You still didn't answer my question, either. What, in your opinion, will it take for there to be peace in the Middle East? All of us convert to Islam? What?
Oh, sorry, I totally forgot. Honestly, there is TOO much religion in that area to ever have peace. You have born again evangelical Christians who believe in the coming and how Jews must be in control of that land, at which point, well you know the story. Then you have Jews trying to fight for land they believe is entitled to them, and you have Palestinians fighting for land for the same reasons.
It's like what that other guy said, first rule of starting a ground invasion/war in the Middle East:
Don't.
Rule 2: See rule 1.
I pretty much agree with that guy. There is too much religion in that region to ever have peace. I say that, because NO MATTER what happens, you can't satisfy all three religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism).
And, by the way, I like the way you think about Iraq being far safer under Saddam. I've had the same theories about America. We could easily reduce the murder rate (and other violent crimes) here in America if we just had the right leader. All we need is a guy who is willing to be ruthless and murderous to all the criminals...boom! Instant safety!
You misunderstood me. I didn't say (at least I hope I didn't say) that Iraq was safer under Hussein. What I meant was the death rates on a daily basis today are worse than under his control. Iraq wasn't safe back when he was in control, and it CERTAINLY isn't safe today. Now, it's worse. Why? Because Saddam wanted nothing to do with al-Qaeda. As a power control freak, any cells operating in his country would have posed a direct threat to him as a dictator. So, he kept al-Qaeda out. Now, with him gone, al-Qaeda has taken over pretty much all over the country, and use it for training, recruiting, and breeding terrorists.
There are alot of reasons to oppose the Iraq war, but to say "things were better under Saddam" is colossally stupid and betrays every democratic principle known to mankind.
You know what IS colossally stupid and betrays every democratic principle known to mankind? TRYING to spread DEMOCRACY by bombs and guns. Now that's ironic and betrays every democratic principle known to mankind.
Don't get me wrong, "things were better under Saddam" is only something I meant with respect to how things are today in Iraq. Of course Saddam sucked, and of course things sucked under his control. BUT, the situation is a LOT worse in Iraq today. Previously, you only had one problem: Saddam and his militant army doing what they wanted. Now in Iraq, you have US soldiers trying the best they can to patrol and control areas. You have al-Qaeda members running all over the country and recruiting, training, and expanding al-Qaeda. You have a civil war between Sunnis and Shias, along with the Kurds who still get screwed. And on top of that, you have multiple suicide bombings pretty much daily killing Iraqi civilians. Now, MILLIONS of people have been displaced from Iraq. Look at the number of children in school during Saddam, and look at the number of Iraqi children in school today. That number is now LOWER than before. Children are the future, right? And Iraq right now doesn't have a good future. That's what I meant by 'things were better under Saddam.' Don't take that literally. Of course things sucked back then. What I meant, though, is that things suck far worse today than before.
CoolSidePillow said:
CoolSidePillow, I won't paste you entire post, but very nicely said. I agree with a lot of things you said.
Anyway, next up...
Your logic that Iraq is a desolate place and the media only reports on the killings that it knows about goes for when Saddam was in power as well, with the added caveat that today the media has pretty much free roaming over the country, while under Saddam they didn't, so there is a much greater probability that there were many more unreported killings under his regime than there are now.
Iraq is a desolate place to begin with, and now with huge craters and infrastructure shot to he!!. You'd be foolish to think the media could handle every single execution. Like I said, before, scroll up in this post and see my comentary on pre versus post Saddam Iraq.
And as far as whether the three are white, black, jewish, purple, or polka-doted, it doesn't matter which. I simply asked you if there were three men of arab muslim descent standing in front of you, and you knew that 1 would kill you if you turned your back, would you turn your back to any of them. If you would, then you are a fool.
In your case above, what does it matter if the three men are Arabic or not. What if they were three white Christians? Would your response still be the same? It should be. What if they were three blacks? Or three latinos? If it was three white Christian men, one of whom tried to kill you, would you now fear/distrust/hate ALL Christian white men for the actions of a few?
Whether you are a vigilant fool, or a paranoid fool, it doesn't really matter, because you will be a dead fool. Call it what you wish, I call it being realistic.
So spell it out for me. Just once and for all.
Are you saying you fear/distrust/hate ALL 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world, all due to your fear that they might do something bad to you?
From all your posts here, I would think your answers seems to be a resounding "YES!"
And that is unfortunate. Like PCL_128 and his story, it's always good to be vigilant and aware. Paranoia and fear is sign of weakness. Al-Qaeda has stated over and over again that one of their goals is to instill fear in the hearts of Americans. In your heart, you fear and distrust ALL Muslims (over 1.5 billion people). Congratulations, al-Qaeda has achieved their goal.
Do whatever you want.
YOU can be paranoid and fear all 1.5+ billion Muslims. Unlike you, I will not let paranoia run my life. I will remain vigilant and take the right course of action if a situation calls for it (just like PCL_128 did in his story).
