Iraq - what do we do now?

[Ch. 12]

Heres your free history lesson, get your facts straight.
Enjoy your ride!

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_pal..._when_islam.php

Thanks for the Iraeli site. No wonder you are all screwed up with "facts" when your sources are all blogs! Did it ever occur to you that blogs are not really totally fact? Where did the mystery Muslims come from? The Middle East? Oh...and they attacked their own lands? Hmmmm.... The people that make up Islam WERE FROM THE REGION ALREADY. Go find a blog to state that they actually came from Mars. Won't be the only thing coming from a planet b/c most of your posts are coming from Uranus.

And just to show your "accuracy" of facts, Time reported the Iraqi CIVILIAN death tolls as 655,000; 62,000; and 48,783. They did this to illustrate the shadiness of sources. But go on and believe that it is only in the double-digits b/c conserva-blog told you so.

 

[local 12 proud]

Thanks for the Iraeli site. No wonder you are all screwed up with "facts" when your sources are all blogs! Did it ever occur to you that blogs are not really totally fact? Where did the mystery Muslims come from? The Middle East? Oh...and they attacked their own lands? Hmmmm.... The people that make up Islam WERE FROM THE REGION ALREADY. Go find a blog to state that they actually came from Mars. Won't be the only thing coming from a planet b/c most of your posts are coming from Uranus.

And just to show your "accuracy" of facts, Time reported the Iraqi CIVILIAN death tolls as 655,000; 62,000; and 48,783. They did this to illustrate the shadiness of sources. But go on and believe that it is only in the double-digits b/c conserva-blog told you so.

Plenty more FACTS coming your way ch 12, dont forget to put those liberal blinders on.

 

[local 12 proud]

The Root Of The Problem

Please read the following paragraphs with the understanding that these words are unaltered words from the Qur’an. (The Qur’an was written in Arabic, but like the Holy Bible, has been translated into English with the most popular and purportedly the most accurate being the Yusuf Ali translation from which these passages are quoted). No editorial license has been taken here, nor has any emphasis been added. Lest you think that these passages have been taken out of context or altered in any way, I have included the Sura chapter and verse for each.

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors. 2:190

And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. 2:191

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and let there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. 2:193

Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not. 2:216

Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of Allah, - whether he is slain or gets victory – soon shall We give him a reward of great value. 4:74

Of the Unbelievers: "seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks." 4:89

Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home. 4:95

…"for the Unbelievers are open enemies to you." 4:101

For the Unbelievers, Allah has prepared a humiliating punishment. 4:102

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah anything but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger of Allah… Do not say "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: far exalted is He above having a son. 4:171

From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent to them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what they have done. 5:14

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God is Christ the son of Mary. 5:17

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them. 5:51

They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a trinity: for there is no God except one God Allah. If they do not desist from their word of blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. Christ the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. 5:72- 73, 5:75

Of the Jews: ‘When in their insolence they transgressed all prohibitions, We said to them: "Be you apes, despised and rejected."’ 7:166

"Many are the men We have made for Hell…" 7:179

Remember your Lord inspired the angels with the message: "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." 8:12

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah. Whatever you spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you and you shall not be treated unjustly. 8:60

O Messenger! Rouse the Believers among you to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish two thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are people without understanding. 8:65

…Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war…9:5

Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you to victory over them, heal the breasts of the Believers. 9:14

Fight those who do not believe in Allah … until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. 9:29

… Allah will send His punishment from Himself or by our hands. 9:52

Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them… He lets you fight in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, - He will never let their deeds be lost. 47:4

It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering of the forces. Little did you think that they would get out: and they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the wrath of Allah came to them from quarters from which they had little expected it, and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers. 59:2

That is because they resisted Allah and His Messenger: and if any one resists Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment. Whether you cut down O you Muslims the tender palm-trees, or if you left them standing on their roots, it was by leave of Allah, and in order that He might cover with shame the rebellious transgressors. 59:4,5

They will not fight you even together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls. Strong is their fighting spirit amongst themselves: you would think they are united, but their hearts are divided: that is because they are a people devoid of wisdom. 59:14

Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure. 61:4

This is but a small sampling of the hatred and violence that permeates this book. This book is the very foundation upon which this religion is founded. This just doesn’t wash with the ‘peace-loving people’ rhetoric but it does begin to explain the motivation and the actions we see on the TV and now in our own backyards.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

The Root Of The Problem

Please read the following paragraphs with the understanding that these words are unaltered words from the Qur’an. (The Qur’an was written in Arabic, but like the Holy Bible, has been translated into English with the most popular and purportedly the most accurate being the Yusuf Ali translation from which these passages are quoted). No editorial license has been taken here, nor has any emphasis been added. Lest you think that these passages have been taken out of context or altered in any way, I have included the Sura chapter and verse for each.
This is but a small sampling of the hatred and violence that permeates this book. This book is the very foundation upon which this religion is founded. This just doesn’t wash with the ‘peace-loving people’ rhetoric but it does begin to explain the motivation and the actions we see on the TV and now in our own backyards.

Whoever wrote that has an attitude, and probably egotistical at best. Oh well, it was written about whatever thousand years ago... and to this day, they believe, as we Christians & Jews do, that what we were taught is correct. I'm thinking it's time for an 'Upgrade' for all religious thinking... as if THAT will ever happen.... Maybe 700IAM would go over there for Conversion techniques???

 

[local 12 proud]

Thanks for the Iraeli site. No wonder you are all screwed up with "facts" when your sources are all blogs! Did it ever occur to you that blogs are not really totally fact? Where did the mystery Muslims come from? The Middle East? Oh...and they attacked their own lands? Hmmmm.... The people that make up Islam WERE FROM THE REGION ALREADY. Go find a blog to state that they actually came from Mars. Won't be the only thing coming from a planet b/c most of your posts are coming from Uranus.

And just to show your "accuracy" of facts, Time reported the Iraqi CIVILIAN death tolls as 655,000; 62,000; and 48,783. They did this to illustrate the shadiness of sources. But go on and believe that it is only in the double-digits b/c conserva-blog told you so.

Dhimwit of the Month Honors

dhim·mi (dm or zm) - A Qur'anic term that refers to a subjugated non-Muslim person living in a society dominated by Muslims. Second-class status is confirmed by the legal system and dhimmis do not share the rights of their Muslim rulers. (ex. of use: "Hey Jimmy, if you want to be a dhimmi, then you'd better learn how to shimmy.")

dhim·wit (dmwt ) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility or guile. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away their own freedom, if given the opportunity.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Dhimwits.htm

Hey Ch. 12 guess whos casting they're vote for you! 🙂

 

[Ch. 12]

The Root Of The Problem

Please read the following paragraphs with the understanding that these words are unaltered words from the Qur’an. (The Qur’an was written in Arabic, but like the Holy Bible, has been translated into English with the most popular and purportedly the most accurate being the Yusuf Ali translation from which these passages are quoted). No editorial license has been taken here, nor has any emphasis been added. Lest you think that these passages have been taken out of context or altered in any way, I have included the Sura chapter and verse for each.
This is but a small sampling of the hatred and violence that permeates this book. This book is the very foundation upon which this religion is founded. This just doesn’t wash with the ‘peace-loving people’ rhetoric but it does begin to explain the motivation and the actions we see on the TV and now in our own backyards.

Nice try Mr Hypocrite and blind to the big picture. Too bad Christianity is no better. Bet your blog didn't tell you that:

Ezekiel 25:17 — And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Genesis

Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8

God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17

God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4

God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23

God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10

Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." 16:6

Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8

God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24

Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26

God threatens to kill Abimelech and his people for believing Abe's lie. 20:3-7

Sarai tells Abraham to "cast out this bondwoman and her son." God commands him to "hearken unto her voice." So Abraham abandons Hagar and Ishmael, casting them out into the wilderness to die. 21:10-14

God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13

Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God. Only an evil God would ask a father to do that; only a bad father would be willing to do it. 22:10

Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is "defiled" by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive. 34:1-31

The sons of Jacob trick Shechem into getting circumcised. Then they murder him, his sons, and all the males of the city, while taking their wives captive. 34:24-29

