Iraq Topic

GametagAeonFlux · Post by **GametagAeonFlux** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:14 pm

[quote="

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:25 pm

[quote="GametagAeonFlux"][quote="

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:12 pm

Shadow, so were suppose to remove our leaders everytime they make a decision that we dont agree with? Opinions do count, but when you debate personal opinions its much harder than debating facts. Do you see the difference?
What do you mean neither of those were the purposes? You obviously are ignoring the other reasons for this war.
Didnt we destroy Germany's and Japans government at the time by force? Did we not set up their governments? Since when was Iraq a civil war?
You cant define an everyday American as the majority. There is no such thing as an everyday American or the average American, thats just an assumption. The majority, in a political sense, is merely just a statistic about a certain issue. Yes, the majority of the people that were interviewed for a specific statistic may show that most disapprove of this war. Though, in most political statistics, a small group of people are interviewed and then that number is applied to the entire country.
I know your being sarcastic, but how does this statement "I prefer to do it by killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Thats how", help this situation?

Danke, so you believe that this country should be spreading democracy? If so, does that make you any different than the people who are running this government right now. Is spreading democracy diplomatically and economically not imperalism? Just because it can be done a 'peaceful' way, does that still make it right? Im implying the literal definition of imperalism. (the extension of rule or influence by one government, nation, or society over another.)
How can a war without any reason be just? Their isnt a difference between just and unjust, its how the outside world interprets it. I understand that you believe a war should have a reason, but did you not say "perhaps, I dont believe in war"? If that is true, you should be against every war. If you do not believe we should have our fingers in anyone elses business, then why do you believe we should be spreading democracy economically and diplomatically amongst other countries?

Just because one march is against the president, that doesnt directly apply that the entire country is against him. Have you never read what is posted about approval ratings? The latest poll of the president was conducted to 808 random people from across the US. How can 808 people determine what the entire country is thinking? When a headline says, "Americans disapprove of President Bush", how can the term "Americans" be represented by 808 people?

5,6,7. Just because you "believe" something is a certain way doesnt always make it true.

8. I think you threw in an extra "is", but I dont really understand what your asking.

Dalek, ok, so whats your point?

galvination wrote:Now I'm hearing people say we went into the war because Saddam was a dictator, well why Iraq? There are plenty of dictatorships around the world like noth korea, and countries in south america. So why arent we stopping those dictators?

Just because we havent gone to war with other dictators doesnt justify our reason for taking out Saddam.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:49 pm

galvination wrote:Now I'm hearing people say we went into the war because Saddam was a dictator, well why Iraq? There are plenty of dictatorships around the world like noth korea, and countries in south america. So why arent we stopping those dictators?

Clearly this war was initiated over false pretences.

because bush doesn't give a **** as long as they don't do something on are soil.

Also the dictatorships up by china we dont wanna mess with because you have to go through them to get to china and if you piss of china the world will come to a end as we know it.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:22 pm

Please, Mike, take this thread seriously.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:25 pm

ok no more jokes i was just saying if we piss china off because some dictatorships protect them if we take them out we leave china vulnerable and if we leave them vunerable we piss them off and if we do that its world war III

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:32 pm

China vunerable to what? Do you even have a clue of what your talking about?

SHOUTrvb · Post by **SHOUTrvb** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:41 pm

Edit: I'm just an idiot who had a bad night and hasn't seemed to learn to stay out of political discussions.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:02 pm

Shout, our economic situation with China is irrelevant to the purpose of this topic. I cant even begin to think of why you even stated that in the first place. In addition, did I ever say I hated Mike? No. Dont make accusations. Dont accuse me of not being informed, when in relation your not even contributing to this thread. Do I think America is the only country at war? That sounds like a personal question, into which many answers could be correct. Asking the question, is America the only country at war with another country through military action? Then my answer would be, no. How can I even be sure of what <<CE MIke>> is referring to in his post, if I cant even understand what he is saying because of his grammar. Hints why I questioned his post.

SHOUTrvb · Post by **SHOUTrvb** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:13 pm

The correct answer is really no on all counts, and yeah I may have gone too far with my post. My main point was that even though his post was rather irrelevant, you were sort of rude in how you questioned it. That's what I meant when I referred to the bandwagon post, considering no one around here really gives a new user a chance. Again, my post was a bit out of line. I had a really bad night, so I'm leaving for now anyways.

Danke · Post by **Danke** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:18 pm

noxiousraccoon wrote: Though, in most political statistics, a small group of people are interviewed and then that number is applied to the entire country.

You have to settle for it. You can't interview the whole US.

I know your being sarcastic, but how does this statement "I prefer to do it by killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Thats how", help this situation?

How does arguing on the internet?

Danke, so you believe that this country should be spreading democracy?

Never said that.

If so, does that make you any different than the people who are running this government right now.

Yeah, obviously. I'm not causing the deaths of thousands

Is spreading democracy diplomatically and economically not imperalism?

If it is, does that matter?

Just because it can be done a 'peaceful' way, does that still make it right?

