anyone want to discuss politics?
Politics
Posted in
Off-topic
Who do people think should be the next Conservative leader? It should be (be probably wont) William Hague (sp) for me. He would win my vote if Charles Kennedy doesn't go for another election with the Liberals. [img=
http://img52.echo.cx/img52/9964/jamez4lc.jpg
]
Well to start off, why don't you state your party and why you think its the best ( i mean republican, democrat, etc.)
oh yeah Kilroy would be brill ;\ lol, nar they want someone funny an charasmatic. In my opinion Peter Kay :p, or Chubby Brown, great people for prime ministers :p
Fishy one, why don't you start us off? Here's a question for you to begin with - why is it that the US government and a lot of Middle America believe in moral ethics, yet against the Bible (Thou shalt not kill) the death penalty and unregistered handguns are both legal and encouraged entities? If it is because those in US politics really believe that they are more important than God, then are they not the real relgious fanatics who threaten world peace with their terrorist acts of war?
I may not be quite as intellectual as Beppe, but can I ask if there are any US Political Parties that don't want global domination. It's obvious that Mr Bush does. Also, why does Mr Blair feel so obliged to tag along with USA. People talk about the EU losing us our independence - in my opinion we'd be better off thinking about how we don't want to be controlled by a man in a house 3000 miles away.
Not all Americans are religious fanatics lol. In my opinion, America is a giant corporation, not a country. Neocons like Bush, the capitalists and the general right wing sheeple have money as their highest goal, not God. They use God's name in vain just so they can brain wash the sheeple that America is a land of the free, but the truth is that this country is just a capitalist empire. Money, its all about money. The gun industry is a big business, just like the drug industry and hollywood, and American Idol, and Mister Petroleum, and Osammy Binny Vin Ladin and Michael Jackson and Lil Timmy McVeigh, and Britney O'Spears, and Operation Iraqi Misery so that our states, the federal government and the propaganda machine that is the media can make tons of profits. Oh yeah, that's corporate America for ya, Yup uhuh and you can expect her Star Spangled prowess to extend this lil globe of our's enforcing tougher oil policies and pressuring Opec to favor her interests above every other industrial nation today, especially when that Oil peak crisis gets ever so closer. Do ya smell what the Firegirl is cookin'? Uhuh, I smell a resource war in the coming decades unless Corporate America and the rest of our world can find new energy alternatives. But can we really trust this country, this self-consumed, oil-thirsty capitalist war-mongering tool, when all she's interested in is money for herself and self-promotion? Yeehaw Blippity Blah! Bush himself is just a tool, a puppet. Yes a puppet! You think the American presidency is one man? Hardly! It's a society and a legacy of corrupt self-consumed politicians who continue to manipulate the global economy for the expansion of the American Dollar. It's all fixed, just like 9/11. All fixed to promote U.S. foreign policy, foreign policy for money. Yes that's right, for MONEY! Wake up my fellow and dear Americanskis. We aren't living in a democracy, it's all propaganda, it's all made for those capitalist billionaires calling all the shots. They don't care about us. Something has to be done. Let's go generation! Let's fight for our freedoms, let's fight for what we believe in, let's wake up from the sheet of naivety and be true patriots for our globe! God bless Humanity!
"Politics" Probably should have named it "Bush-Bashing Thread." No, Bush is not seeking world domination. What an idiotic thing to say.
Money, its all about money. The gun industry is a big business, just like the drug industry and hollywood, and American Idol, and Mister Petroleum, and Osammy Binny Vin Ladin and Michael Jackson and Lil Timmy McVeigh, and Britney O'Spears, and Operation Iraqi Misery so that our states, the federal government and the propaganda machine that is the media can make tons of profits.
