2000 DEAD

Oh..lol...they HAVEN'T been letting you get away with it...I only read the first two pages.

0 Replies

Iraqi Constitution creates a religious-political Islamic regime:

Constitution of Iraq

Quote:

The current constitution of Iraq was approved by an October 15, 2005 ratification vote. . . .

. . . Islam is the national religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws; however, freedom of religion is upheld. . . .

. . . The constitution is the highest law of the land. No law may be passed that contradicts the constitution, the undisputed laws of Islam, or the principles of democracy. . . .

The Iraqi Constitution: An exercise in hypocrisy. It establishes a religious-political Islamic regime ruled by the laws of Islam wherein the "democratic" majority may oppress women and minorities and others through the operation of the laws.

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM = OPERATION IRAQI OPPRESSION

See also: Iraq: a constitution to nowhere

Quote:

A Baghdad radio commentator recently asked an Iraqi caller whether he intended to vote in the 15 October referendum on the draft constitution for the country. The caller answered: “if I do, will I get some electricity?”

. . . The most important factor is that no one was present at the constitutional negotiations who was willing or able to defend the notion of a unitary Iraqi state with a strong centre, or even of a state where allegiance to the idea of Iraq took priority. As a result, the talks were dominated by sectarian elements who ate away at the core in order to strengthen themselves. . . .

Quote:

. . . In a dispatch that Reuters moved at 1:33 P.M. on Saturday (August 20), the headline reads, "U.S. concedes ground to Islamists on Iraqi law." "U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure," Reuters reported. "Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.

"But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam 'the,' not 'a,'main source of law -- changing current wording -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test. 'We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi'ites," he said. "It's shocking. It doesn't fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can't believe that's what the Americans really want or what the American people want.'"

Shocking, indeed. This is the Iraqi "freedom" that our soldiers are dying for? How stupid can we be? How stupid can Bush be? Bush has helped to create the very evil that his declaration on the war on terror was supposed to eliminate.

0 Replies

Once he brought freedom in, he lost control of the situation. Now they are free to don their chains once again.

0 Replies

2000 dead...shame on GWB...what a waste of young lives...and still some dont seem to get it!
Was it realy worth it? to invade a country supposedly to look for invisible weapons all without the backing of the UN...I just shake my head, and feel for the family's who have lost their loved ones.

0 Replies

No. It was not and is not worth the sacrifice to invade Iraq to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction. We didn't find any such weapons. Instead, Bush created something far more evil than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He created an American-installed safe religious-political haven for fundamental Islamic extremist cells to breed, fester, and to indoctrinate future generations jihadists who will continue to terrorize the world.

0 Replies

Years in the future:

Twin sisters, Jenna Bush and Barbara Bush will run on the Republican ticket for President and Vice-President under the political family dynasty platform, "We're here to continue the job our father and his father before him started: To bring PEACE and FREEDOM to the world (but we don't really want to be successful--we want to leave a big mess for our children--the future presidents--to promise to clean up too--and in the meantime, all our political family dynasty friends can continue to keep their hands in the public coffers which helps to finance the elections of future Bush progeny). GOD BLESS AMERICA (and all those useful idiots who follow the Republican Party leadership like sheep to the slaughterhouse)."

0 Replies

There is no question that what needs to be emphasized now is that the government our GI's are dying to install in Iraq is pro-Iran.

The Iraq intelligence service does not report to the Iraq government. It reports to the American forces.

This is beause we know that any information that is turned over to the Iraq government-the government we put in-will soon be in the hands of Iran.

If they are like this now, how will they be when we reduce the toop levels?

Remember, this Iraq government owes it's very existence to the US. This Iraq government cannot defend itself against insurgents, it requires all these US troops. Yet, with all this, it passes intelligence information to Iran, and falls all over itself about how great Ayatollah Khomeini was.

Our GI's are dying so that we can install a government in Iraq that will be closely allied with Iran-one of our worst enemies.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Let me ask you something... would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?

I would.

But you haven't sacrificed yourself. You're not in Iraq and you're not fighting for Iraqi freedom so that your children can be allowed to live free. You're one of those who applauds the cause so long as someone else is doing the dying.

I hope your logic in court isn't this retarded.

If my logic is "retarded," then tell us: Why HAVEN'T you sacrificed YOURSELF for Iraqi freedom? Why do you defend the deaths of our soldiers as a worthy cause when you're unwilling to place yourself in harm's way? Why do you say you would sacrifice yourself when your statement is obviously untrue?

Please enlighten the retards of the world with your amazing logic.

I cheer the capture of criminals, yet I am not a cop. I cheer when fire are put out, yet I am not a fireman. I cheer when an operation is successful, yet I am not a doctor. Why must I be in the military to support it? What kind of idiotic logic is that says a person can not support a cause without being a member?

Honestly? If you fail to see the idiocy of your above comments I pity your clients as they are not being serviced properly.

