Political Crossfire Forums

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: Maybe it's YOU who doesn't "seem" to know what the hell other's think. Give up the psychic job, you suck at it.

Rude aren't we? Maybe someone should hit a midol.

I have little time for PMS jobs, so unless you want to actually talk about something constructive I suggest you go somewhere else.

Quote: Try to stay focused and quit with the mindreading act, will ya?

You said it, it didn't make sense, I pointed that out, you dodge by trying to act like you can "read minds" and assign a false position to me.

Again, I'm sorry that someone else decided to piss you off on the wrong day. Maybe you should take a break from PCF if you can't handle your emotions when it comes to words passed around on a forum.

Now that we have established that you love to act like a little girl on the internet, let's move on.

Quote: Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

You act as if Darfur is the buck where the meaning of genocide stops. If you systematically kill 1,000 Shia because they are who they are does that not count as a type of genocide? Or do many more have to die for merely being born a certain way before others may act on their behalf?

You blow off past discrimination and violence by stating that "it happened decades ago."

Does that make you feel better?

Like I said, violence then, violence now.

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21295 Location: Chicago

Heinz wrote: Quote: Maybe it's YOU who doesn't "seem" to know what the hell other's think. Give up the psychic job, you suck at it.

Rude aren't we? Maybe someone should hit a midol.

I have little time for PMS jobs, so unless you want to actually talk about something constructive I suggest you go somewhere else.

No, not rude at all. People who can't discuss the topic and have to focus on the poster like you, with strawmen and ad homenim (the above is additional demonstration) do it because they have nothing of value to add.

The person who has nothing constructive to add is you. Ad homenim is your way of "winning" something I suppose...... Do you think my argument would have any sort of substance if I started questioning your prostate or lack of bowel movements?

LOL

Quote: Quote: Try to stay focused and quit with the mindreading act, will ya?

You said it, it didn't make sense, I pointed that out, you dodge by trying to act like you can "read minds" and assign a false position to me.

Again, I'm sorry that someone else decided to piss you off on the wrong day. Maybe you should take a break from PCF if you can't handle your emotions when it comes to words passed around on a forum.

Emotions? :rotf:

You're funny. You just can't stand being called for what you are, can you? This is the only way you know how to respond to having the truth about you exposed....

--shaking my head.--

Quote: Now that we have established that you love to act like a little girl on the internet, let's move on.

Pointing out all you have are strawmen and all you can do is focus on the poster is "acting like a little girl" to you?

Didn't know ad homimen and strawmen are "grown up"..... :lol:

Quote: Quote: Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.

You act as if Darfur is the buck where the meaning of genocide stops. If you systematically kill 1,000 Shia because they are who they are does that not count as a type of genocide? Or do many more have to die for merely being born a certain way before others may act on their behalf?

You act as if Iraq was like Darfur in 2003 with your "genocide" comments. There was no violence in Iraq when we attacked. Genocide is violence. There was no genocide when we attacked.

Your words
Quote: It's easy to not have competition when you "are killing them via genocide.

Quote: You blow off past discrimination and violence by stating that "it happened decades ago."

No, I don't blow it off....it was important to point out because it renders your statement untrue. I realize that genocide a decade or more (I never said "decades") means violence didn't happen in a decade or more. You were trying to claim the genocide that is happening is why there was no violence in Iraq in 2003. That's simply not true.

Quote: Does that make you feel better?

I felt great all along. You did give me a good chuckle though.

Quote: Like I said, violence then, violence now.

Violence a decade or more....no violence for a decade or more....lots of violence now.....

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: No, not rude at all. People who can't discuss the topic and have to focus on the poster like you, with strawmen and ad homenim (the above is additional demonstration) do it because they have nothing of value to add.

You said I suck at something is that not an ad homenim?

I thought we were talking about civil war in Iraq not me.....

Discussing the poster are we?

Quote: The person who has nothing constructive to add is you. Ad homenim is your way of "winning" something I suppose......

