- :
- 2002 22A P5 and 2007 TR MS3
No actually I think this thread has changed my political views....
Thank you all...now I can watch FOX News in peace...
Thank you all...now I can watch FOX News in peace...
Al Gore speaks on the Iraq threat circa 92'
- Thread starter Donas64
- Start date
Rally Ninja
Member
- :
- MSP
mspdfreak said:
fixxed.
xelderx said:15 years is not a short time in the Middle East. Look at how many things have changed in just the last 5 years. Remember just 9 years earlier when this picture was taken...
Please stop trying to justify things that are happening now by what someone said or did in another decade. Things change.
wasn't trying to justify anything. Just seeking honest opinions. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I do agree with your point that things have changed alot and I do agree with the points that the operations in Iraq have been mis-managed and the planning was flawed.
I think however though that its still a good thing Sadaam is gone because despite the handshake picture its time we realized you can't negotiate with crazy despots.
More care must be taken though in when and how we act. Good responses all around though (except for the ones trying to turn things into a flame fest! Shame on you.
)kipper88 said:
Pretty much sums it up for me.
For example. Amendinijhad is not a good man. the guy is clearly a threat but his rhetoric gets a pass because people want to dismiss him as a kook. But unless the guy like Sadaam is playing a dangerous game of chicken and does not care about mutually assured destruction, I think he'd be wacko enough to use nukes against U.S Allies and turn Iran into a Martyr nation. He keeps talking about wiping Isreal off the face of the map and reffereing to a doomsday countdown clock that is ticking. So do we take preemptive action (remember we would not have to occupy Iran just strike and cripple his nuclear ambitions) or do we sit back and wait for him to make the first potentially devastating move?
Either way, we're screwed!
ProtoType5 said:
Sometimes it takes a few good men to stand up to many evil ones.
The whole civilized world is not against the United States. I think thats an unfair characterization. You also have to figure in the bitterness and lets face it bold face jealously of the U.S being the biggest superpower for the time being.
Sometimes you have to stand by your convictions no matter what others say.
case in point: Williman Wiberforce. Sure he didn't stand quite alone but was not swayed or intimidated because he knew his cause was a worthy one.
Last edited:
xelderx said:
Gotcha! No worries.
I agree that its a complex situation and one that maybe we should not have gotten into the way we did. Action needed to be taken but only time will tell if this was the right one. I am becoming more and more dissapointed with politicians though. But I still believe in the Democratic process and in this nation because for all its flaws and shortcomings, there is no where else I would choose to call my adopted home.
evilmonkeyMSP said:
I completely disagree with you. I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong and I've done it several times. I think its part of being a human being. We ar enot perfect and its arrogant to think we are.
This thread has already benefitted me greatly. I find it interesting to read the opinions and thoughts of other (intelligent) people and I find the variety of views and opinions fascinating.
I'm quite glad we don't live in China or some other communist country where a threat like this could land you or me in jail and as long as we have that freedom, i'll continue to excercise it.
I respectfully ask that if you don't care for a thread or don't have anything of substance to say, then just ignore it or refrain from posting in it. Thats what I do anyways.
- :
- 2002 22A P5 and 2007 TR MS3
Donas64 said:
Please don't compare Williman Wiberforce to President Bush...The convictions of upholding human rights and eliminating slavery in Britain has no correlation to the money hungry, egotisic, and blind leadership of our current Prez...
ProtoType5 said:
This is what I originaly wrote:
"Sometimes it takes a few good men to stand up to many evil ones.
The whole civilized world is not against the United States. I think thats an unfair characterization. You also have to figure in the bitterness and lets face it bold face jealously of the U.S being the biggest superpower for the time being.
Sometimes you have to stand by your convictions no matter what others say.
case in point: Williman Wiberforce. Sure he didn't stand quite alone but was not swayed or intimidated because he knew his cause was a worthy one."
Could you please tell me where the words "President Bush" appear anywhere in that paragraph?
I wasn't speaking about the presidents convictions but our convictions as a whole as a nation. No matter what we do in the world, good or bad, a lot of people will still hate us just because of the prosperity, freedom and status the country holds. But with great power as we all know comes great responsibilty.
If we have the power to avert crisis of free people in bondage or stop the annihailation of a country by its enemies and we do nothing, do you think the same world that looks scornfully upon us now will all of a sudden cheer us on.