If they want to make money they need to talk with Curtis Jackson. He's got to be the smartest man in the r.ap business. First he makes millions on his first promoted album, then he gets publicity by having a 'beef' with Jeffrey Atkins. Overall, he invests his money in vitamin water, clothing, shoes, and has a whole group (G-Unit), bringing in more cash. He eventually takes shots (diss tracks) at the biggest rappers, which will give him more publicity. People want to hear disses between artists. When he includes a song or two on each album, he's sure to go gold. But back to politics. I know nothing of it :p But not all people are religious and back when they made the thing 'In God We Trust' they were probably less violent. People just tend to forget things or ignore them. Maybe Bush isn't religious like whoever made the slogan ;)
Confederate, who are you to say what I said was "idiotic"? I have the right to an opinion just like you do. But you don't need to be rude. I'll respect your opinion, but don't start the name calling. This is a discussion about politics, not a venue for irrational insults. Have respect for other opinions, even if those opinions may not agree with yours. Your insults is just a reflection of your blindness towards liberal thinking. Does this mean my opinion is right? I'm not saying I'm correct with my opinions, but they are mine and I have that right. If you truly believe in the freedoms of America, you should respect other opinions, even if you dont' agree with them. That is all.
I'm not Bush bashing by the way, I'm merely expressing my views as an American and that my views about Bush isn't so optimistic like conservatives. I would support Bush had he not been so eager to send thousands of soldiers into this Iraq War. I have a cousin serving in Iraq right now, so before you start calling my views "idiotic", think again. I come from a military family, and I'm thinking of joining sooner or later, becoz I love my country.
My country has just spent 1,000,000,000 dollars on a war it has no place in. How did it do it? It's in debt up to it's knees:D Poor Country 2025---I'm calling it:p
Not only that, but you Confederate just jumped to a conclusion. You presumed that I was bashing Bush and that all he wants is global domination. That's where your wrong. I never said Bush wants to dominate the globe. I'm saying that American capitalism as a whole is dictating foreign policies and Bush is a part of that. What is so typical about political discussions is that when liberals and conservatives start debating, and Bush comes up, there always is name calling like "Bush Bashing". Is Bush a god that if liberals start questioning his leadership, they are nothing but "idiotic"? This is the problem with America today, we can no longer question our government without being insulted in the process. Like I said, I am ready to respect your views Conservative, even if they don't agree with mine. I would never call your views "idiotic" just like what you did to mine.
No problem Confederate, and dont' worry becoz I hold no bitterness towards you. I just wanted to support Smackamcracka's point in detail. But if you disagree, thats cool with me, thanks.
He's invaded Afghanistan and Iraq on dodgy intelligence. He doesn't think about the people that live there, just the fact that they could affect his power. He's killed thousands upon thousands of people and what's he got out of it? 1 man in a cell where no one can find him and terrorist attacks every day in Iraq because of it. He doesn't mind, the terrorist attacks aren't affecting him. The people that he assumes could affect him are locked up in Cuba and will never get to defend their case. He'll start another war sooner or later, be it with or without other countries. When this happens, I hope that it is without. Everyone's entitled to their opinion Confederate and I respect yours. George Bush is obviously the man Americans want in power as he won the election. My view is mainly influenced from what I read in the British press, usually the Daily Mail, which is well known for criticising the current political position of Britain.
Why was the Millenium Dome built which cost approximatly £255,000,000 ($466,650,000 at the time of writing) when it was only used for a year and it could of gone to better causes like reducing poverty. Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. [img=
http://img52.echo.cx/img52/9964/jamez4lc.jpg
]
"What is so typical about political discussions is that when liberals and conservatives start debating, and Bush comes up, there always is name calling like 'Bush Bashing'". It is the same as when the liberal leadership comes into question remember the Clinton years. "why is it that the US government and a lot of Middle America believe in moral ethics, yet against the Bible (Thou shalt not kill) the death penalty and unregistered handguns are both legal and encouraged entities" Not all Americans are for the death penalty and not all of them own handguns, the death penalty is not supported in every American state as for you saying unregistered handguns are encouraged that is one of the dumbest things you could possibly state. It is like saying the illegal drug trade in Britain is encouraged or anything else that is illegal for that matter.
