Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
the distorted, revisionist and blatantly fabricated notion that those who think 9/11 was an abhorrent , unimaginable act of unprovoked violence upon a civilian population also hold that the US can do NO wrong, is blameless in every account and holds itself above all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Point is that you don't have to have something coming to be responsible for creating it.

---

Quote:

---

Islamic fundamentalism , and a belief that Islam is the one true religion of the world, is all that is driving this ' jihad'. Not poverty, not the perceived notions of injustice, not the plight of the Palestinians, nor the non existent threat of the Jews against the millions of Arabs who out number them 100 to 1 in the surrounding region. No. it's none of that, nothing other than the twisted, distorted view that Allah is the one true God, and all are to obey , or die. That's all it is, nothing more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Guess that means we *didn't* have god on our side in Korea, 'Nam, or Somalia... Why does god hate America?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
How manys times have I stated I was mistaken saying gas was used ?

---

How many times have I stated half a dozen things that you've just ignored?

Quote:

---

I have also said that the weapons used were immaterial whether gas, nuclear, or machineguns and aerial bombing... civilians who didn't fall into line were killed for not bowing down to British authority.

---

I don't recall you saying that at all. But what's your next step? Bombing was used in Bosnia and killed civilians too, so are the leaders of the NATO nations also comparable to Saddam?

Quote:

---

You see no comparison to Saddam beating down the very same people for not bowing down to his authority years later.

---

Do I see any comparison between Saddam and Churchill? Do you see and comparison between King and Hitler?

Quote:

---

You have tried to deflect responsibility to the league of nations for forcing poor Britain to jump in and control the brown man before he gets out of hand, I said bullshit they were there for the cash and pointed to treatys and deals made out of that mess which supports that thought.

---

And you have tried to push all the responsibility on to Britain, and I'm calling Bullshit on your twisting of history. Britain capitalised on it's situation, contrary to what you've said about my posts, I've never denied that, in fact I stated it myself earlier, but it wouldn't have been in the area if the Mandate had been given to someone else. I can point to the Mandates by the League of Nations that put Britain in there, you can point to as many after the fact treaties and deals you like, but that won't make the Mandate disappear.

Britain capitalised on it's position, but it was there by Mandate, and I have the Mandates to prove it whether you like it or not. I'd ask though, if Britain was just in it for the cash from the beginning, do you believe in telepathy? Precognition? Because that's the only way they could have known Oil was there, since it wasn't discovered until the late 1920's.

Quote:

---

You keep hammering on my original post, even after I admitted to being misled by an opinion piece, my argument has evolved, facts corrected, but you want to make this a matter of character.

---

You're the one twisting and misrepresenting what I said, trying to insinuate I was talking about one thing when I was talking about another. I would say that's what made it about character.

I'm sorry if my response doesn't support your pre-conceived notion that Britain was a fascist state murdering everyone under the maniacal military rule of Herr Churchill, but a comparison between Churchill and Saddam is idiotic. Saddam was a totalitarian militaristic dictator who slaughtered his own people, and for all his faults Churchill wasn't. You're the one who hasn't proved your point. You started off by saying Churchill was like Saddam, because he used gas. You've let the gas thing go, but you just can't bear to let the "Churchill is Saddam" thing go can you? Despite not actually providing anything beyond hyperbole to support it.

The repression of the Kurds was hardly the defining aspect of Saddam's rule. Just because their policies in somewhat different circumstances and times are superficially similar doesn't mean there's any real meaningful comparison to make. Trying to expand one superficial similarity in to a "Churchill is Saddam" comparison is mere hyperbole and confirmation bias.

Quote:

---

Prove your point Britain didn't want control of the area, did they try to bring in other league members to form a coalition, have a debate where the government discussed a pull out, anything?

---

Well, that was never my point, did you not even bother to read my posts? My point was that Britain was given the Mandate for the region, which put them in Mesopotamia, and compelled them to stay there, when in fact given they're slow recovery after the First World War, the man power shortages, and the struggling economy, it's highly unlikely they would have entered the region without the Mandate. An assertion you've yet to propose an argument against, beyond mockery.

