Who Would You Like to See Run in 2008?

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Ryan...your said everything!

Why Iraq of all countries? I've already explained why a democratic Iraq is important. It's all strategic to the War on Terror. Look at Iraq's locale. It borders Syria and Iran... two dangerous states that both sponsor terrorism. The majority of Iran's youth is pro-democracy and would probably start a revolution if they had the protection and resources. An invasion of Iran would've been way bloodier than an invasion of Iraq. An invasion of Iraq was even more jusitifiable than an invasion of Syria... because of Saddam Hussein's human rights violations, sponsor of Palestinian terrorists, inability to abide by 16 U.N. weapons resolutions, and role in the Oil for Food scandal. Since the first democratically held elections in Iraq, nations like Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Georgia have held successful elections... and some of these nations have cited the events in Iraq to be major influences on their countries. Nations like Libya have abandoned their weapons programs because Muammar al-Qaddafi saw what happend to Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis are currently trying Saddam Hussein for mass murder... and the first charge is relatively minor compared to his other offenses. Now it's your turn to explain to me why the Middle East and the rest of the world would benefit from Saddam Hussein regime... and moreover... his sons, Uday and Qusay. I mean... the man would likely continue to fund attacks against Israel, and use hostility against his neighbors.

Put the Iraq war into context with the bigger picture of terrorism. Middle Eastern terrorism is the biggest threat to America. Nations that are in our "own backyard" were mentioned... and I presume he was referring to Venezuela and Cuba. This isn't the Cold War and Cuba couldn't afford a war with the United States. Venezuela is probably the only legitimate threat... but why put military resources in a region that is collectively not producing harmful hostilities against the United States. South America is a major producer of illegal drugs that have been smuggled into the United States for years... but the "War on Drugs" has been overshadowed by the evermore important War on Terror.

Neo-conservatism is a term that's branded on politicians that are politically, economically, and socially conservative. Bush obviously isn't conservative with the economy... nor is he completely social conservative. He hasn't done anything to deter illegal immigration into the United States... and trust me, I have seen the first hand effects of illegal immigration. I live on the border and have for my whole life. Things have changed in the past 10 years because our government isn't able to put a halt to illegal immmigration. A liberal border policy should be pushed "to the bottom of the pile" right now. Porous borders present potential threats to the United States due to terrorism and drugs. Why, especially living in a post-9/11 world would it benefit the United States to have a Canadian-esque border policy? Not being a traditional conservative doesn't automatically equate to neo-conservatism. If anything he's less conservative than men like Ronald Reagan. I never said that prominent democrats can't have neo-conservative beliefs... and truth be told, being pro-life isn't a representation of neo-conservatism. It's conservative... sure... but neo-conservative it is not.

And yes... I have been watching Fox lately. I'm a huge Family Guy fan. But that's beside the point. Neo-conservatives support the War in Iraq... obviously... as do democrats like Joseph Lieberman. But one neo-conservative policy doesn't make one entirely a neo-conservative. The Bush Doctrine is soley applied to foreign policy... nothing more. If the man isn't conservative with the economy, Christian federal holidays, or border policies... how is he this neo-conservative boogy man? He was absent when the controversy surrounding the 10 Commandments in court houses occurred. The majority of this nation has Judeo-Chistian undercurrents when it comes to their political ideologies. It's not a fluke that gay marriage is only legal in one state... and is overwhelmingly voted against in most of the states that gay marriage is proposed. Most Democrats and most Republicans are for Civil-Unions over gay marriage and that is most likely due to Christian undercurrents. You claim this war is for oil... show me the proof. Following the First Gulf War the United States controlled all of Kuwait's oil reserves. Who controls them now? The Kuwaitis. It sure as hell isn't the United States and if we did, we wouldn't be paying so much for barrels of oil. Prominents Senators are encouraging more drilling in our OWN nation... in places like the ANWAR region of Alaska. Why fight a war for oil when we can drill in the United States? Why fight a war for oil, when terrorism is the primary problem to this nation?

[Ana4Stapp]

Well, Chase yoiur post is sooo big and also kinda confused...but I think I will give u my complete answer in a little while...(Im almost going to bed cause I got a cold that is making me feel really bad )

But Ill try answer you with another question: If Bush is so worried about Peace in the world, by giving chance to people to live in democracy as you are alwaays proclaiming...why he didnt try to invade North Korea ? Isnt this country another part of the "Axis of Evil" ????

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

How do you get Saddam Hussein to step down? How do you get Josef Stalin to step down? How do you Slobodan Milosevic to step down? With them... diplomacy is futile.

