Who you voting for in the 2008 President election?

Stephen Colbert is a joke, kinda like Paragon is.

 

How or why we went into Iraq is no longer of any importance because of the simple fact that that is where we are now. You equate your own country to burglars in the night and Saddam's totalitarian regime to some innocent victim's house. So here's the actual example:
Someone in your neighborhood is beating their children. You have proof of this. You ask the police to intervene but they don't. So, you take the initiative and gather other neighbors to break into that neighbors house so that he won't beat his children anymore. In the process some property is damaged and the neighbor is severely injured and some of the neighbors you gathered as well as yourself are also injured. Then, they take care of the children while the neighbor is recovering.
You seem to be saying that you would rather just sit by and let them beat their children rather than getting involved.

Also, the military and police force of Iraq was Sunni. The vast majority of of Iraq is Shiite. Guess what would happen if the military and police force was kept in place. The same thing that is happening now which is that Shiites would be a large part of the insurgency.

How will Iraq not become like Afghanistan after we leave. Factions in that area have been known to kill each other after and during an occupier has left for less significant reasons than the fact that they are different sects. Also, the same foreign insurgents are being important into both countries currently. I don't see how you think it will become all happy and everyone will start to get along better when we leave when the main target is their own people, not the Coalition forces.

And saying that the problem arose in Afghanistan because we provided them aid is just selfish. Their country was invaded by a country bent on turning them into a satellite state and police state just like the rest of the Soviet Socialist Republics. When the Soviet Union took over a country, that country was no longer a separate entity. Look at the maps of that era. It's just USSR. No Ukraine, no Armenia, no Kazakhstan, just USSR. The "local police forces" and "armed forces" of those areas were Soviet troops and police.

Britain defeated an insurgency in Malaya.
By the end of the Vietnam war the VietCong (the insurgents in Vietnam) were ineffective at best. The only problem left was the PAVN main force of North Vietnam. Maybe if we had held our word and provided the South Vietnamese with air support they would have held against PAVN when they sent their entire army into South Vietnam in a big conventional push. Instead, the US went back on it's word (as it loves to do [Hungary, Cuban exiles invasion at the Bay of Pigs]) and the South Vietnamese were defeated.
Also, small correction, the Chinese were the main backers of North Vietnam, not the Soviets. The Soviets did give them some things but not nearly as much as the Chinese.
And the British only half-heartedly tried to stabilize it and they left pretty quick. The US were initially on the side of the Vietnamese to let them have self-determination. But the French were very adamant about getting their colony back and the US was not interested in fighting a war against the French because we needed their help in Europe. And the US had their hands tied for the entirety of the war because they were not allowed to go after the source.

As for your Ron Paul source. Where are his sources. Just because he is running for president doesn't mean he is credible in what he says about everything. No credible source has shown that we funded the Taliban in their takeover of Afghanistan. I don't know why the State Department gave them money but they should have talked to the Intelligence Community who had wanted to go into Afghanistan and help the Northern Alliance take down the Taliban since all the way back in 1998.

Your world view seems to be that you don't care about the deaths of people in other countries. "Millions die in some civil war somewhere? Oh well, we shouldn't help either side because it's not our fight." is a selfish world view. They are people too. Do you think they don't deserve life just because they are not Americans. Our founding fathers have been dead for a very long time. They do not live in the world we live in today. Our world is a much different world from theirs. In their time it took months to communicate with Europe. Now it can happen almost instantaneously. We cannot just sit on the sidelines and watch the world go to shit around us. Guatemala, Bangladesh, Burundi, Cambodia, East Timor, Sabra-Shatila, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Kurds in the Iran/Iraq War by Iraq, Tibet, West New Guinea, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur. All of those were genocides in the past 50 years. In most of them we did nothing. In a couple we didn't move fast enough and did too little too late. It takes men with guns to protect innocent civilians from men with guns. They will not stop killing innocent civilians en mass just because you ask them to. Being able to help and doing nothing is worse than not being able to help.

Also, somewhat related. What is your stance on Darfur?

 

@ Jim

In one of your posts on page 6 this was in your evidence "The conference concluded with a strong statement from the conference participants in support of the Iraqi, Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements. The statement reads in part, “As long as the U.S. and its allies do not withdraw their troops from the Middle East, as long as they do not close their military bases, and as long as they keep in place the Zionist entity, there can be no peace in the region. No people can give peace to their oppressors. A just peace will only be possible with the victory of the liberation movements.â€

I'd just like to say that it doesn't matter if we are there or here or in any country because they will still attack us. I don't know if you know any of the Kuran or what ever it's called but in it there is a section that says "and let you kill all the infadels". Infadels means us (anyone who isn't islomic).

Also, I'd like to say that I am Christian and that means I as a person would like to not be bashed for it.

PS: I know you are getting a lot of minerals for your posts but could you make them shorter PLEASE! I can't read all of um at this rate...

 

Is it important to realize that Iraq was a mistake. We have to understand that it is us that caused this and not the Iraqis.

The Bush administration invoked Germany and Japan as models for Iraq's transformation because the occupations of those countries were highly successful and because those successes had nothing to do with Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, or, for that matter, Richard Nixon. But if the administration's choice was politically safe, it was not otherwise very instructive. In 1945, when the United States occupied Germany and Japan, those countries were both highly homogenous societies with first World economies. And they had both surrendered following devastating defeats after years of brutal warfare.

None of these conditions existed in Yugoslavia in the 1990s or in Iraq a decade later. Both these countries had been created in the early twentieth century from the remnants of other empires (the Austrian and the Ottoman) and were established within borders that included disparate ethnic and religious groups that would have preferred not to live in the same state. Neither Yugoslavia nor Iraq ever developed a first World economy, nor had either surrendered.

Had the Bush administration used Bosnia or Kosovo as the model for Iraq, it would have realized that the stabilization and reconstruction of that country was going to require a lot more time, money, and manpower than it had planned. It would have anticipated the security vacuum that was likely to emerge immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. It would have arrived with plans for the orderly disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration into society of sectarian militias and Republican Guard troops, and with blueprints for expanding the police and reforming the army. It would have moved quickly in the aftermath of the invasion -- at a time when U.S. prestige was high, when no significant resistance had emerged, and when the world still assumed that weapons of mass destruction would be found -- to expand international participation in the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq.

But it did none of these things. Instead, a faulty historical analogy led to faulty policy choices. When Baghdad fell, the Bush administration initially seemed to view Iraq as a prize won rather than as a burden acquired. It banned French, German, and Russian companies from reconstruction contracts. President George W. Bush rebuffed Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts to give the United Nations a central role in the mission. The United States chose to designate itself an occupying power, basing its continued military presence on the laws of armed conflict rather than the UN Charter. All these positions were eventually reversed. But by then, an armed resistance movement had emerged, and with it disappeared any opportunity to draw the rest of the international community into Iraq more deeply.

There is much to be said for the Vietnamese and Balkan models. Today, U.S. troops in Iraq are having to relearn valuable techniques honed in Vietnam but since forgotten. Ethnic tensions in Iraq are reminiscent of those that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia, and they could produce a similar result. The Shiite and Kurdish militias do present a growing threat, if not to U.S. forces, then certainly to the unity of Iraq. Some repositioning of U.S. and Iraqi troops to ensure greater control over Baghdad -- the country's center of gravity and home to 20 percent of its population, where the Shiite, Kurdish, and Sunni communities are thoroughly intermixed -- may well be desirable.

It seems unlikely, however, that the United States at this late stage will deploy a force in Iraq large enough to successfully execute either Balkan-style peace enforcement or Vietnam-style pacification. The United States put 500,000 troops into South Vietnam, a country that in 1970 had a population that was little more than half the size of the population of Iraq today. Nato put over 100,000 troops into Bosnia and Kosovo, societies that in combination are around a fifth of the size of Iraq's. Coalition forces are currently not numerous enough even to suppress the Sunni insurgency; they are certainly insufficient to take on the much more powerful Shiite and Kurdish militias as well.


In order for Iraq to become a terrorist haven, these things would have to happen:
1.) A country would have to Invade Iraq.(United States)
2.) About 150,000-300,000 radical islamists would have to enter the country and gather the favor of the Iraqi people. In Afghanistan, there were about 100,000 radicals and more, but it was a smaller country.
3.) The radicals would have to have tons of weapons, resources and supplies in order to manage a takeover.
4.) Radical islamist schools would be needed to educate them.

It is very far fetched to believe that 100,000 radicals are gonna enter Iraq. All the above things happened in Afghanistan. Iraq has much more national sentiments would never let some radicals come in and take over their country. It is a rediculous idea.

There is nothing wrong with spreading democracy around the world or helping people. But not by the barrel of a gun! Darfur is in a civil war, what good and what right do we possibly have to get involved? Any invasion or interfence would only spark more genocide and death. We need to step back and set examples. If we show we can have a good healthy democracy here, than other countries will want it.

We've stood by genocides before not because we didnt want to help because we cant and we shouldn't. If we got involved in all those conflicts, how many more people would have died needless?
In the 1980s I believe, Ronald Reagan sent the marines to Lebanon, confident that he would bring order. But after 200 marines were killed in a suicide bombing, he withdrawed them. Years later, when his diary came out, he said he didn’t realize how irrational they were in their politics over there, and he said we had to change our policy. So he intervened, the Marines were killed, he said it was a mistake, and he left.
We need to learn the lesson Ronald Reagan did and we need to understand that we dont understand the middle east or how it works and how irrational it is to try to get involved. All we do in the end is make things worse. Only if something is a credible threat to us or if we agree as a nation, we should get invovled than we should do it...

-inconclusive

 

I'm not even going to read all of this. Seriously, how much free time do you have to post so much stuff on politics, that the average person like me would refuse to read it.

 

When did the Bush administration talk about Germany and Japan? I remember that I talked about it when you said that it is a bad idea to disarm the armed forces of a conquered enemy but I don't remember the Bush administration ever mentioning it.

They don't have to import hundreds of thousands of Islamists into Iraq. Look at the Mahdi Army or Badr Brigade. Those are just two of many "indigenous" forces. Their combined forces are around 70,000 and there are many more different groups. Both also happen to be pro-Iranian.

Also, it is pointless to continue to mention the fact that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq. Saying it more times will not change the fact that we are there. Nobody is arguing that fact. It was a bad idea. Instead of wishing to go back in time we have to look at what we can do to improve the situation and leaving the country will only cause the situation to deteriorate.

As for required troop strengths:

Not to be rude but it is selfish to leave all those people to be killed in genocides just because they are not Americans. They didn't choose to live there. Their only "crime" was that they were born in a bad part of the world. Also, calling them civil wars in inaccurate. A civil war doesn't imply the mass killings of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of civilians. We could go in and kill thousands today to save hundreds of thousands tomorrow. Other countries will not want to have a democracy just because we have one. We were the "beacon of light" throughout much of the Cold War and yet there are more undemocratic countries than there are democratic ones. Warlords with lots of men with guns control countries or parts of countries. They will not just suddenly say "We should be a democracy because that state way over there is a democracy and their people are happy." They will hold onto their power for as long as power until a more powerful warlord comes.

If you stop people with guns (or even machetes as was used in Rwanda by most people) from killing people without guns or any other ways to defend themselves then you can avoid many deaths. We didn't even have to kill anyone. Just the threat of overwhelming force against anyone who wanted to commit genocide could have stopped it. Station troops there to keep the peace.

And we could have prevented the deaths of the Rwanda genocide. It is actually incredibly sad just how easy it would have been.

We knew it would happen and nothing was done. Up to a million were killed in 3 months. Also, the Rwanda Genocide was after the Rwanda Civil War. They are not the same thing. The Civil War had far fewer casualties.


Do you think that the US should have interfered in World War II?

 

@ Paragon: Your denial of facts is astounding Paragon. Yes, you talked about Germany and Japan, but I later discovered that Bush at one time compared the Iraq occupation to Japan and Germany: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-08-26-bush-speech_x.htm
Alright, let says there 70,000 insurgents in Iraq. Unlike those in Afghanistan, these insurgents would have poorer training, less resources, less weapons and less support. Yet, you believe despite these drawbacks there going to be able to turn a country that has about 38 million people into a terrorist haven? Afghanistan had 14 millon people less. Iraq also has a lot more national pride than Afghanistan and is not as susceptible as them. So, all these is fear and war-mongering.
You state these combat techniques and etc. But if they work so well, than why was there such mass looting in Iraq? Why is so much sectarian violence? A look at the ground clearly shows things are not going well.
Right now in Iraq, were giving weapons to Shites and kurdish police. Were arming them right now and thats why the sunnies feel threathening. What is the answer to this problem? I dont know and you dont know. The answer is, nobody knows. The only people that do know is the Iraqi people themselves.

We have to let these things work themselves out. We can do our best to show them how it should be done by setting examples here. But we cannot force our will on them! All were doing is protecing them from them selves. If they want to kill each other, what right do we have to stop it?

Look, I would totally agree with going with Darfur, if congress declared the war. Just imagine what things would of happened if we had debated whether or not the US should invaded Iraq. The american people would of had a rational debate on it and they would of understood the real facts!! Instead they were told lie after lie after lie!! Did you know that 50-70% of americans believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11???!!!

This willfull and intentional, and deliberate attempt to circumvent the american people, the congress and the consitution in order to go to war his way!
If were gonna go marching into Darfur, let the damned American people decide if we should go! And if they do! Ill with glady agree with it!!!
When the congress says its going to declare the war, it forces us to think about our decisions, should we really have gone to Iraq? What was the evidence?
Should we go to Darfur? can we really help? Can we afford it?!

The wealth and treasure of the United States and Iraq are being consumed by this war. Even with only 150,000 troops in Iraq, were spread paper thin. We have lost our image in the world. Whatever the prestege we still hold onto is gone.

When we leave Iraq, there will be violence there. There is little doubt about it. If we leave now, there will probably less violence then if we leave from 6 years from now. Tell me, how is keeping troops levels the same and staying with the same strategy year after year going to stop the insurgency, which about 94% Iraqi native?

If we actually cared about the Iraqi people, we would simply leave. If China decided to invaded our country for whatever reason, and toppled our government, how long would you want them to stay? Would you want them to train a all-new police and army force to secure us?
70% of American citizens are sick and tired of this war and have said we should leave. Now, I know you think there wrong, but surely, you dont think we should ignore their wishes? It is them that is putting their sons and daughters on the line. It is them that is paying for this war afterall!
And if they want to leave, than we better leave.
51% of Iraqis believe its okay to kill americans. they dont want us there.
A small group of people in washington want us to be in Iraq.
The only argument that we should stay in Iraq because were the only stable force their and many Iraqis will die if we leave. This is pretty inevitable. We simply dont know whats gonna happen and trying to control and manipulate Iraq will only end in disaster.
We need to bring our troops home.
Its regrettable if Iraq goes into a civil war, but it was our fault and we need to pull because we only encourage more attacks...
Yes, I think we should of went to wwII.

Do you think we should of gotten involved in the communist revolution in China and stopped communism there?
Do you think we should of got invovled in the Russian revolution and stop communism there?

@Eonmaster.
SOme of the jewish books says its okay not pay non-jewish people for working.
The christian bible says its okay to stone children to death for misbehaving.
Dont give me this religious dogma crap.
Most Muslisms are not crazed radicals who follow every word of the Kuran.
Just like Christians and jews arent.
There are pretty radical christians you know. They teach their children that their going to hell and etc.

 

I never denied that he compared it to Germany and Japan I said that I did not remember reading that anywhere. Thank you for pointing out where he said it.
Additionally, all of your drawbacks to the insurgents in Iraq are incorrect. It has been proven that they have advisers and support from many well trained groups including Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Even Chechen tactical advisers have been discovered in Iraq. The Chechens have many many years of actual combat experience against a western army that they can provide.

The ideas I quoted from Poole have not been implemented so commenting on how they have not stopped anything from happening is incorrect.

We are giving weapons to the Police. The militias obtain weapons illegally through corruption and weapons dealers. The Sunnis are not the entirety of the insurgency. Shiite militias are also involved. The answer is to show the Iraqi people that we are there to help them. We have to provide the basic services and rebuild their infrastructure. We have to be there in every neighborhood to provide protection. You say that nobody knows and then that the Iraqis are the only ones who know. Well, which is it?

As for Congress saying it's okay to go to war. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
They said it was okay. They also haven't stopped funding it. The Congress that represents you said it was okay. And again, I am still not arguing that it was the right thing to do because it clearly was not. We have to look forward though, not back.

What proof do you have that Iraq would be better if we left now instead of later? The longer we stay the more we can do to stabilize it. I think that we should change our strategy to that outlined by Poole because he clearly knows what he is talking about and that change in strategy has a better chance of working than sticking with this strategy. If we pull out now, everything that we worked for will be for nothing.

China is an authoritarian state. If by some miracle they actually attacked and defeated the United States it would be an authoritarian state controlling what used to be a democracy. Iraq is the other way around. Provide a better example please.

What about World War II made it right for us to fight it?

We were involved in the Russian revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia

and the communist revolution in China as well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War#Fighting_on_mainland_China_.281946.E2.80.931950.29
and farther down
"President Harry S. Truman ordered the U.S. 7th Fleet into the Taiwan straits, ending any immediate possibility for a successful Communist invasion."

And yes, I do think that we should have gotten involved. I also think we should have done more to get involved. Had the communist revolution in China been won by the nationalists instead, the Korean War and Vietnam War never would have happened. There may be a future war that we could prevent by not failing in Iraq now.

 

So guys, who should i vote for? even though i don't live in USA

 

Whoever their not talking about, with all that stuff said and written, there must be many things wrong with the guys their argueing about. I'm not too big on politics and refuse to read all that stuff they are talking about.

 

He is talking about Ron Paul and I am talking about nobody.

 

I think its about time we had a black persident, show that descrimination doesn't exist like it used to in our past.

 

Please tell me you are not voting Obama just because he is black. That has to be the stupidest reason there is. Leaders should NEVER be cosen based on race, etnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Only on their ability to lead well and make descisions benificial to the majority of people.

 

I'm not, I just think that more ethnicity sould be in the precidency, instead of all white males of protestant upbringing. Only exception is JFK, who was catholic.

 

It would help us a lot if Obama wasn't the only Black man running and Hillary wasn't the only woman running. Of course it would also help if half the candidates weren't a bunch of stupid ignorant and selfish bastards and if they actually cared about the citizens they represent.

One problem is that the people who would be good candidates have no money and thus can't campaign effectively. Our republic is a joke. Politicians may get elected by majority vote but rich people are the ones who get votes at all. Sad really.

 

Okay, now Raynor's making me mad...

Seriously, do you have any idea what Christianity is??? "The christian bible says its okay to stone children to death for misbehaving". (Wrong) That was a part of the old testament where sagasees, pharisees and all those unnoble leaders were making up rules for Israel to fallow. In a passage a prostitute was going to be stoned by civilians and pharisees (or who ever they were) Jesus " who among you has not sinned? Let the one in this crowd that has not sinned throw the first stone". No one threw a rock because lieing is a sin.


"Dont give me this religious dogma crap."
I am going to give you this religious dogma crap.

"Most Muslisms are not crazed radicals who follow every word of the Kuran."
What makes a person Muslim then if they don't fallow the "whole" Kuran?

"Just like Christians and Jews aren't. There are pretty radical Christians you know. They teach their children that their going to hell and etc"
I don't know if you realised this but the reason why Christian families tell their kids they are going to hell is so that they get the fact that they have sinned and need Jesus as their Lord and savior. It's not like Christian families tell everyone they meet "Hey buddy! You are going to hell".

I just wanted to say this. If you attack it or not I don't care cause I think I'm done with this thread (unless I see posts that aren't whole pages long) because there is almost no relevance to the first post in later posts.

PS: thanks for the debate on the war but lets end it!
PSS: Thanks Paragon for being polite through the whole debate

 

It would be nice if people stopped saying what religious books thy have never read contain.

If you have never read the book shut up because you don't know what you are talking about

 

Are you saying that to me or him?

 

To everyone who says "the Bible says this" "The Quran says that"

Also for all of you ignorant people out there note the spelling on said religious text

 

Seriously Pure Vengenance... if you haven't actually READ any of those books, don't quote them...and learn how to spell too, the fact that you can't spell KORAN (or Qur'an), or FOLLOW doesn't make you're argument that persuasive...actually it depletes your opinion. Atm, you're spilling out the stuff that you hear from the media and fundamentalists Christians say the Koran says. I can interpret Jesus' quote "You think I have come to bring peace, but I have come to bring the sword" as telling me to go on a Crusade...it doesn't mean its true. (And yes...you could be a Muslim and follow certain parts of the Koran, just like you could be a Christian and not follow some parts of the Bible.)

And let me say...the Bible and the Koran are mostly symbolic and meant to teach a point anyway.

Anyways, back to politics, let's leave the religion stuff to the religion topic