| mystic_rhythms 03.04.2007 10:37 |
Big news involving the United States and the 'war' in Iraq. Congress has passed a bill that provides over $97.5 billion for the U.S. Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a catch: The bill states that soldiers will steadily withdraw from Iraq within 120 days, with most combat operations ceasing by March 31, 2008. President George W. Bush, however, has announced that he will veto any bill that puts a timetable on troop withdrawal from Iraq, claiming that "...we expect there to be no strings on our commanders. And that we expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people’s money.” In other words, he wants a bill that funds the soldiers in Iraq with no strings, such as troop withdrawal, attached. Going back to the subject: he just doesn't get it...Bush is NOT going to get far by vetoing any strategy that would get our soldiers out over time. We're not saying for everyone to leave now: we're saying that we'll settle for something that gives them the money and resources they need, but we would like something good in return. Bush has also claimed that if he has no bill to sign by next month, he will be forced to cut back on current resources in Iraq, meaning a cut in equipment, weapons, and maintenance. In short, it will cause even more problems than what we have now. I hate how politicians are always saying stuff like "if we leave Iraq, there will be dire consequences" or shit like that. They paint the picture that all hell will break loose if we leave. All hell is already breaking loose! Listen to me on this: I am a soldier in the United States Army. Although I have yet to experience the 'war' in Iraq, that does not mean that I have not heard the stories, that I have not analyzed our situation. Yes, we do have somewhat of a reason to still be there (train Iraqi soldiers, nothing wrong with that) but the fact that they want us to be there for even longer than we should is just too much. I'll be honest, I think we have overstayed our welcome, and it's only a matter of time before things get out of hand not only over there, but here in the States. If Bush continues to veto these bills, there will be a massive public outcry. Bush has already slipped in the polls (more than half the population does not trust his decision-making and his actions towards the 'war'), and he is quickly becoming a President elected by the people, AGAINST the people. Our country has been through enough wars to know what to do and what not to do, and it seems the powers-that-be do not understand where the citizens stand on all this. George W. better strike a deal with Congress. If he doesn't, there will be a devastating backlash on our military, our government, and (most importantly), our people. -=Brian=- p.s. as you can see, whenever I address our situation in Iraq, I quote the word 'war', because it's not much of a 'war' anymore...it's a waste of time, money, and manpower. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.04.2007 10:46 |
mystic_rhythms wrote: I hate how politicians are always saying stuff like "if we leave Iraq, there will be dire consequences" or shit like that.What they should have said was "if we ENTER Iraq, there will be dire consequences". From the beginning Bush has said he'd veto any spending bill with troop-withdrawal strings attached. It's no surprise. Nothing this idiot does is a surprise. Not that it will do us or our soldiers any good, but if/when he does veto this bill, the lack of supplies and funds needed over there will be HIS fault and his fault alone. Unfortunately, I find no comfort in that. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 03.04.2007 14:20 |
This is all part of his plan, haven't you guys figured that out yet? He knows the people hate him, and he knows that he's unpopular. But he also knows that there will not be massive protests publicly against him (for more than a day or so) and he also knows that the Democrats don't have the majority needed to hold impeachment hearings (the Republicans may be the minority, but they still need some of them to swing to the Democrats to impeach him. None of them are willing to do that). So, of course he'll veto the bill. He's got nothing to loose. They can't impeach him because the Democrats don't have enough power, and they can't over-ride the veto because they don't have enough power either. So, he'll veto, and he's PRAYING that they won't come up with a budget he can sign. That way, he can cut the supplies needed by our military, and when things go to hell (as if they aren't already there) he can turn around and blame the Democrats, saying "They tied my hands....They wanted it this way....its THEIR fault." The only way he can come out looking better than when he went it is to veto the bill and have nothing happen to replace it. If they do come up with something for him to sign that he does sign, then he touts it as a victory. I can't believe people are surprised by this. It's common sense, and anyone with half a brain can see it. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.04.2007 17:08 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: I can't believe people are surprised by this. It's common sense, and anyone with half a brain can see it.I worked for a guy who was constantly doing the most insane and obnoxious things. Not only did he get away with them, but he somehow advanced his position time after time. While it never 'surprised' me, I was always amazed at his brazen arrogance and how he always came out of things unscathed. I think it's that same disgust - not surprise - that many of us feel toward the attitude and actions of this unfortunate choice of president. |
