There is no problem with defending Islam as 99% of Muslims are most likely wonderful people, but defending horrific people and regimes merely because they are Islamic is flawed reasoning. This is what I believe is Almansurah's leaning.

well, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) gave a speech at my school today. He claimed he spent the most time with the president of any other senator, and I basically agreed with his stance on the war. He said that we need support from the rest of the world, otherwise the backlash will be more than we can handle. When we try to re-build the government of Iraq, we don't just want American soldiers there, we want Turkish soldiers, German soliders, etc. He also disagreed with the idea of a pre-emptive strike, as other countries may take advantage of a doctrine like that i.e India nuking Pakistan for what they think would be future harm)...I don't know much about politics, so I probably don't remember all of the important things he said, but he had some good things to say...And is there some big deal on Thursday? He said that some more evidence of Iraq hiding weapons was going to come out on Thursday, some taped phone messages or something...anyway, this probably doesn't even make sense, it was an assembly at 8:00 on Monday! It's hard to pay attention!

He also told an amusing anecdote about president Bush, apparently Bush didn't even know that Sweden had an army recently, despite them having the 2nd most powerful in Europe...He continued to argue that Bush wasn't untintelligent...just uninformed, which not many of us bought. ha...this isn't trying to diss Bush, just Biden's argument wasn't all that endearing.

And look what Sadaam Hussein has done against Muslims:
Also, if you were wondering of some of the forms of torture that Iraq uses, here you go:
Now maybe we all know why Almansurah lives in a Democratic country rather than one of the friendly and generous Islamic states.

And I still would like this question answered by Mr. Almansurah:

How does Islam address democracy, women's rights, and people's freedom to choose their own destiny?

Problem #1. Oh, thinking out loud, sorry :D

Great claim, can he back it up? Probably not.

We have support, leave it to a Democrat to keep forgetting that everytime he opens his mouth.

You mean, we do the fighting, then afterwards the cowards decide to come in with the hopes to benefit from this new country? If they don't help from now on, I say leave them out of it. Last thing I want to see is France getting an oil deal.

Of course, he's a democrat. Unless they're covering their ass because they want to become President, they oppose the idea.

Who said anything about nuking anyone? That's another political debate in itself.

Don't worry, there was none. It was just a democratic anti-war speech, hoping to get some more people marching in the anti-war protests. By the way, many of those are actually set up by people sent here from Iraq. Agree or disagree, but don't march, it only hurts the country.

Wednesday I believe. Powell will adress the United Nations Security Council and show evidence against Iraq. Satellite photos, and tapes of officials saying "I can't believe they missed that," "don't tell them that," "move that," and other things showing them trying to hide from inspectors.

... like Bill Clinton...

He graduated from Yale, did he not?

Yeah, well I'm not going to argue anything because I'm uninformed (like Bush I guess. ;-) But, he wasn't all that anti-war. He didn't want to rush into to it too quickly I guess, but it's not like he was utterly opposed. Anyway, he may be a presidential candidate, so watch out.

Good for him. He has no power in the democratic party, he won't make it past the primary.

Biden is actually pretty pro war with Iraq. I've heard a lot from him living near Delaware, but I think he's slowly moving down the party line.

As for a pre-emtive nuclear strike, well thats just silly. America does not want to open that Pandora's Box again like they did in WW2 that led to a 50 year cold war.

I am all for overthrowing Saddam, and we should soon. The fact that the world seems to trust Iraq over the US absolutely boggles my mind. Saddam is evil, and I do not use that term lightly. There is often a philisophical debate over wheher or not you would kill Hitler before he became a world threat. Well, now we have that chance, and the fact that much of the rest of the world can't see that is astounding.

The Strangler and Gekko, the 2 mega pro-americans of the boards. Geez guys you seem to know so much about everything, let me ask you, do you guys work for the FBI, CIA or at the white house or something? :rolleyes:

No, I actually pay attention to history and try to learn from past mistakes. Its a good idea and I think you should look into it.

But then again you also believe we should keep a maniac in power of a country who beats his prisoners, sets up rape camps, etc. I don't even have to go into it anymore its been said so often on this forum.

Ranzid, could you please give me one reason that Saddam should be allowed to keep his office? I mean, God knows all the diplomatic solutions have been working so well...:rolleyes:

Maybe all of that is true. Maybe he beats his prisoners, sets up rape camps, etc. And maybe it's a very good idea to remove him from power. But tell me this. Do you actually believe that the US government wants to remove him from power because the population of Iraq is suffering (BTW I don't think they are suffering that much) or because Iraq is a threat to the US? Do you really think that?

What pisses me off is that the US is saying all kind of crap just to make a good impression on people, and in the end it's all about the oil.

Re: Re: Re: Saddam bodyguard fled. Good man!
 

Mind pointing out where? I still haven't seen it on CNN or FoxNews, and this seems like it would be huge news.

Ranzid, I'm not pro-mega-american, but even I can see the sense in getting rid of this lunatic (Saddam). Do you really think that this nut building up deadly weapons is a safe thing for the world? If Saddam had nukes at his disposal, I truly believe he would not hesitate to use them on the US or any other of his percieved enemies. What makes you think he wouldn't? Wouldn't you call that a direct threat? The oil thing has been blown out of proportion, I think. Iraq is involved in only 5% of the worlds oil exports, nothing that impressive, and we are not on terms with then now. It seems you are more angry that there might be SOMETHING beneficial in it for the US. Otherwise, it's just politics as usual :cool:

No, Department of Homeland Security ;) :usa:

Now, time for my speech:

We're all communicating through the internet, at one point referred to as the Information Superhighway. Everything you want to know is right at your fingertips, and searchable. You can quickly and easily find information on any topic. If you don't know about a subject, research it. It's that simple.

As for me, I watch a lot of news channels, which cover the current events every day. For the bigger issues, multiple shows usually bring on people and address the issues from multiple sides. As for Iraq, the Discovery Channel had a 3 hour special on it the other day. If you watch stuff like this, you tend to learn something. After months and years of watching news, you tend to be a little more informed than someone like, well... Ranzid.

It's just so impossible for someone to do a good thing, isn't it? God forbid we learned a lesson from WWII and September 11th, and want to stop this threat now, before he attacks.

Your problem is that you hate Bush, and you're spewing your propaganda hoping that other people side with you. The thing is, you have no way to back up your claims, because you can't. You're completely uninformed on the subject, and it shows. You also hate Bush, and likely America, and that shows. You can be mega anti-American, but you just come off as a fool.

It appeared in the Herald Sun, Aussie's best-selling newspaper. I doubt this author would risk his career by making up something like this. But feel free to doubt it, just wait and see if it plays out.

Ranzid:

Let's set aside for the moment the fact that you don't really know why the Bush administration wants to go to war so much. Maybe it's the oil. Maybe it's because Bush wants to finish his daddy's job. Maybe he really does believe that this would be better for the world. The point is you aren't Bush. You're not even Condoleeza Rice. There's no way you can say with any kind of certainty that Bush is in it for the oil.

Of course, this also applies to the theory about Bush entering the war to do some good for the world. We don't know that's the real reason although I suspect that The Strangler, with all his Discovery Channel watching, might be able to put together a reasonable argument.

That's all beside the point. We don't know why the Bush administration wants to go to war. So what? Why should we care anyway? Maybe we should be worrying more about what going to war will do. If the world ends up being a better place once the war is over, does it really matter why Bush went to war with Iraq?

After all, Microsoft entered the videogame industry for the basest of reasons: make money and try to take over a lucrative industry. But they still got their two competitors hopping, slashing prices, putting out creative games and so on. I'm not a Microsoft fan by any stretch, but even I can appreciate the good things that have happened for the consumer (i.e. me) as a result.

What do you want him to do? Invade north america :rolleyes:

Lauch a nuke? He has none!

What else? Terrorism? I really don't think that attacking Iraq will diminish the threat of a terrorist attack on the US, I think it will increase it.


Oh come on! We're only discussing here. Do you really think that I want to change the world on a discussion forum :rolleyes:

I may not know as much as you but I know what an ordinary person would know, and that is enough to have an opinion. We are not all freaks like you.

Ok man, stop dissing me, we get your point.

And such important news wouldn't appear on CNN but it would over there... :rolleyes: