| Author | Comment |
dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 17 Dec 2003
16:06 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | Just to spark a little healthy debate. I personally am a pacifist and completely opposed to any war, especially this one. Yes, we did free the Iraqis. But that was not the reason we invaded. Saudi Arabians live under a FAR worse government than the Iraqis did, yet the Saudi regime is our ally. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was designed to bring the world's oil market more tightly under U.S. control. Also, the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was b.s. CIA director George Tenet told Bush that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, nor could Iraq produce them within the next decade. There ws NO valid reason for invading Iraq! |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 17 Dec 2003
17:02 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | If you think the war was for oil, you're wrong. For the total price of the war, we could have bought A LOT of oil. And for a pacifist, you're signature is completely negates your personal view.
Personally, I'm positive in supporting the war. I'm glad we did it. |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 17 Dec 2003
17:51 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Heres my views:
1) I hate war. Why? Becuase our troops last words when they die are usually mommy. Thats sad. Really sad. My heart goes out to them. Most of them are only 3-4 years older than me.
2) But we had to do it. Think of what Saddam did to his people. He had torutre chambers and when a person went to Saddam they never came back. Far more people died in Iraq than troops dying now. It's the right thing to do.
As for hating Bush, well, he's made his mistakes, like that Medicare bill he passed. We wouldn't need that if we got rid of the illegal aleins. He needs to close our borders. Will this happen? I don't know.
No president is perfect. Don't think that by getting a new president all of America's problems are going to be solved. Those are the facts-but I allow every American to make his/her American. |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 17 Dec 2003
19:22 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | It was all a power issue. Really, the capture of Saddam is a huge press field day for the GOP. Now, with the elections less than 2 years away, that is what the american public will remember. Personally, I think Bush is a complete idiot, but he really has no power, his cabanet, well, doesn't control the government. I'm not sure who's the brain behind this amdinistration.
|
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 17 Dec 2003
19:34 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Bush does have pwoer allyn, he started a war withut consent of the senate, the UN, or the House. Bush did the right thing. Although we lose troops, and war is bad, it's worth it in the end if it stops more killing. And it has. We captured Saddam, the biggest murder in the year.
Billy-I agree with you 110%.
[Edited by calculatorfreakCG on 18-Dec-03 04:35] |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 17 Dec 2003
19:44 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | I appearentally made that statement too confusing. The PRESIDENT has that power, yes. But no, I seriously doubt that George Bush has ever actaully made his own policys. The position has power, the person, in this case, does not.
Yes, Saddam killed his own people. But so does the drug lords in Columbia (But they have nothing we want). Russia killed 20 million of their people (But they were too powerful), and other dictatorships across the world do the same thing.
Tridationally the United States has had a isolationist policy, stay out of other countrys business unless it directly effects us. (1941...). This has changed somewhat with the advent of the UN, but only with a overwhelming consenus of our clostest allies (Britain, France, Germany (Post world war II), Russia (Since 1989)) did the US parcipate in a war that did not directlly effect it (Korea, Vietnam...). Never before has the US attacked a country not a "Clear and Present Danger" or by a UN resultion.
Sure, Saddam might have been persuing NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons. What small country isn't? But North Korea has publically announced they are persuing nuclear power and conversly, weapons...). Why arn't we attacking them? North Korea represents a threat, but they have allies (China to name one....). SO we attack one who has no allies...Iraq. |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 17 Dec 2003
19:57 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | "SO we attack one who has no allies...Iraq."
That's because we want to have a war against terrorism, and show we're really doing it. At the same time, we don't want to start another world war. Why would ttacking North Korea start another world war? Because of what you mentioned - their ally China.
Too far away from the truth? Beyond persepective you say? No. The ally attachments is exactly what started the world war. The basic premise was "I'm with this country, and if you attack, this country will attack you along with us." This brought in a monstrous amount of people backing and fighting each other and thus causing the world war. Sure the US was still attempting to be isolationists, but that went ou the window. It was inevitable that the United States was to choose a side. Besides, it was pretty obvious - even at that time - which side the US would favor in anycase. Therefore, we aren't attacking North Korea to prevent causing another chain effect to create WW3.
I'm pretty tired so if it's not exactly coherant I apologize. But I'm more than positive you understand what I was saying. Now to go to bed.. last exam tomorrow. |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 17 Dec 2003
19:59 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | I can answer your question.
I don't agree with everything Bush does, but do you want a fast train to communism (Clinton) or a slow train to communism (Bush). We need to pick the lesser of two evils here. One thing about Iraq is that they had active terriosts, and right now we're doing this "war on terror." That means Osma Bin Laden is the next step. Then Korea. But you must realize that Bush did more things than other candidates would have done-he took action.
Besides-Iraq directly lied to us. they said they had no scud missles. Well the 2nd day of the war they're launching scud missiles at our troops. Thats why we fought the war. They might not have WMDS, but they have weapons they should have. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 17 Dec 2003
23:05 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "That's because we want to have a war against terrorism" - I think the War on Iraq was more about taking the focus off the War on Terrorism.
I think that the War on Afghanistan was justified, I don't think going to Iraq was a good idea.
China is not really that strong of an ally to North Korea. They were in fact one of many countries that put pressure on North Korea to stop their nuclear weapons program, that says much especially since China has more influence in mega-isolationist North Korea than most countries. The primary reason: They don't want to be in range of nukes.
Other reasons we don't attack North Korea: they have a huge (if a bit dated) military, at one point it was only behind United States and China, not sure about now. South Korea is strongly allied to the United States, and recently they have been taken more reconciliatory tones to the North. Also, the capital Seoul, and one of the largest cities, is very close to the border, if the United States attacked, North Korea's could hit Seoul with artillery.
How is either Clinton of Bush a train to communism? It doesn't even make sense you're using Clinton as your example as a fast train considering he didn't even ran and we picked him twice (by a larger majority too) to run for president. Why is Osama Bin Laden, who was the most wanted for a year after 9/11/2001, relegated to a step after Iraq when he was a priority first? That just shows how Iraq is a distraction from the real War of Terror. While the Iraqi regime was far from enlightened, it is not that unusual. And do you have any idea of how massive the deficit from the War on Iraq is (and growing). And do you know that with just Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military is heavily strained. Deploying 100,000 troops requires a lot of support from other troops, there is no way we could attack and hold Korea anytime soon. |
ShockTroop
Goliath
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
13:12 GMT
Total Posts: 170 | Um...a tad OT, but here's a funny video about Saddam:
Saddam From Iraq
(if the link doesn't work copy and paste) |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
13:24 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | rofl. Hilarious video! |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
14:37 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | EACTLY! Saddam has bombs, scud missle he shouldn't have had! How can you justiy that for those of you that have expressed your ultimate love for Saddam! Have you seen videos of the torutre chambers? |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
15:28 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | There seems to be a bit of a misconseption about the scuds. The scud was designed in the 60's for use in the USSR's submarines.
The scud is a 60's techology, it has a relitivitly short range, smallish payload, and a horrendious targeting system. The scud is no real threat. So what if saddam had scuds? Many dictator's have weapons "they shouldn't have". What gives us the right to decide who can have what weapon?
Saddam has bombs? Really? I didn't know Iraq had a powerful airforce...
And I agree, the Iraq war was a definite distraction on the failer to capture Osama. Now, the public has almost forgotten that we havnt' cought a MUCH more powerful threat...and Osama is still out there... |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
17:02 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | Not to mention scuds have a high failure rate. And, I don't love Saddam, but I view Iraq as money and resources that should have been used better. I'll answer your questions, although Saddam had missiles, he was a very small fish capable of very little damage, he can no be likened to a pre-WW2 Germany. Germany was a highly populated, highly industrialized, and had a powerful military, remember that it had almost won WW1. Iraq had fewer tanks when we attacked it than before the Gulf War. I abhor torture chambers, but the US and UN have inflicted large damage to Iraqis through sanctions on food and medical supplies, the destruction of the torture chambers can not be equated with the 100's of billions of dollars it will take to rebuild the government.
