Is Iraq about to turn into Iran 2.0?

[The Duke]

The US did not train Osama

Read a history book. The west clearly gave aid to religious extremists in Afghanistan just because they opposed the Russians. And it was reckoned that if the Soviets had access to the Indian Ocean (Afghanistan being just 400km away) the they win the Cold War.

You are an idiot.  I have gone into this several times on this forum and have neither the time nor the inclination to do so again.  We only funded the Hezbis and the Jamiat.  The claim that the US trained/funded Osama is spouted only by the ignorant and the treasonous.  Given your track record, I’ve no intention of giving you the respect to call you a traitor, you are beneath even that fool.

, nor were we the primary sponsor of Saddam's Iraq

Again, the entire western world aided this guy. Saying the US didn't help as much as France did is like saying it's okay to murder one person since there are serial killers out there.

The US provided only 0.005% of Saddam’s arsenal, in dollar terms.  Only a few WWII era artillery pieces out of a scrapyard.  If you consider this significant enough to mention, I suggest you learn a little about world affairs and come out of your ivory tower.

(that distinction belongs to the USSR and France, the left's two favorite countries).

You're a complete dumbass.

g profound.

I am okay with Allawi leading Iraq, just as I am comfortable with Dwight Eisenhower being President of the US.  Killing enemy soldiers doesn't make you a bad person in and of itself.

That kills America's claim that it's for democracy.

You seem to be confused on what constitutes a democracy.  A democratic nation is one that allows elections to determine the leaders, guarantees rights for citizens, etc.  It does not renounce the obligation to defend itself.

Who said the enemy of my enemy is my friend?  All I said was that its okay for Allawi to kill terrorists.

Without trials? Without warrents or anything? The Red Cross says about 70% of Abu Gharib inmates are innocent.

The Red Cross bases this on what?  Their evaluations of prisoner treatment so far have been repeatedly off the mark, I’d be hard pressed to accept their conclusions.

These particular terrorists were not held in Abu Ghraib.

Yes, without trials or warrants or anything, stupid.  This isn’t criminal law, its warfare.  A different set of legal rules apply.  Take civics 101 and you’ll learn that.

I actually appreciate a head of state willing to do some of the killing on his own.

You're heartless. Let's see George Bush rampaging into prisons and shooting it up, then. In fact, let's round up everyone who disagrees with the Bushies, call them terrorists and kill them. Yeah. Let's make Hitler spin in his grave. Seriously though, Reuters says that some Iraqis were beaten up for making anti-occupation statements.

Well, if Reuters said so, I guess that justifies this mindlessly irrelevant non-sequitor.  Stay on topic please; they make some mighty good pills for ADD if you need some.  Ritalin for beginners, Dexadrine for those who like intense headaches.

These people weren’t shot for disagreeing with the occupation; they were shot for trying to kill American soldiers.  You know the people who defend the free world while Canada is busy smoking government distributed weed.

I will presume that the "cooking the books" referenmce is another line against Chalabi, to which I reply that you have still produced no idicting evidence against him.  In fact, you haven't even produced circumstantial evidence against him.

I have now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

And besides, if Bush was thinking Chalabi is innocent why did he dump this guy for PM?

Do you even know what evidence is?  This article contains no evidence, it only points out that he was investigated.  I never mentions a specific piece of evidence that prompted the investigation, only the factual statement that he was investigated, and since no charges were pressed, we can only presume that insufficient evidence existed to bring to man to jail.  Jesus, anyone whose seen CSI knows what evidence is.

And Bush didn’t pick the Prime Minister, as you would have known if you read the article THAT YOU POSTED!  Lakdhar Brahimi, the UN envoy, chose Iyad Allawi as PM.  Bush had nothing to do with Chalabi being chosen or rejected.  It is worth noting though, that Chalabi is one of the last two men up for the Prime Ministership of the new elected government.  All the Chalabi haters who called him a con-man can eat crow now that Iraqis are on the verge of choosing the alleged American stooge on their own.