"The terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them." 35:5

"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7

After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10

After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." 38:24

Joseph interprets the baker's dream. He says that the pharaoh will cut off the baker's head, and hang his headless body on a tree for the birds to eat. 40:19
Exodus

Moses murders an Egyptian after making sure that no one is looking. 2:11-12

God threatens to kill the Pharaoh's firstborn son. 4:23

God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26

God will make sure that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses, so that he can kill Egyptians with his armies. 7:4

"And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD." Who else could be so cruel and unjust? 7:5, 17

God tells Moses and Aaron to smite the river and turn it into blood. 7:17-24

The fifth plague: all cattle in Egypt die. 9:2-6

The sixth plague: boils and blains upon man and beast. 9:9-12

"For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth." Who else but the biblical god could be so cruel? 9:14

God kills all Egyptian cattle with hail. 9:19-20

The seventh plague is hail. "And the hail smote throughout the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast." 9:22-25

These verses clearly show that the mass murder of innocent children by God was premeditated. 11:4-6 (see 12:29-30)

God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." 11:7

God explains to Moses that he intends to "smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast. 12:12

After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." Finally, he runs out of little babies to kill, so he slaughters the firstborn cattle, too. 12:29

To commemorate the divine massacre of the Egyptian children, Moses instructs the Israelites to "sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix" -- all the males, that is. God has no use for dead, burnt female bodies. 13:2, 12, 15

After hardening Pharaoh's heart a few more times, God drowns Pharaoh's army in the sea 14:4-28

Moses and the people sing praises to their murderous god. 15:1-19

"The Lord is a man of war." Indeed, judging from his acts in the Old Testament, he is a vicious warlike monster. 15:3

God's right hand dashes people in pieces. 15:6

If you do what God says, he won't send his diseases on you (like he did to the Egyptians). But otherwise.... 15:26

Joshua, with God's approval, kills the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword." 17:13

"The Lord has sworn [God swears!] that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." 17:14-16

Any person or animal that touches Mt. Sinai shall be stoned to death or "shot through." 19:12-13

Like the great and powerful Wizard of Oz, nobody can see God and live. 19:21

God gives instructions for killing and burning animals. He says that if we will make such "burnt offerings," he will bless us for it. What kind of mind would be pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals? 20:24

A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. 21:15, 17

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 21:24-25

If an ox gores someone, "then the ox shall surely be stoned." 21:28

If an ox gores someone due to the negligence of its owner, then "the ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall be put to death.". 21:29

If an ox gores a slave, the owner of the ox must pay the owner of the slave 30 shekels of silver, and "the ox shall be stoned." 21:32

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18

"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." Is it really necessary to kill such people? Couldn't we just send them to counseling or something? 22:19

"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20

If you make God angry enough, he will kill you and your family with his own sword. 22:24

"The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me." (As a burnt offering?) 22:29

God promises to "send his fear before the Israelites" and to kill everyone that they encounter when they enter the promised land. 23:27

Moses has some animals killed and their dead bodies burned for God. Then he sprinkles their blood on the altar and on the people. This makes God happy. 24:5-8

Get some animals, kill them, chop up their bodies, wave body parts in the air, burn the carcasses, and sprinkle the blood all around -- in precisely the way God tells you. It may well make you sick, but it makes God feel good. 29:11-37

 

[local 12 proud]

Nice try Mr Hypocrite and blind to the big picture. Too bad Christianity is no better.

I knew you would try and compare the Islamic teachings to that of Christianity, your not the first. You have just proved your Ignorance between the teachings of a False prophet who was a mad man, pedophile, rapist, terrorist, sodomite, murderer, thief (Muhammad) and the teachings of the Savior of mankind who condemmed all those things (Jesus)

Where are todays examples of christians or any other Religion for that matter other than Islam that is murdering tens of thousands in the name of Thier God?

It is you who are not only blind, but extremely Ignorant as well to the BIG Picture.

