Iraq Topic

[SHOUTrvb]

I liked the point made earlier that if anyone but Bush had gotten power over America, we'd be in an even worse spot. One thing you'll notice about politicians is that they're all full of it (at least to a certain degree), and none of them will completely act out their promises. Any of the other candidates that have gone against Bush would have screwed up (badly) in their own way, and you'd have angry (and for the most part ignorant/bias) children, teenagers, and young adults getting overly pissed off at a man (hopefully never a woman) has to run an entire country by himself (for the most part) and keep the peace with his allies.

I'm not defending Bush, but I respect his authority as my leader, and I'm going to continue to allow him to screw up (like every other president would do) while I accept the fact that none of us have the power to fix anything.

Probably the biggest thing that pissed me off about Bush was taking out Hussein. He was an evil, horrible, power-crazed lunatic, but he was a necessary one. Taking him only paves the road for someone unable to get the job done to take his place, or someone even more evil to take his place. Currently we have the first one.

Honestly? I think that it's time that we stop whining about the past and look to the future. Let's end the wars, bring our soldiers home, and protect our own. No one is going to impeach Bush, and we're gonna have him until the moron takes his place in 'o8. It's just how things are, and right now I'm most concerned about protecting my rights as an American. Since this war has started we've surrendered too many of our rights and power to fuel Bush. It wasn't even his intention, but like I said, we've been paying too much to the past that our own government has managed to abuse our absence in mind take a much larger amount of control over us than they need.

Also, since this forum is not a Democracy, and I the staff may do as they will, please lock this topic. It is 99% impossible to keep a discussion such as this from turning into a rage infested debate. Therefor it has breached the rules of this forum and should be locked. If I was still Staff, I would, and I recommend that someone who still is do it.

Can't we all just...get along?

[shadowkhas]

First of all, my personal decision is going to be to leave this topic open. Otherwise, we've always got topics that keep getting hints of this debate in them, and we always lock them because they go too much on said topic and they derail it. Having one repository for this makes it easy. Just no attacking people for their personal opinions.

One thing you'll notice about politicians is that they're all full of it (at least to a certain degree), and none of them will completely act out their promises.

While I agree with you there, I still think that more left-leaning candidates would be better for the country as a whole.

[...]getting overly pissed off at a man (hopefully never a woman)

Um, what? So women can't have positions of power now?

Honestly? I think that it's time that we stop whining about the past and look to the future.

So what would have happened if our founding fathers would have just disregarded all of the taxation imposed on them, thrown up their arms, and said "Oh well, let's wait for a new king, guys. Sucks right now, let's just be apathetic."? I don't like to not care about our government...I think it's patriotic to question ANY government, be it conservative or liberal.

[noxiousraccoon]

Do you honestly think that America ever does anything for the good of any country's people, unless they're pressured by the international community?

Yes I do.

Clearly the situation should be assessed differently than Iraq. It would, or rather, should be very different, assuming we'd have competent officials making the calls on that sort of a thing.

I agree with you, though I believe the situations are still linked. Iraq has experienced years of unrest into which military action was the last option to hopefully end it. (though I understand its doing, kinda the opposite) Darfur, in my opinion, would also require military action by the US because we cannot directly apply food and other aid to the people of that country without somekind of occupying force.

Now you totally missed the point. The point is: We didn't go into Darfur. So if the administration went to Iraq to "save the people" from Saddam, why wouldn't they do the same for Darfur. Clearly they didn't go into Iraq to help the people.

Your not going to agree with me because you do not believe Iraq is more than the WMDs. If you believe war has to have a reason, then by all means this war was justified in the idea that Saddam had WMDs. This war means more than WMDs, I hope you understand that by now. I dont know if you believe something should be done about Darfur or not, you have not stated, though, if our government made the decision to go into Darfur with military force, with the idea to save the people of Darfur, would you support it?

Shout, dont ruin this topic, some of us are taking this seriously.

[Tural]

This thread breaks no rules. It's a very good topic, not many are actually as well-developed as this. As soon as there's a thread discussing an important issue, there will be people who get upset. That's just the nature of things. Is that a reason to lock the thread? No. This isn't some flame fest, it's a sensible debate.

