US Political thread

[Gilliatt]

4. they were invaded for breaking the ceasfire agreement and multiple UN resoulutions

So invading a country against the UN's will because that country does not respect the UN's will is OK to you? Don't you see any contradiction?

[TEMPLAR67]

So invading a country against the UN's will because that country does not respect the UN's will is OK to you? Don't you see any contradiction?

I was just using the UN as another example even though they are completely irrelevent. Personally i think the US should leave the UN, all they do is take our money and the spit in our face, no one seems to like the US at all any more, I guess they have forgotten about WW2 when we came in and saved their butts. I agreed with the invasion because they broke OUR ceasefire agreement. The UN resolutions are a pointless waste of time, like w/ iran, they say dont build nukes ore we will get very angry then pass a resolution telling you how angry we are, its rediculous.

[Gilliatt]

no one seems to like the US at all any more, I guess they have forgotten about WW2 when we came in and saved their butts.

That raises another question in me. If people should judge the USA based on what they did 60 years ago in WW2 and not on what they are doing right now, then what is the USA doing in Afghanistan, since that country helped them during the Cold War?

[DarthMarth]

That raises another question in me. If people should judge the USA based on what they did 60 years ago in WW2 and not on what they are doing right now, then what is the USA doing in Afghanistan, since that country helped them during the Cold War?

we were bringin' Democracy and got around to the Middle East last.

[Siberys]

I believe that bush is a good person and that he has faired much better than gore would have given the situation he was in.

That's just it, you don't know that, not at all. I keep hearing people say that if Gore had won the 2000 elections or if Kerry won the 2004 elections that things would turn out for the better. And then other people say that bush is doing a better job than Gore or Kerry "could" have done, when in reality, nobody on this planet knows just how good a job Gore or Kerry would have done because no human can predict the future.

And then I wonder, is this logical assumption of Bush being better at this job than Kerry or Gore could be based upon what they said in the primaries and debates? Our democracy doesn't allow a president to simply make promises and then immediately keep them upon gaining presidency, and while the president has a huge job, it's still only a 3rd of the basis of our government, meaning without the other two stepping in on occasion, or the president stepping in on the other two, we would more than likely have an unbalanced democracy if a democracy at all.

Gore may have done a better job at being president due to what he represents and brings to the people, and then again, Gore may have done a worse job and royally screwed the US for a few years. But the real question is, does this matter? It no longer matters whether Gore or Kerry would have done a better job, what matters is that Bush, as of now, is very poorly handling many various situations in Iraq, he's not doing so well with his own people, so now what can the next president bring to help remedy the damage done. I say damage as a general term, as much good a single president could ever do, there will always be consequences that result in damage (Example, Lincoln had a cause that helped free african americans from slavery, but at the cost of a civil war and a period of time where the US was completely divided).

So, while I believe that making promises and inspiring speeches is realistically the only way to get into presidency (Wooing the people), word of mouth has so very little to do with presidency. Bush's intentions may have been good to the public, but then again, what's been happening since the good intention of "Elimenating the Terrorist Threat"? A huge war that now has a huge problem, we stay and cause relationship damage to quite a few nations as well as our own government, we leave, a Civil war is probable to break out that is essentially our own doing. What happened with his good intention of getting the economy back in order? We were in debt so harshly and his solution was to make a tax cut. Our economy is pretty gruesomly damaged and the solution? Rasing minimum wage. Yes, good intentions to stimulate the economy are present, but rasing minimum wage will not stimulate the economy, it's going to stimulate inflation for the worse.

My point is, we have so many problems to deal with due to this failure of an administration, and whether or not Bush is the majority of the problem, whether or not Kerry or Gore would have done better or worse, and whether or not bush has good intentions, we can't focus on this. We cannot focus on what has been said or what might be true, and what we should focus on is what we can do, what we can accomplish today that will help tommorrow help the day after.

[TEMPLAR67]

what's been happening since the good intention of "Elimenating the Terrorist Threat"? A huge war that now has a huge problem, we stay and cause relationship damage to quite a few nations as well as our own government, we leave, a Civil war is probable to break out that is essentially our own doing. What happened with his good intention of getting the economy back in order? We were in debt so harshly and his solution was to make a tax cut. Our economy is pretty gruesomly damaged and the solution?

