Victory!
313 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=dude]
Mike....Iraqi Sunnis favor democracy.
Democratic concepts are more in line with Sunni ideology since they believe their leaders should be elected from the people.
Fascist concepts are more in line with Shia ideology since they believe that their leaders should come from the 'royal' (for lack of a better word) bloodlines which are 'divinely' choosen.
You are simplifying my position mike...it's not that simple. I'm wasting my fingers here.
[/quote]
You've been fed a fiction, dude. Iraqi Sunnis HAVE a democracy, if they'd just stop fighting it. There are Sunnis IN the current government, even as a minority since they're about 20% of the population.
Sunnis have proved themselves every comfortable with fascist concepts, see the Taliban, Saddam and Shira law in S.A..
Iran didn't support the Taliban Mike:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551/#2 Who supported the Taliban?The Taliban's main supporters were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Along with the United Arab Emirates, they were the only countries to recognize Taliban-led Afghanistan. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan cooperated in efforts by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency to arm the anti-communist mujahadeen. After the Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan ceased to be a priority for U.S. strategists, but Saudi Arabia and Pakistan continued their support. Involvement in Afghanistan served a strategic interest for Pakistan, which also has a large ethnic Pashtun population, and appealed to the conservative Wahhabi Muslims who hold substantial political clout in Saudi Arabia. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia became partners in the U.S.-led "war on terrorism" and halted their official support of the Taliban. But Gannon believes the Taliban is still receiving support from the ISI. Gannon says, "In Pakistan, the military always hedges its bets." Pakistani officials have repeatedly denied offering support to the Taliban and point to a buildup of tens of thousands of forces on their border with Afghanistan as proof of their commitment to stopping infiltrations.
__________________________________
Try again.
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]
Mike....Iraqi Sunnis favor democracy.
Democratic concepts are more in line with Sunni ideology since they believe their leaders should be elected from the people.
Fascist concepts are more in line with Shia ideology since they believe that their leaders should come from the 'royal' (for lack of a better word) bloodlines which are 'divinely' choosen.
You are simplifying my position mike...it's not that simple. I'm wasting my fingers here.
[/quote]
You've been fed a fiction, dude. Iraqi Sunnis HAVE a democracy, if they'd just stop fighting it. There are Sunnis IN the current government, even as a minority since they're about 20% of the population.
Sunnis have proved themselves every comfortable with fascist concepts, see the Taliban, Saddam and Shira law in S.A..
[/quote]
Mike the only point you are making here is that this is complex. In addition to the Shia/Sunni issue, you have tribal issues etc...
The democracy that Iraq will have will eventually resemble Iran's democracy bro. We're talking about a paradigm that believes it's leaders are willed by god based on the prophetic bloodline. Give me a break if you think that 'foundation' can establish a true democracy.
[quote=dude]
Iran didn't support the Taliban Mike:[/quote]
I didn't say Iran supported the Taliban, I simply pointed out the Taliban was SUNNI. Now, why would predominantly Shia Iran support SUNNI Taliban?
This misunderstanding of your is a vestige of your fictional "this side supports democracy, this side supports monarchy". BOTH sects have an element of radicalism that would establish their own sect's version of a theocracy.
[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]
Mike....Iraqi Sunnis favor democracy.
Democratic concepts are more in line with Sunni ideology since they believe their leaders should be elected from the people.
Fascist concepts are more in line with Shia ideology since they believe that their leaders should come from the 'royal' (for lack of a better word) bloodlines which are 'divinely' choosen.
You are simplifying my position mike...it's not that simple. I'm wasting my fingers here.
[/quote]
You've been fed a fiction, dude. Iraqi Sunnis HAVE a democracy, if they'd just stop fighting it. There are Sunnis IN the current government, even as a minority since they're about 20% of the population.
Sunnis have proved themselves every comfortable with fascist concepts, see the Taliban, Saddam and Shira law in S.A..
[/quote]
Mike the only point you are making here is that this is complex. In addition to the Shia/Sunni issue, you have tribal issues etc... [/quote]
Close, it IS more complex than you make it sound because there are elements of fundimentalism on both sides.