Is that why you made this a personal issue? It's a forum, not life.

Quote: You're funny. You just can't stand being called for what you are, can you? This is the only way you know how to respond to having the truth about you exposed....

shaking my head.

Again with more ad hominem.....Care to explain why you display such a hypocritical stance? I thought we were talking about Iraqi civil war. To bad you can't practice any of what you preach.

Quote: Pointing out all you have are strawmen and all you can do is focus on the poster is "acting like a little girl" to you?

Didn't know ad homimen and strawmen are "grown up".....

They aren't, that's why you're a little girl. Let the adults have real conversations.

Quote: You act as if Iraq was like Darfur in 2003 with your "genocide" comments. There was no violence in Iraq when we attacked. Genocide is violence. There was no genocide when we attacked.

No I didn't. I know more people have died in Darfur than in Saddam Iraq. But you seem to think that a certain number of people must die before you consider it genocide. You were the only one who compared it to Darfur.

Quote: No, I don't blow it off....it was important to point out because it renders your statement untrue.

No it doesn't. To you 400,000 must die before it is considered genocide. Sad but true. Killing others in attmpt to destroy them for any reason is genocide, no matter if you don't supercede 400,00.

Quote: I realize that genocide a decade or more (I never said "decades") means violence didn't happen in a decade or more. You were trying to claim the genocide that is happening is why there was no violence in Iraq in 2003.

Did I say genocide happened up until 2003?......Strawmen at it's finest.

Learn to read. If you know you may get killed for being anti-Saddam and Shia the past genocides have served their purpose if you keep quiet.

Quote: Violence a decade or more....no violence for a decade or more....lots of violence now.....

Wrong...hit a history book. You excuse past violence because it was "decades" ago.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

:!oops: can you guys get a room! :roll:

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

lovebush wrote: :!oops: can you guys get a room! :roll:

With all due respect, I was trying to talk about the subject matter of the thread....

I guess she had other ideas.

The American · Joined: 23 Oct 2004 Posts: 3636 Location: Oklahoma

Heinz wrote: Quote: How is it different? One person or group exploiting another person or group?

Who's exploiting another group? They're technically "exploiting" eachother.

No one group has power over the other. They're both taking pop-shots at their respective groups.

Quote: Basically, the concept is the same.

Only in YOUR mind.

Quote: Concept = ideology. Two concepts are at war today. Conform to Radical Islam or die? They kill their own race. That my friend is the only difference.

You also forgot the fact that it is driven by religion. Slavery in America was not driven by religion. Slavery being ended in the US has nothing to do with Islam, The Middle-East or present Iraq.

Are they exploiting each other? I think the struggle is over religion. And, domination. Religion was not behind slavery in America no, anyone with a history book knows, however, it is still a concept defeated. One group is obstructionist by a vote put in power by the people of Iraq. Giving both equality would be nonsense. It is but a small percent of the population that retaliates. What is respective about "fit throwing over an election"? Nothing is respectable about that. One group exploiting another.

The civil war you see in Iraq boils down to the fight against democracy. It may be religiously backed, but it's base is they same. Slavery in the U.S does not have anything to do with Iraq, but the fight against a concept, unless the seeds of democracy are not protected until it is strong enough to stand on its own. If democracy fails, you are more than likely to see domination and destruction on a level not imaginable.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: Are they exploiting each other? I think the struggle is over religion.

It is...that's why I put exploited in quotations.

Quote: Religion was not behind slavery in America no, anyone with a history book knows, however, it is still a concept defeated.

....In the United States. The Middle-East is not the United States. Not only that, how long did it actually take to get rid of slavery completely in the US? Not mere years like you have suggested, because if that's the case what were all of those abolitionists against for so long?

Quote: One group is obstructionist by a vote put in power by the people of Iraq. Giving both equality would be nonsense. It is but a small percent of the population that retaliates. What is respective about "fit throwing over an election"? Nothing is respectable about that. One group exploiting another.

