Elections

[Marril]

Do you even view islamo-nazism as a problem?

First, don't go making up words. The Nazis were a very specific political party, which up until the war was beneficial for Germany as a whole. Don't ever talk to be about the Nazis like you get it into your head that they did some good as well as bad.

On the question you asked, I don't view it as America's right to invade other nations simply because it doesn't like their leader. If there was such a big problem, the UN would handle it. America can't cowboy around as some kind of world vigilante and expect to be well-received for it. Or are you one of those people who takes "America, **** yeah!" far too seriously?

I think you just want to allow our enemies strength to ferment and mature so that our children and our grandchildren can face a much more formidable opponent in a war that will probably cost their lives and/or their freedom.

Do you know why they're America's enemies? It has nothing to do with "hating your freedoms" or hating your religion, or anything along those lines. It's because America supports the active terrorization and oppression of Arabs through its support of the terrorist state of Israel. It's meddling in ancient religious wars that it has no place being involved in. It's no different for America to bomb Iraq nowadays than it was for Japan to attack Pearl Harbour.

In the long term, does it really matter how we got into Iraq?

That's like trying to justify the attack on Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade by saying "in the long term, does this really matter?" The Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church have suffered through the fallout of this irreconcilable event for eight hundred years. At the very least, the Crusades were the Christian response to a very real Muslim invasion. Today, the Middle East is embroiled in civil war and also suffers attacks from a country which seems to make itself an empire in all but name.

Or, if you're so intent on invoking Godwin's law, "In the long term, does it really matter how they got into Poland...?"

And if you start saying that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, I will tell you why you are wrong.

Do it with specific emphasis on how Iraq (and I specify "Iraq") was terrorizing America and was a threat to your national security.

 

[Boofu]

First, don't go making up words. The Nazis were a very specific political party, which up until the war was beneficial for Germany as a whole. Don't ever talk to be about the Nazis like you get it into your head that they did some good as well as bad.

Fine.... Islamo-fascists.... is that better? For all intents and purposes of this discussion, it means the same thing.

On the question you asked, I don't view it as America's right to invade other nations simply because it doesn't like their leader. If there was such a big problem, the UN would handle it. America can't cowboy around as some kind of world vigilante and expect to be well-received for it. Or are you one of those people who takes "America, **** yeah!" far too seriously?

You have shown your ignorance with this excerpt. "the UN would handle it." !!!! Are you serious? The UN is ineffective to say the least. It puts our own national security in the hands of China, Russia, and France. Either one of them can knock down an American proposition of defense. Yeah, I really trust them to make the correct national security decisions for America. :frown: The UN does not do what it was meant to do. It has no balls. It is little more than a showcase for anti-Americanism today. No wonder you suggest it, Marril.

If our freedom and security are at stake, I argue that America can "cowboy" around as much as it pleases until it is secured. Read the quote in my siggy for more info on this matter.

You must remember that pacifists always lose. If you aren't willing to fight for something, you aren't going to get it. I'm telling you from the perspective of someone who remembers 9/11, the enemy IS willing to fight.

Do you know why they're America's enemies? It has nothing to do with "hating your freedoms" or hating your religion, or anything along those lines. It's because America supports the active terrorization and oppression of Arabs through its support of the terrorist state of Israel. It's meddling in ancient religious wars that it has no place being involved in. It's no different for America to bomb Iraq nowadays than it was for Japan to attack Pearl Harbour.

Why do you hate Israel so much?

The Arabs are violently anti-semetic. Do you support their stance? I'm curious.

And also, does Spain support Israel? Cause the Madrid bombing didn't just happen by accident.

That's like trying to justify the attack on Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade by saying "in the long term, does this really matter?" The Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church have suffered through the fallout of this irreconcilable event for eight hundred years. At the very least, the Crusades were the Christian response to a very real Muslim invasion. Today, the Middle East is embroiled in civil war and also suffers attacks from a country which seems to make itself an empire in all but name.

Or, if you're so intent on invoking Godwin's law, "In the long term, does it really matter how they got into Poland...?"