[shadowkhas]

If you believe war has to have a reason, then by all means this war was justified in the idea that Saddam had WMDs. This war means more than WMDs, I hope you understand that by now.

So why did our government mislead us by claiming that the main purposes for this war were WMDs and links to terrorism? That is reason enough that it's a pointless war, that our government didn't give us the truth.

[Danke]

Any of the other candidates that have gone against Bush would have screwed up (badly) in their own way

This just sounds like a blanket statement like "everyone would have screwed up, no matter who," I don't think you can really make that assumption

and you'd have angry (and for the most part ignorant/bias) children, teenagers, and young adults getting overly pissed off at a man

And adults? Every democrat adult I know is vehemently against Bush

(hopefully never a woman)

That's its own topic entirely, if you ask me.

has to run an entire country by himself (for the most part)

He shouldn't, a government in numbers is probably the most reasonable and balanced

and keep the peace with his allies.

If that's his goal, then he's not doing too well.

I'm not defending Bush, but I respect his authority as my leader, and I'm going to continue to allow him to screw up (like every other president would do) while I accept the fact that none of us have the power to fix anything.

I both strongly disagree and hesitantly agree. I think we can change things, but it's just a slow and horrible process involving inefficient people in an (unfortunately necessarily) inefficient system.

Probably the biggest thing that pissed me off about Bush was taking out Hussein. He was an evil, horrible, power-crazed lunatic, but he was a necessary one. Taking him only paves the road for someone unable to get the job done to take his place, or someone even more evil to take his place. Currently we have the first one.

I mostly agree. If we could have forced him out in a purely politically way (yeah, I know, not possible), I would have preferred it.

Honestly? I think that it's time that we stop whining about the past and look to the future. Let's end the wars, bring our soldiers home, and protect our own. No one is going to impeach Bush, and we're gonna have him until the moron takes his place in 'o8. It's just how things are, and right now I'm most concerned about protecting my rights as an American. Since this war has started we've surrendered too many of our rights and power to fuel Bush. It wasn't even his intention

I wonder sometimes.

but like I said, we've been paying too much to the past that our own government has managed to abuse our absence in mind take a much larger amount of control over us than they need.

Agreed.

Also, since this forum is not a Democracy, and I the staff may do as they will, please lock this topic. It is 99% impossible to keep a discussion such as this from turning into a rage infested debate. Therefor it has breached the rules of this forum and should be locked. If I was still Staff, I would, and I recommend that someone who still is do it.

I can't disagree with you more and I hope you never post in the Cafe again if this is your attitude. I don't think I've argued enough that locking political discussions in the Cafe is just about killing the Cafe.

[SHOUTrvb]

When I said stop looking to the past, I meant that too much of our attention was directed towards it instead of fixing the future. I'm saying that we've evaluated the past enough to move on. The woman crack was a joke.

noxiousraccoon: I don't think you realize how serious I was. My main point, though never spoken in my first post was that nothing really changes or gets fixed. We're ultimately going to lead to our own demise, restart, repeat. All I want is this to happen as slowly as possible so fewer lives are lost. This topic is already ruined by people other than me, before this topic was created many times over. The amount of filth in the world has the logical people overwhelmed, and we're slowly getting beat out of our own country. Narrow-minded people see only this war, but this is human nature, which will never stop. What sucks most is that government is a necessary evil as well. For me it's God, but I'm stuck here with a president as well, so I try my best to preserve what little peace there is here.

Edit: My bad on your last point Danke. This shouldn't be locked, and Shadow gave the best reason why I've heard in a while. I was merely saying that this is more of a rant thread than a discussion, and normally pisses people to the point where Staff have to step in and calm people down (sometimes with RC). I'd just rather that not have to happen...

[Danke]

If you believe war has to have a reason

And I hope everyone does

then by all means this war was justified in the idea that Saddam had WMDs.

Which to me makes it now unjust.

This war means more than WMDs, I hope you understand that by now.

And everything it means I either don't support or I believe is hypocritical of the US to go to war for.

I dont know if you believe something should be done about Darfur or not, you have not stated, though, if our government made the decision to go into Darfur with military force, with the idea to save the people of Darfur, would you support it?

