Iraq Topic

[noxiousraccoon]

Im going to make this as quick as possible because I feel I wont be able to respond for some time.

Shadow, you question me as if you know what I believe. "You follow what our leaders say, and ignore them on this part". Dont assume what you know what I believe and dont. You say I listen to the leaders, when has our leaders stepped out and said one of the reasons for this war was the violation of the Oil for Food Program? That is just one of the many reasons that I have provided for this war. Dont assume that I just listen to our leaders and believe everything they say. Even if I did listen to them, you wouldnt know that because I never said that I do. "The government is suppose to represent the majority's interest". Since when is our government suppose to represent the majority?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

There purpose is to uphold the constitution of the United States, not represent the majority. How much control does the members of our government actually have, that allows them to represent the majority that voted for them?

Im out of time, Danke, I still see your post and I dont know if Ownz Joo is being serious or not but I will respond to him as well.

[shadowkhas]

Shadow, you question me as if you know what I believe. "You follow what our leaders say, and ignore them on this part". Dont assume what you know what I believe and dont. You say I listen to the leaders, when has our leaders stepped out and said one of the reasons for this war was the violation of the Oil for Food Program? That is just one of the many reasons that I have provided for this war. Dont assume that I just listen to our leaders and believe everything they say. Even if I did listen to them, you wouldnt know that because I never said that I do.

I'm going by your voice on this website...I understand that might not be your true perspective, but I'm going by the general views and arguments you're providing, for the sake of debate.

"The government is suppose to represent the majority's interest". Since when is our government suppose to represent the majority?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

There purpose is to uphold the constitution of the United States, not represent the majority. How much control does the members of our government actually have, that allows them to represent the majority that voted for them?

I'll answer this (probably edit my post) when I get concrete backing of this.

[[cc]z@nd!]

yes, our officials are supposed to uphold the constitution, but the idea that they are voted in by a majority vote of the people means that they represent the majority's interest. therefore, not only do they enforce the rule of the constitution, but they generally have views the majority agrees with, thus 'representing' the majority.

ex: a state feels that their current affirmative action laws are in need of improvement in some way, thus they'll vote for whatever candidate holds their same opinion on the matter.

[noxiousraccoon]

Danke, why should I just settle for it? I would sure not just settle for something, let alone our government shouldnt just settle for something. Specially, when the information presented doesnt even present the real truth and is merely just used for political purposes. Arguing over the internet wasnt my point, but how does a response like that apply to this debate and hopefully lead to a logical ending point of this thread? In addition, you said that "democracy should be spread economically and diplomatically", hints to my point before this. Obviously one of the reasons for this war are to spread democracy to Iraq, despite whether it is done by peace or war, the idea is still the same. You ask, "does it matter?" Yes it does matter because it is still the same idea. Implying our ideas and values onto another country is still the same no matter how it is done. Yes, by freedom we may influence other people in other countries, but its not direct influence and we are not responsible. The influence that I am discussing is by means of direct influence by our government.
Yes, it can be said of anything, but my point was despite whether your not you believe in this war, how can one person opinion of why we should be in Iraq, be any different from the persons who believes we shouldnt?
"If your viewpoint differs radically from that of your conversational partner, no real progress is possible. At most, you can undermine one another

[shadowkhas]

Considering the president was voted in office a second time, that is enough information to promote the general idea for the approval of this war.

Circumstantial evidence (no paper trail in electronic voting machines, etc) leads me to believe the second election was false (not getting on about the first, doesn't influence this topic) and not representative of our people. Also, the electoral college sucks, and it's horribly unrepresentative.

"Civil War - a war between political factions or regions within the same country." Iraq is far from a standing civil war. The civil war between gangs and group members, does not represent the entire country.

It is still "within the same country" and between "political factions," is it not? By YOUR definition, Iraq is a civil war.

[noxiousraccoon]

Shadowkas,
The president won the popular vote in addition to the electoral college. If the electoral college wasnt around, the president would still be in power. Despite your beliefs of rigged voting, the message was still clear. More Americans, that voted ofcourse, apparently believed his position on Iraq and his foreign/internal policies were fit enough to continue on.
The people of Iraq are not at war, only small groups and gangs. Those groups may be at civil war but the people of that country as a whole are not.

[Kirk]

Shadowkas,
The president won the popular vote in addition to the electoral college. If the electoral college wasnt around, the president would still be in power. Despite your beliefs of rigged voting, the message was still clear. More Americans, that voted ofcourse, apparently believed his position on Iraq and his foreign/internal policies were fit enough to continue on.
The people of Iraq are not at war, only small groups and gangs. Those groups may be at civil war but the people of that country as a whole are not.

Wrong, Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote.

[shadowkhas]

More Americans, that voted ofcourse, apparently believed his position on Iraq and his foreign/internal policies were fit enough to continue on.

Yeah, I don't think Iraq really helped there...the biggest block of voters were probably straight ticket Republicans who voted Republican just because they are. I know people like that exist, I've talked to a LOT of them.

