The Free State we are creating

[Winnow]

No, what we're saying is that despite how fucking atrocious Saddam was, your rule is worse for a lot people.

It's not too good for people that don't want to give us oil. I can tell you that!!

If I was an Iraqi civilian, I'd send away for a few uniforms. I'd grab a 7/11 work shirt and maybe an ARCO gas station attendant jump suit and wear one of them at all times. It would give the American troops a sense of normalcy and put them at ease with less of an itchy trigger finger.

[Hoarmurath]

Sane minded folk have gotten to the point were they laud the merits of Saddam's dictatorship?

Nobody is doing this. Why do you even bother saying this? What we are doing is trying to show how some provisions of a draft constitution mentioned in the original post would be a step backwards for women's rights in Iraq.

The whole point of this argument is not how good women had it under Saddam's rule. Rather, the point is how some provisions of a certain draft of a constitution would remove women's rights to a point where many women could be worse off than they have been in the past.

[Adex_Xeda]

so you're saying you don't support the troops? what the fuck man. I'm not even going to talk to you if you don't support the troops. is that what you are saying? I will punch you right in the face if you don't support the troops. I won't even say anything just come right up and punch you square in the face. if you don't support the troops then I'm even going to waste my time arguing with you.

My observation was much milder than your exaggeration.

You guys look at some draft documents that reflect the culture of that area and state that the Iraqis were better off under a heavy handed dictatorship.

You guys said it. I don't have to exaggerate anything.

Perhaps you forgot the horrors of Iraqis having no freedom, and being brutally under the thumb of a madman.

I know one thing, the Iraqis haven't and they'll make sure that their yet to be voted on constitution sustains their newly won freedoms.

I don't question your patriotism, I question your memory and reasoning.

[miir]

Perhaps you forgot the horrors of Iraqis having no freedom, and being brutally under the thumb of a madman

Proof that propaganda still works.

[Zaelath]

"A thought arose in my mind when watching Saddam Hussein's preliminary session of his trial. He would win the elections of the Iraqi government if elections were held today." It was a conclusion that Osama Fatim came to after years of covering Arab issues for the Al Ahram newspaper in Cairo. The Egyptian journalist has written in English, French, and Arabic, attempting to explain the labyrinthine politics of the Middle East to the Western World.

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/cgi-bin/ ... ?20040802n

[Zaelath]

Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi reported recently that he had received an appeal for mercy from a "depressed and broken" Saddam Hussein. Allawi said Hussein claimed that he had been "working for the general good and ... didn't aim to harm."

Hussein's claim sounds outrageous when we consider how many people he bumped off during his career. But it is not inconceivable that he was telling the truth, and if he gets a fair trial, he just might be acquitted.

American experience demonstrates that Iraq is not an easy country to govern. Given Iraq's history and ethnic and religious divisions, any leader who is less willing than Hussein to kill large numbers of people may not be able to govern at all. The one thing worse for the average person than a government like Hussein's is the total absence of government.

Niccolo Machiavelli, writing 500 years ago, puts it to us bluntly: A leader, he says, "should care nothing for the accusation of cruelty so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal; by making a very few examples he can be more truly merciful than those who through too much tender-heartedness allow disorders to arise whence come killings and rapine."

There is no danger that Saddam Hussein will be convicted of tender-heartedness. But if he had not been overthrown, today's average Iraqi would be better off financially and enjoy more personal security.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-31.htm

[kyoukan]

My observation was much milder than your exaggeration.

haha, bullshit. you got called on your lame ass neocon ploy instead of trying to make a actual logical point and now you have egg on your face. wow, that's so new.

You guys look at some draft documents that reflect the culture of that area and state that the Iraqis were better off under a heavy handed dictatorship.

You guys said it. I don't have to exaggerate anything.

bullshit. what we are saying now is EXACTLY what we were saying back in 2003 on this very fucking forum when we said this illegal oil grab was a bad idea. Iraq was by far the most secular and progressive of the major arab nations, and Iraq was totally ungovernable by anyone not willing to bash heads together to keep people in line. you can go back that far and read them if you want. it amuses me that were saying the same thing now that we were saying 2 years ago, and now all of a sudden were just coming up with it? fucking hell you are a dumbass.

