An Open Letter to My Friends Who Support Donald Trump

An Open Letter to My Friends Who Support Donald Trump

Jeremy Nix is a Citizen Journalist who writes for the The Huffington Post. I recently came across a blog post from him that I thought many of you would like to read. I need to make it clear that this article does not reflect the views of Educate Inspire Change but nonetheless I think it is well written and feel that many of you – both Trump supports and haters will be able to take something useful from.


Follow Jeremy Nix on Twitter: www.twitter.com/thejeremynix

I’m cool with you removing me from your friends list if you don’t like this post. You can even disown me if you like. But Donald Trump isn’t a good person, nor would he be a good president. I can understand a difference in politics. I can understand if you don’t like a government run by Democrats. I can understand if you don’t like certain ideologies, like Socialism. But I can’t understand why you would support someone as hateful, sexist, racist and ignorant as Donald Trump.

How do you support him so blindly? Ask yourself, are you a racist, sexist, hateful and ignorant person as well? I hear his supporters saying they like him because he tells the truth, because he’s so rich he can say whatever he feels like with no apologies. Just because Trump is saying these things doesn’t suddenly make them right. It’s not okay to discriminate against an entire religion based on a small percentage of its followers who have become terrorists by twisting the words of the religion to fit their crazy ideals. It’s not okay to marginalize an entire race of people, saying things like all the Mexicans are lazy, that they are all stealing our jobs and bringing drugs into our country.

White people also have bad apples. So does every race of people. We’re all human. Some humans are really bad people. Some are really good. And it doesn’t matter what color they are, it makes no difference whatsoever. Trump says he is just telling the truth. But whose truth? There are lazy people in every race and there are dangerous violent people in every race and every religion. Kicking all Muslims out of the country is not the answer, nor is it the acceptable behavior of a person in an extremely powerful position, like the President of the United States.

The Japanese Internment camps were wrong, Segregation was wrong, Slavery was wrong. We fought wars amongst ourselves to rise above racism and hatred. In WWII more than 60 million people died worldwide. Why? Because of twisted people who were whipping up the population into a frenzy and making ridiculous statements, killing innocent people simply because of their race or religion. The United States lost more than 400,000 lives fighting in that war, against the same ideas that Trump is pushing. The idea that certain religions are more dangerous than others and the idea that people should be judged based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.

“They always say it’s so important to make your voice heard, to get out and vote. But I’m not sure if it’s ever been more important than now.”

We’re still healing from the damage inflicted by the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq and the War on Terror. And it isn’t just ISIS or Al-Qaeda. It’s our own people in this country killing their fellow countrymen over differences of opinion, like whether or not you believe abortion is okay or what kind of political ideology you support. And then there are just the plainly insane people who finally snap and go on shooting rampages for no discernible reason at all. They just went mad.


The kind of leadership Trump is displaying is irresponsible and dangerous. His virulent ideas are seeping into the brains of his supporters. Supporters who think it’s okay to say things like “light the mother@!$%#er on fire” while a protester is being dragged out of one of his rallies. Maybe the protester was wrong to be where he was at the time, but no matter what he did, there was no reason to set him on fire. In fact, there is NEVER a reason to set anyone on fire. Unless it’s because they are dead and they wish to be cremated.

Trump’s supporters are angry, and anger is infectious. I can tell you as a non-supporter of Trump I am just as angry. We need the kind of leader that seeks to bring us together, not tear us apart. Why do we have to fight against helping each other, against common sense, against a united Nation? The American Dream is a nightmare and we are feeding it, making it worse every day. Trump is a bully, a loud mouth, ignorant, sexist, racist, disgusting example of how horrible humans can potentially be.

He is the crazy person at your dinner table who won’t stop running his mouth. The only reason he is allowed to carry on with his ugly hateful rhetoric is because you have too much respect for Grandma to get into a fist fight in her home. He’s the guy you have to endure until he leaves, all the while hating every minute that you have to occupy the same space. Lucky for us, this isn’t Grandma’s house, so feel free to punch him in the mouth in the form of getting out and making your vote count.

They always say it’s so important to make your voice heard, to get out and vote. But I’m not sure if it’s ever been more important than now. Differences of political ideals are one thing, I can agree to disagree on many matters across a wide array of topics, but racism isn’t one of them, neither is hate, neither is the belittling of women or the judgment of others based on their appearance or their disability, or their sexual preference.

