[Janos]

What about theory of evolution? What do you think of people who don't "personally accept theory of evolution?"

I don't much care what people personally believe, as long as it doesn't affect their policies. And if there's one man who I can trust to not impose his personal opinions on others its the most libertarian guy in US politics. But just to cover my bases, I'm not aware of Ron Paul disbelieving evolution. AFAIK he's not an Evangelical and was born well before the current wave of anti-evolutionist insanity.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011573.php

I can only address the first part, since I don't know what right-wing extremist meeting he has attended.

First of all, let's establish that we're talking about $500 out of around $25m donated so far. Secondly, let's establish that anyone who wants to throw their money away is perfectly entitled to do so. Since we know that a) Ron Paul has never been bought, for any sum, to the point where lobbyists don't even bother going to his office, and b) even if he were for sale, $500 ain't gonna cut it, we can safely conclude that the support of a single white supremacist (or even a thousand of them) has no bearing whatsoever on his policies.

They don't have to affect them, he has already written racist texts
If a candidate funds his campaign with money from white supremacists and has written racist texts and attends Robert A. Taft Group's meeting and gives a speech there..

I will also ask you a rhetorical question: even if Ron Paul was receiving massive amounts of money from the likes of Stormfront, which he's not, is that worse than when all the other candidates receive money from the military-industrial complex? Remember that Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, CACI, Blackwater etc don't talk about killing people, they actually make products which are designed specifically for that purpose. Stormfront may, if they're extremely crazy and successful, kill one person a year. The military-industrial complex has, among other things, the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis on their hands. And every major candidate is taking money from them, except one.

Yes it is.

Racist organizations are different from large companies.

Another is a company that tries to make money.

Another one is an organization that has core values of "people with different skin color are worse than people with THIS skin color".

Large companies do profit a lot from wars. Large companies don't firebomb synagogas or kebab kiosks because they dislike the owner's religion.

If you draw an equivalence argument between white nationalists and Boeing, then you should seek professional help.

[Rictor]

They don't have to affect them, he has already written racist texts
If a candidate funds his campaign with money from white supremacists and has written racist texts and attends Robert A. Taft Group's meeting and gives a speech there..

"Funds his campaign" is vastly, vastly overstating it and you know it. The money given is of no practical importance - it's less than a drop in the bucket. He also has a policy of accepting any donation from anyone for any reason. If the Communist Party USA decided to donate money to him, he'd gladly take it and use it for his campaign.

And though I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the Robert Taft Club, as you surely do, they don't seem to be racist in nature. Not unless you consider Pat Buchanan and his kind to be racists. By your logic, anyone who admires Jefferson or Washington is a racist, since they were slave-owners.

If you draw an equivalence argument between white nationalists and Boeing, then you should seek professional help.

The difference between a corporation and a political party (or whatever Stormfront is) is what a piece of paper legally calls you. It does not allow you operate under different rules of morality.

For someone as seemingly well informed as yourself, you sure are ignorant of the true extent of the suffering caused by a few of these corporations. No, they don't bomb synagogues and kebab-stands - they simply enable others to bomb entire neighborhoods. And it's not even as if they're providing a service which is already needed  - they create the need by lobbying endlessly for more wars so that business will never run dry. Are you familiar with the many, many cases of Blackwater personnel firing indiscriminately into crowds of civilians? Are you telling me that their legal status as a corporation magically excuses that? The number of people killed by all neo-Nazi groups combined in any single year is probably in the single digits. One JDAM dropped on a residential neighborhood can top that in an instant.

[Janos]

The difference between a corporation and a political party (or whatever Stormfront is) is what a piece of paper legally calls you. It does not allow you operate under different rules of morality.

For someone as seemingly well informed as yourself, you sure are ignorant of the true extent of the suffering caused by a few of these corporations. No, they don't bomb synagogues and kebab-stands - they simply enable others to bomb entire neighborhoods. And it's not even as if they're providing a service which is already needed  - they create the need by lobbying endlessly for more wars so that business will never run dry. Are you familiar with the many, many cases of Blackwater personnel firing indiscriminately into crowds of civilians? Are you telling me that their legal status as a corporation magically excuses that? The number of people killed by all neo-Nazi groups combined in any single year is probably in the single digits. One JDAM dropped on a residential neighborhood can top that in an instant.

Rictor.

Boeing does not announce that blacks are an inferior race.

Blackwater does not deny holocaust.

White supremacists do.

EADS does not go around and shoot illegal immigrants.

Seriously.

[Rictor]

I submit, for your approval, an analogy:

There are two organizations - The National Kill-All-Asians Society (NKAAS) and the Wonderful Old Ladies Bridge Club (WOLBC). The stated goal of NKAAS is to wipe all people of Asian heritage from the face of the Earth, but they're remarkably ineffective at it. They mostly just get drunk and ***** about "dem lousy immigrants". They are the object of hatred and ridicule for most of society, so their options for actually killing people are rather limited. On the other hand, the WOLBC just wants to bake apple pies and read stories to little children, but somehow they end up killing many thousands of people (with the best intentions, of course!) and rampaging through cities, and do so with complete impunity.

Which is worse? Do you measure intent or practical results?

[Nuclear1]

Stormfront may, if they're extremely crazy and successful, kill one person a year.

That's hatred.

The military-industrial complex has, among other things, the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis on their hands.

That's war.

They're not the same thing.

Kthxbai.

[Rictor]

Gunning down civilians at a busy intersection is not war, it's murder. Just because it happens to be in a different country does not make their behaviour any less acceptable.

[Nuclear1]

EDIT: Maybe here's a little more graceful of saying what I've been trying to say.

Blackwater, Boeing, and the US Army aren't solely responsible for all the death and destruction in Iraq.

Religious war is destroying Iraq, not the US military.

The US military so far has been caught in the middle of said religious war.

The only way Iraq is going to be fixed is if the two groups just shut the **** up and get the **** along.

In other words:  Stop blaming the US military for something they didn't ****ing start.

I'm really tired of hearing the ****ing "enlightened" blame the US and the coalition for destroying Iraq.  If they had their heads out of their ****ing anti-imperialist, anti-American asses for two seconds they would realize that this war has little-to-nothing to do with the US being in Iraq, but 100% more over the Sunni/Shi'a division.  Religious ****ing zealots are destroying that country, not George Bush, General Petraeus, or Tony Blair.

Protest something that deserves to be protested, like the blatant violation of our civil rights back here in the states by the Patriot Act and other similar legislation.  Leave attempting to protect innocent people in the crossfire of a bull**** religious war to the US military, mk?

Kthxbai.

[Mefustae]

I'm really tired of hearing the ****ing "enlightened" blame the US and the coalition for destroying Iraq.  If they had their heads out of their ****ing anti-imperialist, anti-American asses for two seconds they would realize that this war has little-to-nothing to do with the US being in Iraq, but 100% more over the Sunni/Shi'a division.  Religious ****ing zealots are destroying that country, not George Bush, General Petraeus, or Tony Blair.

But then, these "enlightened" people are just looking at the situation in its most basic form: Pre-invasion, Iraq was ****ty but stable. Post-invasion, Iraq is now very ****ty and unstable. Who invaded? The United States. Hmmm. Nah, just ignore me, i've got my head up my ass apparently. Simple logic be damned, nuclear1 knows what he's talking about!

Seriously, rather than going ape**** for no good reason, just take a step back and realize that you're one of the 'enlightened' who thinks they know what the **** is going on whereas nobody else seems to. It's a complex situation, and it can't be pinned down to a single cause or precipitating factor. Yes, people who say the US military is to blame are morons who have no idea what they're talking about, but don't honestly try to act like you do and expect us to buy your ****.

@Rictor: There's a pretty big divide between the military-industrial complex and radical hate-groups like Stormfront. It'd be nice if you could acknowledge that rather large distinction instead of acting like a cliche, 60's-era hippie who thinks only in absolutes.

[Rictor]

EDIT: Maybe here's a little more graceful of saying what I've been trying to say.
-snip-

Woah, no offense intended man. I only brought up the military-industrial complex (not the military, mind you) as a tangential issue.  The point I was trying to make is that the undue influence of the military-industrial complex on US politics is a far greater threat, both to freedom and peace, than the deluded schemes of a few powerless bigots.

But it's a moot point, since Ron Paul ain't a racist, ain't being financed by racists, has no connection to racists and has never implemented a single racist policy. My comparison was therefore a rhetorical one.

@Rictor: There's a pretty big divide between the military-industrial complex and radical hate-groups like Stormfront. It'd be nice if you could acknowledge that rather large distinction instead of acting like a cliche, 60's-era hippie who thinks only in absolutes.

For the last time, I look at results. Intentions exist in one's head, they are not a quantifiable unit. Stormfront is, to my mind, a bunch of powerless loonies. They have no impact on the lives of anyone. They have relevance only within their own circles. They can believe in Lord Cthulhu for all the difference it makes - their position is marginal, their support is non-existent and their potential for violence is slim-to-none.

Now CACI, on the other hand, has enormous influence. They invest millions into lobbying efforts and recieve billions in return from the government. These are facts, what are we even disputing?

[Janos]

I submit, for your approval, an analogy:

There are two organizations - The National Kill-All-Asians Society (NKAAS) and the Wonderful Old Ladies Bridge Club (WOLBC). The stated goal of NKAAS is to wipe all people of Asian heritage from the face of the Earth, but they're remarkably ineffective at it. They mostly just get drunk and ***** about "dem lousy immigrants". They are the object of hatred and ridicule for most of society, so their options for actually killing people are rather limited. On the other hand, the WOLBC just wants to bake apple pies and read stories to little children, but somehow they end up killing many thousands of people (with the best intentions, of course!) and rampaging through cities, and do so with complete impunity.

Which is worse? Do you measure intent or practical results?

And pray tell me, what common does this hypothetical WOLBC has to do with large companies? Did these large companies start a war? Where? What sources do you have? It's almost as if you were trying to draw a false analogy in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that a certain person has been associating with white nationalists a bit too much to just ignore it!

Stormfront.org is pretty much an international discussion forum for white nationalists. That discussion forum has about 130 000 posting members. It is about as irrelevant to white nationalists than Reuters is for newspapers, IF YOU EXCUSE MY ANALOGY.

I don't even know why I should answer your false dilemma, because it is not what we are discussing. You are seriously saying hat large companies that produce fighter-bombers or guided bombs (which are then used by governments) are worse than violent neo-nazi groups because their products are used in warfare, whereas neo-nazis "just" kill people they have a beef with.  You have also been supporting legislation to allow religious persecution, discrimination based on sexual preferences and legislation to bring back segregation on this very same thread. You have also pretty much supported just dishing out governmental money to organizations participating in genocide.

[Nuclear1]

But then, these "enlightened" people are just looking at the situation in its most basic form: Pre-invasion, Iraq was ****ty but stable. Post-invasion, Iraq is now very ****ty and unstable. Who invaded? The United States. Hmmm. Nah, just ignore me, i've got my head up my ass apparently. Simple logic be damned, nuclear1 knows what he's talking about!

Pre-invasion, Iraq was ****ty and somewhat stable.  I'll give you that much.  Now I give you two situations:

Post-invasion:  the US military knocks Saddam and the ruling Sunnis out of power, leaving to power struggle and religious tension between the two groups in Iraq.

Post-Saddam's-inevitable-death:  with Saddam out of power, the Shi'ites finally go absolutely ape**** on the ruling Sunnis, and you get almost the exact same thing going on in Iraq right now.  Only difference is the US military isn't involved.

I'm just saying what's going in Iraq was inevitable, US invasion or not.  The military accelerated events, not initiated them. 

But yes, you're right in that my post was somewhat uncalled for, but I flip **** for a reason.  As part of the US military stationed in California, I see more than my fair share of anti-military demonstrations sometimes less than a mile from the front gate.  I suppose I just finally snapped.

[Kosh]

I'm just saying what's going in Iraq was inevitable, US invasion or not.  The military accelerated events, not initiated them.

Perhaps it was, but in that situation at least we wouldn't have the blood of tens of thousands of civilians on our hands at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

[Rictor]

And pray tell me, what common does this hypothetical WOLBC has to do with large companies? Did these large companies start a war? Where? What sources do you have? It's almost as if you were trying to draw a false analogy in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that a certain person has been associating with white nationalists a bit too much to just ignore it!

Yes, specific companies (large or small) play a part in perpetuating and starting wars. War is their business, so they have a vested interest in more war. This ain't new, it's been going on in its present form for half a century. I can't imagine you being naive enough to believe that Raytheon is the same as your neighborhood hardware store, just bigger. Have you heard nothing about the massive collusion between certain private companies and public officials, the corruption, the criminal behaviour and so on?

Let's put it this way: I have a company who's primary revenue comes from selling tooth-paste to the military. Do I, as a sane business owner, want there to be more brushing of teeth, or less? Now replace "tooth-paste" with "C-130s" and you have the idea.

Stormfront.org is pretty much an international discussion forum for white nationalists. That discussion forum has about 130 000 posting members. It is about as irrelevant to white nationalists than Reuters is for newspapers, IF YOU EXCUSE MY ANALOGY.

I don't even know why I should answer your false dilemma, because it is not what we are discussing. You are seriously saying hat large companies that produce fighter-bombers or guided bombs (which are then used by governments) are worse than violent neo-nazi groups because their products are used in warfare, whereas neo-nazis "just" kill people they have a beef with.  You have also been supporting legislation to allow religious persecution, discrimination based on sexual preferences and legislation to bring back segregation on this very same thread. You have also pretty much supported just dishing out governmental money to organizations participating in genocide.

How many Congressmen does the White Nationalist movement have? How many Senators? Governors? Judges? Mayors? School-board trustees? They're a joke to everyone but themselves. Racism, as a way of thought and way of life, is virtually dead in the Western world. We are not living in the 1930s, with the KKK going around lynching people. I live in the most multicultural city in the world, and I see no oppressed masses, no racial riots, no dirty looks. Ron Paul's "long association" with White Nationlism is composed entirely of a single man donating $500.

And for the record, I support dishing out government money to virtually no one, which would include anyone associated with genocide. But I don't think that it's the government's job to tell private businesses who they can and can't do business with.

[Janos]

And pray tell me, what common does this hypothetical WOLBC has to do with large companies? Did these large companies start a war? Where? What sources do you have? It's almost as if you were trying to draw a false analogy in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that a certain person has been associating with white nationalists a bit too much to just ignore it!

Yes, specific companies (large or small) play a part in perpetuating and starting wars. War is their business, so they have a vested interest in more war. This ain't new, it's been going on in its present form for half a century. I can't imagine you being naive enough to believe that Raytheon is the same as your neighborhood hardware store, just bigger. Have you heard nothing about the massive collusion between certain private companies and public officials, the corruption, the criminal behaviour and so on?

Let's put it this way: I have a company who's primary revenue comes from selling tooth-paste to the military. Do I, as a sane business owner, want there to be more brushing of teeth, or less? Now replace "tooth-paste" with "C-130s" and you have the idea.

1. Cause and effect. For a completely amoral actor it is completely irrelevant why some organization decides to buy their product, only the money means.

US government started Iraq war. Not private companies. US government. Now US government is giving money to private companies because of war. These guys profit from war. So do many other people, but they still are not responsible for this.

2. This is still a goddamn stupid red herring: Ron Paul took money from white supremacists, has associated with white supremacists, has written racist text and, pay attention, this has nothing to do at all with "big companies war for blood for oil".

Stormfront.org is pretty much an international discussion forum for white nationalists. That discussion forum has about 130 000 posting members. It is about as irrelevant to white nationalists than Reuters is for newspapers, IF YOU EXCUSE MY ANALOGY.

I don't even know why I should answer your false dilemma, because it is not what we are discussing. You are seriously saying hat large companies that produce fighter-bombers or guided bombs (which are then used by governments) are worse than violent neo-nazi groups because their products are used in warfare, whereas neo-nazis "just" kill people they have a beef with.  You have also been supporting legislation to allow religious persecution, discrimination based on sexual preferences and legislation to bring back segregation on this very same thread. You have also pretty much supported just dishing out governmental money to organizations participating in genocide.

How many Congressmen does the White Nationalist movement have? How many Senators? Governors? Judges? Mayors? School-board trustees? They're a joke to everyone but themselves. Racism, as a way of thought and way of life, is virtually dead in the Western world. We are not living in the 1930s, with the KKK going around lynching people. I live in the most multicultural city in the world, and I see no oppressed masses, no racial riots, no dirty looks. Ron Paul's "long association" with White Nationlism is composed entirely of a single man donating $500.
[/quote]

THEM BEING A JOKE DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE THEY HAVE KILLED ANY MORE ALIVE
THESE GUYS KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY HATE THOSE PEOPLE FOR WHAT THEY WERE BORN FOR
I don't know why you would consider a roof organization for neo-nazis, from Eastern Europe for example, a joke. Well, of course since you were only speaking of USA you have little idea how ****ing dangerous and violent these people are. Thankfully they cannot donate for Ron Paul's campaign.

Oh, and before we start with that I hope you can seriously explain this picture:
http://texasfred.net/archives/866
That's Don Black, the guy who donated 500 bucks to Ron Paul. He's the top dog of Stormfront. Does Ron Paul either

A) not check who he meets with - which speaks volumes about his abilities,
B) not care about who he meets - which speaks volumes about his integrity, or
C) not just care or actively meet white supremacists - which speaks volumes about his values?
I also hope how you will explain away the "fleet-footed negroes" thing.

And for the record, I support dishing out government money to virtually no one, which would include anyone associated with genocide. But I don't think that it's the government's job to tell private businesses who they can and can't do business with.

Wait a minute.

Government should not make deal out money to people? But Ron Paul voted for actually continuing it! Ok, so he votes for continuing to give money to a private company - but it is not what he is for, he is actually against that kind of thing, but THIS is the thing where he votes for continuing it because...
So when you think that government should not intervene, it means that government should continue to give money to companies which profit from Darfur crisis?

Private companies do this all the time - they check out who they make contracts with. But a government shouldn't abide by the same rules? They shouldn't give money to anyone, but if they refuse to make contracts with someone then NYAH IT IS NOT VALID BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T GIVE MONEY NO WAIT

Should government even follow free market methods? How do you propose government does anything at all? Oh, nothing - so let's just spend money on this? Government should not follow normal market procedures but just giving money to companies although it is bad?

Seriously, can't you see how ****ing contradictional this is?

[Janos]

EDIT: Maybe here's a little more graceful of saying what I've been trying to say.

Blackwater, Boeing, and the US Army aren't solely responsible for all the death and destruction in Iraq.

Definitely not, they all are there because US government decided to wage a war against Iraq.

Religious war is destroying Iraq, not the US military.
The US military so far has been caught in the middle of said religious war.'

And why does this religious war exist? HMMMM
CERTAINLY THERE CANNOT BE ANYTHING THAT LEAD TO COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF SECURITY WHICH IN TURN LEAD INTO THIS SITUATION

The only way Iraq is going to be fixed is if the two groups just shut the **** up and get the **** along.

You know quite well why they fight and that is easier said than done.

In other words:  Stop blaming the US military for something they didn't ****ing start.

You can well blame military for many things, but Military certainly did not start that entire goddamn spectacly of stupidity. Now that they are there - I think it's completely fair to, for example, blame soldiers for crimes they have commited. That is ultimately a burden and fault of USA as a state, but does not remove guilt from an individual or an organization lower in the hierarchy.

I'm really tired of hearing the ****ing "enlightened" blame the US and the coalition for destroying Iraq.  If they had their
heads out of their ****ing anti-imperialist, anti-American asses for two seconds they would realize that this war has little-to-nothing to do with the US being in Iraq, but 100% more over the Sunni/Shi'a division.  Religious ****ing zealots are destroying that country, not George Bush, General Petraeus, or Tony Blair.

That's a ridiculous strawman - not all, I'd dare say not nearly all people who are opposed to Iraq war are ideologically opposed to USA, and you are throwing that anti-americanism thing there just in a badly veiled attempt to remove credibility from them.

That talking point died in 2004, why do you regurgitate that still?

Protest something that deserves to be protested, like the blatant violation of our civil rights back here in the states by the Patriot Act and other similar legislation.  Leave attempting to protect innocent people in the crossfire of a bull**** religious war to the US military, mk?

Kthxbai.

Hey dude. I am no American citizen, and I will sympathize with Iraqis who's lives reckelss US foreign policy has destroyed. Don't throw that **** at me.

[Rictor]

[Nuclear1]

Religious war is destroying Iraq, not the US military.
The US military so far has been caught in the middle of said religious war.'

And why does this religious war exist? HMMMM
CERTAINLY THERE CANNOT BE ANYTHING THAT LEAD TO COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF SECURITY WHICH IN TURN LEAD INTO THIS SITUATION

I thought it existed because of a centuries-old theological argument over who should be the rightful successor to Mohamed. 

Or maybe it exists because Europe drew borders in the Middle East without any sort of regard to ethnic and religious differences and expected everyone to get along.  You know, kinda how they did it in Africa, and how it resulted in nearly 1,000,000 dead in Rwanda?

Oh, and I think the brutal rule under Saddam of the Shi'ites and Kurds may have also had something to do with why those two groups so hate their former Sunni masters.

As I said, it was inevitable.  Yes, we in the US did take a sledgehammer to the leaky faucet and got ourselves all wet, but that doesn't mean the faucet wasn't going to blow anyway.

The only way Iraq is going to be fixed is if the two groups just shut the **** up and get the **** along.

You know quite well why they fight and that is easier said than done.

Of course it is, I'm not denying that.  As cold and cruel as it sounds, I think the groups in Iraq just need to be allowed to slug it out and eventually just get tired of it if they're ever going to have a true national identity.  Every major European country and the United States has had a civil war and sorted things out, why not just let Iraq go the same way?

In other words:  Stop blaming the US military for something they didn't ****ing start.

You can well blame military for many things, but Military certainly did not start that entire goddamn spectacly of stupidity. Now that they are there - I think it's completely fair to, for example, blame soldiers for crimes they have commited. That is ultimately a burden and fault of USA as a state, but does not remove guilt from an individual or an organization lower in the hierarchy.

And the soldiers do get punished.  We have the UCMJ for a reason--the military doesn't take criminal activity by its members lightly in the least bit.

I'm really tired of hearing the ****ing "enlightened" blame the US and the coalition for destroying Iraq.  If they had their
heads out of their ****ing anti-imperialist, anti-American asses for two seconds they would realize that this war has little-to-nothing to do with the US being in Iraq, but 100% more over the Sunni/Shi'a division.  Religious ****ing zealots are destroying that country, not George Bush, General Petraeus, or Tony Blair.

That's a ridiculous strawman - not all, I'd dare say not nearly all people who are opposed to Iraq war are ideologically opposed to USA, and you are throwing that anti-americanism thing there just in a badly veiled attempt to remove credibility from them.

That talking point died in 2004, why do you regurgitate that still?

Because I still see organizations like ANSWER, Not In Our Name, and people like Cindy Sheehan encouraging desertion and rebellion in the military and referring to America as an evil empire.  As long as they keep encouraging criminal activity, I'll keep attacking whatever "credibility" they have.

[Janos]

Religious war is destroying Iraq, not the US military.
The US military so far has been caught in the middle of said religious war.'

And why does this religious war exist? HMMMM
CERTAINLY THERE CANNOT BE ANYTHING THAT LEAD TO COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF SECURITY WHICH IN TURN LEAD INTO THIS SITUATION

I thought it existed because of a centuries-old theological argument over who should be the rightful successor to Mohamed. 

Surprisingly, this said religious conflict hasn't been ablaze for a long time, but somehow miraculously flamed up when US crushed Saddam and failed to provide necessary security. Miraculous, I know.

Or maybe it exists because Europe drew borders in the Middle East without any sort of regard to ethnic and religious differences and expected everyone to get along.  You know, kinda how they did it in Africa, and how it resulted in nearly 1,000,000 dead in Rwanda?

And yet Saudi-Arabia and Jemen are not ethnically cleansing each other. Are you seriously trying to blame Iraq on Europeans? Are you really attempting that?

Oh, and I think the brutal rule under Saddam of the Shi'ites and Kurds may have also had something to do with why those two groups so hate their former Sunni masters.

Certainly. So what?

As I said, it was inevitable.  Yes, we in the US did take a sledgehammer to the leaky faucet and got ourselves all wet, but that doesn't mean the faucet wasn't going to blow anyway.

Prove it was inevitable.

The only way Iraq is going to be fixed is if the two groups just shut the **** up and get the **** along.

You know quite well why they fight and that is easier said than done.

Of course it is, I'm not denying that.  As cold and cruel as it sounds, I think the groups in Iraq just need to be allowed to slug it out and eventually just get tired of it if they're ever going to have a true national identity.  Every major European country and the United States has had a civil war and sorted things out, why not just let Iraq go the same way?[/quote]

Oh yes, we should let them, after all it's great fun!

I think you forgot something:

What is the reason Iraq is in civil war right now?

And the soldiers do get punished.  We have the UCMJ for a reason--the military doesn't take criminal activity by its members lightly in the least bit.

Yup.

Because I still see organizations like ANSWER, Not In Our Name, and people like Cindy Sheehan encouraging desertion and rebellion in the military and referring to America as an evil empire.  As long as they keep encouraging criminal activity, I'll keep attacking whatever "credibility" they have.

Hey, how many Iraq war critics you have bravely battled in the internet have been members of these organization, or have you battled the horrendous endboss Sheehan herself! Have you considered the possibility that because such sentiment is so widespread it's because there is something to it?

First you harped about how anti-americans hate US military, now you watered it down quite a bit. And that desertion thing is nowhere near the top when it comes to Iraq debacle.

[Janos]

"... or get rid of constitutional protection for birthright citizenship, or gut the 14th amendment, or get rid of establishment cause, or get abortion banned in fed level, or get rid of sexual freedom, or get rid of damn atheists having state positions in several states, or give more money for killing the inferiors in sudan, or get rid of food and drug administration, or get rid of federal requirements for education, or get rid of desegregation laws, or drive the us and world economy into the ****ter with gold standard... choices, choices, choices..."

Don Black would probably just say "ugh" thouh. And that fukken hat, that goddamn stupid hat, I want to shoot it.

[Nuclear1]

Surprisingly, this said religious conflict hasn't been ablaze for a long time, but somehow miraculously flamed up when US crushed Saddam and failed to provide necessary security. Miraculous, I know.

Miraculous, yes, because of the peace forced on Iraq (and the entire region, for that matter) for several hundred years by the Ottomans, the British, and Saddam.

And yet Saudi-Arabia and Jemen are not ethnically cleansing each other. Are you seriously trying to blame Iraq on Europeans? Are you really attempting that?

Yes actually, I am.  Thanks to the Mandate of Mesopotamia, Britain decided to make Iraq all one country, rather than divide into three as it should've for the Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis.  The only reason the Sunnis and Shi'ites have ever cooperated in Iraqi history is to oust the British from the country, and after that came years of Sunni oppression of the other two groups through one government.

Prove it was inevitable.

Look at Yugoslavia.  Josef Tito barely held together a nation of ethnically- and religiously-divided groups until his death in 1980.  None of his successors were anywhere near strong enough to hold the same peace.  And that was without decades of one group repressing the others.  IMO, Tito was one of the best rulers Europe had ever seen in terms of respecting human rights and unifying a country.  Now look where the Balkans are.

Not enough?  April 6, 1994, the plane carrying Juvénal Habyarimana, President of Rwanda is shot down.  No succession leads to a power vacuum.  In the chaos that follows, the extremist Hutus kill anywhere between 800,000 to 1,000,000 moderate Hutus and Tutsis. 

So combine the two situations.  Saddam couldn't have had a successor politician as strong as he was to keep the country unified, as per the Yugoslavia example.  Ethnic tensions already existed between the Sunnis and Shi'ites due to their religious differences, and had a history of fighting.  Once the one unifying force in the country was out of power or had died, each side, led by extremist demagogues, had at each other, as happened in both Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

Amazing how history repeats itself, eh?

Oh yes, we should let them, after all it's great fun!

I think you forgot something:

What is the reason Iraq is in civil war right now?

Because the US military started something that Iraq was going to face one way or the other thanks to decades of Sunni oppression?

Hey, how many Iraq war critics you have bravely battled in the internet have been members of these organization, or have you battled the horrendous endboss Sheehan herself! Have you considered the possibility that because such sentiment is so widespread it's because there is something to it?

First you harped about how anti-americans hate US military, now you watered it down quite a bit. And that desertion thing is nowhere near the top when it comes to Iraq debacle.

Would it have killed you to figure out by looking at my signature that I'm actually a part of the US military, who these organizations are directly attacking?  Or did you just up and assume that I live in a nice cushioned basement somewhere and have no idea what I'm dealing with?

I'm actually referring more to the people that I see three or four times a year outside the gates at Presidio where I'm stationed.  I have to deal with their nonsense on a regular basis, which is why I'm quite fed up with their ilk by now.  When you have people constantly calling you and your friends agents of an "evil empire" and being repeatedly told that your work is only helping to expand "American aggression in the Middle East", then you start to not have the warmest feelings towards these groups. 

And wonderful Miss Sheehan herself, IIRC, has more than once called for "moral and financial support" for US soldiers who may be court-martialed for desertion or otherwise opposing the war in uniform.  That's supporting criminal behavior, as defined under the UCMJ.  So really, when I say the anti-war movement is trying to destroy the military from within, I'm not joking or just being a raving-mad Bushfanatic.