The people of Iraq are not at war, only small groups and gangs. Those groups may be at civil war but the people of that country as a whole are not.

Is that just like small groups believe going forward in Iraq is the right thing to do, but the country as a whole does not?

[noxiousraccoon]

Wrong, Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote.

Kirk, the second election, not the first.

Is that just like small groups believe going forward in Iraq is the right thing to do, but the country as a whole does not?

If by definition of forward, that means violence and fear by blowing up and kidnapping civilians, then the entire country obviously does not view the same point. That sounds like the definition of terrorism, not civil war.

Yeah, I don't think Iraq really helped there...the biggest block of voters were probably straight ticket Republicans who voted Republican just because they are. I know people like that exist, I've talked to a LOT of them.

Ok. 50,456,169 people voted for the president in 2000 and 62,040,610 in 2004. Despite straight ticket republicans, 11,584,441 more Americans felt he was good enough for the job and voted for him.

[Kirk]

Wrong, Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote.

Kirk, the second election, not the first.

I don't think you got my point. Bush wouldn't be president if Al Gore would have won the election, so it still applies, and, things would have been considerably different.

[shadowkhas]

Is that just like small groups believe going forward in Iraq is the right thing to do, but the country as a whole does not?

If by definition of forward, that means violence and fear by blowing up and kidnapping civilians, then the entire country obviously does not view the same point. That sounds like the definition of terrorism, not civil war.

Should've defined better. I meant small groups in the US.

Ok. 50,456,169 people voted for the president in 2000 and 62,040,610 in 2004. Despite straight ticket republicans, 11,584,441 more Americans felt he was good enough for the job and voted for him.

Is Iraq the only issue in America?

[noxiousraccoon]

I don't think you got my point. Bush wouldn't be president if Al Gore would have won the election, so it still applies, and, things would have been considerably different.

How could I understand what point your trying to make, if you dont even specify what your trying to say? Blunty saying, "Wrong, Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote.", is not making a point. Since you responded to my post to Shadowkas, how is your post relevant to what me and Shadow are discussing? We are not discussing how things could have been if he wasnt president.

Is Iraq the only issue in America?

No. Do you honestly believe he was voted back into office because of his record deficit and 1% tax cuts?

Should've defined better. I meant small groups in the US.

If your talking about political groups within the United States, then political groups have been in a civil war since the creation of political groups. If that was your point on Iraq, make sure you are specific by your words of civil war.

[shadowkhas]

I don't think you got my point. Bush wouldn't be president if Al Gore would have won the election, so it still applies, and, things would have been considerably different.

How could I understand what point your trying to make, if you dont even specify what your trying to say? Blunty saying, "Wrong, Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote.", is not making a point. Since you responded to my post to Shadowkas, how is your post relevant to what me and Shadow are discussing? We are not discussing how things could have been if he wasnt president.

That was Kirk, not me. It isn't too hard to just use the Quote button.

No. Do you honestly believe he was voted back into office because of his record deficit and 1% tax cuts?

90% of the people I talk to who support Bush have no idea that we had a surplus before he came into office.

If your talking about political groups within the United States, then political groups have been in a civil war since the creation of political groups. If that was your point on Iraq, make sure you are specific by your words of civil war.

You said a small minority does not constitute the beliefs of the country in Iraq, refrencing the people conducting the civil war. So I say, why is America any different?

[noxiousraccoon]

90% of the people I talk to who support Bush have no idea that we had a surplus before he came into office.

Ok. You still didnt answer my question. Whether or not you want to is up to you.

You said a small minority does not constitute the beliefs of the country in Iraq, refrencing the people conducting the civil war. So I say, why is America any different?

Depends on what you referring to. Besides, how does that prove that Iraq, the entire country, taking up arms against eachother, is at a military civil war?

[shadowkhas]

Ok. You still didnt answer my question. Whether or not you want to is up to you.

I can't really answer your question directly still...I think he was voted in because of a combination of people not having all of the information available to them on the issue of Iraq, frankly, a not that great opponent, and things other than Iraq.

Depends on what you referring to. Besides, how does that prove that Iraq, the entire country, taking up arms against eachother, is at a military civil war?

I'm definitely not saying the whole country is fighting. But just because the whole country isn't fighting doesn't mean that a civil war isn't going on...

[noxiousraccoon]

I can't really answer your question directly still...I think he was voted in because of a combination of people not having all of the information available to them on the issue of Iraq, frankly, a not that great opponent, and things other than Iraq.

Take your time then. I would rather you come up with a great reply then to deliberatly put something that you cant necessarily stand behind.

I'm definitely not saying the whole country is fighting. But just because the whole country isn't fighting doesn't mean that a civil war isn't going on...

Then make sure when you refer to Iraq and civil war, you clarify what exactly you are implying and be very specific because obviously, the term civil war is very open and can interpreted many different ways.

