America in Iraq?

[Mojlnir]

10 points to Malchik!

 

I was trying to be overtly facetious in lampooing the mentality of many of my fellow countryfolk.

 

The current debacle in Iraq is a sad commentary on the weaknesses of the American political system. We are a two party system which operates in a winner takes all scenario. If one or the other of the parties wins controlling majority, there is little or nothing that can be done about it.

 

American political parties are pillars of mediocrity and corporate largess. They pander to the most powerful bases, or the deepest pocket books...take your pick. Special interests, in this case corporate America and the religious right, have inordinate influence because there is no requirement for the dominate party to work with the less powerful party.

 

Let me give you an example of a case which illustrates the insanity of both the situation and the people who perpetuate it. (This may feel like OT but give me a minute)

 

Libby, Montana is a small mining town which for decades was home to an extremely large mine which, as by-product, released 10's of thousands of pounds of asbestos into the air on a daily basis for many years. A staggering percentage of the town's population has either sickened or died as a result. While the mine no longer operates, the effects linger.

 

President Bush, during the campaign, made a point of promising to restrict "frivolous" lawsuits against corporations, including cases of asbestos poisoning. The people of Montana voted overwhelmingly for Bush, but the folks in Libby voted for him a rate which exceeded the over all state average. Why?

 

The people of Libby are representative of many people in the US. They are voting against their own best interests, possibly blinded by promises of lower taxes and strengthened "morality?" When you can figure out why people do that, why they vote to invade others, vote to restrict their own civil rights, vote to trample the Constitution and vote to desecrate my beautiful homeland you'll have found a way to make America a responsible world citizen.

 

Until then, be thankful that at least the greed we've shown until now will be enough to keep us in Iraq until it is a reasonably stable place again. History cannot be changed...we went there for the wrong reasons, we're staying for the wrong reasons but leaving now would place in jeopardy the future of every Iraqi citizen.

 

-M

[Akrid]

Place it in danger! The middle east has always been dangerous. They are a dangerous kind of people maybe they like it, its thrilling and exciting. When we bomb them it makes thier day, cause in the middle east the sun just dosnt come up till the bombs come down.

 

Or maybe we should stay lets take them over corprately, we got a good thing going, we have indians working the oil industry that are even cheaper than iraqi's LOL! This is a great finacial oportunity!!!! Hey maybe we can get people to think Iraqis are evil and make them into slaves too! Har Har Har screw other people!!!

 

Or we can leave, it will be fun to watch what happens when the insurgents start the massacres. We can film it and call it iraqis gone wild.

 

Nomatter what we do Im sure it will be immoral and messed up. America is made of people, and the only true evil in this world roots from people.

 

What I really think we should do? We should make a decision, either we are going to be immoral and we should go ahead and conquer Iraq completely or we should leave it the hell alone, toying with it and sucking it dry is just dragging out the procress of greed. We can either be greedy for a year by aresting all civillians and destroying all else, then rebuild it into america and go about being honest like we did with the native americans (sad but true) or we can stay and pretend we are there for them and keep leaching thier oil, Or we leave, I say we choose to leave. I dont buy that we cant make a Iraqi army fast enuff, thats BS if it was our true objective to make them self sufficent and leave it would be done.

 

I used to support our actions in the middle east, Im glad Sadams gone I always hated that male without a father. But when Bush took troops that had Bin laden cornered and sent them into Iraq to find thier huge nuke factory and save the world from DR. Evil I lost faith. The root of the problem isnt what we are doing wrong in iraq its what we (Bush) intend to keep doing wrong in Iraq.

[Guest]

I certainly hope we're not gonna nuke Iraq off the map... That would be ridiculous. That would mean all our soldiers who fought and died there... Died in vain, and it would mean all the tax money spent on the war went down the hole for no reason.

I've been against this war from the start, I don't see how dropping bombs causes peace(pardon the name). But it is good Saddam is gone and it's even better that the Iraqi people get to vote now. As far as our soldiers, who I love them all deep and dear(Despite what Conservatives say about Liberals hating the troops), but we can't withdraw now... We invaded... We have to stay and finish the job and stabilize Iraq. Bush says this is all part of the War on Terror, I disagree with him, but if it is... He must realize we lost Iraq, as our presence only energized Terrorist factions... Making it much more dangerous for our men and women over there. I just hope this can be over soon with minium life lost, so we can bring our guys home.. And I hope they aren't sent to fight another of Bush's wars... Unless he actually decides to take Osama out.