The difference is that the German invasion of Poland was offensive, much like 9/11 was. The American invasion of Iraq is defensive.

Our difference of opinion here hinges on our position on Iraq as being an offensive war or a defensive war. I will address this below.

Do it with specific emphasis on how Iraq (and I specify "Iraq") was terrorizing America and was a threat to your national security.

I will explain how the war in Iraq serves 3 purposes and how all 3 of them pertain to the defense of America.

1. The Removal of a brutal dictator.

In today's fight of freedom and democracy vs. Islamic-fascism, someone who was in the position of Saddam Huissein is not acceptable if you are rooting for freedom and democracy. Whether you want to admit it or not, He was a powerful and evil dictator in the heart of the middle east who was not friendly to the interests of democracy or freedom. Whether he had wmds or not, he still had the ability and probably the intention of supplying terrorists with funds, weapons, or political influence. He was even a terrorist to his own people. Also, this point was necessary for points 2 and 3.

2. Focus the fight in a place of our choosing.

Instead of deploying troops in every country of the middle east and basically trying to purge every single probable location of islamic fascists, we used Iraq as a place to focus the fight. Would you rather fight this war in New York? London? Canada, Marril? Cause whether you agree with it or not, this war was going to happen. We just decided to fight it on our own terms. Iraq has become the focal point for this epic war of freedom vs fascism. Terrorists come from all over the middle east to fight in Iraq. At least they aren't planting IEDs here. (Do you see how this is vital to our defense?)

3. Create an example and a pedastool for moderate muslims to thrive in the heart of the middle east.

Ultimately, this war will be decided whenever the moderate muslims silence the radicals. Creating a democracy in Iraq is imperative to giving the moderate muslims a foothold of power from which they can fight back for their religion. This is the most important step in winning this war against terror and securing our future as a free nation. A stable, democratic Iraq will set the example and other nations in the middle east will follow. (Do you see how this is vital to securing our way of life?)

After what I said, if you can't see how our war against Iraq is defensive then you just aren't opening your eyes. We removed a dictator who fueled our enemies. We fight there so we don't fight here. We install a democracy so our security is lasting. Any questions?

Instead of using so much negativism, how about trying to come up with a solution. Don't just say "ask the UN" because we all know that wouldn't work. The Democrats are in power now. Come up with an alternate plan if you aren't satisfied with this one. I haven't heard a plan from the Dems as of yet.


I have to start my homework now so I can get at least 3 hours of sleep when I finish.

And next time you want to rebuke my arguments, you should rebuke my entire post. Leaving parts out and selecting only 4 sentences from my post doesn't say much about your own argument.

 

[Marril]

The UN is ineffective to say the least.

That is to say, it doesn't rush in without evidence? It doesn't run after Iraq for oil without just cause? There's a reason the UN is not reviled as the Americans are.

If our freedom and security are at stake, I argue that America can "cowboy" around as much as it pleases until it is secured.

Under this selfsame logic was Pearl Harbour bombed. Under a similar stretch of logic, the Nazis began their nationalistic war we now know as World War 2, so certainly you won't argue that either of those attacks was unjustified or wrong. They were, then, perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, the Middle East should be resisting American influence to its dying breath, as their very way of life is at stake.

I'm telling you from the perspective of someone who remembers 9/11, the enemy IS willing to fight.

I also remember 9/11. You state that the enemy is willing to fight, but you do not state why they're willing to fight. They're willing to fight because of America's atrocities.

Why do you hate Israel so much?

They're a terrorist state given full support by the American government. That's reason enough.

And also, does Spain support Israel? Cause the Madrid bombing didn't just happen by accident.

I sure haven't seen anything to the degree of 9/11 happen to any other nations. Canada's been relatively great so far. Of course there are terrorist acts, but that's because pretty much the entire western and middle eastern world's been dragged into the war at this point.

He was a powerful and evil dictator in the heart of the middle east who was not friendly to the interests of democracy or freedom.

Only in recent times was he considered evil, and only because his interests no longer supported the American government. Back when Russia was the big evil, you guys seemed to love guys like Saddam or Osama, who would fight against the Russians for you.