0 Replies

That would make more sense if the war were an operation to save a sick child instead of an abomination foisted upon the world by sick men.

If three firefighters are killed in a fire, do you send more in so that their deaths will have a purpose?

You suggest that it is good and noble that these warriors are sacrificed for freedom in Iraq. If it is good and noble, and yet you are unwilling to sacrifice yourself, what does that make you?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Let me ask you something... would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?

I would.

But you haven't sacrificed yourself. You're not in Iraq and you're not fighting for Iraqi freedom so that your children can be allowed to live free. You're one of those who applauds the cause so long as someone else is doing the dying.

I hope your logic in court isn't this retarded.

If my logic is "retarded," then tell us: Why HAVEN'T you sacrificed YOURSELF for Iraqi freedom? Why do you defend the deaths of our soldiers as a worthy cause when you're unwilling to place yourself in harm's way? Why do you say you would sacrifice yourself when your statement is obviously untrue?

Please enlighten the retards of the world with your amazing logic.

I cheer the capture of criminals, yet I am not a cop. I cheer when fire are put out, yet I am not a fireman. I cheer when an operation is successful, yet I am not a doctor. Why must I be in the military to support it? What kind of idiotic logic is that says a person can not support a cause without being a member?

Honestly? If you fail to see the idiocy of your above comments I pity your clients as they are not being serviced properly.

You said you would sacrifice yourself for the cause.

Now you're saying you just want to stand by the sidelines and cheer.

At least we're making progress in finding out where you really stand.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Let me ask you something... would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?

I would.

But you haven't sacrificed yourself. You're not in Iraq and you're not fighting for Iraqi freedom so that your children can be allowed to live free. You're one of those who applauds the cause so long as someone else is doing the dying.

I hope your logic in court isn't this retarded.

If my logic is "retarded," then tell us: Why HAVEN'T you sacrificed YOURSELF for Iraqi freedom? Why do you defend the deaths of our soldiers as a worthy cause when you're unwilling to place yourself in harm's way? Why do you say you would sacrifice yourself when your statement is obviously untrue?

Please enlighten the retards of the world with your amazing logic.

I cheer the capture of criminals, yet I am not a cop. I cheer when fire are put out, yet I am not a fireman. I cheer when an operation is successful, yet I am not a doctor. Why must I be in the military to support it? What kind of idiotic logic is that says a person can not support a cause without being a member?

Honestly? If you fail to see the idiocy of your above comments I pity your clients as they are not being serviced properly.

You said you would sacrifice yourself for the cause.

Now you're saying you just want to stand by the sidelines and cheer.

At least we're making progress in finding out where you really stand.

No that is not what I said. Go back and read what I said.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

That would make more sense if the war were an operation to save a sick child instead of an abomination foisted upon the world by sick men.

Get a grip.

DD wrote:

If three firefighters are killed in a fire, do you send more in so that their deaths will have a purpose?

You might send more in to put out the fire so more people aren't killed by it. BTW, the firefighters you send in are dedicated professionals who were not forced to join the fire department, and who knew when they did join that they might fight deadly fires, and that is precisely the reason they did join. And if a bystander cheers the efforts of the firemen as they fight the flames, would you turn to him and ask why he didn't join the fire department? Wouldn't it make as much sense for him to turn to you and ask why you didn't become a CPA?

The other option, of course, is to let the fire run its course. Is that your suggestion at this point?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Let me ask you something... would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?

I would.

But you haven't sacrificed yourself. You're not in Iraq and you're not fighting for Iraqi freedom so that your children can be allowed to live free. You're one of those who applauds the cause so long as someone else is doing the dying.

I hope your logic in court isn't this retarded.

If my logic is "retarded," then tell us: Why HAVEN'T you sacrificed YOURSELF for Iraqi freedom? Why do you defend the deaths of our soldiers as a worthy cause when you're unwilling to place yourself in harm's way? Why do you say you would sacrifice yourself when your statement is obviously untrue?

Please enlighten the retards of the world with your amazing logic.

I cheer the capture of criminals, yet I am not a cop. I cheer when fire are put out, yet I am not a fireman. I cheer when an operation is successful, yet I am not a doctor. Why must I be in the military to support it? What kind of idiotic logic is that says a person can not support a cause without being a member?

Honestly? If you fail to see the idiocy of your above comments I pity your clients as they are not being serviced properly.

You said you would sacrifice yourself for the cause.

Now you're saying you just want to stand by the sidelines and cheer.

At least we're making progress in finding out where you really stand.

No that is not what I said. Go back and read what I said.

I'm looking up and I see exactly what you said. You have moved from poignantly announcing that you WOULD sacrifice yourself for the cause to your new stance--standing on the sidelines to cheer while not actually having to sacrifice yourself to support the cause.

