i have to give it to president bush, he has done what he set out to do. he has knocked out saddam and 75% of all terrorists leaders and supporters. osama will probably be turning up before long. just because he may not be all that smart doesnt make him “inept”. what would you know about being the president anyway?
go george
aknatn> I’m not FAR left… Left is good enough. But Americans seem to mistake left for right and right for far right… Anyways… Sorry about the "you"s. I mean “Americans”… just a way to detach myself from your (American!!) perspectives.
pr> I actually think I’m looking at it with more objectivity than you (YOU, not Americans ;p ).
Regardless of whether it was right or wrong to go into Iraq (and you -YOU- know my standpoint on that…), what buggers me most is this:
because your country (who I believe owes us big) doesn’t like us going to war doesn’t really mean much to most americans…
it’s like international peer pressure…
and to be quite honest, I don’t see how it’s much of the “world’s” business.
First off, I don’t give a **** about what my country thinks, I have no problem going against the political agenda of the French government. I can think on my own, thanks. So my country could have sent troops over in Iraq, I would still be saying the same thing. Because you (YOU, but to an extent, Americans) are the only real-democratic-country where patriotism goes beyond the Olympics and the Soccer World Cup, doesn’t mean you have I’m patriotic… I actually am not in the least. So the “because your country doesn’t think it’s right, blablabla.” NO. I don’t think it’s right. ME. But I think I’m disgressing now…
The fact that it means nothing to Americans, the fact that Americans don’t see that international community as an important part of a calm and restfull planet really scares the **** out of me. How can you (Americans) define yourselves as leader of the free world, how can you proclaim with all your might that you lead the paved way to a better place if you don’t give a **** about other countries. What is this supposed to mean? “We do, we act, we take, and shut the **** up, we’re strongest?”.
How can you not see how international this whole war is? It’s beyond me.
A country invades another country and you don’t see anything international about this? mooookay. It’s creepy. Your national interests (which I really cannot point out, it’s very boggling) above the interests of the planet. This is probably the reason why people don’t like you (Americans) abroad - and yes, it’s just a generalization.
About your soldiers dying, well, their problem then I guess. I still think those deaths could and should have been avoided.
i this might explain it a little:
We give more aid to other countries than any other country in the world. We help protect those who can’t protect themselves, we set up infrastructure where we can and offer humanitarian aid at the drop of a hat.
We import more than we export for the most part, we have several dealings internationally, and for the most part the world gets along with us.
We get attacked and for a few moments the world unites against terrorism.
Being the country with the resources we have, we decide to do something about it. No the terrorists didn’t get together and declare an official war on us and launch and ICBM at us, but they did attack us. We step up and do something about it.
And then then all of those countries that we help, fund, support, and like, turn their backs on us, completely! Even before the term WMD came into being!
It’s like “oh those poor Americans, Oh! wait… they want to do what!? they actually want to find the people responsible!? What the heck, those stupid American cowboys, what right do they have policing the world!?”
in America, when someone turns on another like that, it’s called “backstabbing.”
And then then all of those countries that we help, fund, support, and like, turn their backs on us, completely!
Yes this is odd behaviour… Have you ever considered that these countries have a good reason for turning on us?? Perhaps its the history of the US propping up and supporting dictatorships, or perhaps its the many times elements of our government have traded guns for drugs with south and central american governments… Perhaps most of these arab countries are mad at the US, because of its unwaivering support for Israel… Or maybe its the US refusal to sign international accords that set limitations on pollution, or forbid the use of landmines during war…
Maybe its our, ‘we don’t give a f*** attitude’, or it could be because of our policies of military intervention, but it most certainly isn’t the lame *** excuse that, ‘the terrorists hate our freedoms…’
Oh! wait… they want to do what!? they actually want to find the people responsible!?
prstudio? Do you believe that Iraq was responsible for 9-11??
You think pomme is biased, but im curious as to what you consider yourself. Fair and Balanced??
After reading everything from “both” sides of the view, I fully and whole heartedly believe that the Baath Regime in Iraq was apart of an international terror cell in the mideast, and that Saddam, if not moreover his sons were integral parts of that twisted equation and being thus, needed to be knocked out of their positions of power by whoever and whatever could that would also ensure democracy.
I wouldn’t call Pomme biased.