[Pherr the Dorf]

Until another strongman comes along who can, with force of will and military might, control that country the same way Saddam did, there will be no peace in Iraq, democracy doesn't work everywhere, sorry it just doesn't.

[Adex_Xeda]

Kyo,

I could say that Bill Clinton would be a great pick for the UN and you'd say I'm spouting a neocon one liner.

old labels, old words, disconnected and small effected

[Adex_Xeda]

You also selectively skirted my point.

Unlike Saddam's dictatorship, Iraqis now have the ability to select their constitutional rights.

That is a good thing, worth supporting.

[Nick]

So it's a good thing to support a situation whereby women have less rights than they did under SADDAM HUSSEIN, infinitely greater civil unrest, constant murder/crime and a weaker infrastructure than before?

Um...how?

(Cue Winnow with his fantastic "grasp on realitytm"

[kyoukan]

Kyo,

I could say that Bill Clinton would be a great pick for the UN and you'd say I'm spouting a neocon one liner.

point is moot. you're too much of a close minded idiot to say anything like that. yoru brainless talking point political opinions are so ingrained into your small mind that I bet you couldn't even say it as a joke.

[kyoukan]

You also selectively skirted my point.

Unlike Saddam's dictatorship, Iraqis now have the ability to select their constitutional rights.

That is a good thing, worth supporting.

yeah freedom means a lot when it is the freedom to oppress women and hate jews.

freedom also means a lot when you're fucking dead.

asshole.

[Adex_Xeda]

It's ok Kyo, I've gotten to the point where I separate your arguements from your name calling.

It's almost like the header on an email. You skim past it to get to the message.


The question is do you promote your moral code on to others, or do you promote freedom for others to pursue their own moral code? What if their pursuits in turn restrict freedom?


You almost have to push your moral code on others. Of course this western moral code is what chafes so many folk in the ME.

It's an interesting situation. It's also different because we are not Iraqi citizens.

Does a guy in North Korea have a right to push a law against adultery in America?


I suspect that such restrictive laws won't survive a vote.

[Nick]

Um....the USA led war forced democracy upon Iraq, there was no discussion with the population as to the preferred choices of freedom at the time of invasion.

[kyoukan]

yeah adex you just said a hell of a lot of jack shit in that last post. is the point in the thread where you start meandering already?

[Voronwë]

So Adex, are you arguing moral relativism?

[Adex_Xeda]

Um....the USA led war forced democracy upon Iraq, there was no discussion with the population as to the preferred choices of freedom at the time of invasion.

How would you, at the time produce such a discussion? Before invasion there was no empowered opinion outside of Saddam's opinion.

[Adex_Xeda]

So Adex, are you arguing moral relativism?

No, personally I support freedom as represented by my moral code.

In this case I'm simply thinking through the senario from a secular perspective. It's mighty hard to form a stance given conflicting yet equalized moral codes. I don't think it can be done.

I don't think you can be decisive without making a moral call and pushing it.

So what do you do? Do you go with group consensus for a moral code?

In Iraq, the majority moral code might be discrimination against women.
In the West the majority moral code is for gender equality.

What do you do? Where do you build your foundation?

[miir]

I don't get people spouting off like Iraq under Saddam was some sort of super-oppressed society where people had no freedoms or rights.

You could freely practice whatever religion you wanted without fear of prosecution. Women could walk the streets without wearing a burka and not fear being put to death. They could also get a job or an education.



The only real opression was that Iraqis did not have the freedom to vote Saddam out of office. The only way he could be removed was via a revolt/uprising. History shows that Saddam was astonishingly efficient in stoping those out.

[Nick]

The point I am making is that if there really was respect for other peoples freedom of choice, then by default the US/UK tards should never have been there and let them force a revolution themselves.

This was all done in the name of freedom, if freedom is restricted, it is (as was obvious from day 1) a gross mistake.

[Wulfran]

This was all done in the name of freedom, if freedom is restricted, it is (as was obvious from day 1) a gross mistake.

No, this was done in the name of stopping Saddam from building and giving terrorsits teh evil WMDs. Once evidence of that allegation was found to be lacking they started hedging their bets and saying it was about freedom.

I don't think you can be decisive without making a moral call and pushing it.