By supporting Trump do you think things will go back to the way they were? Back when gay people had to hide in fear, back when people of any other color than white had to worry about getting lynched, back when it was okay to openly hate? Do you think empowered women will suddenly quit their jobs and go back to the kitchen ? Because electing Trump won’t make any of that come true. We’re past that as a nation, or at least I thought we were.

“I can agree to disagree on many matters across a wide array of topics, but racism isn’t one of them, neither is hate, neither is the belittling of women…”

If you’re not a racist, bigoted, misogynistic jerk, then voting for Trump simply because you don’t like Democrats is wrong. If you are one of his supporters and you’re just a racist and you don’t care who knows it then vote for him, but know that the good people of America will not stand for it and he will never win a fair election. And please consider pursuing an education and work on your empathy toward your fellow human beings. Whatever led you to believe that racism is okay can be unlearned if you open your mind. I’m sorry that you were raised to believe that you deserve better treatment than the rest of the people on the planet that have different views than yours, worship different gods than you and have skin that isn’t white.

To all the people, of all the races and religions that Donald Trump stands against, to all the women that don’t meet his standards of beauty, to all the good Muslims, and Christians, Mormons and Catholics and Jewish, Italians, Irish and Asians, to the African-Americans and Native Americans, to anyone who has ever been persecuted, belittled, made to feel inferior or bullied based on ignorance like the kind that Trump is spewing, please, I implore you to get out and vote against him. Don’t let the progress of this great nation be halted. We’ve come too far.

In this country we FIGHT and DIE for freedom, for Truth and Justice. We fight for what’s right. And what Trump is doing and saying isn’t right. Some have attributed the following statement to Abraham Lincoln*:

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed.”

And he couldn’t be more right. Trump IS the one percent, he IS working on your prejudices, and he WILL destroy the Republic if he is elected, make no doubt about it.

If you don’t believe me, just look at the level of crazy coming out of his own mouth:

“[I am] calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” — Donald Trump. That’s religious discrimination.


“An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud” — Donald Trump. That’s an outright lie.

“Arianna Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision.” — Donald Trump. This is sexism, and just plain rude.

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of @!$%#.” – Donald Trump. This is misogyny at its finest.

“I will build a great wall — and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me — and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.” – Donald Trump. The words of an arrogant hate monger.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.” — Donald Trump. Racist.

“Our great African-American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore.” — Donald Trump. Racist.

“If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.” — Donald Trump. The words of an @!$%#.

“The beauty of me is that I’m very rich.” – Donald Trump. So Vain.

“It’s freezing and snowing in New York – we need global warming!” – Donald Trump. Ignorant.

“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.” – Donald Trump. Gross.

“I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I’m more honest and my women are beautiful.” – Donald Trump. Sexist. As if women are possessions rather than people. And also a lie. A lie about how honest he is.

How can you support this man?




*I am aware of the fact that snopes.com claims the Lincoln Capitalism Prophecy quote is false. It’s a quote that has been going around for more than a hundred years. The quote has also been attributed to a letter that Lincoln supposedly wrote to Col. William F. Elkins in 1864. Scholars have cited The Lincoln Encyclopedia: The Spoken and Written Words of A. Lincoln Arranged for Ready Reference by Archer H. Shaw. Snopes still claims the letter referred to in this encyclopedia is a fraud, forged by Emanuel Hertz in his book Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait. So in the interest of full disclosure, these may or may not have been Lincoln’s words. Whether they were written by Hertz or Lincoln, they were still written and they still pertain to the point I was trying to make. Income inequality is a serious issue in this country, and Donald Trump is working on the prejudices of the people.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A dog is more likely to attack another dog or a human than a cat is. A cat might run away if it feels threatened, but a dog might take your hand off if it feels threatened.

Even conservatives are in favour of roads, healthcare, food, and education you know. Lefties are not more "virtuous" than anyone else - they want things which benefit themselves.

The cat/dog thing was a loose metaphor...I was attempting to give you the image in 140-words or less.  The cat is a solo animal; a dog attacks in packs, if you go to hostility visions.

The point is that the political ideology of conservatives is predicated on autonomous individualism.  That is a false picture.  I know conservatives live a social existence...that is my point.  A theory of autonomous individualism is inconsistent with the way we live.  Social and political theory ought not be false.  Liberals recognize that; conservatives twist it away and believe in a false picture.

Who knows what virtue is?  Lefties are, frankly, more altruistic.  They think in terms of others, whereas conservatives think only in terms of themselves.  That's where we started, innit?  Conservatism thinks selfishly, whereas liberals are sensitive to the needs of others.  That's why conservatives are solely money amassers; liberals are problem solvers.  The latter is a higher calling.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The cat/dog thing was a loose metaphor...I was attempting to give you the image in 140-words or less.  The cat is a solo animal; a dog attacks in packs, if you go to hostility visions.

The point is that the political ideology of conservatives is predicated on autonomous individualism.  That is a false picture.  I know conservatives live a social existence...that is my point.  A theory of autonomous individualism is inconsistent with the way we live.  Social and political theory ought not be false.  Liberals recognize that; conservatives twist it away and believe in a false picture.

Who knows what virtue is?  Lefties are, frankly, more altruistic.  They think in terms of others, whereas conservatives think only in terms of themselves.  That's where we started, innit?  Conservatism thinks selfishly, whereas liberals are sensitive to the needs of others.  That's why conservatives are solely money amassers; liberals are problem solvers.  The latter is a higher calling.

Lefites don't think in terms of others, they just pretend they do. When it comes down to it, they'll look after themselves before anyone else, and they'll rely on the State more because they think they're entitled to do so.

Raggamuffin wrote:Conservatives are perhaps more self-reliant and more aware of responsibilities as much as rights. They don't want or expect the State to look after them as much as lefties do.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lefites don't think in terms of others, they just pretend they do. When it comes down to it, they'll look after themselves before anyone else, and they'll rely on the State more because they think they're entitled to do so.

You see?  You have to introduce that notion of falsity (pretending) because, being the autonomous individualist, you are suspicious of everyone else.  But liberals are not like you.  You see things through the prism of your own ideology.

Raggamuffin wrote:Conservatives are perhaps more self-reliant and more aware of responsibilities as much as rights. They don't want or expect the State to look after them as much as lefties do.

Self-reliance is an individualist value.  It's a self-fulling prophecy...you value the self, you value the self reliant.  Other cultures and other ideologies would say, do onto others and you would have done to you.  A good socialist statement if I ever heard one.

Responsibility is a totally relative term.  How responsible is it to lie to bring about a war, and then go about raping young sisters and torturing other human beings?  You conceive of responsibilities only in your own terms: the money-changer.  Pay your bills.  Get a job and be a good provider.  There are other responsibilities in the world.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You see?  You have to introduce that notion of falsity (pretending) because, being the autonomous individualist, you are suspicious of everyone else.  But liberals are not like you.  You see things through the prism of your own ideology.



Self-reliance is an individualist value.  It's a self-fulling prophecy...you value the self, you value the self reliant.  Other cultures and other ideologies would say, do onto others and you would have done to you.  A good socialist statement if I ever heard one.

Responsibility is a totally relative term.  How responsible is it to lie to bring about a war, and then go about raping young sisters and torturing other human beings?  You conceive of responsibilities only in your own terms: the money-changer.  Pay your bills.  Get a job and be a good provider.  There are other responsibilities in the world.

I don't know where you got the idea that "responsibility" means raping young sisters and torturing human beings. I mean that they take more responsibility for themselves and don't rely too much on the State, or bang about their "rights" as much as lefties do.

Raggamuffin wrote:Self reliance is a good thing - it means that you're not leeching off others or expecting the State to look after you all the time.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't know where you got the idea that "responsibility" means raping young sisters and torturing human beings. I mean that they take more responsibility for themselves and don't rely too much on the State, or bang about their "rights" as much as lefties do.

Raping young women is what Republicans did with the opportunity they had to do good in Iraq.  They undertook another war of killing babies, allegedly for the purpose of making life better for Iraqis.  What did they do?  The raped, tortured and killed.  You should be proud of your RW amigos.

Raggamuffin wrote:Self reliance is a good thing - it means that you're not leeching off others or expecting the State to look after you all the time.

You’re overselling your cause.  Do you want me to oversell the golden rule?  The point is that self-reliance is just another one of an infinite number of values.  Self-reliance is no better than helping your brother.  Keep it personal and don't try to sell it to others.  It gets tedious.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raping young women is what Republicans did with the opportunity they had to do good in Iraq.  They undertook another war of killing babies, allegedly for the purpose of making life better for Iraqis.  What did they do?  The raped, tortured and killed.  You should be proud of your RW amigos.



