One of the main reasons I thought the war was a bad idea...

[madmallard]

MMMM also gotta love those laws on digital media & file sharing.

which were pushed through during the last administration. Talk about selective memory

And sixstop Bush didn't get "bad inteligence". The inteligence basically says "doubtful that he has biological weapons". If he really wanted to get rid of the weapons or rather find them, they should have done a dual inspection with the UN :\

Okay sparky, i was making a fececious remark because those who are critical ARE saying Bush used 'bad intelligence' to further his own personal agenda deceptively. those aren't my words.

And as far as working with the UN, lets not forget when the UN was kicked out and basically threw a temper tantrum but otherwise didn't do anything, along with the rest of the world for 7 years. Let us also not forget that any US military action is viewed as oppression by the rest of the world because the US is an expanding empire bent on world domination. not Saddam or anything. If troops went in, which is what you need to inspect, Troops;. People who will force their way to inspect where and when they feel its necessary, not when an Iraqi tour guide has enough time to clean up the site first, if they went in, how long do you think it would take for the rest of the Arab world to cry out that the US was oppressing them from the other side of the world when we sent troops in just to inspect for stuff? Not that i care what the rest of the world thinks of american oppression in most cases, but the point being that working with the UN did not get the result the US wanted. the US should not be chained to an arbitrary panel of nations who hypocritcally preach to us about the state of world affairs.

Inspection system failed because it wasn't enforced by the bodies that put them into place during the first gulf war, which not surprisingly, was agaiin, the UN.

Really. They were after the oil and power.

Okay whatever. Show me where iraqi oil has been sold to line american pockets when we seized the oil fields to prevent them from burning under Saddam's orders. let us also not forget who depends the most on Iraq's oil and is now crying foul because without the Dictator in power to sell weapons to, they have no stake on the oil drilling rights in the country. can you say. . .. france? Russia? Germany?

Besides, to find your view believeable, we have to draw the conclusion that we couldn't get oil anywhere else, which is false. We have places on our own soil where we could drill for copious oil deposits, but environmentalists are uncomfortable with it, stating it would cause irreperable damage. To view your side of the arguement would be to think that it was easier to convince congress, britain, austrailia, japan, all the other supporting countries and the public of america that it was necessary to goto war for oil, rather than risk causing alleged environmental damage to american soil. Now which is more reasonable?

But lets just say for example that is was for nothing but oil and power. who do you want in charge of a worldwide commodity? A religious millitant faction run by a socialist psycho? One whos sells said commodity to purchase weapons, and uranium rather than food for his people? Or would you rather international capitalists buying the commodity from the public government?

Now that they have opened up the middle-east, they can go after Iran & Syria next and do two things A) GETS THE OIL B) Killz the islamic infidels that go against their christian beliefs. Really, it's starting to seem like a holly war almost.

a holly war? i wage those every month with my shrubbery.

I don't think we'll bother with Iran for a while because there were seeds of democratic revolution growing for the last 10 years there. If we manage to do good by Iraq, then it will be hard for the millitants to oppress them with a functioning democratic power as their neighbor.

I dunno about syria.

If this was a 'holy war' against infidels that go against christian beliefs, wouldn't they send missionaries by now? they're all in africa. . . .

Also since the start of the war atleast 1 US soldier has died every 26hrs.

if were uncaring about iraq;s people, then i;ve got some other numbers for you.

Assuming a conservative figure, While Saddam Hussein was in power the average mortality rate between 12 and 20 year olds was 300,000 a year. Saddam Hussein had been in power at least 10 years, but lets use 10 just as a round number. Since Saddam Hussein has been in power, At Least 822 Iraqis died every 24hours, not from disease or car accidents, but from murder, torture, true oppresion, slaughter, genocide, dungeon conditions, etc.

at least 822 people every 24 hours because of Saddam and the Baath party.

[madmallard]

people whove stated to me that they are not republican, democrat, or anything else have either never had to think really hard on an issue, preferring to remain apathetic and bland enough to jump to whatever side the bandwagon is on, or haven't bothered to compare notes with what they DO care about to realise that there are like-minded groups.

My what a sweeping generalization... Juts because I don't affiliate myself with any particular party (mainly because I think that the basis behind having political party in a democracy is stupid), doesn't mean I don't think about matters of governmental or political nature. In fact it means quite the opposite, because I have an unbiased view I can't fall back to the founding beliefs of any one party and thus have to create my own beliefs for every situation.

you didn't walk away with a full understanding of what i said.

But lets look at what you said, "having political party in a democracy is stupid."

Could you explain that to me? I'm curious about how you approach such a view.

[Kazutaka]

oh, well, in that case, he'll be hard pressed to find anyone willing to harbor him and his plans.
sure they may not like the US, but if Saddam carries out an attack and we find syria knew, or habored him or his kids, or whatnot? Or any other country?
How many of them do you think will risk a US invasion just because they dont like us?
i think that danger is overstated.

