Tigra00 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Though this is a bigger issue, what is it with you and 9/11? No offense, but it happened in the past and is a done deal. I don't understand why PaulT just doesn't move to the Middle East and have fun of making Americans. :roll: Probably because there are bombs in the middle east which are exploding, and he enjoys being able to sit in his comfy chair and whine in safety? :P I dunno' what was wrong with what he said, if anything, but that's why most people don't. :lol: The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doughnut Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Though this is a bigger issue, what is it with you and 9/11? No offense, but it happened in the past and is a done deal. I don't understand why PaulT just doesn't move to the Middle East and have fun of making Americans. :roll: Probably because there are bombs in the middle east which are exploding, and he enjoys being able to sit in his comfy chair and whine in safety? :P That describes over half of the world. :-w "A time comes when silence is betrayal" MLKJ Speak your mind, but be civil.Get mad, but do not rage.Do unto others as you would want done to yourself. "] Follow the doughnut to my blog! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 If people vote purely on partisan reasons, we will have a bad 4 years. It doesn't matter who gets elected (except for Hillary), whoever sits in the chair is going to continue that war until Iraq stabilizes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. What constitutes stability in Iraq? Is there any evidence that those conditions can ever be achieved by a foreign occupying force? If the Democrats pull the US out of Iraq right now, we'd be looking at the entire region erupting into a big war. So? It's not our war to fight. Quite frankly, it isn't any of the United States business if the Sunnis and the Shi'ites want to kill eachother. Maybe the United States original strategy of installling a dictator and giving him chemical weapons wasn't so bad after all. The "region erupting into war" thing is the war-cry of the Republicans. Ignore it. It makes no sense. They seem to think we're actually "controlling" things over there to some degree, when we're infact not. We're simply in the way of Sunni's and Shia's who are fighting over power in a place where the only thing keeping them from fighting is now gone and dead. I dunno' why the Shia's are bothering, personally. They're surrounded by Sunni's and are a vast minority (10%). Furthermore, I dunno' what the hell the difference between the two moronic groups are. They're all Muslims, but "Sunni" and "Shia" have different meanings, both having to do with Islam. It's just stupid. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l0rd Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 w/e, good for him, don't flame him, just know that hes not going to win, go martha~! :) [iNSERT "I R EATIN TEH SHIX ATM" BILL COSBY SIGNATURE GIF HERE, LOL] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pault Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Though this is a bigger issue, what is it with you and 9/11? No offense, but it happened in the past and is a done deal. What is with me is the spirit of truth that has motivated every revolutionary since the dawn of time; the realization that those in power are systematically lying to the people, and the subsequent burning desire to change the situation of the human race for better. Maybe you don't care that the 9/11 Commission Report was full of lies, but I will not sit complacently while the government fails in its civic duty to protect its citizens. I don't understand why PaulT just doesn't move to the Middle East and have fun of making Americans. Rolling Eyes I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I would like to move out of the US, though that is not economically possible for me at the moment, and I wouldn't move to the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 If people vote purely on partisan reasons, we will have a bad 4 years. It doesn't matter who gets elected (except for Hillary), whoever sits in the chair is going to continue that war until Iraq stabilizes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. If the Democrats pull the US out of Iraq right now, we'd be looking at the entire region erupting into a big war. Well, beating Bush's last four years won't be too tough a job. Anyone who tries to end the confict as soon as possible would leave the place in all out civil war. However even sorting everything properly will still cause rifts between the three groups and whoever gets the oil. To be fair to Bush he did come into office at an incredibly difficult time first time & in this last term he's pretty much between a rock and a hard place. If he leaves Iraq he'll be seen as weak and if he stays the bodies will keep piling up - quite literally a case of "damned if you do & damned if you don't." I'm curious how he came into a "hard time"? The 9/11 attacks, or what? That wasn't a hard time, that was what started the hard time he created... Wait, so you don't think its been a difficult period. Lets face it whatever he did after 9/11 was going to look bad. In the eyes of the world he had no choice but to take a hardline or he was coming across as a soft touch eventhough that same hardline was just going to create more problems to deal with. I'll grant you that he's made such massive errors (Iraq) which have themselves created more problems, but all I'm saying is that the point in history that he came into the Presidency at would have been difficult for any previous President. The next President regardless of who they are or their political ideology is going to face the same problems. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 No, you said he came into an "incredibley difficult period", I said he didn't. Bill Clinton had the country doin' pretty well...The country got attacked, and George Bush did the right thing - He figured out who attacked us, and bombed the crap out of the locations that person was rumored to be at. Then he decided to deal with Saddam, which was completely irrelevant to us being attacked, and in retrospect, it is completely obvious he did it to finish his daddy's job he started and/or to get control of some oil. We should be in Afghanistan looking for Osama, which is pointless because he ain't there anymore, which we are. Yes, we have a right to be there. We have no right being in Iraq however and people who try to justify it are pathetic "War on Terrorism" supporters who take everything Bush says as gospel. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 [ Furthermore, I dunno' what the hell the difference between the two moronic groups are. They're all Muslims, but "Sunni" and "Shia" have different meanings, both having to do with Islam. It's just stupid. Differences of Shia and Sunni traditions Because Islamic law is based partly on the hadith, Shia rejection of some Sunni hadith and Sunni rejection of some Shia hadith means that the versions of the law differ somewhat. For example, while both Shia and Sunni pray five times each day, some of the prayer times differ. Shia do not believe that there is a set time for As'r and Ish'a prayers, and therefore, they are prayed together with the Thu'hur and Mugrib prayers, respectively. Likewise, Shia do not perform non obligatory prayers like Tar'raweeh, which is prayed during Ramadaan. Also another issue of difference between the sects is that Nikah MutÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâah or "temporary marriage" which is not forbidden for the Shia because it is found in a number of Shia traditions that the practice is permitted. There are Sahih Shia traditions which maintain that mut'ah is forbidden but these are dismissed as they contradict other narrations on mut'ah which were deemed more acceptable.[8] Many Shia discourage the practice of Mut'ah, but maintain that it is permissible. Thats the difference in tradition but the history behind their bad relations can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Shia-Sunni_relations In Iraq specifically though is simple, Sunni's are a minority in Iraq but Saddam was a Sunni therefore they had the power in Iraq. Shia's are the majority and since democracy reigns, they now have the power. The Sunni's resent this and want the power back - and we have war. It's a classic case of a power vaccum situation - the despotic ruler is deposed and the oppressed factions want the control. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pault Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 It's a classic case of a power vaccum situation - the despotic ruler is deposed and the oppressed factions want the control. How could such a disaster not be predicted? It's almost like Rusmfeld never made a plan to occupy iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 No, you said he came into an "incredibley difficult period", I said he didn't. Bill Clinton had the country doin' pretty well...The country got attacked, and George Bush did the right thing - He figured out who attacked us, and bombed the crap out of the locations that person was rumored to be at. Then he decided to deal with Saddam, which was completely irrelevant to us being attacked, and in retrospect, it is completely obvious he did it to finish his daddy's job he started and/or to get control of some oil. We should be in Afghanistan looking for Osama, which is pointless because he ain't there anymore, which we are. Yes, we have a right to be there. We have no right being in Iraq however and people who try to justify it are pathetic "War on Terrorism" supporters who take everything Bush says as gospel. You're missing my point though by even just going to Afghanistan(which I feel was right) he was always going to create more tension. The idea of a superpower like USA going into any Islamic nation was always going to stir up anti-American sentiment within the Middle East and in the Islamic world as a whole. That tension was always going to have a ripple effect, THAT is my point. I agree that Iraq is and always has been wrong. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Yea, my point exactly. I was just looking at those pages the other day actually to find out the difference. :P I thought maybe it'd be a religious thing, but it's even dumber...Laws based off a religion. Okaaaay, good reason to kill eachother! Also, Sunni's are a majority in Iraq according to this map, but not by much. Shia are a majority only in Iran. Everywhere else, Sunni's rule supreme. :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Musl ... bution.jpg The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pault Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 You're missing my point though by even just going to Afghanistan(which I feel was right) he was always going to create more tension. The idea of a superpower like USA going into any Islamic nation was always going to stir up anti-American sentiment within the Middle East and in the Islamic world as a whole. That tension was always going to have a ripple effect, THAT is my point. I agree that Iraq is and always has been wrong. How was it ok for the US to go into Afghanistan? The intelligence on Bin Laden carrying out the 9/11 attacks was at least as bad as the intelligence saying that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (I mean, other than the ones the US sold him of course). Besides, the cia has already given up searching for Bin Laden, indicating that he was never the real issue after all. Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakerules13 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 hmm, i think we know who likes the guy says " we get stuck in iraq" now do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pault Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 hmm, i think we know who likes the guy says " we get stuck in iraq" now do we? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errdoth Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Though this is a bigger issue, what is it with you and 9/11? No offense, but it happened in the past and is a done deal. What is with me is the spirit of truth that has motivated every revolutionary since the dawn of time; the realization that those in power are systematically lying to the people, and the subsequent burning desire to change the situation of the human race for better. Maybe you don't care that the 9/11 Commission Report was full of lies, but I will not sit complacently while the government fails in its civic duty to protect its citizens. Yes I do have to agree with you to a certain extent (as much as I regret to), but if everyone is happier with the lies, does that make lying wrong? Tell me honestly, had you been in power, would you not lie to even an incredibly small degree, just to prevent said "revolutionary" from overthrowing the government and causing chaos? It is not a small undertaking to be in command of such a nation, and even though there are many people that could better our country by maintaining presidency, the systematic form of balances that occurs in today's government is designed to keep the majority of the population content. There are people like you and I, and practically everybody else, who have their own opinions about the ways of this country, but, maybe others don't like those ideas. The government is just that, a government. It must maintain peace to the majority of people, for they are the ones who could cause the problems if they willed it. That's why we vote. I have digressed far from my original message, but, please, answer my questions, and put some though into them. P.S.- If you're trying to start some sort of 'revolution' here, leave me out. P.S.S.- Can you post a pic of your desk? Is it like covered with documents about 9/11 and that genre of stuff? Last.fm Signature Overlays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 You're missing my point though by even just going to Afghanistan(which I feel was right) he was always going to create more tension. The idea of a superpower like USA going into any Islamic nation was always going to stir up anti-American sentiment within the Middle East and in the Islamic world as a whole. That tension was always going to have a ripple effect, THAT is my point. I agree that Iraq is and always has been wrong. How was it ok for the US to go into Afghanistan? The intelligence on Bin Laden carrying out the 9/11 attacks was at least as bad as the intelligence saying that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (I mean, other than the ones the US sold him of course). Besides, the cia has already given up searching for Bin Laden, indicating that he was never the real issue after all. Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. The intelligence obviously wasn't too bad, considering Bin Laden admits to being in the area, and someone we captured told them that Bin Laden was in there and that, essentially, he was scared. He told his second in command to shoot him in the head if they were about to be caught. They got away, but meh. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknownmasterofnothing Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Gulliani.. I think he cleaned up 42st and tried to find ppl trapped under the wtc but ran out of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pault Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 The intelligence obviously wasn't too bad, considering Bin Laden admits to being in the area, and someone we captured told them that Bin Laden was in there and that, essentially, he was scared. He told his second in command to shoot him in the head if they were about to be caught. They got away, but meh. My point was that it was never the objective to capture or kill him anyway. On the other hand, you are quite possibly one of the most uninformed people on this forum, and what you post probably should be ignored untill you are ready to take a more educated perspective on life and politics. Gulliani.. I think he cleaned up 42st and tried to find ppl trapped under the wtc but ran out of time. Uh, yeah. Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Gulliani.. I think he cleaned up 42st and tried to find ppl trapped under the wtc but ran out of time. Then he took off the Superman cape and handed it to the firefighters, right? All Giuliani did was stare out the window and go on Saturday Night Live. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now