My question was more directed at the person who started this thread. I believe his motives were to show his name rather than have a political discussion, and I wanted to see how he would react. I didn't expect him to reply in any constructive way, and so far I am right. As for your reply, yes I do understand that people are split on these issues. Political discussion is about people saying what they believe and why they do so. What I said is true, there are some people who call for the death penalty and others who are against the balistic finger-printing of individual guns (the only reason to not take balistic prints from bullets is to allow the shooter to remain anonymous, thus not discouraging gun crime in an area where it could be controlled better). It is also true that many of these people believe in God. What I would really like to know is how these people justify themselves. If the ten commandements are the flagstones to Christianity, then how do individuals justify legalised killing of any kind? In my mind a true Christian would see the number of Americans killed illegaly by guns each year as a good enough reason alone to warrant better control. The US is a country whose motto is "In God Is Our Trust", yet in so many aspects of life the foundations of God are ignored. How many Americans steal, covert and lie then back themselves up using the legal system in business alone? How many Americans are unfaithful to their partners? To use the name of God in your motto then use the legal system to justify breaking the basic commandements - note that I haven't even touched the rest of the Bible in this argument - is in itself blasphemy. Mexican Rebel and any others reading, these are just discussion points. I do understand that individuals think differently, but here I am mainly directing my points to the actions controlled by the State, who are the choice of the American people by a democratic voting system. You might chose to disagree with me, which I fully welcome. I am far from educated on US politics, and would appreciate being corrected where I am wrong. What I would like most however, irrelevant of where your beliefs lie - how do some people justify the breaking of the Ten Commandments whilst claiming to live their lives in the faith of God?
hey guys hold up. I know there are many good debators here like Caption, Beppe, and Firegirl, but don't get carried away here. My opinion on the US morals (i was on vacation for a couple of days).. well I think that although most people claim they believe in God and are religious, i'm sure they are very materialistic.
just as a matter of opinion, how many of you are actually religious...like you would die for God if you had to?
Religion (this was supposed to be a political discussion, but politics and religion are always intermixed).... is something that has many different perspectives. You can't use religion to justify anything because someone else can just use religion on their side. Anyone ever heard of the "Scopes" trial back in the 1920's. It was a landmark case over the teaching of evolution in schools. William Jennings Bryan (prosecutor and anti-evolution) used religion to back up his case, but it failed to work and Scopes was acquitted.
Even though the motto is In god we trust, religion is kept separate from political decisions aswell as education in America, religion is not forced upon you here. Not all Americans are Christians and I doubt that Americans are the only ones breaking the ten commandments for you to insinuate that all the crimes committed in America is by average the average Christian who then goes out and cheats on his or her spouses is absurd. People are against the fingerprinting of ballistics for the simple reason that it is not reliable you can easily change the barrel of a gun not only that the signature of the gun tends to change with use, making it hard to pinpoint exactly what gun was used in a crime. I rather have one less piece of evidence that is not reliable then use it to convict an innocent person.
^^^^ dont mind the typos I did not proofread it :) aswell as the error on the spouses should have read spouse :p
No problems for typos, that's normal... I understand the points which you are saying, but that's not exactly what I am on about. On one side of the coin you have people in the Senate voting against ab0rtion, g@y marriage and other issues with a strong religious lobby behind them arguing both religious and moral ethics. On the other side these people are either promoting or not actively opposing laws such as the death penalty. How do they justify their "selective" view of ethics? As for balistics... sure you can change a gun, and there will always be a market for illegal guns. However, such a law will make it more difficult for the perpetrators of gun crime. In countries where registration is 100% law the homicide deaths are far less than in the US. Here are some examples from 2001 (I don't have time to research later figures): (Country, % household gun ownership, homicides per 100,000 people) Spain 13.1% 0.19 Sweden 20% 0.18 New Zealand 20% 0.22 Australia 16.0% 0.56 Belgium 16.6% 0.87 Norway 32% 0.36 France 22.6% 0.55 Switzerland 27.2% 0.46 Finland 50% 0.87 Canada 26% 0.60 US 41% 6.24 Look at Finland especially where a higher percentage of people own guns than in the US. The fact is simple - the US are the only country on this list not requiring a total registration of guns, and they are the only country with a high homicide rate. How does your arguement stand up to this?
Mexican Rebel wrote: Not all Americans are for the death penalty and not all of them own handguns, the death penalty is not supported in every American state as for you saying unregistered handguns are encouraged that is one of the dumbest things you could possibly state. It is like saying the illegal drug trade in Britain is encouraged or anything else that is illegal for that matter.
Lolol, I never said unregistered hand guns are encouraged in our great America. I had said that the gun industry is a big business, and because it is a big business with lots of revenue, there is corruption going on, which (in my opinion) is more than likely affecting gun policies in several of our states. If you think my opinion is dumb, well that's your right to freedom of speech, and I cannot change your mind on these issues. Booyah!
Well how do you think the presence of an unregistered firearm be influential if a family that had possession of an unregistered firearm shot and killed an intruder with it? i'm sure the outcome would be a lot different if it was a registered weapon
It doesn't matter if it's a registered firearm or not, if a homicide is committed, then that becomes the bottom line. The issue whether a firearm is registered or not is a separate issue all together because having an unregistered firearm in itself is a separate crime. But my point isn't even concerning whether a firearm is registered or not. My point is about my opinion that many states' gun policies which condone the merchandise of firearms is really a monopoly for profits. In my opinion, the more guns, the more gun related crimes. That's just the way it is. Just like if there is more people, there will always be more crimes. That's how numbers work. Politicians in this capitalist system benefit from this monopoly by taking advantage of the profits gained from the gun business, yes sir!.
Oh also, I want to salute in memory to all the military and their families on this Memorial Day. God bless!
so hypothetically, Firegirl, if politicians weren't driven by greed, what do you think their position on gun control will be? P.S. Are you a good public speaker or debator? You would do well in politics.
If greed wasn't an issue the entire face of politics would be completely different. It is often suggested that the best way to make the world a better place would be to ban men from positions of importance (then issues would be approached on merit rather than monetary value). In reality, I believe that politicians should be (a) accountable for all their actions, especially for breaking promises, and (b) have absolutely ZERO connections with individual businesses.
i believe that they should legalize cannabis...all in favour say aye. all not dont bother posting :)
Ban men from positions of importance??.. thats the strangest thing i've ever heard Beppe. That would mean only women could be high officials, and women can be corrupt too. Women can also be greedy. If women were the sole rulers of the world, then what would men become?
The theory behind making women leaders is that men are greedy and corrupt. The women who make it within the current system are driven to do so by the same desires, obvious because they have to beat many male competitors for each position. What I was suggesting - and so far your alleged MIT elect status is not showing that you have an understanding of anything anyone has said - was that a matriarchal society would more likely follow issues based on welfare and society. Of course men dominate both in political and physical presence, so for as long they the problem of greed remains they are unlikely to cede any position of power. Your real question should not be about what becomes of men, but what becomes of society. Currently the money spent on the Gulf War could have completely dealt with the Aids crisis in Africa (to the extent that is possible), and the change could have revamped both the education and welfare systems in the US. Unfortunately it's a boys club in the States (and not far different elsewhere), where business is put before morals, humanity or ecology. Our main concerns for the future are not of oil running out, but of us destroying the planet before it does. Our current system doesn't even react to problems until they are in our face, let alone plan proactively to stop them happening altoghether. A matriarchal society may not be a solution to our problems, but one thing is for sure - they could make it worse than it is now. Okay I'll admit, with men or women anything can happen - but you get the point? No? Then you are just a fish ;)
FISH GOLDFISH wrote:P.S. Are you a good public speaker or debator? You would do well in politics.
Lol thanks Fish!
FISH GOLDFISH wrote: so hypothetically, Firegirl, if politicians weren't driven by greed, what do you think their position on gun control will be?
John Adams said it best as he was defending our Constitutions saying
"To suppose arms in the hands of our citizens, to be used at individual choice, except for the instance of self defense, or by the commands of their state is to destroy what our Constitutions stand for, so that liberty can be absent from men. It is a dissolution of the government and the principle law of our military is that it be directed, and commanded by the laws and ever abiding in those laws."
I think he was an example of a politician who believed that Americans have the right to self-defense using firearms. But he was also making it clear that there needs to be a line drawn between self-defense and the abuse of freedoms in which guns will inevitably be used as aggressors towards the freedoms of others. There needs to be a balance established and a moral responsibility in which citizens must be aware of so as to not pose a threat to the government and to each of us. But this isn't a perfect world and John Adams knew this. That's why he was warning that the Constitution would be in danger upon the corruption of gun policies, for an armed society of free men and women heightens the risk of anarchy. That in itself shows that an armed society cannot be fully controlled by the government nor individual states, unlike the military and the police. Therefore, the domestic functions of military and police will almost seize to exist. Freedom needs order, and this is what he was saying. Our politicians today need to follow in his footsteps, but uhmm, I doubt they will go to Flyordie forums and find inspiration in this reminder lolol. Butcha neva know lol.
