Kalam
Senior Member
- Mar 5, 2009
- 8,866
- 785
- 48
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?
I fully supported overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his regime. Never cared for the whole nation building aspect. I've always said Bush was too liberal in his belief that Islam is a "religion of peace" and that Iraq could be built into some kind of peaceful society.
You are absolutely right, Islam is a religion that is inherently evil, and cannot and does not coexist with Western ideals of freedom and democracy.
What we should of done was carpet bomb the country pillar to post and we would have had far fewer casualities on our side. Of course the liberals would of screamed about it, but as it turns out they did anyway when we did it Bush's politically correct way.
Incorrect.
What we should have done was sent a SF team in and killed Saadam and he sons and then told Iraq do what you wnat but we'll be back for the next guy if he messes with us.
This would have been far more tolerable.