|
Post by Swoosh on May 5, 2007 10:09:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TORI! (is so hyper it's scary) on May 5, 2007 10:09:53 GMT -5
OUTRAGED BY PORK?
|
|
|
Post by Swoosh on May 5, 2007 14:16:01 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, Maria. Ending the war and, thusly, fighting violence with peace rather than more violence, protecting the lives of American troops, allowing Iraq to become more independant rather than rely on our troops and weapons, and restoring our reputation internationally, would make things very messy indeed.
|
|
|
Post by TORI! (is so hyper it's scary) on May 5, 2007 14:17:03 GMT -5
*cough hack*
MAKE LOVE NOT WAR.
|
|
|
Post by TORI! (is so hyper it's scary) on May 5, 2007 20:55:55 GMT -5
This war is killing inoccent women and children Maria. And that's a fact. And besides Iraq had NOTHING to do with the terrorist attacks. WOW!
|
|
|
Post by Nina ♥ on May 5, 2007 22:23:45 GMT -5
John edwards = H E double hockey sticks NO!!!!
And besides Tori, NO ONE likes war, but sometimes its necessary
|
|
|
Post by Swoosh on May 6, 2007 8:14:26 GMT -5
You're certainly right, Swoosh. Even though peace isn't necessarily the absence of war, we shouldn't bother any other countries when they pound our nation with terrorist attacks. They can fix themselves on their own! Starving women and children? Hah! Maria, peace is DEFINITELY the absence of war. Fighting violence with violence is so stupid, it just makes more and more violence! I can understand that, maybe in a one-on-one basis, it may be necesarry to use violence to fight violence in order to defend yourself - but the number of potential deaths increases exponentially with wartime situations, so applying that principle to a war is laying many lives on the line. War is an ancient tool of violent, land-desiring and power-hungry civilizations, and by now should be an obsolete and antique thing of the past - ESPECIALLY considering the heightened cost wars can have in todays world, filled with atomic bombs and "nukular" wapons. I think its sad that mankind has not been able to rise above its warlike instincts and find peace... Secondly, the terrorists that staged the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan - quite frankly, Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks. Iraq actually, next to Iran, had the lowest percentage of extremists and terrorists before we invaded. Saddamm Hussein discouraged terrorism because he thought of it as a threat to his rule. Now, Saddamm himself was quite the terrorist, but none of HIS attacks were against the US... Now, I do NOT think other countries can or should "just fix themselves". I think the one good thing the Iraq War has brought is the 2003 Invasion and the downfall of Saddamm Hussein. A bit random, I suppose, considering that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks that supposedly triggered the war, but Saddamm was an awful, despicable tyrant who conducted mass genocide on several occasions, so I'm glad he's out of power in any case. I also think helping Iraq set up its own constitution and arrange elections was a very good and noble thing to do - leaving them with complete anarchy after overthrowing their dictator probably wouldn't have worked out too well. However, after the constitution is written and the lections are held... America remains. Why? Because they think that Iraq can't stand up on its own as a country because of all the terrorist attacks and extremist viewpoints. A good observation, I suppose, considering they're seeing more and mroe suicide bombings each day, but flawed, as I'll point out in my next paragraph... As for the starving women and children comment, I'm not sure what you meant, but I'll assume you meant all the innocent woman and child civilians dying in Iraqi bombings each day. As I mentioned before, Iraq had the lowest rate of extremism in the Middle East before the 2003 Invasion, and virtually all the extremists in Iraq have turned to extremism, not because of religion, but Iraqi Nationalism - in other words, they're doing all of this to get Americans out, and if we left, terrorism would greatly decrease because the terrorists would have nothing more to be mad about. But Americans aren't taking the hint, os more bombings happen each day! So, Maria, leaving would help PROTECT these innocent civilians, not hurt them. Now, if you're talking about women and children starving in other pvoerty-stricken countries - uhm, that comment was a bit random. Nonetheless, if you're worried that making John Edwards president and withdrawing our troops would lead to an era of isolationism where the US is considered with nothing but the US, you couldn't be more wrong. Some of his main goals is supplying relief money to struggling, poverty-stricken nations and supplying relief to victims of the Darfur genocide. John edwards = H E double hockey sticks NO!!!! You have every right to your opinion, Nina, but I wonder why you say this... John Edwards' goals are all very good and valid, in my opinion, and his leadership is somethign this country really needs right now. As I mentioned, he wants to supply money to poverty-stricken regions and nations, and he also wants to: -Restore good, upright, moral leadership in this country -Restore our international reputation -Provide a universal healthcare plan so everyone can afford to be cared for in our hospital -Set a national goal of ending poverty in 30 years These all seem well and good to me, nina, but if you see his platforms as flawed, feel free to tell me why. If you're saying "H.ell no!" simply because he's a Democrat, however, I think that's rather shallow of you...
|
|
maria
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by maria on May 6, 2007 11:33:55 GMT -5
I'm sure that they tried to negotiate before going into war! Everyone would be against it if they just went to war because they felt like it.
Oh, and I guess every republican's goal is to: - steal everyone's money - make things as difficult as possible - laugh at poor people
Why can't conservatives want to help the nation too?
|
|
|
Post by Swoosh on May 6, 2007 12:51:43 GMT -5
I am not bashing Republicans/conservatives here, or you personally, or President Bush, merely the war. It should be ALL politicians' goals to help the nation, and I'm optimistic to think most of them do, despite their party.
|
|
|
Post by {joy the hideous new girl} on May 6, 2007 20:32:59 GMT -5
Hilary Clinton bothers me.
...
AND THAT IS MY INTELLIGENT CONTRIBUTION TO THIS THREAD. =D
|
|
|
Post by TORI! (is so hyper it's scary) on May 6, 2007 21:27:52 GMT -5
I HATE BUSH. <3
|
|
|
Post by {joy the hideous new girl} on May 6, 2007 21:39:29 GMT -5
filled with atomic bombs and "nukular" wapons. Oh my god. Swooshface is officially my hero. (I mistyped that as hoe ._.) that doesn't really warrant an ASCII heart.
|
|
|
Post by tyler on May 7, 2007 15:52:54 GMT -5
Well, Iraq is like the sequel to Vietnam. The way I see it, both withdrawing and staying there are bad plans. That country isn't going to be as peaceful as you think it might be just because we leave. We'd be leaving it in shambles, in a state of civil war, a prime target for a new dictator to seize power. Occupying Iraq is bad for our nation's reputation, but so is leaving it out to dry.
I don't think it was a mistake going in there. I'm glad Saddam is no longer in control. But this was isn't about arms and strength, it has a great social aspect in it, and no matter how superior our country is, we can't plan on what will happen with the people of the country we occupy.
This late in the game, I don't care about Iraq. We've already made a mess, so that's that.
I think it'll be interesting to see how Edwards does. He's a Democrat from a conservative state. Fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by Nina ♥ on May 7, 2007 18:08:04 GMT -5
Wow you REALLY made your point
|
|
|
Post by TORI! (is so hyper it's scary) on May 7, 2007 18:15:00 GMT -5
I know.
|
|