Who´s going to win ?

[ralphwiggum 6]

the problem with this election is that

1)external factor - iraq is too unstable. it can work to both ways. if situation starts deteriorating before election, bad news for Bush. but it can also be bad for democrats since they have to come up with a solution too.

2)economy - although we finally got a glimpse of recovery, it's far from over. luckily for GOP, the numbers would sound las if economy is back, but in essence, it could be a rebound after too much fall.

3)silent votes. last election, Gore had more popular vote, but not by much. it also means that current US politic is heavily divided along the party lines. furthermore, last time, although Nader was a small group, he was able to make some dent in Gore's support. if left gets one solid front this time, it might get Dems a chance, like it did with clinton. Bush's approval rating is 50%, but that could change depending on two factors mentioned above. Just because someone seems nice to drink with doesn't mean that they are going to be fit for presidency. and how much does voters know about it is going to make difference here.

one thing that numbers cannot tell is whether it's because of one thing or because of combination of others. Bush's approval rating works, but does that means people think there are no viable alternitives?

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying that Gulf war II & WW2 are even remotely comparatable?

Saddam was a vicious tyrant, so was Hitler. Both were quite happy to invade other countries, both were very brutal toward anyone they didn't approve of, and both were very interested in the prospect of acquiring WMDs.

I couldnt be arsed to reply to this before because contrary to the popular belief, I need to sleep sometimes.

Then how come nobody cared about Saddams ambition and viciousness before western oil interests were threatened? (Think Iran-Iraq war)

Not to mention that Kim Il Jong is about as oppressive and more likely to develop nukes, and have you ever heard of a guy called Islam Karimov who happens to be some kind of US ally in "war on terror" and still prefers to literally boil his opponents? And don't make me getting started on other dictators US has supported since the 60s.. brr.

The point is that no-one gives a shit about the poor civilians unless there is some sort of a hidden agenda.

[IceFire 0]

IceFire: Statements like this need to have actual documented facts behind them. When you say he is honest, you need to prove how he is, and clarify where he has made corrections in harmony with that honesty. If you say "I like Bush and Dean is bad" and leave it at that, you are no different than those who say "Bush goose-stepped from texas to DC" and fail to explain how and why.

My comment about all the other catasrophes is two-fold:

1) Where do you draw the line with conspiricy theories and culpability, and more importantly,

2) Now that we are in this mess, what are we going to do about it?

As for Bush complicity in 9/11, can anyone DOCUMENT anything where Bush was told that Al'Qaeda "Will hit such-and-such", and responded with a deliberate informed decision to fiddle while Rome burns ala Nero? I've only heard Dean say "Well, an interesting theory I once heard..." and that doesn't cut it for me.

Now to twist the knife in the back of the US. All the same arguements against GW2 orginated many years ago. If you read back in history, you'll see that the US had a strong (and much more credible and effective) peace movement in the early 1900's and '30's. We were PROUD of the fact that we were sitting on our butts watching Europe slaughter each other in the two World Wars. Sure there were a few annoying buzzards that kept yapping nonsense about trains to Treblinka, but thats not OUR problem... was/is it?

Now again, a common attitude is that the whole ME and Afganistan and anywhere else can go to hell, just as long as it don't interrupt my Super Bowl 38 (Patriots by 7 IMHO). For people who are on any side politically, why shouldn't Iraq or Tibet be liberated? Furthermore, what's the difference anyway?

I may not agree with pretty much everything Toadeater sez, HOWEVER, he does make the effort to research and organize a consistent arguement - in the debate sense.

ShinRaiden, I say he is honest because I know that his actions reflect his true beliefs. I know this because his actions reflect not only MY beliefs, but also those of millions of other conservative Americans.

For years we have been looking for a leader who would do what we feel is necessary for our country. No serious "politician" in the past has really shown a willingness to vocally express the things us frustrated conservatives really think about except for a few like Pat Buchanan.

Bush is finally the man who has so perfectly articulated and embodied exactly what it is we believe in and who we are.