 

Peace.

[Icefiddell]

Just watch Fahrenheit 9/11 it just sheds light on so many things.

 

When Bush first became president his staff publically said that Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction and his staff said that to the public!

 

And then not long later his staff completly changed their minds and said that he did, i'm not sure about this bit or not but i dont think that there was any real solid evidence that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda at all but dont quote me on that.

 

So no i dont think we should of gone in there, the only reason why we went (UK) is because when Bush says jump good ole Tony says 'How High' but we went in got rid of a dictator (which is good) and if we left now we'd of caused a civil war and Iraq would probably annex itself (which is bad).

 

But where there now and its our mess so we should clear it up and finnish it to the end but i just didn't like the way that we were lied to so much, Saddam could strike us within 60 minutes lol yeah right!

 

But if you want to invade someone invade Saudi Arabia, after all 13 of the 16 (or something like that) hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi and even Osma is Saudi and there is clear evidence that the Saud's are connected to terrorism, but no US wont invade Saudi Arabia after all they do own 7% of the US's economy :tongue2:

 

But that is a different topic so anyway back to Iraq no i dont think we should be there but we are and YES we should stay!

[draighox]

When Bush first became president his staff publically said that Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction and his staff said that to the public!

 

And then not long later his staff completly changed their minds and said that he did, i'm not sure about this bit or not but i dont think that there was any real solid evidence that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda  at all but dont quote me on that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If that means Kerry would have been a better president, I will remind you that Kerry supported Iraq War and voted for it. Now he is completely against it. So I'm not sure, would have he atacked Iraq, if he had been elected, or not. Anyway, if Iraq wouldn't have been atacked, Saddam wouldn't have been removed (which is bad).

If that doesn't mean Kerry would have been a better president, I'll say nothing.

[Akrid]

Whats important to realize about Kerry is he was a victim of a classic republican tatic of nameing, "flipflop" in this case. Most politians do change thier minds about things as events unfold ansd new information surfaces. Kerry wasnt a flipflop, he supported the war when the rest of us did, now like many of us he dosnt. Simple as that.

[draighox]

So when its popular to support a war, Kerry supports it, but when it becomes unpopular, Kerry is against it? Has he an opinion?

[Icefiddell]

No you got my message all wrong i wasn't even thinking about kerry what so ever. What i was saying was that Bush and his administration lied to everyone.

[ThetaOrionis01]

It's a sign of maturity to be able to evaluate new information, and re-assess your decisions following such new information - and even more so, to admit that your initial decision was incorrect.

 

It's extremely childish for others to style such a change of heart 'flip-flopping'.

 

And anyway, what does Kerry have to do with it anyway?

 

It seems to be a tactic of Bush supporters to claim that Kerry would have done worse rather than to admit the Bush administration's mistakes. :rolleyes:

 

The motives - or rather, excuses - for starting the war seemed to change all the time... from the claimed link with Al-Qaeda to the alleged weapons of mass destruction.. and then, when both of those turned out to be false, the war became a war against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. It's a cynical propaganda exercise.

[draighox]

No you got my message all wrong i wasn't even thinking about kerry what so ever. What i was saying was that Bush and his administration lied to everyone.

And anyway, what does Kerry have to do with it anyway?

At first Kerry had nothing to do with this thread:

If that doesn't mean Kerry would have been a better president, I'll say nothing.

But now, as the talk turned to Kerry (not without my help :smiley: )...

It's a sign of maturity to be able to evaluate new information, and re-assess your decisions following such new information - and even more so, to admit that your initial decision was incorrect.

What information are we talking about?

 

It seems to be a tactic of Bush supporters to claim that Kerry would have done worse rather than to admit the Bush administration's mistakes.

No. Its just that Bush is human, and humans make mistakes, although as far as I know, he hasn't made any serious mistakes yet. Claiming that Kerry would have done worse is just a way to show that Bush was much better choice. Much better than Kerry, who would have hidden under a pillow after the September 11 atack and done nothing to stop terrorism. Or maybe he would have fought a 'sensitive war' against them. Atacked them with pillows or smth. :smiley: