Spreading Democracy by the Sword

[The Green Bean]

I know there are many here that believe that Islam was spread by the sword. How is Bush's agenda on the spread of Democracy by using violence on the pretext of "freedom" any different from what they claim against Islam? America has already bombed Afghanistan and Iraq on the pretext of liberation; it imposed sanctions on countries it perceived not to be free. How is that then not spreading Bush's agenda by the use of overwhelming force and the taking of lives where it maybe necessary?

A recent survey showed that Britain's muslims would rather live under Shariah law than under a democratic government. I'm sure the muslims further east feel the same way. So how is bombing them and forcing them to chose their governments "freedom?" And even if the spreading of Bush's flawed ideologies was "freedom," it would NEVER justify the loss of so many innocent lives.

Most Americans will agreed that the system of democracy is America is seriously flawed. The basis on which those that are eligible to vote are chosen means that most people vote for something that may not be of the best interest to them. A stupid person may vote for someone like Aimster. Secondly, the person who gets the most vote may not win. I feel, that America has no right to impose a system of government that in itself is seriously flawed let alone do it by committing crimes against humanity.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I know there are many here that believe that Islam was spread by the sword. How is Bush's agenda on the spread of Democracy by using violence on the pretext of "freedom" any different from what they claim against Islam? America has already bombed Afghanistan and Iraq on the pretext of liberation; it imposed sanctions on countries it perceived not to be free. How is that then not spreading Bush's agenda by the use of overwhelming force and the taking of lives where it maybe necessary?

A recent survey showed that Britain's muslims would rather live under Shariah law than under a democratic government. I'm sure the muslims further east feel the same way. So how is bombing them and forcing them to chose their governments "freedom?" And even if the spreading of Bush's flawed ideologies was "freedom," it would NEVER justify the loss of so many innocent lives.

Most Americans will agreed that the system of democracy is America is seriously flawed. The basis on which those that are eligible to vote are chosen means that most people vote for something that may not be of the best interest to them. A stupid person may vote for someone like Aimster. Secondly, the person who gets the most vote may not win. I feel, that America has no right to impose a system of government that in itself is seriously flawed let alone do it by committing crimes against humanity.

Ha Ha Ha

How does two wrongs make a right?

Those British muslims who prefer shariah law over democratic government should leave U.K. They have no right to stay in Britain and complain.

Whatever the flaws of the American system, it isn't in the same ballpark like Pakistan or Taliban.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Braznor
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I know there are many here that believe that Islam was spread by the sword. How is Bush's agenda on the spread of Democracy by using violence on the pretext of "freedom" any different from what they claim against Islam? America has already bombed Afghanistan and Iraq on the pretext of liberation; it imposed sanctions on countries it perceived not to be free. How is that then not spreading Bush's agenda by the use of overwhelming force and the taking of lives where it maybe necessary?

A recent survey showed that Britain's muslims would rather live under Shariah law than under a democratic government. I'm sure the muslims further east feel the same way. So how is bombing them and forcing them to chose their governments "freedom?" And even if the spreading of Bush's flawed ideologies was "freedom," it would NEVER justify the loss of so many innocent lives.

Most Americans will agreed that the system of democracy is America is seriously flawed. The basis on which those that are eligible to vote are chosen means that most people vote for something that may not be of the best interest to them. A stupid person may vote for someone like Aimster. Secondly, the person who gets the most vote may not win. I feel, that America has no right to impose a system of government that in itself is seriously flawed let alone do it by committing crimes against humanity.

</end quote></div>


Ha Ha Ha

How does two wrongs make a right?

Those British muslims who prefer shariah law over democratic government should leave U.K. They have no right to stay in Britain and complain.

Whatever the flaws of the American system, it isn't in the same ballpark like Pakistan or Taliban.

Whoever said I'm comparing the US to backward countries like Pakistan or the Taliban? Maybe you should read up on the history Islamic empires. And what do you mean they have no right to complain? I thought Bush's version of "Freedom" meant people have the right to believe and say what ever they feel. And don't tell me it's a threat to national security. That way a briton, wanting a separate state somewhere in Antarctica should be hanged for treason or send to Guantanomo on "suspicion of terrorism."

A theory, how small of a flaw it may have does not deserve to be spread. Maybe if I changed the work democracy to "American Capitalism" it would sound more right.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I know there are many here that believe that Islam was spread by the sword. How is Bush's agenda on the spread of Democracy by using violence on the pretext of "freedom" any different from what they claim against Islam? America has already bombed Afghanistan and Iraq on the pretext of liberation; it imposed sanctions on countries it perceived not to be free. How is that then not spreading Bush's agenda by the use of overwhelming force and the taking of lives where it maybe necessary?

