The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (country, house, fan, American)

[Yellow Card]

Originally Posted by franscar

Speaking as an outsider from American politics, I'd just like to ask those who supported Bush's actions in Iraq if they think that American soldiers should be sent into the numerous other areas in the world where there are huge human rights issues. Zimbabwe and North Korea for two. North Korea is a proven owner of weapons of mass destruction, the so-called smoking gun, and have been openly hostile to the outside world for close to 50 years, all the while the population of their country is brainwashed and indoctrinated into a culture of hatred against the Americans that Al-Qaeda could only dream of, yet Bush chose to invade Iraq. I have my own personal opinions on why he chose Iraq (black liquid and lots of it) but what do his supporters think of the reasons Bush proposed for the invasion?

No weapons of mass destruction have been found, and as I said earlier, human rights violations are going on all over the world.

OK, Picture yourself as the President of the United States of America, living in a "Post September 11 World."
This means you can no longer wait too take the first punch, because the people delivering the first punch will kill innocent civillians, not in their "1's" or "10's" but in the "1000's" or "1000,000's".
The enemy has said that anyone who does not suuport their extremist views must convert or die.
Ur intelligent services tell you that Saddam posses weapons of mass destruction, the UN agrees but does not know how many he has left. 12 years of UN sanctions have not stopped him. The Director of the CIA tells you 'quote' "Slam Dunk" that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction.
You know that Saddam Hussien has used them against his own people, and would not hesitate too sell them too terrorists.
You are the president and you must decide what to do.....





Too this day America has not directly profited from Iraqi oil, no one has been able to prove otherwise.

Zimbabwe and North Korea are horrible regimes, the UN must act first, but it has not, unlike the case in Iraq. (you cannot compare Iraq and North Korea/ Zimbabwe, this is like comparing apples and oranges)

If America invaded North Korea, they would be unable to pevent North Korea from destroying South Korea.
The president of Zimbabwe is evil, but no where near as bad as Saddam.



Thats all for now.

[jibber]

why do always get the urge to post in political threads.....i'm gonna keep this short
In all of your arguments, there are regimes who are better examples of all the reasons for why the US went to war with iraq.

Anti-american sentiment among the general public with no attempt by the government to supress it: Saudi Arabia is a much bigger threat to the US in that respect

WMD: North Korea (and yes I read your explanation, and I'm not seeing where you're coming from. If the US invaded North Korea I'm pretty sure that the military in North Korea would momentarily turn their attention away from south Korea to the US military who would be carpet-bombing their country.)

Humam rights violations: There have been so many instances in the past where the US sat and did nothing. Take Rwanda for instance. The government was commiting genocide while the US did nothing, so why iraq, why now?

I realize that you're probably never going to agree with me, just as I'm never going to agree with you. I'm merely responding to this thread to keep the debate going, because I think it's great that we're actually debating the subject. It when people never questions their own beliefs that they get into a pattern of blind faith and obedience, which is (in my opinion) the worst form of ignorance on any matter of importance.

[franscar]

Again, speaking as an outsider, the USA has gained a reputation now for outward aggression against other nations, which is only going to fuel the anti-Western feeling that the extremist groups rely on to bolster support.

The excuses for invading Iraq were at best flimsy, at worst downright lies. There is no proven link between Saddam Hussein and the atrocity of 9/11, and as has been mentioend before, the majority of the protagonists of that act were funded by Saudi Arabians. Bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian. Bush's links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda just don't make sense.

It's a real shame that the USA comes off so badly in this war, because I've been to the US numerous times, and I love the place, the people, the atmosphere, but many millions of people will never be able to understand that the current government's actions do not represent the will of a great number of people. (Although Bush's awful economic policies did mean I got tons of cheap records over there last time I was there which I'm not complaining about.)

[jibber]

^ thank's for pointing out something that hopefully not many people overlook, that the government doesn't reflect the views and apsirations of the general public. I've been to many other countries around the world, including the middle east, though not recently, but I do have many friends who are living in and around Saudi Arabia. All of them have said that for the most part, the majority of Saudi's that they encounter do not have warm feelings towards the american governemtn, or their own government, but they realize that the people in power do not reflect the general public. And yes, I have stated that Saudi Arabia is home to some of the most anti-american sentiments, and I still stand by that. However, the people voicing these sentiments, and worse, acting on them, are in the minority, unfortunately, it is from them that we hear the most. Just like people in that part of the world hear more of Bush declaring war against the "evil-doers" and the terrorists than the citizens of the US, we in North America only hear the opinions of the terrorists, and only see the actions of the fanatics. What we don't see is an entire country of suffering people, who's main concern is simply how to get through another day with an oppressive, corrupt regime controling every aspect of their daily lives.

[Yellow Card]

Originally Posted by jibber

In all of your arguments, there are regimes who are better examples of all the reasons for why the US went to war with iraq.

Anti-american sentiment among the general public with no attempt by the government to supress it: Saudi Arabia is a much bigger threat to the US in that respect

WMD: North Korea (and yes I read your explanation, and I'm not seeing where you're coming from. If the US invaded North Korea I'm pretty sure that the military in North Korea would momentarily turn their attention away from south Korea to the US military who would be carpet-bombing their country.)

Dude, u some good points there, but just too let u know, there is absolutly no way America would 'carpet bomb' anybody, considering they now use 'precision' targeting, they could 'carpet bomb' but the last time they did that was in Vietnam.

Originally Posted by jibber

Humam rights violations: There have been so many instances in the past where the US sat and did nothing. Take Rwanda for instance. The government was commiting genocide while the US did nothing, so why iraq, why now?

Good point man, but perhaps they've started a trend now and will continue to help other countries from now on, they had to start sometime.

Originally Posted by jibber

I realize that you're probably never going to agree with me, just as I'm never going to agree with you. I'm merely responding to this thread to keep the debate going, because I think it's great that we're actually debating the subject. It when people never questions their own beliefs that they get into a pattern of blind faith and obedience, which is (in my opinion) the worst form of ignorance on any matter of importance.

I agree, atta girl jibber!!! (sorry i cant remember if u were a boy or a girl, but i think i can recall a previous thread where u stated u were a chick )

Anyways catch ya later mate



P.S I posted some facts on the Bush confilict on another thread called "Bush Debate" ....i think thats it, anyways i couldnt be bothered to put it on this thread, so please take the time to visit that thread

[IamAlejo]

Speaking as an outsider from American politics, I'd just like to ask those who supported Bush's actions in Iraq if they think that American soldiers should be sent into the numerous other areas in the world where there are huge human rights issues. Zimbabwe and North Korea for two. North Korea is a proven owner of weapons of mass destruction, the so-called smoking gun, and have been openly hostile to the outside world for close to 50 years, all the while the population of their country is brainwashed and indoctrinated into a culture of hatred against the Americans that Al-Qaeda could only dream of, yet Bush chose to invade Iraq. I have my own personal opinions on why he chose Iraq (black liquid and lots of it) but what do his supporters think of the reasons Bush proposed for the invasion?

No weapons of mass destruction have been found, and as I said earlier, human rights violations are going on all over the world.

Hmmm...where to start, where to start. I'll start with North Korea. Bush has already labeled North Korea as a member of the "axis of evil" with Iraq and Iran. I truly believe that we WOULD be in North Korea now if 1. We weren't already in Iraq and 2.North Korea wasn't so close to China. China isn't to fond of us getting to close to them, especially since we know they hate their Communist Government. Example=Korean War. I truly think that all you people that say oil is a reason are just truly trying to find something that isn't there. No WMD have been found, yet weapons that Iraq was not supposed to have based on UN (not US) guidelines HAVE been found. Long Distance Missiles. I also believe Iraq was attacked because there was more of a fear that Hussein could have an easier effect of helping terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Being in the Middle East, I think that Bush was trying to send a message that Terrorism would not be something that happens without a response. Going into Iraq and Afghanistan was almost a joint effort. Both are located close, and that could have posssibly been another reason.

