I would be happy if that happened, but why are you restricting all of your ballots today?
What do you mean?
Oh I see what you mean. Because I don't want this to go the way these ballots usually go, with the pro-war people arguing with the anti-war people back and forth and the issue never really being addressed. It will probably still end up with 'bush is a lying nazi v. you are an unpatriotic hippy' but maybe that can be put off for a while. In other words: because I actually wanted to hear peoples opinions on this issue, whereas I pretty much know everyones opinion on the war in general.
Yes I would be quite happy, but you already know that.
i HOPE FOR MY FRIEND GEORGIE'S SAKE THIS DOES HAPPEN!! FOR THEN (next to the dirty things he's doing (to vets, to old folks, to the earth, etc) that don't get as much news as his war) HE WILL HAVE A GREAT LEGACY AND WILL BE MY HERO FOR ALL TIME :D
I'd feel great.
I was thinking about that the other night after I viewed a segment about the Kurds and much better they're doing. They've gone from being gassed to having a stake. Who knows, 20 years from nowpeople might be saying that Bush pulled a good by getting the country to go to war in Iraq to secure oil. His most brilliant move ever just might be his non-persuit of Osama, thereby keeping the flames of terrorism burning which could enable him to hit Iran & Afganistan hard--oil and peace in the middle east.
If a casino was willing to put that proposition on the book, would you bet your life savings on it--not me.
(If I could I'd put up a little picture of how hard I'm waving my flag but try to imagine *wave *wave)
could, would, should...ain't the conditional tense grand
It's what dreams are made of mojo.
herzog asked, if , hypothetically , those things did happen, how would you feel about it? I don't see why that hypothesi can not be answered,
"I don't care about your opinion on how likely this is, or whether the war was worth it or whatever, just look at the question at hand, assume that's what happens and answer honestly."
You can't ask a ballot question like that and expect a person not to question on how likely this is. War ravaged nations become thriving secular democracies in only 20 years?? First you have to stablize the countries, and second, the US isn't there to create democracies. You went there to find Osama and those weapons of WMD's that you just can't find, remember? I would love for someone to prove that the US is there to establish democracy in that region
Iíd think that scenario would be great. Thatís not to say that George W. Bush was right to go into Iraq and kill thousands of people for a lie that there was no credible evidence to support. No matter whether things are made better after his huge mistake, because of him or in spite of him; I canít trust a man that is too much of a sissy to admit when he has made a mistake and doesnít have the intelligence to discern between credible evidence and bogus Ďevidenceí in issues of national security.
I need a leader that is smart enough to know that he can be fooled and humble enough to admit when he is wrong, these prerequisites are not hard to meet most 7 year olds are more than capable of being held to these low standards. I just canít believe that so many Americans can hold the president of the United States to such a low caliber of acceptability.
I'm against the war for the record, but he is not even saying in this ballot that, although we all know how herzog feels about it, but he is only asking, what if, would be happy or sad, I think the answer to most everyone is of course happy, no one wants Iraq to fall apart and its people to suffer more.
Aya, you want someone to prove that someone is there to establish democracy in that region? Well, Im not naive, I don't believe that is our only goal, but...Afghanistan, Iraq, and I forget one other nation who has, have all had elections. Iranians seem to be pressuring their government for reform. Also, it didn't take Japan all that much more from the end of WW2 to become an economic powerhous, now currently one of the top 3 or 4 economies on Earth. They got a-bombed twice, had their government changed by the US, and now look at them.
someone should be "US", sorry.
Actually, I'd rather choose "all of the above". The entire premise of the war was false (WMDs, lest anyone need help in remembering), and Mister Bush KNOWS that. If he had come into our homes on that night in '03 and, instead of putting the fear of WMDs in our heads, he had spoken of the oil-for-food scandal as reason for putting our kids in harm's way, given what we now know of the affair, he would not only have unilateral support here in the U.S., but worldwide admiration for acting in the spirit of humanitarianism, rather than the cloud of oil-based greed that is now the standing perception.
Your argument seems to be that the ends always judtify the means.
The Iraq and Afgan situation isnt going to be solved after20 years, with so much factionalism going on in those countries.
If you want a good example of an occupying force, you only have to look at Northern Ireland tosee that foreign soldiers and an enforced peace do not a democracy make.
another example would be japan and germany, and look at them now
If that includes no US political or economical influence over Iraq then yes I would support it.
