Getting closer to the election

[DZ314]

I would like everyone to post up some issues that you would like the candidates to address and maybe what you think needs to be done to solve the problem. Right now there is a lot of rhetoric flying around, but let's hear what you think is a problem and what might get it solved. What is important to you as we near the election day. The debates are Thursday night so we'll see then what is said!

There were NO WMD.

There is NO link to al Queda.

Iraq was not an imminent threat to us. (Oh and there are a lot of other bad leaders/countries out there: North Korea, Iran, Sudan, China, Belarus, etc, so the fact that Saddam was evil is irrelevent).

Why are over 1,000 American soldiers and over 15,000 Iraqis dead?

Couldn't we have used the $200 billion to give a nice tax break to every American?

[DZ314]

Ok, any real posters want to make a comment and maybe support it with some facts?

Where do you get your facts from, National Enquirer?

Well, where are the WMD?

Both Bush and Cheney have said that no link between Iraq and al Queda...do you have your own sources of intelligence.

Do you count the over 1,000 American dead soldiers using an alternative mathematical system than the rest of us?

Or do you just like to ignore the facts and resort to arm waving and screaming?

[parrothead]

I would like to agree that I never saw that Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA. Saddam was just a tyranical despot who kept himself in power by enslaving the rights of his people. A man who would murder for no reason, and man who would condone the mass murder of his own citizens because they were of another ethnic/religious group. I for one think that people like him should be removed from power in any country. It is one thing if the people of a third world nation put a monster in power democratically, but when a moster steals power and subsequently the rights of the people then we should help restore the freedom of those people with a smile on our faces.

How's he different from the murderous dictator who's starving the North Koreans, or the ethnic "cleansing" of Christians in Sudan, or the evil that is Iran?

Fyi, N Korean has WMD and Iran is close to getting them; Iraq had none.

[DZ314]

Thw WMD were there, Clinton knew that he had them, but they were moved out of the country before we arrived. It is similar to the police announcing a drug raid to a crack house 2 months prior to showing up. You think the drugs will still be there when the two months have passed?

Saddam had links to terrorists, he was paying $25k for acts successfully carried out. Tell me how that is not a big deal? :roll:

I never disputed the casualty number, but with war that will happen if you haven't noticed.

If I am an arm waver then Michael Moore is a saint sent down from God to spread the truth. :roll:

Well, what are they, or have you been calling the Psychic Friends Network again late at night?

[parrothead]

Well to respond to you Guest, I do also think that something must be done about North Korea, and the Sudan. The world needs to get off of it's self righteous ass and help us deal some justice to these people. Genocide's bad MMM'kay!

[DZ314]

Don't knock the Psychic Friends, they have many very nice people working there and they are great to have a chat with. :D

I don't stay up late at night because I don't have to fertilize and give each one of the trees in my backyard a big hug before I go to bed at night. :lol:

No one to hug? Even sadder...oh well there's always Sally Palm and her 5 friends to keep you and Rush (the Drug Addict) Limbaugh company.

[audiopro]

Sally Palm???

Ya mean... Rosie Palm??

Err.. I feel a thread delete coming... :twisted:

[DZ314]

Guest, you're trying really hard to be a total troll. Either register and post or get the hell out of here, no one wants you here. You are not contributing anything except negativity and childishness.

Troll perhaps, but one who seeks the truth, no?

Where are the WMDs?

What are your sources for the link to al Queda?

I'd rather have the $200 billion in the pockets of tax paying Americans than in flames in Iraq.

Perhaps, you're up for creating a welfare state in Iraq?

Not being a Conservative, I'm not a familiar with the term.

[Good Guy]

Why only a "stable" job with such a high IQ? Are you sure that's you're IQ and not you're waist size?

[audiopro]

Not being a Conservative, I'm not a familiar with the term.

Of course you're not.. And that is wonderful.. However, please try to keep the rash insults out of the topics. Having a political discussion is one thing, but you would better show intelligence if you could argue your points without using demeaning words towards an individual.

I understand you have a point of view, and that is great. Expressing it in good taste is great too. But lets try to stay halfway decent towards each other, regardless of our differences in opinion. If not, all of these threads will end up being deleted, and nothing will be gained for anyone.

[audiopro]

Why only a "stable" job with such a high IQ? Are you sure that's you're IQ and not you're waist size?

Umm... Ok... :roll:

[DZ314]

Guest 1 "Gee, look at me! I can sit behind a computer and anonymously insult people on the internet, weee!!!"

Guest 2 "heh heh heh, this is cool, heh heh heh" :roll:

[dags_lax]

Thw WMD were there, Clinton knew that he had them, but they were moved out of the country before we arrived. It is similar to the police announcing a drug raid to a crack house 2 months prior to showing up. You think the drugs will still be there when the two months have passed?

I can see moving the drugs out of the crack house. That keeps the dealer in business. But in regards to Iraq and WMD, the analogy doesn't make sense.

Saddam, had in the past, used WMD (poison gas supplied buy the U.S.) on his own people in order to suppress a rebellion in the north. If Iraq still had WMD Saddam would certainly have used them against an invading army.

Fury, if some one was coming after you and your loved ones would you send your guns to your neighbors?

[DZ314]

Yes, because killing people is just wrong. We would need to have a diplomatic meeting with the attackers. :roll:

Also, what more reason to move them because of how wrong it makes the US look plus they don't want to use them on us because we would maybe NUKE them, also it is not like WMD were the only weapons that they have to use against us. Bullets work fine to kill as well, same with RPGs.

[dags_lax]

Yup, I can just see Saddam sitting in his little cell happier than a pig in sh$t thinking to himself, my sons are dead , I lost my fortune and my country, I am going to be tryed and executed but damnit I hid my WMD and left the Americans looking like fools.

As for nuclear weapons Haliburton would have never allowed it.

[Sid]

Of course you're not.. And that is wonderful.. However, please try to keep the rash insults out of the topics. Having a political discussion is one thing, but you would better show intelligence if you could argue your points without using demeaning words towards an individual.

I understand you have a point of view, and that is great. Expressing it in good taste is great too. But lets try to stay halfway decent towards each other, regardless of our differences in opinion. If not, all of these threads will end up being deleted, and nothing will be gained for anyone.

I could not have said it better, Thanks audio. Opinions is one thing, take them as far as you like, but the insults will not only get things deleted, it will certainly kill any respect for you as the person trying promote his or her opinion. (In my view at least)

[DZ314]

Yup, I can just see Saddam sitting in his little cell happier than a pig in sh$t thinking to himself, my sons are dead , I lost my fortune and my country, I am going to be tryed and executed but damnit I hid my WMD and left the Americans looking like fools.

As for nuclear weapons Haliburton would have never allowed it.

No no, you are totally wrong here. Saddam does not have the gift of foresight you see. He also couldn't assume that we would not or could not use nuclear weapons against him if he used his biological ones. Looking in hindsight of course he might think a little different! Before his sons were killed and before he was captured I am sure that he was in a whole other mindset. Nice try though.

[rodrigo1508]

Yes, because killing people is just wrong. We would need to have a diplomatic meeting with the attackers.


Yes you should and yes killing is wrong . Besides the war, according to your president, was because iraq was supposed to be a threat (UN searched for the weapons and found none that would imply a threat to US) not to libarate the world from evil Saddam.
US broke international laws by going to war with out UN consent.
Remember that you are innocent until you are proved guilty not the other way around. That is true also for countries.
Even if you know someone is guilty you have to according to the law prove that he is guilty because imagine that a president from one country accuse another country and just because he thinks he might be guilty he attacks them without any proves , ooh wait this already happened.

[audiopro]

Do you honestly think Saddam is an innocent man?? I'm sorry, but that would be pretty ignorant.. Granted there is question whether the war was carried out in the best way. But your arguement is that Saddam has not been proven guilty? Guilty of what???

Also, I dont think the war was just an attempt to get rid of one tyrant. I think it is a collaberative effort to make things better for the entire world... Also if you dont think Iraq and Saddam harbored terrorist networks, you're wrong...

[dags_lax]

Saddam was a secular leader despised by the Islamic fundamentalists. What people need to understand is that these fundamentalists wanted Saddam out of powers as much as bush did and had Saddam supplied Bin Laden with weapons Bin Laden may very well have used them against Saddam.

Of course Saddam was bad guy. But Saddam's support terrorism was primarily limited to a few cash payments to Palestinian (not al queda) suicide bombers. Saddam was a very small player when it came to terrorism. If you want to use that as justification for military action against him then perhaps Great Britain would have been justified invading Boston for the financial support being given by US citizens to the Provisional Irish Republic Army!

It has been jokingly said, but there is some truth to this, that we controlled the northern third and the southern third of Iraq before we invaded and after the invasion, we still control just the northern third and the southern third of Iraq.