I answered your questions, no answer MINE, now how are Clinton and Bush leading to communism? And how has capturing Iraq (and putting so many military resources into Iraq) help find the original target, Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? |
iNF3CTi0N
Probe
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
19:06 GMT
Total Posts: 6 | "We wouldn't need that if we got rid of the illegal aleins. He needs to close our borders."First of all how was America started? People came here for the opportunity. Illegal aliens as you put it came from Britain for freedom and a life. That’s all the immigrants want. And if we are so worried about illegal immigrants think about this: we have no problem with Canadian border hoppers. So then ask yourself this: why is that? The answer is simple. Canada is a developed country; they have a lot less poverty than Mexico and Cuba. So to solve immigration we should work on getting their countries developed, then we would have stronger allies as well. Their thirst for freedom and opportunity from coming to the United States would be quenched if the freedom and opportunity were there instead of here. European Union?how about the Union of the Americas? Now to the topic of Bush, what can I say he is a daddies boy draft dodger that is borderline retarded. This war is bogus and anyone with a brain can see that. He is in it for the money.
[Edited by Digital on 19-Dec-03 22:35] |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
19:09 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Alright I'll answer your questions.
Bill Clinton wants gun control, equality for all, and for all of us hard working folks to put money into the pocket of illegal aliens! We, the honest hard working people, have to pay high taxes under Clinton so that those bums everywhere can have enough money. Gun control-violates the constitution, the 2nd ammendment, the right to bear arms! Thats communism.
Geroge Bush has also made many mistakes, but taxes are going down so that the fiilthy bums on the streets aren't living off us and breaking our backs. He also doesn't believe in gun control.
Look, Bush isn't perfect, I'm done with politics, one political opion topic is enough for a month if you ask me. I know Bush makes mistakes, but Clinton made more. |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
19:10 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | iNF3CTi0N: Just ntocied your lunatic post! What the? Yes, we were built off immigrants, BUT NOT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! My forefathers were harding working, I don't know about yours, maybe they just hopped the border! |
iNF3CTi0N
Probe
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
19:15 GMT
Total Posts: 6 | Its racist, fascist, capitalists like you that make me embarrassed to be an American! Your statements are so ignorant. “Those bums” who the hell else would mow your lawn if there weren’t any Mexican immigrants? A white person, do manual labor? Paleeze! That’s never going to happen so before you go and get mad at them think about how they help the economy!
|
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
19:16 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Yes, I'm 17 and I do manual labor all the time. Besides, I know a perubian (hispanic) immigrant who does brain sugrery. Not all immigrants do manual labor, especially not mexican. Just chill dude, this forum's about calcs anyway. BTW, answered your question in the calc disscussion. No need to get worked up dude. Its all good.
[Edited by calculatorfreakCG on 19-Dec-03 04:18] |
iNF3CTi0N
Probe
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
19:19 GMT
Total Posts: 6 | As a matter of fact I am half Mexican and the other half is German! I live in Texas and I know the effects of them coming here! Believe me no one is out of a job because of it! |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
19:57 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | I know there are alot of legal immigrants, don't get me wrong, about 70% are legal. But we have alot of immigrants. So that 30% illegal is alot. And I live in Tucson Arizona so I'm harping on Bush for these illegal aliens. I know alot of good mexican people-but some aren't legal, and you'll see must of these people as "bums". Most of them are druggies. I don't feel bad about them, like you said, becuase I've seen them urinate in the streets and pull a gun out on my friend's dad. It's serious down here in Tucson-being so close ot the border and all. |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
20:49 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Hey spiral, ever feel like we're fighting a losing battle on this forum? They're like Bush, whenever asked hard questions, revert back to the old standby, "Saddam was a bad man." lol
The United States has a budget of trillions of dollars. Supporting illegal aliens isn't going to "break our backs." Really, even if were pumping a BILLION dollars into illegal ailens, that really isn't a high cost. The war in iraq is costing far more.
The right to bare arms, yes the constuition grants that. But not the right to bare unrestricted arms...and I fail to see the connection between gun control and communism, could you please explain the link calcfreak? Communism is (basically) that everyone is equal.