If it's really going to take the US 20 years then you might as well give up now. US can't afford 20 years of war. You name all those things the middle east would have but at home (the US) there would be a deficit in the trillions and it's not worth it.
I guess while it seems like a nice outcome, did this war justify the means? I mean, who are we to determine the future course of another people? If aliens came to earth and said "ya know guys, we've been watching you and we're not happy with the way things are going in the USA, so we're going to attack you and force you to...." Same principle. Diplomacy is always the best route. Note: not appeasment, but open and fair talks. Instead, what the US does is to cut off all dialouge with nations/regimes we don't like. How does that help? I realize the point of your ballot, but there is so much dispair in the world as it is, that invading another country to enforce our views is just wrong. Sorry, its just how I feel.
When it comes down to it, democracy isnt all its cracked up to be.
Its just mob rule with a sugar coating.
In a democracy, 51 percent of the people could in theory vote to execute the other 49 percent.
Just a thought!
Actually steel that isn't my argument. I never said 'would this justify the war in your mind'. I asked if it would make you happy or not. Rather simple I thought, apparently too simple as you felt the need to read in plenty of statements that I never made. Try addressing the ballot I actually made rather than the one you thought I made, ok?
herzog,I'm sure that you're happy with this fantasy, but it just can't be a reality as the nations concerned just don't want it by the means being used now by occupation forces to change their nations to what some other nation believes in.
Plundering of these nations is not the right path to take to bring about change as you should know yourself that you would not like anyone trying to change you or your way of life to their way of living by means of force.
To use an extreme example: What if the US invaded ... oh, say ... Columbia and annexed it, and everything turned out great. Would they be justified?
^Have we annexed Iraq? Also, nobody has addressed my point of Japan becoming an economic powerhouse relatively soon after their annihilation in WW2...Hmmmmmm.
Cath cath cath, you're making the same mistake alot of people on this thread have. Find where I asked if it would justify the invasion. I never made such a claim, I asked if you'd be happy. I thought up this ballot after reading the democratic underground for a while. Those people seemed elated every time something bad happened in iraq; 6 iraqi children killed in car blast, hell yeah! this means bush was wrong. Etc. I was wondering if this sentiment is common on the antiwar side (that anything is justified so long as it makes bush look bad) or if it's limited to a handful of leftwing nuts.
Would the war make me happy?
If the US or anyone had to make the entire world democratic through war then I wouldn't be happy because if war is the only way to make people democratic then that's really sad & shameful.
nah, I liked both of those countries just the way they were..corrupt, stinking, impoverished, oppressed, exploited and violent. oh, how we will long for the days of a good, strong-armed, psychotic dictator. Ruling with a club in one hand and a bribe in the other, stomping on the heads of freedom and knowledge.. makes me wistful..ooooooh Saddam, what have they done to you..?
I would still feel that the war was wrong and illegal. In other words, the ends don't justify the means. But, apparently you only want people to answer this question the way that you want them to. Maybe you should just restrict the choices. I may ask leading ballots sometimes, but if people take another angle and make a good point then I think that is good and contributes to the debate. Thanks for the negative k.
Herz: Wish I could believe you, but disengenuous weaseling seems to be SOP since the New GOP Order came into power. Whenever this question is asked, it strikes me that it is an attempt to establish that if there are any good results, then it was a worthwhile undertaking. You can hide that however you wish, but that is my strong impression.
I'll also freely admit that when/if good things happen in Iraq, I have mixed feelings. 1: I'm glad that something good happened ... to anyone. 2. I question the truthfulness/ completeness of the news ... the New GOP Order has lied and spun too much for me to blindly accept anything they say. 3: I grow more fearful that those who support the New GOP Order will point to any good news (real or made up) as evidence that the War was justified ... setting further precedent for future undertakings.
no adminstration has told me the whole truth since the construction of internment camps for Americans citizens of Japanese descent. again, I don't want tosee prosperity in Iraq OR Afghanistan..it'll just put more pressure on an already dwindling natural resource base!
i wasn't against getting sadam out but it ws the wrong way to do it
"I'd still be pissed..." Here's why. There is NOTHING to justify the death of a single U.S. Solidier/Sailor/Airman when based on a LIE. There's nothing hypothetcial about that...