You’re overselling your cause.  Do you want me to oversell the golden rule?  The point is that self-reliance is just another one of an infinite number of values.  Self-reliance is no better than helping your brother.  Keep it personal and don't try to sell it to others.  It gets tedious.

Not as tedious as the idea you're trying to sell - that all lefties are caring sharing people who are only concerned about the wellbeing of others. How can anyone help others if they're not self reliant themselves? They're not a position to do so.

Re Iraq, it was our Labour Government which was involved in that. After the issue of WMD had to be dismissed, they said it was save the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator - ie, they also said they cared about the people there.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not as tedious as the idea you're trying to sell - that all lefties are caring sharing people who are only concerned about the wellbeing of others. How can anyone help others if they're not self reliant themselves? They're not a position to do so.

Re Iraq, it was our Labour Government which was involved in that. After the issue of WMD had to be dismissed, they said it was save the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator - ie, they also said they cared about the people there.

But the fact is Saddam was a brutal dictator and mass murderer, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Freeing the people of Iraq, then saw both Iran and Saudi, use the place as a battleground for Islamic supremacy. Labour cannot be blamed for that or how years of oppression under Saddam of the Kurds and Shias, would have led to the violence we saw happen. With the sectarian violence that followed. People forget, the people had risen up before against him after the first Iraq war, where 200,000 lost their lives. Removing him did undoubtedly save lives, even more if the Arab Spring had come to Iraq, of which it would have done. Causing a civil war, like we see today in Syria. Nobody on the right or left should be blamed for the barbarity that people committed once they had obtain their freedom.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


But the fact is Saddam was a brutal dictator and mass murderer, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Freeing the people of Iraq, then saw both Iran and Saudi, use the place as a battleground for Islamic supremacy. Labour cannot be blamed for that or how years of oppression under Saddam of the Kurds and Shias, would have led to the violence we saw happen. With the sectarian violence that followed. People forget, the people had risen up before against him after the first Iraq war, where 200,000 lost their lives. Removing him did undoubtedly save lives, even more if the Arab Spring had come to Iraq, of which it would have done. Causing a civil war, like we see today in Syria. Nobody on the right or left should be blamed for the barbarity that people committed once they had obtain their freedom.

You should perhaps be addressing that post to Quill, who appears to be saying that the US Government went to Iraq in order to kill babies instead of doing "good". I'm not claiming that, I'm merely asking him if he thinks the motive of the US Government were different to the motives of the UK Labour Government.

I was opposed to the invasion because I didn't think there was any evidence for WMD, and also because it seemed obvious to me that if you create a power vacuum, that's going to cause other problems. I also didn't like the rather cavalier way that the death of Iraqi soldiers was reported.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You should perhaps be addressing that post to Quill, who appears to be saying that the US Government went to Iraq in order to kill babies instead of doing "good". I'm not claiming that, I'm merely asking him if he thinks the motive of the US Government were different to the motives of the UK Labour Government.

I was opposed to the invasion because I didn't think there was any evidence for WMD, and also because it seemed obvious to me that if you create a power vacuum, that's going to cause other problems. I also didn't like the rather cavalier way that the death of Iraqi soldiers was reported.

No I am addressing my points to what you claimed and have addressed Quill many times also on this very issue. Everyone was opposed to the reason for the invasion of weapons of mass destruction, but would you be opposed on the grounds to free the Iraq people from oppression, from a brutal mass murderer? Whatever the reasons, the people were living under a brutal dictator, who murdered hundreds of thousands. So freeing people to you is not worth it, and that they should continue to suffer? Well other countries have been freed from oppression and did not then decide to butcher each other. Which clearly shows there was players behind he scenes (Iran and Saudi) inciting the violence in the name of Islam. So how and why should we not then free people then due to fear, others will capitalize on this and commit violence? That is bowing down to terror.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No I am addressing my points to what you claimed and have addressed Quill many times also on this very issue. Everyone was opposed to the reason for the invasion of weapons of mass destruction, but would you be opposed on the grounds to free the Iraq people from oppression, from a brutal mass murderer? Whatever the reasons, the people were living under a brutal dictator, who murdered hundreds of thousands. So freeing people to you is not worth it, and that they should continue to suffer? Well other countries have been freed from oppression and did not then decide to butcher each other. Which clearly shows there was players behind he scenes (Iran and Saudi) inciting the violence in the name of Islam. So how and why should we not then free people then due to fear, others will capitalize on this and commit violence? That is bowing down to terror.

But the reason for invading Iraq was not correct in the first place, and IMO there should have been another UN resolution to invade. You free people from a dictator, and what happens then? There's a power vacuum - everyone knows that, and nothing is solved. One person might be saved from Saddam, but others are not saved from what happens later. There must have been a better solution.

Anyway, this isn't about the Iraq invasion as such, it's about Quills assumption that only "right wing" Governments would invade another country, and that only "right wing" people would support that.

Raggamuffin wrote:Re Iraq, it was our Labour Government which was involved in that. After the issue of WMD had to be dismissed, they said it was save the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator - ie, they also said they cared about the people there. What are you going to assume from that? That they did care, but your Republicans didn't?

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, this isn't about the Iraq invasion as such, it's about Quills assumption that only "right wing" Governments would invade another country, and that only "right wing" people would support that.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Re Iraq, it was our Labour Government which was involved in that. After the issue of WMD had to be dismissed, they said it was save the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator - ie, they also said they cared about the people there. What are you going to assume from that? That they did care, but your Republicans didn't?

There are a lot of strands in politics, even more in international geopolitics.  One is that the British have learned to kowtow to the US...even across liberal/conservative lines.  Those positions on Iraq were not the words of your Labour government, but the words of conservative Republicans passing through their mouths.

If you want my opinion, you Brits ought to have a mind of your own.  What a huge disappointment to us progressives in America y’all were when you backed Bush and the Neo-con elements of America that turned out to be the Alt.right.

Obviously, today, Brits realize that it is dangerous to kiss the US ass…what with Trump and the overt alt.right.  But if you’d just remained true to yourselves all along, you wouldn’t be answering for those falsehoods.  That’s not a message to Labour or Tory…it's a message to individuals.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, this isn't about the Iraq invasion as such, it's about Quills assumption that only "right wing" Governments would invade another country, and that only "right wing" people would support that.

That isn't my assumption at all.  It's your spin on what I am saying.  We were having a much more abstract discussion about ideology.

We started this conversation by speaking about "responsibilities".  You were arguing that your conservative ideology provided the only way to responsibility: self-reliance.  My response was, how come your ideology led to such a travesty as Iraq?  

It shows that all theories of "responsibility" (or good/bad, right/wrong, duty/disregard) are relative, and none are final.  We know this about religion; why is it elusive when it comes to ideology?

The whole discussion about Iraq was an expanded example in an otherwise wholly different discussion about political theory.  To return: socialism is an advancement on democracy every bit as much as Copernicus was an advancement on the flat-earth theory.  Socialism says that we improve our existence by addressing our problems collectively.  These are the problems that we as a species encounter at the fringes of our life...even if only one or two individuals experience them, we all pitch in to fix them.  We shoulder the burden of those problems because we assume that the problems of our brothers are our problems.  They very well could be next week, or month or year.

Conservatives would rather not address the issues at all--leaving the unfortunate to their misery--while progressives willingly embrace those problems.  That's the real rub that we should be discussing: why do conservatives abandon problem-solving for the species in favor of a theory of autonomous individualism?  Why do they make our social existence the enemy when it is the reality of our life?

Progressives shoulder the burdens because they embrace the overall social theory...or, socialism.  They embrace the ideal that we are all the brothers of each other, and we must help each other.  We are not autonomous individuals.  The rights of one are the rights of all.  The poverty of one family is the poverty of us all.  A soldier never leaves a brother dying in the field, why do conservatives feel it is proper to leave their brothers in the field?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But the reason for invading Iraq was not correct in the first place, and IMO there should have been another UN resolution to invade. You free people from a dictator, and what happens then? There's a power vacuum - everyone knows that, and nothing is solved. One person might be saved from Saddam, but others are not saved from what happens later. There must have been a better solution.

Anyway, this isn't about the Iraq invasion as such, it's about Quills assumption that only "right wing" Governments would invade another country, and that only "right wing" people would support that.

