I encourage you to read his post, The Iraq Repurcussions . Here is a taste:
Things have changed in the Middle East, now that Saddam Hussein is gone from power and a fledgling democracy is being born. 9-11 shook that part of the world more than any other place, and we are seeing that people there are beginning to stop claiming things are impossible (the neo narcist-liberal mantra which comes off sounding simply like bunch of Eeyores) and are starting to ask what is possible. And it seems we may get a glimpse of what is possible at this year’s Arab summit:
Continue reading The Iraq Repurcussions
Can I have some of what this guy is smoking? He’s hysterical.
The fall of Saddam and the imposition of American-style democracy at point of gun has not only not advanced democracy in the region, it arguably has set it back. And I fail to see that 9/11 “shook that region” more than anyplace else. It was certainly the breeding ground — and continues to be — for more jihadists than anyplace else.
What this is Shaun, is more false hope.
I would like to see any viable evidence that Iraq is any safer now than it was during Saddams rule.
Re 1: (Shaun):
When reading the article, the region he was refering to is The Middle East. Said region has always been the foremost breeding ground for jihadist, so your pont is moot.
9/11 was the cause of two wars in the regions, as well bringing world focus to Afganistan, Libya’s Iran and Syria’s terrorist activities.
Two wars alone is enough to justify the statement that it “shook that part of the world more than any other place”.
Re 2:
While I remian skeptical t this point, I see no reason to believe that this is “false hope”. Can you provide evidence to the contrary? That what they are saying in the article is false?
I think a few million purple fingers sort of lends credence to the idea that democracy is a lot closer than it was during Saddam’s dictatorship.
As for Iraq being safer, that depends on whether you mean from criminal thugs or government troops? Philadelphia is a lot safer from government troops now than it was in 1776, but there are streets I’d avoid there because of the criminal thug element that weren’t there under British rule. Does that mean that Philadelphia was better off under the British Monarchy than the US democratic republic? It’s the same thing. Perhaps you should tell the Kurds or Shiites who live outside of Baghdad how much safer they were under Saddam than they are now. I think they’ll either laugh at you or slap the snot out of you. To make your argument valid would be the same as saying that when the Bloods and Crips have a gang war in LA, the state of California is having a civil war and everyone should flee the state and impose a tyrant to run it.
Freedom isn’t free, and those who aren’t willing to pay the price to get it shouldn’t belittle those who are, for those are the ones who provide and defend it for everyone.
3. I’m sorry for sharing my presumptious opinion. I suppose I am just waiting to hear more about how wonderful Iraq is, and all the spectacular improvements made. Meanwhile watching houses burn, families being torn apart and monsterous army vehicles ravaging the land.
To make your argument valid would be the same as saying that when the Bloods and Crips have a gang war in LA, the state of California is having a civil war and everyone should flee the state and impose a tyrant to run it.
This is quite funny, actually. Comparing the unrest in LA, (even the gang ridden 90′s), with that of current Baghdad.
Philadelphia is a lot safer from government troops now than it was in 1776, but there are streets I’d avoid there because of the criminal thug element that weren’t there under British rule.
You are correct. However, do you know the key difference between our independance and that of the Iraqi people -THE CITIZENS MADE IT HAPPEN!!!
The thirteen Colonies WHO LIVED THERE decided on their own that they wanted to be independent of British authority. They formed their armies and made it happen. Just as it should’ve happened in Iraq, when it was time.
Freedom isn’t free, and those who aren’t willing to pay the price to get it shouldn’t belittle those who are, for those are the ones who provide and defend it for everyone.
America’s freedom was never compromised under Saddam’s rule. This is where our argument lies. We’ve compromised our safety as Americans by choosing to liberate Iraq.
Re 5:
I thought as much. Evidently, you can not. If you wish to provide an arguement, that’s fine. if not, emotional rhetoric is the course of the day it appears.
Please, continue.
Re 8:
“We’ve compromised our safety as Americans by choosing to liberate Iraq.”
We have? How was our safety as Americans on 9/11 and before?
Most vile is the creature who enjoys freedom while he allows others to suffer without. As men of conscience, it is our humanitarian duty to do all we may to ensure the freedoms of other not as fortunate as we.
Of course, I understand that not all of use are men of conscience.
I guess KEO would have an arguement if the insurgents we are fighting daily were Iraqis, but AQ is the main opponent:roll:
A buddy of mine is a captain serving in Baghdad, and coincidentally he just sent me this note:
…Things seem to be improving, We’ve got Iraqi Army soldiers and Iraqi Police on just about every street corner, and the people are beginning to feel safer. Soon the insurgents will not be able to operate in the city at all. More and more people are calling the TipLine with intelligence. Once the people start taking responsibility for their own security like that, and start trusting the police and army more and more, they’ll be self sufficient and we can leave. It has been neat to be here.
Just thought it was interesting to hear that from someone who is actually there.
KEO is one of these utopian idiots that just because the world isn’t according to his model of perfection, nothing is right or works. He see the world in only grayscreen. He is ill informed and in that ignorance wishes to make everyone else as rudderless and ignorant as he is.
3- “9/11 was the cause of two wars in the regions, as well bringing world focus to Afganistan, Libya’s Iran and Syria’s terrorist activities.
Two wars alone is enough to justify the statement that it “shook that part of the world more than any other placeâ€.”
9/11 was the cause of the war in Afganistan because Mullah Omar and his Taliban were protecting/supporting Al Quaeda. The cause for the war in Iraq was that the Bush administration needed to construct an atmosphere of terror & WMDs threat to justify the increase of the defense budget and to score as being the “defenders against the axis of evil” for the next election…
So the only part that was indeed shook by 9/11 was ~1400 miles away from Baghdad. But of course it sounds more comfortable and voterfriendly to keep alive the myth of 9/11 being the original reason for the Iraq war!
13, Mattias, I’m surprised you can post with your lips so firmly attached to the buttocks of Al Qaeda. You don’t read a thing posted here about Saddam’s links to terror. I doubt you even looked at the picture of Amy Proctor’s husband sitting on one of Saddam’s thrones with a mural behind it depicting Iraqi missles destroying Israel and the West. You aren’t open to facts. You just want to use your only weapon the harangue to further Islam’s jihad against all else.
8. I’d like to know what Saddam had to do with 911?
Again, how are we protecting our freedom by invading Iraq?
I thought as much. Evidently, you can not. If you wish to provide an arguement, that’s fine. if not, emotional rhetoric is the course of the day it appears.
Is that not where question begins, I feeling of consistent betrayel? I suppose we’ll just wait and see if things are really “looking up” in Iraq.
I guess KEO would have an arguement if the insurgents we are fighting daily were Iraqis, but AQ is the main opponent
If communist China decided to invade the U.S., overthrow our Government and impose their own, would I be an insurgent for fighting back to protect the beliefs of MY COUNTRY?
Think about that one Peejz.
What country does AQ have? Think about that one KEO
KEO is one of these utopian idiots that just because the world isn’t according to his model of perfection, nothing is right or works. He see the world in only grayscreen. He is ill informed and in that ignorance wishes to make everyone else as rudderless and ignorant as he is.
PCD, you offer no intellignet insight, only crap. Where you come up with these descriptions of character is beyond me. Go play outside.
14- I am surprised that the author of that article is so closely attached to the country from which the majority of the 9/11-terrorists came: Saudi-Arabia!
But I guess if in Saudi Arabia terrorists are supported it is sth. completely different, and if the is no democracy in Saudi-Arabia (and the money is wasted for the royal family) it is sth. completely different and if the Saudi-Arabians hack off limbs (due to the sharia) it is sth. completely different (compared to rogue countries like Afganistan or Iran)…
14.
PCD, what did Saddam have to do with 911? Please answer this.
How did Saddam threaten the safety and freedoms of the US? Please, answer this.
14.
PCD, what did Saddam have to do with 911? Please answer this.
How did Saddam threaten the safety and freedoms of the US? Please, answer this.
14.
PCD, what did Saddam have to do with 911? Please answer this.
How did Saddam threaten the safety and freedoms of the US? Please, answer this.
