Democractic IraqFollow

tarred wrote:



que? no comprende =)

Varus

Kunty wrote:



I like my witicisms

Varus

That's witty?

For the love of god, Varus, don't even think of correcting anyone else's grammar. You have enough of your own problems, smarty.

No, no, I'm pretty sure its close to being proper.

If it were an arguement between Varus and a potatoe I would bet on the spud.

Maybe, 'was' would work better, but this said what I wanted it to say . :P

And Varus correcting anyone is like that sign language using Gorilla teaching Kindergarten. Wait...The Gorilla would be a better teacher. (It at least knows not to stuff the bananas up its ***. Those are food after all.)

Edit: If it were red I would buy it.... Hmm, could be my Southern Ancestry calling >< y'all.

Edited, Thu Jul 29 17:03:01 2004 by AriesGhost

varus, you have the comprehension skills of a moldy slice of cheese. The quote you attributed to Crimson - while grammatically correct on its own if not necessarily in context - was originally from Aries. This further illustrates your total lack of investigating facts and knowledge.

Anyways, you're totally wrong on your assertion that the US, or anyone for that matter, shut down Al-Jazeera. The Reuters article you provided doesn't even hint at any such thing.



This would indicate preventing it from being broadcast within Iraq. Seeing as Qatar is an independent nation at the far end of the Persian Gulf, Iraq would have to invade that country to shut down their broadcasting. That's like saying Brazil decided to shut down CNN.

>< Damn it. And here I was worried it was something bigger! Ack. Smash, you're families Irish right? Always been in the northeast? Curious if you have the New England/Beantown accent. ><


Nah, not too bad.

I have a mild northeast prep school accent. I lost my Southie (south boston) accent in high school. If I'm drunk or watching the Red Sox though, you'll hear it (come on nomahhhh hit it wicked hahhhhd!). Otherwise I sound like a pbs newscaster.

You know that reminded me of something, but I couldn't remember what and then it hit me



Varus, you really should go back to school and try to get an education.

Justifying anything with 'The French did it' isn't valid.

Greenpeace kicked France's ***.

France has two things going for it:

1. Statue of Liberty. Mighty generous of them.

2. Every couple of generations they give Germany a place to play. Also might generous.

Well .. any insult about the french is worth saying twice IMHO.

Anyway - there are, when you get nit-picky about it, fundamental differences between a fight for freedom in 18th century france/ USA/ etc compared to 21st century iraq.

At the time most third parties couldn't give a rats a$$ about the whole thing and stood back making various supportive noises depending on who was winning at the time.

Iraq has a large pool of oil under it's alleyways - third parties fell over themselves to give the tinpot dictator stuff he wanted in return for a slice of the action. It's a bit hard to rebel when someone's slipping your oppressor a heap of weaponry to keep you suppressed. For those brave folk who tried it anyway (as well as the odd recidivist) go look in the mass graves.

So all they if we did it so they should too is horse$hit - we did it too back in the day when it took 2 months to get extra weaponry to beat up your citizens - not a 2 hour airlift from the
weapons dealer of your choice. Also - back in the day state of the art was an unkempt mercenary with a brown bess rifle - not some air cooled techno-monstrosity capable of vigorously seperating the average house from it's foundation in 30 seconds.

Any guesses how glorious the Alamo would be with modern weaponry ? 15 seconds or 20 ?


Doesn't mean I think offering them our model of a distopian society at the barrel of a gun is valid - just the argument you're using. i.e. your point of view is ok - but your logic sucks.

The citizens of Iraq had newer technology available to them just like Saddam did. And an airlift arrives at the same speed no matter who's on the receiving end.

Talking about the weapons Saddam had available doesn't make a failure to rise up succesfully by the Iraqi people a valid argument.

He's one man and could have been killed with one bullet.

If anything, it's easier to accomplish now than in the past.

Weapons are more lethal...and bullets don't discriminate. Just like Saddam could kill his citizens more easily, so could they kill him.

So, what's invalid?

Just a guess, the Taliban in Afghanistan?