KrustyKidd

Half of Saudi Arabia were on Al Queda's side. You don't think that many from there, Syria and other countries would come there to cash in on the opportunity during the confusion when Saddam was not controlling with an iron fist? And, to fight an infidel to boot! Think you have that one backwards big time. Iraq is a property of Iraqi people, not the US. 65% of them participated in elections with 78% aproval of their constitution which mentions nothing about being a state of the USA. Wondering, what electorial process the Jihadists have n mind if they ever gain control? Answer: none. Democracy is their enemy thus, it is a battle of ideas, one in which Bush and the Iraqis are well aware. The US already has their real estate in the Super Bases in Iraq. The battle for hearts and minds was won the moment the elections took place. Now it is all directed at helping the fragile government weather those who wish to impose their own will on the people rather than give them choice.

Sure was. Saddam had to be dealt with and removed, otherwise he would continue to destabilise the region necessitating a US presence there without an upside for the US for many decades - simply to keep him constrained. By taking him out, which eliminated a long term headache with no upsides, the US could also provide an bonus for the west by creating a stable, human rights orientated country right in the heart of the problem area. An area in which the Jihadists thrive in, as well as providing an example and impetus for other repressive regimes in the area to follow. In a war, you have to take and hold ground, and the War on Terror is a war against an ideology that thrives on repression. In short, the US has taken a country and given it back to the people in order to deny Jihadists the conditions they need to entrench themselves. Just because it has not had it's problems and is often not going well, does not mean it is a failure nor, does it mean it was a bad move.

She is a sexist who plays the slut or victim card when it suits her. And they are disloyal a**holes who don't play the slut or victim card when it suits them. So really, there is no big deal. None of them are worth a plugged nickle. Oh, forgot about temper tantrum throwing Copps. Maybe she would've played the slut card if she could have.

And to make sure that no group such as the Taliban can support terror again. That argument might wash with the crowd who see evil in government but doesn't with those who know what happened on 911 - the day the world woke up. Guys who want to retake Afganistan and run it in their theocratic way with no public expression of freedom, art, or personal choice while they give aid and support to groups that wish to recreate the Caliphate. They ran it in the nineties until the US and Northern Front usurped them. Hope that helps. They were supported during the cold war to stop what was thought to be the USSR from gaining a foothold into the Persian Gulf. I think that the Military Industrial Complex would have been a lot more powerful had they simply allowed the Soviets to entrench and then attack using every weapon in the US arsenal rather than 'training' people to use a rifle.

Myata, how much clearer should I be? You already bowed Trying to convince us that you really knew China, the Soviet Union and Cuba are not democracies when you told us that they were voted in by 99.9% of the people and then, insinuating the US an UK are not domocratic is bizzare to say the least. What next, Holocost denial? You walk on dangerous ground. :angry:

US 'torturing' (I have had worse in training when in the Canadian military) was not condoned and dealt with in highly publicized trials of those responsible, indiscriminate attacks are disputable and when discovered are also dealt with, collateral damage is inevitable - especially when dealing with a foe that uses cooperative and non cooperative citizens as shields.

OMG! Myata'a actually now going to argue that the US and Britain are not democracies whereas the Soviet Union, Cuba and China are! This is going to be rich! Whatever. According to your own rules of engagement, you have bowed "out of the argument by not answering direct and clear questions" and, any point you try to make is not valid as you leave that gap open which is directly related to all the arguments. Call it what you will, but, to tell the truth, anyone who believes the Soviet Union is a democracy when the UN does not recognize it as such, and, Iraq (whom it does recognize as one) and, does not answer questions and instead calls them bullshit is not worth argueing with. I leave you now to Bradco who agrees with my origional point. Maybe he will lower himself to argue with you. Bradco I totally agree with you Bradco.

Myata Vote was approved as fair and open by the UN? Ooops Sorry, I am trying to pose a question to Myata, answerer of no questions as his word is proof enough. I certainly wouldn't believe anything from sombody who believes the Cubans, Soviets and Chinese have constitutions that were voted in with 99.9 of the popular vote (or, any vote for that matter). Myata, answering two simple questions as he beleives that not answering questions is ""bowing out of the argument by not answering direct and clear questions""(questions were asked five times without reply) Of course 'Camarade!'

I never said nor alludded to the people never rising up in protest. All I did was to prove that your argument was wrong in that they never would have succeeded by themselves. No, they did not need the US but they did need to have insiders of the party with control of the military to do it. The results were far less than a 'people's revolution' in that the party members and elite won rather than the common person leaving the entire process 'meet the new boss, same as the old.' You knew all that though right? Probably actually did some reading yourself for the first time after telling me I needed to?

And, I still stand by that. As a matter of fact, today in the paper there was an article about how Hamas is stepping down to share power with the PA. Seems the people's representatives know that Jihadism is not the way of the future once they have an outlet of course. Seems on reflection, logic takes over emotion.