Violence in the Bible and the Qur'an
A Christian Perspective

After the events of September 11th, the issue of violence and religion has once again come into intense discussions and debate. As soon as Christians and others of good will condemn the Islamic justification and foundation for resorting to violence in the name of God—justifications found both in the Qur'an and the life of prophet Muhammad—we are quickly told that the Bible (especially the Old Testament scriptures) and Christian history are also filled with violence and that we should not single out Islam or the Qur'an in this regard.

For example, Fareed Zakaria, in his report in Newsweek, entitled "Why they hate us: The roots of Islamic rage—and what we can do about it" writes, "The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for ‘true Islam’ or quoting the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern pictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind. Through its long history, Christianity has supported inquisitions and anti-Semitism, but also human rights and social welfare."

How can Christians respond to such counter-charges? Are Christians and their scriptures no different than Muslim terrorists and others who use violence in the name of God to destroy their enemies? What can we say in light of our own dark Church history and also graphic passages found in portions of the Old Testament that do not seem to cast any better light on the roots and actions of our own faith tradition? The following are some of my reflections on these questions. Time does not allow me to develop each point fully, but I hope that they can be of some help and bring some clarification to these issues.

As Christians we must be very emphatic that Christians have and continue to do many shameful things in the name of Christ, BUT the issue is this: Christians who use violence in the name of God to destroy their enemies have no justification for their actions from Jesus Christ, his life and teachings as found in the New Testament. Whereas, Muslims who are engaged in violence and destruction of anyone who opposes Islam, have ample justification for their actions from the Qur'an and the life and sayings of prophet Muhammad. It is beyond the scope of this paper to quote verses and passages from the Qur'an, the Hadith and biographies of prophet Muhammad (the reader can refer to other articles on this web site, e.g. in the sections Muhammad and his enemies or Islam & Terrorism), but suffice it to say that it is beyond doubt that the prophet of Islam did encourage the killing and intimidation of his enemies, not just in self defense as it is commonly reported by Muslims, but in the promotion of the cause of God and the spread of Islam. Needless to say, the actions of the prophet were in direct contradiction to the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ and his disciples. So the point is not that Christians have never resorted to violence and other horrible atrocities. They have indeed committed many horrible acts, but when they have done this, they have betrayed the very person that they claim to follow. But when Muslims commit such acts, they can in fact claim that they are following the example of their prophet and thus fulfilling the will of God and promoting His cause. That, certainly, is a big difference!

When we turn our attention to the Old Testamet and look at passages that are found in the book of Joshua regarding the extermination of the Canaanites living in the land, we can still notice a dramatic difference in those passages and the events in the early history of Islam. The primary theme in those accounts is the issue of God's holiness. Even hundreds of years before the invasion of Canaan, God had told Abraham that the sins of the people living in the land had not reached its limit, but when the inhabitants had defiled the land to its limit, the land was going to "throw them up." In fact, God later warned the nation of Israel to be careful in not repeating the sins of the previous people, otherwise the land was going to throw them up too. So we see that God is using Israel as an instrument of His justice to purge the land of its sinfulness and later in history God used other nations like the Assyrians and the Babylonians as His instruments to cleanse the land by destroying the people of Israel for their sinfulness.
However, when one reads the early accounts of prophet Muhammad's raids and wars, not only one sees no mention of the theme of divine holiness and its opposition to sin, but the primary motivations that one constantly encounters are the looting of the enemies and the obtaining of booty and the spoils of war or the relief and pleasures of Paradise or conquering the enemies and spreading the rule of the prophet. I am not just repeating an old stereotypical charge against Islam. I have just finished reading the most ancient Muslim biography of prophet Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic era (translated by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955). I truly encourage all Muslims and non-Muslims to read this book to see for themselves the violence in the actions of prophet Muhammad and his early followers.


Another important point that we need to keep in mind is the fact that the divine command for the destruction of the few cities of Canaan, was for a specific people, a specific time and place and a specific purpose. Nowhere in the later Old Testament period do we see God commanding the nation of Israel to go and attack other pagan nations, either as self-defense or as a way to promote faith in the true God of heaven and earth. However, in the Qur'an, we encounter general commands to kill and destroy the enemies of Islam that are applicable for all times and places and people groups. It is beyond dispute that from the earliest times, right after the death of the prophet, Muslim splinter groups began fighting, killing and assassinating even each other, in the name of God. The history of Islam, down to the present day is filled with the appeals of various Muslims to ever-applicable Qur'anic passages to destroy and kill their enemies.