So freeing people from a dictator is incorrect to you then?
The UN?
Its the most biased undemocratic system in the world, heavily swayed by representatives from authoritarian nations.
No many people were saved and again you miss the point, that a civil war would have come to Iraq as it did with Syria, anyway, with the Arab springs. What a day we live in when the reason not to invade, is because people will turn into savages killing each other, through hate of religious intolerance.
Shia and Sunni

Yes this is about your views, not Quill

Raggamuffin wrote:It didn't. It wasn't a conservative Government which decided that we should invade Iraq. That is why I'm asking you what you think about a non-conservative Government invading another country. You only seem to mind if it's a "right wing" Government. In fact, you don't appear to think that a leftie Government would do such a thing.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It didn't. It wasn't a conservative Government which decided that we should invade Iraq. That is why I'm asking you what you think about a non-conservative Government invading another country. You only seem to mind if it's a "right wing" Government. In fact, you don't appear to think that a leftie Government would do such a thing.

Britain didn't decide anything.  It took order from the Republican US, and followed along like a good puppy dog.

If it had any will at all, I have no doubt that Labour Britain would have opposed the war.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Britain didn't decide anything.  It took order from the Republican US, and followed along like a good puppy dog.

If it had any will at all, I have no doubt that Labour Britain would have opposed the war.

The British Government still decided to do that - because they thought it was the right thing to do. You'd like to think that the Labour Government would have opposed it, but I'm afraid you're wrong.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The British Government still decided to do that - because they thought it was the right thing to do. You'd like to think that the Labour Government would have opposed it, but I'm afraid you're wrong.

You know what I think?  I think they were just lazy and gave up.  Someone's gotta kick some character into their ass.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You know what I think?  I think they were just lazy and gave up.  Someone's gotta kick some character into their ass.

I think you're wrong. I know you like to think that Americans are all powerful, but they're not. Sure, we like them as allies, but we're not going to go to war because another country tells us to. You're only saying this because you don't like to think that "lefties" could decide to invade another country.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you're wrong. I know you like to think that Americans are all powerful, but they're not. Sure, we like them as allies, but we're not going to go to war because another country tells us to. You're only saying this because you don't like to think that "lefties" could decide to invade another country.

You've missed the boat completely.  I'm not thinking Americans are all powerful.  If anything, my position on the Iraq war implies that I don't think Americans are that bright.  But you Brits just followed the Americans like lapdogs, and that's wrong.

I'm just saying, y'all should not follow the Neo-Cons without question.  Do some thinking...make some decisions on your own.  

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you're wrong. I know you like to think that Americans are all powerful, but they're not. Sure, we like them as allies, but we're not going to go to war because another country tells us to. You're only saying this because you don't like to think that "lefties" could decide to invade another country.

You've missed the boat completely.  I'm not thinking Americans are all powerful.  If anything, my position on the Iraq war implies that I don't think Americans are that bright.  But you Brits just followed the Americans like lapdogs, and that's wrong.

I'm just saying, y'all should not follow the Neo-Cons without question.  Do some thinking...make some decisions on your own.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So freeing people from a dictator is incorrect to you then?
The UN?
Its the most biased undemocratic system in the world, heavily swayed by representatives from authoritarian nations.
No many people were saved and again you miss the point, that a civil war would have come to Iraq as it did with Syria, anyway, with the Arab springs. What a day we live in when the reason not to invade, is because people will turn into savages killing each other, through hate of religious intolerance.
Shia and Sunni

Yes this is about your views, not Quill

How would anyone have known at that time that the Arab Spring would happen? How many are not being saved now in Iraq? It's worse than ever because of the power vacuum that was left behind.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But the reason for invading Iraq was not correct in the first place, and IMO there should have been another UN resolution to invade. You free people from a dictator, and what happens then? There's a power vacuum - everyone knows that, and nothing is solved. One person might be saved from Saddam, but others are not saved from what happens later. There must have been a better solution.

Anyway, this isn't about the Iraq invasion as such, it's about Quills assumption that only "right wing" Governments would invade another country, and that only "right wing" people would support that.

So freeing people from a dictator is incorrect to you then?
The UN?
Its the most biased undemocratic system in the world, heavily swayed by representatives from authoritarian nations.
No many people were saved and again you miss the point, that a civil war would have come to Iraq as it did with Syria, anyway, with the Arab springs. What a day we live in when the reason not to invade, is because people will turn into savages killing each other, through hate of religious intolerance.
Shia and Sunni

Yes this is about your views, not Quill

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So freeing people from a dictator is incorrect to you then?
The UN?
Its the most biased undemocratic system in the world, heavily swayed by representatives from authoritarian nations.
No many people were saved and again you miss the point, that a civil war would have come to Iraq as it did with Syria, anyway, with the Arab springs. What a day we live in when the reason not to invade, is because people will turn into savages killing each other, through hate of religious intolerance.
Shia and Sunni

Yes this is about your views, not Quill

Didge... you keep repeating the lies here... Saddam hussein was a socialist whos govt enforced secularism and used oil revenues to pay for/and improve the public services and infrastructure in the country for the benefit of all the people there...