I think that too many people blindly follow an ideal. Yes some are probably laughing at me saying that haha, but I have acknowledged that some things don’t add up to me. I also have the intelligence to know that I don’t know everything that went on behind the scenes, whether it is my country doing it, or another country doing it. I do know, that an evil dictator and a heartless regime was removed from power, and that for the first time the Iraqi people have the chance to do what they want.
You cannot say “I go only this far,” in the cost of freedom.
“Give me liberty, or give me death.” -Patrick Henry
oh and if everyone thinks what we did is so wrong…would you rather us set Saddam free?
Pomme - forgive me for saying this - but take off your French-colored glasses for a second - you are looking at this so biased its unreal…
I wouldn’t call Pomme biased.
Oh, my bad…
I think that too many people blindly follow an ideal. Yes some are probably laughing at me saying that haha, but I have acknowledged that some things don’t add up to me. I also have the intelligence to know that I don’t know everything that went on behind the scenes, whether it is my country doing it, or another country doing it.
So True… I completely agree…
“Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.”
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule” – H.L. Mencken
oh and if everyone thinks what we did is so wrong…would you rather us set Saddam free?
Yes. Set him free on the streets of Baghdad, and let him die like Mussolini. It would be the ultimate justice, and would let the Iraqi’s have closure.
just wanted to say that looking at something biased is one thing - actually being is another - for example, when i take off my “conservative” coat and actually discuss something…all I meant.
and no, he should be tried…now that’s another debate lol.
i gotchya, thats why i said ‘my bad’. 
You didn’t call him biased, you just said that he was ‘looking at this so biased, that its unreal…’ which is only slightly less insulting…
just clarifying
good point though - sorry if i came off too forte there pomme.
J’ai regrette! Desole!
Just some quick food for thought on the subject…
How much do you think the war on terrorism has to do religion?
I have meditated on this thought, although it may seem obvious on the outside, when you sit and brood over it’s relevancy it is truly disturbing. My conclusion is that this “war” has been around for thousands of years. This “war” is not getting any bigger, but the world is getting smaller. This “war” will not end with peacfull reconciliation but with a global, disaster. It is not the “war” that is the true danger, it is the weapons, tactics and passions of it’s soldiers.
George W. Bush does not believe in the seperation of church and state but in the sole majority rule of so called “Christian” principles. Not that they are bad principles. John Kerry has no TRUE religious or moral determination, which I also find disturbing.
I think people should start examining this link between religion and war more closely.
i have to give it to president bush, he has done what he set out to do. he has knocked out saddam and 75% of all terrorists leaders and supporters. osama will probably be turning up before long. just because he may not be all that smart doesnt make him “inept”. what would you know about being the president anyway?
75% of all terrorists huh? Now there is almost no terrorist! That was quick. That surprising considered that Bush said that we may never win the war on Terror.
Im not even going to bother arguing, just show me your source, show me where it says that Bush captured 75% of ALL terrorists and is within a few months of capturing Osama, and I will agree with you.
just because he may not be all that smart doesnt make him “inept”.
Did you read that sentence?
Leader of the Free World, strongest nation on earth, access to countless nukes, and he may not be all that smart?
what would you know about being the president anyway?
As a concerned citizen we must all judge if the president and his ability to lead us. I make my decision on the study of previous experiences of past US world leader as well as inacted policies (or the lack of) and the world reaction.
in·ept
adj.
Not apt or fitting; inappropriate.
Displaying a lack of judgment, sense, or reason; foolish: an inept remark.
Bungling or clumsy; incompetent: inept handling of the account.
See also: George W. Bush
:trout:
The 75% of known Al Qaeda captured or killed was a CIA number:
A CIA spokesman said the 75 percent estimate “is absolutely consistent with our view.”
size=1 A less dodgy source with same info([url=“http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6118008”]http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6118008](http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-9-2004_pg7_12))[/size]
Like that article said, it doesn’t account for decentralized al qaeda clubs that are not accounted for.
I guess it has to do with the distortion of religion by a few in the Middle East. Either way, sooner or later, the ME would have ended up being in political turmoil similar to portions of Africa. While I don’t know if it is the fulfillment of a religious prophecy, I think an extreme inequality in wealth is partially responsible for the unrest in the ME.
EDIT: Bush has 11 pt lead over Kerry at this point: [size=1]http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=WOCFAWBKURAXYCRBAEOCFEY?type=politicsNews&storyID=6149420[/size]
I think an extreme inequality in wealth is partially responsible for the unrest in the ME.