That is why I believe that he is our true leader and we are willing to fight for him. There are more of us conservative Americans than you know. More than there are liberals. We just move in very insulated circles. We don't like to associate with democrats and liberals.

But I can spot a true conservative when I see one in public. We just don't talk politics in public because most moderates and liberals tend to freak out about us.

[Major Gripe 0]

Bush is finally the man who has so perfectly articulated...

Give this man a VIP award NOW!!

[OmniMax 0]

Who is going to win?

Denoir, of course, no doubt about that.

Then the US and the nordic states will form a union and spend the military budget on M8 Mobile Gun Systems and military simulations for it's cititzens, after taking BIS hostage with a seals team...

Yes! Believe it or not, this will happen.

Free OFP for all!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Bush is finally the man who has so perfectly articulated...

Give this man a VIP award NOW!!

He's precious, isn't he? He can have mine

[shinRaiden 0]

Again, the primary issue with conservatives is that they tend to keep their mouth shut and feel all alone, because they only hear themselves by not talking with others.

Look at the Bush campaign versus the Dean campaign. Bush supporters say "I'm voting for Bush". Deaniacs say "We're voting for Dean". That is a critical blindspot among conservatives. Liberals have always been far more diligent and talented in motivation and organization. (I have my opinions why, but I'll keep them private.)

What happens is conservatives look at the TV and feel depressed by what they see, get some ideas, but clam up thinking "who am to impose my ideas on others? I'm a nobody anyways", never realizing that their neighbors are thinking likewise.

Meanwhile the liberal-inclined people pull out their soap boxes, start cranking out fliers, pass out buttons, and hit the streets organized.

I personally think Bush is far too much of a pansy and has played way too much suckup to those who are not interested in negotiations anyway. I do like the fact that he plays huge Texas-style poker foreign policy. Things have been getting boring for far too long.

Now this leads into another self-diatribe on self-diatribe. Another critical mistake on the conservative side is two-fold:

a) demanding perfection, while ignoring their christian belief in the inherent fraility of mankind,

b) destructive infighting and refusal to build alternatives when perfection (a) fails.

You hear about conservative infighting, but what about brotherly reconciliation? So now we've got a pile of people who are hacked at Bush for selling out on stuff they believe in, but rather than uniting as Democrats do well, they'll stay home, or vote for the "lesser of two evils" as opposed to the "better of two solutions". And their intransience only further fractures conservatism, and allows organized conservatism to rot and turn in on itself, resulting in just as much corruption as if the democrats were elected outright.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

<snip>

I'm just going to sidestep the part where you assume that a non-Republican presidential administration will automatically be mired in corruption, and forge right on ahead into more interesting and (possibly) less ridiculous territory

Yeah, those poor ol' mopey, stay at home conservatives. It's a wonder they even try. They're so depressed about their chances of winning that they've only contributed over 350 million dollars to the Bush '04 campaign (that's more than any other candidate has ever raised. EVER. Theoretically, if they wanted to, Bush could buy his own tactical fighter squadron and use it to bomb the Democratic nominees out of existence; that's how much money he's gotten from those shy-guy conservatives. Not to mention little things like the largest grassroots political organization in the country (that would be the Christian Coalition, for those of you still reading), which gives Bush the added bonus of being endorsed by GOD.

On the other hand, we have that vaunted liberal grassroots. Presumably, you're talking about the built in manpower base that connections to organized labor provide. That base theoretically could have won Gephardt the Iowa Caucases, but instead he pulled in 11% of the vote. Shocking. But surely those legendary Deaniacs, complete with their Day-Gloâ„¢ stocking caps could deliver Howard Dean a solid and dedicated base of support in the face of slipping poll numbers and absolutely relentless negative press coverage? He did get a solid 18% of the vote, which would have been okay if it hadn't been for the fact that two campaigns, with what conventional wisdom said were the weakest organizations in the pack, handed him his ass on a silver platter. Absolutely shocking. And Jesus H. Christ, it's only Iowa! Several Dems, including one of the frontrunners stayed the hell away just so they could save some cash. What are these sad sonsabitches going to do when they have to canvas the entire country?? Against a man with his own tactical fighter wing (or, to be fair, three professional football franchises), no less. David better pray for a miracle, because this morose and apathetic Goliath is preparing to knock our busy-body, well-organized hero flat on his pipsqueak ass. And still have enough left over to take a couple Senate seats right in with the deal.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

For years we have been looking for a leader who would do what we feel is necessary for our country.  No serious "politician" in the past has really shown a willingness to vocally express the things us frustrated conservatives really think about except for a few like Pat Buchanan.  