| user name 03.04.2007 18:05 |
You worked for President Bush!? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.04.2007 18:28 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: You worked for President Bush!?LMAO! |
| mystic_rhythms 03.04.2007 19:32 |
That was funny Music Man. Good to know some people have a sense of humor about this. You know, maybe this is a sign. We've been rolling down the wrong road for quite some time, and I think the President needs to understand that you gotta know when to step up, and when to back down. But nope. Bush believes that by backing down, we would fail our mission in Iraq. My rebuttal is this: what mission? We first went in under the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A few investigations later, and we find NOTHING. Bush then claims that Saddam is plotting to commit heinous crimes against the Iraqi population. We caught him, and they killed him. Doesn't that mean, mission accomplished?... I guess not. We knew when to get out of Vietnam, i mean it was a little too late, but hey. Better late then never. It doesn't help our country, and it doesn't help our image if we continue to procrastinate about a country that we should have no business with at this point. We've done what we need to do. What else is there? -=Brian=- |
| user name 03.04.2007 19:53 |
I say just wait till election '08 if you're hoping for any changes in foreign policy. You can't reasonably believe that GW is just going to suddenly adopt the Democrats' stance on the war. I honestly don't think another two years is going to matter THAT much. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 03.04.2007 20:19 |
Except to the soldiers who die between now and then, and their families, and the innocent Iraqis and their families. Oh, and possibly Iran if he decided to adopt the same stance with them. |
| sparrow 21754 03.04.2007 23:09 |
mystic_rhythms wrote: That was funny Music Man. Good to know some people have a sense of humor about this. You know, maybe this is a sign. We've been rolling down the wrong road for quite some time, and I think the President needs to understand that you gotta know when to step up, and when to back down. But nope. Bush believes that by backing down, we would fail our mission in Iraq. My rebuttal is this: what mission? We first went in under the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A few investigations later, and we find NOTHING. Bush then claims that Saddam is plotting to commit heinous crimes against the Iraqi population. We caught him, and they killed him. Doesn't that mean, mission accomplished?... I guess not. We knew when to get out of Vietnam, i mean it was a little too late, but hey. Better late then never. It doesn't help our country, and it doesn't help our image if we continue to procrastinate about a country that we should have no business with at this point. We've done what we need to do. What else is there? -=Brian=-what he shouldve been doing is worrying about his own country, protecting us here, instead of trying to change another country cuz daddy didnt finish his job. what they shouldve been fighting for is to FIND THE GODDAMN TERRORISTS THAT SO EASILY ELUDE US. thers so much technology out there and forensic work that could find them within a month, im sure! but were too distracted with a war that shouldnt be happening. find the terrorists that caused the mess of 9/11, and come home. but since there is already a fight goign on in the hallways, its hard to break them up when someone else caused it. not sure if im making sense at all, but i guess im saying is, bush made his bed, he has to lie in it because theres really no tactful way around this. he shouldve attacked the people who were clearly against us, instead of an excuse to finish his dads job. its all just a circus now. whoever takes over after bush i hope does a much better job, and does a decent job cleaning up his mess. i raelly dont know much about politics, or how they work, to be honest, but i am american, i observe his flaws, and i cant stand bush being a president. his first mistake was manipulating his way into an office. its really a wonder that he hasnt been harmed. |
| john bodega 03.04.2007 23:25 |
"Bush has also claimed that if he has no bill to sign by next month, he will be forced to cut back on current resources in Iraq" That really is tantamount to murdering his own troops. I feel. |
| user name 03.04.2007 23:43 |
Well, one could easily argue that, to some degree, Congress is also playing politics with our soldiers' lives and are just as much to blame for the soldiers' deaths. "Here, you can have the funds necessary to protect the troops, BUT you have to promote my agenda as well." |
| john bodega 04.04.2007 00:00 |
"Congress is also playing politics with our soldiers' lives and are just as much to blame for the soldiers' deaths." Well... yeah! |
| The Mir@cle 04.04.2007 05:16 |
Well... first, this situation is indirectly caused by the American population itself... After four years Bush-regime, the whole world was already sick and tired of him. Though the Americans re-voted him. Now the whole word has to eat the consequences of that. I don't know why Bush is so ignorant. His own population is turning against him, same is the rest of the world. Though he keeps going and going. The situation will stay unstable for many years, with or without the support of foreign troops. Though he should understand that the Americans are really unwanted there. Therefore he should hurry with training Iraqi people. Beside that, other countries can help. About Iran... I think is 'smart' enough to avoid an even bigger mess. But maybe he should have attacked Iran in the first place, instead of Iraq. As I believe that Iran is a bigger thread to the world population that Iraq has ever been. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 04.04.2007 07:15 |
<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: Though the Americans re-voted him.HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch. |
| Mr.Jingles 04.04.2007 07:21 |
I find it hilarious how Bush calls members of congress who have voted for an Iraq pull-out by 2008 "irresponsible". The only thing "irresponsible" about Congress was buying Bush's bullshit fairy tale stories back in 2003. |
| The Mir@cle 04.04.2007 07:22 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I should have said "too much Americans". ;)<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: Though the Americans re-voted him.HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 04.04.2007 08:21 |
<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:Ah, yes. That would work. All is forgiven. :)magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I should have said "too much Americans". ;)<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: Though the Americans re-voted him.HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 04.04.2007 11:02 |
Indeed. Please no one think that ALL Americans voted for him. Just enough did to get him in. I know that when I cast by ballot, I'm damn sure I didn't select his name. (Of course, I didn't select Kerry's name, either) Attacking Iran or Iraq...either would have been a mistake, as we've now proven, and I've described on various other threads here. But Iran may have bought us some more time before Iraq become a nuclear power. Iraq was starting from farther behind. Just look at Afghanistan, for crying out loud! One of my friend's fathers (a lifetime army officer) just got notice that he has been mobilized, and orders will be cut within the next month either to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Germany. Needless to say, she's hoping for Germany. But, the fact that we still HAVE to have troops in Afghanistan shows how we royally screwed that up. We should be well out of there by now. As far as Congress and the President using the troops for political gain...duh! They are politicians, that's what they do. People in politics have never shied away from using the military and human lives for political gain. That has been going on since Ancient Mesopotamia, and probably back further than that. Put the political powers in control of the military, that's what you get. Now granted you have to have some reign on the military, or it would just go off on its own, and that could lead to chaos. It's a catch 22 either way. As far as Bush getting a clue of what's going on with the American people....fat chance. He's surrounded himself by "Yes" men (and women). People who will tell him whatever he wants to hear, and can spin the truth of what the popularity polls indicate in a way that he can accept them. "It's not that 70 percent of Americans hate you, Mr. President. They are frustrated with the lack of progress on the war on Terror, so if you beef it up, that number will go down." When you surround yourself with these kinds of people...lets just say your perception of reality is a little off kilter. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 04.04.2007 11:45 |
Out of Afghanistan by now? Are you serious? That's part of the problem with today's microwave society. Afghanistan bankrupted Russia in the last 80's, partially with our help, but to think that we would be in and out of there is beyond silly. In fact, what happened there is pretty well what people wanted to have happen in Iraq, get our boys out for the most part, and have an international force doing the work. For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge. Revisionist history at it's best. Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII? For the record, I do not agree with many of Bush's decisions in Iraq, but to think that John Kerry would have done anything vastly different since 2004 is, again, beyond silly. If we do pull out of Iraq, the situation in the Middle East is going to get 1000x worse. We need to be there. In the long term, looking 30-50 years down the road, it will be well worth the sacrifice. Problem is, both emotionally and politically speaking, the American public just does not have the stomach to deal with what needs to be done, the time it will take, and the lives that will be lost. They want everything done now. It just don't work that way, never has, never will. Like it or not, we had our chance in 2003 to get a foothold right smack dab in the center of the Middle East, and we took it. That I agree with, and would do it again in a heartbeat. Decisions made since are questionable, but to cut and run would spell disaster on an epic proportion, not only for us, but the Middle East and the world in general. |
| Maz 04.04.2007 12:15 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge. Revisionist history at it's best.The Khmer Rouge was in Cambodia, not Vietnam. In fact, it was an invasion by Vietnamese forces that finally put an end to the slaughter. link As for the "vacuum" comment, the US never had the presence in or commitment to Cambodia that it did with Vietnam. Saying that the crisis would have been averted if the US had no wavered in its support is similar to blaming most atrocities on US/Western apathy - true to an extent, but generally overlooking the reality of modern politics. |
| Maz 04.04.2007 12:22 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region. |
| Mr.Jingles 04.04.2007 12:28 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Out of Afghanistan by now? Are you serious? That's part of the problem with today's microwave society. Afghanistan bankrupted Russia in the last 80's, partially with our help, but to think that we would be in and out of there is beyond silly.Guess what the Taliban government did with the money and weapons we gave them after the Russians left? Looks like we never learn from our own mistakes. |
| Mr.Jingles 04.04.2007 12:36 |
Why can't we just impeach Bush and everyone in his administration and let them face trial for all the lies they've been telling us for the past 6 years? It would be good if we could call for elections right now. Any of the leading candidates is much better than Bush in power for another 20 months. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 04.04.2007 12:53 |
Zeni wrote:So, you are saying that if the US forces had been there, that the Khmer Rouge would have taken over Cambodia? None of that would have happened.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge. Revisionist history at it's best.The Khmer Rouge was in Cambodia, not Vietnam. In fact, it was an invasion by Vietnamese forces that finally put an end to the slaughter. link As for the "vacuum" comment, the US never had the presence in or commitment to Cambodia that it did with Vietnam. Saying that the crisis would have been averted if the US had no wavered in its support is similar to blaming most atrocities on US/Western apathy - true to an extent, but generally overlooking the reality of modern politics. One can argue being there in the first place, but, once there, you can easily look up the disaster that happened surrounding Vietnam after we left. All I am saying, and I believe rightfully so, is that if the US pulls out of Iraq in a similar fashion as we did in Vietnam, you'll see a similar result with neighboring countries as you saw in Cambodia and beyond. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 04.04.2007 12:55 |
Zeni wrote:Which is why we'll be in the Middle East for a long time to come. We were first in Germany and Japan for stability.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region. |
| YourValentine 04.04.2007 13:03 |
"About Iran... I think is 'smart' enough to avoid an even bigger mess. But maybe he should have attacked Iran in the first place, instead of Iraq. As I believe that Iran is a bigger thread to the world population that Iraq has ever been." You think the USA can attack any country they choose? It was already illegal to attack Iraq who had not done anything to the USA. Not even the ruthless lies by the Bush administration got them a vote for the war by the UN. Iran has never attacked any of their neighbours. They were attacked by Iraq in the first gulf war when Saddam Hussein was still supported by the USA who funded this war. Today Iran announced they will send the 15 British soldiers home who were caught when they allegedly entered Iranian territory. They won't be taken to a concentration camp in another country, they won't be detained for years without charges, without legal assistance and without contact with their families. They won't be tortured until they "confess" and finally be tried in a secret miltary tribunal that does not even remotely look like a lawful trial. Now - who are the war criminals ? |
| Maruga 04.04.2007 13:20 |
Bush, learn the lesson... DON'T INVENT MORE WARS, STAY AWAY FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD... We don't want you!!!.. |
| Maz 04.04.2007 13:23 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: So, you are saying that if the US forces had been there, that the Khmer Rouge would have taken over Cambodia? None of that would have happened. One can argue being there in the first place, but, once there, you can easily look up the disaster that happened surrounding Vietnam after we left.But it's revisionist to say we were ever in Cambodia. Yes, we had influence and supported a pro-American govt; no, our presence was limited and never equaled Vietnam. You are arguing that the Khmer Rouge would never have happened if we hadn't left Vietnam, which is just as revisionist as the other side. Communism continued to grow in spite of US intervention in Southeast Asia. Remember, China "fell" to the Communists while we were in Japan and cultural purges, which most likely surpassed the Khmer Rouge, still occurred. But remove all of that. Do you really think America would have supported an invasion of Cambodia...oh wait, they didn't in 1970/1971, which ended up with widespread protests in the US. It's revisionist to argue that we should never have left in 1975 when years before tension was mounting. There were realities at play that had to be acknowledged. |
| Maz 04.04.2007 13:24 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote:So, American Imperialism is a good thing then?Zeni wrote:Which is why we'll be in the Middle East for a long time to come. We were first in Germany and Japan for stability.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region. |
| user name 04.04.2007 13:58 |
Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade. However, in the United States, it is our common belief that the military be used exclusively for defending our homeland. That means we don't hit...we only hit back. As for Iraq, yeah, it'll be all shitted up if we leave. And for Iraq, it would be several times better if we stay the whole way through. But you have to ask yourself, "Is this the true purpose of our military?" Then, when you decide it isn't, you have to ask, "But are we not responsible for building Iraq back to stability, since we were, in fact, responsible for destabilizing it?" See, you lose either way. It's not so black and white. I don't think anyone's clearly right in this debate, we only think we are if we pick sides. It's kind of like the abortion debate, except perhaps even moreso subjective. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 04.04.2007 14:54 |
Haystacks, I think you are misinterpreting what I meant. I don't think we should be out of Afghanistan right now as in leaving it a vacuum a la Vietnam. What I meant was that we should have focused our efforts there in the first place, and if we had truly focused our efforts there, then they'd be at a point now where we could be out. I'm not saying we pull out now...that would be a huge mistake. But we should have done the job there that we went in to do, and then we could be out. Our biggest mistake was averting our attention from there and trying to divide it between Afghanistan and another conflict (in this case Iraq). You can't win a war like this on several fronts....history has proven this on numerous occassions. Focus your fighting and skills on one front, win that one, and then move on to the next. Or you stretch yourself too thin, and then you don't win anything. |
| YourValentine 04.04.2007 17:48 |
"However, in the United States, it is our common belief that the military be used exclusively for defending our homeland. That means we don't hit...we only hit back." How does that apply to the war in Iraq? Iraq was about the only Middle east country where terrorist did not dare to operate. No Iraqi was in the planes on 9/11 and no Iraqi attacked your homeland "As for Iraq, yeah, it'll be all shitted up if we leave. And for Iraq, it would be several times better if we stay the whole way through. But you have to ask yourself, "Is this the true purpose of our military?" So, what exactly is the true purpose of your military in Iraq? They did not come as invited guests or in a legitimate UN mission. |
| user name 04.04.2007 18:00 |
YourValentine wrote: "However, in the United States, it is our common belief that the military be used exclusively for defending our homeland. That means we don't hit...we only hit back." How does that apply to the war in Iraq? Iraq was about the only Middle east country where terrorist did not dare to operate. No Iraqi was in the planes on 9/11 and no Iraqi attacked your homeland "As for Iraq, yeah, it'll be all shitted up if we leave. And for Iraq, it would be several times better if we stay the whole way through. But you have to ask yourself, "Is this the true purpose of our military?" So, what exactly is the true purpose of your military in Iraq? They did not come as invited guests or in a legitimate UN mission.The argument was that the military should never have been in Iraq in the first place. I'm not seeing where you're going. I think you completely misinterpreted the post and should read it again. Perhaps my writing was not very clear, and I apologize for that. The point is this: The military should never have been in Iraq in the first place. However, since the instability in Iraq is our country's fault, we also have a responsibility to stabilize it. Therefore, while both arguments are true, they contradict each other. |
| YourValentine 04.04.2007 20:18 |
I agree with your last statement completely. I did re-read your post and in all honesty you seemed to say the exact opposite :-) |
