MasterDrake Posted September 19, 2004 Report Posted September 19, 2004 Despite popular opinion, the break up of Iraq would not be a bad thing at all. There is history to be learned from the Palestinian/Israeli clash. No matter what, killing your own people for your own interests is all that Hussein did, and no one could stick up against him. Now that he is gone, we have a new era, and perhaps new divides to be found. Could happen with or without US involvement - it's really up to the Iraqi intellectuals. The US picks its fights very carefully, and expounds all forms of diplomacy before taking action. Perhaps some forum members have a bad case of amnesia.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I concur
Aileron Posted September 19, 2004 Report Posted September 19, 2004 Well, not exactly. One needs to understand how dictatorships work. The dictator cannot run the country on his own, so he needs some supporters. However, due to the way the dictatorship system works, what he wants is a small group of people who love him and hold all the power. Basically, dictorships work by robbing Bob to donate to Bill. Hussein's people were the Shi'a and the Baath party. He robbed everyone else to make them an economic elite. It goes without contention that the Shi'a will not be better off in the end, atleast material wise. But if you think about Iraq before the Ottomans, you can see a nation where people put aside their different ethnicities. Gosh, if Iraqi's knew their own history, they wouldn't even care about their differences. Vile, I don't put much faith in so-called "experts". The real people with the brains and the stones to make the decisions run for office themselves. The "experts" are mere monday morning quarterbackers trying to fulfill their notions of self worth, and not doing a very good job. I'd also rather believe a politician over a newspaper. Politicians in the end need to get votes, so there is a limit to their capability of being dishonest (not that that limit isn't pushed frequently). Newspapers only need to make money, so they can be as dishonest as they choose.
MonteZuma Posted September 19, 2004 Report Posted September 19, 2004 We didn't get burned badly in Iraq or Afghanistan <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Given that the US supported the Taliban and the mastermind behind the the destruction of the WTC and damage to the Pentagon and the loss of 4 American airliners and thousands of US lives and then the need to invade Afghanistan to get rid of them, I'd say the US got burned in Afghanistan pretty bad. The situation in Iraq is similar. The US supported a maniacal dictator and now it has cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives to get rid of him. Yes. The US got burned. The first thing it did was give credit to US threats. It barely made the news when various other middle eastern rulers caved to US political pressure after Iraq. In a history book, this would be important.The media should have focussed on this in more detail. I think the claims that this has put more pressure on middle eastern countries are exaggerated. Libya caved in long before the invasion. I can't think of any dangerous middle eastern country that has caved in significantly? Maybe you can point one out for me? The only seriously dangerous rogue state at the moment is North Korea, and if anything, they became more steadfast because of the invasion. It also changes the public perception of democracy. Formally, demoracy meant that you were either like Israel or like Hussein government. By eliminating the flase belief that Hussein's government was a democracy and by instilling a functional one, it will make democracy much more appealing.Nobody thought that Hussein's government was a democracy. The difference here is really perception of time. Liberals tend to think in months, conservatives in years.I disagree.
MonteZuma Posted September 19, 2004 Report Posted September 19, 2004 I'd also rather believe a politician over a newspaper. Politicians in the end need to get votes, so there is a limit to their capability of being dishonest (not that that limit isn't pushed frequently). Newspapers only need to make money, so they can be as dishonest as they choose.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>WTF? Are you serious? I don't trust papers or politicians 100%, but, save for the editorial sections, a respected broadsheet newspaper's reputation is built upon it's objective analysis and summary of news events. If they make stuff up people don't buy their papers. They have at least as much stake in the truth as politicians do. I'd trust a respected political commentator or reporter to tell the truth in a newspaper article than I would trust a politician's election campaign speech.
A Soldier Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 A website I saw on an other forumhttp://www.usworldvote.org
Guest Recombo Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Here's what that site says: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world's only superpower. Some say a "hyperpower". America holds sway over the world like no other country in the entire history of humankind. It dominates in the 5 spheres of power: political, economic, military, technological, and cultural. In light of this fact, the question we should ask ourselves is: If the US holds such influence over the rest of the world, shouldn't all citizens of the world have the right to vote in the next US presidential election? We invite all citizens of all nations to vote for the next President of the United States of the World. Of course, your vote won't count on November 2nd but speaking-up does.
Guest Recombo Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Keep dreaming moron. This country already has enough disgraceful gay and lesbian immigrants, poachers, moochers, abusers, and slackers from other countries like Canada. We certainly don't need anymore. Feel offended? Too bad. You suggest that you have vote in a country which you have no citizenship? The policies of this country may affect the world, but first and foremost they affect the lives of Americans. Think I want you to vote on how I live my life? HAHAHAHA!! We get enough of your two cent opinions.
