• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should the U.S. assume our roll as tyrant killer?

The Roll of our Republic.

  • Tyrant killers.

    Votes: 7 58.3%
  • Isolationist peace. (not peace for the world just for us.)

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Total voters
    12
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well, the question here is whether or not that is the roll which we should fill as the only Republic with the military strength to kill tyrants in favor of Democratic nations.

Should we kill tyrants in the neo-liberalist Wilsonian principles of Wilson and FDR or should we remain with the isolationist principles of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton?
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well I'm not an isolationist persay, but we definitely need to move our foreign policy in that direction. There are simply too many tyrants in the world for us to be able to deal with them all, and it's not worth the military and economic resources to overthrow a random dictator like Saddam Hussein who isn't a threat to us.

Generally I'm against military action against other nations unless they have attacked us (or have attacked our allies in some cases), or pose an imminent threat to us.

With that said, I don't think we need to be isolationists a la Switzerland. It's perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, for our government to condemn the actions taken by tyrants, to hold open dialogues with rogue nations in an effort to achieve our foreign policy objectives, and to NOT remain neutral about all foreign affairs. In some cases, it may even be acceptable to send troops on humanitarian missions or as peacemakers, as long as they don't become occupiers or babysitters.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kandahar said:
Well I'm not an isolationist persay, but we definitely need to move our foreign policy in that direction. There are simply too many tyrants in the world for us to be able to deal with them all, and it's not worth the military and economic resources to overthrow a random dictator like Saddam Hussein who isn't a threat to us.

Generally I'm against military action against other nations unless they have attacked us (or have attacked our allies in some cases), or pose an imminent threat to us.

With that said, I don't think we need to be isolationists a la Switzerland. It's perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, for our government to condemn the actions taken by tyrants, to hold open dialogues with rogue nations in an effort to achieve our foreign policy objectives, and to NOT remain neutral about all foreign affairs. In some cases, it may even be acceptable to send troops on humanitarian missions or as peacemakers, as long as they don't become occupiers or babysitters.
So then you not only decline the isolationist view but you feel that the U.S. should serve the will of tyrants when it is in the tyrants interests??
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
So then you not only decline the isolationist view but you feel that the U.S. should serve the will of tyrants when it is in the tyrants interests??
No, I think the United States should negotiate (or at least have a dialogue) when it is in the United States' interests.

I don't so much "decline the isolationist view" as I reject certain parts of it. I'm closer to isolationism than I am to neoconservatism, but to simply close off our diplomatic channels and pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist is silly and counterproductive.
 
Last edited:

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
So then you not only decline the isolationist view but you feel that the U.S. should serve the will of tyrants when it is in the tyrants interests??
Well America has served tyrants in the past and visa versa.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Q: Was this thread supposed to mean that the US kills tyrants, or is a tyrant killer of people?
 
Last edited:

t125eagle

Active member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
384
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
i think that when the tyrant is bad enough, certain steps should be taken. when a tryant kills his own people, someone should step in. i am not 100% sure the US should have to do it all the time. but who else would? lol. deomcracies are what the people should expect and/or want. in that way, and that way alone, they can express thier opinions and have undeniable rights that cannot be taken advantage of by thier government.
 

Saboteur

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well, the question here is whether or not that is the roll which we should fill as the only Republic with the military strength to kill tyrants in favor of Democratic nations.

Should we kill tyrants in the neo-liberalist Wilsonian principles of Wilson and FDR or should we remain with the isolationist principles of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton?

I would appreciate it if the current administration came clean and expressed the true rationale of it's current war, which in my opinion is imperialism fueled by capitalism.

If we need to hide that in the guise of being the police of the world that would be unnacceptible.