About as "right" as spreading any other political system peacefully.

Im implying the literal definition of imperalism. (the extension of rule or influence by one government, nation, or society over another.)

"influence" is a very indefinite word here. We "influence" every nation.

How can a war without any reason be just? Their isnt a difference between just and unjust, its how the outside world interprets it.

There isn't a difference between any two opposites, it's just how the outside world interprets it. It can be said of anything.

I understand that you believe a war should have a reason, but did you not say "perhaps, I dont believe in war"? If that is true, you should be against every war.

If I were against every war, does that make it unreasonable to ask for a reason for a war that is already happening?

If you do not believe we should have our fingers in anyone elses business, then why do you believe we should be spreading democracy economically and diplomatically amongst other countries?

Why do you believe in killing babies every day?

Just because one march is against the president, that doesnt directly apply that the entire country is against him. Have you never read what is posted about approval ratings? The latest poll of the president was conducted to 808 random people from across the US. How can 808 people determine what the entire country is thinking? When a headline says, "Americans disapprove of President Bush", how can the term "Americans" be represented by 808 people?

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approv ... age001.png
13 out of 13 media outlets show, approval ratings are low! woo!

5,6,7. Just because you "believe" something is a certain way doesnt always make it true.

Just because I "believe" something is a certain way doesn't always make it false.

8. I think you threw in an extra "is", but I dont really understand what your asking.

meh, nevermind.

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:06 pm

noxiousraccoon wrote:Shadow, so were suppose to remove our leaders everytime they make a decision that we dont agree with? Opinions do count, but when you debate personal opinions its much harder than debating facts. Do you see the difference?

Yes, we should. The government is supposed to represent the majority's interest. Senators are supposed to listen to my letters and my phone calls every day telling them to vote a certain way, but apparently they feel that I, their constituent, am wrong. And that's not how this government should work.

noxiousraccoon wrote:What do you mean neither of those were the purposes? You obviously are ignoring the other reasons for this war.

You follow what our leaders say, and you ignore them on this part. Why, if you listen to other things that they say, do you feel that you can't accept their reasons for this war? They said it was for WMDs. I feel that we've taken care of that thoroughly. We should be gone.

noxiousraccoon wrote:Didnt we destroy Germany's and Japans government at the time by force? Did we not set up their governments? Since when was Iraq a civil war?

Yes, because they instigated the conflict by military power. No, the German representative government voted in the officials after WW2. And are you kidding? Since when does varying groups of people in the same nation NOT count as a civil war? Was our "Civil War" just sectarian violence then?

noxiousraccoon wrote:You cant define an everyday American as the majority. There is no such thing as an everyday American or the average American, thats just an assumption. The majority, in a political sense, is merely just a statistic about a certain issue. Yes, the majority of the people that were interviewed for a specific statistic may show that most disapprove of this war. Though, in most political statistics, a small group of people are interviewed and then that number is applied to the entire country.

Yes, and you know what? It's pretty fucking accurate. If you're going to get on about statistics, don't say that a lot of Americans supported this war at the beginning.

noxiousraccoon wrote:I know your being sarcastic, but how does this statement "I prefer to do it by killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Thats how", help this situation?

It's a technique of speech. You ask me how I could apply my morals to people, and I show you how I could do it using a proven method that's from your side.

OwnZ joO · Post by **OwnZ joO** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:55 am

noxiousraccoon wrote:You cant define an everyday American as the majority. There is no such thing as an everyday American or the average American, thats just an assumption. The majority, in a political sense, is merely just a statistic about a certain issue. Yes, the majority of the people that were interviewed for a specific statistic may show that most disapprove of this war. Though, in most political statistics, a small group of people are interviewed and then that number is applied to the entire country.

Yeah, so since the majority is just a statistic, government officials shouldn't have to listen to it.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:25 pm

I have read the responses but i dont have the time to respond considering the length our responses. When I have time I will get back to yall, college is taking up alot of my time.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:31 pm

noxiousraccoon wrote:China vunerable to what? Do you even have a clue of what your talking about?

my grandma was saying that to me like if we go in to that dictatorship china would kill us, i have no clue what i was talking about and i am slowly learning when to just keep my big mouth shut.

also in opinion should we have taken Saddam when we were in Iraq in the 1980's?

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:44 pm

[quote="

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:47 pm

Also would we off at least considered giving Iran a nuke for protection when they wanted one? and if we plan to pull out any time soon we have so much artillery over there it would take months.

Kirk · Post by **Kirk** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:02 pm

I don't remember anyone saying we would or should pull out in a matter of days, and if someone did say that we would or should, then that would only be the beginning of the pullout, not we would be pulled out by then.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:15 pm

Kirk wrote:I don't remember anyone saying we would or should pull out in a matter of days, and if someone did say that we would or should, then that would only be the beginning of the pullout, not we would be pulled out by then.

did i ever say anyone said that?

Danke · Post by **Danke** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:13 pm

Also would we off at least considered giving Iran a nuke for protection when they wanted one?

No.