The difference being that we have over a thousand American soldiers dead and many thousand wounded and an estimated fifteen thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed. And now when Bush says Iraq is a hot bed of terrorist intent on doing evil to the U.S. he is finally telling the truth!

[audiopro]

Yeah, no doubt our actions in Iraq has pissed off a lot of people who may not be so upset had we not invaded... It's hard to tell though what may have been going on under the covers that we may not have found out about until it was too late, such as 9-11...

Sigh..... There is just to many bad things going on all over the world.. Really Rodney said it best, "Can't we all just get along." :(

I dont think world peace is something we will see in my lifetime. Actually I honestly believe we are likely to see nuclear war.. I dont know if that scares me really.. We're all gonna die eventually anyway, but geeze sometimes it seems so worthless...

[rodrigo1508]

Audiopro I can get along just well with everybody but really do you think that calling me or insinuating that I am ignorant because of my point of view makes you the ignorant.


But your arguement is that Saddam has not been proven guilty? Guilty of what???

He was not proven guilty of possesing WMD. I do not like Saddam in any way I hate him because all the things he did but the laws are there to be respected and to keep order and your country should have put the example because its the most powerful nation not going crazy and attacking everyone he wanted with out UN support which to my understanding it was created to keep those things like war from happening.



Also, I dont think the war was just an attempt to get rid of one tyrant. I think it is a collaberative effort to make things better for the entire world... Also if you dont think Iraq and Saddam harbored terrorist networks, you're wrong...

Collaborative? your country made an unilatteral descition to attack iraq.
They never said anything of liberating iraqui people from the tyrant, they said the it was because of WMD. Your president lied not only to his people but to the world.
Better World? You think War makes the world better? If your country was really fighting terrorism I would support them. Also you should start by your own people, there are a lot of bad things going on in your land, why go for more problems in another land.
Saddam might have links to terrorist but I doubt he had strong connections to alquaeda because of what dags_lax said they were enemies.
There are stronger connections between your president and Osamma than Osamma with Saddam.

[audiopro]

My comment was not a direct statement saying you are ignorant. I did not mean for it to be taken as an insult, I apologize for that.. To clarify and restate, I said if it is thought that Saddam is not evil, than yes, that is ignorant. Also keep in mind that ingorance is not an insult. I am ignorant to many things.. Until enlightened by someone here I was ignorant as to how to apply beeswax to the seams in slate. Nothing wrong with being ignorant to something... Anyhow, sorry it offended you. That was definitely not my intention...

And yes I do believe war can make things better.. If not for war, the United States would not exist, and I personally think we have the best country in the world to live in. War is a means to attain a goal. Whether that goal is good or bad depends obviously. War for Freedom from Tyrany = Good... WMD or not, I'm 100% glad Iraq has been liberated and freed from Saddam...

And in case people forgot, it was Saddam who started tossing out UN inspectors and NOT allowing them to make sure things, such as WMD's, were in order over there...

[rodrigo1508]

Well thats better now I know your position which its a really valid, Personally I am against war in this times a war will affect all the world in those times the war affected almost only where it took place. To tell you the truth I am scared that Bush took this position because a war invoulving US makes me think in US nuclear potential and a nuclear war could end human life at least as we know it.
I do beleive there were better and more peaceful ways to deal with all of this.

[audiopro]

Yeah, regardless of everything I am fearful of Nuclear tactics. I don't think they will be a result of the current war, and I pray they are never deployed. But it is one of those things I wish we could dis-invent.. Myself personally, am more afraid of future Nuclear war as opposed to Terrorists... In that kind of war, we all die...

Sadly, I do believe that the US flexing it muscles the past few years, may make other countries more likely to invest in possible Nuclear arms as a deterrent, as N. Korea has..

Wish some miracle saviour would come along and fix everything...

[dags_lax]

And in case people forgot, it was Saddam who started tossing out UN inspectors and NOT allowing them to make sure things, such as WMD's, were in order over there...

And under the threat of war Saddam allowed the inspectors back in. A big problem for Bush was that the inspectors were there under United Nations authority and Bush couldn't control the information coming from the U.N. It was looking more and more like there were no WMD and connections between Iraq an Al Queda couldn't be found.

If it turned out there were no WMD, no connections to Al Queda, justification for a war would be gone. As it was, public support for a war, while still high, was beginning to erode. If you were a President looking for a war with Iraq, and the justification for such a war slipping away, that was the time to attack.