Anti-War Rally

[The_Real_Mr_Sawyer]

A lot of them hated Saddam yes, but he did protect them (just not from himself) and he was ONE OF THEM. The reason most Iraqis are upset right now is because it feels like the US just barged in and declared they own the country. That's stirring up a lot of violence for reasons that should be obvious. Let's say that England invaded while Nixon was in office and declared themselves rulers of the country till another president was elected, which England will handle - do you think that people would just sit back and let that happen?




You mean torturing people, imprisoning them without proof, and spying on people randomly? Yeah, that might keep us safe from the terrorists, but at that point the government becomes a bigger threat than terrorism could ever be.

No, torture and false imprisionment isnt what I meant. Its simple security measures that we just arnt using.

 

[Fig]

What sort of measures are we talking about?

 

[TTEchidna]

Racial profiling, perhaps.

We have the security here. Security will always be able to be breached. No matter what we do. We just can't give up every right we have out of fear someone will.

Once we begin fearing, like we are now, the terrorists have won. They served their purpose. And now we fear.

 

[the gadfly]

But, right now, the democrats dont really want to complete our mission. So we might as well leave now.

Fine, what exactly is our mission? It keeps changing everytime whatever the administration cites is proven wrong.

 

[The_Real_Mr_Sawyer]

Fine, what exactly is our mission? It keeps changing everytime whatever the administration cites is proven wrong.

Our mission is to train the Iraqis to be able to defend themselves and become a stable democracy. But, if we arnt even going to try anymore, we might as well just pull out now.

 

[TTEchidna]

You can't train a country to use democracy. No one ever trained the US, did they?

 

[Fig]

What TTEchidna said. You cannot train people to be democratic.

 

[Zeta]

Our mission is to train the Iraqis to be able to defend themselves and become a stable democracy. But, if we arnt even going to try anymore, we might as well just pull out now.

Many countries in the world do not have democracies. Are you suggesting we need to invade every single one of them and force them to conform to our way of life?

 

[The_Real_Mr_Sawyer]

Many countries in the world do not have democracies. Are you suggesting we need to invade every single one of them and force them to conform to our way of life?

No, but Sadam Hussein was a threat to this country, and we had to get him out. If we leave Iraq the way it is, it will just become a safe haven for terrorists. I say we dont let threats to the US go unchecked. And everyone has opinions as to what countries we should invade. I heard Edwards say that Africa needs our help, maybe hes considering taking us over there.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

No, but Sadam Hussein was a threat to this country, and we had to get him out. If we leave Iraq the way it is, it will just become a safe haven for terrorists. I say we dont let threats to the US go unchecked. And everyone has opinions as to what countries we should invade. I heard Edwards say that Africa needs our help, maybe hes considering taking us over there.

Isn't it ALREADY a safe haven for terrorists? I mean, it seems like they're operating just fine there as it is.

You say we shouldn't let threats to the US go unchecked. Yet we're in Iraq. Where there WAS no realistic threat (unless angry rhetoric with nothing backing it scares you). Africa is where we should have been in the first place. Or North Korea. Or Iran. North Korea and Iran were bigger threats. Certain African nations are nothing but trouble, and certain African nations are responsible for worse acts than Saddam ever carried out. The entire continent scares me.

 

[Fig]

Saddam was a non-threat to the United States. He did not sponsor terror against the United States, and had no weapon systems that could even reach halfway to the States. And his view of the United States was tame as far as many in the Middle East go.

If he was a threat to the State, anyone who even mildly dislike the United States is a threat to the United States.

IE, bullshit.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

You can't train a country to use democracy. No one ever trained the US, did they?

Yes you can. Do you think Japan just magically went from a militaristic empire to a republic? We had to go in there and fundamentally alter the society to make it conductive for democracy. It's entire possible to use massive public campaigns through education, the media, and other means to turn the general society away from factionalism and towards a Western democracy. That said, it isn't going to be easy. It took us six years to transform Japan and they weren't blowing us up. If we can get enough people to join in on a comprehensive plan, though, we can certainly salvage Iraq.

 

[The_Real_Mr_Sawyer]

I dont think talking to them is any use. Bush started this war, so it is automatically bad. Even though almost all the democrats were dumb enough to get involved and support it. Its not Clinton's war, is it was, you wouldnt hear this uproar. Plus, we dont have it nearly as bad now as we did in past wars, this has been a very tame war compared to others.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I dont think talking to them is any use. Bush started this war, so it is automatically bad. Even though almost all the democrats were dumb enough to get involved and support it. Its not Clinton's war, is it was, you wouldnt hear this uproar. Plus, we dont have it nearly as bad now as we did in past wars, this has been a very tame war compared to others.

They supported the war because of false evidence (though I was saying from the start that it was pure BS) provided by the Bush administration. Evidence they had proceeded to gather BEFORE 9/11 (and then proceeded to connect Iraq to 9/11, praying on people's fears). Half the measures in the Resolution were had "terrorist" in them. If they DIDN'T vote for it, they were going to be (and those who didn't, WERE) painted as pro-terrorism, pro-bin Laden, or anti-America. I STILL remember the whole "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" that was being used before the invasion itself. The logic of which I'm STILL trying to discover.

A tame war compared to what? VIETNAM? It's only tame because we don't have a draft. This is actually the WORST war SINCE Vietnam. And yet public support has STILL continued to drop for the same reasons (increased numbers of casualties, no end in sight, etc.).

 

[The_Real_Mr_Sawyer]

They supported the war because of false evidence (though I was saying from the start that it was pure BS) provided by the Bush administration. Evidence they had proceeded to gather BEFORE 9/11 (and then proceeded to connect Iraq to 9/11, praying on people's fears). Half the measures in the Resolution were had "terrorist" in them. If they DIDN'T vote for it, they were going to be (and those who didn't, WERE) painted as pro-terrorism, pro-bin Laden, or anti-America. I STILL remember the whole "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" that was being used before the invasion itself. The logic of which I'm STILL trying to discover.

A tame war compared to what? VIETNAM? It's only tame because we don't have a draft. This is actually the WORST war SINCE Vietnam. And yet public support has STILL continued to drop for the same reasons (increased numbers of casualties, no end in sight, etc.).

Hmmmm, so the democrats basically were fooled by Bush, I think thats why I shouldnt vote for them. They basically paint Bush as an idiot, so if an idiot can fool them into a war, than a clever terrorist can fool them into letting them in to blow up the country. Guess those democrats in congress arent too smart.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Hmmmm, so the democrats basically were fooled by Bush, I think thats why I shouldnt vote for them. They basically paint Bush as an idiot, so if an idiot can fool them into a war, than a clever terrorist can fool them into letting them in to blow up the country. Guess those democrats in congress arent too smart.

But...the Republicans were fooled too. You act like the Democrats were alone in this. You act like every decision they make is JUST them making it. It's not. The difference is that the Democrats admit they screwed up (as much as ANY politician will admit anything) and are working to fix it. The Republicans just keep saying "stay the course." Determination's all well and good, but when you're driving through a minefield, you can't just say "stay the course" and pray to God you make it through.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

They supported the war because of false evidence (though I was saying from the start that it was pure BS) provided by the Bush administration. Evidence they had proceeded to gather BEFORE 9/11 (and then proceeded to connect Iraq to 9/11, praying on people's fears). Half the measures in the Resolution were had "terrorist" in them. If they DIDN'T vote for it, they were going to be (and those who didn't, WERE) painted as pro-terrorism, pro-bin Laden, or anti-America. I STILL remember the whole "if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" that was being used before the invasion itself. The logic of which I'm STILL trying to discover.

A tame war compared to what? VIETNAM? It's only tame because we don't have a draft. This is actually the WORST war SINCE Vietnam. And yet public support has STILL continued to drop for the same reasons (increased numbers of casualties, no end in sight, etc.).

That's because we haven't fought any real war since Vietnam. We toppled Grenada in like a week, the Gulf War was just a gangbang on Iraq that took something like 4 days on the ground, and likewise Bosnia was mostly an airshow. To say that this is the worst war since Vietnam is pointless because we haven't really fought an all-out war since then.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

That's because we haven't fought any real war since Vietnam. We toppled Grenada in like a week, the Gulf War was just a gangbang on Iraq that took something like 4 days on the ground, and likewise Bosnia was mostly an airshow. To say that this is the worst war since Vietnam is pointless because we haven't really fought an all-out war since then.

Didn't you just restate exactly what I said? Only, like...maliciously?

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Didn't you just restate exactly what I said? Only, like...maliciously?

What I mean is that your point is a truism. Considering what we've done since Vietnam, any action that took longer than a month would be the "worst war since Vietnam."

 

[GrnMarvl14]

What I mean is that your point is a truism. Considering what we've done since Vietnam, any action that took longer than a month would be the "worst war since Vietnam."

I...believe that was my point.