| magicalfreddiemercury 04.04.2007 20:19 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Like it or not, we had our chance in 2003 to get a foothold right smack dab in the center of the Middle East, and we took it. That I agree with, and would do it again in a heartbeat. Decisions made since are questionable, but to cut and run would spell disaster on an epic proportion, not only for us, but the Middle East and the world in general.Get a foothold in the center of the Middle East? So is that the NEWest new reason why we went to Iraq? Not because they had weapons of mass destruction? Not because there was a direct link between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Not because Saddam was a cruel dictator and we had to liberate the Iraqi people? Not because, as our dear divisive george said, jesus told him we should? And not because Saddam's the man who tried to kill bush-baby's daddy? Instead it was to get a foothold in the center of the Middle East? Now if only he'd said that from the beginning. I'm sure the world would have supported us then. Yes? And btw... setting an exit goal and thereby forcing higher-ups to plan a strategy for said goal is not what most would call 'cut and run'. Haystacks Calhounski wrote: All I am saying, and I believe rightfully so, is that if the US pulls out of Iraq in a similar fashion as we did in Vietnam, you'll see a similar result with neighboring countries as you saw in Cambodia and beyond. And you don't think we're seeing this result NOW? With US troops still there? Look again, my friend, look again. |
| The Mir@cle 05.04.2007 03:20 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote:Stability? Ok, the US helped us to build up everything after the WWII... but they troops went home immediately after Germany surrendered. This is utter bullshit. About bringing stability in the Middle East... the US should do the same now. Helping Iraq to rebuild their country by giving advice, information en resources... but the troops over there won't do any good. They should be slowly replaced by Iraqi's.Zeni wrote:Which is why we'll be in the Middle East for a long time to come. We were first in Germany and Japan for stability.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region. <b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.I hope this is a sarcastic note. magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Beside that, I don't see why is should be like that. Why should a group kill millions of people Iran on other neighbour countries? This doesn't make sense to me at all.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: All I am saying, and I believe rightfully so, is that if the US pulls out of Iraq in a similar fashion as we did in Vietnam, you'll see a similar result with neighboring countries as you saw in Cambodia and beyond.And you don't think we're seeing this result NOW? With US troops still there? Look again, my friend, look again. |
| user name 05.04.2007 14:22 |
<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:And why is that?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.I hope this is a sarcastic note. |
| bigV 05.04.2007 14:47 |
Coincidentally I've been watching "The West Wing" the past few days. It seems rather odd that a fictional character would've made a better president than the current one. It reallys is a strange world we live in. V. |
| Mr.Jingles 05.04.2007 14:51 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:BECAUSE WE KICK ASS!!<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:And why is that?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.I hope this is a sarcastic note. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.04.2007 15:01 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:42.45% of the population voted. Therefore, just over 20% voted for Bush.<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: Though the Americans re-voted him.HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch. |
| user name 05.04.2007 15:01 |
bigV wrote: Coincidentally I've been watching "The West Wing" the past few days. It seems rather odd that a fictional character would've made a better president than the current one. It reallys is a strange world we live in. V.I think it would make more sense that a fictional character would essentially make a better president than any possible nonfictional president... |
| user name 05.04.2007 15:01 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:It's always depressing when that figure comes up.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:42.45% of the population voted. Therefore, just over 20% voted for Bush.<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: Though the Americans re-voted him.HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.04.2007 15:03 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge.And there's silly me thinking the Khmer Rouge were in Cambodia, which the US *bombed* all too gladly, but wasn't at war with. So your stupid phrasing is closer to "Revisionist history at it's best." |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.04.2007 15:09 |
The Bush-administration and its secret rule of lies. A) The Bush-administration had a firm chance to get Bin Laden in the spring and early summer of 2001. They didn't. You know why? The plan came from a Clinton-administration employee. Read Al Kooper for details about it. Sure, he's a comedian, but he does present CORRECT footnotes (compare: Ann Coulter for the exact opposite). B) The Bush-administration was fully aware of the threat of sectarian violence the minute they set foot in Iraq; they were amply advised about it by many non-partisan organisations, as well as their own advisors C) The Bush-administration KNEW that Saddam wasn't supporting terrorists, all sources with any knowledge of the situation stated so. Why didn't he? Same reason as Mussolini: terrorists (or the maffia respectively) were competition. And Saddam was anti-religious. |
| The Mir@cle 06.04.2007 03:19 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:You really believe that America should be the police of the world? If so, than you're just as bad as your ignorant president.<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:And why is that?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.I hope this is a sarcastic note. What if we - as Europeans - believe that America is doing something wrong, and invade your country with troops 'for protection'? Would the American population appreciate that? |
| thomasquinn 32989 06.04.2007 09:13 |
<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:To add to this:<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:You really believe that America should be the police of the world? If so, than you're just as bad as your ignorant president. What if we - as Europeans - believe that America is doing something wrong, and invade your country with troops 'for protection'? Would the American population appreciate that?<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:And why is that?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.I hope this is a sarcastic note. 'The American Way' is not absolute, and it is by no means an ideal solution. By forcing it upon others, you are doing exactly the same as the Crusaders, the Muslim extremists, the Soviet Union, etc. |
| Poo, again 06.04.2007 10:39 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Yes, exactly. Who is to decide who is right or wrong here?<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:To add to this: 'The American Way' is not absolute, and it is by no means an ideal solution. By forcing it upon others, you are doing exactly the same as the Crusaders, the Muslim extremists, the Soviet Union, etc.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:You really believe that America should be the police of the world? If so, than you're just as bad as your ignorant president. What if we - as Europeans - believe that America is doing something wrong, and invade your country with troops 'for protection'? Would the American population appreciate that?<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:And why is that?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.I hope this is a sarcastic note. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 06.04.2007 11:03 |
To state something I said in another post.... Yes, America is f*ing things up...I'll freely admit to that. But don't see Europe standing up to make us stop...in fact I see a Europe where many of your countries are standing side by side with us. Now, that means your countries at least a partially responsible for this "forcing beliefs on others". Granted, I don't think our President would listen to anyone in Europe, but that isn't the point. It's easy to spout off the ideals that you directly violate by your physical actions. If European countries dislike what we do so much, why are they going it with us? Stand up for what you believe is right...then you can criticize. |
| user name 06.04.2007 13:53 |
<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:I am about 99% confident that you didn't read my post at all, took something entirely out of context, and created a baseless argument.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:You really believe that America should be the police of the world? If so, than you're just as bad as your ignorant president. What if we - as Europeans - believe that America is doing something wrong, and invade your country with troops 'for protection'? Would the American population appreciate that?<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:And why is that?<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.I hope this is a sarcastic note. What I said was entirely true, however the entire argument was based on the fact that military should be used exclusively for defense. If anything, that meaning was pervasive throughout my post. If American troops were stationed everywhere, there isn't any doubt that genocides and tyrant regimes would be eliminated, or that capitalism and free trade would be promoted. These are good things. However, not only is this unreasonable, but it defeats the purpose of a military, which is used exclusively to defend. You seem embittered, and jumpy, so I'll try to ignore your unreasonable ire. However, please try to read posts more thoroughly in the future. |