And this is where the quagmire begins again: if you, as a western outsider impose your version of a western morality on any part of the middle east, how different are you from the Crusaders who are still reviled throughout much of the middle east, and ultimately the major contributor of the theological part of the tensions in the region? A home grown leader (like Saddam Hussein) is not seen in the same light as an outsider, thus doesn't face the same resentments. And as has been stated above, Iraq has shown itself to need strongarm tactics to keep the various factions in line.

Lets be honest: the only reason the US (and the rest of us) had/have any aversion to Saddam is because he miscalculated and overreacted when the Kuwaitis produced oil from under his borders. Before that he was a "good guy" for fighting against a theocratic dictatorship that hated the West (Iran), who also was in the process of modernizing one of these backwards middle eastern countries. All this indignation about the Kurds and nerve gas didn't exist until Kuwait.

Now it has to be rebuilt, and we reap what has been sewn. It is either impose a western democracy and government on them, and be prepared for a decade+ of infighting that has to be policed, or admit that a huge mistake was made and let them install another dictatorship, while sliding back about 25-30 years on their social development. So far this "draft of a constitution" appears to be the first steps of the latter.

[Nick]

There was an element of sarcasm in the freedom relevance to my post Wulf.

[Dalmoth_IO]

From the link that was posted earlier from amensty international. If your looking to REALLY inform yourself about conditions in Iraq prior to March 2003 I think it will get rid of your notions that women in Iraq were in a better position than they are now. Frankly from what I've seen they are probably in the SAME position they were in before, but possibly have some hope once the violence stops to get back to the way things were when Saddam took power. The paper easily makes the case that women's rights (as well as overall human rights) deteroiated the longer he held power. It doesn't argue the reasons why, but simply states 3 or 4 major issues as to why the role of women in Iraqi soceity has deterorited over the last 2 decades.

Under the government of Saddam Hussain, women were subjected to gender-specific abuses, including rape and other forms of sexual violence, as political activists, relatives of activists or members of certain ethnic or religious groups. War and economic sanctions had a particular effect on women. They left women and households headed by women, many of them war widows, among the poorest sectors of the population. In the 1990s the mortality rate for pregnant women and mothers increased, and became one of the worst in the world for children under the age of five.

Pulling a few paragraphs together...

From the 1960s to the early 1980s, women in Iraq achieved significant progress in gaining access to education, to employment outside the home, and to social and welfare services. Women’s rights were newly enshrined in legislation, and women claimed a greater role in political and social activities.

The 1980s and 1990s, however, saw the gradual erosion of many of the gains made by women under the onslaught of massive and systematic human rights violations committed under the government of Saddam Hussain (1979-2003). During the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, women’s emancipation suffered setbacks primarily as a result of the overall deterioration in the human rights situation.

Following the 1990-91 Gulf war, the government consolidated its power through alliances with conservative religious leaders and powerful tribal chiefs. A process of Islamization in Iraqi society took place alongside a similar trend in the region at large. An obvious indication of this development was the growing number of women wearing the veil. The government appeared to foster this development, for example in its "campaign to enhance the [Islamic] faith" (al-hamlah al-imaniyyah).

The 13 years of UN-imposed economic sanctions jeopardized the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. The deprivation and hardship had a particular impact on women. In a climate of growing conservatism and social restrictions for women, the impact of two armed conflicts and over a decade of tough economic sanctions were devastating. Women who had been left to head households when male breadwinners were killed in war or forced to seek work abroad were at the same time discouraged from working outside the home and were even less in control of their lives and choices.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, women political activists in banned or unauthorized opposition political groups such as al-Da’wa Party or the Iraqi Communist Party, and women relatives of political and religious opponents of the government, were detained, sentenced to prison terms, tortured and killed.

As a result of the iran-iraq war, gulf war I and UN sanctions...

The number of female-headed households increased. Not only war widows but also women whose husbands had been imprisoned, executed or "disappeared", or had left home to find work abroad, had to cope with day-to-day privations, often for the first time on their own. Men who were left with severe disabilities had to be cared for by their families – a task that generally fell on the women of the family. The large number of women unable to marry or left destitute led to a rise in polygamous marriages.

