If you hate Islam but supported Iraq......

We kicked Hitlers' German ass in WWII yet the Germans just elected another Hitler to take his place didn't they? What a waste it was all that "Nation Building" nonsense. You can see them goosestepping all over Europe now imposing their Military and Economic will on the whole continent.

Oh wait, wut?

So is your position that moderate Islam is a positive force that we should encourage?
 
1. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Islam is not going to disappear any more than Christianity is going to disappear.

2. No, you will never either convert every Muslim on the planet to Christianity nor will you kill every Muslim on the planet.

3. You have a choice between peaceful co-existence or perpetual war with the Islamic world. There are no other choices.
 
We kicked Hitlers' German ass in WWII yet the Germans just elected another Hitler to take his place didn't they? What a waste it was all that "Nation Building" nonsense. You can see them goosestepping all over Europe now imposing their Military and Economic will on the whole continent.

Oh wait, wut?
So is your position that moderate Islam is a positive force that we should encourage?
From the OP's post:
How do you reconcile the fact that you supported a war that relied largely on the notion that we could empower a moderate faction of a religion that you think is incapable of having a moderate faction?
The war was about regime change, not just to put moderates in charge. Did you not read the 9/11 Report? Moderates in charge or not, wouldn't you agree that Iraq is no threat to harbor terrorists or invade Kuwait anytime soon? It worked for Germany and Japan, it'll work for Iraq.

I know people against the war don't want to admit that but it's true.
 
1. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Islam is not going to disappear any more than Christianity is going to disappear.
2. No, you will never either convert every Muslim on the planet to Christianity nor will you kill every Muslim on the planet.
3. You have a choice between peaceful co-existence or perpetual war with the Islamic world. There are no other choices.
"Peaceful Co-existence" is a two way street you know. Don't fly jets into our buildings and we won't bomb your countries.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007
"After that went bust, it became about spreading democracy and our tactics for the overwhelming time we were there relied on creating a moderate Islamic state".

Well what would you rather have had? another government just like the one that was there?
 
A WillowTree post is like eating a delicious slice of irony pie a la mode!

you fucked up your question when you slapped the label "Islamophobes" onto the back of the query. See, most of us know how demonRats operate, they don't want so much to "know anything" or converse about anything" what they are looking for is a chance to paste some horrible label such as "racist" or "homophobe" or now for the newest "Islamophobe" onto their opponent. I look at a question like that followed by the accusation of "Islamophobe" and I then take a piss on it. Happy trails.

It would be like saying "Those fucking ******* are so racist!"
 
How do you reconcile the fact that you supported a war that relied largely on the notion that we could empower a moderate faction of a religion that you think is incapable of having a moderate faction?

Just curious. It's a question I have often asked warhawk Islamophobes and have never really gotten a good answer.

More succinctly: If you think Islam embraces an inherently evil doctrine that can not be refined, how could you support nation building in an Islamic country?

For those who opposed the war: If you are in favor of liberty and equal rights how do you square that with opposing regimes that suppress liberty and represent the epitome in oppression and favoritism? How can you support human rights in Darfur but not in Baghdad?

The Left are the biggest fucking hypocrites ever to walk the planet.
 
How do you reconcile the fact that you supported a war that relied largely on the notion that we could empower a moderate faction of a religion that you think is incapable of having a moderate faction?

Just curious. It's a question I have often asked warhawk Islamophobes and have never really gotten a good answer.

More succinctly: If you think Islam embraces an inherently evil doctrine that can not be refined, how could you support nation building in an Islamic country?

For those who opposed the war: If you are in favor of liberty and equal rights how do you square that with opposing regimes that suppress liberty and represent the epitome in oppression and favoritism? How can you support human rights in Darfur but not in Baghdad?

The Left are the biggest fucking hypocrites ever to walk the planet.

it's okay for pro-choice groups to bash christians for having the audacity to support all life, yet when it comes to islam's treatment of women....crickets...
 
Are you buying into rdean's conspiracy theory that we deliberately set up a theocracy in Iraq?

Even if that is true, religions are not the same as people, something most lefties have trouble understanding.

Are you sure that was MY theory?

Or was my theory that Bush thought he was bringing "democracy" to a corrupt secular regime because he "assumed" that he "knew how these people think" and he "assumed he knew what they wanted".

Only, they didn't want "American style democracy". The first chance they got, they adopted a constitution that makes "Islam" the "national religion" and declares all legislation to be based on Islam.

That is called "unintended consequences".

Now, how did we know it would happen? Because it happened in Iran. The only difference was the people threw off the US backed Shah. But it was the people who put together the existing government, which is how Iraq will eventually look. It's almost there now.

This is why it's bad to have a president that goes on "gut" feelings and thinks "education if for those liberal elitists". Generally, an educated person with "think things through".

But I don't think Windbutt purposely lies. Windbutt just goes on what it imagines.

May the Wind at your back always be your own.
 
Nation-Building has more to do with creating a better relationship with that nation you're rebuilding. It's no so much about all the other stuff people argue about when discussing Nation-Building. The U.S. will now have a better relationship with Iraq and Afghanistan. This means more money & power in the end. No one can argue that we don't have a closer relationship with Iraq & Afghanistan at this point. Personally i don't like Interventionism and Nation-Building but in these cases the goals have been achieved. It's not about Democracy or Islam. It's about now having a working relationship with these nations. Obviously this relationship didn't exist before these interventions. Lessons learned: If you're friendly with the U.S. you'll never have to worry about your nation being completely destroyed. If you want to be hostile and attack the U.S.,your nation's destruction could be imminent. It is what it is.
 