Sure the Sunnis may complain, but again, it is not slavery. It may head that way, but currently it is not. Both sides are fighting in order to avoid becoming a "slave" to the other.

Quote: The civil war you see in Iraq boils down to the fight against democracy.

It is the fight to restore Shia or Sunni dominance in Islam.

Both are against democracy as it tends to get in the way.

Quote: It may be religiously backed, but it's base is they same. Slavery in the U.S does not have anything to do with Iraq, but the fight against a concept, unless the seeds of democracy are not protected until it is strong enough to stand on its own.

Here's where we differ.....you see a small group of people in Iraq whom you believe cause all the trouble....I see a whole country hell bent on religious fervor and past grievances committed by Saddam. The mission to make their respective sects the dominate force in Iraq far exceeds the need, or want, for democracy. Most of those who fight in their government aren't fighting for democracy, as you believe..

They don't want democracy.....they want the world.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 18288

I see barely human beings who doused six worshippers as they left their mosque and burned them alive as "payback."

Sands · Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Posts: 882

Lumina wrote: I see barely human beings who doused six worshippers as they left their mosque and burned them alive as "payback."
Don't forget that while this was happening there were US trained Iraqi soldiers standing by watching and doing nothing.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Sands wrote: Lumina wrote: I see barely human beings who doused six worshippers as they left their mosque and burned them alive as "payback."
Don't forget that while this was happening there were US trained Iraqi soldiers standing by watching and doing nothing.

Like I said.....

Democracy is the last thing on their minds.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 18288

Heinz wrote: Sands wrote: Lumina wrote: I see barely human beings who doused six worshippers as they left their mosque and burned them alive as "payback."
Don't forget that while this was happening there were US trained Iraqi soldiers standing by watching and doing nothing.

Like I said.....

Democracy is the last thing on their minds.

I hope and pray that you're wrong.

Savages.

The American · Joined: 23 Oct 2004 Posts: 3636 Location: Oklahoma

Heinz wrote: Quote: Are they exploiting each other? I think the struggle is over religion.

It is...that's why I put exploited in quotations.

Quote: Religion was not behind slavery in America no, anyone with a history book knows, however, it is still a concept defeated.

....In the United States. The Middle-East is not the United States. Not only that, how long did it actually take to get rid of slavery completely in the US? Not mere years like you have suggested, because if that's the case what were all of those abolitionists against for so long?

Quote: One group is obstructionist by a vote put in power by the people of Iraq. Giving both equality would be nonsense. It is but a small percent of the population that retaliates. What is respective about "fit throwing over an election"? Nothing is respectable about that. One group exploiting another.

Sure the Sunnis may complain, but again, it is not slavery. It may head that way, but currently it is not. Both sides are fighting in order to avoid becoming a "slave" to the other.

Quote: The civil war you see in Iraq boils down to the fight against democracy.

It is the fight to restore Shia or Sunni dominance in Islam.

Both are against democracy as it tends to get in the way.

Quote: It may be religiously backed, but it's base is they same. Slavery in the U.S does not have anything to do with Iraq, but the fight against a concept, unless the seeds of democracy are not protected until it is strong enough to stand on its own.

Here's where we differ.....you see a small group of people in Iraq whom you believe cause all the trouble....I see a whole country hell bent on religious fervor and past grievances committed by Saddam. The mission to make their respective sects the dominate force in Iraq far exceeds the need, or want, for democracy. Most of those who fight in their government aren't fighting for democracy, as you believe..

They don't want democracy.....they want the world.

You have forgotten one major detail in your arguments.

Iraq's Constitution. You are wrong again. They do not want the world. They want peace. Iraq's Constitution was voted in unanimously by the people for the people. Why do you think law officials are a major target? Those who fight against the system are in violation of it. Citizens who violate their countries Constitutions are in danger of imprisonment or being sued. Some violations include the death penalty in some countries.

Majority of Iraq has spoken through elections resulting in a Constitution. The issue is black and white. Those who kick against the system are in violation of said countries law. So be it.

