-
-
Re: Thoughts on President Bush and Iraq
What I mean is that if you are truely a liberal and not just a democrat (that means you are as far left as it goes, pretty much anti-america) you want us to loose the war. But even so if we pull out we loose the war. Did any one not learn from Vietnam? We lost from stupid liberal protestors who wanted us out.What the hell are you talking about? They want him to pull out, not lose.Comment
-
Re: Thoughts on President Bush and Iraq
I believe we need to pull out of Iraq. I am liberal. What I am not is anti-america. You're right, you can compare Iraq to Vietnam. Everyone was bitching about pulling out in Vietnam too, but when we did, it didn't fall apart as everyone had predicted. We need to get the **** out of Iraq, because there is honestly no reason for us to be there anymore. There really never was any reason for us to be there in the first place, but that's a different discussion.Comment
-
Re: Thoughts on President Bush and Iraq
You sound so indoctrinated with all this anti-terror malarkey and your later post about liberals being anti-American.
I would say liberals actually stand more for what American values are...like liberty.
The war in Iraq will not destroy terrorism or "destroy all the terrorists who hate us". If anything it's fuelled more terrorism as young impressionable Muslims in countries like Iraq have seen what America has done and turned to radicalism.
Although terrorism can't be eradicated it can be reduced through diplomacy, education, peaceful things! And it can also be reduced through beefing up security, think of the billions that have been spent on the war in Iraq that could have been spent on US security.
I really don't believe terrorism is a big a problem as the US government makes it out to be, they exaggerate the problem to make people frightened, frightened people are generally easier to controlComment
-
Re: Thoughts on President Bush and Iraq
Do you not understand, I can speak slowly if you like? Diplomacy does NOT work with people who want you dead. If you do your research, dimplomacy only helps sometimes, more often fighting back is the way to go. Again I'll use Vietnam as an example if you want me to continue. While we have soldiors in Iraq that is increasing our security. Actually republicans are the ones who want to beef up US security, democrats are the ones who could care less. Now if we were to just make peace the wussy way then most likely we would have been attacked again. And if terrorisn isn't such a big problem then how come our trade centers were attacked and thousands were killed! And for the win, liberals are anti-america, they want us out of Iraq, they think people should be equal (that isn't part of a democracy), and more I'm just to lazy to mention. Maybe you should listen to the other side of the arguement so you can hear what is really going on in the world.Originally Posted by sherbtail
You sound so indoctrinated with all this anti-terror malarkey and your later post about liberals being anti-American.
I would say liberals actually stand more for what American values are...like liberty.
The war in Iraq will not destroy terrorism or "destroy all the terrorists who hate us". If anything it's fuelled more terrorism as young impressionable Muslims in countries like Iraq have seen what America has done and turned to radicalism.
Although terrorism can't be eradicated it can be reduced through diplomacy, education, peaceful things! And it can also be reduced through beefing up security, think of the billions that have been spent on the war in Iraq that could have been spent on US security.
I really don't believe terrorism is a big a problem as the US government makes it out to be, they exaggerate the problem to make people frightened, frightened people are generally easier to controlLast edited by das1ngerplayer; 02-20-2007, 05:26 PM.Comment
-
Re: Thoughts on President Bush and Iraq
Here my friends, in plain written english, is the ideology that continues to propagate war.Now if we were to just make peace the wussy way then most likely we would have been attacked again.
Of course it is natural to think one needs to fight the terrorists and defend his country. However, this reasoning is why fighting exists in the first place. It's circular.
And since we're already in the circle it can be hard (or in our case, nearly impossible) to get out of it.Last edited by Reach; 02-19-2007, 06:11 PM.
Comment
-
Re: Thoughts on President Bush and Iraq
To be fair, your grammar is in parts so bad that I do not fully understand.
Where is this research that you have done... Diplomacy can work with "people who want you dead". Look at northern Ireland, the road to peace was by no means easy but finally through diplomacy it appears that a power-sharing government is being set up.
Look at Israel-Palestine. Diplomacy has not yet brought peace to the area, however fighting just causes uproar on both sides which leads to more fighting, which leads to more fighting etc. etc.
Firstly I know we can't make peace in Iraq because we've already gone in their and made the mess, the damage is done, now we have to stay there and see the job through. That I have no problem with, its your ideology I have a problem with. To be peaceful is to be wussy? If this is what your saying you are indeed a fool. Mahatama Gandhi was far from being a wuss, same goes for Nelson Mandela for that matter...
And I'm not saying terrorism isn't a problem, I'm just saying this 'War on Terror', (actually a war on Islamic extremists, who cares about mental Christians who blow up abortion clinics and all that jazz) has not prevented terrorism, I believe it has in fact fuelled more terrorism as young muslims see their homeland invaded by Americans and want revenge.