[quote=dude]The democracy that Iraq will have will eventually resemble Iran's democracy bro. We're talking about a paradigm that believes it's leaders are willed by god based on the prophetic bloodline. [/quote]
You keep saying that with zero proof. It's already been proved any number of times that your claim that the two sects differ on theocracy/democracy/monarcy because BOTH sides have fundimentalists that would happily install the worst form of Islamofacist state.
The question is is the Shia majority in Iraq going to install a theocracy with a democratic cover, ala Iran and that seems doubtful at this point. In fact, the doubt is so great that Iran is helping INSURGENTS and not the current elected government, even though it's mostly Shia.
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]
Iran didn't support the Taliban Mike:[/quote]
I didn't say Iran supported the Taliban, I simply pointed out the Taliban was SUNNI. Now, why would predominantly Shia Iran support SUNNI Taliban?
This misunderstanding of your is a vestige of your fictional "this side supports democracy, this side supports monarchy". BOTH sects have an element of radicalism that would establish their own sect's version of a theocracy.
[/quote]
You said Iran was supporting the Sunni insurgency as well.
[quote=dude]
Iran supports the Shia not the Sunnis Mike....you don't understand this at all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5108496.stm
[/quote]
I understand it just fine, thanks.
Here’s where you’re right, dude, Iran is assisting Shia INSURGENTS.
Here’s where you’re wrong; everything else.
Iraq Sunnis have absolutely no basis to claim they’re more in synch with democracy because of some overarching belief of their sect. Their sect has happily installed governments like the Taliban in Afghanistan and a monarchy in Saudi Arabia. In their own nation Iraqi Sunnis, when given a chance, installed a dictatorship that persecuted Shia and Kurds alike. I have no idea who ran the seminar you attended, trying to portray Sunnis as fighters for democracy, but clearly they had an interest in propaganda.
Shia, as well, can’t claim their sect has a special warm place for democracy since their sect installed the theocracy in Iran and theirs is the sect of Al Qaeda. In fact, a good bit of the anti-democratic insurgency, evidently with help from Iran, is fighting a fledgling united (Shia majority) government in Iraq as we speak.
The point is the fight isn’t between democracy leaning Sunnis and monarchy favoring Shia. It’s between Shia, Sunni and Kurd who want to establish a more secular state, ala Turkey, versus extremists on both sides who would install their own sect’s version of an Islamofascist state.
I doubt MODERATE Sunni's (the kind you find in Iraq) would establish an Islamofascist state bro. When they were in control, I don't recall seeing burkas in Bagdhad. You're spin spin spinning here.
Are we going to talk about the situation in Iraq here or are you going to keep on citing irrelevant points.
Just because Saudi Arabia has a political past of Theocracy has nothing to do with the religious issues. My understanding is that the royal family is not the religious leadership....unlike Iran.
Your point is like saying that Christians support Monarchy because there have been Christian monarchies in the past....completley invalid.
You could make the observation though that it would be a violent outcome if we forced protestant christians to take rule from the catholics (and this is a weak analogy at best)....in fact it was and they were forced to go to America during that era.
Quit playing 'dodge the ball' here. Your position is weak and uninformed and as I have pointed out repeatedly, you have made many innaccurate observations. You sound more like someone who is stuck to their sinking ship as opposed to evaluating what the best ship to sail is.
[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]
Iran supports the Shia not the Sunnis Mike....you don't understand this at all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5108496.stm
[/quote]
I understand it just fine, thanks.
Here’s where you’re right, dude, Iran is assisting Shia INSURGENTS.
Here’s where you’re wrong; everything else.
Iraq Sunnis have absolutely no basis to claim they’re more in synch with democracy because of some overarching belief of their sect. Their sect has happily installed governments like the Taliban in Afghanistan and a monarchy in Saudi Arabia. In their own nation Iraqi Sunnis, when given a chance, installed a dictatorship that persecuted Shia and Kurds alike. I have no idea who ran the seminar you attended, trying to portray Sunnis as fighters for democracy, but clearly they had an interest in propaganda.
Shia, as well, can’t claim their sect has a special warm place for democracy since their sect installed the theocracy in Iran and theirs is the sect of Al Qaeda. In fact, a good bit of the anti-democratic insurgency, evidently with help from Iran, is fighting a fledgling united (Shia majority) government in Iraq as we speak.
The point is the fight isn’t between democracy leaning Sunnis and monarchy favoring Shia. It’s between Shia, Sunni and Kurd who want to establish a more secular state, ala Turkey, versus extremists on both sides who would install their own sect’s version of an Islamofascist state.
[/quote]
Mike, assuming your correct (which you're not), you think this reality is conductive to success in Iraq? Three (or six according to you) competing, impassioned zealots fighting for control.
We can make these people work together how?
I'm anxiously awaiting your sage insight.
[quote=dude]
I doubt MODERATE Sunni's (the kind you find in Iraq) would establish an Islamofascist state bro. When they were in control, I don't recall seeing burkas in Bagdhad. You're spin spin spinning here. [/quote]
Those MODERATE Sunnis of yours installed a dictatorship that persecuted Shia and Kurds. Some MODERATES there, pal. Some of your MODERATE Sunnis are fighting against an elected government unity just as insurgent (READ: theocratic) Shia are.
[quote=dude]
Are we going to talk about the situation in Iraq here or are you going to keep on citing irrelevant points.[/quote]
When you try to assert that something endemic to Sunnis makes them favorable to democracy it isn’t “irrelevant” to point out that’s just not true and that the Islamists in the Sunni sect has supported all manners of non-democratic governments.
[quote=dude]
Just because Saudi Arabia has a political past of Theocracy has nothing to do with the religious issues. [/quote]
Uh, a theocracy is a government BY a religion, dude, it sure DOES have to do with religious issues. S.A. lives under Shira law, you might want to learn what that is before you go further.
[quote=dude]
My understanding is that the royal family is not the religious leadership....unlike Iran. [/quote]
The royal family has appointed religious leaders and they’re Sunni. They (the mullahs) dictate the laws, the royal family attends to secular matters, living large, finance and international relations. In Iran the religious leaders run the legal system and the government runs secular matters, live large and handle the international stuff. Bottom line, there’s not much of a difference aside from S.A, has a royal family who understands why being our friend is important, the mullahs in Iran feel differently.
[quote=dude]
Your point is like saying that Christians support Monarchy because there have been Christian monarchies in the past....completley invalid. [/quote]
Actually, to use your latest metaphor, you’ve been claiming that Catholics hold religious beliefs that makes them democracy-inclined and that Protestants hold religious beliefs that make them monarchy inclined. When I point out BOTH sides have had governments of both democratic and monarchy form, you change to (fill in nationality here) Catholics support democracy, even though there’s no history of that being true and despite the fact they’re fighting against a democracy in their home country right now.
Clearly this religious component that supports democracy or monarchy just isn’t there.
[quote=dude] Quit playing 'dodge the ball' here. Your position is weak and uninformed and as I have pointed out repeatedly, you have made many innaccurate observations. [/quote]
No, dude, that would be the guy that says the Sunni SECT believes something than makes them a friend of democracy and the Shia SECT believes in something that makes them inclined towards a monarchy, and when the many, many examples to the contrary are mentioned, he retreats to claim that IRAQI Sunnis are inclined to democracy, even though they didn’t have one when they had a chance and are fighting against having one now.
[quote=dude]
Mike, assuming your correct (which you're not), ...[/quote]
No, dude, I am right...
[quote=dude]you think this reality is conductive to success in Iraq? Three (or six according to you) competing, impassioned zealots fighting for control. [/quote]
I don't know how you came up with six, but so long as their fighting, there's a problem. Part of the solution is understanding that the enemy isn't Shia OR Sunni, the enemy is the elements of both groups that don't want an elected unity government.
[quote=dude]We can make these people work together how?
I'm anxiously awaiting your sage insight.
[/quote]
They (Sunni and Shia) already live elsewhere (Turkey) in a democracy. That's the answer to your "it won't work" claim. Can we "make" them? That depends.
Dude and Mr.A with there hero Cindy Sheehan… Three stoogers. Comparing a bad and good day in their minds.
Good day… bad news for our troops and alleys.
Bad day… Lebanon government gets stronger. Abbays in Palestine demands early vote, thus weakening Hezbollah. Iran president loses support throughout country. China comes down hard on North Korea. Wow, all this happened over the past two days.
No wonder you three are jumping up and down trying to prove your theory on victory.
[quote=AirForce]Dude and Mr.A with there hero Cindy Sheehan.. Three stoogers. Comparing a bad and good day in their minds.
Good day... bad news for our troops and alleys.
Bad day... Lebanon government gets stronger. Abbays in Palestine demands early vote, thus weakening Hezbollah. Iran president loses support throughout country. China comes down hard on North Korea. Wow, all this happened over the past two days.
No wonder you three are jumping up and down trying to prove your theory on victory.
[/quote]
Airforce, I have no idea what you're talking about...maybe it's because you have no idea what I'm talking about. Thanks for playing. Your ASSumptions are of little interest to me. That's the problem with you brick heads around here, you open your mouths and take action before you know anything.
If someone doesn't agree with you that MUST mean they agree with the other side. This is the epitome of narrow and small minded. I don't have interest in transacting with those who can't comprehend outside the box they've been fed.
OK, you all win...I'm a liberal, Clinton loving, pansy ass who thinks that we should send hugs n' kisses to the terrorists. I love Iran and North Korea and think we should stick our tails between our legs and go running home..... I'll put a sock in it and leave all the answers to our infallible leader and all the enlightened guys who have so valiantly protected my freedoms in Iraq since they seem to be the only ones qualified to make decisions, being that they fought and killed people and all. They seem to have the answers and our world is better off in the hands of the military anyway.
Uhhhh…hey guys I’m not sure if this is a good thread to ask this or not, but ummm, I’m wondering if you could tell me which of the wirehouses you think are, you know, like number one?
[quote=joedabrkr]Uhhhh....hey guys I'm not sure if this is a good thread to ask this or not, but ummm, I'm wondering if you could tell me which of the wirehouses you think are, you know, like number one? [/quote]
[quote=dude]
OK, you all win…I’m a liberal, Clinton loving, pansy ass who thinks that we should send hugs n’ kisses to the terrorists. I love Iran and North Korea and think we should stick our tails between our legs and go running home… I’ll put a sock in it and leave all the answers to our infallible leader and all the enlightened guys who have so valiantly protected my freedoms in Iraq since they seem to be the only ones qualified to make decisions, being that they fought and killed people and all. They seem to have the answers and our world is better off in the hands of the military anyway.
[/quote]Dude, I don’t think that of you. Honestly I don’t.
I understand, too, how if you were against the war in the first place that you could feel the way you do now.
Having said that, I will offer two thoughts-
First of all, I don’t think people give GW enough credit for making what he felt was the best decision in a historically difficult situation. Sometimes I think that we forget that this was literally the very first time the continental U.S. was attacked by a foreign enemy essentially in modern history. I also think when people get all fired up about Iraq alone they forget about the long string of history of smaller attacks against us by the same radical interests(USS Cole, Beruit embassy and African Embassy Attacks, etc.) Sometimes I honestly think that those who reside on the left, especially the media(and not specifically you) are sticking their heads in the sand as far as recognizing that our very way of life, our freedom, is under attack. I really truly believe this.
Second, while the situation in Iraq is far from ugly, I also do not think that the media coverage has been balanaced at all. Once the excitement of the initial success was over they had to find something else interesting to cover. Telling stories over and over about the many small victories is booorrring and doesn’t sell papers or gain ratings or improve readership/viewership and ad rates. So they talk about more dramatic things like kidnappings and fatalities(especially ours) and so forth. There have been a few stories that talk about the kids that are now going to school, the women who are free to dress as they please and no longer viewed as property, and the areas which now have a reliable electric supply and maybe even a reasonably equipped hospital. But those stories are few and far between. The press would rather use the failure to demonize their favorite target-G.W., and downplay the positives.
Just my two cents. Now back to studying.
correction-
"Second, while I think the situation in Iraq is far from good…"
oops…spell check wouldn’t have caught that. Bad proofreading and too late an hour…
Why do liberals always seem to be crying? They always...or let me rephrase...usually complain more than offer viable options. I am a moderate republican...conservative about many things but liberal on others. I just don't get caught up in whining and sitting in the corner while I suck my thumb and cry about how I am a victim.
Geeze...you may be a victim...but you have the choice whether or not to STAY a victim. Therein lies your power.
I read these posts and wonder what the h&^% some people are thinking...