A Soldier Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 Keep dreaming moron. This country already has enough disgraceful gay and lesbian immigrants, poachers, moochers, abusers, and slackers from other countries like Canada. We certainly don't need anymore. Feel offended? Too bad. You suggest that you have vote in a country which you have no citizenship? The policies of this country may affect the world, but first and foremost they affect the lives of Americans. Think I want you to vote on how I live my life? HAHAHAHA!! We get enough of your two cent opinions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Funny how you are easily offuscated by a website offfff course citizens from around the world should not vote in the US elections, but the point of the website was to gather opinions from people that do no live in the US to see, if they were americans, who they'd vote for. Bush isn't even listed in the top 3
Guest Recombo Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 If you're merely looking for a reaction (which apparently you are) you got one. Honestly though, who cares what non-citizens think about other countries. But since we are amid mere speculation: Meh...forget it. I can't post something without having it slap you in the face. This is my kindler gentle side emerging. Go Canada...you go girl.
A Soldier Posted September 22, 2004 Author Report Posted September 22, 2004 If you're merely looking for a reaction (which apparently you are) you got one.Sigh. Being an american citizen, the website wasn't even aimed at you, yet you had to step in to insult me while not even getting the point of the poll: people disagree with american foreign policies, the main reason why they prefer Kerry over Bush.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 Sigh. Being an american citizen, the website wasn't even aimed at you, yet you had to step in to insult me while not even getting the point of the poll: people disagree with american foreign policies, the main reason why they prefer Kerry over Bush. The real reason they do is because of all the horse-*BAD WORD*- shoveled into their brains on a daily basis by their biased media. (that is if you want the truth about it...) Oh wait, I forgot being foreign automatically puts you in the "more intelligent than the average US citizen" catagory... Let me ask you this... why didn't Europe have an opinion about Saddam and terrorism before the US acted... Europe has been dealing with this threat for centuries, what steps have you all taken to reduce or eliminate the problem? Thats right, the correct answer is none. Dr.Worthless -- Who's really tired of Euro's opinions, 99% of which didn't have one until someone gave it to them.
A Soldier Posted September 22, 2004 Author Report Posted September 22, 2004 The real reason they do is because of all the horse-*BAD WORD*- shoveled into their brains on a daily basis by their biased media. (that is if you want the truth about it...)What do you mean by biaised, seriously? Personnally, I believe I could say the same thing about american medias. Take Fox for exemple. The few times I had the chance to watch it while I was in New York last summer gave me an idea on the channel's objectivity - poor. :/ Let me ask you this... why didn't Europe have an opinion about Saddam and terrorism before the US acted... Europe has been dealing with this threat for centuries, what steps have you all taken to reduce or eliminate the problem?Perhaps Europe didn't think Saddam Hussein presented a direct threat to their region..? I think monte posted a link of it before about how Saddam's regime did not pose a threat to his neighbors. How could he strike on Europe?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 Perhaps Europe didn't think Saddam Hussein presented a direct threat to their region..? I think monte posted a link of it before about how Saddam's regime did not pose a threat to his neighbors. How could he strike on Europe?Sorry, I should have said "and/or terrorism". The point being the UN and Europe failed to take an interest in Iraq and its citizens until the US removed him from power. Then all of a sudden Europe wants to be come interested in world politics... What do you mean by biaised, seriously? Personnally, I believe I could say the same thing about american medias. Take Fox for exemple. The few times I had the chance to watch it while I was in New York last summer gave me an idea on the channel's objectivity - poor. :/ Heh, well obviously you know what I mean by biased, you stated what media you felt was biased in the very next sentence. Perhaps Europe didn't think Saddam Hussein presented a direct threat to their region..? Obviously not with terrorism either.. even though its plauged european countries for centuries..
A Soldier Posted September 22, 2004 Author Report Posted September 22, 2004 Heh, well obviously you know what I mean by biased, you stated what media you felt was biased in the very next sentence.ok my bad here. I meant what media(s) and why/how?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 ok my bad here. I meant what media(s) and why/how? You caught me with my pants down, I admitedly have 0 experience with any news media outside of the US. (Well, I do keep up with aussie news..) I was speaking from a sort of quasi-experience with the US news media, and how what the media says (from both sides) dictates how about % of the populus feel, I suspect Europe is not any different, and i'm sure there's not a shortage of "bush-bashers" and/or "US bashers" in Europe.
MasterDrake Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 Any who I am not voting for Kerry because he is a liar. 1. He wants to down size the military2. He wants to give all us military folk a pay cut I am looking out for number one so I vote Bush
Recommended Posts