That's all.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
GarzaUK said:
Well America has served tyrants in the past and visa versa.
non-interventioanalism is not the same as support, selling arms is not support you do realize that we sold weapons to both Britain and Germany (granted to Britain more so) during WW1 it's called pragmatism if we're not going to sell them the weapons someone else is that's just how the world works, it's the opinion of Jefferson that the U.S. should have free trade and honest friendship with all but entangling alliances with none.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
t125eagle said:
when a tryant kills his own people, someone should step in.
Kind of reminds me of the US death penalty, killing its own citizens.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
non-interventioanalism is not the same as support, selling arms is not support you do realize that we sold weapons to both Britain and Germany (granted to Britain more so) during WW1 it's called pragmatism if we're not going to sell them the weapons someone else is that's just how the world works, it's the opinion of Jefferson that the U.S. should have free trade and honest friendship with all but entangling alliances with none.
Is that why the US protected Pol Pot as he killed millions upon millions of Cambodians? Its laughable that America and Europe thinks it has a moral superiority of the rest of the world.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Can't vote, because we can't have it both ways.

Tyrant Killer = Yawn.:roll:

Isolationalist = Unfortunately, our society relies on the free trade between countries. If our "friends" are threatened, protecting them is in our best interests. Incidentally, this means protecting the true lords of terror...the Sauds. Come to think of it.. the whole free world pretty much relies on free trade between countries. Why is it that we are the one's that protect this, but get all of the hypocritical bashing over it? It doesn't stop them from freely trading...does it?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GarzaUK said:
Is that why the US protected Pol Pot as he killed millions upon millions of Cambodians? Its laughable that America and Europe thinks it has a moral superiority of the rest of the world.

America does (though many of its people are weak and lose their way rather easily)...Europe doesn't.:cool:
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
GySgt said:
America does (though many of its people are weak and lose their way rather easily)...Europe doesn't.:cool:
Explain to me how America has moral superiority over the rest of the world? A nation that has commited genecide in it's past and has looked the other way of the genecide of others deserves no moral superiority.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Saboteur said:
I would appreciate it if the current administration came clean and expressed the true rationale of it's current war, which in my opinion is imperialism fueled by capitalism.

If we need to hide that in the guise of being the police of the world that would be unnacceptible.

That's all.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

From speech detailing reasons for war, including:
1) Twelve years of U.N. resolution violations. - Check
2) Threatening U.N. Weapons inspectors - Check
3) Deceptive practices, covert developments, spying - pending
4) WMD's - pending, probably in Syria.
5) History of reckless agression in M. East - Check
6) Protecting our sovereign national security - Check (see 1991 Gulf War and the assault on Kuwait(our ally)).
- If this was an imperialistic assualt, why exactly are we training their soldiers? The very nature of imperialism would suggest that we would turn them into a territory of the U.S. and they would pay us accordingly, that is not happening, sorry, wrong theory.
-We are not acting as a global police force as you suggest, we are simply getting rid of an accomplice regime in the middle east and putting into motion the concept of a democratic government that would be an example to the rest of the region and possibly
A) Spread democracy to the region thus creating hope
B) This new feeling of hope would make joining a terrorist group seem much less appealing.
C) less terrorists would be a good thing.
D) with middle eastern allies, terrorists would have less area to run to, making them easier to find and capture, or preferrably kill.
E) eventually, if we can accomplish a more free middle east, terrorists would become and endangered species.
 

Saboteur

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
LaMidRighter said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

From speech detailing reasons for war, including:
1) Twelve years of U.N. resolution violations. - Check
Okay I'll give you that.

2) Threatening U.N. Weapons inspectors - Check
And that.

3) Deceptive practices, covert developments, spying - pending
The U.S. has been engaged in the same for decades. Don't know why it's a justification for war.

4) WMD's - pending, probably in Syria.
We have enough WMD's to go around and North Korea has random black outs and evacuation drills because they are terrified that the U.S. will attack. I doubt there are WMD's in Syria but I can see this as being part of the rationale to invade the country. Which do you think is first Iran or Syria?

5) History of reckless agression in M. East - Check
Along side Pakistan, Palistine, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon...

6) Protecting our sovereign national security - Check (see 1991 Gulf War and the assault on Kuwait(our ally)).
Sadam Hussein was complaining to the U.N. for months about the Saudi's stealing oil from his side of the refinery which spans the borders of Kuwait and Iraq. He was also angry that the U.S. abandoned him after funding his side of the Iraq/Iran (part of his reckless aggresion?) war which depleted both nations economies. Furthermore Sadam was told by the U.S. ambassador that the U.S. would not intervene in Iraq's affairs with Kuwait.

