I'm really interested in exactly what you personally are most proud of regarding the Iraq war, Version two. What did the war achieve? How is the US and the rest of the world a better place?
Very odd thing to thank me for. Will you next be thanking me for Australia's immigration policies? How about the invention of the automobile? Why are you changing the topic? I simply responded to your false allegation that the US could not handle a "real" army with a recent example. As far as what I'm proud of, if Iraq doesn't completely destabilize, I'd say it might be one of the few successful examples of democratization by military invasion. Spreading peace, love, freedom, and all that. I can think of a better use for my tax dollars, but one can't help but be proud of a job well done.
I was answering sarcasm with sarcasm. I won't bother this time. Yep, job well done. From this morning's paper " Some young Iraqis say they are glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein but feel less safe – and therefore less free – than before 2003, a sentiment reflected in dozens of interviews in eight provinces. They view their government as a pseudo-regime that deprives them of basic rights, and they worry that their peers are being lured into the ethnic, sectarian and partisan traps of their elders. They think the world is fixating on revolutions in other Arab countries while ignoring a rotting democracy in Baghdad and their generation's struggle to live the freedom that was promised to them 8 years ago." Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/gen-...-occupation-20111202-1obn0.html#ixzz1fPV5pPHP
Australia is one of our truest allies, and I am thankful for their support. It wasn't sarcasm. Who will bring us back the dictator to keep us safe (and therefore free)? LoL. I suppose if you are a Baathist, you miss the good days under Sadaam. For most everyone else, especially the Kurds, any change is a good change. Reading something other than "The Age" would do you good, unless you like forming opinions in a vacuum.
Oh give it a break Bob nobody misses a dictator , especially one that used to stocks Bio and chemical weapons . The best thing Saddam could do to increase his popularity was to put up a sing saying "Honk if you love antrax" .
Too dumb to understand this I'm afraid. I would have thought that the Washington Post was an esteemed, trusted and accurate publication. After all, you quoted an article from it yourself a few days ago - see page 1 in this thread. As to Apocolypse and the dictator. I'll share with you that I personally was in a (Gasp!) third world country a few weeks ago. It is ruled by a (Gasp!) dictator whose army had (Gasp!) overthrown the democratically elected government. The dictator expels foreign diplomats if they try to tell him to hold elections. There is no freedom of the press and any one who dares to print something bad about the country is either deported or sacked. The police are corrupt - get caught speeding and a lazy 10 dollars will see you drive away. A large proportion of the population live hand to mouth on subsistence farming and lucky people with jobs earn $20 a day. The EU has suspended all aid. The locals are incredibly friendly and most we came in contact with speak 3 languages. I did ask several people the question "How is the government going?" All responded positively. No doubt if we had asked enough people we would have found negative voices - that's how politics works. Sometimes dictatorships works, sometimes democracy works, sometimes communism works - live and let live.
I quote MSNBC too, but mostly just to uses sources that liberals consider credible. Fox News could have the exact same article printed, but it just doesn't have the same effect on some people.
Yeah I must agree with you about Fox News - bought to you by Murdoch, I would never, ever quote them either. There is a very good reason why the UK and Australia are holding inquiries into their newspapers. As our PM says "Don't write crap."
And yet Fox is every bit as credible as WaPo or The Age, if not more. You won't find any "We were more free under the dictator" articles on Fox. Perhaps Australia needs to hold inquiries into The Age for repeating such crap. I suppose it is ok to print that "crap" so long as the party in power agrees with it. Perhaps a more appropriate rule should be, any publication that prints things the party in power doesn't like should be investigated and brought down.
Thanks for your advice, we'll do things our own way. Thanks again. As for the UK inquiry - it is non political, I'm sure they are happy to do things their own way too.