Obama ~ The Issues (country, single, Genesis, American, effect)

WendyCal · 11-02-2008, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

no you didn't read,

or answer

my post.

i stand, corrected.

WendyCal · 11-02-2008, 01:25 AM

Oh, yeah! That's right!

i asked for sources.

Before answering.

Hmmm...

lucifer_sam · 11-02-2008, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

No. YOU were not attacked by IRAQ. YOU were attacked by AFGHANISTAN. IRAQ. AFGHANISTAN. IRAQ. AFGHANISTAN. TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.

The rest of the world did not agree because collectively, the majority of the countries in the UN did not think the war just.

...in addition to the majority of people in the United States.

Don't infer too much about the "collective" consciousness of America. Few people still support the war in Iraq, and most of them are backwards and ignorant.

Son of JayJamJah · 11-02-2008, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

no, it's not implied. Because when a president takes the issue to go to war, he is expected to outline each and every reason for why. When bush took the issue to congress, he did not put "humanitarian mission" at the top of the list. it might have been added in one of the appendixes as an afterthought, but when talking about a vote to go to war, an "implied" reason just isnt good enough.

Stop pretending like all people are stupid. I think "They're going to kill us" ranks above "humanitarian mission" He doesn't need to say it for us to know it. You don't like Bush so the war is bad. Look at the bigger picture! We overthrew a dictator who made a habit of torturing and slaughtering massive amounts of his own and surrounding nations people. A guy who we believed had WMD's, said he had WMD's and said he would use them against America when he could. Now we are killing people who kill their own arbitrarily to prove a point and who want to kill us more then anything else while spending our money, money from the tax payers of the most philanthropic country in the world to build schools, housing, industry and more, train law enforcement and military and give the lives of service men and women in stabilizing a nation from people from within the country and surrounding nations.

What an awful, awful War.

jibber · 11-02-2008, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WendyCal

OIC

So.

Canadians think we went over to Iraq to strafe and kill everything in our path, all because of 9-11, with no (well, i mean, there WAS provocation), but, well, no "evidence."

If that's what y'all think,

Hey! Kick back and relax. The mushroom is coming.

If you truly think those folks are so put upon,

GO THERE!

TALK TO THEM!

Jibber? You're a photographer. You can go take pix. Go see what those folks are feeling, how they're having to live...

If you make it back in one piece, you know, WITH your head (they seem to have some sort of beheading fixation...) come tell us all about it, okay?

Oh cut the confrontational bullsh*t and start posting something worth reading. You have convinced me of nothing else but that you have no reason for your opinions other that over simplified, naive, good-guy-bad-guy dogma with no real idea of what the situation actually is like. Sh*t you thought that up until the US invaded iraqi citizens had no arms in the country. They sure as hell didn't fight a brutal war with iran with shovels and hoes.

~~The Unfan~~ · 11-02-2008, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

That is so ridiculous. That logic assumes one of two things indisputably.

A) People who make less money are less capable biological then their more fiscally productive counterparts.

B) People should be punished for success.

Which is it?

C) I was refering to income. Over 90% of the wealth belongs to something like 20% of the people.

Quote:

There is no reason anyone regardless of income should have to pay a higher or lower percentage of the money they earn to the government. The government should have to budget and spend wisely just like the rest of us.

Income tax exists for the purpose of taxing the dollar instead of the individual. If everyone were taxed at the same rate the government's wealth would fluctuate with employment rate, and with out sourcing, illegals working, and non-taxable career choices (like prostitutes and drug dealers) that would cause for a fairly poor (as in non-wealthy) government. Especially so as those trends increase.

Quote:

And of course government is inherently corrupt. It is a position of great power people seek great power to A) make use of it B) exploit it

Fuck da police!

jibber · 11-02-2008, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

Stop pretending like all people are stupid. I think "They're going to kill us" ranks above "humanitarian mission" He doesn't need to say it for us to know it. You don't like Bush so the war is bad. Look at the bigger picture! We overthrew a dictator who made a habit of torturing and slaughtering massive amounts of his own and surrounding nations people. A guy who we believed had WMD's, said he had WMD's and said he would use them against America when he could. Now we are killing people who kill their own arbitrarily to prove a point and who want to kill us more then anything else while spending our money, money from the tax payers of the most philanthropic country in the world to build schools, housing, industry and more, train law enforcement and military and give the lives of service men and women in stabilizing a nation from people from within the country and surrounding nations.