I guarantee you for all the talk of people wanting us to go into Darfur, even if we go in there to fight against those commiting the genocide we will still be accused by a whole lot of people of meddling in world affairs. That doesn't mean its the wrong thing to do but the point I was trying to make is sometimes you can't wait for the approval of everyone else. If you have looked deep into your heart and you know you must take action or there will be bad consequences, then sometimes you just have to act.
Don't let your hatred for George Bush blind you to other matters of great importance.
SuperStretch18
Member
- :
- '07 CX-7 Sport, Black on Black; '04 Mazda3s
The difference between Darfur and Iraq is that we went to Iraq for our own self-serving needs. We can say all we want we went to liberate Iraq, but in reality, we were looking to eliminate a threat to us. Darfur is not a threat to us, so the only reason to go there is to help the Sudanese people there (which is probably why we have not made any moves). Now, if we spend 4 years there and leave the people worse off than when they began, then yes, there will be a public outcry.
Saddam (and his sons for that matter) were very evil men and I am glad that they are gone, but the execution was and is flawed...
Saddam (and his sons for that matter) were very evil men and I am glad that they are gone, but the execution was and is flawed...
SuperStretch18 said:
I agree that the execution was flawed but its almost like you're contradicting yourself. Was it a good thing or a bad thing we went into Iraq?
I was almost upset for a second because I thought you were going to say we went in their for oil but I do agree with you that a large part of the reason we went in there was to eliminate Sadaam before he came back to bite us in the buttocks.
And about your Darfur comment, thats why some people say we should stay out of there. If we go in with the best intentions and the most honorable of goals and the situation gets worse, guess who's going to catch the flack?
US! And to top it all off we would have gained nothing from the conflict except the feeling that we went in to make a positive change.
And why don't some of the countries who are always giving such a hard time about Iraq such as France and Germany take the lead on Darfur. Its almost like they are saying "you go first and if things go well, we'll be right behind you!" They havethe reseources, why don't they step up to the plate?
I mean how much worse can the situation get for those refugees there?
We are not the ones making the situation worse in Iraq. Its mostly due to bad planning yes but overall its the terrorist elements that threaten to de-stabilize that region for their own evil reasons. The question is do we just let them have our way or do we try to finish what we started?
Last edited:
I guess what I'm trying to ask is:
If we had gone into Iraq, toppled Saddam, the Iraqi govt. had gotten on its feet and the Iraqi people were able to build their democracy with little violence, would the anti-war sentiment be as strong? Or would people still be opposed to the war in esscence?
If we had gone into Iraq, toppled Saddam, the Iraqi govt. had gotten on its feet and the Iraqi people were able to build their democracy with little violence, would the anti-war sentiment be as strong? Or would people still be opposed to the war in esscence?
- :
- 2002 22A P5 and 2007 TR MS3
Well, in magical pixy land, all wars would end with flowers growing and people holding hands....War is War and it leaves a bad taste for generations...especially when it's mixed with Middle Eastern food..
I have never been swayed in my feelings for the Iraq war...From the beginning, I thought bad idea, no plan, no rational reason...I wish and pray every day that the outcome would change my perspective, and I would say, damn I was wrong wasn't I, this was a good idea....
I have never been swayed in my feelings for the Iraq war...From the beginning, I thought bad idea, no plan, no rational reason...I wish and pray every day that the outcome would change my perspective, and I would say, damn I was wrong wasn't I, this was a good idea....
ProtoType5 said:
Low blow! (nuts)
I understand war is ugly and no one ever wants it but I'm sure you understood what I was saying. If it went like the first Gulf war where we kicked butt and took names. Then again I don't think the objective of that was to take Saddam out. Just to break his kneecaps.
Last edited:
SuperStretch18
Member
- :
- '07 CX-7 Sport, Black on Black; '04 Mazda3s
ProtoType5 said:
+1
Donas64 said:
War is war and there are going to be some who think that there is no reason for it and others that think it is the only answer. Most people walk somewhere in the middle though. Reason being is that every person makes their own decision on how many lives a cause is worth.
If we were making progress then it would be easier to swallow. I think that even if there was a stronger sentiment from the Iraqi people, more Americans would be like, OK at least something positive is being done. I'll say it again; Saddam was a very bad man, but where would we be if we hunted down every bad man out there (Utopia probably, but the road there would be paved in blood).
BTW, you won't hear me pull the oil card, because I have yet to hear an argument that convinced me one way or another on it. If we DID go for oil, we need to do some better cost/benefit analysis. Any potential benefit from that is diminishing every time a soldier dies, both in human and monetary terms.
