Page 2 of 3

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:32 pm
by Draco_03
tim wrote:You can sit there and tell me if Saddam had a chance to hit the US like the US was hit on sept 11, he wouldn't have? Please, no disrespect, but Saddam is as lethal as anyone.
Mh kay that is a supposition, but let's presume it's true (even if saddam never attacked US and counting the fact that he was actually a "good" friend of the US back then)

So even if your statement is true, that doesn't disprove the fact that 9/11 and iraq war has nothing to do 2gether.
When people feel threathen they usually make poor decision. I think that was the case with iraq.
It's not for no reason that the onu voted "against" it. I mean, everyone in the world (almost all leaders in the onu) though sadam didn't pose a threath.and there was no evidence of any chemical wepons found.

Saddam was not "loved" by his people, BUT that doesn't give anyone the right to invade another country, bring war upon them. And even if in some case, (extreme cases only) it has to be done, this was not one of them.
I'll explain , Bush never went there to "free" the people, he was afraid of what might happen if saddam could get wepon to attack the USA.

My 2 cents and a half

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:32 pm
by Deemo
tim wrote: You can sit there and tell me if Saddam had a chance to hit the US like the US was hit on sept 11, he wouldn't have? Please, no disrespect, but Saddam is as lethal as anyone.
Im not saying that Saddam wouldnt have if he had the opportunity, but the fact is, that with all the UN sanctions, it was virtually impossible for Iraq to launch any kind of attack on the US.

Now i will say that i think that Bush is the biggest failure in american history. However, i will also state that i think Kerry is not much of an improvement. the US has not had any good presidents since i would say the Kennedy-era. Hopefully this next generation of politicians will change that, but as of now our election is run by whoever has more money, and more corporations in their pocket. That is why i beleive that even though i will vote for Kerry, i doubt that he will win

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:55 pm
by Buddha443556
I think invading Iraq put pressure exactly where it was needed. It stuck Iran right between two American Forces. Getting rid of Saddam was a nice bonus. I don't think we were there to liberate Iraq though - it was an invasion. I don't expect the US to leave Iraq or Afghanistan anytime in the next fifty years - no matter who's in office.

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:57 pm
by tim
Draco you have a good point, but I feel our two views are a matter of personal mind-set and nether i can change your mind nor you change mine. I guess we'll have to respect each others opinion.

I feel Saddam would have hit us big, may not be today, maybe not be tomorrow, but some time in the future he would have nailed us. Bush sought this too and avoided it while liberating a nation is such a distress.

You ever heard the saying, better safe than sorry? I know this is a bad thing to wage on a full-out war, but the theory proves very true. And Iraq with saddam is the same as Afgan with Osama, a nation with leaders who seak to destroy the US and its christanity religion.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:13 am
by ast3r3x
Your all lucky the internet was mysteriously not working at my house last night and I have to reply to everything in one post so I can be less thorough ;)

My feelings on Bush in Iraq:
I never felt like we were there for the right reasons. Although I agreed that it was good we were there to punish Iraq for breaking UN sanctions and building WMD, we had no right to tell then UN to f off and go it alone. Now, when I found out were lied to, that was where he began to loose his unprecedented approval rating and the country started to divide when every one just wanted to be one nation under god doing right. But the facts are true, the reason we stated for going into Iraq (WMD) was faulty, we didn't have UN support, so 90% of the casualties and the bill are going to american soldiers and the US government.

Keep this in mind, the US didn't have a right to go into Iraq as the following:

1)Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US
2)Iraq wasn't related to 911, the taliban, or al qaeda.

http://costofwar.com/ --Interesting link. Not only does it show Bush as a failure to asses the costs of war, but personally, I never knew it costed so much to go to war?! That's a disgustingly large amount of money.

Bush on the economy
Ok. As I said in an earlier post, do all of you live in the US, or plan to do so for the following years? As it goes now, the economy is going down hill. It can survive for a while as is now, as families use up their resources trying to buy their way out of the poor setup, but as the middle class begins to run out of money, you will see the bad grain that you reap.

•Bush's mandatory overtime pay cut is ridiculously bad for everyone

•Bush's "new economy" is causing a shrinking middle class, a growing poverty class, and even with this tax cuts, the middle class isn't being helped while the wealthy have benefitted the most.

•Bush's "new jobs" that are being created are on average paying $9,000 less per year then that jobs we are loosing to out sourcing by other countries. As it stands, how many jobs have been lost since Bush took office? I don't want to quote a number as I can't recall, but it's a lot. I'll look for it, maybe others can do the same and help me out.

•Bush's terrifs on imports...well when push comes to shove, it's a bad idea, as other countries have started terrifs of their own. I don't recall if it was britain or the EU, but they don't like ours.

Bush on environment/oil/science
Oil...a finite dirty form of energy. But we love it, and are ungodly dependent on it. We can't support or own oil supplies, so we import the rest...which is a lot. You all know about Bush wanting to drill in the wildlife refuge, I'm sure you all have your own opinions about that, so I'll let you decide, but the only think we can agree on, is it's bad for the environment there. But you may think the advantages out weight the destruction of the environment there, so not a topic I want to get into.

Bush has drastically hurt the science community in the US. It's something we need to find alternative sources to oil, clean, renewable sources that will be cheaper and more ecosystem friendly. This is one thing that I really don't like about him, he hides behind a shield of religious appeal just because he knows he can. It's like the race card only bigger and stronger.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:28 am
by Buddha443556
ast3r3x wrote:Your all lucky the internet was mysteriously not working at my house last night and I have to reply to everything in one post so I can be less thorough ;)
Must've been all of us refreshing the page waiting for your reply.
ast3r3x wrote:My feelings on Bush in Iraq:
Now, when I found out [we?] were lied to,....
If you put your trust in any politician, you will get what you deserve.
ast3r3x wrote:Keep this in mind, the US didn't have a right to go into Iraq as the following:

1)Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US
2)Iraq wasn't related to 911, the taliban, or al qaeda.
War doesn't have anything to do with rights. War violates the most basic human right. The right to life. Iraq was an enemy of the USA. That is reason enough to invade them. No, it doesn't make sense but what about war does?
ast3r3x wrote:http://costofwar.com/ --Interesting link. Not only does it show Bush as a failure to asses the costs of war, but personally, I never knew it costed so much to go to war?! That's a disgustingly large amount of money.
War is hell especially on the wallet.

Having thoroughly read your post "ast3r3x" desided to changing my reason for voting. I'm going with the liar I know best - BUSH.
:D

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:48 am
by ast3r3x
Buddha443556 wrote:Must've been all of us refreshing the page waiting for your reply.
:lol:
Buddha443556 wrote:If you put your trust in any politician, you will get what you deserve.
Sad you feel the need to think like that.
Buddha443556 wrote: War doesn't have anything to do with rights. War violates the most basic human right. The right to life. Iraq was an enemy of the USA. That is reason enough to invade them. No, it doesn't make sense but what about war does?
War is supposed to be a last resort, not a solution. Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US, and had showed no aggression into neighboring countries. We really have no say in what Iraq does, should be expect to be attacked because we have the death penalty? Unless they break UN sanctions or would show aggression, we shouldn't be over there.
Buddha443556 wrote:Having thoroughly read your post "ast3r3x" desided to changing my reason for voting. I'm going with the liar I know best - BUSH.
:D
I was actually hoping there would be an intelligent conversation about the candidates, their views/opinions, and their flaws. I have been highlighting bush's short comings. Mostly just because they are the direct opposite of Kerry's strengths.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:46 pm
by Buddha443556
ast3r3x wrote:War is supposed to be a last resort, not a solution.

So which city gets to take the first shot next time?

ast3r3x I wish I was still as idealistic as you are.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:54 pm
by Draco_03
Buddha443556

I understand your point, but, Bush was the only one that though that saddam was athreat
That's the "problem". Now if you though he was right, it's okay, but on top of that he didn't find any "proof" that saddam was a threat.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 1:00 pm
by ast3r3x
Buddha443556 wrote:
ast3r3x wrote:War is supposed to be a last resort, not a solution.