Translated in English

Quote: Full Text of Iraqi Constitution

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html

:wink:

Enjoy.

Trig.

*** Working link established ***

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: You have forgotten one major detail in your arguments.

Iraq's Constitution. You are wrong again. They do not want the world. They want peace.

Sure..........Where?

Quote: Iraq's Constitution was voted in unanimously by the people for the people. Why do you think law officials are a major target? Those who fight against the system are in violation of it. Citizens who violate their countries Constitutions are in danger of imprisonment or being sued.

Their Constitution is a joke....

Those who practice Judaism can't do anything in Iraq except maybe breathe, and they still may have to pay to do that. It disproportionately split up the oil profits, and oil reserves in favor of the Shia. Shall i go on?

The Shia are seizing the moment.

Quote: Majority of Iraq has spoken through elections resulting in a Constitution. The issue is black and white. Those who kick against the system are in violation of said countries law. So be it.

And they're all Sunni because? It couldn't be because Shia hates Sunni? If rule of law is the order of the day, why do six Shia cops watch their fellow Muslims burn some Sunnis? I would think burning people out of religious spite would be a crime in Iraq. After 30 years of taking crap from Saddam the Shia can fight back against the Sunni, and they have been put in the government making their actions somehow legitimate.

Carpe Diem.

Nathan · Joined: 13 Nov 2006 Posts: 46 Location: Florida

A full-scale civil war may soon begin in Iraq. Yesterday, suspected Sunni insurgents killed 215 in Baghdad. To make matters worse, the three car bombs that killed over 200 people, were most likely planted by Al-Qaeda. Today, Shiites responded by burning alive six Sunnis with kerosene. Despite the presence of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi security forces, thousands of Iraqis have died near Baghdad this year. Nearby Iraqi solders failed to intervene. With the widespread disapproval of the war from nations around the world, the low support of the Iraq War in the polls, the president's terrible approval ratings, rising tensions and violence in Iraq, the threat of Iran and North Korea as nuclear powers, and the Republican defeats in the midterm elections; President Bush must change American policy in Iraq soon.

The United States must either follow John McCain's recommendation to increase troop levels, or follow the suggestions of prominent Democrats to pull out in a planned time table. The Rubicon has been crossed in Iraq and indecision will only result in the deaths of more Americans and Iraqis. Is victory still achievable in Iraq? I do not know if anything resembling victory is attainable; however, we must choose the lesser of two evils. Either choice is appealing. Should Americans pull out or strengthen troop levels? Staying the course has only resulted in a worsening political situation. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must come together and make tough choices. Time is running out.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 18288

Heinz wrote:
Their Constitution is a joke....

I don't think it is. Not at all, and I happen to know one of the Americans who helped draft it.

It may not be the constitution that pleases you, but if you aren't an Iraqi, you don't get a vote.

Kilo Tango · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 9388 Location: D.C.

Swampfox.f wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: Swampfox.f wrote: Tono wrote: Swampfox.f wrote: Why is it that incompetent politicians don't have to sacrifice their financial lives for their mistakes?

Would that include all who voted for the war, or just those who acted on those votes?

All who voted for it with the exception of those who voted just for the war in Afghanistan and not Iraq. The Iraq Liberation Act was a policy statement calling for regime change in Iraq that was passed unanimously in the senate and signed into law by Clinton.

While not even a stones throw away from how we got there I agree that these MIC puppets like Clinton need to be locked up and thrown away. They never act in the best interest of this country moreso they act in the best interest of their wallets.

Our foreign interevention and nation building will destroy us while the corporations and wealthy citizens will remain. It is a shame that our government is merely a vessle for the elite. Fair enough. At least you're not hypocritical in your blame. I can respect that.

Kilo Tango · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 9388 Location: D.C.

Nathan wrote: A full-scale civil war may soon begin in Iraq. Yesterday, suspected Sunni insurgents killed 215 in Baghdad. To make matters worse, the three car bombs that killed over 200 people, were most likely planted by Al-Qaeda. Today, Shiites responded by burning alive six Sunnis with kerosene. Despite the presence of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi security forces, thousands of Iraqis have died near Baghdad this year. Nearby Iraqi solders failed to intervene. With the widespread disapproval of the war from nations around the world, the low support of the Iraq War in the polls, the president's terrible approval ratings, rising tensions and violence in Iraq, the threat of Iran and North Korea as nuclear powers, and the Republican defeats in the midterm elections; President Bush must change American policy in Iraq soon.

The United States must either follow John McCain's recommendation to increase troop levels, or follow the suggestions of prominent Democrats to pull out in a planned time table. The Rubicon has been crossed in Iraq and indecision will only result in the deaths of more Americans and Iraqis. Is victory still achievable in Iraq? I do not know if anything resembling victory is attainable; however, we must choose the lesser of two evils. Either choice is appealing. Should Americans pull out or strengthen troop levels? Staying the course has only resulted in a worsening political situation. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must come together and make tough choices. Time is running out. I agree with the McCain thing; however, I think there's another plan of action that won't be adopted and isn't being discussed, but I think is viable. Well there's two things I think we could still do in addition to a max influx of troops.

One: redeploy inside Iraq to fortified positions in the north with the Kurds and to all other "friendly" areas of Iraq and provide the Iraqi military with air support. Let them take it all on and if they fail we break the country into pieces.

Two: we disavow the wishes of the current government and destroy the two shiite militias with maximum force while forcing the Iraqi military to isolate and disarm the sunnis. After the militias are destroyed we dissolve the government and call a do-over on elections. I think most Iraqis are ok with their constitution, but they would need a new elected govt.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Lumina wrote: Heinz wrote:
Their Constitution is a joke....

I don't think it is. Not at all, and I happen to know one of the Americans who helped draft it.

It may not be the constitution that pleases you, but if you aren't an Iraqi, you don't get a vote.

It's a joke....even if you're an Iraqi.

Chingu · Joined: 03 Apr 2004 Posts: 9676 Location: Illinois

Trajan wrote: Heinz wrote: Trajan wrote: How many Sunnis died from Shia action before the Bush adventure?

Quite a lot actually if you're referring to the overall struggle between the 2 sects.

In Iraq? Not so much.

But then again, Hitler never had a "Jewish" problem.

Hard for Shias to kill others in Iraq if they are being "ecthnically cleansed."

Not interested in what the two sects do outside of Iraq. Only in what took place before the Bush adventure in Iraq.
And how Goodwin of you.................

Well, what happened before was the Sunnis were killing the Shiite. Now they are both killing each other.

Let me let you in on a little secret. It takes a lot of brain function - so squeeze your eyes shut tight so as not to become distracted:

not all of these people that are dying are people we would necessarily want alive. I am sure quite a few are, but not all. In some cases, bad guys are taking out other bad guys. In other cases terrible guys are killing folks randomly. In yet other cases, good guys are taking out bad guys - perhpas not in the manner chablis sipping folks can feel good about. Well, then, nor can I.

I'm just going to put up a number and see if anyone can guess what that number represents: And the number is 19,000. Anyone want to take a stab at what that number represents?

I'll toss another number out there: And the number is 51,112.

or how about this one: 6,000 approximate.

Or, 50,000 approximate.

These are important numbers related to this subject.

I'll allow some guesses and then I will tell you what they represent after a while to lend a proper sense of perspective.

You see, on this sight and around the country and the world a lot of people confuse casualty numbers with results of conflict. They confuse violence with outcome. They confuse tactic with mission. They confuse objective with status and so on and so on.

