rant

7mmag6 · 01-16-2006, 03:55 AM

Im sick and tired of Iraq, if we could force democracy down thier dam throats we could win. But the ba-stards will not let us, so let them howl at the moon at hajj, Im sick and tired of this crap. christ I sound like rufus, but enough is enough. they hated us before and they will hate us after we leave. either !!!!! or get off the pot. either blow thier dumb a-sses away or get out. Im tired off this crap. rant over

mr mom · 01-16-2006, 04:46 AM

i dont think your ranting !!! i have felt they should have turned that place into a glass parking lot from the beginning... like you said they hated us from the start and are going to hate us when we are done.. i think the us should pull out of all these little 2 rd world !!!! hole and let someone else worrie about them..

Rufus Rhastus J · 01-16-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7mmag6

Im sick and tired of Iraq, if we could force democracy down thier dam throats we could win. But the ba-stards will not let us, so let them howl at the moon at hajj, Im sick and tired of this crap. christ I sound like rufus, but enough is enough. they hated us before and they will hate us after we leave. either !!!!! or get off the pot. either blow thier dumb a-sses away or get out. Im tired off this crap. rant over

Thank you! I been sick of it since day one! I have been raveing for months, they are vile camel molesters! They are used to being ruled from camel back and that's just the way it is. If we can face it, i don't understand why bush is so darn stubborn about this. If we did, by some miricle, get them a kind of democratic government, it would all fall to pieces the minute our last plane flies off into the sun set. they are just plain scum and not worht fighting for. just give them the money for some oil and call it good. Isreal

will just have to let Mother Nature decide her fate.:ballons:

Dale · 01-16-2006, 12:22 PM

We need to get "our" arses outta there and get our boys and gals home ASAP.

In some fairness to our troops the liberal media is portraying the war in such a way as to say our troops are not appreciated by the majority of the Iraqi populus.

To some extent wit might be true but our troops must NOT be looked down on just because they are there.

FutureMarine · 01-16-2006, 01:52 PM

I'm sick of seeing America's finest being killed by faceless cowards who wipe their behind with their hand
What about Iran?
Syria?
Lets talk hypothetically. Johhny, Billy and Sam are in a sandbox, Billy hits Sam, but in return Sam hits Johnny.
Thats what this situation in Iraq is looking like

Outriderdark · 01-16-2006, 01:56 PM

As may have been noticed in other posts, I'm no fan of the administration or our policy in regards to Iraq.
But, as a "psuedo-scholar"

who spends alot of time reading and pondering crap, Does anyone else get the feeling that maybe the whole Iraq thing is to give us a permanent base of operations for Iran and then eventually Syria?
Perhaps just wishful thinking on my part.

FutureMarine · 01-16-2006, 01:59 PM

Thats only if we start taking force and driving these terrorists out of the country. If not, we could never be able to achieve peace and set up a military base
Why are we trying to achieve Democracy in a country that has never seen it?
Why are we trying to give Democracy to people who do not know it?

FutureMarine · 01-16-2006, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale

our troops must NOT be looked down on just because they are there.

Its just hard to believe that there are people looking down upon those who are putting their life on the line to protect this country. Maybe those people do not realize it, but our troops are protecting THEIR freedom too

troy2000 · 01-16-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

As may have been noticed in other posts, I'm no fan of the administration or our policy in regards to Iraq.
But, as a "psuedo-scholar"

who spends alot of time reading and pondering crap, Does anyone else get the feeling that maybe the whole Iraq thing is to give us a permanent base of operations for Iran and then eventually Syria?
Perhaps just wishful thinking on my part.

The American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think tank, has advocated direct military intervention in the Middle East for years, and more than two dozen of its current or former members are in the Bush Administration. Dick Cheney's wife is a Senior Fellow.

The AEI has always believed that if we could take over one Middle Eastern country and force American-style democracy down their throats it would infect the whole region, with our troops providing the needed extra little push to topple regimes all through the area, even including our allies like Egypt. Iraq was the favored place to start, because it was already on the outs with the U.N.

It's a simplistic viewpoint in my opinion, based on the false assumption that given their 'druthers all the people in the Middle East would turn against their local rulers and beliefs in favor of becoming imitation Americans, who would then love us to death and let us do anything we want.

troy2000 · 01-16-2006, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FutureMarine

Its just hard to believe that there are people looking down upon those who are putting their life on the line to protect this country. Maybe those people do not realize it, but our troops are protecting THEIR freedom too

...unlike during the Vietnam War. Matter of fact, speaking as a cynical old veteran I'd say the country has swung a little far the other way. I predict that in the near future it'll start swinging back toward the center, where folks in uniform are respected for doing a necessary job, but aren't necessarily little tin gods.

