"Iraq will be democratic!" - Bush

[Seifen]

No, in 1950 china populaton was 600million with small christian population, today china population is twice as large yet christians are 20x more numerous in china today than 50 year ago in country that prohibit the religous speekings. so even in country that say religion is bad or not good, there can be religous people and growth of religion

so-freedom from religion an a sepertion of temple/church state is just mindless communist dreams of power, since as i showed many to you that christian 20x more numerous under china communist than in 1950 that freedom from religion not IT IS NOT TRUE it just words on a paper an people believe do what when they want an religion is most really be the downfall of oppressive in communist regimes.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Seifen
No, in 1950 china populaton was 600million with small christian population, today china population is twice as large yet christians are 20x more numerous in china today than 50 year ago in country that prohibit the religous speekings. so even in country that say religion is bad or not good, there can be religous people and growth of religion

so-freedom from religion an a sepertion of temple/church state is just mindless communist dreams of power, since as i showed many to you that christian 20x more numerous under china communist than in 1950 that freedom from religion not IT IS NOT TRUE it just words on a paper an people believe do what when they want an religion is most really be the downfall of oppressive in communist regimes.

I don't see what your point is. Yes, people will find a way to practice whatever religion they want if they really want to, but it's easier when the government doesn't oppress you for it. The jump from "Christians can exist even under an oppressive government." to "Freedom of religion is worthless." is kind of a large one.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: MC

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Are we really going to hold them to different standards than we hold ourselves?

No, but doesn't Iraqi people should decide for themselves?

No. Why would we do that? They have Allah. We have God. We have proven God is stronger than Allah. We should decide. But why on earth would we make them a democracy if we (the United States of America) cannot be a democracy?

Wow. That's all I can think of. I think the Crusades is the last image we should be conjuring at this point, and you've brought it to mind marvelously.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford Look at the beating the Boy Scouts are taking with public funding over their Christian only clause.

I'm just going to nitpick here a bit because I don't like the way the Boy Scouts as an organization keep getting protrayed. The Boy Scouts aren't a "Christian Only" group. They have excluded Homosexuals, but that certainly doesn't make them "Christian." And before you rebut with the wordings of the oaths, pledges, and such, just let me say this. I attended a National Boy Scout Jamboree and while there attended a Buddist "church" service. There were all sorts of "churches" represented in fact. I would agree that the Boy Scouts could be considered a "Christian" organization but it definately isn't a "Christian Only" one. I know, I know, semantics But as an Eagle Scout I don't like seeing the organization being misrepresented.

Now as for Iraq. I hope we do everything in our power to establish a structure in which their people can truely retain power. Democracy seems like the best logical choice. There will be power struggles but look at the US - there are struggles everycouple of years. I hope Bush is still around (ie re-elected) so he can help finish the work he set out to do.

CkG

 

[Vic]

Text

 

[conehead433]

"So U.S. gets to decide what kind of government IRAQ will be then??"

Years ago the U.S. made that same decision and chose Saddam Hussein to be Iraq's
government or it's leader. Whatever. Why? Because he could keep all the different
factions of IRAQ at bay, but more importantly he could wage war against IRAN, which
was the enemy of the U.S. at the time. And when Saddam used chemical weapons on
the Kurds on two different occasions Donald Rumsfeld was sitting across the table from
Saddam looking the other way because the Kurds were enemies of the Turks and we
wanted to keep the Turks as our allies and not get in the middle of any kind of dispute
involving the Kurds and IRAQ.

So the U.S. has now done a great thing in ridding IRAQ of it's creation- Hussein, who
admittedly was a very bad person. More importantly we are now in control of the oil flow
from IRAQ. If the U.S. was on a mission to stop atrocities against humanity we would be
working on regime changes for several African countries that have killed thousands of their
own people. Why would the U.S. bother, though, since they don't have any natural
resources that are wanted. So here we are again faced with a change in government in
IRAQ. If the U.S. had it's way the new leader would be a right wing Christian that met
it's approval. Not very likely the Iraqi people would choose such a person so the U.S.
must come up with a person of the Islamic faith who meets with it's approval. Of course
the U.S. could always get out and let the Iraqi's choose their own leader and type of
government. Not likely since the U.S. wants to be so much in control in the Middle East.