Nation-Building has more to do with creating a better relationship with that nation you're rebuilding. It's no so much about all the other stuff people argue about when discussing Nation-Building. The U.S. will now have a better relationship with Iraq and Afghanistan. This means more money & power in the end. No one can argue that we don't have a closer relationship with Iraq & Afghanistan at this point. Personally i don't like Interventionism and Nation-Building but in these cases the goals have been achieved. It's not about Democracy or Islam. It's about now having a working relationship with these nations. Obviously this relationship didn't exist before these interventions. Lessons learned: If you're friendly with the U.S. you'll never have to worry about your nation being completely destroyed. If you want to be hostile and attack the U.S.,your nation's destruction could be imminent. It is what it is.

A guy with a Ron Paul avatar is defending Nation-Building.

$IronyMeterSplode.jpg
 
Nation-Building has more to do with creating a better relationship with that nation you're rebuilding. It's no so much about all the other stuff people argue about when discussing Nation-Building. The U.S. will now have a better relationship with Iraq and Afghanistan. This means more money & power in the end. No one can argue that we don't have a closer relationship with Iraq & Afghanistan at this point. Personally i don't like Interventionism and Nation-Building but in these cases the goals have been achieved. It's not about Democracy or Islam. It's about now having a working relationship with these nations. Obviously this relationship didn't exist before these interventions. Lessons learned: If you're friendly with the U.S. you'll never have to worry about your nation being completely destroyed. If you want to be hostile and attack the U.S.,your nation's destruction could be imminent. It is what it is.

A guy with a Ron Paul avatar is defending Nation-Building.

View attachment 11290

I didn't say that. In fact i said the opposite. I was just pointing out reality. These interventions and Nation-Building efforts have very little to do with Democracy and Islam. Those are just distraction issues for the politicians & sheep to argue about. If they are radical Muslims but are friendly to the U.S.,we wont have any problems with them. However if they are hostile and encourage attacking the U.S.,we will have big problems with them. We really don't care all that much about what kind of Muslims rule Iraq & Afghanistan. I mean obviously we would like them to be moderate & democratic but that's not required.

We will have a better relationship with Iraq & Afghanistan then we had before the interventions. This is just fact. They wont be perfect Democracies and will continue to have radicals in their countries. But they will be friendly to the U.S. which means more money & power for everyone. The lesson really is that it's probably better to just be friendly with the U.S. rather then make us your enemy. Iran & North Korea do have something to worry about. They have made us their enemy. Probably not a wise decision on their part. I guess we'll see what happens to those two nations. Something is going to happen though.
 
Last edited:
How do you reconcile the fact that you supported a war that relied largely on the notion that we could empower a moderate faction of a religion that you think is incapable of having a moderate faction?

Just curious. It's a question I have often asked warhawk Islamophobes and have never really gotten a good answer.

More succinctly: If you think Islam embraces an inherently evil doctrine that can not be refined, how could you support nation building in an Islamic country?

You are a riot! Do you really think a christian fundimentalist muzlim hater/war monger is going to try to wrap his pea brain around this question?

If they tried their little brains would explode like pop corn..:lol:

You ARE a funny guy!:lol:

They can avoid it, but the question still remains.............
 
Actually, it was intended to take out WMDs.

After that went bust, it became about spreading democracy and our tactics for the overwhelming time we were there relied on creating a moderate Islamic state.

Now that we have cleared that up, do you care to comment on the question at hand, or are you going to continue to try and muck up my thread?

I understand it's a tough question for some people.

i guess if you HATE islam, it would be a tough question.

To me and many others it was never a matter of "hating Islam". It was a matter of disliking radical Islam. Big difference.

There is a big difference, and the question doesn't really apply to people like you.

It applies to people that constantly claim that the Quran is an evil doctrine that, at heart, commands it's followers to do kill and that Islam can never be reformed or that there is no such thing as a "moderate muslim" while at the same time supporting the Bush administration's efforts in Iraq.
 
How do you reconcile the fact that you supported a war that relied largely on the notion that we could empower a moderate faction of a religion that you think is incapable of having a moderate faction?

Just curious. It's a question I have often asked warhawk Islamophobes and have never really gotten a good answer.

More succinctly: If you think Islam embraces an inherently evil doctrine that can not be refined, how could you support nation building in an Islamic country?

For those who opposed the war: If you are in favor of liberty and equal rights how do you square that with opposing regimes that suppress liberty and represent the epitome in oppression and favoritism? How can you support human rights in Darfur but not in Baghdad?

The Left are the biggest fucking hypocrites ever to walk the planet.

when did we invade darfur? i must have missed it. :confused:
 
Are you buying into rdean's conspiracy theory that we deliberately set up a theocracy in Iraq?

Even if that is true, religions are not the same as people, something most lefties have trouble understanding.

Uh no.

Did you bother to read the OP?

I am speaking directly to the people who think that there is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim".


Who are those people that don't believe there are moderate Muslims?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top