According to a survey of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) published in November 2003, the number of women who died in pregnancy and childbirth almost tripled between 1989 and 2002.

One of the most important indicators used to measure the health situation in any country is the mortality rate of vulnerable groups. In the years before the Gulf war, the mortality rate for children under five years of age was on the decline. From 1990 and under the sanctions regime, child mortality rates went up dramatically. In March 2003 the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated that "one in eight children died before the age of five – one of the world’s worst mortality rates".(15) A UNICEF study of 1999 on child and maternal mortality found that between 1990 and 1998, 500,000 more children would have survived beyond their fifth birthday if the Iraqi government had continued to invest in its social sector.

For decades, violence in the family in Iraq has been under-reported. Most acts of violence in the home are carried out on women and girls by husbands, brothers, fathers or sons. The men are sometimes acting on the orders of family councils, gatherings of family or clan elders who decide the punishment for women deemed to have infringed traditional codes of honour. Tradition all too often serves as a pretext for acts of brutality against women for daring to choose how to lead their lives. An underlying cause of the violence, and closely bound up with it, is the discrimination that denies women equality with men in every area of life, including within the family.

Findings of a study in southern Iraq, conducted in July 2003 by the NGO, Physicians for Human Rights, concluded that about half of both the women and men surveyed agreed that a man has the right to beat his wife if she disobeys him.

Many women and young girls in Iraq are denied the right to choose their marriage partner freely, and those who oppose forced marriage are at risk of violence or even of being killed. The Asuda Centre reported that in 1999 a 13-year-old girl from the Rania region of northern Iraq was seeking their protection because she had repeatedly refused to be forcibly married.

Discrimination against women is banned in Iraq’s Constitution, but laws still contain provisions that deny women rights and control of their lives, or fail to protect them from violence.

The 1970 Constitution of Iraq says that "citizens are equal before the law without discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, language, social origin or religion" (Article 19). The Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) of March 2004 – effectively an interim constitution – states: "All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion or origin, and they are all equal before the law. Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited" (Article 12). However, the TAL contains no reference to the extensive legal reforms needed to remove discriminatory provisions from penal, personal status and nationality laws.

In Iraq from 2003 to date, the record has been mixed. While some important steps have been taken at the legislative level to increase women’s participation in political decision-making, an improvement in the security situation is an urgent and essential prerequisite for the improvement of the overall human rights situation and for strengthening women’s participation at all levels of Iraqi society.

Women for Women International commissioned a survey on women’s views, including on political, legal, social and economic matters, and on their living conditions. The survey was conducted in the governorates of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul in August 2004. Of the women surveyed:
· 93.7 per cent wanted to secure legal rights for women;
· 83.6 per cent wanted the right to vote in the referendum on the final constitution;
· 95.1 per cent felt there should be no restrictions on education.
On their living conditions, 57.1 per cent said that their families lacked adequate medical care, and 84 per cent of the women had no income from formal or informal work.(114)

I urge everyone to read the article for yourself, the quotes that I decided to pull out and use here really do little more than highlight how bad things really were. There is a lot more there to read.

[Kylere]

hah should have known, since we comment that something was better under him then we are obviously supporters of Saddam!

With us or against us! Let's roll!

Fascim seems to be okay to you, as long as it is supporting your beliefs, now I understand.

LOL you morons beleive that with us or against us thing, because it appears all of YOU seem to thiunk you should be designing THEIR constitution.

If the US tried to force a predominantly Islamic state to not base much of its policies on the Koran, there would be an actual Jihad. If they want to fuck it up for themselves so be it, but one thing you nitwits need to remember, when the US wrote its famed rules women, non whites and non christians were pretty much fucked more than this wording gives them.

The US started off with some BS rules and we have changed them, perhaps they need a starting point, but it is not my place as an American not an Iraqi to tell them.

[Zaelath]

I urge everyone to read the article for yourself, the quotes that I decided to pull out and use here really do little more than highlight how bad things really were. There is a lot more there to read.

How about you read the entire sentence in your first quote?

Certainly, women who were political activists are fairly likely to have an improved situation now v's under a brutal dictator.

That is no indicator of the "average Iraqi woman's" situation however.