There is only one direction to go here folks. One direction. This isn't Vietnam - never was. This is far more meaningful in the long term than Vietnam was or ever could have been. This is more in line with the Impirial desires of the Soviets or the general rise of communism/marxism and the evils that it perpetrated around the world. This is more in line with the Imperialitic/militaristic Japanese desires. This is more in line with the fight to prevent Nazi fascism from taking over the world. Vietnam was part of a larger war. This is the larger war. It may be just the beginning. It is surely just the beginning if we pull back now and allow the enemy the ability to regroup and find a way forward. It is not necessarily the beginning if we continue to press and fight and defeat them at every turn. What is unfortuante is that so many are willing to give so little and sacrafice the future for a moment more of stability and reletive harmony in their personal lives. It is disheartening to see the selfishness and arrogance of those who would ssacrafice tomorrow for today so easily.

Is it blindness? Is it ignorance? Or is it greed and arrogance? Perhpas a combination of all.

I'll say again - just as I have said on here before: The Japanese prior to our involvement in WW2 were a dramatically different culture. They were at war with the Chinese and the Philipinos and others. They were brutally masacaring them, raping their wemon, enslaving their civilians, burning them alive, torturing them in unspeakable ways and to unspeakable numbers of otherwise innocent folks. They were trained against their will often to commit suicide rather than to live in loss and humiliation. There were those who said then that the Japanese could never be defeated - could never be converted - were savages and terrible and everything some of you folks are saying about the Iraqi's

I think the results of WW2 speak for themselves regarding both the Japanese and the Germans.

The largest difference between those conflicts and this one is that in this case - in the case of Iraq and the war on terror -we are taking exceptional and unprecidented caution in avoiding civilian death and harm. In other conflicts we have used tactics of absolute annihilation until the enemy was so weakened, disheartened and broken that they had no real recourse other than absolute surrender. We could use that tactic today. We could any time we wanted to. but we are being remarkably restrained because we want the solution to come from within more than from abroad because we want a lasting peace and not a tenuous one based on occupation and re-engineering of an entire culture like we did in Japan where we went in and cleansed Japan in the aftermath of WW2 from all things having to do with the war from their perspective. We basically re-wrote their entire history for them from our perspective - and it worked because they had no viable alternative.

So, there is no reason to believe that what we are doing today is failing or that it cannot work. These are the ideas of the gloom and doom crowd of academic thinks who cogitate in theoretics rather than in reality. The reality is that regardless of the bed things we are hearing all the time - the march of progress is unrelenting and the enemy knows that because they are living it.

It goes without saying that as long as the enemy has any hope of success, they will continue to fight. I fact, the more we win, the more desperate they will become. Wars and battles have a tendency to go like that. Some of the highest death tolls in wars come right before one side finally capitulates to the victors and lays down in defeat.

But, the detractors of this fight would hand to the enemy a potential voctory from the hands of defeat. They are doing their damndest to lend them all the moral support they need just through their rhetoric. The enemy feeds and relies on the liberal leftists and the knee0-jerk reactionary left's rhetoric hoping that the left will persuade the powers that be to withdraw so that they might not only live to fight another day - but live to fight and win.

Bonobo · Joined: 21 Aug 2006 Posts: 1168 Location: London

Lumina wrote: Heinz wrote: Sands wrote: Lumina wrote: I see barely human beings who doused six worshippers as they left their mosque and burned them alive as "payback."
Don't forget that while this was happening there were US trained Iraqi soldiers standing by watching and doing nothing.

Like I said.....

Democracy is the last thing on their minds.

I hope and pray that you're wrong.

Savages.

Ignorant posts like this from ignorant people sat a few thousand miles away genuinely anger me.

It is rare as I've had a few months experience debating online, but it is comments like this that are apparently genuine that really show the size of the problem the world faces today.

Again, such throw away comments are genuinely angering, and I can promise you if you met an orphan who is trying to get revenge for his parents deaths, 'savage' would be the last word on your mind.

I appreciate it is easy for Westerners to do, but when you go into a country with centuries of racial strife, and when you are told 'IF YOU CREATE A POWER VACUUM THERE WILL BE CIVIL WAR', when you go in, remove the power vacuum, and let all hell loose - that is the West's fault (at least the 'coallition').

How any other conclusion can be drawn I really don't know.