A recent survey showed that Britain's Muslims would rather live under Shariah law than under a democratic government. I'm sure the Muslims further east feel the same way. So how is bombing them and forcing them to chose their governments "freedom?" And even if the spreading of Bush's flawed ideologies was "freedom," it would NEVER justify the loss of so many innocent lives.

Most Americans will agreed that the system of democracy is America is seriously flawed. The basis on which those that are eligible to vote are chosen means that most people vote for something that may not be of the best interest to them. A stupid person may vote for someone like Aimster. Secondly, the person who gets the most vote may not win. I feel, that America has no right to impose a system of government that in itself is seriously flawed let alone do it by committing crimes against humanity.

There is a never ending spiral that one can use to point blame at others.

With respect to Afghanistan, the government there was not replaced because of the need for Democracy or because it was Islamic.
The Taliban were removed because the chose to harbor Bin Laden after they were requested to turn him over to the US due to the planning of 9/11.
Once the Taliban were removed, political groups that were anti-Taliban took power.
Given that the Taliban still have not complied with the US request for Bin Laden, Taliban fighters are still considered to be fair targets.
The fledgling Afghan government has requested assistance by NATA is controlling/counteracting the warlords and the Taliban - that is why forces are still there.

Iraq - There the good may not out weigh the bad. Poor planning and inflated egos ruined the situation - Enough said there.

Britian - When people immigrate to a country, they know what they are getting into. If the Muslims want to live under a different type of rule than what the British have, then they can
1) Peacefully attempt to change it - Key word is peacefully
2) Emmigrate to an area when the government and religion is more to their liking.

American democracy may not be the best of all worlds - but how come this is the couintry that most people seem to want to enter to live.
We make our mistakes but move on with the intentions of not repeating them again.
Our leaders may be flawed, but we have a method of replacing them peacefully. None of our leaders has ever attemtped to stay in power beyond the legal limits.

It is the world that comes knocking on our door asking to fix their problems and also asking for handouts.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean



Whoever said I'm comparing the US to backward countries like Pakistan or the Taliban? Maybe you should read up on the history Islamic empires. And what do you mean they have no right to complain? I thought Bush's version of "Freedom" meant people have the right to believe and say what ever they feel. And don't tell me it's a threat to national security. That way a briton, wanting a separate state somewhere in Antarctica should be hanged for treason or send to Guantanomo on "suspicion of terrorism."

A theory, how small of a flaw it may have does not deserve to be spread. Maybe if I changed the work democracy to "American Capitalism" it would sound more right.

When an immigrant becomes a citizen, they have to swear loyalty to the Constitution, King, the state and so on. I'm sure Britain has such a clause and so would any rationale nation.

And of course, advocating separatism is a grave national security threat. People have a right to believe and say what they feel, but advocating separatism and working for it isn't one of them. Now you might claim that it would be ethical for people to demand separation without the use of violence and I might have almost agreed with you if it wasn't for the bloody record of Islamic militants.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

First it isn't Bush's idea, its been that was since day's gone by. From Wilson and even before the idea that Democracy our style is prefered and therefor it justifies our actions abroad. Hell, you guys give Bush too much credit for inventing all sorts of shite that past Presidents used well before him.

As for want most Muslims want, fine - get it voted in with PEACEFUL elections and such, until then the line forms over there. Try it by violent means and I will support anyone like Bush who wants to stomp you

 

[Harabec]

For some reason, I see many people who think democracy is *supposed* to be about non-violence, throwing flowers etc. and nothing else - black and white.
These same people are outraged when those democratic nations pursue their enemies, enemies who use violence to counter the "threat" of democracy, with outstanding force and violence of their own.

Your words more than hint of that idea.

 

[StageLeft]

A recent survey showed that Britain's muslims would rather live under Shariah law than under a democratic government.

Then why don't they go TF back to the crap country they came from instead of turning one that's better than their garbage homeland into a model of it? I never understand why immigrants go to a country, because it's better than theirs, and then start trying to change it back to the dump they came from. It's like visiting somebody's house and telling them the meal they just cooked for you sucks. ah heck off!

Anyway, you're right about this current setup not working, spreading democracy by the sword isn't effective.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
First it isn't Bush's idea, its been that was since day's gone by. From Wilson and even before the idea that Democracy our style is prefered and therefor it justifies our actions abroad. Hell, you guys give Bush too much credit for inventing all sorts of shite that past Presidents used well before him.

