[quote=Pandale]Does the MR stand for mister or mental retardation?[/quote]

Guess what "A" stands for...

Indy, guy, that's like the very first thing people say. I mean, really, you have no more imagination than that?

The Mental Retardation was at least semi original (It would have been better if you had said "Mentally Retarded" but I'll give you a B - for effort).

Mr. A

Oh, I thought I had been addressing Airforce above, now I see it was Joe.

I was wondering why he said that about misquoting.

That's what happens (to me) when (I'm)you're scrolling past God knows what static in the middle.

Joe, you're generally an ok guy I don't know why you feel the need to distort.

As to SPECIFICALLY MISQUOTING:

"You hate George Bush and you're against the war, but you identify with the troops? "

I never said I hate George Bush. (Far as you know)

I didn't say I'm against the war. I don't agree with the stories that were told to get us into this war, and I do think that war ought to be a last last resort. I'm against people killing people. But to be "against" this war at this time is ridiculous. It's like deciding not to be in a car crash after you went speed demoning around the blind turns at break neck speeds and now your car is smashing into a busload of baby nuns. Be against it all you want, it's going to happen, and slamming on the breaks isn't going to do any good.

"That's right, don't might that other stuff."

I never said nor implied, "Don't mind the other stuff." I said the particulars weren't important to the discussion at this time and that they were included in the original statement when I said "around". Ken Starr thought they were related so I don't see why I need to differentiate.

Mr. A

You know it's really sad to read the well informed and spirited opinions that are exchanged here, when those of lesser intellect start going down the path of 'name calling' or boxing other into a 'stereotype' because they have opinions that are different.

Why do so few around here seem to have the patience and self understanding that is required for a productice discussion of the issues.

Example: Mr A is obviously a liberal democrat...but, I think he has stated some positions that are not popular among the 'left'.  To me, it's intellectually feeble and a waste of discussion to bash him for what other liberals may believe, in fact it's completely invalid.

I have yet to see him accuse others here of being 'right wing' or broadly labeling someone else.  He is sticking to his ideas and seems to want to focus on the issues.  Everyone else is seeming to denigrate to their best 'sand box' behaviour.

I have felt the same way too....although I am not politically in alignment with Mr A (being a strong Libertarian) I have been repeatedly labeled a 'leftist'. 

You know, it's OK to be a conservative and disagree with the leadership.  I know plenty of Republicans who are ashamed of Bush, as they should be.  As I've said before, if Bush were a little more humble and not so 'righteous', I wouldn't be so 'Anti-Bush', we all make mistakes or act prematurely.

Oh and those who are in the military....if we were actually fighting for our freedom and liberty in Iraq, I'd be right there with you.  To me, the most ignorant sounding 'battle cry' is that we're fighting for freedom and security in Iraq.  If we had devoted a fraction of the resources we've put into Iraq into an effective Homeland Defence strategy and rooting out terrorism....I'd feel much safer.

People don't understand that the Sunni's and Shia's have irreconcilable issues.  I will summarize it for those who are nieve to the issue:

The Shia in essence believes in a Monarchial (or royalty like)authority, whereas the Sunni's believe in an elected (tribal elder) authority.  It's comparable to trying to make a government that serves two masters who's fundamental religous beliefs counteroppose each other.

To the Sunni's, the Shia are a religious monarchy and heretics....

quote: Imam Ash-Shafi'i, one of the most prominent early scholars of his time said in regards to the Shi'a "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi’ites

It's my contention that anyone here or in our government who doesn't have at least a basic grasp of the nature and intensity of the division between these two groups is too ignorant to have an informed opinion.

It would be akin to trying to have had a goverment that split power between our forefathers and the British crown when we established this country...not reconcilable.

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm

Both Sunni and Shia Muslims share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith. The differences between these two main sub-groups within Islam initially stemmed not from spiritual differences, but political ones. Over the centuries, however, these political differences have spawned a number of varying practices and positions which have come to carry a spiritual significance.

The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad's close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation. The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning "one who follows the traditions of the Prophet."

On the other hand, some Muslims share the belief that leadership should have stayed within the Prophet's own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among Imams appointed by God Himself.

The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali. Throughout history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders, choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself. The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people. The commonly-known term is shortened from the historical "Shia-t-Ali," or "the Party of Ali." They are also known as followers of "Ahl-al-Bayt" or "People of the Household" (of the Prophet).

You guys all think you're so smart, how do you reconcile that without a tyrant like Saddam?  Like him or not he maintained an almost impossible balance in a highly divided country that is unlikely to be maintained by a 'democracy'.  You see the shia's don't really believe in a 'democracy'.

The peanut gallery is dismissed.

I would like to clarify that this is not an issue of the two 'sects' hating on each other for their religious beliefs, it is all about a deep seeded attitude on who should lead the muslim nation:

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm

Shia Muslims believe that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession. Sunni Muslims counter that there is no basis in Islam for a hereditary privileged class of spiritual leaders, and certainly no basis for the veneration or intercession of saints. Sunni Muslims contend that leadership of the community is not a birthright, but a trust that is earned and which may be given or taken away by the people themselves.

____________________

It is more complicated than this, especially because of the tribal dynamics of the area, but you can start to see the picture.

To simplify for all:

This is a civil war about Monarcy vs Democracy.

We took down the guy (Saddam) who (although undeniabley a tyrant) represented those who champion the idea of democracy (and represented the minority in Iraq).

The Sunni's are far more in alignment with our concepts of democracy.  It's unfortunate we disposed of their power.

It's all about knowing your enemy. 

[quote=dude]

You know it's really sad to read the well informed and spirited opinions that are exchanged here, when those of lesser intellect start going down the path of 'name calling' or boxing other into a 'stereotype' because they have opinions that are different. [/quote]

Sounds very reasoned, until you consider your own behavior as you began this thread....in fact, that's what most everyone of your threads which are little more than "bush is stoopid" topes.

[quote=dude]

  As I've said before, if Bush were a little more humble and not so 'righteous', I wouldn't be so 'Anti-Bush', we all make mistakes or act prematurely. [/quote]

Again the cartoonish version of a real person is produced for the bashing....

[quote=dude]Oh and those who are in the military....if we were actually fighting for our freedom and liberty in Iraq, I'd be right there with you.  [/quote]

I've already provided what Clinton siad of Saddam in 1998, if you still want to hang what Saddam was as some twisting of the facts on Bush's part, well, so be it.

[quote=dude]To me, the most ignorant sounding 'battle cry' is that we're fighting for freedom and security in Iraq.  If we had devoted a fraction of the resources we've put into Iraq into an effective Homeland Defence strategy and rooting out terrorism....I'd feel much safer. [/quote]

If you'd feel safer playing defense (as if we're not already doing that) alone, fine. After 9/11 many of us realized that that appraoch just wasn't going to work.

[quote=dude]People don't understand that the Sunni's and Shia's have irreconcilable issues.  I will summarize it for those who are nieve to the issue:[/quote]

Not sure what nieve means, but if you think Sunni's and Shia's can't live together and need a dictator like Saddam to keep them in line, consider Muslim, secular and democratic Turkey.

Sorry, dude, but this sounds too much like your "war on the Islamic world" and "we can't win" posts.

[quote=dude]

The Sunni's are far more in alignment with our concepts of democracy.  It's unfortunate we disposed of their power.

It's all about knowing your enemy. 

[/quote]

Right, and we're so lucky you know them.

BTW, the Sunnis, the ones we "disposed" the power of, that's the 10% of the Iraqi population that Saddam sprang from, the ones running the rape rooms and the mass graves, and you're suggesting he stayed in power despite 12 years of ignoring UN weapons inspection requirements and the world's intelligence agencies thinking he was back to making WMDs he could have easily handed off to any number of terrorist pals for use here. Nope, not buying it.

[quote=dude]

It's my contention that anyone here or in our government who doesn't have at least a basic grasp of the nature and intensity of the division between these two groups is too ignorant to have an informed opinion. [/quote]

I assume you're talking about the head of the House Intel Committee that Pelosi just appointed who didn't know the diff.

dude wrote:
Oh and those who are in the military....if we were actually fighting for our freedom and liberty in Iraq, I'd be right there with you. 

I've already provided what Clinton siad of Saddam in 1998, if you still want to hang what Saddam was as some twisting of the facts on Bush's part, well, so be it.

dude wrote:
To me, the most ignorant sounding 'battle cry' is that we're fighting for freedom and security in Iraq.  If we had devoted a fraction of the resources we've put into Iraq into an effective Homeland Defence strategy and rooting out terrorism....I'd feel much safer.

If you'd feel safer playing defense (as if we're not already doing that) alone, fine. After 9/11 many of us realized that that appraoch just wasn't going to work.

dude wrote:
People don't understand that the Sunni's and Shia's have irreconcilable issues.  I will summarize it for those who are nieve to the issue:

Not sure what nieve means, but if you think Sunni's and Shia's can't live together and need a dictator like Saddam to keep them in line, consider Muslim, secular and democratic Turkey.

__________________________________________________

Clinton was as much an idiot as Bush.

Mike: you obviously believe that democracy and monarchy can be reconciled....I hate to do this but I think you're 'stoopid' if that is the case.  C'mon Mike, you're a  smart guy.   Read about your enemy and get back to me.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

The Sunni's are far more in alignment with our concepts of democracy.  It's unfortunate we disposed of their power.

It's all about knowing your enemy. 

[/quote]

Right, and we're so lucky you know them.

BTW, the Sunnis, the ones we "disposed" the power of, that's the 10% of the Iraqi population that Saddam sprang from, the ones running the rape rooms and the mass graves, and you're suggesting he stayed in power despite 12 years of ignoring UN weapons inspection requirements and the world's intelligence agencies thinking he was back to making WMDs he could have easily handed off to any number of terrorist pals for use here. Nope, not buying it.

[/quote]

But you DO buy that the Shia's are going to be our standard bearers for democracy right?  HAHAHAHAHHAHAA!  You so so fun-nay.

Before you recommend investments Mike, do you analyze them to ensure that they have a good likelihood of working out?  I do.

How is a democracy supposed to work in Iraq Mike?  Lay it out for me, I'm really interested.

[quote=dude]

To simplify for all:

This is a civil war about Monarcy vs Democracy.[/quote]

To simplify for dude, the Sunnis are the ones fighting to end the budding Shia/Sunni democracy and install the theocracy which would include the establishment of Shira law.

The Iranian Sunnis are assisting in that, and Iran itself is a democracy in name only since the mullahs get to select candidates. Of course this all ignores the AQ connection, which is a Sunni group and has no interest in democracy.

So much for the monarchy vs democracy theory.

It's all about knowing the facts.

[quote=dude]

Clinton was as much an idiot as Bush. [/quote]

Sure are a lot of idiots out there, and so many of them have access to experts, research and intel you don't have.

What are the odds of that?

[quote=dude]

Mike: you obviously believe that democracy and monarchy can be reconciled....I hate to do this but I think you're 'stoopid' if that is the case. [/quote]

Uh, the UK? Turkey? Any number of European governments?

[quote=dude]

 C'mon Mike, you're a  smart guy.   Read about your enemy and get back to me.

[/quote]

Sorry, dude, you just have the players and motivations wrong. For example, AQ is Sunni, where's the monarcy vs democracy conflict there?

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

The Sunni's are far more in alignment with our concepts of democracy.  It's unfortunate we disposed of their power.

It's all about knowing your enemy. 

[/quote]

Right, and we're so lucky you know them.

BTW, the Sunnis, the ones we "disposed" the power of, that's the 10% of the Iraqi population that Saddam sprang from, the ones running the rape rooms and the mass graves, and you're suggesting he stayed in power despite 12 years of ignoring UN weapons inspection requirements and the world's intelligence agencies thinking he was back to making WMDs he could have easily handed off to any number of terrorist pals for use here. Nope, not buying it.

[/quote]

But you DO buy that the Shia's are going to be our standard bearers for democracy right?  HAHAHAHAHHAHAA!  You so so fun-nay.

[/quote]

I can't imagine where I got that idea. Could it be because 80% of the population voted (hmmm, sounds like an interest in democracy to me) and that the predominately Shia public elected a government?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

To simplify for all:

This is a civil war about Monarcy vs Democracy.[/quote]

To simplify for dude, the Sunnis are the ones fighting to end the budding Shia/Sunni democracy and install the theocracy which would include the establishment of Shira law.

The Iranian Sunnis are assisting in that, and Iran itself is a democracy in name only since the mullahs get to select candidates. Of course this all ignores the AQ connection, which is a Sunni group and has no interest in democracy.

So much for the monarchy vs democracy theory.

It's all about knowing the facts.

[/quote]

HAHAHHAHAHAHA!  Iraq is Shia bro!  You got it ass backwards! 

You know absolutely NOTHING about this and you will proceed to make a MAJOR ass out of yourself.  

The Sunnis are fighting to prevent a IRAN like DEMOCRACY, which you pointed out is in NAME ONLY.  The insurgency is to prevent the MONARCHY from ruling.  You can't argue what you don't understand (yet you still do, I feel embarassed for you). 

You can't read my man.

Dude,

I appreciate your kind words. I'm confident that there are others who lurk here and see the disparity in the quality of the arguments.

Hey, I'm no angel, I will be brusque.

As to the split between the Sunni and the Shia. Thank you.

I am put into mind of the opposition to JFK in that he was "Too religious" and they asked him point blank if he was going to take his marching orders from the Pope.

In this country we have any number of "religious leaders" who purport to be chosen by God (there are those who think it is God's will that they were elected to office). The point being that there IS a way for there to be a melding of those two ideologies. (Not that they're going to start liking each other)

Alternately... errr... hmmm.... I'd like to think that there could be two to several houses of government wherein the Shia Sheik (?) could shimmy till the shank of the evening in that portion of the government and the elected Sunni could head another branch... I'd like to be able to find some sort of balancing mechanism wherein neither had absolute control over the other (sort of the function of the three branches here, but broader). The problem with fundamentalists, though is that they believe that they are controlled by God, as such, whenever they don't get what they want, they see it as an assault on God. (Imagine there no Heaven, indeed!).

Thanks for the nut to gnaw on. I'll enjoy it.

Mr. A 

[quote=dude]

How is a democracy supposed to work in Iraq Mike?  Lay it out for me, I'm really interested.

[/quote]

If the example of Turkey doesn't do it for you, just what do you need? Hasn't it already been proven that your monarchy versus democracy meme is fictional? The fight is between Islamists who want to establish a Taliban like Shira law gov't and those who favor pluralism.

It would be nice if it broken down along sectarian lines, but there are radicals on both sides.