Avenue-X--The Middle East Revolutions Proved Pothos Right and Robertson89 Wrong

[quote]REPEAT POINT

Proof the Pothos cheerleader is STILL buying and eating the neo-con' shit about those Democratic Dominoes

Anybody reading this, check how the mental retard and self-delusional dimwit is, to this day, still believing in that sorry and by now totally discredited "Democratic Dominoes Theory" (even when the Bushites who invented it are themselves no longer believing in it and many of its proponents have now recognized publicly it was "a mistake"!)

The boy still believes the entire middle eastern Arab Muslim world from Saudi Arabia to Iraq and beyond is going to "totally westernize" itself! Just because we have 200,000 guys in Iraq (a country of 27 million) and Bush would like them to be pro-U.S.!

How sad is that???[/quote]

Response updated in 2008:

Do understand that if I'm still arguing a point it's because of two things. One, there's sufficient fact, both current events and historic, to prove my point correct. Two, that the other side of the argument failed to prove my stance wrong.

One year after you said this, the Iraqi government actually went on the initiative in taking on an insurgent group in an Iraqi City. Maliki went on the offensive on the political front, putting Sadr in a defensive position.

What was his motivation? The Iraqis were considering an amendment to the Iraqi constitution. It'd prohibit political parties, with street armies, from providing candidates for an upcoming election.

THAT'S democracy at work.

Afghanistan is further ahead toward democratic development. Then we have Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.

Take a look at the map and you'll see that we have a checker board pattern set up in the Middle East. Countries in various states of democracy surround hard line countries.

That trend was progressing when you made that statement, and it's progressing rapidly now.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have a more liberal economic policy than many of their surrounding countries. This policy is similar to the free market economy type. It's the kind of economy that's responsible for the how well the richest countries in the world are doing.

A few years down the road, the other countries are going to take notice. They'll experience pressure, from within, to follow in the same footsteps.

My projections throughout years of arguing against your side of the argument still hold.

Our troops in Iraq are serving as part of a catalyst for change.

What I said was dead accurate. Right now, the Iraqis, as they march further into democratic development... as their economy continues to develop... will continue to change Iraq into a modern, industrialized, nation.

Want to see how that'll affect the surrounding Middle East countries? Look at large sections of Mexico bordering the U.S. South West. Economically speaking, they're starting to become more and more like the U.S.

Mexico is rapidly progressing to become a first world country. We're going to see that with the rest of the Middle East once Iraq and Afghanistan progress further. We're going to see that with the Arab countries sharing bilateral free trade agreements with us.

These countries will rapidly progress to becoming first world nations.

Also, you're dead wrong about the people in the Bush Administration, and how they see the ripple affect taking place.

They never intended for this to happen overnight, or within their lifetimes. This was intended to take place over the long run.

Updated to Add:

Pro democracy demonstrations in 4 Middle East countries toppled 4 Middle East rulers. That's part of the democratic domino effect happening. As of this writing, the Syrian demonstrations are still going.

I consistently told you that the domino affect would take years. That's precisely what's happening.

All we needed was for the Iraqis and Afghanis to talk about their lives... through social networking.

Like I projected, the rest of the Middle East wants what Iraq and Afghanistan have.

And get this. When I was in Iraq, I noticed a strong effort, from the Iraqis, to westernize. They want to be like us. Heck, I saw nothing but Caucasian mannequins in Iraqi stores. The Iraqis want to talk like us, and wear sunglasses that resemble our ballistic eyewear.

The Iraqis have done what I said they'll do... they're not doing what you claim they're doing.

[quote]robertson89, making another rational and informed argument--he is the only one here: Those who are taking decisions have to this day totally misread and understimated how deep and many the roots of the insurgency are--they are historical, ethnic, religious, cultural, and so on. They are rooted in many, many causes, whether it's fear of western powers, resentment against the west, distrust between communities, and so on.

Pothos, showing once again he knows and understands shit about the mid east: "Wrong. It's precisely the above reasons to why we have to change the geopolitical face of the Middle East. And that's precisely why we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan what we're currently doing right now. To set off a chain reaction that's going to lead to massive reforms across the Middle East. Change that will come about as a result of the effects of a free market economy and a democratic government."