It's just incredible that people will read things however they are already slanted. Hence Kylere was the one that posted the link in the first place, because he skim read a little and thought it bolstered his argument, but when pushed repeatedly to explain which part of it did fell silent.

[Zaelath]

If the US tried to force a predominantly Islamic state to not base much of its policies on the Koran, there would be an actual Jihad. If they want to fuck it up for themselves so be it, but one thing you nitwits need to remember, when the US wrote its famed rules women, non whites and non christians were pretty much fucked more than this wording gives them.

And yet somehow, women had rights in Iraqi before Saddam came to power, maintained and expanded them while he was in power, and now look set to lose them all and regress 50 years or so.

This of course has nothing to do with the US handing power to majority religious fundamentalists, and anyone who says differently is an american hating, terrorist loving, leftist nutjob. Damn their eyes.

[Cartalas]

am I still waiting on whether or not women can get a driver's liscense in the US?

All ready proved it but umm your to stupid to admit it.

[Kylere]

If the US tried to force a predominantly Islamic state to not base much of its policies on the Koran, there would be an actual Jihad. If they want to fuck it up for themselves so be it, but one thing you nitwits need to remember, when the US wrote its famed rules women, non whites and non christians were pretty much fucked more than this wording gives them.

And yet somehow, women had rights in Iraqi before Saddam came to power, maintained and expanded them while he was in power, and now look set to lose them all and regress 50 years or so.

This of course has nothing to do with the US handing power to majority religious fundamentalists, and anyone who says differently is an american hating, terrorist loving, leftist nutjob. Damn their eyes.

LOL you think christian fundamentalists want to give more power to Islam? LOL they lauched 4 crusades trying to slay them remember? If they had managed to kill anything other than Jews and Christians 3 times out of 4, maybe they would have even done it. The far right wing does not want a religious state in Iraq, such a state would make sending missionaries there harder for ever cult nut from Christianity to $cientology.

[Zaelath]

LOL you think christian fundamentalists want to give more power to Islam?

Yeah, umm, where did I say anything about crispies or their wants? Maybe you should do more reading and less laughing.

[Kylere]

This of course has nothing to do with the US handing power to majority religious fundamentalists, and anyone who says differently is an american hating, terrorist loving, leftist nutjob. Damn their eyes.

Yeah, umm, where did I say anything about crispies or their wants? Maybe you should do more reading and less laughing.

Umm question 2 meet statement 1

[Zaelath]

This of course has nothing to do with the US handing power to majority religious fundamentalists, and anyone who says differently is an american hating, terrorist loving, leftist nutjob. Damn their eyes.

Yeah, umm, where did I say anything about crispies or their wants? Maybe you should do more reading and less laughing.

Umm question 2 meet statement 1

That would be Iraqi religious fundamentalists, you know, the Shiites, which are a majority. Or do you think the crispies are the majority in the US now and I was expecting far too much assumed knowledge about a country that doesn't border the US?

[Kylere]

LOL believe what you must.

I need an insulting term for you far left nutbags that also works for the far right nutbags, hmm extemist idiots? unbalanced fucks?

Hmm will have to think on it, by the way, crispies is fucking lame, the right has far better names for the left than that.

[Zaelath]

Would help if I was actually far left.

You fancy yourself a moderate perhaps? Yet you are quite happy to be utterly sure of yourself based on government press releases, assumption and opinion pieces written by people who have no deep knowledge of the region.

Given how easy it is to find information that refutes your case published by experts in mideast affairs, I'm simply presenting it in the hope that you might adjust your view a little to reflect reality rather than the dogmatic world view that you're clutching onto like a life-line. Typically, anyone who isn't as far right as you is far left.

And you still haven't pointed directly to anything in that article you linked which supports your opinion, probably just a reflection of your shitty comprehension skills v's your l33t googling/headline reading skills.

Oh, and I know crispies is lame, but it's shorter than hypocritical cuntbags that claim to be Christians.

[Nick]

The average reaction to being called a dirty liberal/whatever:

"Oh noes a "good" insult by a right wing fascist extremist neocon whatever wills we do.

Maybe I should become a pro war sheep who enjoys the concept of an American Empire where no one is really actually free except the top 1% of the USA population (and some Saudi's!)

