Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Raptor Jesus

2007-03-11T23:41:05Z

Raptor Jesus:

This Wiki is disgusting, and is a pathetic attempt at propaganda. The person who created Conservapedia did not create it because Wikipedia has liberal biases. They created it because it didn't have conservative biases. I will, in the near future, go over each and every one of said biases and rip them to shreds on this page. Look back here.

Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?

2007-03-11T22:12:05Z

Raptor Jesus: /* Comment */

== yes ==

----

Yes!!!

'''Comment'''--- If you would please explain your opinion.(This ''is'' supposed to be a ''debate'' topic and one finds it just a touch hard to debate a simple "Yes")

It MUST be possible. Otherwise, why would the President have invaded? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 22:33, 10 March 2007 (EST) (Ah, so that's how it works!)

== No ==

----

== Comment ==
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning —the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.''

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:28, 23 January 2007 (EST)

== Comment ==

I don't believe that we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Although Saddam Hussein was a terrible, evil man, was it really our place to remove him? All of these alleged crimes were done before, and during the Gulf War, yet we didn't bother to call him out on them until now. We even allied with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war.
I also raise the point that many gruesome dictators are allied with us, and we wouldn't think of invading their countries. We helped bring Augusto Pinochet into power, and we are close friends with Pakistani dictator Pervez Muscharraf. Why is Saddam any different? Removing Sadddam upset balance in Iraq. With him, the people were miserbale. Without him, the people are still miserable, and the risk of death has increased dramatically.

I do not think democracy is possible in Iraq. Whether or not you think so, Iraq IS in a Civil War. The Sunni and Shi'ite militants couldn't commit all of these attrocities with Saddam Hussein in power, as he would crush any form of insurgency almost instantly. With him gone, there are militants and suicide bombers spawning at speeds too rapidly to stop. They are recruited faster than cockroaches are born, and we can never crush them completely. Sending more troops in will merely add more guns to the fight, and more killing. It might be different if we were fighting a war. But we're not. The militants do not follow the traditional rules of combat, and use guerilla tactics that allow only two people to take out an entire platoon.

We can't invade other countries and force democracy on them. It will not work, and it will make us seem like bullies and cause the rest of the world to hate us. We should have left Iraq alone.

:Well, we're there now, so we can't leave until we've won! (And by 'we' I mean "President George W Bush", and by 'win', I mean "hold out until 1/21/2009, when some other poor chump will have to find a way out of this monkey trap".) --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 17:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:What the hell is victory? Killing more insurgents? There will always be more. Screw "preserving the morale of the soldiers". They all hate it too, and all the Government officials are trying to do is sell this war that's bankrupting the nation and killing thousands of innocent Americans and Iraqis. We can't end the war in Iraq without screwing everything up, so we might as well screw it up less by leaving instead of hurting ourselves more. The Iraqis didn't treat us like liberators when we first invaded, so why would they think of us as liberators after all of the atrocities committed in Iraq? --[[User:Raptor Jesus|Raptor Jesus]]

Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?

2007-03-11T21:49:45Z

Raptor Jesus: /* Comment */