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:
Great ballot.
by mojo on Thu Jan 06, 05 8:28am
[+]
so we're saying again that the people in Iraq are saddened to be rid of saddam? mass graves don't count? the fact that according to the experts in the middle east saddam has murdered as many as 1 million Muslims ... Kurds... parents & their kids...video taped some of it & showed it to family members etc. Yeah what a waste to help these people they should have known better than to be born in Iraq, they should have picked America like we did!
give me a break, they can not even go to the store without fear of being killed.
Listen to larry, he sees both sides...AND he knows what he is talking about (go to his personal web site if you don't believe me).
by mojo on Thu Jan 06, 05 10:14am
[+]
first do you think they (especially women0 were safe to walk to the store when saddam was in "power"? also you may not know this (especially with our left leaning press) but 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are offically considered "peaceful" no or very little gun us, & it's not the U.S. troops that are doing the random shooting that would be the bad guys , maybe you forget that's not us. Honest can you say you beleive the people of Iraq were better off with saddam , if so you are , my friend badly mis-informed go out to some of the sites that have the real story being here won't give it to you & the average press member won't. When a country's press doesn't support the war the only thing your going to get from them is their "side" they have no idea of the good the troops have done & if they did they wouldn't share it with you
Oh boy, here we go again with the 'Liberal Media'.
Larry has a brother in Iraq, everygirl. Do you think that just *might* influence his point of view? I'll take word of mouth over propoganda from either side.
by mojo on Thu Jan 06, 05 10:33am
[+]
maybe it does influence him , he's worried about his brother, but what about all the good the troops have done having a brother over there does not validate his argument
Saddam killed over a million people. Preventing that from continuing is not as valid (and consequently using our military for it's intended purpose, not some bleeding hearts opinion on what a military should do) as going in after about an eighth that many have been killed?
Explain this to me: you believe the military should be used for humanitarian purposes, fine, that's not it's job but we'll go with it, then why was going into iraq wrong? Saddam killed more iraqis than any other factor in the past few decades, he killed his neighbors in massive numbers as well. So on a purely humanitarian basis going into iraq saved more lives.
go herzog go!
Don't get me wrong, I think Saddam is an evil asshole. I have thought so for nearly 20 years. I protested the gassing of those Kurds in 1986, and I wrote to the White House about it (I got a form letter back, politely telling me not to worry about it, that the situation was 'under control' - hah).
I just think it's ironic that Saddam would never have attained such power without the support of his good buddies, the U.S. government. Their motives were honorable though - they wanted Saddam to kill Iranians with the weapons they provided. Instead, he used them to murder his own people.
And why did we have such problems with Iran? Yes, the Ayatollah! But had we, the U.S., not installed a puppet dictator (the Shah) in *that* country, a popular secularist would have stayed in power through a democratic process.
Is it time to stop meddling in other countries' business? We should not be in the business of 'nation-building'. Those are not my words. That was what GEORGE W. BUSH insisted throughout his campaign in 1999.
by mojo on Thu Jan 06, 05 12:31pm
[+]
people keep saying our purpose of going into Iraq was this great humanitarian cause, to remove the great evil saddam from killing his people, that is not the reason we are there, if Bush had told us in the beginning, he wanted to go for that reason, I may have different thoughts about it now, but he told us Saddam had wmds, actually Saddam blew it himself by invading Kuwait, because as long as he was not a threat to the middle eastern oil supply, the USA would have been happy to continue allowing him to do whatever he pleased.
Yes the main purpose of the military is to defend and protect our country, but all I see it doing now is causing more hate and enemies towards our country. Not because of our troops, they are doing as ordered, don't get me wrong on that. and I am proud of them, but what I am not proud of is our President and what he has gotten them into.
And I would weather have them on a humanitarian mission to the Tsunami victims then causing the hate we are seeing toward America, and I do not believe we are safer now than we were before the Iraq war, and I don't think the Iraqi people are either.
rather
Don't give Bush any ideas -- he'll want to invade Indonesia now...
'Is it time to stop meddling in other countries' business? We should not be in the business of 'nation-building''
So we should pull our troops, money, and helicopters out of south asia, stop meddling in their affairs, and stop this ridiculous task of rebuilding those nations devastated by the tsunamis?
'people keep saying our purpose of going into Iraq was this great humanitarian cause'
No, nobody has said that. It IS a great humanitarian cause, but never the main reason. However you are the one who believes in using the military for humanitarian causes, does it really matter what the justification behind it is if it serves that purpose? If bush were to say 'little imps in my head told me I should send billions in relief money to south asia' would you oppose it because he's doing it for the wrong reasons? Or would you say 'great at least he's doing the right thing'?
'Yes the main purpose of the military is to defend and protect our country'
Then why do you want to send it to help people in asia? They are not an ally, they are not a threat, sending troops does nothing to protect our borders or our citizens. You seem to be changing your argument here.
Um, herzog, I was just quoting what your man GWB stated during his first campaign.
Of course, we can't pull out now. We are in DEEP. But this ballot was never about that. Read it - CONDITIONAL TENSE - 'could have done'. Larry was simply speculating about how much good could have been done had we not gotten involved in 'nation building'.
by mojo on Thu Jan 06, 05 3:33pm
[+]
To reiterate (yet again): The stated reason for going in had nothing to do with whether or not Saddam was good or bad -- continuing to bring that up is the height of being disengenuous.
Also, with Saddam ... like him or not ... Iraq was a functioning country. After the invasion -- whether one was for or against it -- no one can honestly make the claim that Iraq is a functioning nation. It is broke and no one there has a real "life", at present ... no matter what tints of rose you may want to paint.
If you're for the war, be for the war ... but stop lying to yourselves about conditions and rationales ... you just embarrass those of us who listen to you.
The main purpose of the military is for reasons gave, does not mean it can not be used for other things, it is all the time, and I do not have a probalem with using it for humanitarian reasons. I don't think you read the full comments, because I explained my position on that.
problem
Words that Mister Bush ought to be made to read over and over until they sink in.
Now that the US military is very widespread, what's going to happen if a real threat arises and they are actually needed somewhere?
|
|
