Jack Dawson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2004
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
Going to war was one of the WORST possible choices. Osama, Saddam and them WANTED us to go to war. All it does it drain all our resources (like they said it would and wanted), and makes it easier for the common people in Iraq to agree that we indeed ARE trying to create an Imperial Empire. These terrorist groups need to get their money from somewhere, and the support of the general people can help them a great deal.pwo said:It seems as if you are justifying what the terrorist are doing. You say that going to war proved their point. So, whose side are you on. Do you believe the terrorist should win? Should Saddam still be in power?
Well, he thinks we're building an Imperial Empire. Based on the fact that we have troops stationed in like every country in the world, he DOES have reason to believe we are building an Imperial Empire. Heck, even I'M afraid of what Bush has planned next.pwo said:Gabo,
Here's a question:
Why did Osama attack us on 9/11? I really don't think he had a reason.
I don't watch CNN.pwo said:Also, don't believe everything on CNN.
As someone who believes freedom is the most important part of life, I believe what we have done is wrong and contrary to everything in our constitution. We should not be FORCING democracy on any nation. You can't force people to be governed however you like. They all deserve freedom of their own choice, not whatever we think is best for them.pwo said:We haven't accomplished anything so far? I think that getting Saddam out of power is something. But, for the most part you are right. You can't see the accomplishments because it will take years for them to take effect. Bush is right, countries that are democratic don't start wars with other democratic nations. One less tyrant is a good accomplishment and a good reason for people to like us. As a taxpayer, I am glad to see my money go to the Iraq war.
On the contrary, the thing thats hurting our nation IS the war. We've wasted tons of money, lost plenty of troops, and drained our resources (all just like they wanted us to). If our country had stuck to our isolation principles all the way from the beginning, I doubt this would be happening to us.pwo said:Plus, you didn't answer my last question: are you peacemongering? peacemongering is a term that I made up on this web site a while back. It means encouraging peace so much that it hurts your own country.
I'm the kind of person who won't stand back and watch others FORCE things onto people in the name of "freedom". Freedom cannot be FORCED upon anyone, as its entire purpose is the absence of FORCE. I'm the kind of person that doesn't stand for the government stealing from each and every citizen constantly to fund unnecessary government regulators that prohibit our would-be free economy. I'm the kind of person that thinks freedom truly is the key to a successful country, and I'm not afraid to admit our country's freedom is diminishing fast. I'm the kind of person that is trying to bring government back down to its original purpose of retribution for the violation of rights. I'm the kind of person that wants America to be free.pwo said:PS: We are not horrible people. I know what kind of a person I am. I know what kind of people are troops are. What kind of a person are you.
I'm not even sure if his attack was justified, as I don't know yet whether Bush plans to continue his world conquest. Our nosiness can be traced back for decades, and Osama just did what he thinks was right. He thinks we are trying to overtake them and the rest of the world, and even if he's wrong he isn't that far from the truth.pwo said:1. Was Osama justified for his attack?
It seems that you agree that we are an Imperial Nation. I think that Imperialism died in the early 1900's. No one believes that we went to Iraq for oil or Afghanistan for the same reason. We go there to protect our selves.
Of course I do. But I suppose it WAS necessary to crush Osama (which we never really did, although we made him go into hiding). After that, then is when everything went wrong.pwo said:2. Are you sure that you don't watch CNN?
Im just playing. It seems, though as if you think that everything in Iraq is totally bad.
When we come in and say, "Ok Iraq, you're going to be free whether you like it or not. We're putting people up for a democratic election and whoever wins gets to lead this new 'free' country, even if the majority of people don't want it." I don't see that as giving much choice to the Iraquis. And I don't think they would rather have a dictator, but they needed to realize their own potential freedom for themselves. If we have to 'come to their rescue' this time, who knows how many other times we will have to. Doing it for them makes them the little kids that can't take care of themselves and us the parent who spoils them.pwo said:3. How do you force democracy on another nation?
Democracy is the willingness to be free. Are you trying to say that all of Iraq doesn't want to be free. You're trying to say that they, as a majority, would rather have saddam there than have a democracy.
There choice was: live with a dictatorship or create a rebellion.pwo said:4. "They all deserve freedom of their own choice, not whatever we think is best for them."
Gabo
What's up with that? They had no choice!!! It was tyranny or freedom. Please explain what there choice of freedom was.
Saddam had absolutely no WMD at all. He was not doing anything. The reason they didn't like us is once again because we are nosy to the point where they believe we're building an imperial empire. If we, responding to 9/11, withdrew all our troops from every country and destroyed all barriers for trade between all nations and us, they would have no reason to think we're trying to conquer the world.pwo said:5. Are you sure that you aren't peacemongering?
It is easy to say now that you aren't. Here's an hypothetical situation: Let's say that it is '02 again. President Bush is thinking about going to war in Iraq, but decides not to because of protests from people like you. So, Saddam keeps on funding terrorism against Isreal. Many years later, he gives them WMD's that he has had a chance to work on. Those terrorists decide to go to the US. They attack your town, you peacemongered. No one knew what lies in the future so don't say that it couldn't happen.
Look, before WWII FDR was against the war. Some wanted us to get involved, some protested like Charles Lindbergh. What happend? We got attacked. What if Bush would have gone to Afghanistan before 9/11 some would have protested. I'm not saying you would, but you can't argue that some would. Sometimes war is nessisary.
Isolationism worked for us for the longest time. It works for all countries that use it. Isolationism doesn't necessarily mean pretending everyone else isn't here. Isolationsim is being friendly towards all countries, but creating alliances with none. This way everyone knows we're with them, but we don't need to station all these troops in every country in the world, and we don't need to steal from our people to pay for bureaucratic monsters like the UN.pwo said:6. Should we be isolationist?
Come on that doesn't work. We need to be involved with the world for our intrests and other countries intrests.
They can have it when they decide to have it. If and when they decide they want their freedom they would rebel against Saddam and start a revolution. I'm saying that WE should not be deciding when its time for them to have freedom. That's nosy and further proves their point that we want to control them.pwo said:7. Do you not like the Iraqis?
You say that freedom is important, but they aren't allowed to have it. That's kind of selfish. Your main reasons against the war is for us, like our money. Be caring for a change. To help others we must make sacrifices. Of course, you won't admit it but you are a selfish man in some ways.
Rights are not a privelage, they're....... RIGHTS. Something everyone in the world deserves to have, so long as they are willing to fight for them. We earned our rights so long ago, however they are diminishing fast under our current government rule. And keeping all our rights IS what keeps order in the country.pwo said:8. What is the government's purpose?
You say to keep our rights. I have always heard to keep order. Democracy has not been around forever, your rights are a privledge. A privledge that you take for granted. Others are not so lucky.
Why shouldn't every citizen decide where their money goes? What is so wrong with that? Our country is not utilitarianism (majority rules), at least its not supposed to be. We are supposed to be democracy (everyone rules). With majority rules, only some people get to express their views and have what they want. With everyone rules, each person decides for themselves.pwo said:9. How are your rights diminishing? Explain.
Look, you think that the money that the goverment is using on the war is unnessisary. That's ok. But, they aren't stealing from you. We don't have a direct democracy, we have a republic. You choose the representitves, they choose how to spend the money.So, in a way you had a choice in how we spent our money. Your voice was heard. But it is majority rules. We can't let every citizen choose exactly where there money goes. Look, there are things that I don't like to pay for, but I don't say the gov't is stealing my money.
It's an extremely hard decision. Bush isn't alone for the people who caused 9/11. With him is every president who has supported our annoyingly nosy ways. Osama on the other hand at least did what he thought was right, even if it was an extremely skewed vision of right.pwo said:10. Who do you hate more, Osama or Bush?
Ok, I know how you are going to answer this question. Seriously, don't write back, but I want you to think about it. Seriously, look in the mirror for a while.
Whenever I bring up the fact that our rights are diminishing, people ALWAYS compare us to another country. I don't think that's quite fair, considering our CONSTITUTION calls for us to have LIBERTY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT, whereas their's calls for no such thing. At least they aren't getting less than their government promises.pwo said:11. Do you seriously think that our rights are diminishing?
You can say what you want to can't you. At least you have more rights then the Iraqi people in the Saddam era. We don't realize how many rights we have sometimes.
I hate anyone that illegally supports the reduction of my rights. Considering its inhumane and against the law, I think it is wrong. Our nation of the "free" continues to lobby for more rules and regulations, all of which limit our rights for no reason other than the fact that SOME people want it. SOME people want to control everyone else, tell them what is right and wrong. And because that SOME makes up the majority of the population, that's what happens, despite the fact that its ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. Just because you don't mind the government stealing your money for its own desires doesn't mean everyone in the US believes that.pwo said:12. Why are you so mad?
Seriously, its like you have a personal grudge against Bush. Its cool if you don't agree with him but you hate him. This upsets me because believe it or not Bush is looking out for you. You hate him, yet he loves you. Hating people will get you nowhere. To tell you the truth, you are probally the most anti-war anti-gov't anti-republican and most liberal person that I have ever talked to. That's kind of scary. I hope you don't hate me because even though I don't agree with you, you're still a good person and a fellow american.
I am not a liberal.pwo said:Nevermind.
I can't argue with you.
How can you say that it is a hard choice between bush and osama for who you hate more. You are in the dangerous type of liberalism. Seriously, you need help. I hope some dems read this and back me up. Your not helping liberals, your making them look bad.
By the way 72% voted in Iraq. How's that for forcing democracy on them?
Here's a question:
Why did Osama attack us on 9/11? I really don't think he had a reason.
A harsh definition nonetheless. But I'm sure all the Republicrats agree with it, it sure won't be winning over any new members for us!pwo said:The real text book definition:
Libertarianism: a political idealogogy based on skepticism or opposition towards almost all government activities.
Damn, that's you.
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:Israel. Oil. duh
You would be wrong in your guess. I only post under Vauge.alienken said:The "Gabo" posts is so far off I suspect it's a plant by the admin. to incourage discusion.
If we had absolute monarchy FORCED upon our nation, but were allowed to choose our king do you believe that is us choosing our own future?alienken said:I have to respond to gabo...Have you watched the news recently?Inbetween the coverage of the Michael Jackson trial, there has ben stories about the Iraq elections,The people of Iraq choosing their own future. They will have the power to through us out and believe me, our troops will be happy to leave. This is our track record. We have done this before check out a history book. Japan,Germany,France,ect. The "Gabo" posts is so far off I suspect it's a plant by the admin. to incourage discusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?