Beppe you said "Currently the money spent on the Gulf War could have completely dealt with the Aids crisis in Africa (to the extent that is possible), and the change could have revamped both the education and welfare systems in the US." If the US hadn't spent money on the Gulf War, and the current war in Iraq, then Iraqis might not have had so much freedom, and Saddam would still be in power. So you see, not everything that you think was intended for a bad cause will have a negative result. I'm not saying at all that I support the war. Not everything that was intended for something great and healthy for the nation had a positive result. Think about it Beppe :)
Firegirl, the line between abuse of freedoms and self-defense can be pretty obscure at times. For example, if Beppe came to your house and shot you in cold blood, most people would think that was an abuse of freedom, correct? But lets say you had stalked him before and killed all his friends and that Beppe was fearing he'd be next. If you were really going to kill Beppe, then wouldn't he be justified in shooting you? P.S. So are you good at public speaking and debating?
Fish Goldfish wrote:Firegirl, the line between abuse of freedoms and self-defense can be pretty obscure at times. For example, if Beppe came to your house and shot you in cold blood, most people would think that was an abuse of freedom, correct? But lets say you had stalked him before and killed all his friends and that Beppe was fearing he'd be next. If you were really going to kill Beppe, then wouldn't he be justified in shooting you?
It wouldn't be justifiable because a homicide is a homicide, even if it was done out of self-defense or not. This is what John Adams was trying to say, just let the police do their jobs. However, there are some cases in which the police aren't always available in which people must defend their own lives with firearms. But this doesn't mean they will not be held liable to a police investigation as well. Oh and yes, I agree with you in the fact that the abuse of freedoms and self-defense can be obscured at times. Even John Adams himself cannot address all these complications, but in my opinion, I think he is a good example and inspiration for good willed politicians who believe in freedom with order. The corrupt politicians of today profit from order out of chaos, but this opinion of mine might harbor onto the conspiracy side of things, so I'll just keep as that lol.
Fish Goldfish wrote: P.S. So are you good at public speaking and debating?
I would like to think I'm good at both. But there will always be others who are far better and far more experienced than me, and I can fully accept that.
True, but then again John Adams was a Federalist because he believed in a strong central government. Although you may think this is good, in many ways it is not. A strong gov. may take away many personal liberties and rights like a monarchy. P.S. Are you still in high school or college? If you are you should do speech team.
Fish wrote:
then Iraqis might not have had so much freedom
How do you define Iraqi freedom? Apart from the mass genocide at a time when the US were both providing Sadam with weapons and supporting his actions, Iraq has never been so unstable in modern times. Because of the US invasion, crime in Iraq has risen to unprecedented levels. The already fragile levels of peace, stability and infrastructure have been replaced with almost daily death, instability and a completely destroyed infrastructure. The only business gains have been made by the US, who have taken over power of the oil trade - seen as by many as the ONLY reason the US invaded Iraq, especially given the blatant lies by Bush and his advisors. A few individuals who have supported the US have made personal gains, but that again is based on the model of individual greed rather than freedom for society. You really need to get a grip on reality mate.
well at least iraqis don't have to live under saddam's regime anyone. besides, wasn't iraqi freedom the whole point of the war? Beppe said "A few individuals who have supported the US have made personal gains" A substantial portion of the US population supported the war
FISH Goldfish wrote: True, but then again John Adams was a Federalist because he believed in a strong central government. Although you may think this is good, in many ways it is not. A strong gov. may take away many personal liberties and rights like a monarchy.
I agree with that point, and that there is always ups and downs to any political system a government may base itself on. I doubt there is one perfect political system in today's world. There is always going to be advantages and disadvantages in any political approach. But I still think not enough is being done about weakening the business of guns in this country. Here is a link to just a few of so many problems we have in our dear country:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8314/memorial227.html
FISH Goldfish wrote: P.S. Are you still in high school or college? If you are you should do speech team.