As for want most Muslims want, fine - get it voted in with PEACEFUL elections and such, until then the line forms over there. Try it by violent means and I will support anyone like Bush who wants to stomp you

Is it the muslims using violent ways to get what their want or Bush? You might blame the terrorists. Terrorism is nothing new. While I would not call it a freedom fight by any means, it maybe inspired by some of Bush's foreign policies like the use of force for spreading democracy. There is always a rebellious element in every group. While neither side maybe right in their actions of violence, the media portrays democracy as if it were divine rule. The 600,000 Iraqi murders by Bush should not be considered unimportant compared to the 3000 murders committed by the terrorists. If "Freedom" actually existed, Bush would be tried for war crimes.

 

[1prophet]

Democracy cannot be spread by force or other means to places that are clan tribal oriented or promote marriage between family members(cousin marriage, uncle-niece marriage).

The clan tribal family bonds are too strong and end up conflicting with individuality and its corresponding freedoms which is the basis of democracy.

All religion does is used to justify that particular lifestyle and questioning it means you question God and we all know what happens then.

Map displaying occurance of consanguinity

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I know there are many here that believe that Islam was spread by the sword. How is Bush's agenda on the spread of Democracy by using violence on the pretext of "freedom" any different from what they claim against Islam? America has already bombed Afghanistan and Iraq on the pretext of liberation; it imposed sanctions on countries it perceived not to be free. How is that then not spreading Bush's agenda by the use of overwhelming force and the taking of lives where it maybe necessary?

A recent survey showed that Britain's muslims would rather live under Shariah law than under a democratic government. I'm sure the muslims further east feel the same way. So how is bombing them and forcing them to chose their governments "freedom?" And even if the spreading of Bush's flawed ideologies was "freedom," it would NEVER justify the loss of so many innocent lives.

Most Americans will agreed that the system of democracy is America is seriously flawed. The basis on which those that are eligible to vote are chosen means that most people vote for something that may not be of the best interest to them.

A stupid person may vote for someone like Aimster.

Secondly, the person who gets the most vote may not win. I feel, that America has no right to impose a system of government that in itself is seriously flawed let alone do it by committing crimes against humanity.

I didn't know he was running for office.

What difference does it make after Bush?

 

[GrGr]

Honestly. The Bush White House is just such a shining example of what democracy is all about.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Shivetya
First it isn't Bush's idea, its been that was since day's gone by. From Wilson and even before the idea that Democracy our style is preferred and therefor it justifies our actions abroad. Hell, you guys give Bush too much credit for inventing all sorts of Shiite that past Presidents used well before him.

As for want most Muslims want, fine - get it voted in with PEACEFUL elections and such, until then the line forms over there. Try it by violent means and I will support anyone like Bush who wants to stomp you

Is it the Muslims using violent ways to get what their want or Bush? You might blame the terrorists. Terrorism is nothing new. While I would not call it a freedom fight by any means, it maybe inspired by some of Bush's foreign policies like the use of force for spreading democracy. There is always a rebellious element in every group. While neither side maybe right in their actions of violence, the media portrays democracy as if it were divine rule. The 600,000 Iraqi murders by Bush should not be considered unimportant compared to the 3000 murders committed by the terrorists. If "Freedom" actually existed, Bush would be tried for war crimes.

There needs to be a demarcation between the Muslim that advocates violence to promote Islam and the Muslim that states that Islam is a peaceful religion.

The problem with Islam as a violent excuse for radical Muslims has existed well before Bush's time.

First of all, one should not try to blame your 600,000 Iraqi deaths (if that number) on Bush as murders. The Iraqis have chosen (of free will) to create Muslim on Muslim violence.

Such violence was being kept in check in Iraq before Bush; however, the seeds of trouble were still there and being controlled by the penalty issued by the government.

Bush is not going out and telling/ordering/recommending the Shiites kill the Sunnis or vice versa.

What the Muslim government of Iraq has been attempting to do (within the constraints of the religious & political factions) is to come up with a solution to reduce the tensions causing the Muslim on Muslim violence.

And the radicals within the religion are using this as an opportunity to create power/influence without concern to Iraqi deaths or the destruction that their actions are causing to the general population.

When/if the peaceful Muslims are able to make their voice heard against the radicals, then Islam has a chance to become perceived the way you wish it to be.
At present; the radicals are continuing to create an impression that Islam is violent and those that "know" Islam are not counteracting that message.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I know there are many here that believe that Islam was spread by the sword. How is Bush's agenda on the spread of Democracy by using violence on the pretext of "freedom" any different from what they claim against Islam? America has already bombed Afghanistan and Iraq on the pretext of liberation; it imposed sanctions on countries it perceived not to be free. How is that then not spreading Bush's agenda by the use of overwhelming force and the taking of lives where it maybe necessary?

A recent survey showed that Britain's muslims would rather live under Shariah law than under a democratic government. I'm sure the muslims further east feel the same way. So how is bombing them and forcing them to chose their governments "freedom?" And even if the spreading of Bush's flawed ideologies was "freedom," it would NEVER justify the loss of so many innocent lives.

Most Americans will agreed that the system of democracy is America is seriously flawed. The basis on which those that are eligible to vote are chosen means that most people vote for something that may not be of the best interest to them.

A stupid person may vote for someone like Aimster.

Secondly, the person who gets the most vote may not win. I feel, that America has no right to impose a system of government that in itself is seriously flawed let alone do it by committing crimes against humanity.
</end quote></div>
I didn't know he was running for office.

What difference does it make after Bush?

Are you worried that he might take votes from you Dave?

 

[ProfJohn]

We didn?t attack Afghanistan or Iraq in order to spread democracy. We had other primary reasons. Spreading democracy is just a side effect of our invasions.

I don?t think we have ever tried to spread democracy at the point of the sword. Every military action we have engaged in had some other reason behind it.
I don?t think we have ever imposed sanctions on a country because they weren?t ?free enough? although Cuba may be an exception to this. We impose sanctions on countries because they are engaged in terror related activities, or other similar reasons.

Unless you can provide an example where our sole reason for attacking another country was the ?spread of democracy? your whole theory goes out the window.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We didn?t attack Afghanistan or Iraq in order to spread democracy. We had other primary reasons. Spreading democracy is just a side effect of our invasions.

I don?t think we have ever tried to spread democracy at the point of the sword. Every military action we have engaged in had some other reason behind it.
I don?t think we have ever imposed sanctions on a country because they weren?t ?free enough? although Cuba may be an exception to this. We impose sanctions on countries because they are engaged in terror related activities, or other similar reasons.

Unless you can provide an example where our sole reason for attacking another country was the ?spread of democracy? your whole theory goes out the window.

John, to discuss the question whether 'democracy can be spread at the point of a gun' does not require it to be the only, or even primary, objective of the military conflict.

Simply the claim that it is *an* objective of the military action is sufficient for that to be a question worth discussing. Nice try to deflect the issue, though.

You also try to obfuscate the issue by taking every word from the governmet literally when it suits your purpose. Here's how things work: governments take actions for reason, and then they try to justify the actions by saying what they need to say, by saying the reasons for the actions are ones that will help it. Sometimes those are 'real' reasons, such as defeating Hitler, and sometimes they're not. What do you want, a confession from the people in charge that they're not being completely forthcoming with the reasons? OK.

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Paul Wolfowitz

Or maybe another example, also from Wolfowitz, suggesting a "huge" reason for the war, but one you won't find highlighted much in any speech from George Bush:

Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was "almost unnoticed but huge". That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom. "Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door" towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Mr Wolfowitz said. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

No, you cannot have an honest or useful discussion when you insist that the only 'reasons' for war are the ones the governments say are the reasons.

Anyway, it's clear that Bush has frequently cited spreading democracy through the middle east, by spreading it to Iraq, through invading Iraq, is a major objective of the invasion.

In other words, spreading democracy at the point of a gun, in large part (and hoping the example, whether the democracy or the invasion, gets others to do the same).

Since you raise an issue with how much spreading democracy is an objective for the Bush administration in the Iraq war, let's look at a sample speech from him from Nov 2003.

First, he cites the role in history of democracy being spread through military actions of the US. Then, he says the world is at the next major point of spreading democracy - to the Middle East. He specifically discussed the US's action in Iraq as being central to the spread of democracy:

The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country -- ascending, like Walesa and Havel, from prisoner of state to head of state.

As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world -- and I can assure you more are on the way...

The success of freedom is not determined by some dialectic of history. By definition, the success of freedom rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice. In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.

The sacrifices of Americans have not always been recognized or appreciated, yet they have been worthwhile. Because we and our allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan are democratic nations that no longer threaten the world. A global nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union ended peacefully -- as did the Soviet Union. The nations of Europe are moving towards unity, not dividing into armed camps and descending into genocide. Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for -- and the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)

And now we must apply that lesson in our own time. We've reached another great turning point -- and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement. ..

