• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kerry: US troops are terrorists

Just thinking said:
It was illegal for the colonists to posess firearms?
Click to expand...
No, but they did a whole mess of illegal and what was then considered unethical things that the British didn't want them to do.

Imagine: hiding behind trees during a battle instead of standing in well formed and disciplined rows! :eye-poppi Dumping imported goods into the bay! :eek: The scoundrals!

Seriously, though, if it had been illegal, do you honestly think the colonists would have obeyed or would they have smuggled guns in and hid them? Just like what is happening in Iraq now.

Just thinking said:
(PS: You really thought I was serious about the 1500 year thing?)
Click to expand...
I thought so, but there was no satirical smilie (;)) to point the way, so I asked.
 
fishbob said:
I think I don't see interpretation. Show me.

You commented quite a bit, but I am not able to tell if your comments are in regard to Kerry's statement or to my interpretation. Please clarify.
Click to expand...

Both but mostly Kerry.
 
fishbob said:
1 - 35,000 feet is the easy part. The follow-up action on the ground is necessary though, and that is what gets our guys killed. Forgetting about the follow-up on the ground has been previously demonstrated to be a really bad idea.
Click to expand...

Well, considering precedent is on my side (Israel dusted Hussein's new reactor, remember?) I think the onus of proving a ground presence necessary is on you, not me.

2 - Coincidence does not imply cause. It does form a basis for research - you know, digging up facts and evidence and stuff. Got any?
Also, how did you figure your odds? How much is 'stupefyingly'?
Click to expand...

Stupefyingly, as in only the most rabid Bush-haters would even question it with a straight face. And since it was in response to Mark's now-moderated stance of blaming Iran's nuke ambitions on the 2003 invasion, I believe it's a valid comparison and about as solid as it needs to be for the purposes presented.

By the way, the rule is that coincidence does not necessarily imply causation. The way you put it, it sounds like you believe the opposite.
 
Just thinking said:
Just what exactly are the people lacking for democracy in Iraq?
Click to expand...
Don't know what it is, exactly. The will? The education? A society that encourages individual thought? A sense of national identity and unity?

If we weren't there to enforce the formation of a democracy, do you think they would do it of their own accord? Even given a blank slate with no one blowing them up every other day?
 
Upchurch said:
Don't know what it is, exactly. The will? The education? A society that encourages individual thought? A sense of national identity and unity?

If we weren't there to enforce the formation of a democracy, do you think they would do it of their own accord? Even given a blank slate with no one blowing them up every other day?
Click to expand...

The Muslim religion teaches that democracy is against the will of Allah. Probably doesn't get any more complicated than that.

Much as Christianity did in the Middle Ages (Divine Right of Kings and all that rubbish) I might add.
 
Upchurch said:
I did not know that. Do you know the specific source of that teaching?
Click to expand...

It's in the Q'uran; I will have to look up the exact passage...please give me a few moments...

OK, here are the verses in question (keep in mind this is as interpreted by the Mullahs; I am not saying I agree with that interpretation):

# 18:26 "He maketh none to share in His government."

# 42:10 "And in whatsoever ye differ, the verdict therein belongeth to Allah."
Click to expand...

My understanding is that these are used to "prove" that government must be run by the Mullahs, since they speak for Allah.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Seriously, though, if it had been illegal, do you honestly think the colonists would have obeyed or would they have smuggled guns in and hid them? Just like what is happening in Iraq now.
Click to expand...

The colonists fought with what they had and used the means at their disposal -- but it was to gain democracy, not thawrt its development. What's being smuggled into Iraq is not for the betterment of the Iraqi people, but for those that wish to rule over them and prevent the elections many are taking part in -- despite the risks.
 
Mark said:
It's in the Q'uran; I will have to look up the exact passage...please give me a few moments.
Click to expand...
According to this article, it isn't cut and dry.


eta: whoa. deja vou (sp?)
"I don't see democracy built without ordinary people working for that," he said. "It can't be imposed from the top down or from the outside. Definitely outsiders can help. They can apply pressure on dictatorial or authoritarian regimes as we did for example in South Africa, where outside help was essential in fostering a more democratic regime. But I think we have to keep in mind we can't push democracy down the throat of anyone. If we do that it becomes a hated concept. Nobody wants to be forced to be a democrat—that's a contradiction in terms."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Just thinking said:
The colonists fought with what they had and used the means at their disposal -- but it was to gain democracy, not thawrt its development. What's being smuggled into Iraq is not for the betterment of the Iraqi people, but for those that wish to rule over them and prevent the elections many are taking part in -- despite the risks.
Click to expand...
The colonists did what they had to do to make the kind of government they wanted. But what is stopping the Iraqi people from forming a government (democracy or otherwise) that is beneficial to them?
 
Upchurch said:
The colonists did what they had to do to make the kind of government they wanted. But what is stopping the Iraqi people from forming a government (democracy or otherwise) that is beneficial to them?
Click to expand...

Now that Saddam is out of the picture, it seems not much more.
 
Jocko said:
Well, considering precedent is on my side (Israel dusted Hussein's new reactor, remember?) I think the onus of proving a ground presence necessary is on you, not me.
Click to expand...
Onus this. One exception held up as an example is not safely considered to be precedent on your side. You may have noticed that the US has troops on the ground in Iraq. And Afghanistan. And had troops on the ground in Grenada and Panama and Bosnia.

Oops - I did leave out 'necessarily' - that is a longer word and I was typing fast - so feel free to insert 'necessarily' as often as you like.
 
Responding to my previous: "Coincidence does not imply cause. It does form a basis for research - you know, digging up facts and evidence and stuff. Got any?
Also, how did you figure your odds? How much is 'stupefyingly'? "
Jocko said:
Stupefyingly, as in only the most rabid Bush-haters would even question it with a straight face. And since it was in response to Mark's now-moderated stance of blaming Iran's nuke ambitions on the 2003 invasion, I believe it's a valid comparison and about as solid as it needs to be for the purposes presented.
Click to expand...

No, huh.
 
Upchurch said:
I object to number 4 because in doing so, Bush lost focus on the job at hand, namely Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. (How many #2 men does Bin Laden have, anyway?)
Click to expand...
Having a solid, friendly base in the Middle East will make the job at hand that much easier.
 
luchog said:
Having a solid, friendly base in the Middle East will make the job at hand that much easier.
Click to expand...
Which is one of the reasons I supported the Iraq war. However, it hasn't worked out as good as I was hoping it would.

Hey, don't let it be said that I won't admit I was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom