GarzaUK said:Great Presidents unite his/her nation for his/her cause, Bush has completely divided his. (Quite a feat for a "war-time" President)
Vive le France! lol
I guess if they hadn’t been tortured or shot for even speaking out against Saddam they might have formed a militia that could overtake the half a million thugs in power. Lol The type of government they are setting up is the one they want. It does not have much of a resembelance to ours. It is a representative government meaning none of the major factions will be left out of the process. In many ways it is probably better than ours.In Iraq, we brought democracy upon a country. If the people wanted democracy, they should have democratized themselves. We can not tell a country that "democracy if best. Why? Because We Said SO!!". Let them find their own way.
Main Entry: ter•ror•ismWhat is terrorism? An act causing terror, as the name suggests? If that's the case, than who are the bigger terrorists: the USA or Al-Qaeda. After all, Al-Qaeda is fighting for what they believe to be a just cause. We are fighting for what we believe to be a just cause. Both sides inflict terror on the other, only we have an organised military, making it much much easier for us to inflict terror on them.
That is why they are not entitled to the same protection that military men and women are. Communism is certainly becoming less common, so that is yet to be determined. The war on drugs probably isn’t winnable either, but that doesn’t mean you don’t try to “control” it.You cannot declare war on 'terrorism'. It is about as specific as declaring war on the atlantic ocean, and about as effective as the war against communism. You cannot defeat an ideology:
Old and powerless? What have you been smoking? Saddam was funding terrorist cells for years. We had more reason to go after Saddam due to his violation of the no fly zone and UN sanctions/resolutions. Maybe the Saudis are next on the list. That will make ya all happy. LolDon't fight a poor 3rd world country, run by an old, powerless dictator, not harboring terrorists. i've said it before and I'll say it again: why didn't we go after the Saudis???
Squawker said:President Bush didn't divide the country, that was going on before and during the Reagan administration. Clinton definitely added to it.
I guess if they hadn’t been tortured or shot for even speaking out against Saddam they might have formed a militia that could overtake the half a million thugs in power. Lol The type of government they are setting up is the one they want. It does not have much of a resembelance to ours. It is a representative government meaning none of the major factions will be left out of the process. In many ways it is probably better than ours.
Main Entry: ter•ror•ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter•ror•ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter•ror•is•tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
That’s the difference.
That is why they are not entitled to the same protection that military men and women are. Communism is certainly becoming less common, so that is yet to be determined. The war on drugs probably isn’t winnable either, but that doesn’t mean you don’t try to “control” it.
Old and powerless? What have you been smoking? Saddam was funding terrorist cells for years. We had more reason to go after Saddam due to his violation of the no fly zone and UN sanctions/resolutions. Maybe the Saudis are next on the list. That will make ya all happy. Lol
pwo said:anomaly,
Even america needed help in it's revolution. Viva le France. lol
That is what half the country is wondering. Why do you think the UN or Clinton didn’t do their job?. If we were concerned about torture, why didn't we invade Iraq when it was actually happening (the 90's).
The only underground they know is the DU. The pundants claim they joined the environmentalist movement. As a party they are not going to gain any power in the US or most of the world.let me start by saying that communism has gone 'underground' since 1968.
We should attack any country that poses a threat to us or our allies, any country that aids or condones terrorists and any country that defies UN resolutions. An empty promise of retaliation means nothing. The UN could help all the countries you named too. Ask them why they don’t do it. Wait, I think we know – they are making too much money dealing with third world thugs. You just want to trash America and this is getting old. The US can do nothing right according to you. I always wonder why people want to come here when we are supposed to be so evil.So should we attack all these countries? No. Should we have attacked Iraq? No.
pwo said:Thanks Parcridge,
Ya know, i have heard that a lot. "if they wanted to be free, then they should have fought for it themselves" I would like to see liberals fight for freedom. NO weapons. NO chance in hell. Just get tortured to death for standing up.
redboy220 said:To those who say Vive le France:
You have to realize that if it were not for us there would be two times in the last century that the French would be speaking German and attending Oktoberfest
Saddam was a threat even though the chemical weapons were not found.And just quickly, Iraq was not a big threat to the west, not even a threat. North Korea is the biggest threat squawker, yet the US wants to TALK to them not invade them.
Squawker said:Saddam was a threat even though the chemical weapons were not found.
Source
anomaly said:He was? I read your link, and yet we still knew that the Saudis were supporting terrorism much moreso than Saddam. In fact, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda would never ally themselves with Saddam: They are militant ISLAMISTS, Saddam was known to support secularization. If you want to fight countries harboring terrorism, you've got Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. And these countries support terrorism much more so than Iraq. It seems to me that the terrorists mentioned in your link were simply in Iraq. Did Saddam actually know? Perhaps the terrorists got there after we invaded? Your link really doesn't provide reason for Iraq being a threat. It just says that terrorists were in Iraq. Terrorists are in the USA too, and Canada. Should we invade ourselves? Should we invade Canada?
I expect it was because Saddam wouldn't co-operate where as the other countries made noises about it. The location of Iraq probably had something to do with it also.If you want to fight countries harboring terrorism, you've got Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia.
Squawker said:We should attack any country that poses a threat to us or our allies, any country that aids or condones terrorists and any country that defies UN resolutions. An empty promise of retaliation means nothing. The UN could help all the countries you named too. Ask them why they don’t do it. Wait, I think we know – they are making too much money dealing with third world thugs. You just want to trash America and this is getting old. The US can do nothing right according to you. I always wonder why people want to come here when we are supposed to be so evil.
clearview said:Why is attacking the only option discussed? We have our own terrororist organizations here (gangs, white supremists, neo-Natzi's, religious zealots killing doctors, etc., etc.), yet we don't wage war on them. In fact, we tend to look the other way unless we are personally affected by it. Pearl Harbor brought us into WW II, this so-called war on terror was brought to us by 9/11. Where were we, the Super Power, before that?
I agree with the opinion that we are terrorists ourselves, but we tend to wrap our actions in the flag and the poetry of freedom and democracy, so that makes it different somehow. Basic fact is, we, the United States of America, don't always wear the white hat, we are not always right, and we could actually learn from other nations. But no, we are cocky. Our own government was happy controlling and manipulating our enemies to promote our own political and economic agenda (follow the money) until we got hit here at home. How dare they! We Americans forget how young and foolish we are... our nation is still very young -- a teenager compared to the rest of the world, and like teenagers, we know best -- right?
Enough trashing of America? I think it's long overdue. Enough hiding behind God, the flag, and ignorance, refusing to acknowledge the injustices done under red, white and blue. This is not trashing America. This is having the humility to take an honest look at what is wrong with our country, because ONLY through that can we make it better! The founders of our country looked at what was wrong in the old world ruled by tyranny before deciding to take action, and what action to take, in order to make a new world ruled by democracy... of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE.
Just an observation -- when conservatives call liberal talk shows, they do actually get on the air to speak their piece, however, conservative friends, starting every debate with "You people..." and yelling at the host does nothing to bridge the divide already there. I just don't recall democracy applying to only our people, by only you people, and for only my people. Sorry, I digress.
I can still love my country in spite of its faults, and I do! I will defend it when it needs it, but I will not be so arrogant to defend it when it's wrong. That is my right -- to exercise the freedom of speech those before us gave us. I want the U.S. to succeed, and I want to be proud of what we have accomplished, but I want it done HONESTLY and HONORABLY!
We did something because we felt we had to, not because we had to. Your perception is your reality. Some day perhaps the world will move beyond force, but unfortunately the change has to come from humans, and as a species we are too engrossed with ourselves to put anything like peace before our egos. If we truly want to be a global leader, we should lead intelligently and by being strong enough to look at other solutions. How can you possibly hope to promote peace through war?
Billo_Really said:Walk you talk. Impeach Bush at the link below.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/impeachment/petition2.htm
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?