda such as you've regurgitated can be formulated for any policy, no matter how absurd, and is equally as unconvincing as that you've just given.

You should try to understand the crisis we are dealing with and think for at least two seconds about maybe why we are handling things the way we are instead of just sitting in nice little protected (by the United States) New Zealand and being so biased, simplistic, shallow, and hateful in regard to that which you refuse to open your mind enough to understand.

Actually, it may interest you to know that America has cancelled their agreement, ANZUS, with New Zealand to provide military aid in case of an attack on our coutry, because of our "no nukes" political policy. New Zealand is protected by Australia, a considerably powerful military presence in the South Pacific, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Her Majesty the Queen. In any case, unlike America, New Zealand has focussed its foreign policy on fostering friendly and open diplomatic relations with other nations, and support of free trade.

Unlike America, many of whose troubles with other world powers are heavily influenced by her insular and stand-offish foreign policy, New Zealand's safety is guaranteed by the friendly relationships she has with both her powerful neighbours, and with countries around the world.

Unlike your own warlike nation, WE foster a culture of peace and good relations with our neighbours. THAT is what protects us.

Guys please stop quoting the entire mile-long post

Originally Posted by Universal

Nope. I am against mindless targettings of masses of civilians for the achievement of unrealistic goals and for the purpose of just venting anger and/or screwing virgins. You have yet to show that you are. I am for overthrowing terrorist governments that support and fund mindless suicide bombings against the innocent and are reported by six governments and the United Nations to have WMD's, which they have used for their terrorist purposes in the past. I am also for freeing the unfree. I am for a future of freedom wherever possible. You are for none of those things.
[/b]

I posted it in one of the other topics too, but all the suicide-bombings so far have been either on religious or military targets.

'Terrorism' is ironically originally a term coined to describe your classic evil government, and since America has, to a certain extent, funded a lot of suicide bombing groups in the east throughout history, you might see that some American officials fit your very definition.

Horray for freedom wherever possible, but this (sounding like a broken record, sorry) American government definition of freedom is not most people's idea of freedom. If we go (yet again, yawn) to the oil, originally it was stated that America was purely interested in protecting the oilfields so that the Iraqis had a method of income after the war, but surprise surprise, our lovely, friendly capitalist-mad oil companies have been in Iraq now, atleast a year, also 'protecting' their oilfields by shipping it off over here.

Okay, here's the first ten from the search as examples:

Oh, so Hezbollah has a history of suicide bombings. Bless their little hearts. Thanks for admitting that. I think I can trust them now. They are a bunch of good old dudes. I can see why you are 100% biased toward them against us. But I should say that although they don't admit to funding any suicide bombings that go on now, their war efforts against Israel are unjustified, making their actions very evil.

[/quote] It's not democracy! A two-party system simply offers a choice between two massively powerful partes that basically serves to discourage any difference of opinion. Somebody is either Red or Blue. It's not democracy at all! Hell, many AMERICANS would agree with me on this issue, even if they were to disagree with all of my other points in this discussion! [/quote]

It is a two party system because there are two parties that are heavily, heavily favored. It exists that way because of what the public wants. It is not like the government forces it on us. There are other political parties, such as mine, the Libertarian Party (who disagrees with me on foreign policy, but nothing else), the Green Party, the Reform Party, the Natural Law Party, and others. There is also the option of running as an Independent. It happens all the time, and sometimes they get elected. The two party system is not forced on us. It is chosen by us. Think about that concept this time. I think you overlooked it last time.

[/quote] I'm certainly biased against the United States. I'd be the first to admit that. But I'm not biased towards Hisbollah, I'm merely trying to teach you more about the organisation about which you've displayed a hugely opinionated viewpoint based on outdated and largely incorrect information. [/quote]

They want to destroy Israel, and they have a very recent history, and very possibly secretive present action, of using terrorist tactics against civilians. The KKK is off the terrorism radar too. Are they a bunch of great guys you want to repeatedly take up for too? Your repeated defense of Hezbollah is indicative of bias.

