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:
Is peace really finally on it's way? I must not be watching the same news as her, it seems more distant then ever.
No, Saddam did a much better job of keeping peace in Iraq.
by ABC on Wed Sep 29, 04 12:01pm
[+]
A typically blinkered view from a Republican acolyte, who is yet to have her eyes opened in the real world.
Jenny are you on the Republican payroll or something? That statement is bull shit but I wouldn't be surprised to find people believing it. People who make statements like that are not living in the real world. They probably live in that cosy fluffy fantasy land type place old Georgie boy lives and Im sure their very happy.
by B_P on Wed Sep 29, 04 12:02pm
[+]
I don't agree but I feel badly for Jenny that her optimistic outlook is being brought to the center of attention for all to pick at.
No longer being a Conservative, I will refrain from voting.
But I will advise Jenny17: When being brainwashed -- Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Don't feel sorry for her, go to her ballots and read them, then look at the comments, she never even backs anything up, she just makes bitter ballotts with no substance, usually a comment that she got from OReilly or Limbaugh, you don't see any original thought. That's not even the point anyway, I want to know if the other conservatives out there are AS "optimistic" and that they believe this statement reiterates their own belief.
If she would argue her point, I may be able to agree to disagree.
However, the small sample I have looked at in her ballots page, suggests she makes these outrageous comments, and either skews the choices on her ballot to give her the answer she desires, or doesnt even bother to answer any of the point made.
Love Cathexis' shampoo analogy, seems very appropriate here.
No, Saddam did a much better job of keeping peace in Iraq.
by ABC
You are so god damn right!
Ok, in all honesty I haven't read her posts so I'll stop commenting on what I don't fully understand. :)
ooh Republicans made another angry youth?No child left behind...Like the new yorkers in LIL Gitmo,{which was funded,yes PAID for by the RNC}the Reps {& I Quote}want to teach us a lesson.What praytell is this lesson?Agree with your narrow views or Lockdown??Way to sell a vote Reps...
well maybe at the moment iraq is a hell hole... but give it a few decades and I think it will have recovered sufficiently and will be a decent country
she said "on the way" so I think she is suggesting they have a bright future
According to this story in the LA Times, President Bush's handlers wanted the auditorium temperature to be 70, in order to make John Kerry break out in a sweat.fair & balanced?
I'd say the iraqi people have a much better chance at having a decent future now then they did under saddam.
The situation in germany following the demise of hitler was not exactly cheery, but that doesn't mean they would have been better left under a maniacal dictator.
Nobody said the transition would be instantaneous or painless, but in the end it will be better for all involved.
I dont know that that is true Herzog that they will likely have a better future now. If the place remains in this much disaray for long there will be groups (possibly) popping up like the Taliban did in Afghanistan after their fight with Russia. We just dont know what their future holds.
"Nobody said the transition would be instantaneous or painless"- herzog
No but Bush tried to make it sound like it would with his whole "we will be greeted with flowers as liberators"
Jenny Jenny two by four
Hanging on as Bush's whore
At 17 her vote won't count
So stop trying to give ole George a mount
Sorry... I read some of here stuff and had a really immature moment!
by MO_ on Wed Sep 29, 04 5:50pm
[+]
Again, I apologize!
by MO_ on Wed Sep 29, 04 5:51pm
[+]
lol
Im going to quote you on that MO
her-blog thinks that Iraqis will eventually be better off than under Saddam. Who would have though he would come out with that?
I agree with Duckhead. Nobody knows what the future will hold in Iraq.
If the people who said that the invasion would be a Cakewalk, and that democracy would be welcomed by the Iraqis are also saying that the Iraqis will be better off in the long run then i'm going to be very suspicious of what they say.
Besides, I think that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush had no intention of creating a functioning democracy in Iraq. I believe that they invaded Iraq to enrage and threaten the Middle East in order to spark a fake Armageddon. Watch as I am proved right by events. Watch as her-blog's bleating excuses always turn out to be bullshit.
I'm sorry. My head's about to EXPLODE, for trying to get around that statement. Whoever said that ought to be stood out in a field until the fighting in Iraq is over with, writing a full justification for it that does NOT depend on party rhetoric.
Damn. Where'd I put my Advil (TM)?...
Ignorance, that's the problem here. I suggest everyone who says 'things are bad under the US in iraq, therefore things will always be bad and the situation will continue to worsen etc etc' look up the US occupation of germany following wwII. The similarities are striking. People are unemployed, unhappy with american presence, infrastructure is totally destroyed and won't be rebuilt for years, decades in some places, many people are fighting back against US troops, casualties are fairly high, we have no exit strategy, and the nation hasn't been turned into a flourishing democracy in 2 years. I guess germany continued to spiral out of control until it again reverted to facism and the US troops were forced out. Right?
Thats what happened after WWI to Germany, they had massive debts, there were large numbers unemployed and they needed someone to lead them, the stage was set for a horrible dictator.
They also had strict guidelines for disarming set in place by an international peacekeeping organization, of which france was a major proponent. They then went ahead and did absolutely nothing while germany rearmed. Eerily familiar isn't it?
Besides which germany after wwI can't really be compared to iraq today. Are we demanding iraq pay for the entire war? Are we then abandoning them and forcing them to rebuild on their own? Have we done absolutely nothing to get the government back on it's feet and come up with a suitable alternative? Did we decide to send no troops to iraq to keep order following the war?
No, the better comparison is the US occupation of germany following wwII, which worked out rather well for all involved.
but I don't see how we can use that copmparison either herzog being that in WWII we had an opponent whom for the most part had borders and infrastructure. Iraq is not our opponent but we managed to open them up to a new governing body, maybe it will be democracy we can only hope, but maybe it will be another Taliban, the only way we can prevent that is to stay there forever as an occupier and as long as we are there, our men will easy targets, which is not what the pres led the US public to believe.
I hope Iraqi's ARE becoming more comfortable and happy and have the basic necessities they have a right to, but I just don't think that we have made it better, especially after seeing kids getting blown up like yesterday, how many times is this going to happen while we are there and at what point have too many died for a cause (democracy) that may not ever happen.
Iraq doesn't have borders or infrastructure? Huh?
As for staying there forever, not necessary. We stay until they have a democratic government, troops and police ready for the job, and a relatively stable economy. In other words, we stay until the job is done. After that we'll probably maintain several bases there, as we did in germany, which will be useful in dealing with further middle eastern troubles (I doubt we'll run out of those) and will pump money into local iraqi economies. We did the exact same thing in germany, and nobody complained then.
And if we retreat because the insurgents blew up some children aren't we doing exactly what they want? These type of tactics cannot work against an established nation with a standing army unless the populace decides to give in. They aren't going to destroy our military, or our infrastructure. They only way they can hope to win is to make us want to give in.
"Iraq doesn't have borders or infrastructure? Huh?" -herzog
Hmm, I didn't know we were at war with Iraq.I was referring to terrorists which was obvious.
"We stay until they have a democratic government, troops and police ready for the job, and a relatively stable economy." -herzog
As I said before, we don't know that the democracy that we are hoping to help provide is even going to appear.
And I don't see the comparison still to Germany, Germany didnt have thousands of terrorists rushing into the country to try and flush us out. There is no comparison.
Well it's been almost a year, and the situation in Iraq still looks shitty -- I understand the whole reconstruction concept, but it looks like that country is still going backwards.
|
|