I would like to conclude this brief article by using a popular Islamic analogy. Muslims generally believe that since Islam is the final great monotheistic religion, it is superior in every respect to Judaism and Christianity. Living in the Middle East and growing up in a Muslim country, we were always told that Judaism was like elementary school, Christianity was like high school and Islam is like university. Each religion was from God, but each one became progressively higher and better. Now the question that we must ask is this, how can Islam claim to have a superior ethics to the New Testament, and yet resort back to the use and justification of violence, elements that were supposedly part of the early Jewish tradition? It seems that Islam not only has not improved on the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament in regard to the use of force, but that in fact Islam has gone back many steps in this regard.
I hope that the above comments have been helpful in clarifying some of the issues that we are facing these days regarding the use of violence in the Qur'an and the Bible. As Christians, we must not forget that the lens through which we must look at everything in life and even the Bible is the cross of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, it is the cross that defines for us who God is, what is He like and the means by which He is redeeming the world.

 

[local 12 proud]

Stand and Fight, or Cut and Run: You Decide

http://www.islam-watch.org/AmilImani/IraqCut&Run.htm

 

[delldude]

Had Bill Clinton invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, the Left would have cheered their throats raw, praising him as one of history’s greatest liberators. The rhetoric about Iraq isn’t about justice, or the Iraqi people, or even about the horrors of war. And it certainly isn’t about the welfare of our troops (there are few things more disgusting to a soldier than a campus coward speaking on his behalf). The great, unforgivable insult to the Left is that conservatives took the idea of liberation seriously and acted, while the Liberal-Arts faculty merely chattered about it (one thinks of the scene in that greatest of American films, Animal House, when a bewildered white student cries, “The negroes took our dates!â€￾).

 

[delldude]

Interesting read-Lib's will love this:

 

[KCFlyer]

Had Bill Clinton invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, the Left would have cheered their throats raw, praising him as one of history’s greatest liberators.

On the other hand, had Clinton invaded Iraq, the right would have been saying it was a "diversionary tactic" to get Ken Starr off his back, and he would have been ridden out of town on a rail for taking the US into a "sensless war". I wonder what the stance of most on the Iraq war would be if you left your policital party out of the equation, and debated the war on it's merits alone.

 

[Garfield1966]

Had Bill Clinton invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, the Left would have cheered their throats raw, praising him as one of history’s greatest liberators. The rhetoric about Iraq isn’t about justice, or the Iraqi people, or even about the horrors of war. And it certainly isn’t about the welfare of our troops (there are few things more disgusting to a soldier than a campus coward speaking on his behalf). The great, unforgivable insult to the Left is that conservatives took the idea of liberation seriously and acted, while the Liberal-Arts faculty merely chattered about it (one thinks of the scene in that greatest of American films, Animal House, when a bewildered white student cries, “The negroes took our dates!â€).

And if pigs could fly .. blah blah blah. Clinton did not invade for much the same reason Bush I did not. There was no support to remove Sadam from power. Bush I and Clinton were wise enough to listen to counsel and not go off half cocked with no plan. W had a hard on for Sadam from day one. Listened to only the intel and people who supported his goal and went in. Now, we are neck deep in crap in a country where there is no hope of success. There is a huge difference about exploring the idea of and wishing for the removal of a head of state verses actually going in and doing it. Most realized that while it might be a nice idea to have Sadam out of the picture, it was not going to be successful if done my military force.


How you can say that no dems care about the welfare of the troops is truly asinine. Are you trying to tell me that there are no dems in the military? I was not aware there were any surveys among the troops to indicate part affiliation. Do you have any references to support your thesis or is this just another off the top of your head statement? There are high ranking retired officers saying that this is a cluster f%^k. I do not ever recall hearing statements like that during previous conflicts. I am here to tell you as a liberal that every time I hear of another soldier being killed in Iraq it makes me sad. Sad to know that parent just lost their son, that children may have just lost their dad, a wife may have just lost her husband. I can see no reason why they should have had to make that sacrifice fighting in a nation that by all accounts was not and is not a threat.

