Democrats and Republicans are both wrong 32 replies

Please wait...

Phoenix_22 VIP Member

46 and 2, are just ahead of me

255,785 XP

23rd September 2004

0 Uploads

24,266 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

...as in the Iraq situation. winkx.gif Anyway, this week i have been thinking of how the Republican majority as well as the Democratic majority have gone past what they originally tried to accomplish, and now they are both a ranting mess. Republican view: We went into Iraq because it was a threat to American Security, Saddam was a dictator, and Saddam was harboring terrorists. Now for this, i disagree. We went into Iraq to topple Saddam, destroy the WMD's (Weapons of Mass-destruction, for those who forgot), and to establish a democratic system. Also, Republicans believe that we need to stay in the "war on terror" so that we can somehow pull peace out of this...which is impossible, you can't have peace, peace is not real. Democratic view: We need an exit strategy, Bush is in for the oil, Bush led us into the wrong war, and we need to pull out so that we don't lose any more troops. Now, although i agree with more of this than the Republican view, it still has flaws. We do need an exit strategy, but its not to pull everyone home right now, or pull out within weeks. As far as i know, it was not for oil, if we wanted oil, it would show up at the pump. Hell, if this war was for oil, i'd support it...someone needs to have some petroleum in this world, why not take it now...survival of the fittest, right? As for Bush misleading us, yes, he did...because the fact that we are going to be there for a loooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnggggggg time, and we would have been better off not having to have an occupation. Now, for the pulling out: Simple answer: we can't. We've already tarnished our image by actually going to war in Iraq, but we would further tarnish our image if we do pull out and let the Iraqis solve their own problems. Obviously people don't realize that if we left now, we would be worse off than where we are now, and Iraq could and probably would become a country in Civil war. We can't pull out, its time to prepare properly so that we can stay there for 20 years or so and not lose too many troops, and outlast the hardships. /End Rant




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

We wouldnt have been in this mess if it wasnt for Bush. He dug America's hole.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

If we wanted oil we could bomb the entire middle east back to the stone age and set up the pumps, but we don't.




Ekips

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

18th November 2004

0 Uploads

316 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

We could of solved the situation peacefully and the the U.N. Weapons inspectors do their jobs.




crzymnky

US Army PFC

50 XP

15th December 2004

0 Uploads

801 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago
WiseBoboIf we wanted oil we could bomb the entire middle east back to the stone age and set up the pumps, but we don't.

we wouldn't need to bomb them back into the stone age, most places are pretty close to it, only destroy the pumps and build new ones




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago
EkipsWe could of solved the situation peacefully and the the U.N. Weapons inspectors do their jobs.

Uh the inspectors were kicked out, if they are not in Iraq how can they be doing their jobs. And yes he did have WMD's. Rember some of those shells with mustard gas in them and the other barells of it?




LIGHTNING [NL]

FH2 Developer

50 XP

30th May 2003

0 Uploads

9,811 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago
Pethegreat™Uh the inspectors were kicked out, if they are not in Iraq how can they be doing their jobs. And yes he did have WMD's. Rember some of those shells with mustard gas in them and the other barells of it?

Who gave the USA a monopoly on WMDs anyway? As far as usage is considered the USA is the only nation in the history of this planet to have ever used nuclear weapons in a war. And who knows what the hell you've got stored there in area 51. Weapon inspectors should be in the USA, not in Iraq. In polls in Europe, where people were asked which country they thought was the biggest thread to world peace over 50% awnsered the USA (with Isreal coming in second).




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago
'LIGHTNING [NL'] In polls in Europe, where people were asked which country they thought was the biggest thread to world peace over 50% awnsered the USA (with Isreal coming in second).

:lol:. Lets see: World war: 1 we bailed the british and french out, leading to a peroid of peace World war 2: Bailed you out again and the same thing happened. Cold war: our stockpile of nukes and WMD's kept the russians from attacking western euroupe, keeping the world at peace Desert Storm: went in there and stablized the middle east. Kosovo: Stopped Genocide and brought peace to Kosovo. Unlike Iraq, we do not harbor or fund terrorists(rember the $25,000 Saddamm gave to every bomber in the middle east?). The us is reducing its WMD's(aside from nukes, which are a deterant by just being there.) gradually.




LIGHTNING [NL]

FH2 Developer

50 XP

30th May 2003

0 Uploads

9,811 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago
Pethegreat™ Lets see: World war: 1 we bailed the british and french out, leading to a peroid of peace World war 2: Bailed you out again and the same thing happened. Cold war: our stockpile of nukes and WMD's kept the russians from attacking western euroupe, keeping the world at peace Desert Storm: went in there and stablized the middle east. Kosovo: Stopped Genocide and brought peace to Kosovo.[/QUOTE] This is about now, not about 60 years ago. Also, you make it sound like you won both the first and the second world war singlehandedly. Both couldn't be more wrong. In the first world war you jumped in at the last moment when it was already damned obvious that the war wouldn't be lasting very long anymore. In the second world war (in Europe at least) you also jumped in at the very last moment when the fate of the third reich was already decided. [QUOTE=Pethegreat™]Unlike Iraq, we do not harbor or fund terrorists(rember the $25,000 Saddamm gave to every bomber in the middle east?). The us is reducing its WMD's(aside from nukes, which are a deterant by just being there.) gradually.

No, I don't remember that, please refresh my memory...




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

A year before the war or something Sadam gave 25 grand to any pallestinian willing to go as a suicide bomber into Israel, the money would be given to their family. It had news coverage for about a week or two.

Also mind you, that without every ally nation involved the first and second world wars would have been drawn out for years and millions more would have died. The "But Russia would have" excuse is void, Russia would eventualy take germany yes, but it would take a few years, and Japan would still be invading China wiping out village after village. It would be almost a decade or more perhapse before Russia would even do something, and even if they did it would take them atleat 5 years to drive the Japanese out of China and make a final attack on Japan. Don't forget Stalin wasn't exactly a "nice guy" and he would have happily taken a few european countries while he was at germany, don't forget he killed 13 million people in 20 years ya know. I'm not saying the US went in and kicked everybody with a swastika's ass, but we did help and without everybody working together it would have taken much longer and Russia might have gotten just a little bit bigger.

The US is allowed to have a monopoly on nuclear weapons, because we already have them and are responsible with them. Don't give me that shit about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yes it was a very horrible thing, that ended a very horrible war. The Japanese were slaughtering village after village in China, and imprisoning US soldiers to torture them to death, cut up their bodies and feed them to their men. Japan wasn't just attacking military targets, they were out to kill anything that moved.

Letting nutcases in the middle east have them would result in an eventual middle eastern war involving attacks on Israel, which would result in attacks on the middle east, ultimately wiping almost everybody out in the middle east spreading urban combat between jews and muslims across the world, in that chaos a certain luny in NK could put a nuke on a boat and have it ram the san fransisco bay or Hawaii.

Also don't forget the effects of mustard gas, it isn't exactly the most painless way to die. And sadam was killing his own people in the hundreds of thousands. The invasion of Iraq was justified even if a bunch of European pansies didn't like it.