It is too bad… Life is so precious. We sit around our computers, sipping our sippy drinks and enjoying our Air Conditioning while we debate politics and sociological theory and so many intelligent and promissing lives are so needlessley destroyed. I wish I could simply give those people the opputunities and civial liberties we take for granted. Why do they throw away their lives and others lives. Those poor children in Russia, why did they have to kill them and waste perfectly good lives.
I’m from England, and I have to say that i can’t believe how easily people have forgottne the fact that Bush and Blair lied to us, and led us into a war for reasons far from anything they told us, ultimately costing hundreds of lives
<— 14 year old idiot, but I still think the U.S. really should stop meddling in affairs of other countries… its just not their place…
I’m from England, and I have to say that i can’t believe how easily people have forgottne the fact that Bush and Blair lied to us, and led us into a war for reasons far from anything they told us, ultimately costing hundreds of lives
And I’m sick of hearing this over and over. No one lied to you. Every country in the world thought they had weapons of mass destruction. We gave them months and months of time to prepare things, but they basically didn’t respond, or were resistant. Even the people who we’re opposed to war knew they were not complying. We set multiple dates that we were going to “invade” but postponed them, because Saddam kept giving us promises of compliance on the last day of the dealines. Then when we were sick of hearing it, we moved in, and ousted an oppressive leader. Russia, France, Germany, England, and Austrailia all had plausible intelligence telling us that they had weapons of mass destruction. What happened to them? They either destroyed them at some time, or they shipped them off. No one discusses the signs of recent activity in the bases. They just wanted the cold hard missles, but no one could find them. We gave Saddam a hell of a lot of time to figure it out too.
EVERYONE thought we should go into Iraq. Iraq was one of the most evil regimes in the world. They are now slowly turning around. These things take time. Look at Germany. We occupied them after WWII for a long time, and many criticized it. Japan, same thing. The phillipines? Same thing. If we put John Kerry in office, we’re going to get a million more Black Hawk Downs, Vietnams, and stupid conflicts that we back out of. Terrorism (AKA Radical Islam) is not going to stop. They will notice weakness, and take advantage of the liberals mind for “preserving life”, and slowly sap our nation of it’s pride. There will be more kidnappings, more attacks, and a lot less done about them.
Ugh. There are probobly holes in my little rant that are going to be exploited to no end by others, but maybe I’ll be in a better mood later so I can answer when I’m more level-headed.
<— 14 year old idiot, but I still think the U.S. really should stop meddling in affairs of other countries… its just not their place…
That’s because you are watching too much TV. Go and read some political science books on the foundations of Conservative ideals vs. Liberal ideals.
Who makes these laws about “who can do what”? We are sovreign nation. There is no higher code we have to obey. We choose to obey moral organizations, and have contracts with other nations to uphold certain laws, like trade agreements, or the laws of war (Geneva Convention), but we can do what we want. And when other nations start to become a threat, we should attack. And I’m not saying when they become our equal, or are an economic threat, I’m saying a dangerous threat. The problem here is that we are attacking someone that was potentially a threat, and they had a violently oppressive ruler. Now I believe that is grounds to move in. Some don’t. Some think we only moved in because of oil. I have yet to see anyone benefiting from the oil though. Show me evidence of Bush benefiting from this if you’ve got it. I’m just sick of hearing about Iraq. This will get resolved, and I GUARANTEE Iraq will be a MUCH better place in 10 years. I happen to live next door to someone from Iraq, and his parents are still in Baghdad. They are so ecstatic that Saddam is gone, and his parents say the troops have been great, and apparently most of their friends agree too. AGH!!! I’m so overloaded in things to say, but it’s hard to make it all concise and clear. Nevermind again. 
I agree though it is nice to help in certain situations we need to realize that we are not the worlds police and we are not wanted in certain situations therefore we should stay out unless it effects us directly it is not any of our buisness.
Jeez DISCO-STU… Some of the statements you make have no basis in reality. I understand defending your position, but you just spouted out a bunch of baseless BS… slow your roll, and think a bit…
No one lied to you. Every country in the world thought they had weapons of mass destruction. EVERYONE thought we should go into Iraq.
Those three statements are completely false. We were lied to. Not every country in the world thought they had WMDs despite what you want to believe, and no, not everyone thought we should go into Iraq. Even Bush 41 said that it was a bad idea…
:: Copyright KIRUPA 2024 //--