What an awful, awful War.

Yes, it is an awful, awful war because the money you're spending on schools and housing and industry pales in comparison to the money you're spending on bombing and shooting them.

This is the fundamental difference and this is why you will never convince me that you are right. You seem to think that the possibility that iraq may attack you was justified in starting a war. You may as well have started a war with iran, syria, and saudi arabia at the same time since all of those countries have a HUGE anti-american sentiment.

Iraq had not attacked the US. There was NEVER ANY EVIDENCE that iraq had attacked the US. The THOUGHT that they MIGHT will NEVER be justification for a war.

Son of JayJamJah · 11-02-2008, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

Yes, it is an awful, awful war because the money you're spending on schools and housing and industry pales in comparison to the money you're spending on bombing and shooting them.

This is the fundamental difference and this is why you will never convince me that you are right. You seem to think that the possibility that iraq may attack you was justified in starting a war. You may as well have started a war with iran, syria, and saudi arabia at the same time since all of those countries have a HUGE anti-american sentiment.

Iraq had not attacked the US. There was NEVER ANY EVIDENCE that iraq had attacked the US. The THOUGHT that they MIGHT will NEVER be justification for a war.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm trying to discuss ideas. Which your previous posts articulated very nicely, this rubbish however is so biased it looks like Al Franken love letter. You know you skewed every point you made there. MIGHT = Said he was going to. And according to UN bylaws or regulations I believe failure to adhere to UN resolutions and regulations repeatedly is reason for removal from power.

WendyCal · 11-02-2008, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

No, NOT EVERYONE believed that iraq had WMD's at the time. A huge number of people in the US did not think so, and so did a MASSIVE number of people in canada and other nations.

Sources, please?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

yes, as i stated earlier, NOW iraq is a hotbed for al-queda operations, after sadam was ousted. they were not, and had not been present before the war.

i did answer this... But, okay! i'll play!

Gee, i'm a terrorist.

Wonder where i'll go to 'hide out?'

YEAH! i'll go RIGHT WHERE EVERYONE IS LOOKING FOR TERRORITS!!! Damn, i'm flippin' brilliant!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

yes, i do want to say the war was mismanaged. I do want to say that it was a short sighted, and VERY misguided approach to the war on terror. I am making a case against the war based on my personal morals and beliefs.

I do not, however, see this issue as black and white as you do. I do not think that bombing the **** out of a country because of a minority of fanatical people. I do not see that war is the answer in fighting terrorism or anti-wester sentiment in the middle east. Any intelligent person can see that war will never be the answer to this. There has been years of oppression and poverty imposed by puppet governments of the west, and this anti-western sentiment has been so indoctrinated that unless we actually go to the route of the cause, it will never be solved.

Hate to repeat myself, but... Sources?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

People there hate us because they are desperately poor, have no access to education, and have been brainwashed to think that the western infidels are the cause of all their problems. They have seen their governments extort them and drain all resources away to benefit only the rich minority, and they have been told it is the US's fault. BOMBING them isnt going to help increase their regard for the US.

Again ~ how would YOU propose to get rid of a corrupt government that you can see abusing its people?

Oh. That's right. You aren't an elected official of the US. You aren't privy to all of the intelligence info that our agencies are.

Come to think of it, you aren't even a citizen.

Why would you care? Afraid that you'll be mistaken for one of us? Why? Because you're caucasian?

Hey. Just tell 'em you're Canadian. i'm sure that'll make ALL the diff...

Not.

Son of JayJamJah · 11-02-2008, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan

C) I was refering to income. Over 90% of the wealth belongs to something like 20% of the people.

Income tax exists for the purpose of taxing the dollar instead of the individual. If everyone were taxed at the same rate the government's wealth would fluctuate with employment rate, and with out sourcing, illegals working, and non-taxable career choices (like prostitutes and drug dealers) that would cause for a fairly poor (as in non-wealthy) government. Especially so as those trends increase.

I don't think the government needs to be wealthy. If it's poor it'll be motivated because you'll your job if stays poor. This is how the real world works, this is how government should have to work.

I think this is the genesis of our dispute: Do you think government subsidization is more capable\effective then private organization?

11-02-2008, 01:25 AM	#272 (permalink)
WendyCal Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 271	Oh, yeah! That's right! i asked for sources. Before answering. Hmmm...