[/quote] I'm not supporting Hisbollah in this thread. All I am saying, is that out of hisbollah and Israel, I think that Hisbollah is the less unjustified of the two. I am biased against America, and certainly against Israel, but neutral towards Hisbollah. [/quote]

Wrong. You keep taking up for them while you denounce the Hell out of their enemies, which include us. That is bias. Don't forget that our policy is what deters others from invading you. I know you take that for granted. Do you think Hezbollah gives a happy damn about what happens to your country?

[/quote] Firstly, you can't count. "four things"? You only listed three. [/quote]

Wrong. There are four. I just screwed up the numbering. I suggest you now read whichever one you did not read last time.

... then do one of four things: 1. Take up for the United States for once. 2. Stop putting down the United States. 2. Condemn Hezbollah for once. 3. Stop taking up for Hezbollah. As long as you continue to do NONE of that, you will be showing bias, not neutrality.

Do you think you can do one of those?


[/quote] Secondly, why should I be forced to support or refrain from putting down the United States? By asking me to do this to disprove that I support Hisbollah, you're NOT disagreeing with the "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. " philosophy. You're AGREEING with it! Surely you can see this? [/quote]

Wrong. I am asking you to either stop putting down the United States, stop taking up for Hezbollah, condemn Hezbollah for once, or take up for the United States for once. Refusing all four at the same time is indicative of bias. I know you can comprehend at least that much. The "with us or against us" stuff would only apply to "or take up for the United States for once". Your incorrect philosophy ignores the other things.

[/quote] By asking me to stop supporting Hisbollah, you're assuming that I do support hisbollah. But that's not what I'm doing, I'm trying to INFORM you about hisbollah, a subject which, like I've said, you've got a whole bunch of totally misplaced misconceptions. I don't know where you get these ideas from, whether it's propaganda, or word of mouth, but they're completely wrong! [/quote]

You have made many comments in support of Hezbollah. You keep saying that we should trust that they are not evil any more. You have admitted their at least recent suicide bombing ways, yet you have said nothing whatsoever to condemn them and a great deal to stand in defense of them. That is bias.

[/quote] Most of your officials aren't highly placed enough to be ALLOWED to say such things because they might say them in such a manner that panics the american public! That it's even been VOICED in the public arena is hugely significant! [/quote]

It is not significant. We are in the strongest political climate I have seen in my adulthood. Shit gets said from all sides in such a situation. It is nothing new. By the way, I wish I was as into your country as you are into mine. New Zealand is an island near Australia, right?

[/quote] And about this tired cliche'd "rest of history" phrase you keep chucking around? Like I've said, it's completely irrelevant! The situation in Iraq is rapidly and inevitably deteriorating. Even IF I agreed that america's presence is good in the long term, whcih I do not, it doesn't matter, because withing two years max, they'll likely be gone, and Iraq will slip into anarchy! [/quote]

You admit that if we leave Iraq will turn into anarchy? Woes!!! Did you accidentally let that slip out? Well damn, I guess you understand why we are still there. Good going.

[/quote] I haven't said anything of the sort. At the moment, the LAST thing Iraq needs is American withdraweral. Because of the humoungous fuck-ups america's made, a military presence is NEEDED in the region (TYhough I'd rather a UN presence than an American), or else the region's going to collapse into civil war. [/quote]

Then what the Hell is your disagreement? We agree all the way on that. The war was justified because of WMD intelligence from six governments and the U.N. plus other reasons, and now we can't leave. I think we agree on this issue. Cool beans. Let's go have a beer!

[/quote] What I'm saying, is that America's failure is INEVITABLE at this point in time. [/quote]

Keep your fingers crossed. We aren't giving up, ever, so long as liberal panzie flower cupcakes don't infiltrate the federal government.

[/quote] In any case, I'm not saying I WANT America to fail. I'm saying they already HAVE failed.
Again, you've missed my point. What I consider, or what YOU consider, is acceptable isn't relevant! [/quote]

It is relevant because I keep asking you the question, and you keep dodging it. Remember... You brought up the subject of acceptable government in Iraq.

[/quote] Iraq needs to develop its own civil and political society, and can only do so sufficiently without western countries with people such as you and I, trying to impose our own values on thim. This process will take time, and is about "The Rest Of History"!!!!!. Hope you don't mind me stealing your little motto? [/quote]

Say it all day. You didn't mention your objection to democracy, which you say their culture is not ready for. What are they ready for?

[/quote]Again, my speculation on what political system would work in middle eatern arabic islamic nations such as Iraq is irrelevant an inappropriate. But I'm not saying that democracy WOULDNT work. What I'm saying is that WHATEVER will "work", whether democracy or something completely different, has to be arrived at through a process of IRAQI political, social, and cultural development, rather than just an alien power such as the US imposing a system on the country point-blank. [/quote]

I get that point, and I had it long ago. Now I am asking you what you think would be an acceptable form of government. We are not in court, so quit giving me this "irrelevant" stuff. You are not on a witness stand. We are just two people having a conversation on the internet. What kind of government do you hope they end up with?

[/quote] Thank you. You've CONCEEDED the point I made in response to your question. Finally, some progress! [/quote]

Be more specific. Which point?

[/quote] No, Hisbollah is not and does not. I've repeatedly demonstrated that to you, and rebuffed your non-founded claims to the contrary. Simply persisting to apply an inappropriate label because the label is so CRUCIAL to your reasoning doesn't display any degree of logical integrity. [/quote]

Considering the beyond serious matter we are presently dealing with, why in the Hell do you expect us to suddenly trust Hezbollah? You have taken one mentioning about an organization with a history of terrorism, just like the KKK, and driven it into the ground. You are going nuts with your defense of Hezbollah. They are not our biggest enemy, but they do want to destroy our ally Israel, they hate us with every cell of their bodies, and they have a history of mindless terrorism against masses of innocents. We are not ready to suddenly assume they are not our enemies. Do you really expect us to do that?

[/quote] Your stubborn labelling of Hisbollah is wrong. As such, your entire argument is based on a misunderstanding, lack of knowledge and comprehension, about what you're talking about.
Hisbollah does not fall under this category, as I have repeatedly tried to teach you. [/quote]

You are defending Hezbollah to the point of being a broken record. This is ridiculous. We are not ready to stop considering the evil schmucks, who unjustifiably attack Israel and are therefore evil as shit, our enemies. Apparently that offends the Hell out of you, but we would be idiots if we suddenly considered them good ole folks. Do you think you will ever be able to get over that?

[/quote] I could make the exact same bland,and clichéd propagandised rant in relation to my argument. See, watch:

"I am for the freedom of peoples from foreign occupation, and the freedom to develop their own political culture and society. I am for the freedom of a people from the oppressive occupation by a culturally foreign power, and from the anarchy which results, freedom from the rapes of civilians and torture of prisoners of war by that occupating power. I am for a future of freedom of a people wherever possible. You are for none of those things."

FREEDOM!
[/sardonicism] [/quote]

And you would be way off. The people of Iraq did not have the power to develop their own political culture and society under the Hussein regime. What we are fighting for is their ability to do that now. We are giving the people the power, not a ruthless dictatorship. You are against that. If a few military members raped civilians, they are major exceptions. You are illogically generalizing because you want to hate first and fill in excuses second. Putting underwear on the heads of poor little baby terrorist prisoners, an act committed by just a few who were punished and committed without authorization, is not a logical basis for your hateful, absurd generalization. If you want to go off about injustice against Iraqis, go off about the insurgent terrorists, for once. Or are you too biased there also? Yes, you are.