Though I am still waiting for Dankes response, I feel that it has to come to the point where I can finally post my view of this situation. The reason for me bringing up the oaths that our government officials take, was to show how this war is related to those such oaths. Our government officials are to defend the constitution of the United States and pass legislation to fit the needs of the republic. As I pointed out before, the reasons for this war can be debated continuously and in the end its the argument of personal opinions, into which, for the most part, will see no end in sight. Their is no difference between a just and an unjust war, just how you interpret it. That in mind, that shouldnt be the position of our government officials. I have been against the foreign policy of this government since the beginning of the Cold War to present day. Obviously, this country didnt have much of a foreign policy and their isnt much debate before WWII so I feel that is where I will take off. The weight of the Cold War drastically changed our foreign policy and the actions of nearly 12 presidents have followed the same criteria of imperalism and unconstitutional acts. The idea "to spread democracy" was our only attack in the Cold War in our efforts to establish supremecy over the USSR. Though, the constitution was not created to spread democracy, nor does our government have the power under the constitution to spread democracy. The major actions by our government include, Vietnam, Korea, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Afghanistan Campaign (not Operation Enduring Freedom), Somalia, Lebanon, and the list continues. I am going on a rant here but I will soon get to my point. No-one has actually challenged these actions to the supreme court but they would definately be declared unconstitutional because our constitution was not attacked. It is our government officials who have neglected the constitution for sometime now. Taking their position of power and stepping over their duty to defend the constitution. Even after the ending of the Cold War, our government still feels the need to push for the same foreign policy that has put us in the same position for the last 50 years. Am I saying we should drop everything that we do, and return to the way our founding fathers initially created our government? No. I am saying that our government should drop this imperalistic foreign policy and actually obey the constitution. Interal policies are different from foreign policy because our government has the power, under the constitution, to pass legislation that they seem fit for this nation. Under the constitution, our government does not have the power to establish other governments, buy off nations, or deploy our military where we seem fit. I dont care about the reasons for these actions, I care about the constitution and the future of this great republic. One might ask, because the constitution does not clarify what exactly what cannot be done, does that mean our government can still make those choices? No. The constitution declares what our government can only do. How does Iraq place into all this? Iraq is just another unconstitutional choice by our government to spread democracy and continue the same imperialistic campaign thats has brought this nation to war, debt, and the most aggravating consequence of them all, the countless deaths of Americans.

[shadowkhas]

Take your time then. I would rather you come up with a great reply then to deliberatly put something that you cant necessarily stand behind.

No, I was literally saying I can't, because you phrased it like there was no other issue than Iraq, and that the only other thing that mattered was his bad economic policy. There's much more things than that.

Then make sure when you refer to Iraq and civil war, you clarify what exactly you are implying and be very specific because obviously, the term civil war is very open and can interpreted many different ways.

I'm using the definition you gave here.

M-M-M-MONSTER POST

Agreed, for the most part.

[Danke]

Though I am still waiting for Dankes response

Due to a combination of nonstop papers and finding a copy of Super Smash Bros for n64, I don't really have the time right now to respond. Maybe this weekend I'll get some time.

Implying our ideas and values onto another country is still the same no matter how it is done.

I value human life, so no, they aren't the same. I'll just state it, then. I don't think we should involve ourselves with anyone else militarily. If there is a conflict between the US and any other country, it should be settled diplomatically, if at all possible. Obviously if they attack us, in the case of Al Qaeda, it's unreasonable to suggest a diplomatic solution. Generally, I'd like the least amount of civilian and American troop deaths possible.

If your viewpoint differs radically from that of your conversational partner, no real progress is possible.

Unless they are uninformed.

Which is why I do not put my personal opinion in politics, because it doesnt matter.

Either you're putting in your personal opinion, or presenting someone else's, but your posts all have the connotation that war is the same as diplomacy.

Toodles, had fun quoting y'all.

[noxiousraccoon]

I value human life, so no, they aren't the same. I'll just state it, then. I don't think we should involve ourselves with anyone else militarily. If there is a conflict between the US and any other country, it should be settled diplomatically, if at all possible. Obviously if they attack us, in the case of Al Qaeda, it's unreasonable to suggest a diplomatic solution. Generally, I'd like the least amount of civilian and American troop deaths possible.

Applying our values and ethics onto another country militarily is no different than diplomacy (yes, granted, the two situations are radically different, but the purpose is still the same), its still imperalism despite the value of human life.

Unless they are uninformed.

Ok. I dont think your getting my point. Opinions of why we should and shouldnt be there will get no real progress in a time of war.

Either you're putting in your personal opinion, or presenting someone else's, but your posts all have the connotation that war is the same as diplomacy.

Just because one is "peaceful" and the other isnt, does that make their purpose or initiative any different?

[almasri]

i think the war is stupid all the americans are doing are getting blown up by IED's which any one can make (just mix stuff together) and then say allah allah akbar!! and have a party with many virgins. i think the americans should pull out before its too late its the second vietnam in motion.