Political DiscussionA place to hold political debates and general discussion. Please remember to always respect the opinions of other members and above all else, be civil.
I want to see your response to this but knowing you so far you will ignore or lock the post
haha, you're one of the few people on this site who actually thinks when discussing something like this. but in the end there is no point of arguing because the ignorance will always overwhelm the logic.
just let people go about things as they do.... let the head priest of the church drive a new SL500 while you pullin up there every sunday in a broke ass corolla thinkin god is with you..
you wont change anyone's opinion but i appreciate seeing people post who dont think like sheep.
tiny minority???? You act like it is only a couple hundred thousand people that voted democrat a year ago.
god damn right i am afraid that abortion will be somehow taken away, for the religion part i don't really care
ok, you act like the iraq war and al-queda are minor misshaps like leaving the TV on when you leave the house
Then what about the other dictators in the world that are getting rich of their country and using it as their own garden???? Why don't we go all the way and rid them too, or better yet answer me what made iraq so special about invading it compared to africa, north korea, syria and other mid-east countries.
Sure it didn't have anything to do with Iraq starting to use the euro instead of the dollar in the sales of their exports right???
The autrocities of saddam became a reason after the wmd's were not found, so who is brushing what under the rug????
Not every person that voted Dem last year is an ardent Bush-hater. I'm talking about the people that absolutely hate Bush with a passion. Them seem to have taken over the leadership of the Dem party and hijacked it, then blurred the line seperating Bush from what he has done, so now they hate everything. They've become strict obstructionists, the kind of people who just want to sit down and not let any type of reform or ANYTHING happen. These are the kind of people who would LIKE to see hundreds, even thousands more killed in Iraq so that they could use this info to go AFTER BUSH with.
What about the other dictators of the world? Someone being a dictator isn't a reason for invading their country, there have been good dictators, and there have been people that have improved their country. There are dictators that rule with the majority of the populace supporting them. However, Saddam was not one of them. For heaven's sakes, if we can't get enough people to approve of the relatively easy removal of a psychotic dictator like Saddam, that ruled with 25% of the populace backing him and brutally suppressed the other 75%, how on earth could we go into another place like Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, Syria or Zimbabwe? Iraq could be the first place, but no one seems to care about anything but themselves.
Regarding Iraq switching over the euro... that's the reason that we went in, eh? That's the stupid paranoid reasoning of the left. I never even heard of this until a few weeks ago. Maybe Iraq was getting ready to switch over... it sure wasn't the reason that in invaded. Oil wasn't the reason either. WMD's was part of the reason, the biggest publicized one certainly. Do you seriously think that the administration LIED about that? Every SINGLE intelligence organization on earth believed they had chemical and biological weapons, it was even possible to have nukes... it sure is freaking strange that we have't found any. Doesn't mean that there never were any though.
The atrocities were the primary reason that we went in. It wasn't the most publicized reason, but I personally felt that Saddam should have been removed in the first gulf war. And he should have.
What about the other dictators of the world? Someone being a dictator isn't a reason for invading their country, there have been good dictators, and there have been people that have improved their country. There are dictators that rule with the majority of the populace supporting them. However, Saddam was not one of them. For heaven's sakes, if we can't get enough people to approve of the relatively easy removal of a psychotic dictator like Saddam, that ruled with 25% of the populace backing him and brutally suppressed the other 75%, how on earth could we go into another place like Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, Syria or Zimbabwe? Iraq could be the first place, but no one seems to care about anything but themselves.
Kim Jong Il, North Korea.
Age 62. In power since 1994.
North Korea still ranks last in Reporters Without Borders’ international index of press freedom, and it earned Freedom House’s worst score for political rights and civil liberties for the 33rd straight year (a world record). The Ministry of People’s Security places spies in workplaces and neighborhoods to inform on anyone who criticizes the regime, even at home. All radios and TV sets are fixed to receive only government stations. Disloyalty to Kim Jong Il and his late father, Kim Il Sung, is a punishable crime: Offenses include allowing pictures of either leader to gather dust or be torn or folded. The population is divided into “loyalty groups.” One-third belong to the “hostile class.” These people receive the worst jobs and housing and may not live in the capital, Pyongyang. Below the hostiles are the estimated 250,000 held in prison camps, some for crimes allegedly committed by relatives. Executions often are performed in public.