The reason this war is still going on is because we are too concerned about being politically correct instead of fighting a war. the only thing these terrorist understand is violence and pain, the only way to win is to make them too terrifyed to fight us, and just start killing them off. And last time i checked our economy is doin pretty dam good.

[Gilliatt]

the only thing these terrorist understand is violence and pain, the only way to win is to make them too terrifyed to fight us, and just start killing them off.

That is exactly what the terrorists think of the Americans.

Maybe you have more in common than you think.

[TEMPLAR67]

That is exactly what the terrorists think of the Americans.

Maybe you have more in common than you think.

your absolutely right, we need to fight like they do and use the greatest weapon in any army's arsenal, fear

[Siberys]

The reason this war is still going on is because we are too concerned about being politically correct instead of fighting a war. the only thing these terrorist understand is violence and pain, the only way to win is to make them too terrifyed to fight us, and just start killing them off. And last time i checked our economy is doin pretty dam good.

Then we become the terrorists that we so desperately want to destroy, thus solving nothing.

And no, our economy is not good, in fact it's incredibly unstable. We've spent over 7 trillion dollars on this war and our deficit is so gargantuan that we won't get the economy back to what it was when Clinton was around for at least another four years in my opinion.

While I agree that currently we are too concerned about being the best and the most righteous in our cause, what you said in that quote is most certainly innacurate in so many ways. Terrorism relies on fear and domination, not necessarily with the use of violence or pain. Have you ever thought about what religion in it's most basic form is? Terrorism. "If you don't do this, this, and that in the name of this god, you will be sent to the fiery pits of hell." That's terrorism, it's putting fear into people to get them to do what is said, that is the basic form of terrorism. Now, does this involve violence or pain? No. It simply states that if you don't do certain things for a certain god, you will go to hell, and nothing more.

"Start killing them off" is also just wrong, and not just innacurate, it's morally unjust to believe that violence is the answer to violence and death is the answer to death. Killing a group of terrorist because they killed so many others, while I agree that it may be one of very few possible options, is not going to solve all our problems.

[Claudius]

If its good to bring democracy at gunpoint then why didn't we invade south africa? European governments are different in form from ours. Perhaps we consider them imperfect. Why don't we invade Europe and establish our perfect US govt (before flames from europeans note my sarcasm )?

[TEMPLAR67]

Terrorism relies on fear and domination, not necessarily with the use of violence or pain.

they obtain their domination and are so feared because they use pain and violence.

Then we become the terrorists that we so desperately want to destroy, thus solving nothing.

but we have the moral ability to stop whenever we want , they dont b/c they're crazy

[Lady Dragonfly]

If its good to bring democracy at gunpoint then why didn't we invade south africa? European governments are different in form from ours. Perhaps we consider them imperfect. Why don't we invade Europe and establish our perfect US govt (before flames from europeans note my sarcasm )?

Because they don't have oil.

[Gilliatt]

Because they don't have oil.

I did not know oil had the right to vote.

[TEMPLAR67]

Because they don't have oil.

we have not been taking oil from iraq, if we were gas would be 75c per gallon

[Lady Dragonfly]

we have not been taking oil from iraq, if we were gas would be 75c per gallon

Why would Big Oil want gas to be sold for 75c per gallon, pray tell?

[Siberys]

but we have the moral ability to stop whenever we want , they dont b/c they're crazy

I'm sorry to say this but that's incredibly selfish, you're basically saying Americans are better than someone else with a poor defense that they must be crazy because of what they believe in. They may be suicide bombing the "enemy" in the name of their god, they may be carrying out missions for a spiritual and in their eyes, a just cause, but that doesn't make us crazy. If we're going to use that word, use it on Americans. We maimed and killed many Native Americans to gain their land, with no respect for them whatsoever, and WE started that one, we were the ones to suddenly attack them for a rather weak excuse. We were the ones to enslave thousands of african americans in the belief that they weren't people because the color of their skins, and then when we decided that this was wrong and some disagreed, we divided the entire nation in half and then started a huge war over this, and after that, even if the Africans were no longer enslaved, it took another hundred or two years to just gain the same rights and privelages that all americans, and still today we have racism and prejudice over a belief that a supposed monotheistic god deems black people not people at all for some reason, I couldn't even find this in any sort of biblical reference, but I've sure as hell heard it from quite a few Klan members who I no longer ascociate with.