Law and order was undeniably prevalent, systems and society functioned reasonably well, there was peace and security, and religious and other minority groups were protected and enjoyed a safety where they could be fully engaged in society as equal citizens of Iraq, and free from persecution.



The so called 'oppressed' there were actually the ones who, under hussein, were those being prevented from enforcing their own oppressive/brutal Islamist ideals on everyone else throughout the country... but since the removal of the force preventing them, they have been doing ever since...!


Turning Iraq into the islamist hell hole that it is now!

Tommy Monk wrote:What has my post got to do with the iran/Iraq war...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:What did my post have to do with the iran/Iraq war...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So freeing people from a dictator is incorrect to you then?
The UN?
Its the most biased undemocratic system in the world, heavily swayed by representatives from authoritarian nations.
No many people were saved and again you miss the point, that a civil war would have come to Iraq as it did with Syria, anyway, with the Arab springs. What a day we live in when the reason not to invade, is because people will turn into savages killing each other, through hate of religious intolerance.
Shia and Sunni

Yes this is about your views, not Quill

Didge... you keep repeating the lies here... Saddam hussein was a socialist whos govt enforced secularism and used oil revenues to pay for/and improve the public services and infrastructure in the country for the benefit of all the people there...


Law and order was undeniably prevalent, systems and society functioned reasonably well, there was peace and security, and religious and other minority groups were protected and enjoyed a safety where they could be fully engaged in society as equal citizens of Iraq, and free from persecution.



The so called 'oppressed' there were actually the ones who, under hussein, were those being prevented from enforcing their own oppressive/brutal Islamist ideals on everyone else throughout the country... but since the removal of the force preventing them, they have been doing ever since...!


Turning Iraq into the islamist hell hole that it is now!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Didge... you keep repeating the lies here... Saddam hussein was a socialist whos govt enforced secularism and used oil revenues to pay for/and improve the public services and infrastructure in the country for the benefit of all the people there...


Law and order was undeniably prevalent, systems and society functioned reasonably well, there was peace and security, and religious and other minority groups were protected and enjoyed a safety where they could be fully engaged in society as equal citizens of Iraq, and free from persecution.



The so called 'oppressed' there were actually the ones who, under hussein, were those being prevented from enforcing their own oppressive/brutal Islamist ideals on everyone else throughout the country... but since the removal of the force preventing them, they have been doing ever since...!


Turning Iraq into the islamist hell hole that it is now!

What has my post got to do with the iran/Iraq war...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:We weren't talking about the iran/Iraq war...


Your post wasn't anything to do with it... and neither was my reply to your post...


Just the usual goalposts on wheels from the dodgy one....





Nighty night dodge!

Raggamuffin wrote:You also didn't explain how the Brits were supposed to be able to stop it happening.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You also didn't explain how the Brits were supposed to be able to stop it happening.

You weren't supposed to stop it from happening.  You just weren't supposed to join in.  Just be neutral, and be true to your own sense of right and wrong.  You didn't do that.

You have a poor sense of logic.  You flurry around looking for answers, when it is all too simple.  Just be yourselves and don't do anything else.

There is an inevitability about fate.  You may think you are useless and unable to make a change, but just remain true and it is the world that turns a corner and leaves you in the right place.

That's what you British didn't do with the Iraq War.  And lo...you didn't end up in the right place, because you did the untoward.  You didn't let fate turn the corner.

One day you'll learn.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You weren't supposed to stop it from happening.  You just weren't supposed to join in.  Just be neutral, and be true to your own sense of right and wrong.  You didn't do that.

You have a poor sense of logic.  You flurry around looking for answers, when it is all too simple.  Just be yourselves and don't do anything else.

There is an inevitability about fate.  You may think you are useless and unable to make a change, but just remain true and it is the world that turns a corner and leaves you in the right place.

That's what you British didn't do with the Iraq War.  And lo...you didn't end up in the right place, because you did the untoward.  You didn't let fate turn the corner.

One day you'll learn.