But about the Illegal aliens, I would not know the problem in the southern states, after all, we don't get many illegals in Washington... |
iNF3CTi0N
Probe
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
21:38 GMT
Total Posts: 6 | see no canadian border hopers! am i right? |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 18 Dec 2003
22:06 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "Bill Clinton wants gun control, equality for all, and for all of us hard working folks to put money into the pocket of illegal aliens"
People aren't poor because they don't want to work, sometimes they're just down on luck. I live in California, I see many people that have a high probability of being illegal immigrants. I also know (and sometimes see) the effects of them. Why do you (CalcFreak) think illegal immigrants are lazy? They are some of the hardest working people trying to get out of the lower class that they had the misfortune of being born into. Mexican fruit gatherers are paid fractions of minimum wage to pick fruit, often they're paid by how much they collect. For the amount of work they do for how much they're paid, they are some of the hardest working people. If we deported all the illegal immigrants, fruit prices would go WAY up, because now we would have to pay minimum wage for not necessarily more work, labor price woudl also go up.
"you'll see must of these people as 'bums'" - If that's the case, eventually they'll be caught, and they'll be deported as illegal citizens. Most illegal citizens are very law-abiding, they didn't spend all the energy getting into the United States just to get deported.
Also, your view of Communism is severely limited. In Communism, the whole economy is controlled by the government. There would be no private institutions. Communism is about much more than equality. Clinton's equality is not Communism, it is trying to give everybody an equal chance to succeed in the world (it's not secret that being rich helps you in the world, our president would have never had a chance of being elected if his father hadn't been elected and if he wasn't a multi-millionaire).
I agree with you Allyn about bearing arms. The original purpose was to create miltias to defend the country: we have an army/navy/air force now. Ok, so America was originally a land of hunters, so we need guns to hunt and for self-defense. But do we actually need an assault weapons to hunt? And is such a powerful weapon needed for self-defense?
[Edited by spiral on 19-Dec-03 07:06] |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 19 Dec 2003
13:13 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Yep, hispanic people are the hardest working people. As a whole, with few exceptions, they try to make a living. How can you knock on those who try to give them a chance?
|
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 19 Dec 2003
13:50 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Okay. One of the things I so love about this site is that it is politically neutral, or at least there are no political debates. Hey look! My dreams just went down the crap chute! |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 19 Dec 2003
13:53 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Hey, I didn't start it...but when people have such a narrow view of the world and are misinformed..then yes, they must be corrected. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 19 Dec 2003
15:51 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | I don't see what's wrong with a political debate? Imo, political debate is fine, and great even, as long as their are no flames and people try to be reasonable. This thread seems to be both. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 19 Dec 2003
16:12 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | I don't mind them either, but at times I don't want to be around them, kind of like a vacation. This was one site that had a decent forum and had no political debates, which I've seen get out of hand really quickly. |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 19 Dec 2003
17:55 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Dudes, ILLEGAL IMMGIGRANTS SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS! Period! Why should my money go to feed some scum who doesn't even come here legally? Yeah right!
Might I remind you-I AM MEXICAN! Alright! I live in Tucson Arizona-my forefathers,(on my dad's side at least, my mom is white), immigranted legally. |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 19 Dec 2003
18:21 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Yeah, how will it be enforced? Shoot people that come across our borders? Or just not help them and see what kind of crime and chaos things will degrade to?
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 19 Dec 2003
20:53 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | froggy's right. You can't enforce it...are you aware how long the border is? |
dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 20 Dec 2003
10:26 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | Why should we give jobs to Mexicans? Because it is largely because of the U.S. that people in many countries DON'T have jobs! How about Cuba? Everyone talks about how evil Castro is, but he is a much lesser evil than th dictator before him, who was COMPLETELY SUPPORTED by the U.S. And calcuylatorfreak, what's so wrong with Communism? It's not like our current system is so bad. Castro wasn't at all a Communist anyway. He only allied himself with Russia because UN economic sanctions made it impossible for him to trade with anyone else. It's OUR FAULT Cuba is so poor. Their entire induistry was U.S. owned, but when Castro came into power, all U.S. industries backed out. No Cubans knew how to run the machines, because all the skilled jobs were given to American workers, the native Cubans were only given the grunt work jobs. The U.S. ruined that country. A similar thing happened in Iraq. George W.'s daddy was good pals with Saddam until Saddam did something he didn't like. What didn't Bush senior like? That Saddam jacked up the price of oil. Do you think we went into Iraq to stop terrorism? Oh, no! Bush senior gave Saddam $3 billion to fight Iran, especially committing what was basically terrorism against Iran. A couple years later, Saddam is the bad guy! He can invade Iran, but if he attacks Kuwait, that's going too far!
Now, don't even get me started on Chile. There's hundreds of other similar stories: the U.S. suddenly decides we don't like a smaler country. Okay, now I am going to talk about Chile. Chile had a long history of bloody military dictatorships. Finally, they manage to overthrow the dictator, and prepare to hold a democratic election. On the eve of Chile's first ever presidential election, many American businesses are getting scared. Because the guy who seems posied to win the election is a socialist, and wants to kick out American business. All these American businesses have kept the CXhileans in sub-blue collar jobs, and he's tired of that. So the American companies (among them Pepsi) complain to Henry Kissinger. He is promised big money for help. So Kissinger talks to President Nixon, and the U.S. sends troops to train a Chilean squad to assasinate the new President-elect. The Chilean president-elect dies, the U.S. inserts a new military dictator, and Chile returns to more decades of brutal government.
|
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 20 Dec 2003
16:33 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | Wow, look at this! I'm busy for a few days, come visit here and bam, this long debate. I'd happily add something to all this but it seems as if everything was already said. Peace guys, we all have our own views at things. It seemed to me that this debate got a bit too far. >: D
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 20 Dec 2003
18:44 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Ever heard of the Kurds dysfunction? What about the thousands of people that "disappeared" suddenly? Or how about the women that were raped and tortured? The people that had battery acid poured on various limbs? Hm? And you say we invaded Iraq for OIL?
What is your problem? Why do you think it's the United States' fault that Cuba, Iraq, and other countries are in ruin? Do you know how rich Iraq would be if Saddam didn't hoard all of the oil and money for himself? Do you know how many palaces he had? There were gold plated toilet seats for crying out loud.
Just so you know, I hate pacifists. Always think there's a peaceful solution to everything...
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 21 Dec 2003
01:20 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "ILLEGAL IMMGIGRANTS SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS!"
Often we don't support illegal immigrants with our tax dollars, we support them DIRECTLY by paying them to do work. Or paying them semi-directly by paying for fruits/vegetables that they picked. If we banned all illegal immigrants, manual labor and produce costs would be MUCH higher, but you'll save a few tax dollars...
I wouldn't say we invaded Iraq for oil, or that the human suffering there was right. But about Saddam using biological weapons on his own people-> the United States supplied most of his ammunition in order to oppose Iran
Nicaragua...the United States supported the Contras in Nicaragua that led to the prolonging of their Civil War. Without the United States aid, the Contras would have been unable to fight much earlier and led to a faster cease-fire.
The United States did encourage the military dictatorship in the early and mid 80's. However, this stopped in the late 80's and Chile is one of the United States' better examples today.
Bowling for Columbine shows a large number of people killed by their own countries while United States supported it. |
dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 21 Dec 2003
13:30 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | Bullfrog- I'm not saying Saddam wasn't an evil person. I'm not saying that he didn't need to go. What I am saying is that was NOT the reason the U.S. invaded. If we really hated Saddam because he was evil, we would never have supported his terrorist war on Iran with $3 billion of US taxpayers money, US weapons and equipment, and US training. And Spiral- I LOVE Bowling for Columbine. Michael Moore is a genius! |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 21 Dec 2003
14:06 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | I'm going to obstain respectively from this debate, z is right, you have your opions, some I don't agree with, but I'm not going to get worked up and it. Sorry, if you want you can invite me to do it somewhere esle. Not at calcgames.org anymore. Sorry. |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 21 Dec 2003
15:34 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | It seems that you WERE the one who got worked up, calcfreak... |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 21 Dec 2003
15:47 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | You're right allyn, but i think we've all gotten too riled up. Thats why I'm leaving the debate-i mean, why make CG and you mad at me over politics?
"Just to spark a little healthy debate" . . . . .
[Edited by calculatorfreakCG on 22-Dec-03 01:01] |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 21 Dec 2003
16:25 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Perhaps an admin can lock it before things get too dicey...
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 21 Dec 2003
18:53 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | Alrighty guys, lets put this debate to an end. I did like however to hear everyone's views on that topic. :)
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 21 Dec 2003
20:09 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | *reopens topic* The debate is NOT at an end. Before it ends I will have the last laugh.
HA HA HA HA HA!!
I laugh best, I win.
*closes topic* |
