Iyad Jamal al-Din, my friend

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2007, 12:48 PM

I know I'm a few days late, but it's still worth seeing. Iyad Jamal al-Din talks some sense, something many here in the US need a little bit of.

Click on the picture to watch the video.

Scrum · 01-12-2007, 12:56 PM

Awesome. They want us to continue to do all the work for them.

We have turned Iraq into an entitlement state. Every time there is a problem they will come to us and we will fix it for them.

He want's us to remove all the saddams. They pop up all the time. It's time you people started working for your own liberty and stopped relying on our lives and deep pockets to do it for you.

Pro Street · 01-12-2007, 01:07 PM

He started off right... the responsibility after Saddam was upon them to establish he democracy, and not to create a list of wannabe replacements.

dunno so much in the end, because if we continually have to use force to maintain the democracy, that would in fact make us dictators ourselves.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2007, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

dunno so much in the end, because if we continually have to use force to maintain the democracy, that would in fact make us dictators ourselves.

No difference in stabilizers vs. dictators? Doesn't a dictator have to run the government? Is that what we are?

Are we on the verge of becoming dictators in Somalia too, since we've been helping them out as well? Perhaps we've been dictators in SK for the past few decades as well?

Pro Street · 01-12-2007, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No difference in stabilizers vs. dictators? Doesn't a dictator have to run the government? Is that what we are?

Are we on the verge of becoming dictators in Somalia too, since we've been helping them out as well? Perhaps we've been dictators in SK for the past few decades as well?

are you saying we're not effectively running the Iraqi government right now?

In somalia? we've done a few attacks on Al-Queda there.

South Korea? We're not even in the business of how that country is run, we're only holding a front in a war that's still going on.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2007, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

South Korea? We're not even in the business of how that country is run, we're only holding a front in a war that's still going on.

We're not in the business of how Iraq is run either. That government is completely independent of us; no matter how many times you try to spin it to make it seem like they are a puppet government, they are not.

Pro Street · 01-12-2007, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

We're not in the business of how Iraq is run either. That government is completely independent of us; no matter how many times you try to spin it to make it seem like they are a puppet government, they are not.

They're not?

funny, because Bush just told them exactly what they are to do regarding the civil war.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2007, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

funny, because Bush just told them exactly what they are to do regarding the civil war.

Funny, Bush also told Putin what to do about NK. Bush also told Iran what to do about Hezbollah. Bush also told Israel what to do about Lebanon.

And for everytime Bush tells someone what to do, they have two options; take his advice, or don't. Because someone takes his advice, are they then puppet governments?

Pro Street · 01-12-2007, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Funny, Bush also told Putin what to do about NK. Bush also told Iran what to do about Hezbollah. Bush also told Israel what to do about Lebanon.

And for everytime Bush tells someone what to do, they have two options; take his advice, or don't. Because someone takes his advice, are they then puppet governments?

Funny, I don't see us occupying Russia, Israel, or Iran.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2007, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Funny, I don't see us occupying Russia, Israel, or Iran.

I don't see us occupying Iraq either.

Pro Street · 01-12-2007, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't see us occupying Iraq either.

This link comes to mind.

English Russia » Taxi

Thorgrim · 01-12-2007, 01:41 PM

Ofcourse we are occupying Iraq, what else would you call it, that wouldn't involve making up new words

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2007, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Ofcourse we are occupying Iraq, what else would you call it, that wouldn't involve making up new words

Stabilizing Iraq.

Thorgrim · 01-12-2007, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Stabilizing Iraq.

How can you be stabiliizing when the situation is becoming more and more unstable?

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2007, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

How can you be stabiliizing when the situation is becoming more and more unstable?

It would be way worse if we weren't there.

Thorgrim · 01-12-2007, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It would be way worse if we weren't there.

I'm sure Konev said the same thing about Hungary

Scrum · 01-12-2007, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It would be way worse if we weren't there.

Would it be less stable if we were never there to begin with?

JaJae · 01-12-2007, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Would it be less stable if we were never there to begin with?

No, but we're there now. And our primary focus should be to do what's best for Iraq at this moment in time. Abanding them is not the way to go about it. What Bush is doing isn't right also, but we have to do the right thing now. Arguing over the reasons for invasion shouldn't have anything to do with the goals and future of Iraq.

We made a mess in Iraq. The right thing to do is try our best to clean it up. Bush is failing. Time to try new things.

Diamond Cross · 01-12-2007, 07:04 PM

No, we're an occupying force in Iraq because the government has asked us to leave, but like usual the President isn't listening and instead is sending in more troops.

And there's no stabilizing anything in Iraq. The troops have to be taken off the chains to do that.

kinggovernor · 01-12-2007, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

No, but we're there now. And our primary focus should be to do what's best for Iraq at this moment in time. Abanding them is not the way to go about it. What Bush is doing isn't right also, but we have to do the right thing now. Arguing over the reasons for invasion shouldn't have anything to do with the goals and future of Iraq.

We made a mess in Iraq. The right thing to do is try our best to clean it up. Bush is failing. Time to try new things.

this is why I think democrats will end up supporting the surge, they realize we have to try something else new