What are you talking about? How did people "join in"?  How can one be true to anything if they're just "neutral" anyway?

Raggamuffin wrote:Your post made no sense at all. I really think you've gone as far as you can go in this discussion - you're losing any sense of logic.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What are you talking about? How did people "join in"?  How can one be true to anything if they're just "neutral" anyway?

Pleeze...the elected representatives of Britain chose to join in invading Iraq in 2003.  Now you wish to deny that?  Perhaps these will remind you...

Raggamuffin wrote:Your post made no sense at all. I really think you've gone as far as you can go in this discussion - you're losing any sense of logic.

You are desperate and grasping for anything to save yourself.  OK--the UK wasn't there in Iraq...that was just Fake News, eh?  Raggs, you are giving us 'alternate facts'.

Obviously, today, Brits realize that it is dangerous to kiss the US ass…what with Trump and the overt alt.right. But if you’d just remained true to yourselves all along, you wouldn’t be answering for those falsehoods. That’s not a message to Labour or Tory…it's a message to individuals.

Raggamuffin wrote:So when you were talking about "individuals", you weren't talking about individual British people then?

Obviously, today, Brits realize that it is dangerous to kiss the US ass…what with Trump and the overt alt.right. But if you’d just remained true to yourselves all along, you wouldn’t be answering for those falsehoods. That’s not a message to Labour or Tory…it's a message to individuals.

Raggamuffin wrote:You really need to be more logical rather than backtrack all the time and reinvent what you said.

You have a nerve criticising the Brits when you lot couldn't wait to get in and bomb Baghdad in a display of "shock and awe".

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So when you were talking about "individuals", you weren't talking about individual British people then?

When I say individuals, I mean individual consciences.  You Brits let your leaders sweet talk you right into the laps of the American Neo-Cons, and on to Iraq.  

Perhaps, instead of following like blind sheeple, you might have exercised a little independent judgment.  FCS, the Brexit people did it when the almight shekel was at stake.  You'd think a few babies lives might be worth it.

Raggamuffin wrote:You really need to be more logical rather than backtrack all the time and reinvent what you said.

You have a nerve criticising the Brits when you lot couldn't wait to get in and bomb Baghdad in a display of "shock and awe".

In your dreams.  You are twisting and turning like a dik-dik trying to avoid the single point I am making: you allowed yourselves to become lap dogs.

Raggamuffin wrote:You can't just accept the fact that a left-wing Government could possibly want to intervene in another country. However, your own Hillary Clinton wanted to intervene in Syria. You're not as squeaky clean as you make out - are you Quill?

nicko wrote:Quill doesn't know his arse from his elbow,,      some of the time.
Notice I said some of the time !

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You can't just accept the fact that a left-wing Government could possibly want to intervene in another country. However, your own Hillary Clinton wanted to intervene in Syria. You're not as squeaky clean as you make out - are you Quill?

Don't be such a phony.  Say what you mean and stop dancing around like this is a rhetorical game.  You don't need a lecture from me on representational government, while you think up your next dodge.

If anything I should be talking to members of your Labour Party, because the Tories are a lost cause anyway.  Tories, as conservatives, are always for war...anytime, anywhere.  

It was your Labour Party that let down American liberals.  But in the end it was the entirety of the British conscience.   You had a chance to say fook-off to the Neo-Cons, you didn't and you should have.  You lost your individual consciences.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Quill doesn't know his arse from his elbow,,      some of the time.
Notice I said some of the time !

Nicko, either contribute or stay back.  Wolf is right...you parachute in to help out your comrade whenever she's in trouble.

You are not helping, either her or your gang.  Everyone knows she's not holding her own.  And with you parachuting in, you only prove that Wolf is right.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nicko, either contribute or stay back.  Wolf is right...you parachute in to help out your comrade whenever she's in trouble.

You are not helping, either her or your gang.  Everyone knows she's not holding her own.  And with you parachuting in, you only prove that Wolf is right.  

I'm doing just fine. You're the one running around in circles, backtracking, and making illogical posts.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm doing just fine. You're the one running around in circles, backtracking, and making illogical posts.

Haha...I'm chasing your elusive tail.  You keep making these leaps of logic like a polecat on a hot tin roof.

Raggamuffin wrote:How am I being a phony?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How am I being a phony?

You are jumping at adjectives, pronouns and modifiers like you don't know what they mean...and engaging in subterfuge to avoid the discussion.