Now, after being called a pussy, it shows that my head is too weak to actually think for itself, by, oddly enough, going AGAINST the party line. This contradiction of logic is of course confusing to someone like me who does not bathe, but I guess if the guy who believes that abstinence is in fact going to work said it then I guess it must be true.

I am glad the rational argument by the educated conservative has shown me the light!

Now, wheres the nearest liberal so I can punch him for thinking differently, better yet, now that I am a neocon, I can just get a gun, and let my megalomanic tendencies wholely engulf me!

Thank you Jesus!!"

It's a pity that's not as eloquent or catchy as "pussy", but us "far left"s (What planet do you even live on Kylere? Please define far left btw) are known for only being just above the intelligence levels of neanderthal man (but still...slightly above the sheep )

[Dalmoth_IO]

I urge everyone to read the article for yourself, the quotes that I decided to pull out and use here really do little more than highlight how bad things really were. There is a lot more there to read.

How about you read the entire sentence in your first quote?

Certainly, women who were political activists are fairly likely to have an improved situation now v's under a brutal dictator.

That is no indicator of the "average Iraqi woman's" situation however.

How about reading beyond the first paragraph.

Does this sound better than pre-Saddam, I'm sure it affects a significant enough number to be worthy of notice.....

The number of female-headed households increased. Not only war widows but also women whose husbands had been imprisoned, executed or "disappeared", or had left home to find work abroad, had to cope with day-to-day privations, often for the first time on their own. Men who were left with severe disabilities had to be cared for by their families – a task that generally fell on the women of the family. The large number of women unable to marry or left destitute led to a rise in polygamous marriages.

Does this effect enough people to care about?
According to a survey of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) published in November 2003, the number of women who died in pregnancy and childbirth almost tripled between 1989 and 2002.

Is 12% of the population enough?
One of the most important indicators used to measure the health situation in any country is the mortality rate of vulnerable groups. In the years before the Gulf war, the mortality rate for children under five years of age was on the decline. From 1990 and under the sanctions regime, child mortality rates went up dramatically. In March 2003 the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated that "one in eight children died before the age of five – one of the world’s worst mortality rates".(15) A UNICEF study of 1999 on child and maternal mortality found that between 1990 and 1998, 500,000 more children would have survived beyond their fifth birthday if the Iraqi government had continued to invest in its social sector.


This is just fucked up here.
Findings of a study in southern Iraq, conducted in July 2003 by the NGO, Physicians for Human Rights, concluded that about half of both the women and men surveyed agreed that a man has the right to beat his wife if she disobeys him.

Does this not seem to support the point that women still are second class citizens, BY LAW?

Discrimination against women is banned in Iraq’s Constitution, but laws still contain provisions that deny women rights and control of their lives, or fail to protect them from violence.

The 1970 Constitution of Iraq says that ....

If anything after have read that article I couldn't tell any particular slant other than to say things were bad. My responsed to that, well duh. I don't think Anemsty International is in the buisness of giving the right in this country ammunition. Do not accuse me of failing to read something and then fail to do so yourself.

The proposal that the ORIGINAL post was concerning I believe is simply a hold over from previous laws that governed their society, for good or bad its not for us to judge. The only thing we SHOULD do at this point is provide enough stability for them to decide what they are going to do, and then leave them. Which if you listen to what their goverment is saying, is exactly what they are asking us to do.

[Dalmoth_IO]

The average reaction to being called a dirty liberal/whatever:

"Oh noes a "good" insult by a right wing fascist extremist neocon whatever wills we do.

Maybe I should become a pro war sheep who enjoys the concept of an American Empire where no one is really actually free except the top 1% of the USA population (and some Saudi's!)

Now, after being called a pussy, it shows that my head is too weak to actually think for itself, by, oddly enough, going AGAINST the party line. This contradiction of logic is of course confusing to someone like me who does not bathe, but I guess if the guy who believes that abstinence is in fact going to work said it then I guess it must be true.

I am glad the rational argument by the educated conservative has shown me the light!

Now, wheres the nearest liberal so I can punch him for thinking differently, better yet, now that I am a neocon, I can just get a gun, and let my megalomanic tendencies wholely engulf me!

Thank you Jesus!!"