Omar al-Bashir, Sudan.
Age 61. In power since 1989.
A colossal humanitarian tragedy in western Sudan’s Darfur region has uprooted 2 million people and killed 70,000, mostly through the activities of government-supported militias. This is nothing new in Sudan, where Omar al-Bashir, its dictator, has engaged in ethnic and religious persecution since seizing power in a military coup. Sudan has 6 million internally displaced persons—more than any other nation. In southern Sudan, where Christianity and traditional religions are practiced, Bashir tried to impose Islamic law in a campaign that included aerial bombing of villages and enslavement of women and children. His forces met with armed resistance, escalating to what some called a civil war between Muslims and Christians. (In Darfur, meanwhile, he has been killing Muslims.) Last month, Bashir signed a cease-fire with rebels in the south. It allows government troops to remain in southern Sudan and prohibits southerners from voting for independence for six years.
Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe.
Age 80. In power since 1980.
After leading an anti-colonial war of liberation, Mugabe was elected Zimbabwe’s first prime minister, raising hopes for a new era of democracy. But he has turned increasingly dictatorial and run his country into the ground. Average life expectancy in Zimbabwe is 33 years—among the lowest in the world. One of Mugabe’s many repressive laws deems it a crime “to make an abusive, indecent or obscene statement” about him. He continues to hold elections, but opposition is discouraged. Looking toward a vote in March, the parliament passed a law banning from Zimbabwe any human-rights or civil-liberties group that receives money from abroad. In other words, independent election monitors will not be allowed.
Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan.
Age 64. In power since 1990.
Niyazov has developed an overbearing personality cult that crushes dissent and invades all aspects of life in Turkmenistan, no matter how trivial. He controls his one-party state with torture, disappearances, detentions, house demolitions, forced labor and exile. He muzzles all media, and it is illegal to criticize any of his policies. Statues of Niyazov appear everywhere, and his picture is on all denominations of money. His “moral guide,” Rukhnama (Book of the Soul), is required reading for students, married couples and even applicants for a driver’s license. He named two of the months after himself and his book. Female newscasters may not wear makeup, nor may young men wear beards, long hair or gold teeth.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE DICTATORS AND SADDAM AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR?!?!
Quote:
Regarding Iraq switching over the euro... that's the reason that we went in, eh? That's the stupid paranoid reasoning of the left. I never even heard of this until a few weeks ago. Maybe Iraq was getting ready to switch over... it sure wasn't the reason that in invaded. Oil wasn't the reason either. WMD's was part of the reason, the biggest publicized one certainly.
Actually i heard that reason over a year and a half ago in my business class so it is not some new rumor.
Quote:
Do you seriously think that the administration LIED about that? Every SINGLE intelligence organization on earth believed they had chemical and biological weapons, it was even possible to have nukes... it sure is freaking strange that we have't found any. Doesn't mean that there never were any though.
What do you call then making assumptions on not nearly enough evidence about the WMD's. What was the evidence actually before the war?? Just that saddam was not letting people in to inspect, and some aerial footage. Ohh i forgot some dubious intelligence from defectors from iraq in whose interest it was to talk the problems up.
Quote:
The atrocities were the primary reason that we went in. It wasn't the most publicized reason, but I personally felt that Saddam should have been removed in the first gulf war. And he should have
Agree with you on that one, he should've been ousted 12 years earlier, but not now.
Furthermore Vietnam and now Iraq is the Imperialist wars of aggression in which a rich, powerful country meddles
in the affairs of a smaller, weaker foe whose culture it doesn't understand. The result will be another quagmire.
In addition,imposing democracy on any nation is a form of dictatorship.
Last edited by CocaineInMyBrain : 10-05-2005 at 11:56 PM.
Why do you hate Bush? Because chances are, some of the others that are in the loud but tiny minority that hate Bush, hate him for the same reasons you do:
-He claims to be Christian
-He claims to be conservative
those two reasons are really the underlying cause of yours, and others, hatred towards him. You have been used to the absurdities of the Clinton administration, and how they mishandled the country. You liked what they did, liberalizing everything. You are irrationally afraid that Bush will take away all the liberal things out of the country and make it conservative again, or you are afraid that he will somehow compel everyone to be a christian and you'll be sent back to the dark ages. You are afraid that abortion will somehow be taken away, and that's why you hate him.
Sure, you can use the excuses of the Iraqi War, M. Moore's psychotic babble about how he's friends with Bin Laden, or whatever. Everything he does gives you excuses to hate him more, but the above two reasons are really the only reasons you hate him.
Do I love him? Heck no. But I do think that Bush has played the politically charged "christian right" to get them to think that he is one of them. And I do not think that he is nearly as right as everyone thinks he is. This means that we have someone in office that the left hates, yet he does a lot of left-winged crap. The right loves him, but he's not doing anything they approve of.
In the end, I'd love for everyone to just cut the BS. Okay, libs, you hate him because he claims to be christian. Admit it and get the monkey off his back in Iraq! You're just screwing the country over, not him, when you continue this crap. You have a right to hate him because he calls himself a christian... great! You don't need to use Iraq as an excuse to hate him!
If you seriously think that Iraq shouldn't have been invaded for WMD, then what about for Saddam's atrocities? Should we have just let him do what he wanted? I think that's the foremost reason... but hey, sometimes you guys like to brush that stuff under the rug.......
First off, I don't care that he's a Christian. You have a skewed view of me if you think that I hate or have a problem with Christians. I have a problem with people of ANY religion who try to impose it on the people of a country through law (that means the morals of that religion that might not be shared by those of other religions). I don't agree with any religion telling people of other religions what to do and that is basically what happens when you pass a law that prohibits something like abortion or assisted suicide (which always makes me think why these people are for the death penalty and yet against assisted suicide). I don't mind you preaching your beliefs, that's fine and you have every right to do that, but don't try to force other people to comply with what you believe is "morally right" because it might not be right to them.
Here's an example. I believe abortion to be morally wrong. I would never condone it and would try to disuade anyone from making this choice but I wouldn't expect a law to be passed prohibiting it. I believe in a woman's right to choose and my moral views shouldn't affect her actions. Just because I believe it to be wrong doesn't mean that it's "absolutely wrong" and therefore shouldn't be done. It doesn't directly affect the society in which we live (as say a murder or a robbery does) so I shouldn't concern myself with it. Does it bother me? Yes. Should I do something about it? Hell no!
Secondly, I don't hate him for being conservative, either. I actually think Bush is a little more left-leaning than most neo-cons would like him to be. Yet he does do them favors here and there and that is what I don't like. People like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rove just to name a few.
Iraq is a big reason why I don't like the Pres. He lied to us and skewed the information so that we would believe it. Israeli intelligence (one of the best in the world) even said pre-invasion that Iraq held no WMD. These are the people who hated him more than anything. French, German, and Soviet intelligence also said there were no weapons. Britain just hitched a ride with the CIA intelligence. DIA (the Defense Intelligence Agency) claimed there was not enough evidence of WMD prior to the war as did the Director of the CIA (who got fired for it, remember?). Even Colin Powel was extremely reluctant to go with the administration until he was basically forced to agree with Rummy and Cheney. That is the main reason why he resigned his post. Read General Tommy Franks' (he was the general in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan) book (I believe it's American Soldier or something like that) and you will see how Tommy comments about a conversation he held with Powell about this.
Now, you say he was an awful dictator...blah, blah, blah. It is not our position to determine who should be the leader of a country. We are not morally superior to anyone (as individuals or as a country) and shouldn't be telling a sovereign country how it should be run or whom should be running it. Invasion is never an option in my book. You may defend yourself but you may not initiate an attack, period! If we don't like what someone is doing then we can set up an embargo (like we did to Japan in the 40's and to Cuba in the 60's) or use other political means. Force (as in Iraq) is never the answer. The people of that country are responsible for changing their own government, not us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
They've become strict obstructionists, the kind of people who just want to sit down and not let any type of reform or ANYTHING happen. These are the kind of people who would LIKE to see hundreds, even thousands more killed in Iraq so that they could use this info to go AFTER BUSH with.
I don't think anyone really wants to see more people die in Iraq. I agree with you that obstructionism is terrible as those people's first obligation is to ensure the well being of the people of this country. But to say that they want people to die is ludicous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
What about the other dictators of the world? Someone being a dictator isn't a reason for invading their country, there have been good dictators, and there have been people that have improved their country. There are dictators that rule with the majority of the populace supporting them. However, Saddam was not one of them. For heaven's sakes, if we can't get enough people to approve of the relatively easy removal of a psychotic dictator like Saddam, that ruled with 25% of the populace backing him and brutally suppressed the other 75%, how on earth could we go into another place like Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, Syria or Zimbabwe? Iraq could be the first place, but no one seems to care about anything but themselves.
As I said before, we do not have the right to invade a country and change the leader no matter what form of government they use or the attrocities they commit. They are sovereign countries and, as such, have the right to do what the people of that country will put up with. You push someone around long enough they'll push back. It's a matter of time. If 75% of Iraqis didn't want Saddam there they should've done something about it themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
Regarding Iraq switching over the euro... that's the reason that we went in, eh? That's the stupid paranoid reasoning of the left. I never even heard of this until a few weeks ago. Maybe Iraq was getting ready to switch over... it sure wasn't the reason that in invaded. Oil wasn't the reason either. WMD's was part of the reason, the biggest publicized one certainly. Do you seriously think that the administration LIED about that? Every SINGLE intelligence organization on earth believed they had chemical and biological weapons, it was even possible to have nukes... it sure is freaking strange that we have't found any. Doesn't mean that there never were any though.
The atrocities were the primary reason that we went in. It wasn't the most publicized reason, but I personally felt that Saddam should have been removed in the first gulf war. And he should have.
Well, just because you hadn't heard about it until recently doesn't mean it wasn't a big issue. Iraq switched to the Euro in 2000. The consequences of that were the increase in valuation of the Euro and the subsquent decrease of the dollar. The dollar was strong because it was the main currency exchange for oil and Nixon was the one that started that. You should read up on that sometime because it's very interesting and Nixon was extremely smart for doing what he did. With a weakening dollar, slumpoing economy, and more countries in the region (such as Iran and Jordan) threatening to use the Euro (which would've eventually pushed Saudi Arabia and Kuwait with them) we were stuck between a rock and a hard place. Many economists at the time predicted that if Iran changed over to the Euro it would only be a matter of 2-3 years before we were stuck in a depression worse than in the 20s.
So, what did George do? He used the ol' Carter Doctrine (read up on this, too) to go into Iraq and protect the U.S. economy from collapse and protect the oil interests of the U.S. "by any means necessary," as called for by the Carter doctrine. This all stems from how the U.S. and Britain decided to divy up the Middle East's oil-exporting countries right after WWII. Read up on that, too.
As for every SINGLE intelligence agancy, I already answered that previously in this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CocaineInMyBrain
What do you call then making assumptions on not nearly enough evidence about the WMD's. What was the evidence actually before the war?? Just that saddam was not letting people in to inspect, and some aerial footage. Ohh i forgot some dubious intelligence from defectors from iraq in whose interest it was to talk the problems up.
Furthermore Vietnam and now Iraq is the Imperialist wars of aggression in which a rich, powerful country meddles in the affairs of a smaller, weaker foe whose culture it doesn't understand. The result will be another quagmire.
In addition,imposing democracy on any nation is a form of dictatorship.
Exactly. I really have to agree with the second paragraph quoted here. Imperialism leads to decadence and history has proven it over and over. And meddling in another country's affairs is uncalled for, especially when you don't understand their culture.
Furthermore Vietnam and now Iraq is the Imperialist wars of aggression in which a rich, powerful country meddles
in the affairs of a smaller, weaker foe whose culture it doesn't understand. The result will be another quagmire.
In addition,imposing democracy on any nation is a form of dictatorship.
+1. Others might think our system isn't the best and we should be different or more like they are, but if they came in and tried to change our views we wouldn't stand for it either.
Maybe someone feels everyone that's a Christian is going to hell and should be converted to some other religion, and that this new religion should be pushed to the extreme of going to war over. They might feel its the right thing to do (and maybe it is) but are you going to sit and let it happen??