[/quote] Such propagandised rants add nothing to the strength (or lack thereof) of your argument. Bland, idealistic propaganda such as you've regurgitated can be formulated for any policy, no matter how absurd, and is equally as unconvincing as that you've just given. [/quote]

Your analogy was absurd, as I illustrated.

[/quote] Actually, it may interest you to know that America has cancelled their agreement, ANZUS, with New Zealand to provide military aid in case of an attack on our coutry, because of our "no nukes" political policy. New Zealand is protected by Australia, a considerably powerful military presence in the South Pacific, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Her Majesty the Queen. In any case, unlike America, New Zealand has focussed its foreign policy on fostering friendly and open diplomatic relations with other nations, and support of free trade. [/quote]

We are against free trade? Oh, okay. No matter what has been said in negotiations, if New Zealand ever gets invaded, we are going to see to it that the invaders get the Hell out. I mean, Hezbollah has your back.

[/quote] Unlike America, many of whose troubles with other world powers are heavily influenced by her insular and stand-offish foreign policy, New Zealand's safety is guaranteed by the friendly relationships she has with both her powerful neighbours, and with countries around the world. [/quote]

Well, I'm glad you're good for at least something. We trade too. Have you ever heard of Microsoft, Coca Cola, Playstation, American movies, American music, blah blah blah. This part of the conversation is just silly. (Note: Be sure to read the sentence before that last one. It counts too.)

[/quote] Unlike your own warlike nation, WE foster a culture of peace and good relations with our neighbours. THAT is what protects us.
[/quote]

Yeah, that's what has always worked in history. It has been a rock solid plan for countries like France and Poland. If you do some reading, you might find a few things about a long history of national take over in the world. I hear that it even happens to countries that don't fight back. But don't worry. We're still around for you.

UPDATE/EDIT: I pointed out the absurdity of blindly believing that Hezbollah is not involved in terrorism any more. Here is some information that says they in fact have committed terrorism since the 80's. But feel free to continue your obsession with taking up for them.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/

Do you think an embassy and a community center are "military targets" and therefore excuse your folks in Hezbollah from the "terrorism" label? That was the first one in a list of about 2 1/2 million articles from a Google search under "Hezbollah terrorism". You should check it out. Unlike the chocolate nonsense you brought up regarding loose word associations, these articles actually talk about the terrorist ways of Hezbollah. Did you know that they are funded by the warm and cuddly government of Iran? Their attacks on the Israeli military are unjustifiably evil too. Have they decided to knock that off yet? No. Don't you just love that wonderful bunch of allright guys? Show me some more of your Hell bent bias.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

I posted it in one of the other topics too, but all the suicide-bombings so far have been either on religious or military targets.

'Terrorism' is ironically originally a term coined to describe your classic evil government, and since America has, to a certain extent, funded a lot of suicide bombing groups in the east throughout history, you might see that some American officials fit your very definition.

Horray for freedom wherever possible, but this (sounding like a broken record, sorry) American government definition of freedom is not most people's idea of freedom. If we go (yet again, yawn) to the oil, originally it was stated that America was purely interested in protecting the oilfields so that the Iraqis had a method of income after the war, but surprise surprise, our lovely, friendly capitalist-mad oil companies have been in Iraq now, atleast a year, also 'protecting' their oilfields by shipping it off over here.
[/b]

Practically all of the civilians there are religious. And the unjustified killings in the name of no freedom for Iraq are getting a lot of civilians killed. They don't exactly use precision bombs.

The United States has never funded suicide bombings. We have allied with some pretty evil governments because we had common enemies, but doing so is not indicative of support of all they do. We even allied with the Hussein regime because we both had the common enemy of Iran. That did not mean we were in support of all Hussein did. We even allied with the Soviet Union in WWII, but we sure as Hell did not believe in all they stood for.

We have not stolen any oil. It belongs to the Iraqis. If they want to make money by selling us some, more power to them. That is good for their economy, making it in our interest also.