This is what you would call a post that is not Yes, so thoughtful and logical Myata. Hate to be the one to point it out but, none of those were voted on in free elections by a majority of the people. rather, they were adopted by a centralized group of people who were inside party members in control of the people. In short, the people had absolutely no say in the matter making your comparisson just plain stupid. And, you are right, mine is a winning argument. It certainly does take time to make one such as ours. Possibly you can cut the Iraqi people some slack then instead of calling their society anything but democratic. Well they certainly have to start somewhere. I would say that by having free elections they have made a great start. And, it was never forced on them so you can shitcan that stupid comment. The US deposed a dictator and then, allowed the people to choose what they wanted in free elections. They chose a parliamentary system of their own free will complete with 78% approval of a constitution. And, hate to remind you but, you seem to have a short memory span like another poster on this board. The Iraqi people were actually threatened NOT TO PARTICIPATE in the elections and approval of the constitution. Not forced to participate by arms and instead, of their own free will and enthusiasm for democracy particpated to the extent that shame most western societies. Now, do try to keep some reality in your flacid arguments. Anyhow, we are back to the same two questions that are the crux of the argument. You know, the ones you cannot answer as it will make you look rather foolish. Instead, you dance around, call it illogical, say how you won't answer anything not origional yet cannot for some reason answer these two questions. The first is importent because the US deposed a dictator under what many consider a UN mandate. So, being resposible for setting something up as a rule of law and helping the society, what should they have helped the Iraqis set up? Another dictatorship? A communist dictatorship? A monarchy? What? From what you are going on about ad nausium, anything but allow the people themselves choose. The second has to do with your time frame where you say that democracy takes years and years to reach. So, given that you were willing to give a piece of crap like Saddam more than a decade of being in violation of over six life threatening prohibitions and fourteen resolutions, why is it you cannot afford the Iraqi people at least the same? Just wondering. And, I know how you hate people who don't answer clear and direct questons so just answer them. Then you won't be quilty of Myata

I think you are wrong and need the remedial reading. BBC Version And from Gloal Security, a real tin foil hat site

The Hated Wilkpedia

Nope. Just a little military and possibly some Russian help. In any case, it wasn't simply a 'people's' revolution, more of a coup than anything else. That goat show never would have happened in Saddam's Iraq.

Let's try to make another comparable hypothetical situation rather than the one you have put forth above. Bush is travelling through Indianna visiting Garrit to see the Lighting Factory there. As his motorcade stops and he gets out, an assasin takes a shot at him. He has the army come in and kill a hundred people from that town after extracting bogus confessions from them after watching their wives and children get tortured. Now, back to you Braco, continue with your theory ..........

Bradco Exactly. So, not to have all means that you are not as democratic as a country that has more. It does not mean however, that your country is not a democracy. My point - Iraq is a democracy. Albeit, a fledgling one. Myata's - Iraq is not a democracy. Myata Yes, your argument is so effectual because, well, you just make them up without proof. The following consider Iraq a democracy; NationMaster Dictionary.com Here, I'll let the Iraqi people speak for themselves; Iraqi Constitution Definitely doesn't sound very democratic does it? Only 65% of Iraqis voted to adopt that constitution and it passed with a 78% majority. Bradco Looks like Iraq has that one beat hands down; Bradco Iraqi Constitution If I recall, Canada enacted the War measures Act which restricted some civil liberties for a period of time. It did not make us non democratic, just as it does not make Iraq's fledgling democracy less democratic. Myata Really? You mean you are going to actually answer direct questions and provide proof to back your arguments up with instead of Myata's quote Remember these two questions that blow your previous arguments out of the water that you won't answer? Oh, guess you are not. Myata Guess it's back to same-old-same with Myata doing the 'ostrich head in the sand' thing, calling anything he can't counter 'empty' and 'devoid of logical argument.'

Ensure a quilty verdict? They had cases and witnesses with no arms, legs and documentation of atrocities without end lined up like bottle caps in a cola factory. Your 'kangaroo court' really wouldn't have to work very hard to find him guilty of something punishable by death. The killings of his adversaries when he came into power for example, or of his son's in law after they returned to Iraq have been well documented as well. As for being soft on him, allowing a court to be disrupted by his theatricals I feel is being too soft so the replacement of the judge is warrented. His crimes were against the Iraqi people, not me or you so, they should be the ones to try him.

From the link; I'm not an Iraqi judge or citizen so I cannot say. If they are evil dictators who killed hundreds of thousands of their own people then I say YES!

Myata's definition of democracy (note no source provided); Webster's definition of democracy First, Hezbollah does not run any government as they are only a party in the Lebanese government. Thought you might like to get that fact straight. Second, Hamas was elected as you know and does control the Palestinian Parliament. As for being 'aparently free' they were free so no need to waffle on that one. and monitored by the international community as well. Oh, and like the Iraqis, Palestinians consider their country to be democratic as well and turn out to the tune of 74%. Guess they didn't check in with you to learn that they were not democratic at all. Jokes on them Have you considered that possibly a discussion board is not your stronger venue? Perhaps you might consider making a blog with the 'allow comments' option set to 'off.'

Above where? Your previous dodging of the question did not address the questions so why do you think a rehash of the same crap will do better? As for insinuating that people of the Middle East do not understand democracy then why would they risk their lives to participate in it? Are you a racist who feels that they as a ethnic group are stupid or what? Other posters? You mean their inability to refute definitions of democracy except by personal beliefs? Since you seem to agree with those who think Hamas and Hezbollah are not democraticly elected, what is it then? The biggest gun? The best at controlling people or, perhaps, something the people choose that they wish, even though it may take a lot of workand risk to get to? If that's the case then I would feel that a majority of them spoke already by participating in the voting. They belive that things can get better by voting, but you, in all your wisdom believe that it will not. Glad you run a keyboard and not somebody elses life. Lost count? Well you're the guy who won't answer two simple questions so I assume you'll keep on losing count as an ineffectual excuse to support your flacid arguments. You could always try alternatives such as feigning indignation at my persistancy of asking or..... how I have slighted you, been rude or whatever. The end result will be the same however and you would be guilty of being what you hate (as you admit yourself in your own code of debate) Very telling how you concentrate on Bush when the real enemy which is repressive gangs, groups and theologies get right off the hook with you. If bnot for them, the Iraqi people would be living a dream life right now. Is it? Saddam got over twelve years from you. Funny, you were willing to give Saddam and his clan eternity to keep on waging state terror, mass graves, ethnic cleansing and waging wars. Now you bitch about people willing to help and give grant the Iraqi people themselves an opportunity to have an actual say in their lives? And, stay with them to help. Yes, Saddam was getting ready to give up to the people themselves. Torture, control. Human rights abuses without end. Much better than democracy and the chance to choose. Are you communist by any chance? You sure come off that way. As per your avoidence of two simple questions by pretending to have answers somwhere in your previous posts, they are actually two direct questions and, you never answered either one. Uday and Quasay were groomed to take over. And, in Iraq, things are now amazingly faster than it would be waiting for them to die without heirs. Now please, without hiding and telling us all how the answers are somewhere hidden in some other posting of yours, just answer the two questions (the first one I have rephrased for easier reading and interpretation); Bradco Yes, Hitler was chosen by democratic vote untl he wiped the others off the ballot . Democracy is not foreign to anybody. To say that Iraqis don't know how to choose or follow rules is a racist comment in submission.

Source I don't believe that this actually has become his foreign policy but rather the direction it takes once dictators and repressive regimes are taken out of power. Normally, Saddam would have been taken out by a US backed coup after weakening him and a more western friendly dictator would have been set up in his place. While more difficult to carry out it speaks more of the farsightedness of the administration. The ousting of Saddam gave opportunity for many diverse factions to try and achieve power. Other than simply replacing him with another one, that was unavoidable. As well, in any society there are under pinnings of power as in local society and such. As you observed, it only takes time to sort it all out. Yes. It all takes time. Less time however than sitting there waiting for Saddam to give up power to allow free votes. From the other thread; My last post (unanswered) I accepted two facts which everyone knows to be true which still leaves all of your arguments flacid. Those two facts are that democracy cannot be imposed and nobody has the right to impose it. Saddam for example imposed democracy by forcing people to vote - for him. The US created the conditions in which people voluntarily voted on their own accord so your main argument that the US imposed democracy is false. Myata I did and the answers did not address the questions. I offer them once more; Myata 65% of eligible voters participate under threat of death (a number that we in the west don't see participating at the polls) and you call that token? No wonder your arguments are screwed up. I also showed that control and security (while desirable) do not go hand in hand with democracy either. Myata 1441 gave them enough warrent to take action and Saddam was a threat to regional security. Reason enough.

Well said. Kids all waving at the President's motorcade, half of them probably don't even know who he is and the driver has to play snitty bitch. I'd say she has some stability issues to begin with. Wondering though, who will replace her? Around here, drivers are hard to find - looney left or hard right.

Of course he does. So did Clinton And the US Congress in passing the Advance Democracy Act:

Myata I accepted two facts which everyone knows to be true which still leaves all of your arguments flacid. Those two facts are that democracy cannot be imposed and nobody has the right to impose it. Saddam for example imposed democracy by forcing people to vote - for him. The US created the conditions in which people voluntarily voted on their own accord so your main argument that the US imposed democracy is false. Myata I did and the answers did not address the questions. I offer them once more; Myata 65% of eligible voters participate under threat of death (a number that we in the west don't see participating at the polls) and you call that token? No wonder your arguments are screwed up. I also showed that control and security (while desirable) do not go hand in hand with democracy either. Myata 1441 gave them enough warrent to take action and Saddam was a threat to regional security. Reason enough.

You got it finally! And that's why Palestinians don't recieve aid from the west anymore. When they elect a government that is compatible with our ideals we will resume. In the meantime, the entire governmnet is an affront to humanity. What is not an affront to humanity is the method they came into power by. A democratic process.