Your affirmative "I would" has turned into a lackluster "I won't" because someone else is doing it and you'll just support what they're doing. Smile

Easy to support so long as someone else is doing the dying.

0 Replies

Re: 2000 DEAD

Debra_Law wrote:

Why are we fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq when we don't even have it at home? We live under Bush dictatorship. Our President dictated that we were going to war and we went. We had no freedom of choice. Our soldiers are dying and there is nothing any of us can do to stop it.

I agree American liberty has been compromised by the war on Iraq and its ill-conceived intermingling with the so-called "war on terror". But your image of America as a Bush dictatorship lets your sheepish opposition off the hook too easily. If they hadn't failed to do their job, much of this wouldn't have happened.

Debra_Law wrote:

IF the Iraqi people want liberty from oppression, they need to fight for it for themselves and shed their own blood. If we attempt to buy it for them with American blood, it won't mean enough to them to maintain it when we're done dying for them. We need to hand over the reigns to the Iraqi people and allow them to earn freedom for themselves. That's the only way it will be meaningful to them.

I instinctively agreed with that when I read it. But writing from a country where freedom had been bought with American blood, and where freedom was meaningful enough to its people to maintain it after you left, I can't agree completely.

0 Replies

You are building a nice strawman Deb.

I said, in response to Cycloptihorns comments about the dead enjoying freedom, "would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?"

How does that correlate to my "announcing that you WOULD sacrifice yourself for the cause"?

If I were an Iraqi ( I am not), and my children were Iraqi (they are not) and I lived in Iraq (which I do not), I would do everything in my power, including dying, to insure their freedom.

Do you understand that?

0 Replies

Someone figured out that the day following the 2000nth dead American soldier, marked the 1500th day after Bush proclaimed he would find Osama "Dead or alive."

Where is he anyway? Iraq?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You are building a nice strawman Deb.

I said, in response to Cycloptihorns comments about the dead enjoying freedom, "would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?"

How does that correlate to my "announcing that you WOULD sacrifice yourself for the cause"?

Because you announced that you would sacrifice yourself for the cause:

[quote]Let me ask you something... would you sacrifice yourself so your children would be allowed to live free?

I would.[/quote]

BUT, you reneged on your announcement and declared that you would not sacrifice yourself for the cause, but you would cheer from the sidelines. Therefore, we are right back to where we began: If you think it's great that our AMERICAN soldiers are dying for Iraqi freedom, why aren't you willing to make the same sacrifice? You're merely one of those who applauds the cause so long as someone else is doing the dying.

McG wrote:

If I were an Iraqi ( I am not), and my children were Iraqi (they are not) and I lived in Iraq (which I do not), I would do everything in my power, including dying, to insure their freedom.

Do you understand that?

Yes. I understand. NOW you're saying IF you were an IRAQI, which you're not, THEN you would sacrifice yourself for Iraqi freedom. Likewise, IF our AMERICAN soldiers were IRAQI, which they're NOT, then would be okay for them to sacrifice themselves for Iraqi freedom.

So we're right back where we started: If you think it's great that our AMERICAN soldiers are dying for Iraqi freedom, why aren't you willing to make the same sacrifice? You're merely one of those who applauds the cause so long as someone else is doing the dying.

In summary: You said you WOULD sacrifice yourself for the cause; then you said it wasn't necessary to sacrifice yourself when you can cheer for the cause that other AMERICANS are dying for; and IF you were an Iraqi (instead of an American) THEN you would sacrifice yourself for the cause. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

The same GWB who did not go to Vietnam and did not complete his National Guard service but got paid for it.

Bush received an honorable discharge from the National Guard, and did constructive, honorable work after leaving.

0 Replies

Debra Law wrote:

U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 2000

This thread is about AMERICANS dying for "Iraqi Freedom."

kelticwizard wrote:

2000 GI's dead.

All to put a pro-Iran government in power in Iraq.

2000 Americans die to install an Iraq government that says what a great guy the Ayatollah Khomeini was.

Kelticwizard was also talking about 2000 AMERICANS dying--but not for freedom, but to put a pro-Iran government in power in Iraq.

McGentrix wrote:

So what price would you place on freedom for the Iraqi's? It seems that you value American lives more than Iraqi lives. Is that true? Do you belive that no American lives should be sacrificed for the freedom of others?

We already know that you value YOUR American life more than other American lives. The only way you would sacrifice YOURSELF for Iraqi freedom is if you were an Iraqi, which you're not (whew), but it's really not a big sacrifice (to you anyway, because you're alive and enjoying freedom) for OTHER Americans to die for a cause you like to cheer for from the safety of your American home. SO, if 2000 AMERICAN deaths are not enough, how many more American lives are YOU willing to sacrifice for Iraqi freedom so long as your American life isn't included in the total?

0 Replies

You don't understand what Freedom is, McG, if you think it is something that can be granted or put in by force.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know