AND THE POTHOS AWARD FOR MOST SELF-DELUSIONAL CLAIM IS:

"Once they completely "westernize" and become competitive with the west, the fear and resentment factor would go down." [/quote]

Your lack of history knowledge, as well as Middle East knowledge, painfully shows with your comments in that quote.

I'm looking back at what your debate opponents told you after you said the above. Based on what they said, I'm not the only one that sees your failure to present a rational, informed argument.

In fact, what you list as the "source" of terrorist problems don't match what the terrorists are actually saying. Your source and the terrorists give conflicting information about the terrorists' intent.

The insurgency roots predate the Iraq War.

The insurgency in Iraq -- now less of a factor than it was when you made that statement -- is a part of a larger struggle. The AIF call it the fight between the (sp)Uhmah (Islamic Nation) and the (sp)Kuffa (Non Muslims, infidels, enemies of Allah, etc).

The AIF call Iraq, "The Islamic Emirate of Iraq."

Go to Chetznya (sp), to Southern Thailand, to the Southern Philippines, and to the occupied territories. You'll see the same themes in their arguments their counterparts make in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They see themselves as the Army of Islam. They see their mission as fighting to free the Muslim lands. They see that as the first step needed to re establish the Moorish Caliphates and Emirates.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.

The source of the insurgency, this guy explains their mindset:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related

They have their own rallying song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Dzygb6vf_6w

Note: What's translated as "Earth is Volcanoes are boiling" should read "Arabs are like boiling volcanoes. "Land of the frees" should read "Land of the Arabs."

In the terrorist's case, "severed lands" describes what we see as the occupied territories. "Land to humiliate us with" represents all of Israel.

On the surface, this explains why Hamas won't accept anything short of all of Israel as their country.

But, on a deeper level, this is about removing the "kuffa" from the "Uhma."

This is also demonstrated with this video, Chechnya rebels singing the same thing as the previous video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct5mlPJfsfk&feature=related

What the AIF does in Iraq, the Chechnya rebels do in Chechnya, in Russia:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=162323

The Russians face the same thing that we faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since you imply that you've made an "informed" argument, certainly you had access to those videos.

Do realize that the policy makers that you criticized have access to information you'll never have access to.

Your comments prove that you're not presenting an informed argument. Those videos show that you don't understand the insurgency. You don't understand their underlying causes. You don't understand their motivation.

Since you showcase yourself as the "intellectual" type, you'll be interested in the next links. You'll see one of the deep rooted causes of an increasingly marginalized insurgency:

Warning, these are graphic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fGg6KrC4lM (FITNA Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGlw30nPfo&feature=related (FITNA Part 2)

(00:52 to 00:55) "The Day will come when we will rule America, the day will come when we rule Britain and the entire world!"

What I said still stands.

We give them a thriving democracy. They have more economic opportunities now thanks to a free market society. That sucks the wind out of the insurgency. Give that to the entire region, and we suck the wind out of their movement.

This is the movement that believes in flying planes into buildings or blowing innocent people up.

Case in point, we've yet to suffer from Kamikazi Japanese attacks since we westernized Japann.

[quote]BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

"Once they completely westernize themselves"!!! And the bloke is talking about countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, the oil emirates, etc. Arab Muslim cultures that are as old as the west and have never known democracy in the western sense of the term!

Talk about being more royalist than the King himself! I mean, even the neo-cons' would ptobably laugh at the guy now!

BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

The loony boy is STILL believing in Bush's "Democratic Dominoes Theory" and that the U.S., thanks to Iraq (!), is going to "westernize" the entire middle east! [/quote]

Response updated in 2008:

Your latest series of replies failed to advance any real counter argument. You've failed to prove what I say, "wrong." Saying anything to disagree with me doesn't constitute real refutation.

You're replying with leftist talking points, ad homonyms and hot air rhetoric.

Let's address your historic misunderstanding of what you just talked about.

The Japanese didn't understand true democracy before we invaded and occupied it. They experienced a different type of culture, and governing mindset, than what we practiced. People claimed that we couldn't expect them to embrace our system. They practiced something totally different for centuries.

But we did.

