Chirstianity

[Bryan]

They disavowed it when?  When it was convenient?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you ever thought of doing your own research?

[Guest Sounds Like BS, Smells Like BS,]

You missed the point.

It would waste my time to try to explain it to you if blundered into this asinine interpretation of what I wrote.

The lack of critical thinking has left you with nothing but straw men to play with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HOGWASH!

You won't explain it because you CAN'T explain it in a way that would make sense to anyone not afraid to look at the facts.

[Guest Guest]

Looks like you need more practice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really, I know crap when I see it.

[Guest Stop the Stupidity]

Have you ever thought of doing your own research?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU made the claim they disavowed it and SHOULD have documented it when you made the claim, otherwise it's no matter than your opinion.

[Guest Lost in BushWorld]

Just WHERE is the ALLEGED misrepresentation?

Your own link says:"Thus, covertly, the Reagan Administration commenced selling weapons, in doing so breaking its own regulations and declared stance against Iran, a state that they had declared a terrorist nation, an enemy of the American State and all the while, they maintained their alliances with Iraq."

Selling weapons to an enemy state is the very definiton of treason and he most certainly conveniently couldn't remember,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

STILL waiting for an answer from Bryan that justifies his allegation.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

Have you ever thought of doing your own research?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did, that's why I think that ultimately we'll achieve little in Iraq. There are religious, sect based issues there that I doubt we come close to understanding. Divisions that are centuries old and have shown little sign of resolution. Add in the tribal issues and the plot thickens even more.

I really don't believe they're likely to establish a peaceful, stable society because we say they should.

The number one job of the US government is tp protect the US and I don't think invading Iraq and deposing Saddam has furthered that cause. I think we'd have been much better served by continual surveillance and surgical strikes if/when shown to be necessary. Otherwise, let them settle their own issues, we have enough of our own to contend with.

[Guest Guest]

This is a brain on drugs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Acy=tually, I believe his substance of abusive choice was Jim Beam.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I did, that's why I think that ultimately we'll achieve little in Iraq.  There are religious, sect based issues there that I doubt we come close to understanding.  Divisions that are centuries old and have shown little sign of resolution.  Add in the tribal issues and the plot thickens even more.

I really don't believe they're likely to establish a peaceful, stable society because we say they should. 

The number one job of the US government is tp protect the US and I don't think invading Iraq and deposing Saddam has furthered that cause.  I think we'd have been much better served by continual surveillance and surgical strikes if/when shown to be necessary.  Otherwise, let them settle their own issues, we have enough of our own to contend with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, you've proved you're an idiot, so what ??

[Guest Shocked and Awed]

This is a brain on drugs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are RIGHT mackerel breath!

The Decidering MISleader should be removed from office with his Dick before he causes any more damage.

[Bryan]

STILL waiting for an answer from Bryan that justifies his allegation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I must have been waiting for you to deal with more than one of the points that I made here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t=180&p=44207

Apparently it's fine for you to skip a half-dozen points that I make in favor of whining about one post of yours that I didn't address.

Address the points I made in my earlier post, and I pledge to answer the post you focused on the one point out of many.

Send me a PM with the location of your reply, please. I'm carrying on more correspondence than most on this board.

[Bryan]

Not really, I know crap when I see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I meant the wasting time part.

Here you are again. What, five seconds gone from your life that you'll never get back?

[Guest PickyMan]

This is a brain on drugs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee BushWanker, you forgot to post your name along with your signature line, the drugs getting to what little brain you have?

[Guest I'm SO Hurt!--Insultd by]

Ok, you've proved you're an idiot, so what ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well................aren't YOU quite the witty little ASININE twit?

Do you think if you pulled your head out of your butt you might have something constructive to offer?

Given your previous stupidity I doubt it.

[Guest Lost in BushWorld]

I must have been waiting for you to deal with more than one of the points that I made here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t=180&p=44207

What number post? I may have overlooked it but found no questin(s) addressed to me on the page that link goes to.

[Guest Guest]

You are RIGHT mackerel breath!

The Decidering MISleader should be removed from office with his Dick before he causes any more damage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you were shocked to correct a brain defect, they failed. Your spelling is still 3rd grade level.

[Bryan]

I did,

I was addressing "Stop the Stupidity" IIRC. Do you have more than one registration identity?

that's why I think that ultimately we'll achieve little in Iraq.  There are religious, sect based issues there that I doubt we come close to understanding.

What do we need to understand apart from the fact they regard the others as heretics?

Tribal politics is not new. If you can't suggest why this case is special compared to, say, the war over Biafra, then you're not really arguing based on anything other than ignorance (don't understand, therefore no solution).

Divisions that are centuries old and have shown little sign of resolution.  Add in the tribal issues and the plot thickens even more.

But you can see the basic sense of a federalist system the grants some autonomy to the basic groups while embedding the commonalities in their constitution?

I really don't believe they're likely to establish a peaceful, stable society because we say they should.

Well, I really don't believe that they're unlikely to establish a peaceful, stable society just because you say they can't.

This is going to be one whale of an argument, isn't it?

The number one job of the US government is tp protect the US and I don't think invading Iraq and deposing Saddam has furthered that cause.

You think we'd be safer if Saddam Hussein were still in power plotting to restart WMD research one he got sanctions lifted with the help of France, Germany, Russia and China?

Can you explain this extraordinary opinion of yours?

I think we'd have been much better served by continual surveillance and surgical strikes if/when shown to be necessary.

Surgical strikes on what? Our intelligence on Iraq turned out to be largely worthless.

Otherwise, let them settle their own issues, we have enough of our own to contend with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd better hope that Iran implodes politically on a fast track.

Or you can't imagine the problems yet to come.

[Bryan]

What number post?  I may have overlooked it but found no questin(s) addressed to me on the page that link goes to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

191

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t=180&p=44207

I didn't mention any questions, so you shouldn't look for questions.

[Guest Shocked and Awed]

If you were shocked to correct a brain defect, they failed. Your spelling is still 3rd grade level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And YOU are still an A**!

[Guest Dounting Thomas]

I was addressing "Stop the Stupidity" IIRC.  Do you have more than one registration identity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know the reference but wasn't me

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

Well, I really don't believe that they're unlikely to establish a peaceful, stable society just because you say they can't.

This is going to be one whale of an argument, isn't it?  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In all honesty I don't really give a rat's ass what they do. I'm concerned that the US is protected and moves forward as a nation. al Qaeda is known to have operatives in more than 40 countries, I think we've commited entirely too much of our assets to Iraq at the expense of tracking terrorists wherever they may be.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

What do we need to understand apart from the fact they regard the others as heretics?

Tribal politics is not new.  If you can't suggest why this case is special compared to, say, the war over Biafra, then you're not really arguing based on anything other than ignorance (don't understand, therefore no solution).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you choose to be so ridiculously simplistic as to chalk it all up to eah side calling the other heretics I'll take a page from YOUR playbook.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand.

[Guest Dounting Thomas]

What do we need to understand apart from the fact they regard the others as heretics?

Tribal politics is not new.  If you can't suggest why this case is special compared to, say, the war over Biafra, then you're not really arguing based on anything other than ignorance (don't understand, therefore no solution).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since you choose to be so simplistic the obvious answer is that Biafra is in Africa and Iraq is not. Trying to say they're alike is idiocy.

Iraq was invaded by another country, Biafra seceded from one.

Iraq has become a religion based civil war, religion was not a major factor in Biafra.

In Irag the US faces the challenge of having both sides in the civil being against the US, that comapres to Biafra in your mind how?

If you're going to try and make comparsons, try and make a little sense too.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

You think we'd be safer if Saddam Hussein were still in power plotting to restart WMD research one he got sanctions lifted with the help of France, Germany, Russia and China?

Can you explain this extraordinary opinion of yours?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IF and WHEN that happened would've been the time to deal with it, it's really just pure speculation what [b[MIGHT[/b] been. And is there doubt that Iraq was more stable under Saddam? And do you really think the tens of thousands of civilians who have died had better deaths because they died in an invasion rather than at Saddam's hand.

And a question for you: Why Iraq? Why a pre-emptive strike there?

Surely North Korea is as big a threat if not bigger?

Surely Iran is as big a threat?

China?

Syria?

Sudan?, also a state sponsor of terror.

An if as you say, and sadly it seems true, if our intelligence failed us as badly as it did why should we have any great faith in what we're being told now?

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

What do we need to understand apart from the fact they regard the others as heretics?

Tribal politics is not new.  If you can't suggest why this case is special compared to, say, the war over Biafra, then you're not really arguing based on anything other than ignorance (don't understand, therefore no solution).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will NEVER believe in nor understand the worship of a God who would condone the murder of innocents in his name. Do you?

And I don't target that at Muslims, only zealots of any creed. The perpetrators of the Crusades, the Inquistion, the Salem Witch Trials, and bombings of abortion clinics are just as evil.

[Bryan]

Since you choose to be so simplistic the obvious answer is that Biafra is in Africa and Iraq is not.  Trying to say they're alike is idiocy.

Dismissing an analogy on the basis of comparisons that were not offered as analogous is stupid and fallacious.

Iraq was invaded by another country, Biafra seceded from one.

Tribal politics involved in both. You were challenged to offer reasons why tribal conflict makes Iraq an intractable situation while it wasn't the case in the analogous situation.

If Iraq were in Africa then the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds could be reconciled into one?

And then the red herring about invasion.

If the dispute between the Shiites and Sunnis had come about without the US invasion then they could resolve the conflict no problem?

Your whole approach is incoherent, DT.

Iraq has become a religion based civil war, religion was not a major factor in Biafra.

Why not, given that one group was largely Christian while another was largely Muslim? Did that conflict not go back enough centuries?

In Irag the US faces the challenge of having both sides in the civil being against the US, that comapres to Biafra in your mind how?

It's not accurate in the first place.

The sects doing the fighting couldn't care less about the US except where the US affects their ability to effect reprisals against each other.

If you're going to try and make comparsons, try and make a little sense too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm trying to get you to make some sense. Saudi Arabia includes Sunnis and Shia. Why aren't they warring against each other? There are American troops in Saudi Arabia, after all.