• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

President hits new lows in poll

Bleeding Heart said:
The south was lost, because Americans didn't back the mission and we simply left. Unless we can stabilize that country beforte the next two years, the same thing is quite possibly going to happen to the Iraqis. Like I said...crack a book.

Does this mean you'd support bring our guys home if things don't improve over the next two years? It'd be good to have you on our side, better late than never.[/QUOTE]

I'm on the side I have always been on. If the majority of Iraqis that want a freer government, but are not even lifting a finger to help us continue to practice the typical Arab slothfullness that reigns throughout the region soon, they will fail themselves.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I would argue that there are a lot more parallels between the war in Iraq, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan, than there are between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War.


Now that...I would agree to, except we aren't trying to bring oppression or communism to them. Their fate is in their own hands.
 
GySgt said:
Now that...I would agree to, except we aren't trying to bring oppression or communism to them. Their fate is in their own hands.

True, but even in Afghanistan, its not like you did not have a signficant portion of the population in favor of communism at the time. The Soviets were building hospital, schools, and roads. What I mean is that the Soviets probably thought the same thing. I just think these types of wars are really, really, really hard to win. Or I should say, the war is easy, but winning the peace is what is hard.
 
GySgt said:
Does this mean you'd support bring our guys home if things don't improve over the next two years? It'd be good to have you on our side, better late than never.

I'm on the side I have always been on. If the majority of Iraqis that want a freer government, but are not even lifting a finger to help us continue to practice the typical Arab slothfullness that reigns throughout the region soon, they will fail themselves.[/QUOTE]

Why are we going out of our way to help such slothful people? Sounds like you don't think they're worth the trouble.
 
I do not belive in isolationism but I am a firm supprter of the policy of non-intervention.
 
"Why are we going out of our way to help such slothful people? Sounds like you don't think they're worth the trouble."

I do think they are worth the trouble, because I believe we have a responsibility to do what we can for the weak. (I don't call the shots so save your accusations.) How can I say this......Hatred taught to the young seems a lingering cancer of the human condition. And the accusations leveled against us by terrified, embittered men fall upon the ears of those anxious for someone to blame for the ruin of their societies, for the local extermination of opportunities, and for the poverty guaranteed by the brute corruption of their compatriots and the selfish choices of their own leaders to remain in power.

In the decaying Arab world, Islam is the problem—because of the way they interpret and deform its more humane precepts while embracing its cruelest injunctions. This is a problem that has been escalading for decades. By there inability to grow with the rest of the world and holding on to age old practices of oppression, Islam extremists are making a gory mess of their faith. The suicide car bomb attacks on fellow Muslim civilians are a perfect indicator of the utter heartlessness and savagery of Islam in arms. And it is all executed under the facade of a "Jihad" and under the sanctions of "Allah".
The Muslim extremist from the Middle East has one consistent message: Return to the past, for that is what God wants. Beware, no matter his faith, of the man who presumes to tell you what God wants. The bloody-handed terrorists and their mentors are determined to pay any price to frustrate those Muslims who believe that God is capable of smiling, or that it is possible to change the earth without challenging Heaven - and there are millions and millions of Muslims that have already been following their path.

The entire Middle East is wracked with a need to blame. It exonerates them from self-knowledge. They expect to be taken care of or to simply be abused. They have to roll up their sleeves and build their own society, because we cannot force it. All we can do is provide to them the opportunity. The only thing that can fix the Middle East in the end are Mulsims.

For more on this read Post 21 & 22 at this link....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4016
 
Last edited:
Inuyasha said:
I do not belive in isolationism but I am a firm supprter of the policy of non-intervention.


I agree, but when intervention occurs, we have an obligation to finish it.

And by the way, I absolutely cannot stand grenades.
 
The debate on whether we should have invaded Iraq is over so there is no sense about whinning about that..........We are there now and we need to finish the job we have started and then bring the troops hoime.........

We can give the Iraqis a fighting chance for freedom then it is up to them...........

I personally believe they want that freedom and will become a democracy along the lines of Japan.................
 
Navy Pride said:
The debate on whether we should have invaded Iraq is over so there is no sense about whinning about that..........We are there now and we need to finish the job we have started and then bring the troops hoime.........

We can give the Iraqis a fighting chance for freedom then it is up to them...........

I personally believe they want that freedom and will become a democracy along the lines of Japan.................


That's a lot of hope against hope, my Navy friend. I know they want it, but they aren't rolling up their sleeves either. The Kurds are a shining example for the rest of them, but the Sunni and the Shi'ite look down on the Kurds. They are up against the entire ruling class in the Middle East.

I hope you are right. I would hate to see them squander this chance we have given them and the chance it gives us.
 
Navy Pride said:
The debate on whether we should have invaded Iraq is over so there is no sense about whinning about that..........We are there now and we need to finish the job we have started and then bring the troops hoime.........

We can give the Iraqis a fighting chance for freedom then it is up to them...........

I personally believe they want that freedom and will become a democracy along the lines of Japan.................