Some of our service members committed crimes in Japan. It speaks volumes when the US military turns them over to the Japanese legal system. Their legal system gives our troops similar rights and justice they'd find in the United States.

It wasn't like that before World War II.

Now, let's go back to the Middle East's history.

Islamic civilization isn't as old as Western Civilization. The Romans never conquered all of the Arabian Peninsula. Back then, they were mostly roaming nomads.

Advance the centuries. Europeans screwed up when they divided the Arab Region among themselves. They carved countries based on their politics instead of that region's history. The Ottomans also played a role.

Look at Kurdistan. That culture overlaps multiple countries, mainly Turkey, Iraq and Iran. It would've made more sense to administer that area as one unit. It also would've made more sense to turn most that area into a country when the colonial period ended.

Europe divided that region based on their criteria vice that culture's area.

This is one of the reasons to why we have people itching to fight each other. Look at the northern African countries. They seem to be getting along better, not much international conflict within Africa. Many of the Middle East countries seem to not have that much conflict with each other.

Many of those countries were part of the British Empire, and had a taste of Democracy before.

The Turks proved that they could start and run a democracy. Turkey fits some of the criteria that you talk about.

Here's another key historic fact you miss. Our concept of representative assemblies originated in the Middle East. Rule of law also originated in the Middle East.

That region saw one form of representative democracy after another. They say that as far back as the ancient Greek invasions.

Simply put, your assumptions are wrong. Your theory, about them never experiencing what we're giving them, goes out the door. 

They've been through something like that before. Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Afghanistan prove that you could have democracies in the region.

We're creating a permanent democratic arrangement for their future.

You don't think that Saudi Arabia will change over. But wait ten to twenty years when its neighbor's economies outshine theirs.

Democracy facilitates a free market economy. A free market economy facilitates economic and political development. It's a pre requisite for a country to becoming an industrialized, fully stable, first world democracy.

Iraq and Afghanistan will reach that status. When that happens, they'll be the Middle East's centers of power. They'll be the new center of gravity of that region. Iran's return to westernization would only seal the deal.

It'll happen, just like my other predictions happened. In fact, a year has gone by since you made that statement. My argument continues to hold validity.

[quote](Ok now, stop laughing, first because this is really sad and also because the factually-and-cognitively-challenged boy needs to cling to his delusional fantasies. It gives him hope.)

No need for further comment on that one.[/quote]

Again, you have to actually prove, that the facts that I present, are "wrong." You've failed to do that, so you can't dismiss me as factually challenged. When it comes to the facts, I'm the only one that's delivering the goods.

The only thing that you've delivered is emotion based rhetoric.

Also, when I mention cognitive process, I'm talking about thought process. As long as someone has a thought, and can organize them to put into writing, that someone isn't cognitively challenged.

Updated to add:

Spring and summer of 2011 saw Arab upraising across the Middle East. What's the common theme for these upraising? Arabs want democracy. Each year, Iraq and Afghanistan make more progress with democracy and economic development. They talk on social networking sites, on blogs and during pilgrimages. Arabs see what they have compared to what the Iraqis and Afghanis have.

Result?

What I constantly argued... that the Arabs will want what the Iraqis and Afghanis have.

Time proved my predictions right. Robertson89 was wrong when he made the above comments. Time continued to prove him wrong.

Avenue-X--Pothos Confronts Roberson89's Baloney With the Iraqi Parliament's Actions

[quote]Delusiional Pothos making wild claims about what the Iraqi population wants yet unable to back that up with even a shred of evidence

You have not offered that evidence, the data, the polls, the surveys, etc. to back up your gratuitous wild and silly claims here. So I am reposting this.

Just a few gratuitous, totally unsubstantiated, and self-serving claims showing how self-delusional you actually are and how severe your state-of-denial is.

"The things that I've argued here are pretty much supported by the general Iraqi population."

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE IF I MAY ASK???

"A lot of Iraqis, that is those living in the country, wanted us to come in."

OH REALLY? WHERE IS THE INVITATION CARD THEY SENT YOU FOR THE BOMBING PARTY?

ANY EVIDENCE, DATA, A LITTLE PRE-WAR SURVEY MAYBE SHOWING THE MAJORITY OF THE IRAQIS "WANTED US TO COME IN"??? OR YOU ARE JUST GRATUITOUSLY CLAIMING STUFF LIKE THAT?