I'm gonna be a HS senior next school term lol, I skipped a grade long before I went to HS..but that isn't so special since a lot of my fellow peeps have also skipped a grade before. I also have never competed on any debate tournaments in the past, and If I did, I probably wouldn't place as there are many great students out there, and they're freaking awesome lol. Hmm, I'm considering taking up political science in some University or college perhaps. Ok lolol, I'm gonna pack it in for tonight coz its past midnight here lol. See ya tomorrow, or uhm, later, Fish, Beppeski, Confederate, and the rest of the peeps in this thread and Fod. Cheers! This is fun.
Pathetic reply Fish.
well at least iraqis don't have to live under saddam's regime anyone.
What about those who wanted to live under Sadam? What about the fact that MOST of the population are worse off than under Sadam?
besides, wasn't iraqi freedom the whole point of the war?
Sometimes it is claimed to be the reason by the US or UK. At first it was because the US
knew
that he had weapons of mass destruction, but as it became aparent that this was not true, Bush and Blair changed their stories to one of freedom for the Iraqi people. The fact remains that Sadam was most repressing self when being supported by the US. The whole Gulf War II was based around oil - no plans were made for the protection or rebuilding of anything other than the oil infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, museums, power lines, water pipes, goverment ministries (other than oil) etc were all destroyed by US bombs. It was always obvious that the main reason for the war was for the US to take control of Iraqi oil interests.
Beppe said "A few individuals who have supported the US have made personal gains" A substantial portion of the US population supported the war
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. The Invasion of Iraq was not about the freedom of Iraq, but for American gain. I was talking about the small number of Iraqi's who had made something from this war, whereas your personify the stereo-typical image of the dumb American who thinks that everything is about America. The truth is simple - the US attacked Iraq for its own personal gain. In recent polls the majority of Americans have come to realise this and are unsure about the whole thing. If the US had the main interest of protecting lives, then the people of Iraq would have been left with the small stability they experienced under Sadam and the money would have been spent elsewhere to save a far significant number of people. Why wasn't it? One word: OIL, or to appease the small brain of a FISH, to please Corporate America.
>So Beppe would you say you're greedy and corrupt? Greedy - often. Corrupt - not usually, which is why I'll never make it in politics.
Great Answer Beppe lol anyway is it just me that thinks having a celeb runner for prime minister would get a majority rather than a dull person like tony blair i think arnie should be a great inspiration to peter kay and he should run for prime minister :p
Beppe said "The whole Gulf War II was based around oil - no plans were made for the protection or rebuilding of anything other than the oil infrastructure." Nowhere have I seen that the US wanted oil. Taking over Iraq would not give the US any more access to Saudi Arabian oil. Beppe said "What about those who wanted to live under Sadam? What about the fact that MOST of the population are worse off than under Saddam?" I'm sure that MOST of the population DID not want to live under Saddam. At least there aren't mass genocides anymore.
Beppe also called you the "stereo-typical the dumb American". Note that this is an image most Americans don't match, but you appear to fit nicely into the Jello-mould. You are the person who thinks that Fox News tells you the truth
and
the whole story, and that American press is not under any kind of governmental influence. The difference between you and me? You think that Rumsfeld supplying Sadam with chemical know-how and the US allowing him to attack his people with it justifies Rumsfeld and the US attacking him 20 years later when he is no threat. I think that the problem lies with Rumsfeld and the US. Given that they CREATED the genocide in the first place, surely the sensible path would be to place Rumsfeld and co in the dock to answer to the possibility of a setup. Now to more current affairs. What exactly is your motive for the various pointless posts around these forums Fish? You don't come in here and start a forum about politics, but you ask others to do so. When asked questions about politics in your own country, you avoid giving an opinion. When the discussion initiated by others
teaches
you what you don't want to hear, you react with the least amount of intellect, not even defending those you would like to believe in but creating false realities to deny what has been said. I don't know whether you are just spamming or really not capable of intellect and discussion.
I guess I shouldn't be suprised, you are after all a person who has to ask what advantage a Playstation Portable has over other models
.
