user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
'Should all Americans who like paying for the millions of illegal immigrants' shelter, food, education, immunizations, incarceration and general disrespect of America, be required to shoulder the entire expense ?
YES, that is a good idea
Voted : Yes, that's a good idea
I'm smiling far too much at this...
Voted : No, that's a bad idea
While some may gain some satisfaction from this idea, it is inherently undemocratic. It essentially deprives those who are unable to serve in the military from having any voice in whether this country should go to war. Carried to its logical conclusion, FDR wouldn't have been permitted to support or ask for the USA to go to war in World War 2 because he could not serve. Of course, because he supported the war, he would have had to go to battle in his wheelchair leading the troops to victory. Hmmm, well he would have done better than Bush. At least he wouldn't have gone AWOL or avoided service like Cheney.
Voted : Yes, that's a good idea
Definately and that goes for those in the UK too. But they cant come back victorious they've already lost. If we assume for one second that this was a rescue mission then it has failed. There have been more civilians killed in this conflict already that it outnumbers anything saddam did in all the years he was in power. That doesnt include american/uk deaths nor does it include deaths brought about by the suicide bombers. But still, I like the idea.
How is it undemocratic LSD? I dont see it says anywhere that those who cant serve dont have a say. So the rest of your comment is pointless. They want a war then they should damn well fight it. thats the very essence of democracy. How about those who didnt want to go to war in iraq but were already on the payroll? isnt it undemocratic to force them to fight in a war they dont believe in?
Seems to me your using democracy as a tool to further your argument. Isnt that just what bush did?
SHOULD ALL AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR OR SUPPORTED THE IRAQI WAR...Be required to serve military duty in Iraq until it's resolved ?
^ It says it right here!
So, an elderly, disabled lesbian who can't serve in the military but who voted for or supports the war should be required to serve? She's not allowed to support it? She's not allowed to vote for it?
You specifically state that anyone who voted for or supports it should serve.
A democracy doesn't mean you get to pick and choose everything individually. If it did, people would try to send their taxes for one thing and not the other. There would be chaos. A democracy is about voting for or against things as a shared community of individuals. Not a bunch of anarchic loons.
" Seems to me your using democracy as a tool to further your argument. Isnt that just what bush did?"
Oh come on. I'm not in favor of the war in Iraq and never have been. And don't you EVER compared me to Bush again.
Some of you seem to forget that YOUR Senator or YOUR Representative voted for or supported the Iraqi War. (Some of those did the old flippity-flop, too, or conveniently ' forgot ' how they had voted.)
You donot like President Bush. You donot like Republicans and Conservatives. In USA that is your sacred privilege (try that in some eastern or far-southern countries. Do try to present the whole picture, though.
Yes I think they should and i'll explain myself again so you understand me. sigh. you implied that it prevents those who are unable to serve having a say. You make the assumption that even disabled people should be drafted. nowhere does it say that. Oh and I best point out that you seem to have assumed I made the ballot. I didnt. Also if democracy is about voting then overwhelmingly people were against the war. where was the vote? Or does picking a government make you responsible for their actions wether you agree with them or not? If people stand idly by while wrongdoings occur then they are as guilty as the perpertrators democracy or not.
I never said you were in favour of the war but you consistently used democracy as a means to discredit the idea. Thats what bush does. If you dont like the comparison dont use his tactics. simple. Oh and a word of advice dont EVER tell me what I can and cant say. I'll let it drop this time but honestly if you tell me not to do something i'll haunt you with it forever.
and how do you propose showing who voted for the iraq war. call me crazy but i don't recall there ever being an actual ballot choice on the iraq war. and i say this as someone who opposed it. i mean it's how many years later and we're still harping on this. the deal is done!
^ah but there should have been. And i suggest you explain to those who lost a relative yesterday that its all done and dusted kev.
Voted : No, that's a bad idea
No. If so, the same principle could apply to a lot of things that people support.
^but surely you should fight for what you believe in. It cant be right to leave it to others to deal with.
True. But if you support something, you should have the freedom to support it in whichever way you can, whether is be physical, monetary, or moral. Wars aren't fought just by soldiers on battlefields.
If the support should be physical, we'd have a lot of people whining about things they don't want to and/or can't do... Those who are for saving the environment should move to the country for total self-sufficient lives without the dependence on anything electric or petroleum based. Those who are for tighter borders should go there and guard them. Those who are for immigration should go there and help them across. Those who are for Tibet should go there and help them fight. Those against genocide in Sudan should go there and help. Those who are against inner-city gangs should all join the police force. Those who are in favor of curing cancer or AIDS should become doctors. Some of those things have and/or will cost as many lives as what's going on in Iraq right now.
"ah but there should have been."
Explain how you would accomplish this? Go door to door and put people on record? Give them a lie detector test? Do away with the principle of a secret ballot?
And i suggest you explain to those who lost a relative yesterday that its all done and dusted kev.
Most soldiers and their families believe their son or daughter served and died honorably. Many support(ed) the war and the vast majority don't want it to end without a victory because they believe their son or daughter's death would have been in vain if we just pull out without achieving victory. Losing a family member in combat is never easy. It is always difficult to explain and comes to terms with. People want to get out of Iraq and they want peace. They don't want to do it the way many Obama-maniacs do... without any consideration for the ramifications of a pull-out without a stable government in place. Obama-messiah believers and other leftists are completely unable to understand why people think this way.
"
If the support should be physical, we'd have a lot of people whining about things they don't want to and/or can't do..."
Not in itself a bed thing. the war probably wouldn't have happened. :)
It's called a referendum FF. I wasn't talking about the troops either i was talking about the civilians. We cant win this war and I doubt we can leave a settled country. When britain left india it tried to leave a government in place. but still over 10 million died.
sunnis and shi'ites will never stop fighting. Its too deeply ingrained and nothing we do can change that. It will always be a pointless war. As for your attack on leftists well all i can say is after reading some of ann coulters vile retchings I'd say your both as barmy as each other.
Voted : I only wish that were possible to send all ABLED bodies who supported this war...
You are certainly right on guirk, for those who are for this war, suit your gun ho arses up and go die for it...
People are so quick to support a position of stupidity, i.e, the Iraq war, the death penalty,etc, etc, etc, however, they are not willing to be put into the mix of what they support...
I served my time in a situation I was totally against and witnessed events that most who supported this war would either been killed or emotionally and/or physically f*cked up for the rest of their days...
These individuals would not last long in a play station war game let alone the actual war itself, however, they are the ones yelling the loudest in supporting this war that was originally based on a LIE...
The numbers of Americans who lost their lives in this war that are being reported is also a LIE, the number of civilians who lost their lives are greater than what are being also reported, the US Government has LIED time and time again not only to the American people, but also the world, now, thats a shocker in deed...
If you supported or continue to support this war, then take your Patriotic/gun ho arses to Iraq and practice what you preach to those who opposes this war, I dare you...
BTW: Excellent commentaries quirk, as for how we would be able to make the supporters of this war participate in the war itself, that is certainly not possible, however, I challenge those who supported and continue to support the war to enlist and serve/support their country's efforts in bring so call democracy to the Iraqi people (as if this goal is the responsibility of the good ole US of A, what a joke and shame on those who supported and continue to support this war, who would rather watch the dying rather than do the dying)
"Not in itself a bed thing. the war probably wouldn't have happened. :)"
Bingo! Can we apply the same logic to other causes though? Because the war in Iraq isn't the only thing out there that is killing needlessly.
" It's called a referendum FF."
A referendum at the time the war was started would have been in favor of attacking Iraq. It also still would not have identified who voted yes or who voted no unless you did away with the private ballot.
"sunnis and shi'ites will never stop fighting."
They weren't fighting each other when Saddam was in power.
"after reading some of ann coulters vile retchings I'd say your both as barmy as each other."
Oh... so now I am Ann Coulter. LOL My position on this issue is really no different from Hillary Clinton, John McCain and yes... even Barack Obama. None of them believe we should or even can just get up and leave. If you actually READ what they say instead of projecting your hopes and wishes on them, you would realize this. All of them want to withdraw. McCain based on what the generals tell him. Clinton, based on timetables given to the Iraqi government, and Obama similar to Clinton but a bit more aggressively. All of them realize that it isn't possible to withdraw immediately. They realize it would be a strategic disaster and make that area far more dangerous.
Its really funny and pathetic to watch people call me "conservative" and like Ann Coulter or Bush when I take a position on an issue that is basically identical to that of the most democrats and both democratic presidential candidates. I guess if what you say about me is true then the same is true of Obama. My position on this is really no different from his. I never supported the war, still don't and I think we should withdraw based on timetables with a lot of pushing and prodding of the Iraqi government.
From Obama's website:
From his website (barack obama dot com):
Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
* In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
* In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
* In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
* All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009: Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government.
* Residual Force to Remain: Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region.
* Withdrawal is the Best Way to Pressure Iraqi Government
* A NEW EFFORT TOWARDS IRAQI NATIONAL RECONCILIATION
Various diplomatic efforts
And of course:
JUN 2006: Obama Called For an “Expeditious Yet Responsible Exit from Iraq.” In 2006, Obama said,
“What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq.”
SEP 2006: Obama Said US Must Leave Iraq Responsibly. In West Virginia, Obama said, “We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America…We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.”
I guess since that reflects my views also and now I am both Ann Coulter and Bush (as I have been called on this ballot), then Barack Obama is too!!!!
LOL LMAO ROFL
Voted : Yes, that's a good idea
Them and their children
"
A referendum at the time the war was started would have been in favor of attacking Iraq. It also still would not have identified who voted yes or who voted no unless you did away with the private ballot. "
Firstly I think your wrong. secondly referendums are not private. its not a ballot.
"
They weren't fighting each other when Saddam was in power."
Of course they were. god FF do you just make things up as you go along? Theyve been fighting since before GB colonised india. Saddams extermination forces were sunnis and their main targets were the persecuted shi'ites. One of the main reasons given for invading iraq.
I may give up adressing your points because so far your just talking out the top of your head.
" Oh... so now I am Ann Coulter. LOL My position on this issue is really no different from Hillary Clinton, John McCain and yes... even Barack Obama. None of them believe we should or even can just get up and leave. If you actually READ what they say instead of projecting your hopes and wishes on them, you would realize this. All of them want to withdraw. McCain based on what the generals tell him. Clinton, based on timetables given to the Iraqi government, and Obama similar to Clinton but a bit more aggressively. All of them realize that it isn't possible to withdraw immediately. They realize it would be a strategic disaster and make that area far more dangerous. "
No FF this one is my fault. the terms you used made it seems as tho you were anti obama. So I read it wrong. I can own up to my errors.
Iwas using coulter as an example of the right. but as your left then we share the same philosophy on this a gast pull oyt is a really really bad idea. Not as bad as going in in the first place but still.
Hope your happy with the rest of your rant. means nothing to me i just made a misunderstanding.
"fast pull out" lol never thought id need to type that out online.
Actually, it might not be such a bad idea for all Americans, upon reaching the age of 18, to have to serve in the military. I might not like it, but I would do it.
One thing that really bothers me is when people say they support war. How is that possible? You can support the Troops, but how could any person actually like war? I cannot understand that. People who have never been in a war or in the military, really have no business being so quick to be a Warhawk. War is terrible and should be the last resort always.
We need a draft. If we instituted a draft NO politician supporting our military involvement in Iraq could get elected.
^ Nice idea and it would be true if politicians were honest........
Voted : They should "stay the course"
Too bad most of these people are cowards to begin with.
r_t_l: Takes one to know one. Any idiot can stay the course. In fact that's the idiot's mantra--let's do the same thing and expect a differennt result.
Hey lava, I'm sure you're boycotting all vegetables picked by illegal immigrants.
|
|
