Now we have more than one debate going and everything is getting muddled due to cross-referencing separate arguments. I keep reading that Bush is an idiot and then I keep reading "Why are we in Iraq" These are separate topics, if the democrats were in power and there was a perceived worry about the supply of oil then we would be in Iraq under the democrats. Is Bush an idiot, perhaps, probably, but nowadays nobody is elected on their personal intelligence, they are promoted by a political machine that tells them what to say and how to act based on polls and surveys. They do this in order that there political machine is in government control. I don't even know how much influence Bush has on policies, yes he decided ultimately that stem cell research had to stop. It wasn't stopped, it was postponed while other countries do the research. Dick Cheney probably makes more decisions than George Bush does, they just happen to come from George Bush's lips. Speaking of Dick Cheney, how many people can shoot a buddy with a gun and expect no repercussions?, back to the topic at hand...Usually when the elected guy strays from his script, he is proven to be an idiot. Is the republican guy named Bush an idiot, probably, are democrats idiots, I dunno, did Al Gore invent the internet? Did Bill Clinton risk his presidency to spank Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office and smoke flavoured cigars? How about JFK, was he not banging everything that moved. Hell, until Howard Dean decided an unscripted speech was acceptable he was on the fast-track to the presidency. So I ask you, is George Bush any less of an idiot than his Democrat brethen? 2nd Question, Why are we in Iraq??? For an unlimited supply of Oil. Nothing more, nothing less, the government felt the oil supply was threatened and had to make a somewhat palpable attempt to appease everyone in order to control the flow of oil. Hell before the invasion of Iraq, the states offered to allow Iraq to pay for the internal damage that economic sanctions had done in the previous 10 years and purchase essentials like medicine, food and clothing through Iraq's oil supply. The next country on the agenda may be Iran. But you know what, Venezuela is a big supplier of Oil and lately they have been telling the world what terrible people the American's are, they have a communist government that has no use for the US. Do you think once we have completely knocked Iraq back to the middle ages and they are no longer a threat that Venezuela may be come the newest member of the axis of evil? It is all about the OIL!
You Said: Each Day. You really should be more specific. *L* As sad as civilian deaths are there have still been less deaths in Iraq than in any other war of it's length. Also, does this stat just cover the innocent or all iraqis? The insurgents don't wear uniforms and would definately look like civilians... Are they counting just civilians accidentally killed by the US and British? or are they including the ones purposly killed by the insurgents? When you divide it up... who's actually doing most of the killing here.
so you're saying that not being able to attend university is WORSE than being hung by meathooks and mass killings, which happened under Saddam.
Liberal is a dirty word not from what any news agency says but from the actions of Liberal politicians..... in Canada we call them Lieberals. Anyway.. don't take it personally.... the voters of every party are alot coser to the "middle" than their politicians. Hell... I consider myself a conservative (as if that wasn't obvious) but still believe in seperation of religion and state and am ok with the whole gay marrage thing.... We almost never agree with our party 100%. I only have one problem with what you (and other liberals) want. The definition of victory. Like it's some kind of game where it's easy to to tell when it's over. Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, ect... you're looking at around 30 years of work before you can think of pulling out. If you do get a definition of victory and set out a time period. What happens when you reach that time and there is no victory?... should you just give up?... I say accept the fact that you're going to be there for decades and work towards building relationships with Iraqi. One thing I will agree on is that a military solution is not going to work. It must be an all around solution including everything. Military, Aid, Political, etc. The US needs to ask for advice from the British who know how to work in this kind of environment.
Very well said. I consider myself a liberal, but I do not agree with everything Liberals do or say. I have to say I somewhat agree with you on the point you made here. Regardless on whether or not I aree with the choice for the US to go into Iraq, we need a viable exit strategy. I think that somewhere between forcing the USA way of life on Iraq and an immediate pullout of our troops is the solution. In typical liberal fashion though, I dont have many answers for what to do exactly. I think more control of Iraq left in the hands of Iraq is a good idea though My real answer to the problems in Iraq............ Separate the country into about 4 new countries according to their religious leanings. The majority of the fighting amongst Iraqis is due to religious differences and each faction wanting more control of the country and/or government. A Sunni leader is marked for death by the Shiites and vice versa. Give them each their own territory to govern themselves and it might cut down on the death and violence in Iraq.
Don't get me wrong... ideas are good... BUT: Seperating the country wouldn't work for a number of reasons... 1. That would never stop the religious issues........ religons have been at odds for hundreds of years.. a little thing like a boarder doesn't stop palastine and isreal.... The root of the problem is religion itself.. but the comunists tried to ban that and failed. 2. What do you do with the mixed areas? or areas where there is a majority of one group... what happens to the minority? Do you force them from their homes and make them start fresh somewhere else? There is no simple answer. If there was it would have been found already. On another note... Forcing the US way of life will never work. You can't force people to be a certain way. The British learned that the hard way with Ireland and other countries in the commonwealth. Iraq needs democracy but it needs an Iraqi style of Democracy... whatever that is we'll find out.
India/Pakistan/Bangladesh was a disaster before those countries became "stable" (albeight, with nuclear weapons now). And don't forget that if the Kurds get their own autonomous region, Turkey will move in and wipe them out.
I have made a conscious effort to stay out of this “debate” for reasons that I’ve detailed in earlier threads. But, I now feel the need to rebut on two different points. First, B&B (although I don’t agree with you on some of your points) I appreciate the tone that you’ve taken in this debate – it’s always better to discuss things in cordial manner rather than to resort to name-calling and mudslinging. We have all (hopefully) matured beyond the grade school mentality of hurling insults at people that we don’t like. B&B, I’ve heard the oil card played before and the numbers don’t warrant it. During 2001 (before the Iraqi invasion), about 48 percent of U.S. crude oil imports came from the Western Hemisphere (19 percent from South America, 15 percent from Mexico, and 14 percent from Canada), while 30 percent came from the Persian Gulf region (18 percent from Saudi Arabia, 9 percent from Iraq, and 3 percent from Kuwait). We currently import about 5% of our total crude oil imports from Iraq. I would think that if we invaded purely to protect our oil flow that number would have to be substantially higher than 9%. Second, it has been inferred by some on here that the Iraqi people would have been better off if Saddam were still in power. There are dozens of accounts that give an insight into life in Iraq under Saddam’s dictatorship. This is one account that sticks in my mind. In August 1995, two of Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law (Hussein Kamel and Saddam Kamel), who held high positions in the Iraqi military, defected to Jordan with their wives (Hussein’s daughters). Hussein pleaded with them to return to Iraq and promised that no harm would come to them. After playing on their patriotism, he convinced them to return. After they returned, Hussein had the sons-in-law arrested, tortured for days, killed and then forced his daughters to watch as he burned their houses down. The Iraqi people were terrified of this man. Marsh
OK, I am not claiming to have all of the answers, but if it is not for the oil, and it is truly because we are concerned with the welfare of the general populace, if we are truly there for altruistic reasons, then why aren't we in Saudi Arabia where crimes against humanity are just as severe, why aren't we in China where again human atrocities are through the roof. Why aren't we in a dozen other countries. I say we aren't in Saudi Arabia because we are friendly with them and they supply us with oil, we ovelook that most of the 9/11 terrorists originated from Saudi Arabia including Osama. I say we aren't in China because the size of their country, their own nuclear armanent and there vast size would make it nearly impossible to hold them in check without an all out escalation to nuclear war. I am interssted in hearing your responses. Thanks[/quote]