If war is a method that will rid the world of these rogue states who have a past of human rights violations... then I guess it's not as costly as allowing them to stay in power for generations.

You know US has a lot of other methods to use instead of war...You know that...

Also, no one here is defending Saddam Hussein, but you need stop putting Bush as the good guy. Hes not.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

You know US has a lot of other methods to use instead of war...You know that...

Also, no one here is defending Saddam Hussein, but you need stop putting Bush as the good guy. Hes not.

We used diplomacy for ten plus years with Saddam Hussein. That didn't stop mass murders. That didn't stop him from funding terrorists in Palestine. That didn't stop him from threatening Israel. That didn't stop him from breaking 16 U.N. weapons resolutions. That's like asking Adolf Hitler to stop his anti-Semitic genocidal policies. Some guys don't respond to diplomacy, to sanctions, or to U.N. resolutions.

Also... if no one is defending Saddam Hussein... why is Bush the one that is constantly condemned by you guys for putting that mass murdering tyrant out of power? It almost seems like you guys are distraught at the fact that Hussein isn't allowed to continue his acts that have brought him the nickname "the Butcher of Baghdad." You know... a lot of good has come from the war in Iraq. My best friend is currently serving in Afghanistan... and soon Iraq. Other friends of mine are in Iraq. I talk to them constantly and get their opinions of the situtation. I opt to take the words of people who are actually there... rather than some distorted anti-American, foreign rhetoric.

You tell me what other methods will stop Al Qaeda (and other Islamo-fascists) from blowing up weddings, shopping malls, schools, and neighborhoods. You tell me what will convince Osama bin Laden or Al-Zarqawi to stop ordering the executions of innocent humanitarian aid workers. If war isn't the way... then please educate the governments of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Bill Clinton tried to turn a blind eye to Al Qaeda... and as a result we got multiple embassy bombings, the first World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Well, Chase yoiur post is sooo big and also kinda confused...but I think I will give u my complete answer in a little while...(Im almost going to bed cause I got a cold that is making me feel really bad )

But Ill try answer you with another question: If Bush is so worried about Peace in the world, by giving chance to people to live in democracy as you are alwaays proclaiming...why he didnt try to invade North Korea ? Isnt this country another part of the "Axis of Evil" ????

I've already explained why invading Iraq makes more sense than Iran and North Korea. Why put you military resources to fight in the Korean peninsula? They're an old Cold War threat that is being contained by South Korea, Japan, and China. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to send troops into a region that is producing Islamic fascism. North Korea's government can't afford to feed their own people, let alone afford a war with the U.S. (and her allies). Put things into perspective... it makes more sense to convince Japan, South Korea, and China to recognize the problems that North Korea is presenting their region... and to ultimately participate in sanctioning Kim Jong Il's government. Once the Japanese are allowed to have a full functioning military again... I believe that there is a greater chance that they'll invade North Korea, as opposed to the United States. Sanctions have been working better than they did with Iraq. As of right now, halting one of the last "rogue" Communist nations shouldn't be number one on the Western world's list. The U.S. has already sent aid and food to the North Korean people and has continuously encouraged them to abandon weapons programs that break nuclear proliferation treaties. Invading Iraq makes more sense than invading North Korea, simply put.

[Ana4Stapp]

Chase, your post is so big that Ill go for parts, right?

Quote:

We used diplomacy for ten plus years with Saddam Hussein. That didn't stop mass murders. That didn't stop him from funding terrorists in Palestine. That didn't stop him from threatening Israel. That didn't stop him from breaking 16 U.N. weapons resolutions. That's like asking Adolf Hitler to stop his anti-Semitic genocidal policies. Some guys don't respond to diplomacy, to sanctions, or to U.N. resolutions.

Do you really think that Saddam had chemical weapons? So where were they? Do you think Bush foreign policy is going to stop terrorists in Palestine? Its just the opposite. In Bush era a lot of people hates US, and you have a remote idea why ? Its because WAR!!!!! You cant stop violence using WAR!
And yeah, Allies had to do something to stop Hitler because this guy started invadind Poland...He was a real threat. Nazism was an horrible thing that couldnt continue. So war was the only solution.

You said sometimes some guys sont respond to UN resolutions...neither US. or you forgot that Bush ordered the invasion against UN...

Quote:

Also... if no one is defending Saddam Hussein... why is Bush the one that is constantly condemned by you guys for putting that mass murdering tyrant out of power? It almost seems like you guys are distraught at the fact that Hussein isn't allowed to continue his acts that have brought him the nickname "the Butcher of Baghdad." You know... a lot of good has come from the war in Iraq. My best friend is currently serving in Afghanistan... and soon Iraq. Other friends of mine are in Iraq. I talk to them constantly and get their opinions of the situtation. I opt to take the words of people who are actually there... rather than some distorted anti-American, foreign rhetoric.