Here's a link to a poem by Rudyard Kipling you might enjoy, FutureMarine. It's called 'Tommy,' and addresses the fact that then as now, soldiers didn't always get respect until they were needed. Tommy Atkins was a term for the average British soldier back then, like G.I. Joe referred to the average American soldier during WWll. The term 'Widow's Uniform' was a reference to Queen Victoria.

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/wo...eXI/tommy.html

wirehunt · 01-16-2006, 03:42 PM

Thats not hard to beleive Troy, the US has been trying to get a foot hold in that area for a long time, lately they have been more direct about it though.

But why do they want in there so bad?

troy2000 · 01-16-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wirehunt

Thats not hard to beleive Troy, the US has been trying to get a foot hold in that area for a long time, lately they have been more direct about it though.

But why do they want in there so bad?

And it's a strategic crossroads for the entire Old World, both militarily and economically.

Also, never underestimate the mix of ideological fervor and missionary zeal. A lot of those people honestly believe we have a duty to spread our beliefs, our way of life, and our form of government around the world.

Outriderdark · 01-16-2006, 05:19 PM

I'd agree oil is a huge part of it. I also think energy is a pretty good reason. Resources are one of the primary justifications for conflict.
I think along with our western zeal, it's wise to look at middle eastern zeal. Alot of folks are afraid of Islam spreading into Europe (which it is doing). And afraid of fundamentalist dictators with missles.
One reason I think you're gonna start seeing Germany, France and others get on board with Iran and Syria is the fact that they will have missles capable of launching into Europe and the will to launch them.
Whoever takes over from Sharon will play an interesting part, I think, when it comes to Iran especially.
We might actually fare better in Iran than Iraq. Statistcally and anecdotally a large part of the under 40 folks in Iran can't wait till we get there. But that may be propaganda, too.
The whole thing is like an onion...lot's of layers. That's why there aren't any simple answers.

Outriderdark · 01-16-2006, 05:26 PM

FutureMarine...to answer your question of why we try to bring democracy in...we learned after a while that propping up dictators doesn't work. It invariably leads to revolt (or WE drop the ball and it leads to revolt, like with the Shah).
It makes more sense to develop democracies because we can manipulate a democracy while leaving the populace feeling like they made the decisions, and thereby avoiding revolt. That's the theory anyway.
I can't figure out why they're (or we're depending on how you look at it) always trying to set up direct democracies when representative democracies work so much better. Unless ballots are easier to manipulate with direct democracy....hmmmmm

Father Time · 01-16-2006, 08:11 PM

Strangely enough, a lot of older Iranians experienced some freedom and western ideas when the Shah was alive. It's the young who have turned reactionary and support the theocracy. There are apparently a lot of people in Iran who would like to go back, but the fundamentalists have a strong hold on them.

troy2000 · 01-16-2006, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Father Time

Strangely enough, a lot of older Iranians experienced some freedom and western ideas when the Shah was alive. It's the young who have turned reactionary and support the theocracy. There are apparently a lot of people in Iran who would like to go back, but the fundamentalists have a strong hold on them.

The ones who were young when the Ayatolla Khoumeini took over are the ones supporting the theocracy. From what I've read, the young ones now are as westernised as they can get away with being under the circumstances.

The trouble with the Iranian "democracy" is that the clerics still have the last word on everything, including who can run for office and veto power over anything the legislative or executive branches do. Kind of an extreme version of our Supreme Court, except that their reference of last resort is the word of God as interpreted by them, rather than a 200-year-old constitution.

wirehunt · 01-16-2006, 08:49 PM

You guys have the surpeme court, the poms have the queen, Iran has the clerics.
Hmmm I'm seeing a pattern.

Outriderdark · 01-16-2006, 08:53 PM

However, the Supreme Court is bound by a very short, relatively clear Constitution that can only (or is supposed to only) interpret existing law.
Not sure how her Majesty works it.

wirehunt · 01-16-2006, 08:58 PM

And thats the word that causes so much trouble "interpretation". In every country it causes probably the most trouble of the lot. And it's the word that has creatied the !!!! lawyer's.

troy2000 · 01-16-2006, 09:00 PM

I think every government needs someone who has the final word. But who says it, and what they base it on, makes all the difference.

01-16-2006, 03:55 AM	#1
7mmag6 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 337 Images: 1	rant Im sick and tired of Iraq, if we could force democracy down thier dam throats we could win. But the ba-stards will not let us, so let them howl at the moon at hajj, Im sick and tired of this crap. christ I sound like rufus, but enough is enough. they hated us before and they will hate us after we leave. either !!!!! or get off the pot. either blow thier dumb a-sses away or get out. Im tired off this crap. rant over

01-16-2006, 12:22 PM	#4
Dale Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Too Dang Hot, Arizona Posts: 4,284	We need to get "our" arses outta there and get our boys and gals home ASAP. In some fairness to our troops the liberal media is portraying the war in such a way as to say our troops are not appreciated by the majority of the Iraqi populus. To some extent wit might be true but our troops must NOT be looked down on just because they are there. __________________ "It confuses me how some people can vigorously go against the 2nd. Amendment and still call themselves patriotic"-me

01-16-2006, 01:56 PM	#6
Outriderdark Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,125	As may have been noticed in other posts, I'm no fan of the administration or our policy in regards to Iraq. But, as a "psuedo-scholar" who spends alot of time reading and pondering crap, Does anyone else get the feeling that maybe the whole Iraq thing is to give us a permanent base of operations for Iran and then eventually Syria? Perhaps just wishful thinking on my part. __________________ "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown outta windows?"-Archie Bunker

01-16-2006, 03:42 PM	#11
wirehunt Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Otago New Zealand Posts: 665	Thats not hard to beleive Troy, the US has been trying to get a foot hold in that area for a long time, lately they have been more direct about it though. But why do they want in there so bad? __________________ Happy Hunting

01-16-2006, 05:19 PM	#13
Outriderdark Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,125	I'd agree oil is a huge part of it. I also think energy is a pretty good reason. Resources are one of the primary justifications for conflict. I think along with our western zeal, it's wise to look at middle eastern zeal. Alot of folks are afraid of Islam spreading into Europe (which it is doing). And afraid of fundamentalist dictators with missles. One reason I think you're gonna start seeing Germany, France and others get on board with Iran and Syria is the fact that they will have missles capable of launching into Europe and the will to launch them. Whoever takes over from Sharon will play an interesting part, I think, when it comes to Iran especially. We might actually fare better in Iran than Iraq. Statistcally and anecdotally a large part of the under 40 folks in Iran can't wait till we get there. But that may be propaganda, too. The whole thing is like an onion...lot's of layers. That's why there aren't any simple answers. __________________ "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown outta windows?"-Archie Bunker Last edited by Outriderdark; 01-16-2006 at 05:30 PM.

01-16-2006, 04:46 AM	#2
mr mom Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 222	i dont think your ranting !!! i have felt they should have turned that place into a glass parking lot from the beginning... like you said they hated us from the start and are going to hate us when we are done.. i think the us should pull out of all these little 2 rd world !!!! hole and let someone else worrie about them..

01-16-2006, 01:52 PM	#5
FutureMarine Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: PRK Posts: 1,952	I'm sick of seeing America's finest being killed by faceless cowards who wipe their behind with their hand What about Iran? Syria? Lets talk hypothetically. Johhny, Billy and Sam are in a sandbox, Billy hits Sam, but in return Sam hits Johnny. Thats what this situation in Iraq is looking like

01-16-2006, 01:59 PM	#7
FutureMarine Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: PRK Posts: 1,952	Thats only if we start taking force and driving these terrorists out of the country. If not, we could never be able to achieve peace and set up a military base Why are we trying to achieve Democracy in a country that has never seen it? Why are we trying to give Democracy to people who do not know it?

01-16-2006, 05:26 PM	#14
Outriderdark Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,125	FutureMarine...to answer your question of why we try to bring democracy in...we learned after a while that propping up dictators doesn't work. It invariably leads to revolt (or WE drop the ball and it leads to revolt, like with the Shah). It makes more sense to develop democracies because we can manipulate a democracy while leaving the populace feeling like they made the decisions, and thereby avoiding revolt. That's the theory anyway. I can't figure out why they're (or we're depending on how you look at it) always trying to set up direct democracies when representative democracies work so much better. Unless ballots are easier to manipulate with direct democracy....hmmmmm __________________ "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown outta windows?"-Archie Bunker

01-16-2006, 08:11 PM	#15
Father Time Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 375 Images: 2	Strangely enough, a lot of older Iranians experienced some freedom and western ideas when the Shah was alive. It's the young who have turned reactionary and support the theocracy. There are apparently a lot of people in Iran who would like to go back, but the fundamentalists have a strong hold on them.

01-16-2006, 08:49 PM	#17
wirehunt Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Otago New Zealand Posts: 665	You guys have the surpeme court, the poms have the queen, Iran has the clerics. Hmmm I'm seeing a pattern. __________________ Happy Hunting

01-16-2006, 08:53 PM	#18
Outriderdark Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,125	However, the Supreme Court is bound by a very short, relatively clear Constitution that can only (or is supposed to only) interpret existing law. Not sure how her Majesty works it. __________________ "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown outta windows?"-Archie Bunker

01-16-2006, 08:58 PM	#19
wirehunt Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Otago New Zealand Posts: 665	And thats the word that causes so much trouble "interpretation". In every country it causes probably the most trouble of the lot. And it's the word that has creatied the !!!! lawyer's. __________________ Happy Hunting

01-16-2006, 09:00 PM	#20
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 10,017 Images: 9	I think every government needs someone who has the final word. But who says it, and what they base it on, makes all the difference.