It's a pity that's not as eloquent or catchy as "pussy", but us "far left"s (What planet do you even live on Kylere? Please define far left btw) are known for only being just above the intelligence levels of neanderthal man (but still...slightly above the sheep )

Actually I think the discourse would improve greatly if the name slinging ceased. Not everyone that disagrees with the left is a neocon, fundi, or crispie. And not every that disagrees with the right is, well you get the point. Tossing these types of labels tends to simply galvanize your adversary's thinking to the point that there will be no intellectual discourse. If you really want to make someone think and perhaps, then you have to respect them first.

[Nick]

I actually agree with that, I was trolling/mockery pokery.

[Kylere]

STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.



http://politicalhumor.about.com/library ... ssfire.htm

[Zaelath]

Does this effect enough people to care about?
According to a survey of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) published in November 2003, the number of women who died in pregnancy and childbirth almost tripled between 1989 and 2002.

This, and much of the other stuff you posted was directly linked to the sanctions that were placed on Iraq between Gulf Wars.

[Zaelath]

STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.

Stewart was talking about people like YOU Kylere; that regurgitate talking points without any real argument or research into the topic at hand.

[Kylere]

LOL nope he was talking about you and the rest of the left and right wing nutjobs, all convinced your way is the only way, unable to see balance and shades of grey, unable to step outside your ethnocentric little minds and look at the world from a global rather than a regional perspective.

[masteen]

I don't get people spouting off like Iraq under Saddam was some sort of super-oppressed society where people had no freedoms or rights.

You could freely practice whatever religion you wanted without fear of prosecution.

No, you couldn't. One of the factions (Sunni or Sheite) was not allowed to observe holy days. So fucking shennanigans on you!

[Zaelath]

LOL nope he was talking about you and the rest of the left and right wing nutjobs, all convinced your way is the only way, unable to see balance and shades of grey, unable to step outside your ethnocentric little minds and look at the world from a global rather than a regional perspective.

The difference between us in this debate? I'm not certain that the average Iraqi is better off now than before.

Which part of being so entrenched in your own opinion that you can't accept that you might not have been correct in your initial assessment makes you "able to see balance and shades of grey"

You're either just trolling me or fucking clueless. Either way, there's no point in continuing a 'debate' with you.

[Kylere]

No the point is that this thread talked about how horrible things were going to be from one section of one draft of a ducment that has not been selected, approved or had to face the electorate.

Not to mention which when there is more than one name on the ballot when they elect their next president will fix even more, add in the fact that if you judged the US Consitution by the standards you are judging this document by prior to most of the admendments you would have much larger concerns.

Quit trying to tell them how to plan a democracy. Hell the fact they can debate without being shot is a huge step up, but so many of you are blinded by your hatred of the administration ( one I did not vote for either, I just did not vote for his fellow c/d grade student Kerry) into actually beleiving that Iraqi freedom really existed before.

[Nick]

Yes, it's ok to bomb thousands of people to death in an illegal stupid fucking war but don't you dare bitch about their new retarded constitution.

[Kylere]

Yes, it's ok to bomb thousands of people to death in an illegal stupid fucking war but don't you dare bitch about their new retarded constitution.

2 wrongs do not make a right.

[kyoukan]

LOL nope he was talking about you and the rest of the left and right wing nutjobs, all convinced your way is the only way, unable to see balance and shades of grey, unable to step outside your ethnocentric little minds and look at the world from a global rather than a regional perspective.

it still cracks me up that you think you are some kind of politically enlightened thinking man when all you really is a poorly informed ignoramous so far to the right that you are off in space. do you really think that you're fooling anyone? are you even fooling yourself?

[Adex_Xeda]

It's nice to hear people's opinions but too often it slides into name calling.

It's almost like a debate tactic.

If you don't like what the other guy says, call him a bunch of names and that will somehow make your stance look better?

I guess its fun in a way to be real clever with your insults. But too much of it tends to drag things down.

A shame, you guys are my little pocket area of liberalism. Few of the people I work with or talk to day to day have your perspectives on things. I like to hear your take on day to day events.

Pealing back the grime to get to the core of the debate is a chore.

[nobody]

Pealing back the grime to get to the core of the debate is a chore.

aye