Yea, we are so sad you ‘took or idea’. We thought about but realized it would not work. W was not that bright. Yea, I’m all broken up that you invaded Iraq and have this monkey on your back. There is not a survey out there that shows a majority of the country supports the invasion and occupation. There is a clear majority who think we need to get out. Why let the people will dictate policy when W is doing “gods workâ€. What a joke.

 

[Flying Titan]

Had Bill Clinton invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, the Left would have cheered their throats raw, praising him as one of history’s greatest liberators. The rhetoric about Iraq isn’t about justice, or the Iraqi people, or even about the horrors of war. And it certainly isn’t about the welfare of our troops (there are few things more disgusting to a soldier than a campus coward speaking on his behalf). The great, unforgivable insult to the Left is that conservatives took the idea of liberation seriously and acted, while the Liberal-Arts faculty merely chattered about it (one thinks of the scene in that greatest of American films, Animal House, when a bewildered white student cries, “The negroes took our dates!â€￾).

Where do you come up with this garbage??? Since you're clearly no "lib" what makes you arrogant enough to think you have the first clue what Clinton would have done or how anyone (other than you) would have reacted? FACT: Clinton didn't invade Iraq. FACT: W did, and it was under completely false pretenses - you know - WMD, 9/11 connection, imminent threat to the US, blah, blah, blah. All the while, he has let Al Qaeda off the hook by devoting a half-assed amount of resources and attention to the war in Afghanistan - which is where we SHOULD be fighting the terrorits!

Stunning how you seem to completely manage to avoid the facts, while deluding youself with more and more mindless Clinton bashing.

 

[Seatacus]

Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

Under Clinton's charge we did go into Bosnia and Kosovo. Places that were of no threat to us and ignored by much of Western Europe. I believe many Americans were supportive of Clinton's efforts. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Garfield1966]

As far as I can tell you are correct. My argument is I believe your emphasis is on the wrong part. I am not upset that we are in Iraq because they are not a threat. I am upset that we are in Iraq because it is a country that we are hated by and that we had no hope of attaining our stated goals (pick on, he changed then several times). The US was not vilified in Kosovo. Pepole were being murdered left and right (just as in Iraq) but we were not considered to be satan as we were in the Middle East. In Kosovo, one could argue that we made a positive difference with minimal loss of life. The intent was good (as it may have been in Iraq) and the likely hood of success or something close was likely (not the case in Iraq). Another difference would be the support issue as you stated. In Kosovo, international support was not needed (not sure if there was any or not) for the mission to be successful. In Iraq, with out international support, it was doomed to be a failure (which it is IMO). Given the nature of the Middle East I would think that given the fact we are a prime target of their hatred, we would want a broad coalition of support before going in so that the hatred/blame could be spread out. We failed to get any support. OK the UK and Australia I think.

As far as I remember, the stated reason Clinton went into Kosovo was to stop the genocide. There was no pretense made of spreading democracy, or saving the world from some perceived threat or finding weapons that ended up not being there. Is was and still is to stop the genocide. There was minimal loss of life as I recall as well.
In my opinion, we as a nation have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help them selves where there is a like hood of success. If there is a world threat such as WWII, we have an obligation (as does the rest of the world) to throw everything including the kitchen sink into the effort. As far as I am concerned, it has been proven to my satisfaction that Iraq was not and is not a threat. To argue that fighting "terrorism" is the same as fighting Iraq I think is wrong. Terrorism is a concept. It is not something you can point to and say "there is terrorism". It exists world wide. It does not wear a uniform. It is not native to one local. It is all over. Being a civilized nation, we cannot and should not go in and carpet bomb a city or nation because we believe the leader or the country harbors those who we believe are terrorists. We must be better then that.

Kosovo IMO was not Iraq. Not even close. One can argue whether or not we should have gone in, but on any level: loss of life, likely hood of success … they are not even close.