I swear the constitution says somewhere that all men are created equal, I'm not American so I'm not uber-knowledgeable of American politics so please tell me how liberals are against what America stands for (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
You seem to think I'm uninformed of what is really going on in the world.
I see it this way
People with better grammar are generally more intelligent
Intelligent people are generally more informed of the world around them
I have better grammar than you
I am more informed
Please don't use petty insults against me, or I'll just throw them back in your face, and I have a mean throwing arm.Comment
-
Re: Thoughts on President Bush and Iraq
In addition to sherb's post:
Originally posted by dictionary.com
Comment
-
Re: Thoughts on President Bush and Iraq
Attention thread: please do not stereotype American conservatives by what das1ngerplayer is saying. Many of us have capacity for rational discussion of a topic; we don't all just regurgitate a bastardized version of Sean Hannity's words.
@sherb: it was the declaration of independence, not the constitution, FYI.
--Guido
Last edited by GuidoHunter; 02-20-2007, 03:57 PM.
Originally posted by GrandiagodComment
-
Re: Thoughts on President Bush and Iraq
To be honest, I cannot stand the president..I can rant about him all day but lets go into details....also..I am not American...lol"Sword in my hand, Axe on my side, Valhall awaits me...soon I will die. Bear skin on my back, Wolf Jaw on my head, Valhall awaits me...When I'm Dead."Comment
-
Re: Thoughts on President Bush and Iraq
An interesting editorial-
Max Boot
"What is the greatest danger facing America as it tries to rebuild Iraq: Shiite fundamentalism? Kurdish separatism? Sunni intransigence? Turkish, Syrian, Iranian or Saudi Arabian meddling?
All of those are real problems, but none is so severe that it can't readily be handled. More than 125,000 American troops occupy Mesopotamia. They are backed up by the resources of the world's richest economy. In a contest for control of Iraq, America can outspend and outmuscle any competing faction.
The greatest danger is that we won't use all of our power for fear of the "I" word — imperialism. When asked on April 28 on al-Jazeera whether the United States was "empire building," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reacted as if he'd been asked whether he wears women's underwear. "We don't seek empires," he replied huffily. "We're not imperialistic. We never have been."
That's a fine answer for public consumption. The problem is that it isn't true. The United States has been an empire since at least 1803, when Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory. Throughout the 19th century, what Jefferson called the "empire of liberty" expanded across the continent. When U.S. power stretched from "sea to shining sea," the American empire moved abroad, acquiring colonies ranging from Puerto Rico and the Philippines to Hawaii and Alaska.
While the formal empire mostly disappeared after World War II, the United States set out on another bout of imperialism in Germany and Japan. Oh, sorry — that wasn't imperialism; it was "occupation." But when Americans are running foreign governments, it's a distinction without a difference. Likewise, recent "nation-building" experiments in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan are imperialism under another name.
Mind you, this is not meant as a condemnation. The history of American imperialism is hardly one of unadorned good doing; there have been plenty of shameful episodes, such as the mistreatment of the Indians. But, on the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated the monstrous evils of communism and Nazism and lesser evils such as the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing. Along the way, it has helped spread liberal institutions to countries as diverse as South Korea and Panama.
Yet, while generally successful as imperialists, Americans have been loath to confirm that's what they were doing. That's OK. Given the historical baggage that "imperialism" carries, there's no need for the U.S. government to embrace the term. But it should definitely embrace the practice.
That doesn't mean looting Iraq of its natural resources; nothing could be more destructive of our goal of building a stable government in Baghdad. It means imposing the rule of law, property rights, free speech and other guarantees, at gunpoint if need be. This will require selecting a new ruler who is committed to pluralism and then backing him or her to the hilt. Iran and other neighboring states won't hesitate to impose their despotic views on Iraq; we shouldn't hesitate to impose our democratic views.
The indications are mixed as to whether the United States is prepared to embrace its imperial role unapologetically. Rumsfeld has said that an Iranian-style theocracy "isn't going to happen," and President Bush has pledged to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as necessary to "build a peaceful and representative government." After allowing a temporary power vacuum to develop, U.S. troops now are moving aggressively to put down challenges to their authority by, for example, arresting the self-declared "mayor" of Baghdad.
That's all for the good. But there are also some worrisome signs. Bush asked for only $2.5 billion from Congress for rebuilding Iraq, even though a study from the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy estimates that $25 billion to $100 billion will be needed. Iraq's oil revenues and contributions from allies won't cover the entire shortfall. The president should be doing more to prepare the U.S. public and Congress for a costly commitment. Otherwise, Iraqis quickly could become disillusioned about the benefits of liberation.
