Thread: Liberals Blame America for Nick Berg's Death

Originally Posted by Trooth

Remember you have to think back ten years ago, not now. Women weren't even allowed to drive then. That was the society we restored. I am pleased that it has improved, by all accounts women may soon obtain the right to vote, which is good. But it was further away ten years ago.

We obviously did the right thing. No nation building involved. If it was as bad there as you say, then they are evolving so rapidly they will overtake the UK's constitutional monarchy in just a few decades.

Originally Posted by Trooth

Why didn't we instigate a Constitional Republic based on the idea of individual rights?

Because they were liberated from an outside power, not an internal power. They allready had a government that was far less than malevolent.

Originally Posted by Confed999

We obviously did the right thing. No nation building involved. If it was as bad there as you say, then they are evolving so rapidly they will overtake the UK's constitutional monarchy in just a few decades.

lol - When i was a kid all the top jobs were held by women - head of state, prime minister. Head of state still is, of course.

But this is with the benefit of hindsight. Was the foresight there at the time? I remember some debate about how Iraq was just worse, but that no one "shared our values" in the region. But that all somewhat frittered away. I guess the plight of the Kurds took over everyone's thoughts.

I think we have to look at how our foreign policy is received - in that instance it can be said that we didn't apply our principles and beliefs and perhaps we were only after the oil, but from that conflict is were some of the roots of today's problems are found.

Because they were liberated from an outside power, not an internal power. They allready had a government that was far less than malevolent.

Yeah, but they weren't liberated in our usage of the words. In reality we restored them not liberated them.

Originally Posted by Praxus

The last because not to many Americans or anyone for that matter knows what America was actually founded on. The false idea of the US being founded on majority rule is so drilled into our brain that we refuse to reject a system that by it's nature destroys man's rights because of coruse by this logic since the majority supports the Government it has a right to exsist.

You would prefer a minority rule system? What would be the basis for the apartheid used to select leadership?

I would perfer man to not rule, only to protect objective laws defined to protect mans right to life, liberty, and property. It would be a limited Republic, the representitives chosen by the people would only have the power to change laws like the size of the army, orginazation of the FBI, distribute funding for the branches of Government, etc. It would have no power to regulate outside industry outside of protecting us from force and fraud.

How would you choose those representatives?

Would you ban political parties?

The people elect electors, and then the electors vote for the president and the representitives.

No political party that wants to destroy peoples rights has a right to run for office. They have a right to exsist but not to run.

Originally Posted by Praxus

No political party that wants to destroy peoples rights has a right to run for office. They have a right to exsist but not to run.

Like the KKK, US Communist Party, etc?

Yes, exactly.

"Free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others." Tony Blair

Originally Posted by Trooth

I think we have to look at how our foreign policy is received

I think we should try to do the right thing regardless of how it's recieved.

Originally Posted by Trooth

Yeah, but they weren't liberated in our usage of the words. In reality we restored them not liberated them.

They were liberated in dictionary terms:
Main Entry: lib·er·ate
Pronunciation: 'li-b&-"rAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin liberatus, past participle of liberare, from liber
1 : to set at liberty : FREE; specifically : to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power

The Coalition didn't have the right to depose their government, other than the levels of liberty in their country, did we? Seems the right thing was to liberate Kuwait, just as many countries have been liberated through the ages.

BTW, we also can't be sure that the reforms in Kuwait weren't part of the liberation deal.

Originally Posted by Praxus

The people elect electors, and then the electors vote for the president and the representitives.

Isn't that a system that was derived because of the difficulties of running elections in large geographical areas? In the 21st century, why add that extra layer between the people and the selection of their leaders?

Originally Posted by jth298

You genuinely believe that this is a good idea? Given that recruitment for terrorism is based around frustration, hate and anger that is channeled by religious fanaticism. Do you think that killing them won't just generate more of the same and make the western world more unsafe?

Terrorists do not exist as a national entity in the same way that the Japanese and Germans did in WW2. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to make a comparison because this war isn't about borders. To me it seems to be about a conflict of ideologies.

I am not anti-american or pro-muslim. I simply believe that bombing the crap out of eachother will become an ever-perpetuating cycle. Both sides villify the other when it seems logical and reasonable to me that responsibilty and a solution must lie somewhere between the two ideologies.

JTL,

The Muslim terrorist don't intend on stopping if we stop. They intend on subduing all of mankind until all go in the way of Allah. The method employed is death to the Infidel and for the Glory of Allah.

I just can't help it...YOUR AN IDIOT! Now I did it...The MODSQUAD will surely dink me and it's your fault JTH...

Lat's jist lat ole Islam Kill uz all cuz weun's don't wanna make'm mayad by fight'n bayack. Ther jist wanna convirt us'ins to gud Muslim's cuz weez jist a scayadd of ol' "Infidel's". Weun's jist needs ta und'rstayand thit ther a relijon O' peace and weez Kafir, (cows).

Home, Home on the range,
Where deer and the antilope range,
where seldom is heard a discouraging word,
and the skys are not cloudy all day,

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Ivan

Originally Posted by Leader

You believe that killing terrorists is a bad idea.



No, I do not. Who wants to go in to a profession that can only lead to death?



lol World War II wasn't about ideologies?



No, you are neutral, which is worst. You see good and evil and you do not pick a side. You act as though terrorism is logical and understandable that we can some how have peace with terrorists. They want to kill me. No matter who I am or what I do, they want to kill me for what I am, an American.

Everyone but Muslim's are "Infidel's" not just American's. We're All just a bunch of "Infidel's", worthy of death.

You obviously already know that, but it's worth it for all of us "kafir" (cows) to understand our place in the view of "peaceful Islam".


Ivan