why choose saddam's relatively secular regime as the one to change first?

Terrorist haven Saudi Arabia should have "went first." But that's an entirely different discussion.

But that's an entirely different discussion

youre right gene.  i posed the question on greywar's islamic pillar thread after reading your response.   muggaz, please delete it if you wish to do so. it really is offtopic here    (although gene's answer seems correct to me )

Terrorist haven Saudi Arabia should have "went first." But that's an entirely different discussion.

Again, ti is like the North Korea thing. Anti-Bushites seem to think that invasion is the only method of change, unless they are arguing the other way. Sure, we could decimate North Korea, and we could do the same to Saudi Arabia. At this point in time popular belief is those nations can be changed without the inevitable millions of casualties.

Millions, you say? Yep. If you think a Shiite shrine in dirtwater Iraq is important to people of the region, how important would you say MECCA is. That's the reason we had Arab backing to stop Hussein in the first war.

Anyway, Iraq wasn't going to change, not at least for another generation ot two AFTER Hussein. Given his sons had as much or more propensity for genocide as he did, and how our "allies" were straining at the leash to rearm them, I think it was safe to say Iraq would remain a threat. We had the ability to invade and create change there with very few casualites on the usual scale of war. N.Korea and Saudi Arabia are vastly different prospects.

I am not religious, so people like Greywar don’t have the benefit of judging me based on my faith.

All men have a Christian desire burning within their hearts, it is the duty of men like myself to fan the flames of this English protestant flame.

All of the world's citizens should become members of the C of E, for the good of England and St George!

Terrorist haven Saudi Arabia should have "went first." But that's an entirely different discussion.

Absolutely. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and much of the money trail links back to the Saudis. Add to that the praise for 9/11 in many Saudi mosques, the bombing of the USS Cole in neighboring Yemen, and there you have it...the second gunman on the grassy knoll.

By the way, if anybody reading this doesn't get that the last post was metaphorical...

Absolutely. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and much of the money trail links back to the Saudis. Add to that the praise for 9/11 in many Saudi mosques, the bombing of the USS Cole in neighboring Yemen, and there you have it

It's interesting you guys bring this up - The US government seems to have a lot more respect for Islam, and the men with the money behind the scenese in Saudi Arabia - Why cant the people of the United States see that the US administration is dealing with the devil itself?

I dont know if it's true or not, but from Farenheit 9/11, the Saudi's have a 7% grasp on the American economy! If Islam truely is everything Greywar reports it to be, why do the US govenrment continue positive relations with this so called nation of murderers, rapists and mysoginists?



BAM!!!

"why do the US govenrment continue positive relations with this so called nation of murderers, rapists and mysoginists?"

Another instance to prove my point about anti-Bushites. This has been discussed. People ask this, some of us answer, and then what happens? You just ak again. Why? Because it isn't the answer that matters, it is the "incriminating" question. That's why Moore makes movies full of questions.

Baker – I am not necessarily anti-bush, although I am anti-transaction with ‘Murdering Rapist Pigs’ and Baker, you must forgive me, I must have missed the part where this question was answered in an appropriate fashion – people can answer questions all they want – it doesn’t mean the ‘answer’ is acceptable.

BAM!!!

"I must have missed the part where this question was answered in an appropriate fashion – people can answer questions all they want – it doesn’t mean the ‘answer’ is acceptable.

Which leaves folks in a perfect position to shout accusations over and over and over to their hearts delight. If they don't want to shut up, they just offhandedly thumbs-down the answer. The question was "why", not "is the status quo morally acceptable to everyone". I answered the "why".

You must forgive me, but it is just annoying to see you ask questions you already know the answer to just for sarcastic effect. It's not like we haven't seen them a hundred times here before...

You must forgive me, but it is just annoying to see you ask questions you already know the answer to just for sarcastic effect. It's not like we haven't seen them a hundred times here before...

I just dont think the people of the United States should put up with lies and mediocrity, and if the questions aren't continually asked, the answers will just fade away with beaurocratic red tape...

BAM!!!