"Many of the Iraqis were praying for us to start the bombing and to remove Saddam Hussein."

That one has got to be the most idiotic and outrageous. If you believe that, that truly shows you ARE a brainwashed fanatic.

So they did not just want us "to come in", invade, and occupy now. They were also desperately "praying" for us to start the bombing!

When reading delusional statements like those above, clearly coming from a self-serving but sick mind in a severe state of denial, I am afraid I have to ask you again:

ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT WILD CLAIM OF YOURS? ANYTHING AT ALL? OR YOU ARE JUST SAYING STUFF LIKE THAT?

Nawww. I thought so. You got n-o-t-h-i-n-g except extravagant claims and bullshit.

(I am not surprised though. After all, dimwits like you ate so much of the intox' and shit the Iraqi defectors fed you to take the U.S. to war it is no wonder you are still full of it now!) [/quote]

All of this, because I made this statement:

All you have to do is look to the Iraqi Parliament. They represent the will of the Iraqi People.  If the Iraqi People don't support what I said, then the Iraqi government would ask us to leave.

Have the Iraqi government officially asked us to leave? YES [    ] NO [    ]

Here's a cheat sheet for you:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070511/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

[X]WASHINGTON - Worried Congress' support for Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, Baghdad dispatched senior officials to Capitol Hill this week to warn members one-on-one that pulling out U.S. troops would have disastrous consequences.

The lobbying push targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, but focused primarily on those considered influential in the war debate.  [X]

You could've answered that question but you didn't. You spewed emotional rhetoric and ad homonyms instead.

All you had to do was to copy and paste that question, and place an "X" in the box that represented your position.

You see, I'm just being human, using common sense, and connecting that with pre Iraq War Iraqi comments. The cab driver stating that he'd kill himself if the bombings didn't begin? That cab driver actually said that.

The man that witnessed that did interviews. He has tapes of Iraqis saying the things that I've been arguing here.

See a trend here Robertson89? The person that talked to the cab driver was there. You weren't.

So, let's try to get you to emphasize with the Iraqis with another question.

Say you lived in a country where everybody feared the government. It had far reach in people's lives. They could call anybody, and that person would never be seen again. You're living in fear, hoping that you never end up in a plastic shredder feet first.

Now, say that a more powerful government was willing to topple the government you feared. This was a government reputed for spreading democracies. Would you want them to topple the government that you feared? YES [   ] NO [   ]

Copy and paste the entire scenario, as well as the question, then place an "X" in the reply that best represents your response.

You're refusing to deal with simple, common sense and human issues.

You try to dodge that by asking for their invitation card. You know that those that even tried that would get executed. You also attempt to ask me for hard core evidence you know the Iraqis themselves couldn't produce.

You're making a red herring argument.

You don't know first thing about the suffering the Iraqis went through for three decades.

Our gathering forces outside Iraqi borders offered these Iraqis something they've been dreaming their whole lives... hope for a better life.

They wanted a life where they wouldn't have to live in fear for themselves and their families. Look at their faces before and after the invasion. Before the invasion, the majority had uptight looking faces. They had lots to fear and worry about. Scenes of them cheering Saddam looked manufactured and forced.

What happened after the invasion? People had a more relaxed look on their faces. You could tell that they felt relieved. They also displayed real joy.

Now, as a human being, hopefully with common sense, you should be able to relate. If you don't have the capacity to relate on a human level, just talk to the majority of the U.S. military that has served in that country.

I'm pretty sure that many of them will tell you of the number of Iraqis that still approach them to thank them for what they did.

Before the war began, certain people went there as part of human shields. They talked to the Iraqi people. Those people were there, and they saw, first hand, what life was like under Saddam.

You failed to look beyond your cherry picked Iraqi comments. If you did, you'd notice that many Iraqis favor our staying in Iraq until their government could guarantee their security without our help.

This has nothing to do with "delusions," or with "just saying things." What I've mentioned actually happened, and is based on first hand accounts.

Updated to add:

I recently made a combat deployment to Iraq. What I said above was dead accurate. Recent first boots on the ground experience backs my argument. The vast majority of the Iraqis were happy for what we did for them. Many were apprehensive about our leaving and turning our operations over to the Iraqis.