Also, the Mandates didn't work the way you suggest, and neither did the world then. You didn't have international coalitions then like you do now, saying that proves anything specifically about the British, indicates to me that you don't understand how the world has changed in the intervening years. What the Mandate said was:

Quote:

---

"...have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate#Class_A_mandate
s

Discussion in the government that Britain should pull out of Iraq, This indicates there was strong opposition in Parliament:

Quote:

---

Eventually, this tutelage was undermined by pressure from the British Parliament and the press to withdraw

---

Emphasis Added
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85203/joel-rayburn/the-la
st-exit-from-iraq.html

Quote:

---

Although the revolt in Iraq was suppressed by force, it prompted Iraq and Great Britain to reconcile their differences. In Britain a segment of public opinion wanted to "get out of Mesopotamia" and urged relief from further commitments. In Iraq the nationalists were demanding independence. In 1921 Britain offered the Iraqi throne to Faysal along with the establishment of an Arab government under British mandate. Faysal wanted the throne if it were offered to him by the Iraqi people. He also suggested the replacement of the mandate by a treaty of alliance. These proposals were accepted by the British government, and Winston Churchill, then colonial secretary, promised to carry them out. He was advised by T.E. Lawrence, known for his sympathy for the Arabs.

---

Emphasis Added
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/1918.html

Quote:

---

If this was only about Churchill and the use of gas, you could have stopped several posts ago

---

You're very last post before this one compared Churchill to Saddam, so this is verifiably false.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


You actually think that there are that many millions of "true believers" in Islam - believers so devout that they are willing and eager to die for their beliefs

---

Quote:

---

Once again, you've managed to utterly and completely buy into the bullshit that even BushCo knows better than to try to shovel - that this is a PURELY ideological conflict. It's not. War rarely is.

---

Quote:

---

You think "god" is on your side, they think "allah" is on theirs. Guess what - whoever wins, it proves that they were right! After all, he's god, right? You think he'd back a loser?

---

Quote:

---

Guess that means we *didn't* have god on our side in Korea, 'Nam, or Somalia... Why does god hate America?


Mike

---

Quote:

---

You had a question ? Looked to me more like an ill informed , America hating rant than a question

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Sorry your opinion pieces do not convince me of any of your points,

but as this is spinning around in a circle lets just agree that we disagree on the subject and walk away.

---

Quote:

---

God doesn't hate America, but it's clear you do.

---

Quote:

---

This has nothing to do w/ Bush...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Those aren't questions, Mike! That's an inaccurate anti-American diatribe!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Ah, I see - you know what I feel, because you imagine yourself to BE god.

How is it again that I "hate America"? What exactly is my sin, O mighty Operative? Realizing that there are people outside our borders who don't share our viewpoints, or admitting that to those who hold them, those viewpoints might just be as valid as ours are to us? Realizing that to try to remake the entire war on terror into a war on all of Islam is a no-win situation?

---

Quote:

---

Realizing that we DO have enemies, and that to underestimate them or misidentify their aims and intentions is done solely at OUR peril? Is THAT what makes me such an America-hater?

---

Quote:

---

Or do I hate America because I disagree with the party in power? Or because I don't believe in the absolute power of the "unitary executive" (known in other countries as a "dictator")? Or because I don't buy into the propagandizing that's become part and parcel of this regime's mad power-grab?

---

Quote:

---

Do I hate America because I love the Constitution, or because I disagree with the President when he says of that document, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Is that what makes me an America-hater, in your view?

---

Quote:

---

There are things here more important than some folks still crying over the 2000 election

---

Quote:

---

There are bigger things than petty partisanship.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

There are things here more important than some folks still crying over the 2000 election

---

So why do YOU keep bringing it up? I mean, the last 100 times it's been reference has been by you.

Quote:

---

There are bigger things than petty partisanship.

---

Agreed. Too bad you haven't found it yet.


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Tell me, and everyone else here, just who exactly is trying to do that ? Point them out to me, becasue I sure has hell haven't heard any of that, nor have I been paying attention to anyone spouting such nonsense. But I'm sorry, I don't legitimize viewpoints from tyrants or dictators.

---

Quote:

---

Gee, we just got over the cold war, and you think I need reminding we have enemies ?

---

Quote:

---

And that you'd buy into such propaganda as what a President did or didn't say, based on whether you LIKE him or not.

---

Quote:

---

No, because you forget the spirit in which the US Constitution was formed, and the country which sprang from it, and need to protect that country from all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

---

Quote:

---

The 2000 election is the only logical reason I can imagine you myrmidons for being so pissed off at Bush.

Get the fuck over it. You lost.

---