Obama's right

[Coyote]

We have so little clue about it that we toppled a stable government in Iraq and opened Pandora's box

So dictatorships are stable governments in your mind? So North Korea is a stable government, Libya under Kaddafi was a stable government, Saudi Arabia is a stable government..

Says a lot about you!

Dictatorships can be stable. That's not synonymous with "good".

Can you say with a straight face that Iraq is better off now then it was under Saddam?

Yes! As they have a choice instead of living in fear of what they say and think. Do you think Saddam would defend the Kurds?

Just like the far left propaganda from 2003 - 2009 showed, freedom of speech is not free..

Saddam was no angel. I think we can agree on that.

However, what exactly is BETTER in Iraq now? ISIS controls about a third of Iraq and we all know how kind ISIS is. The government was riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption. The sectarian bloodbath that followed our incompetent attempt at nation building probably claimed as many lives as Saddam did.

So, what exactly is better in Iraq NOW than it was under Saddam?

The US government is riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption, your point?

And the Iraqi people get a choice and they have a voice, do you want them to be slaves to their government again?

Saddam was a brutal dictator and would not have a problem with some "organization" like ISIS wiping out the Kurds..

ISIS is also in Syria (was an ally of Saddam)..

So you are saying Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?

 

[Kosh]

The one I asked twice...

If you mean this question: So dictatorships are stable governments in your mind?

It was answered.

No about arming the Muslim nations..

Repeat it and I'll answer it. Unlike some, I don't have a problem with answering questions.

So you want to arm all these Muslim countries?

No. Not all.

Which ones and what do you give them?

 

[Coyote]

Somehow I had a feeling you'd descend to cartoons eventually.

Those pesky things sure have a way of bitch slapping subversives, don't they?

you have a point

 

[Coyote]

If you mean this question: So dictatorships are stable governments in your mind?

It was answered.

No about arming the Muslim nations..

Repeat it and I'll answer it. Unlike some, I don't have a problem with answering questions.

So you want to arm all these Muslim countries?

No. Not all.

Which ones and what do you give them?

I don't know.

 

[Kosh]

So dictatorships are stable governments in your mind? So North Korea is a stable government, Libya under Kaddafi was a stable government, Saudi Arabia is a stable government..

Says a lot about you!

Dictatorships can be stable. That's not synonymous with "good".

Can you say with a straight face that Iraq is better off now then it was under Saddam?

Yes! As they have a choice instead of living in fear of what they say and think. Do you think Saddam would defend the Kurds?

Just like the far left propaganda from 2003 - 2009 showed, freedom of speech is not free..

Saddam was no angel. I think we can agree on that.

However, what exactly is BETTER in Iraq now? ISIS controls about a third of Iraq and we all know how kind ISIS is. The government was riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption. The sectarian bloodbath that followed our incompetent attempt at nation building probably claimed as many lives as Saddam did.

So, what exactly is better in Iraq NOW than it was under Saddam?

The US government is riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption, your point?

And the Iraqi people get a choice and they have a voice, do you want them to be slaves to their government again?

Saddam was a brutal dictator and would not have a problem with some "organization" like ISIS wiping out the Kurds..

ISIS is also in Syria (was an ally of Saddam)..

So you are saying Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?

Are you saying that freedom is bad thing?

 

[Coyote]

Dictatorships can be stable. That's not synonymous with "good".

Can you say with a straight face that Iraq is better off now then it was under Saddam?

Yes! As they have a choice instead of living in fear of what they say and think. Do you think Saddam would defend the Kurds?

Just like the far left propaganda from 2003 - 2009 showed, freedom of speech is not free..

Saddam was no angel. I think we can agree on that.

However, what exactly is BETTER in Iraq now? ISIS controls about a third of Iraq and we all know how kind ISIS is. The government was riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption. The sectarian bloodbath that followed our incompetent attempt at nation building probably claimed as many lives as Saddam did.

So, what exactly is better in Iraq NOW than it was under Saddam?

The US government is riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption, your point?

And the Iraqi people get a choice and they have a voice, do you want them to be slaves to their government again?

Saddam was a brutal dictator and would not have a problem with some "organization" like ISIS wiping out the Kurds..

ISIS is also in Syria (was an ally of Saddam)..

So you are saying Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?

Are you saying that freedom is bad thing?

What freedom?

 

[Kosh]

No about arming the Muslim nations..

Repeat it and I'll answer it. Unlike some, I don't have a problem with answering questions.

So you want to arm all these Muslim countries?

No. Not all.

Which ones and what do you give them?

I don't know.

Exactly! Thus making blanket very vague statements does not help your case, nor will it ever.

Because if you want the Muslim nations to lead the way then the US will have to arm them and give them money to do it.

 

[Kosh]

Yes! As they have a choice instead of living in fear of what they say and think. Do you think Saddam would defend the Kurds?

Just like the far left propaganda from 2003 - 2009 showed, freedom of speech is not free..

Saddam was no angel. I think we can agree on that.

However, what exactly is BETTER in Iraq now? ISIS controls about a third of Iraq and we all know how kind ISIS is. The government was riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption. The sectarian bloodbath that followed our incompetent attempt at nation building probably claimed as many lives as Saddam did.

So, what exactly is better in Iraq NOW than it was under Saddam?

The US government is riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption, your point?

And the Iraqi people get a choice and they have a voice, do you want them to be slaves to their government again?

Saddam was a brutal dictator and would not have a problem with some "organization" like ISIS wiping out the Kurds..

ISIS is also in Syria (was an ally of Saddam)..

So you are saying Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?

Are you saying that freedom is bad thing?

What freedom?

Are you claiming that the Iraqi's have less freedoms now than they did under Saddam?

 

[Coyote]

Repeat it and I'll answer it. Unlike some, I don't have a problem with answering questions.

So you want to arm all these Muslim countries?

No. Not all.

Which ones and what do you give them?

I don't know.

Exactly! Thus making blanket very vague statements does not help your case, nor will it ever.

Because if you want the Muslim nations to lead the way then the US will have to arm them and give them money to do it.

When I say I don't know, it means I don't know - I don't have all the information.

We have a long history of arming other nations. Why stop now? We can't be the ones to lead the effort because it's an Islamic problem. Islamic nations have to be in the forfront. We can support.

 

[deltex1]

ISIS is an extremist cult. Do we agree on that?

They are Islamic Extremists, just as the KKK are extremist Christians. Every religion has their fringes, the must be attributed to that respective religion.

Ok. I can agree with that.

But do you think we should be in the forefront of any action against ISIS?

We should test the islamic nations as to what our role should be. If their response is inadequate, then we need to act.

 

[Coyote]

Saddam was no angel. I think we can agree on that.

However, what exactly is BETTER in Iraq now? ISIS controls about a third of Iraq and we all know how kind ISIS is. The government was riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption. The sectarian bloodbath that followed our incompetent attempt at nation building probably claimed as many lives as Saddam did.

So, what exactly is better in Iraq NOW than it was under Saddam?

The US government is riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption, your point?

And the Iraqi people get a choice and they have a voice, do you want them to be slaves to their government again?

Saddam was a brutal dictator and would not have a problem with some "organization" like ISIS wiping out the Kurds..

ISIS is also in Syria (was an ally of Saddam)..

So you are saying Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?

Are you saying that freedom is bad thing?

What freedom?

Are you claiming that the Iraqi's have less freedoms now than they did under Saddam?

No, I'm asking you what freedom?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This isn't a war against Islam.

The last words uttered by every culture that succumbed to Islam. But what the hell... what's 1400 years of subserviency to a perverse cult?

Hello Pubes

Hello Cervix...

We survived the perverse cult of Christianity and domesticated it.

No such Christianity has ever existed. As there is nothing in Christianity which directs Christians to murder people because they sin.

This in contrast to Islam where it specifically requires ALL FOLLOWERS to MURDER ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT ISLAM and CONQUER THOSE THEY DO NOT MURDER.

I anticipate the same for Islam.

Huh... 1400 years and you have yet to do so. Europe is heading toward an Islamic State, with Jews fleeing Europe at the highest rate since the 30s.

Here's how ya got there:


You people are either delusional or you're manifestly evil.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All Christians at the time were a part of and behind the Crusades, are all Muslim behind and a part of ISIS'S Islamic extremism?

Apparently you believe the bolded, yet I am the one receiving the lecture.

Using Obama's logic, yes. If he can attribute all of Christianity to the actions of the Crusaders, we can most certainly do the same with Islam.

Try reading a little on ''just war theory''

The Day - Google News Archive Search

Also, the Just War Doctrine via the School of Salamanca deems campaigns of forced conversion to Christianity to be illegitimate, if that is the case, ISIS is waging an illegitimate war. Meaning this meets all three criteria for us to wage war against ISIS:

1) War is justified if acting in self defense (two American journalists were beheaded by ISIS)

2) War can be waged to prevent violent acts by tyrants. (See 1)

3) War can be waged as punishment against an enemy who engages in legitimate atrocities against humanity (This one is self explanatory).


As for the Just War theory of the Catholic Church itself:

"...it is one thing to wage a war of self-defence; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties”

The 1993 US Catholic Conference:

"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

See that? As far as I can see, ISIS is slaughtering Yazidis, massacring Coptic Christians, or in essence, manifesting itself as a "grave, public evil" who participates in aggression and "massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

One of the problems also is the use of Proportionality. Liberals like you foist that upon Israel when they retaliate against rocket fire from Gaza or Palestine. The problem here is that ISIS isn't a country, it is a group of barbarians, a self proclaimed state committed to acts of ethnic cleansing. If we are to react proportionately, we would then be violating the just war theory, since our actions cannot commensurate the evil acts of the opposing party.

Comparative Justice, though, states we can act only if the injustice committed against us is greater than the injustice committed against our enemy. (I'd say having two of your citizens beheaded is a grave injustice, which ISIS itself has never encountered, being the ones who delve out such injustice, therefore, we are justified to wage war.)

And the biggie here is Last Resort, as it says, war is a last resort. It is a certainty that ISIS will not respond to calls for peaceful resolution to their rampage across Libya and Syria, they will continue murdering innocent people and prisoners of war (which allows for jus ad bellum).

You see, I do know more than you think. Lastly,

"I have no plan to defeat ISIS" thus sayeth, Obama.

 

[Kosh]

So you want to arm all these Muslim countries?

No. Not all.

Which ones and what do you give them?

I don't know.

Exactly! Thus making blanket very vague statements does not help your case, nor will it ever.

Because if you want the Muslim nations to lead the way then the US will have to arm them and give them money to do it.

When I say I don't know, it means I don't know - I don't have all the information.

We have a long history of arming other nations. Why stop now? We can't be the ones to lead the effort because it's an Islamic problem. Islamic nations have to be in the forfront. We can support.

That is what the far left said about arming people in Afghanistan in 80's..

 

[TemplarKormac]

This isn't a war against Islam.

The last words uttered by every culture that succumbed to Islam. But what the hell... what's 1400 years of subserviency to a perverse cult?

Hello Pubes,

We survived the perverse cult of Christianity and domesticated it. I anticipate the same for Islam.

Uh, you do realize how many years it took? Nearly a millennium.

Ya, but we're not starting at the same level.

Explain.

 

[Kosh]

The US government is riddled with favoritism, sectarianism and corruption, your point?

And the Iraqi people get a choice and they have a voice, do you want them to be slaves to their government again?

Saddam was a brutal dictator and would not have a problem with some "organization" like ISIS wiping out the Kurds..

ISIS is also in Syria (was an ally of Saddam)..

So you are saying Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?

Are you saying that freedom is bad thing?

What freedom?

Are you claiming that the Iraqi's have less freedoms now than they did under Saddam?

No, I'm asking you what freedom?

No I am asking you are you claiming that the Iraqi's have less freedoms now than they did under Saddam?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It also doesn't help that members of their faith killed 3000 people. It has a pretty bad rap as it stands. That stigma needs to be removed, not by us, but by them. However, right now, we are at war with Islam.

The problem isn't Islam. It's extremism. There have been many that speak up against it but they are ignored every time. We are not at war with Islam because we ARE Islam. We ARE Christian. We ARE every religion on earth. We are American.

It's Islamic Extremism. You can sit there and think members of Islam aren't involved. They are. Just look at their name. Islamic State In Syria/Libya. They kill in the name of Islam, not any other faith. I mean if you can link the Crusaders killing in the name of Christianity, then it's easy to say that ISIS is doing this in the name of Islam. Plain and simple.

All Christians at the time were a part of and behind the Crusades, are all Muslim behind and a part of ISIS'S Islamic extremism?

Try reading a little on ''just war theory''

and lastly, The Lord sayeth, ''Vengence is mine.''

Check your own history before question others..

Also comparing ISIS to the Catholics in the crusades is nothing more than political grandstanding..

Tell that to the PEOPLE who brought the crusades up and used it in their posts....can't you comprehend what you read?

Obama first raised the subject. Get mad at him.

 

[Coyote]

This isn't a war against Islam.

The last words uttered by every culture that succumbed to Islam. But what the hell... what's 1400 years of subserviency to a perverse cult?

Hello Pubes

Hello Cervix...

We survived the perverse cult of Christianity and domesticated it.

No such Christianity has ever existed. As there is nothing in Christianity which directs Christians to murder people because they sin.

Ah...you silly boy, of course it did! History is full of it

This in contrast to Islam where it specifically requires ALL FOLLOWERS to MURDER ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT ISLAM and CONQUER THOSE THEY DO NOT MURDER.

Publius, you need to learn more about Islam - don't rely on talking points.

I anticipate the same for Islam.

Huh... 1400 years and you have yet to do so. Europe is heading toward an Islamic State, with Jews fleeing Europe at the highest rate since the 30s.

Here's how ya got there:


You people are either delusional or you're manifestly evil.

I kind of like the idea of manifestly evil

 

[Coyote]

So you are saying Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?

Are you saying that freedom is bad thing?

What freedom?

Are you claiming that the Iraqi's have less freedoms now than they did under Saddam?

No, I'm asking you what freedom?

No I am asking you are you claiming that the Iraqi's have less freedoms now than they did under Saddam?

Dude, I asked you first.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We have a long history of arming other nations. Why stop now?

Because it has a bad habit of arming the WRONG PEOPLE. Reagan armed the Mujaheddin, they morphed into the Taliban. You donate weapons to Syrian rebels, they might be part of Al-Qaeda or another terrorist cells.