So you are against the freedom of people in Pakistan to kill their daughters but you like to give the people of Iraq the freedom to kill their daughters. I am sure it makes sense to you but on other hand logic was never a strong point of Bush administration or his supporters.
No I'm glad you posted it, that way people can see how you bypass the overall argument to try to some way make a point that does not exist. Put the entire argument together and you have no case, thanks for doing me a favor. I'm fine with their freedom. I'm simply trying to get you to realise where dangers could lie ahead, especially with your own opinion on Islam that you've posted before now that Islam is their source of law. It could realistically make Iraq worse than before Saddam, of which I've tried to explain to you before but you always managed to bypass right over the point. Thank you for at least responding you were not happy with it in the previous posts, I do appreciate you being honest.
Well officially USA still has the Constitution but it also imprison people without trials, searches people's house without warrants,... Does this mean that because of illegal government activity Constitution does not exist? Iraq officially had a secular Constitution, if the government actions were according to it or not; is totally another discussion.
My pleasure! Any time one can respond with a direct quote about "the president" and the discussion was "Bush," and then tries to pawn it off as "a president, any president" and not stand by their words, it deserves some exposure! Aliens could invade Taco Bell. Who says life comes with guarantees? Explaining that something could be worse down the road is simply speculation. The whole country could blow up tomorrow. Could be's are nice, but shouldn't be used to ignore realities. At least?
Are you talking about your friend, Jose Padilla, the al qaida terrorists who is an enemy combatant? That's what I thought Bring up those mass graves and it changes that tone, doesn't it?
lol, you think it was about Bush, when it was not...You 'think' that if you want to, it's your right. So far you're the only person I've noticed who 'thinks' that, I know I'm the one who posted it, and I would think I would be the one to know what it was meant for...But again you're always right... Are you serious, without exploring the possibles any plan put forth is doomed to fail.
I don't know why you guys even try with Gtech anymore. He has absolutely no capability to understand logic or reason. You claim Iraqi's are going to be free... but they just had rigged elections to put Islamic rule into power. Islamic laws are MUCH MORE oppressive than what they had before it. So how can they be free when Islam is law?
I have no problem with discussing mass graves but discussion was about Iraq's previous Constitution and comparison with new one because Arnie posted that Iraq had no Constitution before. If you like to discuss the mass graves, then we should start with historical Kurdish resistance. The alliance of different Kurdish groups to different governments in the region and the betrayal of resistance movements in Iraq by American government after the first gulf war which resulted in massacres.
I'm not worried about who thinks what. But I do agree with you...in this case, I was right. That's no excuse to not support their freedoms. You did say you support their freedom, correct?
perfect smiley for a response to that. No it isn't an excuse not to support their freedoms, whoever said I didn't support their freedom? Hailing freedom though is also not an excuse not to look at the possible outcome.
Who said outcomes were not explored? It was their constitution. They had the right to compose it, did they not? What part of that are you against?
From my previous post: "If you like to discuss the mass graves, then we should start with historical Kurdish resistance. The alliance of different Kurdish groups to different governments in the region and the betrayal of resistance movements in Iraq by American government after the first gulf war which resulted in massacres." It seems you have no interest to discuss anything logically and you are only interested to keep up the original government fairy tale of progress in Iraq. Since we are on the topic of mass graves, how many people in Iraq are killed so far by American occupation? Please explain for us, how is killing another 100,000 to establish a government based on religion which uses torture methods worse than previous regime defines as progress?
Outcomes as in within the debate of the argument on this board Did I say I was personally against anything in it?
Momentarily back to the topic: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051207/lf_nm/crime_britain_honour_dc http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/27/wturk27.xml
I don't believe there is any logic to mass graves. Who is us? And where does the 100,000 number come from? I already know you do not support the Iraqi people's freedom. You've made that clear in the past. I already know who you support over there.
To their constitutions: Scriptural wisdom: " By your fruits I'll know you and judge accordingly" The good fruits remain to be seen. Who made the current version? Bush & Company, Christians, Buddhist, Chinese? In case they employ hidden or direct dictatorship, engage in conspiracy against free societies then they will get their ass kicked again - bingo! For now at least they stand a chance to make it better and its their business in how they decide to progress or fall.