With support from the UN and other countries, I probably would support it. But I'm somewhat conflicted considering the case in Rwanda, that even this would fail without the massive relocation of their citizens. I guess it depends on geography and god knows what else whether it would be successful. I disagree with the Iraq war because it's unjustifiable to me when I look at the administration's reasons. So while I say we should have gone into Darfur, then yeah we should have gone into Iraq. But we should've gone to Iraq in 1991 and taken Saddam out then. Ally or not, that's ridiculous. And when I say we shouldn't be there now, I mean we shouldn't be there because we were tricked into going. I don't want to go into a war overseas without any real reason.

[newbymodder]

oh im sorry i guess some people never actually paid attention on why we revolted against england and made the us and what was the actual meaning of the declaration that was supported or actually made more clear but the constitution. My point is on the matter that the founding fathers meant for church and state to be apart of each other but to not let the church rule the state. They never intended for the US to misconstrue this separation of church and state and i think it all happened when a Democrat said we shouldn't be using the governments money to fund a catholic schools transport. This is why all this crap is so missed up now because retarded people are in politics you can say what you want about the Bush Administration but they came in with the intention of fixing shit but like most other Administrations were corrupted by the way the US is although i live here i hate our government and its only a matter of time before the economy breaks down again. And when that happens i told you so won't cut it. At least my state has the right to succeed for the Nation if we so please.

and as for the wise crack about Washington that was plain dumb

[noxiousraccoon]

So why did our government mislead us by claiming that the main purposes for this war were WMDs and links to terrorism?

That question is what keeps me awake at night and makes me want to keep searching for the answer. Perhaps, they knew the reasons why they want to go to war would not gain enough approval in the Senate and the American people. I honestly dont know man, I dont know.

And everything it means I either don't support or I believe is hypocritical of the US to go to war for.

Thats where me and you will always disagree. No problem with that at all.

Its hard for me to believe that George Bush went to war for his own liking. Its hard for me to believe that he is a warhawk, powerhungry maniac. I know the people who own the ranch next to him. I know the guy who helped write some of his speeches for an internship. When my friend who had the internship asked the president what he thought about the terrorist and saddam, this was his response, "i wont stop until those bastards are gone." Off the record.

newbymodder, I respect everyones opinion but wow, you seriously need to review what your saying.

[Danke]

oh im sorry i guess some people never actually paid attention on why we revolted against england and made the us and what was the actual meaning of the declaration that was supported or actually made more clear but the constitution.

Uh, what? How about "no taxation without representation". We didn't go to war with England over church attendance. And the Church of England didn't "rule the state"; The state ruled it. Read a history book sometime, you might learn a thing or two.

My point is on the matter that the founding fathers meant for church and state to be apart of each other but to not let the church rule the state. They never intended for the US to misconstrue this separation of church and state

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
1st amendment. Read the constitution.
Regardless, whatever their intentions were, they are irrelevant. It's 2007 and politics and the US are a living, changing thing. We aren't a country of one or two denominations, we aren't a country of 2 or 3 religions. The US is a country of many beliefs and peoples.

At least my state has the right to succeed for the Nation if we so please.

It's "secede" and good luck trying that again, where ever you live.

Its hard for me to believe that George Bush went to war for his own liking. Its hard for me to believe that he is a warhawk, powerhungry maniac. I know the people who own the ranch next to him. I know the guy who helped write some of his speeches for an internship. When my friend who had the internship asked the president what he thought about the terrorist and saddam, this was his response, "i wont stop until those bastards are gone." Off the record.

It's hard for me to believe that too. Trust me, I'm pretty far from a conspiracy theorist. I don't think he's some kind of maniac trying to become king of the world. Cheney, maybe, but I'm a Texan and I've met plenty of people just like Bush. He gets "riled up," as it were. It could be as simple as 9/11 has inspired him to get rid of all the bad guys in the world. I still don't support it. His methods are unsound. Unsound! The horror!
But yeah, clearly talking isn't his strong suit (I don't mean his poor speech-giving-abilities, I mean his foreign policy) and he feels it better to just fight or threaten hostile countries.

To me, at least, this is just not how you deal hostile countries. It might work for something like Afghanistan where you have a clear enemy that you can at least make a severe impact in the numbers of terrorists simply by eliminating them. Ideally you would want to also appeal to the people in the area to prevent any growth in terrorism. But in Iraq we're just pissing everyone off and making more enemies.