Now, think about that. You believe a terrorist is crazy because he would suicide bomb himself in the name of his god, yet in the name of the stereotypical american god, Americans decided to enslave african americans, torture them, and eventually kill them off if they haven't yet worked themselves to death.

So if you plan on using that word, Crazy, in such a general term to undermine a group of people, consider what we have done before we even had issues with middle easterners. I'm not saying that they are right in their cause, but what I am saying is that we are not better than they are just because their ideals don't see eye to eye with ours. We are human beings just as much as they are, and as much as I think you would hate to admit it, you have the same thought capacity, physiology, and psychological capabilities as any other person on this planet, whether it's your next door neighbor, or it's Osama Bin Laden himself. So yes, their ideals aren't that great in my opinion and in many other peoples opinions, yes they have different beliefs than we do and yes some will use that belief to motivate themselves into doing something no matter how drastic it may be, but you are not better than they are because of this, and they are not crazy just because you deem them so.

[Claudius]

Do you think there can be a military solution in Iraq? This US general does not.

March 8, 2007

By LAUREN FRAYER

ASSOCIATED PRESS

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Military force alone is not sufficient to end the violence in Iraq and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the U.S.-backed government, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Thursday.

“This is critical,” Gen. David Petraeus said in his first news conference since taking over command last month. He noted that such political negotiations “will determine in the long run the success of this effort.”

American troops have stepped up efforts to clear and secure major highways around the capital as part of the Baghdad security crackdown, which began last month. The Pentagon has pledged 17,500 combat troops for the capital.

Petraeus said “it was very likely” that additional U.S. forces will be sent to areas outside the capital where militant groups are regrouping, including the Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.

The region has become an increasingly important staging ground for groups including al Qaeda in Iraq. Meanwhile, many Sunni extremists apparently have shifted to Diyala to escape the Baghdad clampdown.

Petraeus declined to predict the size of the expected Diyala reinforcements.

He said that “any student of history recognizes there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency in Iraq.”

“Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient,” Petraeus said. “A political resolution of various differences ... of various senses that people do not have a stake in the successes of Iraq and so forth — that is crucial. That is what will determine, in the long run, the success of this effort."

U.S. officials, including Petraeus’ predecessor Gen. George W. Casey Jr., have long expressed the opinion that no military solution to the Iraq crisis was possible without a political agreement among all the ethnic and religious factions — including some Sunni insurgents.

However, previous overtures to the insurgents all faltered, apparently because of political opposition within Baghdad or Washington to some of the conditions.

Last year, 11 Sunni insurgent groups working through mediators offered to immediately stop attacks on American-led forces in Iraq if the Shi'ite-led government and Washington set a two-year timetable for withdrawing all coalition forces from the country, according to insurgent and government officials.

The groups did not include several major groups, including the Islamic Army in Iraq, Muhammad’s Army and the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella for eight militant groups including al Qaeda in Iraq.

The Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported last year that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad met seven times with insurgent representatives in late 2005 and early 2006. But the extremists broke off the contacts in April 2006 after the U.S. side failed to respond to a series of demands.

The United States never confirmed details of the account ,but Khalilzad later said he believed his contacts with Sunni groups had contributed to a temporary decline in U.S. battle deaths, which fell in March 2006 to 31 — their lowest level in two years.

One of Iraq’s most expansive militias — the Mahdi Army of radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr — appears to have set aside its weapons under intense government pressure to lend support to the Baghdad security plan.

Mahdi militiamen also have allowed Iraqi authorities to try to protect at least a million pilgrims heading to Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad.

Many are making the traditional trek on foot for rituals beginning Friday to mark the end of a 40-day mourning period for Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Hussein’s death in a 7th-Century battle near Karbala cemented the schism between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

The processions have proved to be vulnerable targets, with attacks killing more than 170 people this week.

