Posted on 08/20/2005 7:48:23 AM PDT by takenoprisoner
I am always calm.
I think the FReepers have made a number of excellent points. No one has been alarmist or unreasonable.
You might have enjoyed reading my brief post before disagreeing.
I think you're right on a number of points too, but I believe that your faith in the mainstream media is misplaced. They have demonstrated at every turn that they would undermine the freedoms we celebrate here.
No, the Islamofascists aren't likely to be terribly threatening. But they can be murderous. So too might be the nasty Islamic regimes that populate the middle east. For some time to come. These are the reasons to fight the war on terror.
We're very fortunate, of course, that the bad guys remain in the dark ages economically. It will be centuries before they have any military might.
If true, our troops have been dying for nothing.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi's were going to fashion their own brand of democracy filtered through Islam.
Well of course they are. What did you expect...Iowa?
"We're very fortunate, of course, that the bad guys remain in the dark ages economically. It will be centuries before they have any military might."
But you discount the Iranian mullahs and their quest for nukes. It's in the works right now.
The Iraqis will NOT become another Iran if they use Islam as the moral code for their legal system and give clerics an advisory role.
If memory serves this is what Sistani has been talking about.
You'll also notice these stories never seem to have the names of anyone who might be credible sources. It's always, "Sources say," or "Experts warn," or "Some pinhead from the State Department." Granted, I threw the word "pinhead" in myself, but you get the idea.
Back during the Cold War, Reagan adopted a policy with the Soviets of "Trust, but verify." Sadly, you can't even do that with the MSM anymore, because chances are, they're lying.
ping!
Some people here think that allowing Muslims to practice their religion in our country has been a mistake. Do you?
your supposition that Christians want to somenow overthrow the US government and turn us into a "Christian" government without the protection of the law we are now afforded is just BS.
I didn't say that all Christians felt that way. Some do.
Given your use of the term "BS", you might not be fundamentalist enough to feel that way.
Bush keeps walking into these rattlesnake pits, thanks to his admiration of globalism while the United States continues to lose its sovereignty at the borders.
My nephews and my son are putting their lives at risk fighting for a Iraq, a nation that does not want to fight for itself.
My nephews and son were told they will be fighting for the freedom for Iraq, but instead blood was shed so Iraq can have an Islamic dictatorship.
This is what happens when America is not the priority of its elected leaders, but globalism is.
What is scary is the RATs will run the nation into the ground even faster than the Republicans, a likely outcome of the 2006 and 2008 elections. The voting booth will never be the answer in our attempt to reclaim our nation.
Read my tagline--that sums it up accurately.
Interesting. I've seen a lot of interesting things on FR, but I've never read anyone but a troll reject democracy. I'm not saying you are a troll (I don't believe you are). But by rejecting democracy, your opinions become about as valuable in my opinion.
Considering Iraq is a good hundred+ years behind the West culturally and politically and women are allowed to vote the foundation is being built for positive change.
Iraq is not a dictatorship - unless you have not kept up on current events they had an election last January (women voted by the way) and a new Government is to be elected in January 2006. As for the future, who knows. And don't throw Iran at me. They have never had anything close to a legitimate election.
Can any reasonable thinking conservative (non-Republican) have ever doubted this would come to any other conclusion? This may speed up an eventual return to a theocracy. But the next Middle Eastern project that we 'spread democracy' to will be different. Really it will...
Was it Kissinger who said, it's dangerous to be America's enemy, but even more to be America's friend.
The liberation of Kurdistan is righting the wrongs of Versailles a century ago, when the Kurds were promised a homeland in the detritus of the Ottoman Empire, but were then backstabbed by Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George. Then Iraq came into existence.
I think I can guess what you are talking about. Which only confirms to me why I put not value in his opinion.
I agree.
The Kurds are a separate ethnic identity, with their own language, history, customs, UNLIKE the fictitious "Palestinians" who are merely Arabs who happen to live in the borders of the British Palestine mandate, who speak Arabic, have no separate history or customs.
No state for the "Palestinian" savages.
State now for the Kurds.
state now for the Kurds
ping for later
I thought Saddam needed to go; in fact, I thought Clinton should've taken him out in 1998 when he got Congressional approval to do so.
That said, I've been really leery of the current explanations of the war as an attempt to "spread democracy" - not because I have anything against democracy, but because I thought we weren't into "nation building".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.