Yet there's a great challenge today in the Middle East. In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has -- and I quote -- "barely reached the Arab states."...

As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy...

Securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations. Aid workers from many countries are facing danger to help the Iraqi people. The National Endowment for Democracy is promoting women's rights, and training Iraqi journalists, and teaching the skills of political participation. Iraqis, themselves -- police and borders guards and local officials -- are joining in the work and they are sharing in the sacrifice.

This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.

Link

 

[palehorse]

Democracy > Sharia.

/thread

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, simple question?

If Bush had gone to the American people and said I want to invade Iraq in order to spread democracy what would the response been?

You can not in any way shape or form make the claim that our invasion of Iraq was based on the idea of spreading democracy.
If it was then why don?t we invade Cuba? It?s a lot closer and would be a walk in the park.

We invaded Iraq due to WMD, terrorism etc etc, not because we solely wanted to spread democracy. Perhaps you need to re-read the OP. What he seems to be implying is that our sole reasons for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq is to spread our way of life, and that is not the case at all.

As I see it there is cause and effect. Terrorism is the cause of our invasion, democracy is an effect of our invasion.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We didn?t attack Afghanistan or Iraq in order to spread democracy. We had other primary reasons. Spreading democracy is just a side effect of our invasions.

I don?t think we have ever tried to spread democracy at the point of the sword. Every military action we have engaged in had some other reason behind it.
I don?t think we have ever imposed sanctions on a country because they weren?t ?free enough? although Cuba may be an exception to this. We impose sanctions on countries because they are engaged in terror related activities, or other similar reasons.

Unless you can provide an example where our sole reason for attacking another country was the ?spread of democracy? your whole theory goes out the window.

I have to point out a straight out lie here.

First Bush & Powell said we had to go there to get the WMD.

As soon as the WMD lie was out front and center they switched to "We have to liberate the Iraqi's from an oppressive dictator".

Unless you state and have proof we are there to put another Dictator in place and not "Democracy" and/or we had to get the oil, you should be retracting immediately.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We didn?t attack Afghanistan or Iraq in order to spread democracy. We had other primary reasons. Spreading democracy is just a side effect of our invasions.

I don?t think we have ever tried to spread democracy at the point of the sword. Every military action we have engaged in had some other reason behind it.
I don?t think we have ever imposed sanctions on a country because they weren?t ?free enough? although Cuba may be an exception to this. We impose sanctions on countries because they are engaged in terror related activities, or other similar reasons.

Unless you can provide an example where our sole reason for attacking another country was the ?spread of democracy? your whole theory goes out the window.

I have to point out a straight out lie here.

First Bush & Powell said we had to go there to get the WMD.

As soon as the WMD lie was out front and center they switched to "We have to liberate the Iraqi's from an oppressive dictator".

Unless you state and have proof we are there to put another Dictator in place and not "Democracy" and/or we had to get the oil, you should be retracting immediately.

You are twisting statements again.

What you quoted does not state why we went to Iraq.
The OP point was how we are perceived as spreading democracy.

What you are doing is attempting to derail the thread into a attack Bush rather than a discussion on the metrits or the OP.

ProjJohn addressed the post.
You are not addressing the post of the OP or what you quoted.

 

[azazyel]

Please see Trotskyism

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We didn?t attack Afghanistan or Iraq in order to spread democracy. We had other primary reasons. Spreading democracy is just a side effect of our invasions.

I don?t think we have ever tried to spread democracy at the point of the sword...........

Agree.

In both those countries we dismantled/destroyed their current governments. Afganistan had the Taliban, Iraq had Saddam's regime.

What are you gonna do next? Withdrawl, leaving them to utter chaos and hope the targeted regimes don't reform, install a" puppet" dictator, or try Democracy (letting the people decide even if it means one of the former choices).

I don't think the first two are remotely acceptable, the latter seems to me the only choice under the circumstances.

In WWII, did we "spread democracy by the sword" to germany, Italy or Japan?

If a democratic state, whether Europe or whomever, ever goes after another regime in the future I expect they will do the same to fill the power vacuum.

Fern

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Democracy > Sharia.

/thread

Do you really want a run for your money?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We didn?t attack Afghanistan or Iraq in order to spread democracy. We had other primary reasons. Spreading democracy is just a side effect of our invasions.

I don?t think.

That pretty much sums up your 4000+ posts in one year Zendari Light. :roll:

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: palehorse74
Democracy > Sharia.

/thread

</end quote></div>

Do you really want a run for your money?

Well lets see it then.....