None of them behaved the way Robertson89 claim they behaved.

[quote] Now, as opposed to you, bogus "fact-and-data" guy who can't even offer one single real data these days, when I myself make a claim, AT LEAST I BACK IT UP WITH SOMETHING CREDIBLE.

"ALIVE IN BAGHDAD-ORDINARY IRAQIS SPEAKING TO AMERICANS"

http://aliveinbaghdad.org/

Here, YOU are merely talking about what the Iraqi want (yeah right as if you had any clue!), but I MYSELF am putting here dozens of interviews and video clips of ordinary Iraqis telling you precisely want they want and how they see the situation. They come from all walks of life, privileged or poor, taxi drivers, physicians, priests, English-speaking students, etc. And none of them has been "paid" or "scared" by Sadr, as you claimed regarding the 600,000 Baghdad anti-demonstrators last month. They speak no bullshit.

See? At least THAT is concrete stuff, not vacuous rant and bullshit like you have been doing throughout your sorry 20-page + vacuous posts which contain nothing but bla bla bla bla bla bla "I am military!" bla bla bla bla bla "I KNOW what I am saying is true! I know it FOR A FACT!" bla bla bla bla bla bla "For a fact!" bla bla bla


Watch and listen and then let us know how what you argue is "supported" by them.

"ALIVE IN BAGHDAD-ORDINARY IRAQIS SPEAKING TO AMERICANS"

http://aliveinbaghdad.org/ [/quote]

And why should I? It's a BLOG. And in terms of representation, it's not scientific.  When you don't have a scientific representation of the entire population, you don't have legs to stand on when trying to portray this as representative of all of Iraq.

We have a collection of cherry picked Iraqis voicing pretty much the same concerns and opinions as the person running the blog. So if that person is opposed to the US, or what we're doing, then chances are real good that his guests, and his samples, are going to be of the people that share his/her opinions.

Also, the blog does make a disclaimer, something about it representing a SMALL SLICE of the OPINIONS in Iraq.

Meaning, not scientific... So... back to you with regards to your argument. You don't think that the majority of the Iraqis want us to stay in. Since you feel that way, I'm holding you to the same standards you hold me... the same standards you refuse to hold yourself to.

Please answer your own questions with regards to your own argument:

"You have not offered that evidence, the data, the polls, the surveys, etc. to back up your gratuitous wild and silly claims here." -robertson89

"Where is your evidence if I may ask? -robertson89

"Oh Really? Where's the get out card that the Iraqi government sent us for getting out of Iraq?" -robertson89 question adjusted to force him to his own standards

"Any evidence, data, a little post-invasion survey maybe showing the majority of the Iraqis 'wanted us to get out'? Or are you gratuitously claiming stuff like that"? -robertson89 question adjusted to force him to his own standards

"Any evidence to substantiate your wild claim? Anything at all? Or are you just saying stuff like that? -robertson89

Answer your questions as they apply to your argument. Your cherry picked data, and biased blog, don't cut it.

As for the Sadr marches, again, they didn't come anywhere NEAR the 600,000 numbers that you tout. Even one of the sources you used had the number in the TENS of thousands, meaning, less than 100,000. That's less than a percent of their population, as in an insignificant fraction of one percent of their population.

Updated to add:

As of this writing, the "Alive in Baghdad" blog is dead in the water. They made their last blog entry in September 2009 (My first month of my recent deployment there).

The guy doesn't hesitate to blow steam up Odumba's ass, thus showing his bias.

I don't agree with his reasons for shutting down.

The real reason that he stopped his work is because finding people to carry his spin became extremely difficult. The more Iraq progressed, the more life in Iraq got better, the harder his job became.

Even the people that came remotely close to what he wanted would've ended up saying something that supported my argument.

The guy that ran that blog was dead wrong. Iraq has pretty much stabilized.

My boots on the ground observations there don't support the spin he perpetrates in this blog. My first hand experience definitely doesn't support what Robertson89 said. My experience simply verified what I argued on Avenue-X and elsewhere.

That shouldn't be surprising, that was my second combat deployment to Iraq.