The danger is not overstated, however Americans tend to take things to the extreme. The people in this country have lived for far too long in the comforts of thier livings room easy chairs in front of the color tv-dvd combo watching thier stupid sitcoms, Jerry Springers and cop shows eating Kraft easy mac and cheese from thier mass produced microwaves. They only see war through edited prejudiced eyes like Heraldo Rivera, they dont see the children that are cut down in the streets, they dont see the screaming women who have just lost thier husband, brother or son. They dont see the women taking water out of a filthy mud puddle because the water supply had been destroyed or taken by the "soldiers". They dont see the disease, starvation and lack of clean water left after the war is over.
Americans do not understand why these people do what they do, Americans do not understand thier religion, thier motivation to hate and want to destroy the "EVIL AMERICA" the capitolist incarnation of satan. Other countries do not have to offically support Saddam, he will find more terriorist and extreme groups than he could possibly ever stay at. They will support him, they do not care if the Americans are comming, they are ready to die at any min, they get to go to see Allah and live in "heaven". Look at what some of these people have been through, the pain and loss that they have already suffered, they do not fear death.
And they grow to hate us more and more every day. If you supported the war or not, it happend and it just gives them more reason to hate.

[madmallard]

that may be at least partly true, but Saddam is more lazy than religiously fanatical. I would be more inclined to believe he will retire in his old age with the riches he made off with and let others use his name to press the attacks against the 'evil zionist.'

Meanwhile, in Iraq, %60 of the population is ecstatic american and british forces are there and don't want them to leave until their government is stable. So much of the general populace is in a happier mood that all enlisted are giving away or selling their american souveniers (flags, pins, lighters, cards, books, toys, tobacco, candy, pictures) and are asking ther families to send them more stuff.

[kthulhu]

Who says this? I mean, I'm pretty confident that we have some goodwill over there, but 60%?

And what about the other 40% who aren't ecstatic or happy with our presence? That's almost half the population AGAINST us.

At this point, any way, conjecture about why the war was right or wrong is useless. All the allied forces can do is make the best of the situation and try to do some long term good.

[madmallard]

a CBS conducted poll. Over a month ago. . .

Funny how we never heard about it, huh?

[Kazutaka]

So much of the general populace is in a happier mood that all enlisted are giving away or selling their american souveniers (flags, pins, lighters, cards, books, toys, tobacco, candy, pictures) and are asking ther families to send them more stuff.

American capitolism and greed spreading like a virus to infect all the rest of the world.
Wonders if 60% of the population over there will be driving(wait dont think they really have many cars do they?) riding thier bikes, or walking waving ridiculous American flags around. While the other 40% burns all the symbols of "Evil American Greed".

That is if you trust that the "poll" was ever taken. I personally think it was the product of journalism imagination. AKA = PROPAGANDA.

[KungPaoChicken]

almost 500 billlion dollars in national debt makes baby Jesus cry.

[MistyCaldwell]

People who claim to be 'outside' a party boundary, or whatever, are usually ill educated on where the views they have actually fall, or (the more oft true) dont have enough fortitude to stick to an ideals set and settle into a non-commital state that makes no development.

Boy is that bass akwards

Ill educated because their views fall outside a party boundary? Maybe it's because the views they have are too complex and fall into shades of gray that are not represented by many of the black and white views "parties" like to have.

For example, let's take an issue like abortion. I am not pro-choice (common democrat platform stance) or pro-life (common republican platform stance) Instead I think that before 13 weeks, while the fetus has basically not developed a complete nervous system and could not live if born at that time...then abortion is fine no matter what the woman's situation. Late term abortion is ok in my opinion if the baby has severe defects or life threatening problems should it go to full term. This so called "partial birth abortion" is nothing more than a fancy term for infant murder. Sucking it out in pieces when it could have lived (as premature babies can be saved even at 6 1/2 to 7 months sometimes) is nothing but sheer murder.

Now, that is very off topic and please..no discussion in this thread about that because I am using it as an EXAMPLE of a view that does not fit either party.


Can you read that and tell me that I am ill educated on the issue? Well, if you did, you'd be wrong...but I guess that doesn't stop some people.


I don't fit into any party as it is. Not even close...I don't have time to rant about my views on all the unpopular things.

I do know there were supposed to be some benefits to having a party system.

Parties were supposed to help keep the system in balance between differing kinds of thought...but since there is no set on how many of each party can occupy the branches of government, you can have a red/blue split that gives one party more power over the issues in the house.

In reality, people use the terms like ignorant clubs to hit over the heads of other people. Citizens (and even politicians) will change their views to suit the common view shared by that LABEL. I have seen it happen. That makes them sheep. But for some people it's easier to be a sheep than to actually think out YOUR view on a topic now isn't it?

[SSJVegita0609]

Could you explain that to me? I'm curious about how you approach such a view.

Perhaps I should rephrase, its more of a "I think they do more harm than good" situation. There's too much partisan politics involved, many debates I see on television strike me as far less of a discussion about what's do be done with certain issues and far more of a discussion on what the other political party has done wrong. I think idealisticly the idea of having political parties is a sound one, but it just hasn't worked out and does nothing but hamper progress with mindless bickering. Plus is encourages apathy throughout the country on the part of the citizens. Many people, in fact the MAJORITY of people who vote do so strictly on a one party basis. I see too much blind support of candidates simply based on the political party they're in. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ALL voting is based on it, but you must admit that after observing the events in the last election with SO much protesting and partisan attacks by supporters of BOTH sides, the party system has become more of a US popularity contest. Whichever party has more members throughout the country wins, and thats not how it should be.