Copyright © 2007 Detroit Free Press Inc

[TEMPLAR67]

I'm sorry to say this but that's incredibly selfish, you're basically saying Americans are better than someone else with a poor defense that they must be crazy because of what they believe in. They may be suicide bombing the "enemy" in the name of their god, they may be carrying out missions for a spiritual and in their eyes, a just cause, but that doesn't make us crazy.

Yes, first off i feel that at least i am superior to these animal-like terrorist, and second, if strapping a bomb to yourself in the belief that you will be given 72 virgins if you do it, if that dosent qualify you to be crazy, then i dont know what does.

Now, think about that. You believe a terrorist is crazy because he would suicide bomb himself in the name of his god, yet in the name of the stereotypical american god, Americans decided to enslave african americans, torture them, and eventually kill them off if they haven't yet worked themselves to death.

you may consider the "american god" stereotypical? well at least he isnt telling his ppl to go and blow themselves up . on that second part, granted some slave owners were cruel to their slaves, but look at it from the prospective of the other owners, torturing and killing your "property" would cause you to lose money (since you did pay normally quite a bit of money for them) you would want them in the best condition possible so they could produce as much as possible, a weak, beaten slave could not make you as much money. And if every slave was tortured and beaten so badly how come most of them stayed even after they were freed

We are human beings just as much as they are, and as much as I think you would hate to admit it, you have the same thought capacity, physiology, and psychological capabilities as any other person on this planet, whether it's your next door neighbor, or it's Osama Bin Laden himself

I dont believe that these terrorist should be considered human beings, do normal humans saw off ppls heads with a knife? b/c it seems to be becoming common practice over there.

Do you think there can be a military solution in Iraq? This US general does not.

that general is somewhat right, for a military solution to work we will have to be far more aggressive and not think about what the rest of the world thinks about us, they will hate us no matter what we do

[mr_sir]

Yes, first off i feel that at least i am superior to these animal-like terrorist, and second, if strapping a bomb to yourself in the belief that you will be given 72 virgins if you do it, if that dosent qualify you to be crazy, then i dont know what does.

Why are they animal-like? Because they have different beliefs and a different culture to yourself? Also, are the fighters in Iraq really terrorists when it was the US and UK armed forces that invaded THEIR country?

you may consider the "american god" stereotypical? well at least he isnt telling his ppl to go and blow themselves up . on that second part, granted some slave owners were cruel to their slaves, but look at it from the prospective of the other owners, torturing and killing your "property" would cause you to lose money (since you did pay normally quite a bit of money for them) you would want them in the best condition possible so they could produce as much as possible, a weak, beaten slave could not make you as much money. And if every slave was tortured and beaten so badly how come most of them stayed even after they were freed I dont believe that these terrorist should be considered human beings, do normal humans saw off ppls heads with a knife? b/c it seems to be becoming common practice over there.

Look back over the last two millenia and you will see the following all carried out in the name of the Christian God (even if it wasn't what Christianity actually preaches):

- mass murders and massacres all in the name of a "holy crusade" against the "savages"
- women murdered because they didn't fit in to what society deemed as "normal" and accused of being evil without so much as a fair trial
- countless psychotic people inciting mass suicide because God "told them to do it" and others committing murder or mass murder because they were "told to do it by God"
- Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland blowing each other up because they believed only they had right to that land, even though fundamentally they both believe in the same God.
- Women not being allowed equal rights to worship their god for centuries because "men have more rights in the eyes of God", even though the bible says everyone was created equal.

And there are loads more examples than just those. How is any of that any different to terrorists killing people in the name of Islam? Its how they are interpreting their religion, even if that interpretation is not actually what Islam preaches at all.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. The Iraqi freedom fighters see the US and UK as the terrorists and "crazy" as they were happy with how their country was, if they weren't then they wouldn't be resisting change so much.

[Gilliatt]

for a military solution to work we will have to be far more aggressive and not think about what the rest of the world thinks about us, they will hate us no matter what we do

So if I understand you well, it is the rest of the world against the USA.
Are you trying to say that if the rest of the world is against the USA that means the rest of the world is wrong and the USA is the only one that is right?

Edit: You are right there was sarcasm in my other post. But there is none in that one.