- If this was an imperialistic assualt, why exactly are we training their soldiers? The very nature of imperialism would suggest that we would turn them into a territory of the U.S. and they would pay us accordingly, that is not happening, sorry, wrong theory.
Well, I hope their efforts are not in vain. My fear is that we'll never withdraw from Iraq because there will never be a good time due to the fact that the Sunnies and Shiites will start a civil war... Both side will just happen to have U.S. trained Soliders. That said I think we're there for building contracts hence the capitalism.

-We are not acting as a global police force as you suggest,
I'm not suggesting that we are, the main question of this poll does though.

we are simply getting rid of an accomplice regime in the middle east and putting into motion the concept of a democratic government that would be an example to the rest of the region and possibly
A) Spread democracy to the region thus creating hope
Hope of what? Do the Iraqis really want our brand of freedom? I don't think so who's to say that their next elected president won't suspend their constitution and switch to a theocratic government as bad as the taliban.

B) This new feeling of hope would make joining a terrorist group seem much less appealing.
Supposing they don't start a new islamic extremist government.

C) less terrorists would be a good thing.
Not going to argue with you there, but the invasion of Afghanistan and the disruption of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda did nothing but create 5,000 new splitner cells of terrorists in the first year of the war.

D) with middle eastern allies, terrorists would have less area to run to, making them easier to find and capture, or preferrably kill.
Supposing they don't start a new islamic extremeist government.

E) eventually, if we can accomplish a more free middle east, terrorists would become and endangered species.
I'd rather have that and the imperialism.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Saboteur said:
The U.S. has been engaged in the same for decades. Don't know why it's a justification for war.
true, we have done the covert stuff as well, however I believe this particular reason was not by itself a war crime, but when combined with the other factors had to be adressed.



We have enough WMD's to go around and North Korea has random black outs and evacuation drills because they are terrified that the U.S. will attack. I doubt there are WMD's in Syria but I can see this as being part of the rationale to invade the country. Which do you think is first Iran or Syria?
I don't have problems with countries having nukes, as long as there is a checks and balances system, with an extremely tight security protocol. Iran and Korea would be a problem because pretty much one or two people have the power to launch, that is a scary situation. China is also in that dangerous category because power is so concentrated within a very small class. In fact, Iraq probably would have become part of the above mentioned problem.



Along side Pakistan, Palistine, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon...
Which is why someone from the outside has to be a catalyst for change.


Sadam Hussein was complaining to the U.N. for months about the Saudi's stealing oil from his side of the refinery which spans the borders of Kuwait and Iraq. He was also angry that the U.S. abandoned him after funding his side of the Iraq/Iran (part of his reckless aggresion?) war which depleted both nations economies. Furthermore Sadam was told by the U.S. ambassador that the U.S. would not intervene in Iraq's affairs with Kuwait.
Don't know alot about that one, so I can't really debate this point honestly.



Well, I hope their efforts are not in vain. My fear is that we'll never withdraw from Iraq because there will never be a good time due to the fact that the Sunnies and Shiites will start a civil war... Both side will just happen to have U.S. trained Soliders. That said I think we're there for building contracts hence the capitalism.
It's gonna take time to know for sure, I think we will succeed though.



Hope of what? Do the Iraqis really want our brand of freedom? I don't think so who's to say that their next elected president won't suspend their constitution and switch to a theocratic government as bad as the taliban.
I don't know where they will swing in terms of freedom, but when you have more than one cultural group that has an opinion, there is hope they will become a functional democracy, all we can do is wait and see.