Oh God! again: NO ONE HERE IS DEFENDING SADDAM!!!!! NO ONE!!!!!
Im not condemning Bush for putting Saddam out of power... Im condemning Bush for using war...This is my point.

A lot of goods come from Iraqs war? What, Chase??? Please let me know, Im extremely curious. Maybe i can change my distorted anti- american rethoric...lol

Seriously, im not anti-American! Im not anti- US! I'm anti- Bush!

Quote:

You tell me what other methods will stop Al Qaeda (and other Islamo-fascists) from blowing up weddings, shopping malls, schools, and neighborhoods. You tell me what will convince Osama bin Laden or Al-Zarqawi to stop ordering the executions of innocent humanitarian aid workers. If war isn't the way... then please educate the governments of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Bill Clinton tried to turn a blind eye to Al Qaeda... and as a result we got multiple embassy bombings, the first World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole

Well I dont know the methods..I dont work for CIA ...and of course I hate the terorism methods--they are cowards!

And Im not saying that leaders must to close their eyes to Osama actions , of course not, but answer me this: what was the result of invading the miserable Afeghanistan? See? this is waht Im saying...a lot of wars and no one result.

Oh..wait... Im wrong...theres one evident result here: the anti-American feeling is increasing...all over the world...

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote:

I've already explained why invading Iraq makes more sense than Iran and North Korea. Why put you military resources to fight in the Korean peninsula? They're an old Cold War threat that is being contained by South Korea, Japan, and China. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to send troops into a region that is producing Islamic fascism. North Korea's government can't afford to feed their own people, let alone afford a war with the U.S. (and her allies).

Afeghanistan also couldnt afford a war against the all -powerful US...

Quote:

Put things into perspective... it makes more sense to convince Japan, South Korea, and China to recognize the problems that North Korea is presenting their region... and to ultimately participate in sanctioning Kim Jong Il's government. Once the Japanese are allowed to have a full functioning military again... I believe that there is a greater chance that they'll invade North Korea, as opposed to the United States. Sanctions have been working better than they did with Iraq. As of right now, halting one of the last "rogue" Communist nations shouldn't be number one on the Western world's list. The U.S. has already sent aid and food to the North Korean people and has continuously encouraged them to abandon weapons programs that break nuclear proliferation treaties. Invading Iraq makes more sense than invading North Korea, simply put.

All this diplomacy touches me...but I think that Bush reason is another...isnt this becasue North Korea has nuclear bombs????? So US cant simply invade this? Is the same of invading a miserable country like Afeghanistan or a country that clearly didnt have any chemical weapons like Iraq???? Isnt it?

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Afeghanistan also couldnt afford a war against the all -powerful US...



All this diplomacy touches me...but I think that Bush reason is another...isnt this becasue North Korea has nuclear bombs????? So US cant simply invade this? Is the same of invading a miserable country like Afeghanistan or a country that clearly didnt have any chemical weapons like Iraq???? Isnt it?

Now this is getting offensive. You're now defending Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban government FUNDED 9/11 and allowed Osama bin Laden to run his terror network from that country. They could obviously could afford to be one of the biggest sponsors of the 9/11 attacks. "Miserable" country? Give me a break. The only thing "miserable" about the Taliban is that they ran away from coalition troops with their tails between their legs.

Iraq didn't "clearly" not have chemical weapons. The man mass murdered people from throughout the 1980s and 1990s. To carry out many of those attacks... he used chemical weapons. Let me ask you this: If you knew the United States and Great Britain was going to invade your country because of your weapons program... would you not try to hide or ship those weapons to a neighboring country? Saddam Hussein isn't a moron... and he has known that Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were getting tired of his actions. North Korea, as far as we know, has at least ONE nuclear bomb... but was attempting to make more. My argument is that... if North Korea can't even afford to feed its nation... how does it expect to fight a war against South Korea, Japan, the United States, and Great Britain.... and possibly even China? My country is actually feeding that country... go figure... the United States is helping out those in need. It's sad... one year ago we get the Tsunamis in Southeast Asia... and we spend a lot of time and money helping that MUSLIM region. We get earthquakes across the Middle East. The U.S. gives aid to that MUSLIM region. The United States and Great Britain liberated all of Western Europe... and later on Eastern Europe. So many countries bite the had that liberated them or came to their defense.