Saddam wasn't invading other nations. He didn't have WMDs and had relatively little intention of developing any kind of might against the American people. He was certainly no Kim Jong-Il, which you guys still haven't made anywhere near the same magnitude of overt action to depose.

Would you rather fight this war in New York? London? Canada, Marril?

I fail to see how "the terrorists" could get any kind of foothold in New York, London, or Halifax (you didn't provide a Canadian city, so I tossed a random one in there for you). It's not a traditional war being fought. There aren't two clear-cut sides. It's not "America vs The Terrorists," it's America embroiled in an area that's already warring with itself.

At least they aren't planting IEDs here.

They also aren't putting depleted uranium there, either. But guess who is... oh, right, America and its allies.

A stable, democratic Iraq will set the example and other nations in the middle east will follow.

Do you honestly think that a single war will change centuries of history, just like that? How arrogant of you. How well versed are you in Middle Eastern history? Do you have any idea of the history of the Islamic world? Have you ever, even for a minute, put yourself into the mind of "the enemy"? To see what drives them? What their history and politics and lives have driven them to do?

We install a democracy so our security is lasting.

This, at least, is completely truthful. America invades other nations to instill something it does not have into other countries. Democracy is a highly inefficient form of government, as every decision would have to be made through the majority. America has a sort of elected dictatorship, where one man is given powers by what is in theory (but not in practice) a democratical decision.

It's a Roman invasion, to be precise... America invades a foreign land, destroys their sovereignty, and basically lets the conquered peoples keep their culture and so forth as long as they recognize their conquerors as superior.

Any questions?

From whence comes your ignorance?

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

Please stop, Boofu.

The entire reason Marril posted this post was because she was tired of this boring thread which presents her a possibility to prove her uber-leet arguing skills (read her sig) but hadn't given her a real chance to do so. As a result, she posted something that was completely off-topic at the time in hopes of getting a response out of someone.

I call that trolling and I suggest that you pay no attention to it.

 

[Boofu]

Flaming Spinach, you are right.

It isn't worth it arguing with someone who is so unplugged from reality that they say Bush is equal to saddam or that America is under a dictatorial form of government.

I'm not even going to address you even more, Marril. You are worse than Pelosi.

Thanks for reinstalling the reasoning I have behind voting republican.

 

[Marril]

As a result, she posted something that was completely off-topic at the time in hopes of getting a response out of someone

I should probably point out that my post there makes more sense when you consider that his "I posted from jkwarrior's account" message as jkwarrior (which consisted mainly of "Marril, from what I have read, your politics are reprehensible. You are a card carrying member of the "Blame America First" Crowd. People like you are the reason I vote Republican.") came before that post of mine you referenced. It was deleted and my whole post was thrown out of context. It wasn't trolling so much as me not feeling like editing my post.

It isn't worth it arguing with someone who is so unplugged from reality that they say Bush is equal to saddam or that America is under a dictatorial form of government.

Whatever you say.

 

[Otaku]

Hee hee. Someone thinks Bush is a raging conservative. That's funny.

Bust isn't really that conservative. Based on what he's actually done, he's mostly paid conservative lip-service to some social issues.

Those complaining about the two party system: I haven't seen a better one. When you have more "viable" parties, it spreads things out too much. Eventually, what shouldn't be a viable party does become viable because there end up being so many parties dividing the vote.

The reason two-parties are a "problem" in America is because constituents in the parties aren't doing enough to get rid of the posers near the top. The Republicans lost this election. Conservatives didn't. Several conservative Democrats actually ran and won in some of the hotbed states. I mean, Pro-Second Amendment Rights and Pro-Life are generally considered conservative traits, not liberal.

The Republicans lost power because they broke their word from back in 1994: they gained control of Congress because they promised "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money". Even allowing for the expense of the "War on Terror", they've been spending enough that now people actually view Republicans as the party of big government.

 

[Marril]

Those complaining about the two party system: I haven't seen a better one.

Look at the backlash Stephen Harper's getting now that he used the Bloc Quebecois (a seperatist party) to bring down the Liberal government... multi-party systems ensure that it's harder to gain a significant enough number of seats (i.e. hard to gain a majority) to accomplish things they shouldn't be doing. It also means the parties have to work together more instead of just trying to beat out a single opponent.

 

[Moss Factor]

This debate is counterproductive. Saying what we should have done and whose fault it is for the mess we're in doesn't do a thing to solve the problem. The Democrats got into office on no platform. They got in by Republicans waging a rediculous and unwinnable war, picking corrupt (legally and morally) people to represent their party in office, and crossing the principles that define the base (limited government interference in our lives, less spending). The Democrats just happened to be the other party, so people voted for them not because they broadcasted a superior message, but simply because they wern't Republicans.

So now it is the Democrats' chance to shine. They'd better come up with a policy for Iraq, and quick. Because now they can't just play the blame game; if the solution in Iraq hasn't improved significantly in two years, the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[PokePop]

Saying what we should have done and whose fault it is for the mess we're in doesn't do a thing to solve the problem. The Democrats got into office on no platform. They got in by Republicans waging a rediculous and unwinnable war, picking corrupt (legally and morally) people to represent their party in office, and crossing the principles that define the base (limited government interference in our lives, less spending). The Democrats just happened to be the other party, so people voted for them not because they broadcasted a superior message, but simply because they wern't Republicans.

This I can agree with 100%

So now it is the Democrats' chance to shine. They'd better come up with a policy for Iraq, and quick. Because now they can't just play the blame game; if the solution in Iraq hasn't improved significantly in two years, the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.

Well, bear in mind that short of withholding funds for the war, Congress has limited authority to enforce any strategy in the war.
However, they should be presenting strategies. Hopefully, the administration won't continue with their "cut and run" rhetoric against anything that is not 100% full support for their own gameplan.
So, if Bush works with them and there is no improvement, yes, they will pay.
On the other hand, if Bush shuts them out of it as he has done for the past 3 years (6 years, if we're talking about the government, in general), then it will be the GOP that pays.

 

[Moss Factor]

You're forgetting the 3rd option: Bush shuts them out (or they simply continue their status quo of blind criticism with no solutions on how to change) and we make progress. Then again, even if Bush gets us out of Iraq 100% on his own, the Democrats will take credit. Of course the same can be said about the Bush administration if the Democrats actually come up with something (although I doubt it's gonna happen).

Ah, politics.

 

[Lawman]

This debate is counterproductive. Saying what we should have done and whose fault it is for the mess we're in doesn't do a thing to solve the problem. The Democrats got into office on no platform. They got in by Republicans waging a rediculous and unwinnable war, picking corrupt (legally and morally) people to represent their party in office, and crossing the principles that define the base (limited government interference in our lives, less spending). The Democrats just happened to be the other party, so people voted for them not because they broadcasted a superior message, but simply because they wern't Republicans.

So now it is the Democrats' chance to shine. They'd better come up with a policy for Iraq, and quick. Because now they can't just play the blame game; if the solution in Iraq hasn't improved significantly in two years, the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.

Remeber, Bush has Veto power over their bills. Without a 2/3 majority (which the Dems dont have), nothing will get past a Veto. So, Bush still holds most of the cards, the Dems just hold the pursestrings. If there isnt any cooperation, then it will be a mess for a few more years.

Keith

 

[Gir]

Remeber, Bush has Veto power over their bills. Without a 2/3 majority (which the Dems dont have), nothing will get past a Veto. So, Bush still holds most of the cards, the Dems just hold the pursestrings. If there isnt any cooperation, then it will be a mess for a few more years.

Keith

Unless both houses pass it with 2/3 approval of each. But that is unlikely...Democrats getting controlling the Congress is at least a start for fixing the damage Bush has done..

 

[puyallup_phantom]

I'm glad the elections are over...that means no more stupid phone calls saying "Vote for me, or vote for this person that is in the same party as me!!" I nearly lost control though when I got a phone call 2 hours after the polls had closed. Too bad it was a recording, because the things I though about saying would have gotten me in some trouble anywhere else.