Supposing they don't start a new islamic extremist government.
That would suck.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
GarzaUK said:
Is that why the US protected Pol Pot as he killed millions upon millions of Cambodians? Its laughable that America and Europe thinks it has a moral superiority of the rest of the world.
lmfao we didn't protect Pol Pot it was because of hippy protesters like you and that traitorous SOB Noam Chomsky that forced our withdrawl from South East Asia that allowed that genocide to happen place in the first place.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
GarzaUK said:
Explain to me how America has moral superiority over the rest of the world? A nation that has commited genecide in it's past and has looked the other way of the genecide of others deserves no moral superiority.
Did you support the forced overthrow of Saddam Hussein ala the Second Gulf War?
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well, the question here is whether or not that is the roll which we should fill as the only Republic with the military strength to kill tyrants in favor of Democratic nations.
With great power comes great responsability. It is our moral obligation to do so. When all peoples of all nations vote who will vote to go to war with another peaceful nation? Name two Democracies that have gone to war. And then the useless corrupt UN will be just as unnecessary as now. That's an odd point.

Just make it clear to people who are joining the military that they will be fighting. If they are willing to fight for freedom in other nations, it's their choice.

Is Palestine a Democracy?
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
GarzaUK said:
Explain to me how America has moral superiority over the rest of the world? A nation that has commited genecide in it's past and has looked the other way of the genecide of others deserves no moral superiority.
Assuming all that is true, what if we have changed? Sins of the father? We don't still punish Germany because of Hitler. And how come you always leave out the part your nation is right there with us? Shouldn't you be asking how America and Britain have moral superiority? You never answer that when I ask this question. But then you're the guy that made a big deal out of the word bumbershoot.

Moral superiority. The women of Iraq in any other context would be called slaves. Can you say that they don't want to vote? What does your country do to men who treat women like they do in some Arab theocracies. They jail them of course. It's all about the women. They are pissed we have freed their women. We have taken away their slaves. They can't now have their way with the women. Women now can say no. Women now can learn to read, vote, work, have a say in the education of the young. It's about the women. It's about the women. Why can't we just friggin accept it's about the women? Why can't it be discussed? I'll tell you friggin why. Because no one can say don't free the women without looking like a dick. It renders the debate moot. It's not about oil, nukes, WMD's, terrorism on so on. All these problems stem from the fact that women have no say. The world of men must be tempered with the input of women. Women without say is a society of cavemen. Nations that allow women to be beat with sticks in the street are worthy of our enforced moral superiority. Free the women and the problem will in time go away. Debate that.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
teacher said:
Assuming all that is true, what if we have changed? Sins of the father? We don't still punish Germany because of Hitler. And how come you always leave out the part your nation is right there with us? Shouldn't you be asking how America and Britain have moral superiority? You never answer that when I ask this question. But then you're the guy that made a big deal out of the word bumbershoot.
I know Britain hasn't have a moral superiority, I've even said earlier in this thread (you should have read it) saying the EU had NO moral superiority. The western politicans have done evil and continue to do evil not just abroad but domestically as well. Slavery, bigotry, mass murder, we have done these crimes before. The west still turns its back on slavery in all but name, when kids in China work 10 cents a day to cloth us. We still (especially in America) reward our rich society and drive the poor even poorer. In this modern CIVILIZIED west people are still given FOOD STAMPS just to feed themselves, ask them how great our system is! Yet WE look down at the world from our pedistal and say THESE ARE THE VALUES you must have! The only thing that makes us (Civilized) is man made techonology and our luxeries that we feed upon.

