in the coffin for Iraq's murdering terrorist'. Any shred of legitimacy they might have enjoyed from within Iraq is gone. The only support left in country is from the die hard Baathist's desperately trying to regain power and their numbers are miniscule.
Make no mistake, this is a big deal. The move effectively diminishes the chance for an all out civil war breaking out between Sunnis and Shiites to practically nil. All major parties are now participants in the process leaving the radical elements essentially isolated and powerless.
1
Notice it robs the insurgents AND the Liberals of any remaining shred of legitimacy.
Posted by: Carlos at May 23, 2005 08:53 AM (UWO6N)
2
Looks like the democrats side is losing
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 23, 2005 09:10 AM (xkIHW)
3
Carlos, you never know. The Libs might lead the next insurgency and you'll be wearing the orange jumpsuit this time...
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 23, 2005 10:43 AM (E2ydb)
4
DONT READ THIS!
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640402
Posted by: lovely girl at May 23, 2005 10:50 AM (6eXCj)
5
The Saudis are deserting the "insurgents" too. The Grand Mufti has urged Saudi men (boys, really) to stay home and not spill precious Muslim blood in Iraq. See:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/05/being-falstaff.html
What a viper's nest...Zarqawi is going to have to look elsewhere after he runs through all the mentally retarded/Down's Syndrome people he's been sending out on his "missions."
Posted by: Dymphna at May 23, 2005 12:59 PM (O7bGD)
6
I don't know. Remember, Sinn Fein is the political arm of the IRA. Couldn't the violent Sunni minority decide that it is in their best interest to co-opt any "Sunni" party?
Posted by: Pepys at May 23, 2005 01:14 PM (cUt2Z)
7
Ill believe it all when i see Sunni Iraqis either hunting down the terrorists in Iraq or when i see them actually becoming a civilized, productive part of the new Iraq government and the prove themselves worthy....ill hope for the best but prepare for the worst
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 23, 2005 09:10 PM (vDoO2)
8
I hope the Iraqus can work it out and see the light of freedom and democratic rule. God knows they deserve it after Saddam.
Posted by: opine6 at May 23, 2005 09:53 PM (YyWmH)
9
Both Osama and Saddam were armed, supplied and trained by US, so they should all be mad at you even if you did eventually turn against and rid of them. So only the Iran-situation is actually Muslims' fault. You're to blame for these other more destructive mightymonkeys and their followers messing up Middle East.
(hmm... I seem to have subconciously divided the people of the world into three groups, you(=US), them(=what ever you are fighting) and us(=EU+it's former colonies outside Middle East and North America))
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:23 AM (lGolT)
10
In my opinion, modern democracy is just legal tyranny. It's not at all like the ancient democracy in Greece, where all free men in town went to a meeting to talk and vote about an important decision. Modern democracy is just picking few hundred people, who will just do what the 20 people have been told to make them do by the one person in charge. The guy in charge of the party says how to vote, and if you don't vote like the rest of your party most of the time, you can be pretty sure you won't be there for the next 4/6 years.
Modern 'democracy'
(your system, we have a powersplit system because 4 parties are pretty much equally powerful and the presidents job is just to ratify things Eduskunta decides) is just nationalsocial ism. One man is Führer/dictator for 4/6/8/12 years and then you pick a new guy to run the country and be your 'god'.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:45 AM (lGolT)
11
"So only the Iran-situation is actually Muslims' fault."
Okay, so we helped them in Afghanistan to rid themselves of the commies and they then turn on us like a pack of dogs and it's our fault. It's not they're fault that they're tyrannical and have been since Mohammed learned to read. What would you have done? Allow Russia to go in and enslave a whole population while you hide in your safe little world and say it's none of your business? Oh wait.....
Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2005 07:27 AM (YudAC)
12
I would've allowed Russians to take over. Afganistan only exists as an artificial bumper country created from pieces of China and Soviet Union to lessen friction and border feuges between the two. That country doesn't deserve to exist or be independent.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:06 PM (lGolT)
13
A Finn writes: "Both Osama and Saddam were armed, supplied and trained by US ..."
False. The US did not knowingly arm or supply Osama Bin Laden. When OBL was in Afghanistan, he was not of a high enough profile for the US to notice him. Iraq received only a trivial amount of equipment and funding from the US - the bulk of it agricultural supports that may have been diverted through the BCCI scandal. Iraq received its military armaments from the Soviet Union and France.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 24, 2005 02:40 PM (xauGB)
14
Lol noob! It was Cold War! Non-neutral countries
(France, Poland and other weaklings, who couldn't defend themselves against the Soviet/Nazi invaders) were scared shitless and only did what you 'suggested' them to do, so any assistance to these unfortunate persons they provided was assistance from the US. The Soviets were of course helping Muslims to spread 'the glorious message of sosialism' across the world, so you just had to do more than them and actually arm them so the sosialists wouldn't get overpowerful and ignore you, leaving you with less than half the oil per year you used in a regular year back then.
Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 03:00 PM (lGolT)
15
"The US did not knowingly arm or supply Osama Bin Laden."-Robin
Bullshit Robin. Osama was our boy.
"Iraq received only a trivial amount of equipment and funding from the US"-Robin
Bullshit Robin. Saddam was our boy.
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 03:55 PM (/+dAV)
16
You remain a liar greg.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 24, 2005 09:06 PM (xauGB)
17
Sure, greg. Saddam was riding around in American-made T-55, T-62, PT76, T72 and BTR, BRDM, and BMP armored vehicles plus Panhard armored cars. And he was flying around in American-made MiG21, MiG23, MiG27, MiG29, Sukhoi 25 and Mirage fighters and Antonov transport aircraft. Which were armed with American made AA-10 and AA-11 missiles. While below, there were American made SCUD rockets, RPG's, Strela anti-aircraft missiles and those cute little American-made Sagger anti-tank missiles.
His soldiers were armed with those famous Colt manufactured Kalashnikovs and Makarovs. Not to mention Ruger built RPK machine guns.
What a goof.
Posted by: SPQR at May 24, 2005 10:00 PM (xauGB)
Posted by: SPQR at May 24, 2005 10:46 PM (xauGB)
19
What's the point of seeing the
sales chart, when you were giving them away for services?
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:29 AM (cWMi4)
20
Oh my! What's this?
Is this a picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? Couldn''t be, or could it?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
He was our boy alright.
Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 08:27 AM (/+dAV)
21
That's Rumsfeld alright, even I identify him, and I haven't had to see his face on TV more than 3 or 4 times. Perhaps it's just Rumsfelds one-man-conspiracy and has nothing to do with the rest of US government....
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 09:48 AM (lGolT)
22
A photo of Rumsfeld shaking someone's hand versus data showing that there was an insignificant amount of arms supplied to Iraq. We see that the liar Greg's standard of evidence is whatever he finds in his colon.
Posted by: SPQR at May 25, 2005 01:17 PM (xauGB)
23
Comooooooon, they gave the big guns to them. How could they have gotten money to buy em? (darn, maybe I was wrong and they were giving money instead of weapons...)
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 01:57 PM (lGolT)
24
greg yet again uses an empty and vacuos argument to 'prove his point'. Never mind historical context, let us think in absolutes. How dare we ally ourselves with Uncle Joe vs. Hitler? I mean the man is responisble for the death of millions. That FDR, what a pussbucket eh?
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 25, 2005 02:02 PM (jPCiN)
25
FDR = Frank D. Roosevelt = Uncle Joe? Was this the guy who allowed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 02:18 PM (lGolT)
26
Uh, no, A Finn, and to think you were bragging about your view of history recently ...
FDR was more than 3 months dead when Hiroshima was bombed with the atomic bomb.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 25, 2005 02:49 PM (xauGB)
27
=) I remember history, not the people behind it, except those that keep being mentioned every time. FDR was the crippled guy, right? The one shown in the movie "Pearl Harbor" getting up from his wheelchair to stand up and prove a point?
Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 03:39 PM (lGolT)
28
Not a good sign if you are getting your history from Hollywood
FDR was the one who repeatedly and expressly lied to the American public about his preparations for US entry into World War II, and many other things like his failing health. FDR was the one who had US citizens rounded up and interned based on their race.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 25, 2005 05:14 PM (xauGB)
29
Bet FDR was a fan of Hitlers work before the Blitzkrieg- and active Holocaust-parts of his rule. Who was the crippled guy in "Pearl Harbor" supposed to be? (not getting my history from Hollywood, would be much more pro-US if I were)
Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 01:58 AM (cWMi4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