You know what Beppe, you don't know me at all. I give obscure opinions because I don't want you to know what I believe in. Besides, if you know so much about American problems, why don't you do something about it instead of just sitting there in your chair and post messages advocating OTHER people to do it. Who cares if you are so analytical, the fact is, you don't do anything about it, so your life is governed by the very people you are so against. Why don't you just close this board down?
>You know what Beppe, you don't know me at all. I give obscure opinions because I don't want you to know what I believe in. If that were true, the fact that you waste so much time posting so much trash makes you a spammer. However, it isn't true. Most people have learnt to ignore you in these forums, and the rejection makes you even more determined to make yourself popular. Unfortunately you don't have the personality to make it work. Trying to engage in intellectual conversation is equally failing you, and no one believes that you are
deliberately
making yourself look stupid. I never believed that you were an MIT-elect student as you claimed, and now you have justified my assesment to anyone who may have had doubts before.
srs wrote:Politics...
lol.
Fish Goldfish wrote: Nowhere have I seen that the US wanted oil. Taking over Iraq would not give the US any more access to Saudi Arabian oil.
I disagree to this point Mister Fish. Taking over Iraq as in expanding American democracy into that nation will play a huge role on how the oil trade policies from Iraq via America work. That's the whole idea of the regime change coz with a pro-American Iraqi government, its policies will naturally be weighted and influenced towards U.S. interests. I would even go as far as saying that the oil peak crisis (which is inevitable) is one of the biggest reasons as to why our Bush administration is so bent on shaping Middle-East oil policies.
Fish Goldfish wrote: I'm sure that MOST of the population DID not want to live under Saddam. At least there aren't mass genocides anymore.
True, there is no genocide as for now, but is the situation getting better? Just look at this war, look at the hostile insurgency in Iraq and compare the instability within that nation today than the time before the war. There is more aggressive violence and car bombings in the streets of Iraq than there was before the invasion. There is more hatred now towards our nation across the world than there was before we decided to invade Iraq. Ya know, the instability in Iraq isn't something that will just go away overnight. This war is going to take a long time and many of our troops are going to stay there. The exit strategy alone will take months to plan, let alone many more months to accomplish. And that's hardly a priority right now because the insurgency is just too aggressive. Cheney said that not too long ago that he believes America did the right thing by invading Iraq. Well a couple of years ago, people would have been confident with his opinion. The situation today is different. We no longer trust our leaders, because for one, we were lied to about the WMDs, and two, more people are becoming aware of the real situations in Iraq in which the number of civilian casualties, humanitarian aid workers casualties, and allied troops casualties continues to multiply (especially the civilian casualties).
Whilst I am at it - never posted back at ya Firegirl. That's because I never felt the need. Some decent replies - one of the few people in here not to jump to conclusions, and one of the few to state their opinions rather than fight. Even if I don't always agree with you (and sometimes I do), you don't write a pile of carp.
Beppe wrote: Whilst I am at it - never posted back at ya Firegirl. That's because I never felt the need. Some decent replies - one of the few people in here not to jump to conclusions, and one of the few to state their opinions rather than fight. Even if I don't always agree with you (and sometimes I do), you don't write a pile of carp.
Thanks Beppe!
Alexis 3 wrote: wat da ya think da happen if Kerry was elected firegirl?
Ya know Alexis, Kerry's stance on Iraq and on Saddam's regime is not that different from Bush's, as he has voted for the use of force in Iraq as well. But the big diff was that Kerry considered using military force as a final option if all diplomacy fails. Bush on the other foot, used military force as one of the first options, although he would never admit of this. But uhmm, I just wanna letcha know that when Bush rushed into this war, he did exactly what Saddam was doing at the time, and that is he interrupted the U.N. inspector's jobs upon their efforts to search for those tingies, those watchamacallits, those ghosts, those uhmm, ever so elusive WMDs! Contradiction, contradiction mister Dubya, mister President of the constitutionally corrupt! Now I ain't "Bush Bashin'" by any means although i'd never admit to that. Speakin of sanctimony... ugh hello Massachusetts, how was your nap? Ya been snoozin' since 1675....even Samuel Adams don't taste that old...and I don't even drink dem' beers baby....least not yet lolol.