More news on the mosque---you ain't gonna like it.

[simmonsjoe]

Slowfiveoh

I would like to point out that the UN has no true authority over foreign nations. Their laws and edicts have no moral value to a sovereign nation. And before any of you ponder, NO, I don't think it is appropriate for the US to be involved with them. Especially when our own gov't can use the UN to enforce complete gun bans over seas, in direct violation to the human rights enumerated in our constitution, with total immunity.

Please note I'm not making a judgment on the Iraq war here. I'm simply invalidating the morality of your evidence.

 

[slowfiveoh]

I would like to point out that the UN has no true authority over foreign nations. Their laws and edicts have no moral value to a sovereign nation. And before any of you ponder, NO, I don't think it is appropriate for the US to be involved with them. Especially when our own gov't can use the UN to enforce complete gun bans over seas, in direct violation to the human rights enumerated in our constitution, with total immunity.

Please note I'm not making a judgment on the Iraq war here. I'm simply invalidating the morality of your evidence.

I did not specify that the UN has any "specific authority" over foreign nations, however, a body composed of most of the worlds nations is pretty good "authority" from which to act upon. Specifically when it creates a very fair set of rules to apply to a given nation, and SAID NATION AGREES, then violates the agreement.

I mean they only invaded Kuwait.


There is a lot about that culture that is indignant and repulsive. Much of it centered among religious teachings of Mohammed, regardless of whether you agree with the context of said teachings, or not.

Allah Akbar after being shot is great.
I do have to say that I appreciate inshalla though.



Ponch,

Frankly I see an arrogant, presumptuous adherence to a single comment as if it were the sole mention of our reason for invasion of Iraq.

It is always so comical hearing from some civilian who has never left their suburban home in central comfortsville, dictate about what is what, especially when commentary is sourced from comically biased media outlets.

You took one little tiny section of the declaration and are focusing on it.

Why don't you read the other,..Oohhhh I dunno,...1500 words?


Perhaps you would feel better if we never went over there and Saddam got mad at another tribe or race of people again, and decided to gas them. That's always fun.

Hey, I KNOW!

Maybe you could go live over there, and while out on a stroll with your wife, have Uday and/or Qusay hop out of their car and rape her while you are either on your knees begging them to stop, or dead from a round already being forced at high velocity from your skull at point blank range.



NOW, I agree that there are ton of other things our government could be doing better with their time.

However, let me stress that your ear being bent by the liberal media in our country does not impress upon me any merit whatsoever. I reserve that for my fellow servicemembers.

Opine all you like, for certain.

Just don't be so presumptuous to think you actually know what you're talking about, especially in contrast to those who have been there.


simmonsjoe,

In closing, let me iterate that I have nothing against Muslims whatsoever. However, just as the christians destroyed forever the integrity of the religion by launching a religiously driven, fanatical pursuit of all non-believers through Europe, so are members of a professed Islamic culture doing the same at this point in our history.

It would behoove the members associated with said "Religion of terror", to distance themselves meaningfully, and purposefully, from said fanatics.

What I have gotten a lot of, and am actually shocked to see you differ from, is excuse upon excuse for this fanatical behavior, by those who are purportedly "Of the religion of peace".

Just as the christians of the middle ages should have distanced themselves from the fanatical crusades that ravaged western Europa, so too should the true, enlightened, and peaceful followers of Islam distance themselves.

Instead, a purportedly "Peaceful" sect of Muslims wants to build a youth/prayer center at ground zero.

Excuse me for being a bit offended.

Why not tell twin towers jokes at the same location.

It'd be the same disrespectful affect.


NOW, I will support the freedom of them to do whatever is within the definition of whatever is most free. I will even fight and die if necessary for my fellow man to exercise his own beliefs.

Don't you think though, that the timing, and location is a bit inappropriate at the moment?

I mean, there IS truth to Mosques being built as a symbol of Islamic victory.

Just sayin...

 

[simmonsjoe]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Hate speech

I'm Muslim, come and try it.

 

[Ponch]

You took one little tiny section of the declaration and are focusing on it.

That's the section that contains the actual justification. And it's false from beginning to end.

Maybe you could go live over there, and while out on a stroll with your wife, have Uday and/or Qusay hop out of their car and rape her...

Nobody is defending Saddam here. It certainly sucked to have Saddam mad at you. However, the majority of Iraqis were not in that position, and their lives were better then than they are now. Congratulations on managing to make people miss Saddam. Your mother must be proud.

 

[slowfiveoh]

That's the section that contains the actual justification. And it's false from beginning to end.

The entire document is a statement disclosing a multitude of reasons for the invasion.

Your statement of it being false from end to end is incorrect. I have already proven that.

Armchair quarterbacks are comical.

Listen to more newscasts so you can further validate your false existence. You're making me laugh here...

Nobody is defending Saddam here. It certainly sucked to have Saddam mad at you. However, the majority of Iraqis were not in that position, and their lives were better then than they are now. Congratulations on managing to make people miss Saddam. Your mother must be proud.

More lip service from a poser who wasn't there.

It was so readily apparent how awesome he treated his citizens.

I was especially fond of all the crippled/starving/half-clothed little children who obviously hadn't eaten in pretty much forever that were begging me for parts of my MRE, or even a water bottle cap full of water.

Yeah man, they were so much better than they are now, receiving coalition food and supples, as well as medical service.

You live in your own little made up world.

It's kind of sad...


simmonsjoe,

I have no idea what you are referencing because John or Mike keep editing out the hate speech.

Can you PM me the comment so I can understand your inference?


I already specified I think it's fine for you to practice whatever your beliefs are. I take no issue with that.

I do take issue with a few fanatics being used as a crutch for the good to get what they want.

Will the mosque be built? Probably.
Will the world end? Nah.

Is it in terrible taste and possily being pushed through as a symbol of islamic victory over "western oppression"? Most definitely, at least for some.

 

[Ponch]

The entire document is a statement disclosing a multitude of reasons for the invasion.

The paragraph I quoted contains a justification that is actually acceptable, or at least morally defensible, to the American people, which is exactly why the government continually harped on the theme that the "smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud over New York."

The other items are insufficient to justify an invasion. So Saddam is a bad man. So are 100 other rulers we can name, yet we're not invading them; it's obvious to everyone that we don't give a damn about freeing people from bad men.

Your statement of it being false from end to end is incorrect. I have already proven that.

You confirmed that the paragraph I quoted was wrong in every particular. You supported my statement, which illustrates that my statement is correct, and that even you know it.

Armchair quarterbacks are comical...

Invasions of countries posing no imminent threat to the United States, however, is not comical. It's criminal.

It was so readily apparent how awesome he treated his citizens. I was especially fond of all the crippled/starving/half-clothed little children who obviously hadn't eaten in pretty much forever...

You're describing Iraq today. Before the invasion it was bad enough, but now it's much worse. Congratulations on making a bad situation worse.

 

[slowfiveoh]

The paragraph I quoted contains a justification that is actually acceptable, or at least morally defensible, to the American people, which is exactly why the government continually harped on the theme that the "smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud over New York."

What you deem to be "morally defensible" is your own personal interpretation. I believe truly that our reasonings for going in were fine. I simply believe the timing was inappropriate, and that our focuses could have been placed on better agenda items.

I would have preferred en masse invasion of Afghanistan personally.

The other items are insufficient to justify an invasion. So Saddam is a bad man. So are 100 other rulers we can name, yet we're not invading them; it's obvious to everyone that we don't give a damn about freeing people from bad men.

The "other items are insufficient to justify an invasion", is your personal interpretation. I am sure you have a few million or more backs who feel the same way, based on emotive foundations. Many people also feel as I do.

Trying to enforce your moral "superiority" as if it were the only in existence makes you a laughing stock of a conversationalist. I can respect that you feel the "drumming up" was excessive and did not yield results you, or many Americans were led to believe. However, this omission does NOT invalidate the reasons for the invasion.

Although the action is "morally defensible", it was executed in an inappropriate timeframe.

You confirmed that the paragraph I quoted was wrong in every particular. You supported my statement, which illustrates that my statement is correct, and that even you know it.

Not going to play your silly game of choosing what commentary to accept out of the statement of facts. YOU are the one picking and choosing, not me.

I accept that there were things in there that were inaccurate, but simultaneously realize the other justifications were sound.

As the country that repelled the invasion of Iraq, we would be remiss not to adjudicate and/or intervene where necessary, when a nation WE were involved with, does not stand by an agreement it made, partially with us. Note the investigation was going on PRIOR to 9/11, and had been slowly building since then.

Oh wait....

You won't do that. You will simply cling desperately to the fact that no standing nuclear weapons or chemical agents were found.

The rest of the statement of facts is just "silly" to you, and as you put it, "not morally defensible".

Must be nice to swing desperately from that which only you deem "morally defensible".

Invasions of countries posing no imminent threat to the United States, however, is not comical. It's criminal.

That's correct. Countries that pose no imminent threat to the United States, OR, it's allies. Possession of said weapons is a violation of the UNSC Resolution meant to keep Kuwait safe.

You're describing Iraq today. Before the invasion it was bad enough, but now it's much worse. Congratulations on making a bad situation worse.

If I were not at work, I would do you the justice of showing you Iraq BEFORE coalition involvement. Gassing of the kurds was SO much better than the stabilization efforts have tried to impliment over there.

Frankly, were it not so precious to your ideals to prove the invasion wrong as part of the justification for your political beliefs, you wouldn't even know Iraq existed, let alone pretend to know what goes on over there.

Congratulations, and good luck on your armchair quarterbacking. You're the Montana of your era.

 

[obamacare]

Please Answer this .....

Ok lets start over, let's just say they build it..............then they find out its a jihadist training center....then what do we do? what do we say?

 

[wrightme]

Ok lets start over, let's just say they build it..............then they find out its a jihadist training center....then what do we do? what do we say?

Storm it and send them to Gitmo.

 

[obamacare]

Storm it and send them to Gitmo.

Their closing it.

 

[Ponch]

Ok lets start over, let's just say they build it..............then they find out its a jihadist training center....then what do we do? what do we say?

We're basically fantasizing here, right? Like, "what if it turns out to be a dimensional portal for invasion by space aliens" type stuff? Or are you seriously considering that to have even the remotest likelihood?

As for Gitmo, they're closing nothing. They might relocate it. They will continue abducting and torturing people, and they've already said for the record that they won't release those inmates that they know very well are innocent.

 

[obamacare]

We're basically fantasizing here, right? Like, "what if it turns out to be a dimensional portal for invasion by space aliens" type stuff?

That could happen also.

 

[Tawnos]

Guys, please ignore obamacare. It's Eric, trolling, again. I think he's off his meds.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Guys, please ignore obamacare. It's Eric, trolling, again. I think he's off his meds.

I wish our politicians would have ignored Obamacare, instead they ignored the will of the people.

 

[mosinnagant]

almost 9 years later

and you jihhadist sympathizers want to help them built a terror training camp on us soil
If you want to to that **** all you assholes freedom haters sharia law lovers

 

[wrightme]

Guys, please ignore obamacare. It's Eric, trolling, again. I think he's off his meds.

Now that just ain't neighbor-like. :monkey

 

[eye95]

Now that just ain't neighbor-like. :monkey

But it is wise.

 

[wrightme]

But it is wise.

Very true.