A couple of days ago, Iraqis unearthed ANOTHER mass grave which held about 20 people. They believe that this was an attack on Shiites after they had an uprising in 1991. According to the L.A. Times, a liberal newspaper, "Human rights experts say Hussein may have killed as many as 300,000 Iraqi Shiite Muslims after the uprising." But still... sadly, to some people... that isn't enough justification to remove this man from power. Sadly.

[Ana4Stapp]

I have points here:

1) I didnt say taliban was miserable...but ask your soldiers friends if Afeghanistan isnt poor/miserable ?

2) where were the chemicals weapons from Saddam? where???


3) Im not offending you or your country, Chase. Geez, why you cant see that??? Im saying the same thing over and over again...

4) Im trying to understand Bushs reasons in invading certain countries ...because i think he invaded because of the oil! But of course you are going to disagree...

[Ana4Stapp]

Also, I NEVER said Saddam Hussein must keep ruling Iraq. I NEVER defended him. You are clearly trying to put words in my mouth.I just dont agree with this war, Chase.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Chase, your post is so big that Ill go for parts, right?



Do you really think that Saddam had chemical weapons? So where were they? Do you think Bush foreign policy is going to stop terrorists in Palestine? Its just the opposite. In Bush era a lot of people hates US, and you have a remote idea why ? Its because WAR!!!!! You cant stop violence using WAR!
And yeah, Allies had to do something to stop Hitler because this guy started invadind Poland...He was a real threat. Nazism was an horrible thing that couldnt continue. So war was the only solution.

You said sometimes some guys sont respond to UN resolutions...neither US. or you forgot that Bush ordered the invasion against UN...




Oh God! again: NO ONE HERE IS DEFENDING SADDAM!!!!! NO ONE!!!!!
Im not condemning Bush for putting Saddam out of power... Im condemning Bush for using war...This is my point.

A lot of goods come from Iraqs war? What, Chase??? Please let me know, Im extremely curious. Maybe i can change my distorted anti- american rethoric...lol

Seriously, im not anti-American! Im not anti- US! I'm anti- Bush!




Well I dont know the methods..I dont work for CIA ...and of course I hate the terorism methods--they are cowards!

And Im not saying that leaders must to close their eyes to Osama actions , of course not, but answer me this: what was the result of invading the miserable Afeghanistan? See? this is waht Im saying...a lot of wars and no one result.

Oh..wait... Im wrong...theres one evident result here: the anti-American feeling is increasing...all over the world...

Imagine of The United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain stopped Hitler before 1939. They would've prevented the Holocaust because they took pre-emptive measures. The United States wasn't involved in any war when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998. There was no War in Iraq. Instead of finding excuses for why Osama wants to kill Americans and Europeans... realize that the man is anti-semitic, anti-Christian, anti-democracy, anti-capitalist, and anti-all-things-West.

Terrorism in Palestine has declined since Yasser Arafat died.

So Nazism was bad enough to warrant war, but terrorism isn't. Explain that logic to me. Islamic terrorists want to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth... as well as every other non-Muslim. What's the difference?

There was no U.N. Resolution that sanctioned the United States' weapons program. Three U.N. members were outspoken against the decision to invade Iraq because they had oil ties to Saddam Hussein and had diplomats who were involved in the "Oil for Food Scandal." Nice try.

I've explained what good has come from the war in Iraq, but you keep... conveniently, not reading it. Lybia has abandoned it's weapons program. Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Georgia have fought to have democratically held elections. Lebanon fought to force Syria out of their country and demanded the right to freedom. The Ukrainians fought to keep Russia from fixing their elections... and were successful in doing so. Kurds and Shia are now actually being represented in Iraq. Before, it was only the minority Sunnis with rights and power. The victims of Saddam's war crimes... were the Kurds and Shia. Women, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, are now allowed to vote... allowed to get an education... and are allowed to express themselves without being shot. Schools are improving for kids... and both girls and boys will be given an equal opportunity to learn. You won't be executed for speaking out against the government... or torture... women and girls are no longer being raped by Saddam's military. Saddam is no longer living in multiple lavish palaces while his people live in poverty. Post-World War II Germany and Europe weren't fixed over night. Why should Iraq be any different? Die hard Nazis held insurgent-like attacks in Germany... why should Iraq be any different?

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Also, I NEVER said Saddam Hussein must keep ruling Iraq. I NEVER defended him. You are clearly trying to put words in my mouth.I just dont agree with this war, Chase.

But you're not giving any reasons. You're accusing my country of, essentially, being the bad guys here. Alright, if Saddam Hussein must not continue to rule Iraq... then how the hell do you get him to actually give rights to innocent Iraqis? If the U.N. wanted to use force against Hussein... would you endorse it? If Brazil actually participated in the global community and wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein by force... would you endorse it? Or do you just buy into the trend of the moment... to hate the President for unfounded reasons?