So which city gets to take the first shot next time?

ast3r3x I wish I was still as idealistic as you are.
Iraq isn't responsible for our NYC being attacked. I supported Bush's attack on taliban/al qaeda. But it was too little too late. We went in like 2 months after the fact, with less troops then there are police in chicago...or was it boston, well one of the two.

If I walk up to you, and punch you in the face, I doubt you'll give me more then 30 seconds (I punch hard, you'll need time to recover ;)) to run. 3,000 people die, and you give two months, plus a small number of troops? The entire WORLD was supporting us at the time, we could have done so much more and maybe gotten more results. <edited for your viewing pleasure>

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:03 pm
by Buddha443556
ast3r3x wrote:Iraq isn't responsible for our NYC being attacked.
Did I say they were?
I supported Bush's attack on taliban/al qaeda. But it was too little too late. We went in like 2 months after the fact, with less troops then there are police in chicago...or was it boston, well one of the two.
You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not. How long do you think it takes to muster 150,000 troops, all their equipment and supplies for a massive assult? They were moving the day after 911 and heading for Iraq. It's just logistics that slowed them down. I have no problem with this though.
ast3r3x wrote:If I walk up to you, and punch you in the face, I doubt you'll give me more then 30 seconds (I punch hard, you'll need time to recover ;)) to run.
Yeah I know you want too. :D
ast3r3x wrote:3,000 people die, and you give two months, plus a small number of troops? The entire WORLD was supporting us at the time, we could have done so much more and maybe gotten more results. <edited for your viewing pleasure>
Would've. Could've. Should've. Hind sights is always twenty-twenty. I'm more worried about where we are going. This country is divide worse than it every has been. The biggest opportunity we missed was to united this country in one cause. Instead the Republician and the Democrats have divided us even more.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:27 pm
by tim
I see that alot of people disagree with bush attack on Iraq due to it not being related to the attack we got on sept 11, but let me ask you this?

Do you trust saddam? do you feel in the future he would not attack us if given a chance? Would you send your kids over there to live in such a place like that (i'm not talking about no runnin water, etc, i'm talking about a place like a leader like saddam was running things? Do you feel Saddam liked the united states?

It was either now, or suffer another attack in the future. Its not like we didnt give saddam a warning too.

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:10 pm
by ast3r3x
tim wrote:I see that alot of people disagree with bush attack on Iraq due to it not being related to the attack we got on sept 11, but let me ask you this?

Do you trust saddam? do you feel in the future he would not attack us if given a chance? Would you send your kids over there to live in such a place like that (i'm not talking about no runnin water, etc, i'm talking about a place like a leader like saddam was running things? Do you feel Saddam liked the united states?

It was either now, or suffer another attack in the future. Its not like we didnt give saddam a warning too.
Do I trust saddam? Nope. Neither do I trust Bush for that matter though. Attack the US if given the chance? Nope. You don't slap a lion in the face.

Would you send your kids to Iran, Somalia, North Korea? How about Israel along gaza strip or pakistan. You can't attack people for not liking you. France doesn't like us now, perhaps we should invade them? Blair wouldn't accept the medals Bush wanted to give him, should we attack the British.

Suffer another attack from who? I'm sure you didn't mean to have it sound like we'd have to worry about an attack from Iraq. Gave Saddam warning? Are you joking me?

Bush: Stop producing WMD or we'll attack
Iraq: We aren't, come look.
UN: We are looking, haven't found anything yet, but we'll continue.
Bush: That's it, I told you to stop, here we come.

:roll:

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:19 pm
by John Cartwright
Not that I don't appreciate this discussion and its contents, this has been discussed soooo many times it grows tiresome..... :|

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:52 pm
by Deemo
i find it sad that the country is at a time where it is so split up like it is. why cant we all be friends :(