What dream world are you living in? I don't think Japanese wanted an islamic theocracy. Moreover, we wrote the Japanese Constitution. It looks like the Iraqis want a democracy (if you call it that) more along the lines of an Iranian style theocracy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
What dream world are you living in? I don't think Japanese wanted an islamic theocracy. Moreover, we wrote the Japanese Constitution. It looks like the Iraqis want a democracy (if you call it that) more along the lines of an Iranian style theocracy.

Well, it probably doesn't really matter much to G.W. and company what kind of government they wind up with, so long as we have access to their oil and boots on the ground in the heart of the Middle East. Reagan supported Saddam for years on a similar basis.
 
Bleeding Heart said:
Well, it probably doesn't really matter much to G.W. and company what kind of government they wind up with, so long as we have access to their oil and boots on the ground in the heart of the Middle East. Reagan supported Saddam for years on a similar basis.


What's wrong with getting oil from Iraq? Right now we get our oil from the House of Saud and they have us by the balls. Syria and Iran is a terrorist breeding ground. There is a plan.....
 
GySgt said:
What's wrong with getting oil from Iraq? Right now we get our oil from the House of Saud and they have us by the balls. Syria and Iran is a terrorist breeding ground. There is a plan.....

Oil itself is the problem. Want to release the House of Saud's grip on our proverbial balls? We need to ween the country off the stuff.
 
Bleeding Heart said:
Oil itself is the problem. Want to release the House of Saud's grip on our proverbial balls? We need to ween the country off the stuff.


Great fix. Until Wal-Mart starts selling energy cubes, "oil" it is.

Of course not depending on oil is the ultimate fix.
 
GySgt said:
Great fix. Until Wal-Mart starts selling energy cubes, "oil" it is.

Of course not depending on oil is the ultimate fix.

And it sounds more "pie-in-the-sky" than it actually is. The most important ingredient is the commercial and political will.
 
Bleeding Heart said:
And it sounds more "pie-in-the-sky" than it actually is. The most important ingredient is the commercial and political will.


You are right. Those are pretty HUGE ingredients to budge.
 
GySgt said:
You are right. Those are pretty HUGE ingredients to budge.

No doubt. That doesn't mean we won't try our damnedest, right? Seems like a better route than attacking other oil-producing nations with troops we don't have.
 
Navy Pride said:
The debate on whether we should have invaded Iraq is over so there is no sense about whinning about that..........We are there now and we need to finish the job we have started and then bring the troops hoime.........

We can give the Iraqis a fighting chance for freedom then it is up to them...........

I personally believe they want that freedom and will become a democracy along the lines of Japan.................


I beg your pardon!

The debate "on whether we should have invaded Iraq is over" will NEVER be over my friend... NEVER!

Not as long as there is breath in my body, it was a bloody mistake and it should never be dimissed without proper debate by all civilized people.

Lest we forget in the future and repeat that fatal mistake the Bush administration committed in attacking Iraq.

PRESIDENT BUSH SHOULD NEVER OF INVADED IRAQ... PERIOD!!!

And it wasn't "we" who invaded Iraq kimosabe, it was President Bush who invaded Iraq, got that? It was Presdent Bush's idea!
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
What dream world are you living in? I don't think Japanese wanted an islamic theocracy. Moreover, we wrote the Japanese Constitution. It looks like the Iraqis want a democracy (if you call it that) more along the lines of an Iranian style theocracy.

Japan was a dictatorship under Hirohito prior to WW2............They are now one of the most successful dmocracies in the world now....

Your wrong about the Iraqi government......The leaders have stated that they do not want to follow the Iranian example................Iraq had free elections..........Iran's were rigged...........
 
KidRocks said:
I beg your pardon!

The debate "on whether we should have invaded Iraq is over" will NEVER be over my friend... NEVER!

Not as long as there is breath in my body, it was a bloody mistake and it should never be dimissed without proper debate by all civilized people.

Lest we forget in the future and repeat that fatal mistake the Bush administration committed in attacking Iraq.

PRESIDENT BUSH SHOULD NEVER OF INVADED IRAQ... PERIOD!!!

And it wasn't "we" who invaded Iraq kimosabe, it was President Bush who invaded Iraq, got that? It was Presdent Bush's idea!

The Congress you voted for by about a 90% majority gave the president the authority to invade Iraq...:confused: Where have you been?
 
Navy Pride said:
The Congress you voted for by about a 90% majority gave the president the authority to invade Iraq...:confused: Where have you been?

No, no.

In the final analysis it was President Bush who chose to attack, and in the end it was his decision and his alone to order the attack. No one else.
 
KidRocks said:
No, no.

In the final analysis it was President Bush who chose to attack, and in the end it was his decision and his alone to order the attack. No one else.

Do you know anything at all about how politics work? President Bush can not do squat unless Congress gives him the authority............
 
Navy Pride said:
.........We are there now and we need to finish the job.

To be real, Navy, that is a bull**** position.
 
kal-el said:
To be real, Navy, that is a bull**** position.

Only in a pacifist mind who is not concerned about terrorism and has know stomach for the fight and wants to cut and run........

you lose my friend..........
 
Navy Pride said:
Only in a pacifist mind who is not concerned about terrorism and has know stomach for the fight and wants to cut and run........

you lose my friend..........

Who said I'm not concerned about terrorism? Again, this "war" has liitle to do with terrorism. Well, now it does, but when it was waged, nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom