Fuck You China

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Not to turn this into an American political thread - but yes, Strangie, look at Iraq now, it's so free isn't it?

Actually it is. They had what is called an election, and they had a great turnout for it, actually. But I'm sure you think it was all faked, anyway, so I won;t bring it up again.

One regime was traded for another.
The only reason it looks a lot better, is because it's your government trying to force their will.

if it was Syria, North Africa, Korea doing the same thing, it would be seen as infringing on peace. It would be an act of world war. They would be a threat.

I'm wondering how much you actually know about what is going on in Iraq right now. A few questions:

1) What regime has taken over Iraq? I know what your answer will be, but its funny to watch you put it in print.

2) What type of government is currently in place in Iraq?

3) How exactly is America imposing their will on the Iraqi people, beyond removing Saddam Hussein by force (you know, killer of 1.5 million Iraqis)?

4) What was the percentage of Iraqi's who voted in their first open election?

5) What percentage of civilian deaths have been caused by US military engagements?

I would really love to hear your answers to these, just so you might actually look up any facts about what it going on over there beyond the fantasy sequences that play in your head whenever anyone talks about the Iraq war.

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by Professor S

3) How exactly is America imposing their will on the Iraqi people, beyond removing Saddam Hussein by force (you know, killer of 1.5 million Iraqis)?

My knowledge on all this is shaky so correct me if I make a mistake. Also taking sources from different areas so numbers might be a little off.

Hussein was in power for 34 years. He originally rose to power legally...as did Hitler...as did Bush. In 34 years he killed 1.5 million Iraqis. On average that would be 62,500 a year.

Since the U.S. occupation the Iraqi civilian body count is between 68,740 and 74,900. That's in four years. So an average of 17,995.

But it isn't the same every year as I'm sure Hussein's rule wasn't either.

* 2003: 12,000 (5,000 if excluding the invasion)
* 2004: 10,500
* 2005: 14,000
* 2006: 24,000

So excluding the initial invasion, more and more people die each year. If it keeps going this way, it'll eventually end up worse than Hussein's regime. And those numbers don't even include Iraqi insurgents or U.S. troops killed.

Lesser of two evils? Maybe for a time. But to suggest that the country is now free and peachy is a gross understatement.

sources: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and good old wikipedia

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

They had what is called an election, and they had a great turnout for it, actually. But I'm sure you think it was all faked...

You mean like how the US presidential election was?

All hail President Gore.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

You mean like how the US presidential election was?

All hail President Gore.

I figured thats all you'd have to say, and even that shows a severe ignorance when it comes to the US electoral college and our voting process in general. Answer my questions correctly and then I'll consider what you have to say about the Iraq war and US politics in general. Until then, its like talking about quantum physics with a Phys Ed teacher.

Probably the same time most everybody turned older than, like, 15, and we realized we're pretty much an internal community that some 10 year old is just going to stumble upon and if they do who cares?

Even I didn't fight the change in policy, and I'm the resident censor. No point in cenrsoring if there is no one to "protect". Everyone here is of age and its not like we attract the youth market with our political and existential arguments.

[Jonbo298]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I figured thats all you'd have to say, and even that shows a severe ignorance when it comes to the US electoral college and our voting process in general. Answer my questions correctly and then I'll consider what you have to say about the Iraq war and US politics in general. Until then, its like talking about quantum physics with a Phys Ed teacher.

Popular vote

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I figured thats all you'd have to say, and even that shows a severe ignorance when it comes to the US electoral college and our voting process in general. Answer my questions correctly and then I'll consider what you have to say about the Iraq war and US politics in general. Until then, its like talking about quantum physics with a Phys Ed teacher.

Ah, you're taking the popular "I'm going to act like a pretentious snob and better than you because I want to come off seeming high and mighty while trying to avoid every conversation that I didn't directly bring up, while completely ignoring a post made by someone else because it goes against what I believe in" route, eh?

And nomatter what I answer, you won't "deem" it "correct".
Technically, any answer I give is correct.
I can make the answer to everything you asked be "peanut butter", and I wouldn't be wrong.
Answers are subjective, and we both know that.


And wait, did you just end that with another subtle, back handed personal attack at me?

I didn't see that one coming.

And okay, you want me to answer them "correctly", do you?

1) What regime has taken over Iraq? I know what your answer will be, but its funny to watch you put it in print.

Peanut Butter.

2) What type of government is currently in place in Iraq?

An anarchistic forced democracy. And everyone should know you can't force democracy. It's something that has to happen on it's own. It's like trying to foce evolution and change in a species. You can influence it, you can manipulate it, but in the end it won't turn out as it's supposed to originally. It will be greatly flawed, unless it takes a natural course. While the Iraqi people may actually want Democracy, and want that change, you can't go in there and force them to change. They need to do it on their own. They need to have a civil revolt under their own power, not a forced hand pushing them towards it, because then those who oppose Democracy, will just get more violent towards the entire thing. While we all know Democracy is the greater good, you still can't force it. Then it's not really going to be Democracy, it will be highly influenced from outside sources, and not actually be "Democracy" in the sense of the word. And I know you'll end up quoting the dictionary on that, and counter-ask "Well what's Democracy then?" without really thinking about what I even said. Because god knows you take more than 5 seconds to process a post I make.

3) How exactly is America imposing their will on the Iraqi people, beyond removing Saddam Hussein by force (you know, killer of 1.5 million Iraqis)?

"We're a deocracy. We believe in Democracy. You need to believe in Democracy too."
I'm not saying Democracy isn't good, but even you cannot deny that they are attempting to force their will - Democracy - on the Iraqi people.

4) What was the percentage of Iraqi's who voted in their first open election?

79.6. I never said the percent would be low, and I never said they wouldn't vote. I said it wouldn't work.
PS an average of about 50% of Americans vote. So is Iraqi Democracy better than American Democracy? "Fuck no, America's the best nation on the world. Fuck yeah."

5) What percentage of civilian deaths have been caused by US military engagements?

Teuth went over that.
Peanut Butter.

[Professor S]

Typhoid, I'm so glad you replied. Now I get to point out every single contradiction you posted. And by the way, you did get one question right.

An anarchistic forced democracy.

Do you realize that doesn't even make sense? The sentence actually contradicts itself. And by the way, I process every post you make we have our conversations, not unlike how I process a Slim Jim on my colon.

As for the force part, that you mention several times in this post

I'm not saying Democracy isn't good, but even you cannot deny that they are attempting to force their will - Democracy - on the Iraqi people.

And yet you say:

79.6 [percent voted]. I never said the percent would be low, and I never said they wouldn't vote. I said it wouldn't work.

No, you said we were forcing democracy on them. Did US soldiers hold gun to the back of the heads of Iraqi's to make them vote? On the contrary, most voted under the threat of violence from mostly outside forces. They risked their lives to vote in a democratic election. So explain to me how we are forcing democracy, instead of helping a free people tray and start one? On a side not, thatnk you for googling that percentage right before you posted. Thats the one question you actually got right.

So is Iraqi Democracy better than American Democracy? "Fuck no, America's the best nation on the world. Fuck yeah."

Actually, I envy the passion that their people have for freedoms that have never been made available to them. We take our democratic governments for granted, they don't yet have that luxury. There is so much potential that Iraq has. Potential not only to flourish for its people, but to literally change the world by example. To simply say that they can;t achieve it is not only negative thinking, I believe its based on borderline racism.


Typhoid, the reason why I insult you isn't because I disagree with you. I disagree with most posters in this forum when it comes to politics, yet I don;t attack them and belittle them. So why do I pick on you?

You are willing ignoramus. Not only do you not base your vocal opinions on actual fact, I think you actually try and AVOID informed opinion. You don;t want to deal with real information or base your beliefs on anything outside of feelings and emotion.

Other liberals on this forum, while I disagree with them, at least take the time to read the news, or research a fact. I don't believe you do, and worse yet, I don't think you feel any obligation to yourself or others that read whatever drivel comes out of your keyboard to do so either.

I'm done trying to actually have discussions with you. Its much more fun to set you up to post infiormation and then pick that information apart and expose your willing ignorance.

[Typhoid]

No, you said we were forcing democracy on them. Did US soldiers hold gun to the back of the heads of Iraqi's to make them vote? On the contrary, most voted under the threat of violence from mostly outside forces. They risked their lives to vote in a democratic election. So explain to me how we are forcing democracy, instead of helping a free people tray and start one? On a side not, thatnk you for googling that percentage right before you posted. Thats the one question you actually got right.

The fact that there was a high turnout, doesnt change the fact you're trying to change their government. That's what I'm getting at, and I made that completely clear, and you know I did.

100% of the people of Iraq could have voted, and yet it would still be forcing Democracy on them. Your country went in there. Your country 'said' "Change this, it's better." Despite the fact a large number voted, gun-to-head or not, it still won't work completely, as it should. As I said, you cannot force Democracy. A high turnout does not equate a working system.

Do you realize that doesn't even make sense? The sentence actually contradicts itself.

Stop being so literal, and stop acting so high and mighty, and just for a second, just one, think about something that is said that doesn't suit your standard.
I realize it's an oxymoron. It was meant to be. I would call it an Anarchistic Democracy because while you have a democratic form set up in the country, it's still pretty much almost under seemingly martial law.


[quote]There is so much potential that Iraq has. Potential not only to flourish for its people, but to literally change the world by example. To simply say that they can;t achieve it is not only negative thinking, I believe its based on borderline racism.[quote]

Show me where I said Democracy wouldn't work, hands down in Iraq?
I said it wont work properly with the intervention of an outside source making it change.

And really, insult me all you want.
90% of the other posters on this site grew out of that phase years ago, yet there you are, still holding strong. If it makes you feel special, and snicker to yourself, who am I to argue with your childish sense of humour.

Also:

[quote]I think you actually try and AVOID informed opinion. You don;t want to deal with real information or base your beliefs on anything outside of feelings and emotion.[quote]

With such a large grasp on the English language that you have, I would have thought someone may have taught you to never follow up a sentence of "I think" with one you are trying to pass off as fact.

And for the record, no - I don't avoid informed opinion. But I have yet to see any. You do the same thing I do, yet you don't notice it. Neither of us use facts. And you know why? Because we debate. You don't need to bring out facts, and slam down quotes when you're talking of personal opinions.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

The fact that there was a high turnout, doesnt change the fact you're trying to change their government. That's what I'm getting at, and I made that completely clear, and you know I did.

100% of the people of Iraq could have voted, and yet it would still be forcing Democracy on them. Your country went in there. Your country 'said' "Change this, it's better." Despite the fact a large number voted, gun-to-head or not, it still won't work completely, as it should. As I said, you cannot force Democracy. A high turnout does not equate a working system.

1) If people are willingly voting and choosing their own form of democracy, how is it being forced? You still haven't answered that simple question. The Iraqi people are taking advantage of a situation that they never had the luxury of having, but by the sheer fact that the US facilitated it, I guess it means imperialism to you.

2) Even if we are "forcing" democracy, IT HAS WORKED BEFORE. Its called post WW2 Germany. First West, and eventually East.

Stop being so literal, and stop acting so high and mighty, and just for a second, just one, think about something that is said that doesn't suit your standard.
I realize it's an oxymoron. It was meant to be. I would call it an Anarchistic Democracy because while you have a democratic form set up in the country, it's still pretty much almost under seemingly martial law.

Its called a demcracy trying to form, not and anarchistic one. You imply, whether you mean it or not, that the chaos is welcome and encouraged. Its not and in fact most hate it because it comes from outside the country.

Show me where I said Democracy wouldn't work, hands down in Iraq?
I said it wont work properly with the intervention of an outside source making it change.

79.6. I never said the percent would be low, and I never said they wouldn't vote. I said it wouldn't work.

Nuff said.

And really, insult me all you want.
90% of the other posters on this site grew out of that phase years ago, yet there you are, still holding strong. If it makes you feel special, and snicker to yourself, who am I to argue with your childish sense of humour.

90% of poster grew out of posting uninformed opinion. Its called "growth".

Also:
With such a large grasp on the English language that you have, I would have thought someone may have taught you to never follow up a sentence of "I think" with one you are trying to pass off as fact.

And for the record, no - I don't avoid informed opinion. But I have yet to see any. You do the same thing I do, yet you don't notice it. Neither of us use facts. And you know why? Because we debate. You don't need to bring out facts, and slam down quotes when you're talking of personal opinions.

That entire section is utterly amazing. The sheer amount of links and citations that have been posted on these forums by political commentators counts in the HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS.

Also, you keep saying that fact and opinion are separate, but opinion that it respected and makes sense is forever connected to fact and logic. You cannot have a respected opinion if you never bother to respect it by challenging it with information.

Doctors have opinions, Typhoid. Would you care about their opinion about your appendix if your doctor never bothered to read a textbook? Hey, its still an opinion, right? Worht arguing about?

No, ita not, and neither are yours. Stop allowing others to tell you what your opinion is, and trust me they do, and get an opinion of your own.

I'm done with this pathetic little circle we've danced for the past few years. Its hopeless.