Originally posted by Equinox99
If the US leaves, Iraq can not get any worse then it already is. You never know, the religious leaders could sit down to a nice hot cup of tea and talk about peace. The only reason this has not happened is because the US is occupying the land which in their eyes is disrespect. There might be a blood bath for a little bit and a bigger blood bath for the Christian minorities, but in the end they will probably talk it out.

Yes, there were only roughly 350k Christians in Iraq last time I was their in 05. Now you have to figure several more have fled during the past 2.5 years. Are you willing to let the Sunni and Shiite commit another genocide on a lager scale then Sadam's 180,000 known victims? If so you may be Hitler re-incarnate. How do you know what is disrespect to Middle Easterners? Are you from the region? Or do you think you know because what you read in the Times and watch in the news. 15000 Iraq Army were fighting down in Basra, eradicating the infiltrated and corrupt thugish government in the region. Americans were only dropping bombs and shooting arty, but essentially they are taking their country back. The oil revenues will be split three ways to the Kurds, Sunni, and Shiite in each's controlled oil center. Look, I don't want to go back, but it is neccessary for success. Maybe you all want to America to fail so you have something to bitch about, but I have invested a lot of time, blood and sweet into Iraqis governing themselves in a power share government. I don't understand what everyone is bitching about, it would be the first time since the middle ages that three cultures occupied a country and civily governed. You are witnessing history, I am a part of it and you are on the sidelines distracted by the disinformation that is being shat in your living room.

????? Excuse me N_15L_S01 do I know you?

You have no idea what my viewpoints are. You seem to have catorgorized me with a group of people that you harbor some hostility against. What exactly is a liberal anyways? Do tell.

You're right I read your posts and stereotyped you. I can't help it when you fit the profile, sorry, but it wouldn't be a stereotype if it weren't accurate. I have hostility against those who wouldn't fight for what's theirs or give away what's mine, because they think they are entitled to.

Liberals: 1. Mentally unstable individuals who thrive on the destruction of American culture and values. 2. May foam from the mouth and revert to adhom arguments when logic trumps. 3. Much like neocons and the Christian right, in the sense they are totally whacked out on illogical fallacies which may be detrimental to those they surround.

And of course, if you can't do that, then explain why you seem to be working off a stereotype instead of the actual facts.

Originally posted by N_15L_S01
3. Much like neocons and the Christian right, in the sense they are totally whacked out on illogical fallacies which may be detrimental to those they surround.

Much like yourself.

Liberal;

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Politicians don't have any reason to mix with religion unless ofcourse one supports supressive theocracies like Iran.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

Again this is determinant on what you actually find progressive; call to prayer in major cities, desecration fo war memorials, supporting criminals who can't even speak the language and the list goes on.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

I believe they forgot to add, maximum individual freedom to criminals first; ACLU & NAMBLA= securing the rights of grown men to have sex with litte boy, this must be what you mean by liberal progressivism.

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

Well, I am not bound by tradition. Does this make me a liberal? Basically liberal morals and values are free flowing and are not constant, which means perhaps they stand for nothing other then what their emotions fein on any particular day.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

Not strict or rigourous; doesn't this make them disorganized and lazy? Free of what? A liberal interpretation of the rule; wanting to not abide by rules, but eager to change them to what they think they should be. Hmm, don't you see a conflict of interrest here?

13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

Befitting of a free man, wouldn't many suppressed Middle Eastern countries strive to be liberal if this where the case, as many are suppressed? Wouldn't Eastern Europe, Africa and Mylasia strive for liberalism if this were true? Why is it only in industrialized literate nations that we are plagued by those who think they know best, without any experience. Prime examples Democratic nomaniees: I could give you a Bio on Clinton and I don't need to on Obama; you already know he's accomplished nothing. Much like JFK, all hype, but JFK paid the piper. McCain is the exception, he's a wolf in sheeps clothing. Liberal through and through, I respect him for his war experiences, but that was another man a long time ago. It is not the same man we see today.

The ones i have underlined (only) are the ones i feel that need some attention paid to, whereas the ones in italics are the ones i feel are debatable as to their meaning.
Please explain to me why you are opposed to political progress.

Ofcourse you didn't feel the need to underline them all, because a definition is only as good as it's lexical usage. You presented the definition as defined by scholars who determined it's lexical usage. Just because a word is thought to mean something doesn't make it true. Look up the history of S.H.I.T. or Fornication.Under.Consent.of the King. for example two words that were intended to represent specific situations. All the lexical usage means is that's what most people think it means, but it does not represent the truth value of a word or it's content and is fluid on context.

I only wasted my time addressing this issue so you could pout and continue to fling adhom arguments my way, like above and I do not intend to derail this thread.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by N_15L_S01]