teacher said:
Moral superiority. The women of Iraq in any other context would be called slaves. Can you say that they don't want to vote? What does your country do to men who treat women like they do in some Arab theocracies. They jail them of course. It's all about the women. They are pissed we have freed their women. We have taken away their slaves. They can't now have their way with the women. Women now can say no. Women now can learn to read, vote, work, have a say in the education of the young. It's about the women. It's about the women. Why can't we just friggin accept it's about the women? Why can't it be discussed? I'll tell you friggin why. Because no one can say don't free the women without looking like a dick. It renders the debate moot. It's not about oil, nukes, WMD's, terrorism on so on. All these problems stem from the fact that women have no say. The world of men must be tempered with the input of women. Women without say is a society of cavemen. Nations that allow women to be beat with sticks in the street are worthy of our enforced moral superiority. Free the women and the problem will in time go away. Debate that.
Then we have been a society of Cavemen until 100 years ago, because women were not given a vote until 1900's, women of different race later than that. Yet look at the the wonders that was happened before then. What wonder of the world was acheived after women got the vote.. em none. If what you say is correct teacher then the US has been a society of barbarians for half of its life!
And we are one to talk, women still get paid less than a man, some societies in the west think that women are not to leave the kitchen. Still women get slapped around, abused, treated like meat in our society. Those high powered career women have only existed the last few decades ago. Then by your reckoning our society is only at the most half a decade ahead of the rest of the world.
Saddam Huessin didn't give anyone a vote and anyone who threatened him he dealt with them mercilessly - but he was secular. Not like the Shia in the south, who will wrap the women back in their cloth and stop them from learning. The Iraq war has given the women a vote yes, but will that make their day-to-day lives better in a country now based in Islamic law?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
GarzaUK said:
I know Britain hasn't have a moral superiority, I've even said earlier in this thread (you should have read it) saying the EU had NO moral superiority. The western politicans have done evil and continue to do evil not just abroad but domestically as well. Slavery, bigotry, mass murder, we have done these crimes before. The west still turns its back on slavery in all but name, when kids in China work 10 cents a day to cloth us. We still (especially in America) reward our rich society and drive the poor even poorer. In this modern CIVILIZIED west people are still given FOOD STAMPS just to feed themselves, ask them how great our system is! Yet WE look down at the world from our pedistal and say THESE ARE THE VALUES you must have! The only thing that makes us (Civilized) is man made techonology and our luxeries that we feed upon.



Then we have been a society of Cavemen until 100 years ago, because women were not given a vote until 1900's, women of different race later than that. Yet look at the the wonders that was happened before then. What wonder of the world was acheived after women got the vote.. em none. If what you say is correct teacher then the US has been a society of barbarians for half of its life!
And we are one to talk, women still get paid less than a man, some societies in the west think that women are not to leave the kitchen. Still women get slapped around, abused, treated like meat in our society. Those high powered career women have only existed the last few decades ago. Then by your reckoning our society is only at the most half a decade ahead of the rest of the world.
Saddam Huessin didn't give anyone a vote and anyone who threatened him he dealt with them mercilessly - but he was secular. Not like the Shia in the south, who will wrap the women back in their cloth and stop them from learning. The Iraq war has given the women a vote yes, but will that make their day-to-day lives better in a country now based in Islamic law?

Ah the evil cultural imperialism of the West, been reading Lenin again have we?

The blame America first heads of Academia through their revisionist history have already rewrote the decade of the 1980's right in front of our very eyes due to the fact that the lessons of history have proven the failures of socialism and communism so the only recourse now left to them is to rewrite American history if they can rewrite the 1980's right in front of us is it really that large of a stretch to believe that they would rewrite ages long past?

They would have you believe that the Indians lived in a utopian paradise before the arrival of the Europeans. Ha the truth of the matter is is that the Americas were sparcly inhabited by nomadic hunting tribes many of whom were constantly on the brink of starvation, they had not discovered the wheel and had no written language. The Arawaks attacked and enslaved the Siboney. The Caribs feasted on members of both tribes. Here's a scene from what one of Columbus's search paries discovered on Guadelupe:

"They found large cuts and joints of human flesh, caponized Arawak boy captives who were being fattened for the griddle and girl captives who were mainly used to produce babies which the Caribs regarded as a particularly toothsome morsel."

Through the guise of multi-culturalism they would have you believe that the U.S. commited genocide against the Native Americans but if that were so how is it that there are more Native Americans living now than before Columbus set foot in the Americas?

While it is true that Europeans most assuradely perpetrated attrocities against the Indians it is more true that the Indians committed far more viscous acts of savagery upon one another.

As for China, then they shouldn't have reverted to communism under Mao, look at Taiwan as an example as to what China could have been if not for the evils of communism.

As for the Arabs, which is the only region in the world that still permits slavery, that still treats women as second class citizens, that still prescribes to an archaic sharia law in which the punishment for sex outside of marriage is death by stoning, and that is so backwards in their thinking as to believe that Hitler had the right idea in regards to the Jews?
 
Last edited:

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I didn't vote. I don't support either of the choices. Sorry. :doh
 
Top Bottom