Here, have another one of my crazy-ass metaphors:
You're a garbage man. Al Qaeda (in Afghanistan) is a piece of trash. Iraq is a piece of trash soaked in gasoline. We light our Al Qaeda trash, and it burns away. We think "Great we're getting somewhere!" So we do the same to Iraq. And it doesn't burn away. It just burns more and hotter. A piece of our Al Qaeda trash floats by and lights the other side and it burns even more. And suddenly people nearby are yelling "What the hell are you doing?!" and they get mad because you've started a huge fire right next to them. And the matches you borrowed from the US people, you told them you were going to burn some trash. But now you've started a fire, and it turns out Iraq was really a shoebox with some shoes in it with some trash on top of it, it just so happens that your fellow trashmen pointed this out to you, but you decided you'd burn it anyway. And that trash was really some paper with a gum wrapper on top. Now the US people want to know why you burned a decent pair of shoes and some paper, just to get a gum wrapper.

That probably made no sense. It's also 2 AM

[G.I.R.]

So again, I'm just skimming, but I'm curious as to the thoughts of some of you on the comparison I mentioned earlier that was sort of overlooked (Dan!!'s in particular).

I haven't read much of this thread, but recently a friend of mine suggested a comparison to me: the Filipino Insurrection and the Iraq Occupation that's going on today. Really, it made alot of sense. Look up the Filipino Insurrection if you don't know what happened behind that.

[Kirk]

Yes, and what about Vietnam?

""The Gulf of Tonkin incident," writes Louise Gerdes, "is an oft-cited example of the way in which Johnson misled the American people to gain support for his foreign policy in Vietnam.""

Replace Gulf of Tonkin with September 11th/WMDs/anything actually that could potentially be used to gain support.

Replace Vietnam with Iraq. Things like this have happened in the past, and yes, in it's own way the Filipino Insurrection is fairly similar, aside from the fact that there wasn't any real problem there to begin with, only greedy America. And it's not like that hasn't happened since, I mean, we like oil don't we? Guess we make our own problems more often than not.

It's not really Bush persay, but more of an obligation to the country to uphold it's name of Freedom and justice.

Here we are! America! Land of the free! The land of consent of the people, where we may overthrow an unjust government as we see fit!
Think it's getting to our heads?

[G.I.R.]

I thought Vietnam first too, and my friend countered with: "If you say Vietnam you'll come off as an uneducated hippy; everyone compares everything to Vietnam. We won the Insurrection by rebuilding their civil infrastructure; that's what we're doing in Iraq, but no one really thinks about it that way." >_>

[Trulife8342]

Thing is that we aren't rebuilding anything, If anything we are blowing more shit up.

And Kirk is right, Vietnam was similar, but dont you think we should have learned our lesson the first time?, Thats what happens when you get a big ego.

[shadowkhas]

Its hard for me to believe that George Bush went to war for his own liking. Its hard for me to believe that he is a warhawk, powerhungry maniac.

It isn't for me. Human nature is to want power...as a general rule of thumb. That's not saying that all everyone wants is to tell people what to do, but it's an instinct somewhere in our systems.
Was Hitler's want of power a conspiracy theory?
Napoleon's?
What makes this administration different? Is it because we're in America, and we think these things can't happen to us? Protip: They can.
Bush is an oil man. I see it as that, and I don't think why suddenly his attitude would change after being elected...
Iraq's just one of the administration's targets, and one of the goals of the PNAC for having greater American control of the world. Why does that suddenly mean it has to be a conspiracy? That's what they say on their own website. I see no conspiracy there.

[Kirk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6974903.stm

Hmm, discuss (Posting this here because of the whole deal of "going into Iraq because of the WMDs")

[Guest]

well guys think about this. we thought something should be done, then something was done. the reason something was done is we thought it should be done. the reason we are in Iraq is because we the public wanted to get in there. see how it always leads back to the public? well i do the main problem is the civilians if we get the civilians out the army has the right to shoot moving cars and other people walking around that look like there a threat on sight. i agree bush is not the the president for this, but we need to finish this if civilians weren't still there there would be less casualty's.

[Ombre]

[quote="

[Guest]

what who's "they"

what was the lie?

I'm confused well part of it might be i haven't looked at the news in a couple months so ya.