Absolutely. For too long the issue of banning Chinese food from America's malls to protect American jobs has been forced off the table by those who have an unholy love for Mongolian stir-fry.

Quote[/b] ]That is why I believe that he is our true leader and we are willing to fight for him. There are more of us conservative Americans than you know. More than there are liberals. We just move in very insulated circles. We don't like to associate with democrats and liberals.

And our conversations suffer much from your absence.

Quote[/b] ]But I can spot a true conservative when I see one in public. We just don't talk politics in public because most moderates and liberals tend to freak out about us.

I'm assuming that this is some facsimile of 'gaydar' that you 'conservatives' have.

Okay, for your next trick, IceFire: define 'conservative'. What does it mean to be a conservative? Does that definition encompass economic concerns too? How has being conservative evolved over time?

[denoir 0]

Who is going to win?

Denoir, of course, no doubt about that.

Then the US and the nordic states will form a union and spend the military budget on M8 Mobile Gun Systems and military simulations for it's cititzens, after taking BIS hostage with a seals team...

Yes! Believe it or not, this will happen.

Free OFP for all!

   

LMAO and at your new signature.

Sorry, but I'm not running. Both Al Gore and Clinton offered me endorsements. Bush begged me to take the burden of his shoulders,  but I've decided to become the King of Denmark instead (and then Norway and Finland - after which I will take the more appropriate title "Emperor")  

[Major Gripe 0]

No serious "politician" in the past has really shown a willingness to vocally express the things us frustrated conservatives really think about except for a few like Pat Buchanan.

And Hitler.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]And Hitler.

Skinheads support him, not your average conservative.

[Major Gripe 0]

Quote[/b] ]And Hitler.

Skinheads support him, not your average conservative.

Also a not insignificant number of the German middle class, who voted him into the Reichstag. I know that today it is only your freaks and weirdos who support Hitler, my point was from 1933-9 he wasn't the international pariah he now is. Ordinary Germans liked him, foreign politicians admired him and Time magazine awarded him the title of 'Man of the year' for 1939.

[GoOB 0]

My guess is that Bush will win again, I hope he won't but that is the feeling I am getting. Well, only four more years

Let's see how much of the world he can destroy within that mandate period...

[IceFire 0]

Again, the primary issue with conservatives is that they tend to keep their mouth shut and feel all alone, because they only hear themselves by not talking with others.

Look at the Bush campaign versus the Dean campaign. Bush supporters say "I'm voting for Bush". Deaniacs say "We're voting for Dean". That is a critical blindspot among conservatives. Liberals have always been far more diligent and talented in motivation and organization. (I have my opinions why, but I'll keep them private.)

What happens is conservatives look at the TV and feel depressed by what they see, get some ideas, but clam up thinking "who am to impose my ideas on others? I'm a nobody anyways", never realizing that their neighbors are thinking likewise.

Meanwhile the liberal-inclined people pull out their soap boxes, start cranking out fliers, pass out buttons, and hit the streets organized.

I personally think Bush is far too much of a pansy and has played way too much suckup to those who are not interested in negotiations anyway. I do like the fact that he plays huge Texas-style poker foreign policy. Things have been getting boring for far too long.

Now this leads into another self-diatribe on self-diatribe. Another critical mistake on the conservative side is two-fold:

a) demanding perfection, while ignoring their christian belief in the inherent fraility of mankind,

b) destructive infighting and refusal to build alternatives when perfection (a) fails.

You hear about conservative infighting, but what about brotherly reconciliation? So now we've got a pile of people who are hacked at Bush for selling out on stuff they believe in, but rather than uniting as Democrats do well, they'll stay home, or vote for the "lesser of two evils" as opposed to the "better of two solutions". And their intransience only further fractures conservatism, and allows organized conservatism to rot and turn in on itself, resulting in just as much corruption as if the democrats were elected outright.

ShinRaiden, you just almost perfectly described most liberal democrats. Not conservatives. We are VERY tightly knit. It is the liberals who will vote for the lesser of two evils. We vote for the right man.

But instead of liberals being quiet due to a "Who am I to impose my ideas on others" mentality, they are quiet due to a "I have no real ideas" mentality.

Everything you said is the opposite of the way most conservatives are. We belive our voices must be heard in order to maintain order in our country, and we are very willful about that. We are very willing to allow our opinions be known, because we know that we are right. Especially when you have "bottom of the barrel" democratic candidates try to win popularity by primarily drawing up anger against President Bush. A tactic that doesn't hold much water because it is just an emotional tactic.

I have never heard a conservative not state their opinions due to some "What right do I have" mentality? We know that we have plenty of right because we ARE right most of the time.

In other words your description of conservatives is totally off the mark.

[IceFire 0]

@ Jan. 23 2004,08:47)]Okay, for your next trick, IceFire: define 'conservative'. What does it mean to be a conservative? Does that definition encompass economic concerns too? How has being conservative evolved over time?

I really don't think I can entirely "define" a conservative. It's not only a mentality. It's a personality. The way we look at things. In my opinion it's difficult to explain.

We believe in truth. We believe in the country first and formost, and we have the spirit to be willing to do whatever it takes to defend it. We(or maybe just me) don't like new crazy ideas ruining our image of a decent American country(this includes foreign cultures that try to dominate american society). Some or even alot of this is aesthetic. We believe in maintaining certain level of standards for society where there are some social norms which imply some level of class or simply conservatism.

Also, very importantly we belive in the preservation of the American culture and way of life. This also means preserving the integrity of our language in a country where people are trying very hard to avoid learning it.

We also feel that political correctness is a tool used by liberals to imply guilt on conservatives who want to express what they truly think. We hate political correctness.

Another thing. I am not a fan of "multi culturalism". This has nothing to do with race by the way. Others may have a right to practice their beliefs and eat their food here and whatnot when they escape tyrants from their countries. But we should not encourage it. They should try to conform. This is the US.

Listen, this is a rough description of my idea of a conservative. I really couln't articulate too well what it is that I had in mind. Maybe later, I am pretty tired as I just got home from work.

[denoir 0]

We believe in truth.

Starting with the latest state of the union speech:

We are seeking all the facts already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.

Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.

and continuing with:

Quote[/b] ]

Vice President Cheney

Veterans of Foreign Wars 103 rd National Convention

August 26, 2002

"But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors --including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.

"Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Secretary Powell

FOX News Sunday Interview with Tony Snow

September 8, 2002

"There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks? With respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has some stocks of those weapons and he is probably continuing to try to develop more? With respect to nuclear weapons, we are quite confident that he continues to try to pursue the technology that would allow him to develop a nuclear weapon? So there's no question that he has these weapons, but even more importantly, he is striving to do even more, to get even more."

Vice President Cheney

NBC Meet the Press with Tim Russert

September 8, 2002

"What we have seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium.

"Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in the New York Times this morning --this is --and I want to attribute it to the Times. I don't want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources. But it is now public that in fact he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb. This is a technology he was working on back say before the Gulf War.

"And one of the reasons it's of concern to him is we know about a particular shipment --we have intercepted that --we don't know what else, what other avenues he may be taking out there, what he may have already acquired? So we have to deal with these bits and pieces and try to put them together into a mosaic to understand what's going on. But we do know with absolute certainty that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."

National Security Advisor Rice

The New Republic (June 19, 2003)

September 8, 2002

"There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Secretary Rumsfeld The New Republic (June 19, 2003) September 8, 2002 "Imagine a September eleventh with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand ? it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children."

President Bush United Nations General Assembly, New York September 12, 2002

"U. N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

"United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

"And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

"Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program --weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

"Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U. N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region?

"We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?" White House

And put this in context of for example the chief US WMD investigator saying that there were no WMD, and resigning. Yes, it's the same David Kay that Bush so nicely mentioned a couple of days ago in the State of the Union Speech.

The truth? LOL. The current US administration has been spewing out complete and easily verifiable lies. He tricked the American people into going to war and you're telling us that honesty is one of his good qualities? If that's the case, I'd hate to know what his bad sides are

[IceFire 0]

Just because there may not be any WMD in Iraq right now doesn't mean that there weren't WMD in Iraq before and upto the onset of the war.

Saddam could have moved them out of the country for all we know.

We already know that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That fact is not in dispute. It's just a matter of FINDING them.

[Harnu 0]

Just because there may not be any WMD in Iraq right now doesn't mean that there weren't WMD in Iraq before and upto the onset of the war.

Saddam could have moved them out of the country for all we know.

We already know that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  That fact is not in dispute.   It's just a matter of FINDING them.

Let the circle begin...

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just because there may not be any WMD in Iraq right now doesn't mean that there weren't WMD in Iraq before and upto the onset of the war.

Manufacturing of WMDs require a BIG inrastructure around it, noone of this has been found.

Quote[/b] ]Saddam could have moved them out of the country for all we know.

Moon can be cheese for all we know. US satellites up there watching iraq night and day for the wmds or transports of them; nothing found.

Quote[/b] ]We already know that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

That is true. USA was among the countrys who sold Iraq them back then.

Quote[/b] ]It's just a matter of FINDING them.

Hans Blix disagrees with you, David Kay disagrees with you. These 2 have spent quite a long time there searching for WMDs, and havent found any WMD infrastructure or actual WMDs. How do you figure that "It's just a matter of FINDING them" ??

[denoir 0]

Just because there may not be any WMD in Iraq right now doesn't mean that there weren't WMD in Iraq before and upto the onset of the war.

Saddam could have moved them out of the country for all we know.

We already know that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  That fact is not in dispute.   It's just a matter of FINDING them.

Read again what the chief US chief US inspector said. That Iraq destroyed them in the 90's..

And you can't move the infrastructure. You can't put large chemical and nuclear plants on a truck and move them.

And if you want an example of lies that they have admitted to, you can take the Nigerian Uranium claim, given last year's state of the union speech.

Only a complete idiot doesn't see the massive amount of their claims that have been verified to be complete and utter bullshit.

Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction at the time Bush started presenting his claims. That's a fact, proven over and over again. First by the UN and then by the US itself.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday, in response to Kay's remarks, "We remain confident that the Iraq Survey Group will uncover the truth about Saddam Hussein's regime, the regime's weapons of destruction programs."

Quote[/b] ]There are no american tanks in Bagdad

[IceFire 0]

Just because there may not be any WMD in Iraq right now doesn't mean that there weren't WMD in Iraq before and upto the onset of the war.

Saddam could have moved them out of the country for all we know.

We already know that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  That fact is not in dispute.   It's just a matter of FINDING them.

Read again what the chief US chief US inspector said. That Iraq destroyed them in the 90's..

And you can't move the infrastructure. You can't put large chemical and nuclear plants on a truck and move them.

And if you want an example of lies that they have admitted to, you can take the Nigerian Uranium claim, given last year's state of the union speech.

Only a complete idiot doesn't see the massive amount of their claims that have been verified to be complete and utter bullshit.

Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction at the time Bush started presenting his claims. That's a fact, proven over and over again. First by the UN and then by the US itself.

Ok, let's pretend that Saddam Hussein did not have any WMDs at the time Bush was claiming that he did.

Why in the world would Saddam Hussein resist so strongly against giving us the information that we wanted?

Why would he kick out weapons inspectors from Iraq?

And lastly, there is one thing everyone is forgetting. The point of the 2nd Iraq war was to ensure that Saddam Hussein would not be a threat. The war was basically meant to neutralise a threat.

Is that threat not neutralised? We have conquered Iraq. There is no way that Saddam Hussein will be either aquiring WMD, or passing them along to Islamic fundamentalist groups.

That assurance of safetly, that this threat that has been neutralized was good enough reason to go to war.

That threat has been neutralised and we are all a little bit safer. Not only that, we now have a staging ground in the Middle East for a US military base to strengthen our attack into the other areas of the ME.

The war was not only to neutralise a threat, it was an ideal entry way into the middle east. A perfect gateway. We now have a much greater capability to ware counter terrorism warfare in the ME.

It is our sacred duty to protect our nation. We will achieve this be the complete societal and cultural reformation of the middle east. That is number 2 of our principle(not so talked about) reasons for the Iraq war.

Number 1 was to neutralize the threat, and number 2 was for the complete overhauling of a region so unstable by fundamentalists that it is a nesting ground for those who wish to do us harm.

We will do this by taking apart the entire region and rebuilding it from the ground up. In order to kill Islamic fundementalists, we must change their societal order. This is our ultimate goal. The democratisation of Iraq is the beginning.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Why in the world would Saddam Hussein resist so strongly against giving us the information that we wanted?

1. Exactly what info are you referring to?

2. If the leader of Iran demanded info from the US on their weapons capability, do you think Bush would hand it over?

Quote[/b] ]Why would he kick out weapons inspectors from Iraq?

Because there were no WMD's? Because he thought they were spying on him? Because the Iraqi people and Saddam were offended about the WMD claims? Would the US allow UN inspectors to valse through their facilities whenever they pleased?

Quote[/b] ]And lastly, there is one thing everyone is forgetting. The point of the 2nd Iraq war was to ensure that Saddam Hussein would not be a threat. The war was basically meant to neutralise a threat.

Yes, but that was not the reason you guys went to war. The reason Bush went to war with Iraq, the reason he told the people and the government, was that Iraq had WMD's and was about to use them on the US.

Quote[/b] ]Is that threat not neutralised? We have conquered Iraq. There is no way that Saddam Hussein will be either aquiring WMD, or passing them along to Islamic fundamentalist groups.

And there is no proof, nor has there ever been, that this was his intention.

Quote[/b] ]That threat has been neutralised and we are all a little bit safer. Not only that, we now have a staging ground in the Middle East for a US military base to strengthen our attack into the other areas of the ME.

No, we are not safer. The world hasnt become a safer place through this action. Quite the contrary.

Quote[/b] ]It is our sacred duty to protect our nation. We will achieve this be the complete societal and cultural reformation of the middle east. That is number 2 of our principle(not so talked about) reasons for the Iraq war.

A crusade to convert the heathens then, if you will. Nice to see atleast one America admiting to the fact that America has comitted an international crime and started an illegal war.

Quote[/b] ]We will do this by taking apart the entire region and rebuilding it from the ground up. In order to kill Islamic fundementalists, we must change their societal order. This is our ultimate goal. The democratisation of Iraq is the beginning.

Yeah, screw the people living there. They shouldnt have a say. The American way is the only way, the best way. Even if we have to pry their jaws open and shove it down their throats at gunpoint... Thats just sickening. The only way they can be democratized is if they themselves want it, you cant force it on them.

[Schoeler 0]

Yeah, screw the people living there. They shouldnt have a say. The American way is the only way, the best way. Even if we have to pry their jaws open and shove it down their throats at gunpoint... Thats just sickening. The only way they can be democratized is if they themselves want it, you cant force it on them.

No, we can't force it on them, and it would be wrong to try. But it would be equally wrong to ignore our obligations as a free society to provide those oppressed by a murdering regime the opportunity to make that choice. Maybe we haven't always done that in the past, but that doesn't mean we should always continue to sit on our hands. I don't believe that was the intention of our administration, but I do believe it was and is the intention of the American people, else we'd be up in arms to bring those troops home. Doing nothing in the face of human rights violations and genocide is just as wrong as lending a helping hand in the killing. Its easy to sit back in safety and comfort, worrying only about your own selfish interests and criticize the tactics and ideas of the man who rolled his sleeves up and got his hands dirty. Its much harder trying to find a solution to a complex and ongoing problem by wending your way into the middle of a dirty stream.