Now onto Zimbabwe. Africa is a 3rd world continent for the love of god, with the exception of a few countries. The fact is that conflict is going on all over Africa, and I'm truly glad we don't get ourselves started in that. With all the money we already send over there, we shouldn't waste our time getting military involved there. I truly see no hope. Maybe that's just me. Basically...Iraq was more of an immediate threat than Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and any other country you want to mention.

[IamAlejo]

Again, speaking as an outsider, the USA has gained a reputation now for outward aggression against other nations, which is only going to fuel the anti-Western feeling that the extremist groups rely on to bolster support.

The excuses for invading Iraq were at best flimsy, at worst downright lies. There is no proven link between Saddam Hussein and the atrocity of 9/11, and as has been mentioend before, the majority of the protagonists of that act were funded by Saudi Arabians. Bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian. Bush's links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda just don't make sense.

It's a real shame that the USA comes off so badly in this war, because I've been to the US numerous times, and I love the place, the people, the atmosphere, but many millions of people will never be able to understand that the current government's actions do not represent the will of a great number of people. (Although Bush's awful economic policies did mean I got tons of cheap records over there last time I was there which I'm not complaining about.)

The economy is on a 3 year high or so. Is it really doing that bad? Maybe that's why we went to war, get the economy up? Just kidding. Outward aggresion? Sorry, trying to take out a leader who has gassed people in his own country, and has made his country poor as hell because he spends all the money his country gains off oil on his "Palaces" makes us a little aggressive? Well I'm damn proud to be aggressive then. Fuel a fire? That's the whole point, Bush is trying to put the fire out. We've sit back, and let the fire grow and grow, then 9/11 happened. Sitting back wasn't helping, Because Middle Eastern Governments were not doing anything about these Extremist Groups, so we decided to do something. Bush's links between Iraq and Al-Queda don't make sense? You think that every bit of information the government has goes public? Hell no. You think that half of what they have goes public? Hell no. You think that 1/10 of what they have goes public? Guess what? Hell no. The fact is that information was there, and though it may not have been enough for YOU to be happy, it was enough for CONGRESS TO VOTE to go to war...NOT THE PRESIDENT, THE CONGRESS VOTED. Don't give me that Bush pressed them to go to war. It was a large majority that voted to go to war, much more than just the Republicans in Senate. So that's a joke. Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, but Bin Laden has also been disassociated by his family (if you believe them, I'm not sure I do). He hasn't really associated much with Saudi Arabia, yet I think that's where he's probably hiding. I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia and their government, yet if we invaded because of their funding...I gurantee that YOU would be the first one on here talking about "a black liquid."

[franscar]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

The economy is on a 3 year high or so. Is it really doing that bad? Maybe that's why we went to war, get the economy up? Just kidding. Outward aggresion? Sorry, trying to take out a leader who has gassed people in his own country, and has made his country poor as hell because he spends all the money his country gains off oil on his "Palaces" makes us a little aggressive? Well I'm damn proud to be aggressive then. Fuel a fire? That's the whole point, Bush is trying to put the fire out. We've sit back, and let the fire grow and grow, then 9/11 happened. Sitting back wasn't helping, Because Middle Eastern Governments were not doing anything about these Extremist Groups, so we decided to do something. Bush's links between Iraq and Al-Queda don't make sense? You think that every bit of information the government has goes public? Hell no. You think that half of what they have goes public? Hell no. You think that 1/10 of what they have goes public? Guess what? Hell no. The fact is that information was there, and though it may not have been enough for YOU to be happy, it was enough for CONGRESS TO VOTE to go to war...NOT THE PRESIDENT, THE CONGRESS VOTED. Don't give me that Bush pressed them to go to war. It was a large majority that voted to go to war, much more than just the Republicans in Senate. So that's a joke. Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, but Bin Laden has also been disassociated by his family (if you believe them, I'm not sure I do). He hasn't really associated much with Saudi Arabia, yet I think that's where he's probably hiding. I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia and their government, yet if we invaded because of their funding...I gurantee that YOU would be the first one on here talking about "a black liquid."

1.2 million jobs have been lost since Bush was elected. The dollar has weakened against the pound, the yen and the euro. Productivity is down. The reason Bush is desperately trying to create jobs now is because of an election in November. Simple as that. He has been the worst president for the US economy in my lifetime.

Of course the US government didn't release all of the information to the public, but it would have to to the UN. The UN voted against going to war. The US and British governments pressed on regardless, basically invalidating the very existence of a United Nations in the same way that Germany and Japan did in the late 1930's. We all know how the 30's ended.

As an American citizen are you actually satisfied that your government decides what you are fit to hear? They are supposed to be SERVING you, not the other way round.

The reasons you come up with for invading Iraq I feel are totally justified. Yes, he was a tyrant, yes he was a dispicable human being, yes he was a nasty man. But it's ok for the Zimbabwean regime to do exactly the same things because Africa is a third world continent? If the US wants to be seen as the "policeman of the world" then surely they should be doing something about that?

[IamAlejo]

Where to start....Where to start again? OK...found a spot.

Of course the US government didn't release all of the information to the public, but it would have to to the UN. The UN voted against going to war. The US and British governments pressed on regardless, basically invalidating the very existence of a United Nations in the same way that Germany and Japan did in the late 1930's. We all know how the 30's ended.

Actually they wouldn't. US is not a big fan of the UN, and even less of a fan of NATO. I doubt they release all the info to UN.

As an American citizen are you actually satisfied that your government decides what you are fit to hear? They are supposed to be SERVING you, not the other way round.

"It's not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for your government." Ever heard of it? JFK, one of the best Presidents we've had. Who are you to say what the government is to do?

The reasons you come up with for invading Iraq I feel are totally justified. Yes, he was a tyrant, yes he was a dispicable human being, yes he was a nasty man. But it's ok for the Zimbabwean regime to do exactly the same things because Africa is a third world continent? If the US wants to be seen as the "policeman of the world" then surely they should be doing something about that?

Isn't the US often criticized for being the "World Police." Yes we are, yet when we don't help out some third world country than we are the bad guys. It's always are fault. But the fact remains, there is no immediate investment in Zimbabwe. We have constantly been at war with them ever since Desert Storm. The fact is that we are not going to spread out the military too thin at one time. If things settle in Iraq, we might go to Zimbabwe. Who knows? Iraq was more of an immediate threat to the US than Zimbabwe will ever be.

1.2 million jobs have been lost since Bush was elected. The dollar has weakened against the pound, the yen and the euro. Productivity is down. The reason Bush is desperately trying to create jobs now is because of an election in November. Simple as that. He has been the worst president for the US economy in my lifetime.

Most of those lost jobs, dollar weakening, etc, happened during the first two years of his Presidency. Do you think that an economy has results in just two years. No, it takes 4 to 6 years for a Presidents laws, etc, to have an impact on the economy. Look at Clinton before we start looking too much at Bush.

[jibber]

alejo, you've stated in many responses that a major justification for going to iraq was the threat of influence on terrorism and a supply of long distance missiles. As well, a corrupt leader who runs his country into the ground and leaves its citizens starving while he builds palace upon palace for himself and his family. From that standpoint, why not go into Saudi Arabia? A larger number of weapons than in iraq, not to mention more destructive weapons. Add that to a leader just as corrupt as hussein (granted without gassing the minorities, and I'm in no way saying that saudi's leader is anywhere near as bad as hussein), add that to a country who harbors more terrorists than any other country in the middle east. but, the bush family is very close to the saudi royal family, not to mention the bin laden family, and not to mention the huge supply of oil that saudi supplies to the US. I'm not saying that the US should have gone to war with saudi arabia instead, or that the facts i just listen are reasons not to go into iraq, it just kind of makes me question how solid the supposed reasons for going to war are.