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote:

Imagine of The United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain stopped Hitler before 1939. They would've prevented the Holocaust because they took pre-emptive measures. The United States wasn't involved in any war when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998. There was no War in Iraq. Instead of finding excuses for why Osama wants to kill Americans and Europeans... realize that the man is anti-semitic, anti-Christian, anti-democracy, anti-capitalist, and anti-all-things-West.

Im not finding excuses for Osama, or Saddam or Bush. Dont put words in my mouth, Chase. And also, you dont need to show me how Osama is a despicable human being.

Quote:

Terrorism in Palestine has declined since Yasser Arafat died.

So Nazism was bad enough to warrant war, but terrorism isn't. Explain that logic to me. Islamic terrorists want to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth... as well as every other non-Muslim. What's the difference?

Theres no difference. They (terrorists and nazis) are always cowards. Im not justifying their actions. I dont want children dying...

Quote:

There was no U.N. Resolution that sanctioned the United States' weapons program. Three U.N. members were outspoken against the decision to invade Iraq because they had oil ties to Saddam Hussein and had diplomats who were involved in the "Oil for Food Scandal." Nice try.

So let me ask : all the other countries had interests in Iraqs oil? Only US hadnt...interesting...very interesting...

Quote:

I've explained what good has come from the war in Iraq, but you keep... conveniently, not reading it

.

Ive tried to explain my reasons , but you keep , conveniently closing your eyes...Funny!

Quote:

Lybia has abandoned it's weapons program. Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Georgia have fought to have democratically held elections. Lebanon fought to force Syria out of their country and demanded the right to freedom. The Ukrainians fought to keep Russia from fixing their elections... and were successful in doing so. Kurds and Shia are now actually being represented in Iraq. Before, it was only the minority Sunnis with rights and power. The victims of Saddam's war crimes... were the Kurds and Shia. Women, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, are now allowed to vote... allowed to get an education... and are allowed to express themselves without being shot. Schools are improving for kids... and both girls and boys will be given an equal opportunity to learn. You won't be executed for speaking out against the government... or torture... women and girls are no longer being raped by Saddam's military. Saddam is no longer living in multiple lavish palaces while his people live in poverty. Post-World War II Germany and Europe weren't fixed over night. Why should Iraq be any different? Die hard Nazis held insurgent-like attacks in Germany... why should Iraq be any different?

Are these women and children still alive? Or they died in war??? Maybe they lost parents... Have you ever see their schockingand terrible images of children injured and crying because of the war??? Can you imagine if it was in US? Maybe you werent defending war...

Anyway, I can see the 'progress' you are trying to prove to me, but you think US and also Britain only invaded Iraq to guide this country to democracy ? This is the point you seem not to realize. So US, trough Bush governement is so charitable, so humanitarian (sorry if itsnt the right word) to spread peace and democracy to the whole world WITHOUT any interest????
Its amazing!!!!

[Chase]

I'm on my way out the door right now... and I will respond to your promptly later. But Ana... you seem to be one of those people who don't think that sometimes people do the right thing. You seem like you think people are selfish. In regards to Germany and France's ties to Iraqi oil... the equivalent would be like the Germans and French invading Saudi Arabia... our big oil partner in the Middle East. We wouldn't probably endorse an action like that. Americans didn't take the Kuwaitis oil... and quite frankly... I chose to believe that there is good in everybody. Democracy in Middle East is beneficial for that region and the Western World... (and even Asia) for future generations.

Ana... I love you.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

I'm on my way out the door right now... and I will respond to your promptly later. But Ana... you seem to be one of those people who don't think that sometimes people do the right thing. You seem like you think people are selfish. In regards to Germany and France's ties to Iraqi oil... the equivalent would be like the Germans and French invading Saudi Arabia... our big oil partner in the Middle East. We wouldn't probably endorse an action like that. Americans didn't take the Kuwaitis oil... and quite frankly... I chose to believe that there is good in everybody. Democracy in Middle East is beneficial for that region and the Western World... (and even Asia) for future generations.

Ana... I love you.

Ill wait for your 'answer'(which Ill respond tomorrow cause you are 6 hours behind me and of course Ill be in my bed while youll posting it-lol), Chase.

But i dont know, its not because i think people cant do the right thing without any interest...Im not sure...maybe its because Im older than you... lol. But frankly I cant see all those good actions(especially coming from politicians) without a economical/political interest...

And also democracy is good for everybody/everywhere always!!!

Chase...I love you too