And here in the U.S we have a president who continually preaches about WMD and the
Axis Of Evil and why we have to attack this country and pretty soon that country. And you
watch the news and and every single channel covering the War is cheerleading about how
right it is and what a great thing it is that we have done. News flash- Regardless of what
you see on TV, the people of IRAQ don't give a rat's behind about the U.S. and they probably
never will.

So here's what you do the next time G.W. gets on the airwaves making his case to attack
whoever's next. Every time he says WMD you have to drink a beer and every time he says
nook-lar weapons you have to drink a shot of liquor. And whoever's standing last wins. Of
course if you're out of it maybe you won't notice so much if someone's dropping their bombs
on us. If they do though, you can bet that we will use all the WMD at our disposal against
them, considering we have more than all the other countries in the world put together. But
we can justify our possession of such in order to keep other countries from using theirs.

You can flame away now if you like, I won't be back. The truth is straight ahead, or for many
of you it's whatever our government and it's cheerleading press coverage want you to believe.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Thera
He also said he wanted church and state to be seperated in the new Irak. Interesting that he doesn't believe in that at home.

I get this picture of President Bush and his administration, all dressed in white wigs and colonial clothing, gathered around for the signing of the Declaration of Independance for the New Iraq. Imagine that...our president among New Iraq's founding fathers.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic
Text

lol

 

[Clauzii]

Excuse me, didn´t it actually start with OBL - or have I got something wrong here?
But he wasn´t found, erased, put for trial or blown the motherf..... away - was he?

So it seems that even though citizens in America are not in any DIRECT danger from
IRAQ, it is time for demolishing almost a whole country - a whole culture erased in 4 weeks -
just because OBL slipped the hands of Mr. Bush. (I know it´s simplified but anyway...)

´Well - know we have the material here anyway - lets play on...´

I actually think that Mr. Bush got what he came for: Riots, plundering, stealing etc. etc.

Caus´ what happens to a people having nothing: Bad watersupply, Hospitals gone
sick (!), empty museums, a LOT of civilians killed, a lot of materials destroyed, no police,
no military(!) etc. ????

´Yes, help us, help us...´, the people of IRAQ have to say ´Thank You!´ when all the big contractor companys are
ready to rebuild...... and getting all the Oil out of the IRAQis that way around.
It is SO easy to be manipulated if you haven´t got what you are used to have...

Go destroy - then WE build it up..... I could also have a shitload of cash if I lived life
that way.....

----------------------

Being evil always lead to being more evil always lead to being more and more evil.......

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Thera
He also said he wanted church and state to be seperated in the new Irak. Interesting that he doesn't believe in that at home.

I get this picture of President Bush and his administration, all dressed in white wigs and colonial clothing, gathered around for the signing of the Declaration of Independance for the New Iraq. Imagine that...our president among New Iraq's founding fathers.

The propaganda is strong in this one...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Clauzii
Excuse me, didn´t it actually start with OBL - or have I got something wrong here?
But he wasn´t found, erased, put for trial or blown the motherf..... away - was he?

So it seems that even though citizens in America are not in any DIRECT danger from
IRAQ, it is time for demolishing almost a whole country - a whole culture erased in 4 weeks -
just because OBL slipped the hands of Mr. Bush. (I know it´s simplified but anyway...)

´Well - know we have the material here anyway - lets play on...´

I actually think that Mr. Bush got what he came for: Riots, plundering, stealing etc. etc.

Caus´ what happens to a people having nothing: Bad watersupply, Hospitals gone
sick (!), empty museums, a LOT of civilians killed, a lot of materials destroyed, no police,
no military(!) etc. ????

´Yes, help us, help us...´, the people of IRAQ have to say ´Thank You!´ when all the big contractor companys are
ready to rebuild...... and getting all the Oil out of the IRAQis that way around.
It is SO easy to be manipulated if you haven´t got what you are used to have...

Go destroy - then WE build it up..... I could also have a shitload of cash if I lived life
that way.....

----------------------

Being evil always lead to being more evil always lead to being more and more evil.......

You wouldnt have a shitload of cash with that kind of logic, lol.

Key Points Adopted at Iraqi Conference

Key points adopted by Iraqi delegates at U.S.-sponsored conference in Baghdad:

Approved principles adopted at April 15 conference at Ur of ex-opposition leaders.


_ Thanked the U.S.-led forces for liberating Iraq (news - web sites).


_ Urged the coalition to accelerate efforts to restore security.


_ Said it wanted to move forward on government-building without outside interference.


_ Asked for the lifting of U.N. sanctions.


_ Asked for forgiveness of Iraq's international debt from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s rule.


_ Asked for waiving of further war reparations to Kuwait for 1990 invasion.


_ Called for convening a broad-based national conference within four weeks to form a transitional government.

conehead433
"News flash- Regardless of what
you see on TV, the people of IRAQ don't give a rat's behind about the U.S. and they probably
never will."

Then why was one of the first things their Iraqi led representatives did was FORMALLY THANK the US? These are the people chosen by the Iraqi's to present their views and opinions. Seems to me it would be logical to assume they have a little more insight into the overall feeling here, but I will count your opinion against that of the 27,000,000 Iraiqi's they were speaking on behalf of in the meeting and give yours the "proper" weight it deserves......

 

[Venix]

No, but doesn't Iraqi people should decide for themselves?

The last time I checked, the Iraqi people choosing their own government would fall under "democracy".

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Venix

No, but doesn't Iraqi people should decide for themselves?

The last time I checked, the Iraqi people choosing their own government would fall under "democracy".

Keep your facts and logic out of this....

Looks like they already are, if you don't pay attention it will be over before you know it, it's bad enough your whining about it not happening WHILE it is happening, it would be far worse to keep the bleating going after it was completely accomplished....

 

[Clauzii]

There was NO need to start a Oneway War in IRAQ.
Until now we have seen some VERY weak/None at all attempts of finding evidence of what it was all about: WMDs.

I do not believe that all this was about ´Freeing IRAQ´ or whatever pathetic excuse was used to start with.

This particulary ´war´ was only a matter of money & oil...

PS: With all the quoting, we are sure gonna read a lot..
------------------------------------------------
It is SO easy to be manipulated if you haven´t got what you are used to have...

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: Clauzii
There was NO need to start a Oneway War in IRAQ.
Until now we have seen some VERY weak/None at all attempts of finding evidence of what it was all about: WMDs.

I do not believe that all this was about ´Freeing IRAQ´ or whatever pathetic excuse was used to start with.

This particulary ´war´ was only a matter of money & oil...

PS: With all the quoting, we are sure gonna read a lot..
------------------------------------------------
It is SO easy to be manipulated if you haven´t got what you are used to have...

Do you think that the coalition soldiers, the ones who had to do the dirty work, fought for money & oil? I'm sure if you ask them they'll tell you they were freeing Iraq.

There are good agendas and bad agendas at work at the same time. Money and oil are an inevitable benefit from freeing the poeple of Iraq. If its a pathetic excuse to say its ONLY about freeing Iraq, than its a pathetic excuse to say its ONLY about money & oil. You can pick and choose your reasons for the US to liberate Iraq, but as for me I'll stick to the positive ones. And as for your "Oneway war", go tell that to the parents and families of the 165 coalition casualties.

 

[phillyTIM]

"Iraq will be democratic!" - Bush

?

Bush surely hasn't followed democratic government for the country he was elected to.

Why should he start now with Iraq?

Because Bush has declined the Iraqi's previous choices of leaders, Bush sure hasn't condoned democratic processes there.

Pretty sad.

 

[Alistar7]

Key points adopted by Iraqi delegates at U.S.-sponsored conference in Baghdad:

Approved principles adopted at April 15 conference at Ur of ex-opposition leaders.


_ Thanked the U.S.-led forces for liberating Iraq (news - web sites).


_ Urged the coalition to accelerate efforts to restore security.


_ Said it wanted to move forward on government-building without outside interference.


_ Asked for the lifting of U.N. sanctions.


_ Asked for forgiveness of Iraq's international debt from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s rule.


_ Asked for waiving of further war reparations to Kuwait for 1990 invasion.


_ Called for convening a broad-based national conference within four weeks to form a transitional government

Philly, they never chose Saddam, we did, keep it straight man.... ignore what has been put in motion above

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Philly, they never chose Saddam, we did, keep it straight man....

Well, hell then... let's just choose another Saddam.

That way this scenario can play out again in about 10 years and get Bush's friends all rebuilding contracts and such.

lol

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Philly, they never chose Saddam, we did, keep it straight man....

Well, hell then... let's just choose another Saddam.

That way this scenario can play out again in about 10 years and get Bush's friends all rebuilding contracts and such.

lol

Key points adopted by Iraqi delegates at U.S.-sponsored conference in Baghdad:

_ Said it wanted to move forward on government-building without outside interference.

_ Called for convening a broad-based national conference within four weeks to form a transitional government

This is the plan as created by the Iraqi people, not the US, their leaders picked by them. We have greatly accelerated our timetable to conform to their stated wishes.

 

[jhbball]

we're a democratic republic

 

[Clauzii]

As people and soldiers dies on both sides in a war, there can be no winner.
At least not if we think human anyway.

I called it a ´OneWay´ war because a war normally starts with One nation
attacking another on that nations properties which is NOT the case in IRAQ
at the moment! To clarify: ´Saddam will be removed from his power´ - G.W. Bush.

It would all have made (a tiny little!) more sence if it was Saddam in N.Y. -
but it wasn´t: USA was not under attack by Saddam (O.B.L. of course is
another story!!), so it MUST be a OneWay war.

The whole process with the UN would have been able to make a solution,
I think. The UN did find more in the 4 months, that had been found in the
past 12 years, so there COULD have been a peacefull solution. But it didn´t
seem like Bush was able to stay CALM and relaxed and continue discussions.

But hey - weapon production must continue........?
I wonder when the next Middle-East Weapons Salesmeeting will take place?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

´If all I can do is killing people, whom am I going to be with tomorrow? ´ - Clauzii

 

[Alistar7]

They have already begun holding meetings without ANY US people present. We were supposed to sit and watch their meeting today, but we left them alone.

 

[LunarRay]

Longshanks too had a weird sense of FREEDOM.... The English have a way with words....

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MC

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Are we really going to hold them to different standards than we hold ourselves?

No, but doesn't Iraqi people should decide for themselves?

Good gawd, the irony of this is astounding! How can a people decide for themselves unless they have a democratic process to do so?

 

[prometheusxls]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: MC

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Are we really going to hold them to different standards than we hold ourselves?

No, but doesn't Iraqi people should decide for themselves?

No. Why would we do that? They have Allah. We have God. We have proven God is stronger than Allah. We should decide. But why on earth would we make them a democracy if we (the United States of America) cannot be a democracy?

How exactly are we not a democracy? A democracy is a government ruled by the people either directly or through elected representatives, or in broader terms, a rule by the majority opinion. The US fits that description. But even if we don't fit that perfectly, we are still a hell of a lot more of a democracy than Iraq was. And, just call me crazy here, but if the Iraqi people are allowed to choose their form of government, isn't that democratic rule? And, again, call me crazy, but if given the choice, how many of them do you think will choose dictatorship over democracy? To put it another way, would you feel comfortable going to Iraq and telling the people in some village there, "Sorry, the US is evil so it wouldn't be right to support a democratic government in your country. We're just going to leave you at the mercy of whichever faction is the strongest. We don't want to interfere with your rights."

For those of you that don't think the US can set up a democracy, look at Japan. I'll admit we don't have the best track record, but Japan didn't turn out too bad, and we essentially wrote their constitution for them and created their new government after WWII. Iraq has a good base for a thriving economy from their oil, and if control of the country can be given to the people, they could do pretty well.

I don't know what sort of gov't they are going to try and setup in Iraq. The goal would be to devize a Gov't that will satisfy the adminsitration here, the American People, and the Iraqis. I don't know if such a gov't exists that would satisfy all these groups , I doubt it. And I am certain this Bush Administration will not be able to sort it out. A secular democracy with strong American influence would almost certainly fail. Take a look arround the region... How many secular constitutional democracies are there in the region? The last one was Iran...