I also reiterate, if you think it is customary for enemy soldiers to get a trial, then you know absolutely nothing about legal history.

So the Geneva Convention never existed? Strange. Oh, and the six people werent soldiers; they were insurgents.

And what about this

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/ wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

The Geneva Convention contains myriad goofball demands for treatment of enemy soldiers, but never is a trial mentioned.  Do you think we gave trials to hundreds of thousands of German or Japanese POWs?  Simple practicality should have rung a little bell in your head that its not realistically possible to try enemy soldiers for their crimes, which is precisely why its not contained in the Geneva Conventions.

You links appear to be a Error 404 and another non-sequiter about Oil For Food that has nothing to do with this conversation.

Look, its cute how you tried to keep pace with me and all, but I don't have tie to deal with pro-terrorist idf=iots who can't stay on topic, lanch off on unrelated tangents, get basic historical facts wrong, cannot discern between accusation and evidence, and have nonsensical utopian pacifist politics.  Just let it go.  I am a legend of this board, you can never defeat me, for I am your better.

Adieu, La Candienne.

[2952-0-0]

LOL. I love how chickenhawks call anyone who disagree with them traitors.

[The Duke]

LOL. I love how chickenhawks call anyone who disagree with them traitors.

Since all you do is bash the US and defend the rights of terrorists, I don't think its hard to discern where yor sympathies lie.

[2952-0-0]

LOL. I love how chickenhawks call anyone who disagree with them traitors.

Since all you do is bash the US and defend the rights of terrorists, I don't think its hard to discern where yor sympathies lie.

Me? So saying something is terrorism? Since when? Oh, and it looks like you haven't clicked on the Al Jaszeera link. I only found that story on google. Since you don't want to click on it, I'll explain what it's about: Kuwaiti customs officials caught an American military truck going into Iraq illegally carrying radioactive material. Really. Why does Bush need redioactive material in Iraq? Why? Seriously, I dunno.


From Wkipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess you would agree with Georgy when he said, "a dictaroship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no doubt about it"

Oh, and finally, I appreciate the culture and mood of the United States, but feel that its state policy is out of control. Given how people like you always try to tie government and culture together, it isn't surprising you claim I'm a terrorist symathiser.

[The Duke]

I didn't say you were a terrorist, did I?  I said you defended the rights of terrorists.  There's a big difference, and once again you prove what a failure the Candian school system is with your inability to do basic reading comprehension.

US culture is inseperable from our government, seeing as we elected them on the grounds that they best represent our values and ideas.

There are two reasons I didn't click on your al Jazeera link:

1. Al Jazeera is not a serious news organization, they are the propaganda arm of radical Islam.

2. Your link didn't work anyway because you're an idiot who didn't post it properly.

Even if I had, what the hell does it have to do with what we're talking about?  This is why I say you hate America, you admit to not having any idea what the motive was behind the US action, yet you post it in the most accusatory way you can think of  You admit you're own ignorance, then turn around and pretend you know why America is bad because they do X, Y, and Z.

Bin Laden did not create the MAK.  The MAk was created by the ISI.  The MAK did not exclusively give to bin Laden, it gave to all Muj groups and you could ear mark where your money went.  Saying that US contributions to the MAK are equal to US support for bin Laden is like saying that I put my money in Bank of America, you got a loan from BofA, therefore, I gave you a loan.  uhhh, no.

Idiot.

[Jake]

Uh, FDR, I'd stop arguing with him now.  He's repeated bitch slapped you for the past two pages.

[Jake]

That is the third time.  News flash, only you and JFraud care

[The Duke]

So Sharon just wants to gobble up Palestinian territory?  Even though he's taken great risk to pull out of as much of territories as he can?  Man, something's wrong your brain.

[2952-0-0]

I didn't say you were a terrorist, did I?  I said you defended the rights of terrorists.  There's a big difference, and once again you prove what a failure the Candian school system is with your inability to do basic reading comprehension.

US culture is inseperable from our government, seeing as we elected them on the grounds that they best represent our values and ideas.

There are two reasons I didn't click on your al Jazeera link:

1. Al Jazeera is not a serious news organization, they are the propaganda arm of radical Islam.

2. Your link didn't work anyway because you're an idiot who didn't post it properly.

Even if I had, what the hell does it have to do with what we're talking about?  This is why I say you hate America, you admit to not having any idea what the motive was behind the US action, yet you post it in the most accusatory way you can think of  You admit you're own ignorance, then turn around and pretend you know why America is bad because they do X, Y, and Z.

Bin Laden did not create the MAK.  The MAk was created by the ISI.  The MAK did not exclusively give to bin Laden, it gave to all Muj groups and you could ear mark where your money went.  Saying that US contributions to the MAK are equal to US support for bin Laden is like saying that I put my money in Bank of America, you got a loan from BofA, therefore, I gave you a loan.  uhhh, no.

Idiot.

Actually, yes. It is like that, you see. If I criticise my Prime Minister, Paul Martin, am I anti-Canadian? And HAAAA!! I fooled you!!!!! The al Jazeera link? Al Jazeera didn't directly write the story, they were posting an article from the Kuwait Times. Sooooooo.........

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. Al Jazeera is not a serious news organization, they are the propaganda arm of radical Islam.

I hope you don't think that FoxNews is a serious news organization.

[The Duke]

It doesn't matter if Al Jazeera wrote the story or not, goddammit, if the damn link doesn't work anyway!

You fooled me?  Really?  Pretty sure you didn't.  You can criticize Martin, you can criticize Candian policy, but you can't demonstrate a pattern of criticizing your country without supporting evidence while praising its enemies and defending them.

[2952-0-0]

It doesn't matter if Al Jazeera wrote the story or not, goddammit, if the damn link doesn't work anyway!

You fooled me?  Really?  Pretty sure you didn't.  You can criticize Martin, you can criticize Candian policy, but you can't demonstrate a pattern of criticizing your country without supporting evidence while praising its enemies and defending them.

I praise al qaida? where?

[Democratic Hawk]

I'd like to think that Iraq will function as a liberal democracy but then I'm not sure if liberal democracy is compatible with the Arab mindset

At this point in time, most Iraqi Shi'ite clerics seem comparatively moderate compared with their Iranian counterparts - but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Iraq emerged to be a Shi'ite theocracy within Iran's sphere of influence

Dave

[phk]

There will be an Iran style Islamic revolution, count on it.

[Shira]

     It might have been assumed that the experience of the American adventure in Iraq would cancel the next chapters. The Iraqi people did not receive the occupying army with flowers. The pretext for the invasion – Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction – was exposed as a blatant lie. The armed insurrection continues. The future of the Iraqi state hangs in the balance, even after the recent elections. The country may well break up into three parts, creating shock waves all around the Middle East.
Naive people believe that after all this, Bush would not risk more adventures of this kind. They are wrong.
First, because a primitive and vain person like him never admits to failure. When one of his adventures fails, this just drives him on to even more ambitious ones.
Second, the failure does indeed cost a lot of lives and destroys the infrastructure of life in Iraq, but that doesn’t matter for the planners of the operation. The main aim – establishing a permanent garrison in the country - has been achieved. Outside of Iraq, nobody is demanding that the American soldiers leave. And, whatever the acts of sabotage, the Iraqi oil is controlled by the US. The oil barons, who are the patrons of the Bush family, can be well satisfied.

[The Duke]

I-Spy,

If you'd like me to waste my time finding every picture of happy Iraqis, I can dig up hundreds.  Most people however, were able to recognize the purpose of this picture: Leftists claim we were not welcomed by Iraqs, I have photographic proof that this claim is false, here is a sample of said proof, now have a nice tall glass of shut the  up.