Donny Rumsfeld

Majority vote? Majority of whom? Iraq is an entirely artifical nation, a creation of the British Empire. The Sunnis shouldn't have a say in the affairs of the Kurds or the Shiites, because Iraq is an artificial nation. But even if they did have a say, I suspect the Shiites and Kuyrds would still have that majority vote.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Majority vote? Majority of whom? Iraq is an entirely artifical nation, a creation of the British Empire. The Sunnis shouldn't have a say in the affairs of the Kurds or the Shiites, because Iraq is an artificial nation. But even if they did have a say, I suspect the Shiites and Kuyrds would still have that majority vote.

And back to where we were a couple posts ago, good arguements for a new enlarged Iranian nation

Well, this is all very interesting, but George W is the biggest wanker ever.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Majority vote? Majority of whom? Iraq is an entirely artifical nation, a creation of the British Empire. The Sunnis shouldn't have a say in the affairs of the Kurds or the Shiites, because Iraq is an artificial nation. But even if they did have a say, I suspect the Shiites and Kuyrds would still have that majority vote.

And back to where we were a couple posts ago, good arguements for a new enlarged Iranian nation

Still not up to us to decide, is it?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Majority vote? Majority of whom? Iraq is an entirely artifical nation, a creation of the British Empire. The Sunnis shouldn't have a say in the affairs of the Kurds or the Shiites, because Iraq is an artificial nation. But even if they did have a say, I suspect the Shiites and Kuyrds would still have that majority vote.

And back to where we were a couple posts ago, good arguements for a new enlarged Iranian nation

Still not up to us to decide, is it?

I also suppose, with that logic, that a parent could allow their baby to shit his pants and allow for the kid to crawl around waiting for him to change it on his own. Bad policy I think.

Democrats victory!

Rummy Out!

US Imperialism Ends!

........... oh, hold on

I hate liberals nearly as much as Michael McDermott, but for very different reasons. If the US troops werent getting a good (& well deserved) beating by the Iraqi Resistance, the "Republicans" would've been returned.

Not even the money shot in the show-trial of Saddam could save the day.

Good War: Bosnia Bad War: Iraq

Good Nukes: Israel Bad Nukes: Iran

Say what you want about the god squad/ hick squad at least they arent delusional

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Majority vote? Majority of whom? Iraq is an entirely artifical nation, a creation of the British Empire. The Sunnis shouldn't have a say in the affairs of the Kurds or the Shiites, because Iraq is an artificial nation. But even if they did have a say, I suspect the Shiites and Kuyrds would still have that majority vote.

And back to where we were a couple posts ago, good arguements for a new enlarged Iranian nation

Still not up to us to decide, is it?

I also suppose, with that logic, that a parent could allow their baby to shit his pants and allow for the kid to crawl around waiting for him to change it on his own. Bad policy I think.

Who made us their "parents," and they our "baby"?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Majority vote? Majority of whom? Iraq is an entirely artifical nation, a creation of the British Empire. The Sunnis shouldn't have a say in the affairs of the Kurds or the Shiites, because Iraq is an artificial nation. But even if they did have a say, I suspect the Shiites and Kuyrds would still have that majority vote.

And back to where we were a couple posts ago, good arguements for a new enlarged Iranian nation

Still not up to us to decide, is it?

I also suppose, with that logic, that a parent could allow their baby to shit his pants and allow for the kid to crawl around waiting for him to change it on his own. Bad policy I think.

Who made us their "parents," and they our "baby"?

The brown people have always needed a nice white paternal hand to advance their societies and protect them from themselves. Didn't you get the memo?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Majority vote? Majority of whom? Iraq is an entirely artifical nation, a creation of the British Empire. The Sunnis shouldn't have a say in the affairs of the Kurds or the Shiites, because Iraq is an artificial nation. But even if they did have a say, I suspect the Shiites and Kuyrds would still have that majority vote.

And back to where we were a couple posts ago, good arguements for a new enlarged Iranian nation

Still not up to us to decide, is it?

I also suppose, with that logic, that a parent could allow their baby to shit his pants and allow for the kid to crawl around waiting for him to change it on his own. Bad policy I think.

Who made us their "parents," and they our "baby"?

Since we took out thier government and tyranical stability. They aren't people ready to govern themselves, and as a population, when it comes to politics, they are in an infantile state.

EdelBrock wrote: Since we took out thier government and tyranical stability. They aren't people ready to govern themselves, and as a population, when it comes to politics, they are in an infantile state.

And they'll remain in an infantile state until they vote the way we say, then?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Since we took out thier government and tyranical stability. They aren't people ready to govern themselves, and as a population, when it comes to politics, they are in an infantile state.

And they'll remain in an infantile state until they vote the way we say, then?

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Since we took out thier government and tyranical stability. They aren't people ready to govern themselves, and as a population, when it comes to politics, they are in an infantile state.

And they'll remain in an infantile state until they vote the way we say, then?

EdelBrock wrote:

???

If the country was split along religious ties, the Shiites would get all the oil and the Kurds, Sunnis would be left in barren deserts with not much to offer to make a decent country.

according to the diplomatic solution to the war, which has been discussed by democrats, republicans and iraqis, this is not the way things would work. as the shi'ites control the oil-producing regions, the funds raised by the oil revenues would be divided evenly between the kurds, the shi'ites and the sunnis, allowing all three to benefit from iraqi oil reserves.

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

???

If the country was split along religious ties, the Shiites would get all the oil and the Kurds, Sunnis would be left in barren deserts with not much to offer to make a decent country.

according to the diplomatic solution to the war, which has been discussed by democrats, republicans and iraqis, this is not the way things would work. as the shi'ites control the oil-producing regions, the funds raised by the oil revenues would be divided evenly between the kurds, the shi'ites and the sunnis, allowing all three to benefit from iraqi oil reserves.

I agree Wood, I was commenting on Comrade's desire to split the country up into seperate entities; three seperate countries.

EdelBrock wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

???

If the country was split along religious ties, the Shiites would get all the oil and the Kurds, Sunnis would be left in barren deserts with not much to offer to make a decent country.

according to the diplomatic solution to the war, which has been discussed by democrats, republicans and iraqis, this is not the way things would work. as the shi'ites control the oil-producing regions, the funds raised by the oil revenues would be divided evenly between the kurds, the shi'ites and the sunnis, allowing all three to benefit from iraqi oil reserves.

I agree Wood, I was commenting on Comrade's desire to split the country up into seperate entities; three seperate countries.

It's the desire of the Kurds, and probably of the Shiites too. I'm just saying that the obvious solution to stability is to not stand in the way of the inevitable.

So, what do you guys think about the new guy in charge?

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: So, what do you guys think about the new guy in charge?

Lied to Congress during investigation into Iran/Contra scandal which is why he was effectively "blackballed" from CIA Director's post when first recommended.

Of course all the Republicans closed ranks the next time he was nominated and he got the job. Anything to do with his good buddy George Herbert Walker Bush being Pres at the time I wonder? Typical of Bush Mk II though - Get Papa's cronies to bail you out!!

Still anyone has got to be better than that arrogant prick Rumsfeld. If Gates oversees an effective withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and brings them back (those who are left!)into the arms of their loved ones and ensures plenty of post-conflict support services are up and running for these guys, then perhaps I'll be less cynical