KEO, you’d be shot for fragging your officers if China invaded the US, that is if you weren’t shot for trying to appease them in the first place.
KEO, HOw does running away from a fight end the fight when the aggressor, Islamofascists, bring the fight to where ever they can?
KEO, how do anti-american democrats like you think Saddam was not linked to terrorism except by sheer denial of facts?
Before I asked if you were aware of reports directly relating to the subject in that thread. You said no and continued your uninformed pompousity by not addressing those facts.
Why should we bother to do anything with you other than to violently reject your presence?
The funny thing about Saddam and our invasion into Iraq to save the Iraq’s from an evil dictator is SADDAM WAS OUR FRIEND.
Not when he used to be nice Saddam, not when he was a resonable ruler this is WHEN HE GASSED THE KURDS! One of our main arguments for liberating these people. Although, in the 80′s we didn’t seem to have a problem with him gassing his own people. In fact, we didn’t begin to have a problem with this EVIL DICTATOR until he invaded Kuwait, which disrupted the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.
Now, tell me again about how American comes to save the Iraqis because we are so concerned for their welfare.
I just don’t understand why you people cannot see through this BS. These are not lies, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED!
KEO, you’d be shot for fragging your officers if China invaded the US, that is if you weren’t shot for trying to appease them in the first place.
Another useless attack made by PCD in order to dodge the question. Why don’t you put away your Thesaurus and start being real.
KEO, HOw does running away from a fight end the fight when the aggressor, Islamofascists, bring the fight to where ever they can?
PCD, I implore you to look through my posts and find where I suggested that we just leave. The things you come up with in your silly little head.
KEO, how do anti-american democrats like you think Saddam was not linked to terrorism except by sheer denial of facts?
PCD, do you mean when we supported and armed Saddam, after he messed up the beautiful flow of oil.
You are so easily fooled my friend.
Before I asked if you were aware of reports directly relating to the subject in that thread. You said no and continued your uninformed pompousity by not addressing those facts.
PCD, what the hell are you talking about? Would you mind directing me to a specific question regarding my reading these reports?
27, because you are not a real person, KEO. You are the cartoon panel of the anti-war pseudo-intelligencia. You make good sounding rhetoric, but when the rubber meets the road, you have no answers or solutions. You are disciple of Neville Chamberlain. You can’t see anything but the government spending money elsewhere that you think should be given to you.
Saddam was a sponsor, protector, and nurturer of Terror. Saddam had been an ally of convience in the Iran-Iraq war, but Saddam firing on the USS Stark ended that, or did you forget that you fool?
30, go back to the thread on the kidnapped Brits. You addressed and answered your own question. Are you that psychotic that you can’t remember doing that? It is recorded on this site, fool.
OK PCD, I didn’t want to do this, but prepare to be completely wrong, yet again. Where in your questions did you ask if I read the reports? I will paste it for you below:
1. Did you note that the Iranians did this previously? -Nope.
2. Did you also note that before any claims of violating their soverignity was made, Iran was making statements for trading these men for their captured Revolutionary Guards? – Nope
Jesus PCD, do your research before making a jackass of yourself.
33, I can’t believe you posted precisely the post that proves what an uninformed jackass you are, KEO. You proved my point and then went on being stupid.
You do no research, but you spew your wrong conclusions as fact. You are one sick puppy, KEO, just like shitto.
PCD, you are either extremely hard headed or completely insane. I’ll try to make it easy on you:
Yesterday you asked if I “noted” these two points within the reports.
Today you are saying that I didn’t read the reports at all.
These are two completely different scenario’s. How you cannot see this is beyond me.
I am through entertaining your childish games PCD.
You should be banned from this site. All you do is “stir-the-pot.” This is ALL YOU DO.
No, you are the dysfunctional one. You admit my questions and now admit reading the reports. Did the information get accepted and processed by you? You answered, “Nope”, to all questions.
You are the fool.
Hey, KEO, just admit you are shitto. You are using all of shitto’s tired tactics and shitto is the one banned from this site.
37 & 38- PCD,
is insulting people the only way to defend your views? Poor guy…
39, Mattias, the KEO Troll, like you only accept the propaganda you wish to spew. He got stood up to and spoiled brats like you and it can’t take someone getting back in your faces for a change.
You are all jerks! PCD, you’re a jerk! Matthias, you’re a jerk! KEO you’re a jerk too! You are a colelction of jerks!
Jerk jerk JERK!!!
Zelly,
As Sean Hannity says, “Feel better now?”
Beef Jerky?
Keo, you have a serious lack of understanding of history. There is a reason why the citizens of this country were able to throw off the yoke of oppression, and the Iraqis could not. It is the same reason why there is a 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution. They were well armed. The Iraqi citizenry was not. They were not facing not only superior numbers but also superior weaponry, the Iraqi Shia who tried to rise up against Saddam were. They had attempted to overthrow Saddam but had failed to be able to do so because of the disproportionate difference in weaponry. Small arms are hardly a match for helicopter gunships with a weapons free (shoot at will) rules of engagement. Ask the Viet Cong, they hated when the Cobras came in because they could shoot up a lot of things and be gone before anything could be done to stop them. Now that I’ve explained to you why your supposition that the Iraqis should’ve been left to overthrow a brutal dictator on their own is wrong, let me explain a few other things to consider.
If a person tells you that they are going to hit you with a baseball bat as soon as they get their hands on it, do you let them get to it, or do you stop them? This was the situation with Saddam Hussein, he had used chemical weapons on his own people and was trying to reinstitute his programs. We found thousands of doses of nerve agent antidote. If he wasn’t planning on developing and using nerve agents, why would he spend his ill gotten gains from the corrupt oil for food program to purchase that antidote or the thousands of NEW chemical warfare protective suits we found? He had also sent hit squads to this country to try and assassinate the President. He was sending substantial sums of money to the families of suicide bombers, so to say he wasn’t supporting terrorists is patently false. He was also providing a government apartment and pension to the mastermind of the attack on the Achille Lauro that resulted in an elderly wheel chair bound American citizen named Leon Klinghofer being shot point blank in the chest and dumped overboard into the Mediterranean. You can NOT claim that he wasn’t supporting terrorism without being stupid or lying.
This is a war on Terrorism and those who support it. While the stockpiles of WMDs we were expecting were not found, Saddam was given adequate warning to move them. (thank you Senator Rockefeller) We did find adequate quantities of Chemical Weapons and enriched uranium to cause tens of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars in damage if utilized properly. There was enough enriched uranium that the IAEA was angry that we removed it from Iraq because it was too dangerous to leave it there.
I do find it interesting that the ever so compassionate liberals are the ones who believe that its okay for tyrants to terrorize others as long as American interests are involved. But the US must send in the military when no American interests are involved. Basically they feel it’s okay to risk and lose American lives as long as the US has nothing to benefit from doing so. Don’t believe that? Why were US troops in Somalia? We didn’t have any interests there. Why are US troops STILL in Kosovo? We don’t have any real interests there. How fast do you think they’ll be demanding US military intervention in Darfur should we withdraw from Iraq? We have no interests there. Why do liberals feel that as long as there are US interests involved, we can’t possibly interfere with the internal human rights violations of the regime?
Why do liberals feel that as long as there are US interests involved, we can’t possibly interfere with the internal human rights violations of the regime?
I have been contemplating this sort of issue (and the underlying thinking) for 30 years and I keep coming to the same conclusion: Liberalism is a form of mental illness. Seriously.
I notice that rhetoric and name calling seems to generate nothing but rhetoric and more name calling, but when historical facts come into play the liberals run for the tall grass.
Re 16 (KEO):
“Is that not where question begins, I feeling of consistent betrayel? I suppose we’ll just wait and see if things are really “looking up”in Iraq.”
No, that is not where questions begin. “Feeling” (as I highlighted as the key word in your sentence) are fine, but they never lend an objective perception of the facts. If you use your “feelings” to examine any situation, sledom do they lead to facts and truth.
Questions begin from seveal places, but questiions that seek ti thruth usually are derived not from feelings but either curiosity of an objective need to know the facts. Allowing oneself to taint facts with too much “feeling” leads to a subjective rhetorical perception of the answers to said questions.