The cost of our commitment will be measured not only in money but also in troops. While Bush and Rumsfeld have wisely eschewed any talk of an early "exit strategy," they still seem to think that U.S. forces won't need to stay more than two years. Rumsfeld even denied a report that the U.S. armed forces are planning to open permanent bases in Iraq. If they're not, they should be. That's the only way to ensure the security of a nascent democracy in such a rough neighborhood.
Does the administration really imagine that Iraq will have turned into Switzerland in two years' time? Allied rule lasted four years in Germany and seven years in Japan. American troops remain stationed in both places more than 50 years later. That's why these two countries have become paragons of liberal democracy. It is crazy to think that Iraq — which has less of a democratic tradition than either Germany or Japan had in 1945 — could make the leap overnight.
The record of nation-building during the past decade is clear: The United States failed in Somalia and Haiti, where it pulled out troops prematurely. Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan show more promise because U.S. troops remain stationed there. Afghanistan would be making even more progress if the United States and its allies had made a bigger commitment to secure the countryside, not just Kabul.
If we want Iraq to avoid becoming a Somalia on steroids, we'd better get used to U.S. troops being deployed there for years, possibly decades, to come. If that raises hackles about American imperialism, so be it. We're going to be called an empire whatever we do. We might as well be a successful empire."
and now, and interesting essay I wrote last night when I was bored.
From Sea to Shining Sea
By Corey Goor aka Specforces
“Take up the White Man's burden;
To you who thus succeed
In civilizing savage hoards
They owe a debt, indeed;
Concessions, pensions, salaries,
And privilege and right,
With outstretched hands you raise to bless
Grab everything in sight” (Crosby).
America, much like the stereotypical schoolyard bully that seeks to take your lunch money, has yet to grow up; young, abrasive, and insecure, the United States constantly fights to keep its image immaculate and its superiority well-known. However, unlike a schoolyard, the world contains many elements that require a more advanced breed of bully. Enter United States, stage Iraq. The U.S., under the guise of the defenders of democracy and destroyers of dictators, entered and raped Iraq not for the safety of Americans, but rather out of indoctrinated imperialistic instinct, a Manifest Destiny of Democratic ideals and systems of government. Through this “spread of democracy” the United States gained new resources and territories, likening these modern day politics to colonial imperialism.
A political leader named John L. O'Sullivan defined the Manifest Destiny movement in 1845. He sought to delineate and clarify while defending America’s right to expand in the following excerpt:
…the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federative development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth (Lubragge).
The experiment ensues today. The United States invaded Iraq for the second time on March 20, 2003. President George W. Bush stated the war’s purpose was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people" (Bush 1). Essentially, the United States conducted a regime change to ease the increasingly difficult process of gaining oil from its greatest source, the Middle East. However, the publicized and more widely accepted story was that the United States invaded to plant a seed of democracy. Why is it that the American public is so readily willing to accept this rationale and not the idea that their nation is trying to gain resources? Most American’s feel that their system of government and way of life provide more freedom and opportunity than others. They feel as though they are superior to others.
In 1885 Josiah Strong, Protestant Clergyman and author of Our Country, writings that were supposed to promote missionary work in the western world, wrote, “Is there room for reasonable doubt that this race, unless devitalized by alcohol and tobacco, is destined to dispossess many weaker races, assimilate others, and mold the remainder, until, in a very true and important sense, it has Anglo-Saxonized mankind…” (1). Many believe that these assertions served as the preface to American imperialistic policy, especially in a time when U.S. leaders were predominately protestant and easily influenced by Strong’s ideas. These policies still exist. America still feels superior to others.
On March 22, 2006 President George W. Bush discussed the war in Iraq with a group of constituents in West Virginia and defined his ideas of freedom:
An interesting debate in the world is whether or not freedom is universal, see, whether or not -- people say, there's old Bush imposing his values. See, I believe freedom is universal. I believe liberty is a universal thought. It's not an American thought, it is a universal thought. And if you believe that, then you ought to take great comfort and joy in helping others realizes the benefits of liberty. The way I put it is there is an Almighty God. One of the greatest gifts of that Almighty God is the desire for people to be free, is freedom. And therefore… and therefore, this country and the world ought to say, how can we help you remain free? What can we do to help you realize the blessings of liberty? (Bush 2)
Bush demonstrates the entire ideology behind the United States’ campaign against terror and terrorists in this one small segment of his speech. A leader sets the tone and attitude behind an entire movement. Granted, much of the opposition lacks many of the opportunities of the United States and it may be argued that having power requires a great deal of responsibility to help others. This is true. However, to attempt to change and mold an entire society that has its own traditions and values in such an arrogant fashion can only end in catastrophe. The United States attempts to do just that. The war in Iraq was not a conflict designed to make the world a safer place; it was an attempt at seizing resources and spreading America’s way of life.Comment
Comment