|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/25/2005 09:41:40 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by elderell:
Originally posted by RonB:
During the 20 plus year reign of Saddam Hussein, nearly 5% of the people of Iraq , over 1 MILLION people, were killed or mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again. And that doesn't even count the half-million children who starved after the first gulf war because the Iraqi government did not honestly administer the "oil-for-food" program ( much of the food was found after the liberation in government warehouses ).
A MILLION people were murdered during Saddam Hussein's reign - that averages out to 45,454 deaths per year.
Since the Americans have been fighting in Iraq, even if one considers the HIGH-END count of civilian casualties posted by //www.Iraqibodycount.net of 26,719 ( though many, if not most of the deaths were the result of terrorist attacks by the "insurgents" ) that averages out to 11,056 deaths per year
So, it would appear that the liberation of Iraq has dropped the rate of violent deaths from over 45,000 per year to just over 11,000 per year. That's a decrease of over 75% - or to put it another way, the liberation has resulted in saving just under 34,400 Iraqi lives each year.
There are only two reasons I can think of for why some folks would argue that that kind of result isn't "good" and "worthy":
a) they have an overriding hatred for George W. Bush, or
b) they're xenophobic, and just don't think that saving 83,128 lives in the last 29 months is worth the death of 2,068 Coalition Troops ( 1,874 from the U.S.).
Some folks, of course, see it differently:
a) they do not have an overriding hatred of George W. Bush, and
b) they are not xenophobic
I grant that there is a slight possibility that there are other logical reasons why folks are against the continuation of troop deployment in Iraq, though I can't think of any. If so, I would be interested in hearing what they are.
Ron |
So you're saying we(the USA) should just go ahead and invade ANY country having a high amount of genocide??....I must have missed the memo---I didn't realize that was our purpose and destiny as a nation... |
Besides, this thread is titled "US soldiers fight to protect USA/Bush."
That's what President Bush said last weekend, and it's what he and his administration have kept repeating over and over and over again as the reason for goign to war. So where was the threat from Iraq/Hussein towards the US? Didn't exist, and the president and his administration have lied to the American public repeatedly about the reasons for war with Iraq. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 10:19:46 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by elderell:
Originally posted by RonB:
During the 20 plus year reign of Saddam Hussein, nearly 5% of the people of Iraq , over 1 MILLION people, were killed or mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again. And that doesn't even count the half-million children who starved after the first gulf war because the Iraqi government did not honestly administer the "oil-for-food" program ( much of the food was found after the liberation in government warehouses ).
A MILLION people were murdered during Saddam Hussein's reign - that averages out to 45,454 deaths per year.
Since the Americans have been fighting in Iraq, even if one considers the HIGH-END count of civilian casualties posted by www.Iraqibodycount.net of 26,719 ( though many, if not most of the deaths were the result of terrorist attacks by the "insurgents" ) that averages out to 11,056 deaths per year
So, it would appear that the liberation of Iraq has dropped the rate of violent deaths from over 45,000 per year to just over 11,000 per year. That's a decrease of over 75% - or to put it another way, the liberation has resulted in saving just under 34,400 Iraqi lives each year.
There are only two reasons I can think of for why some folks would argue that that kind of result isn't "good" and "worthy":
a) they have an overriding hatred for George W. Bush, or
b) they're xenophobic, and just don't think that saving 83,128 lives in the last 29 months is worth the death of 2,068 Coalition Troops ( 1,874 from the U.S.).
Some folks, of course, see it differently:
a) they do not have an overriding hatred of George W. Bush, and
b) they are not xenophobic
I grant that there is a slight possibility that there are other logical reasons why folks are against the continuation of troop deployment in Iraq, though I can't think of any. If so, I would be interested in hearing what they are.
Ron |
So you're saying we(the USA) should just go ahead and invade ANY country having a high amount of genocide??....I must have missed the memo---I didn't realize that was our purpose and destiny as a nation... |
I infer from the tone of your question / challenge that you probably meet both of the criteria I mentioned. Otherwise, instead of questioning MY thinking, you would have offered a different, logical, reason why you are against continued involvement. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 10:20:19 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by louddog:
You should see the people we call Australian up here :) |
Oh no.. he might be thinking that as an Australian I might actually care what an American thinks?!
Surely not?!
lets see..
no, what?
:P |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 10:26:23 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by elderell:
Originally posted by RonB:
During the 20 plus year reign of Saddam Hussein, nearly 5% of the people of Iraq , over 1 MILLION people, were killed or mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again. And that doesn't even count the half-million children who starved after the first gulf war because the Iraqi government did not honestly administer the "oil-for-food" program ( much of the food was found after the liberation in government warehouses ).
A MILLION people were murdered during Saddam Hussein's reign - that averages out to 45,454 deaths per year.
Since the Americans have been fighting in Iraq, even if one considers the HIGH-END count of civilian casualties posted by //www.Iraqibodycount.net of 26,719 ( though many, if not most of the deaths were the result of terrorist attacks by the "insurgents" ) that averages out to 11,056 deaths per year
So, it would appear that the liberation of Iraq has dropped the rate of violent deaths from over 45,000 per year to just over 11,000 per year. That's a decrease of over 75% - or to put it another way, the liberation has resulted in saving just under 34,400 Iraqi lives each year.
There are only two reasons I can think of for why some folks would argue that that kind of result isn't "good" and "worthy":
a) they have an overriding hatred for George W. Bush, or
b) they're xenophobic, and just don't think that saving 83,128 lives in the last 29 months is worth the death of 2,068 Coalition Troops ( 1,874 from the U.S.).
Some folks, of course, see it differently:
a) they do not have an overriding hatred of George W. Bush, and
b) they are not xenophobic
I grant that there is a slight possibility that there are other logical reasons why folks are against the continuation of troop deployment in Iraq, though I can't think of any. If so, I would be interested in hearing what they are.
Ron |
So you're saying we(the USA) should just go ahead and invade ANY country having a high amount of genocide??....I must have missed the memo---I didn't realize that was our purpose and destiny as a nation... |
Besides, this thread is titled "US soldiers fight to protect USA/Bush."
That's what President Bush said last weekend, and it's what he and his administration have kept repeating over and over and over again as the reason for goign to war. So where was the threat from Iraq/Hussein towards the US? Didn't exist, and the president and his administration have lied to the American public repeatedly about the reasons for war with Iraq. |
Same old, same old. So, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that you are 100% correct - Bush lied, and there was no threat. BUT. . . that doesn't change the present situation one single bit now, does it. It's water over the dam, so to speak. We cannot change it. It's history. We DID oust Hussein from power. And we DO have troops deployed in Iraq. SO. . . what, in your opinion should the coalition do right NOW, and why? |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 10:27:44 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by elderell:
Originally posted by RonB:
During the 20 plus year reign of Saddam Hussein, nearly 5% of the people of Iraq , over 1 MILLION people, were killed or mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again. And that doesn't even count the half-million children who starved after the first gulf war because the Iraqi government did not honestly administer the "oil-for-food" program ( much of the food was found after the liberation in government warehouses ).
A MILLION people were murdered during Saddam Hussein's reign - that averages out to 45,454 deaths per year.
Since the Americans have been fighting in Iraq, even if one considers the HIGH-END count of civilian casualties posted by //www.Iraqibodycount.net of 26,719 ( though many, if not most of the deaths were the result of terrorist attacks by the "insurgents" ) that averages out to 11,056 deaths per year
So, it would appear that the liberation of Iraq has dropped the rate of violent deaths from over 45,000 per year to just over 11,000 per year. That's a decrease of over 75% - or to put it another way, the liberation has resulted in saving just under 34,400 Iraqi lives each year.
There are only two reasons I can think of for why some folks would argue that that kind of result isn't "good" and "worthy":
a) they have an overriding hatred for George W. Bush, or
b) they're xenophobic, and just don't think that saving 83,128 lives in the last 29 months is worth the death of 2,068 Coalition Troops ( 1,874 from the U.S.).
Some folks, of course, see it differently:
a) they do not have an overriding hatred of George W. Bush, and
b) they are not xenophobic
I grant that there is a slight possibility that there are other logical reasons why folks are against the continuation of troop deployment in Iraq, though I can't think of any. If so, I would be interested in hearing what they are.
Ron |
So you're saying we(the USA) should just go ahead and invade ANY country having a high amount of genocide??....I must have missed the memo---I didn't realize that was our purpose and destiny as a nation... |
Besides, this thread is titled "US soldiers fight to protect USA/Bush."
That's what President Bush said last weekend, and it's what he and his administration have kept repeating over and over and over again as the reason for goign to war. So where was the threat from Iraq/Hussein towards the US? Didn't exist, and the president and his administration have lied to the American public repeatedly about the reasons for war with Iraq. |
Same old, same old. So, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that you are 100% correct - Bush lied, and there was no threat. BUT. . . that doesn't change the present situation one single bit now, does it. It's water over the dam, so to speak. We cannot change it. It's history. We DID oust Hussein from power. And we DO have troops deployed in Iraq. SO. . . what, in your opinion should the coalition do right NOW, and why? |
biggest mass orgie iraq has ever seen? |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 10:28:15 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by cvt_:
Originally posted by louddog:
You should see the people we call Australian up here :) |
Oh no.. he might be thinking that as an Australian I might actually care what an American thinks?!
Surely not?!
lets see..
no, what?
:P |
You sure seem to care a lot about us to follow this thread.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 10:40:21 PM · #157 |
I enjoy watching yez fight over nothing.. and when it calms down doesn't hurt prodding the fire... does it?
If you were truly against bush he wouldna got re-elected.
since as a country you voted for him.. isn't it in resonable thought that he is the president that you want to represent your country?..
if not.. why on earth did he win...
let me guess.. fake poll votes again?..
welcome to US, Dictator Bush says you vote for him!
oh, you did vote for him now?.. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 10:43:09 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Same old, same old. So, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that you are 100% correct - Bush lied, and there was no threat. BUT. . . that doesn't change the present situation one single bit now, does it. It's water over the dam, so to speak. We cannot change it. It's history. We DID oust Hussein from power. And we DO have troops deployed in Iraq. SO. . . what, in your opinion should the coalition do right NOW, and why? |
First part of dealing with a problem is admitting that there is a problem. In an interview Bush had a while ago when an reporter asked if he could name a single mistake that he had made as president he could not give a reply. Part of history includes deciding what was right and wrong in retrospect, that is how you learn from history. The day Bush admits he was wrong in invading iraq will be the turning point for the better.
And stop fooling yourself that there is a coalition there in iraq right now. The coalition of the bribed and coerced have spoken with their actions, seems that no amount of dollars can keep them in iraq. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 10:46:20 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by cvt_:
I enjoy watching yez fight over nothing.. and when it calms down doesn't hurt prodding the fire... does it?
If you were truly against bush he wouldna got re-elected.
since as a country you voted for him.. isn't it in resonable thought that he is the president that you want to represent your country?..
if not.. why on earth did he win...
let me guess.. fake poll votes again?..
welcome to US, Dictator Bush says you vote for him!
oh, you did vote for him now?.. |
48% of the country did not vote for him in the last election. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 10:58:39 PM · #160 |
just curious, what was the percentage for the other major party?
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 11:04:53 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by cvt_:
I enjoy watching yez fight over nothing.. and when it calms down doesn't hurt prodding the fire... does it?
If you were truly against bush he wouldna got re-elected.
since as a country you voted for him.. isn't it in resonable thought that he is the president that you want to represent your country?..
if not.. why on earth did he win...
let me guess.. fake poll votes again?..
welcome to US, Dictator Bush says you vote for him!
oh, you did vote for him now?.. |
The sad thing about the US is someone that is smart and can do a great job running things can do so well in the free market without the stress and the hassels that they never consider politics. We get whats left. That and bored rich people that need a hobby and enjoy power. Anyone that wants to be president really probably shouldn't be president (in my opinion).
Hey, is it true you guys consider Fosters crap? A friend that has been down there for work said no one drinks it down there.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 11:17:21 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by cvt_:
I enjoy watching yez fight over nothing.. and when it calms down doesn't hurt prodding the fire... does it?
If you were truly against bush he wouldna got re-elected.
since as a country you voted for him.. isn't it in resonable thought that he is the president that you want to represent your country?..
if not.. why on earth did he win...
let me guess.. fake poll votes again?..
welcome to US, Dictator Bush says you vote for him!
oh, you did vote for him now?.. |
The sad thing about the US is someone that is smart and can do a great job running things can do so well in the free market without the stress and the hassels that they never consider politics. We get whats left. That and bored rich people that need a hobby and enjoy power. Anyone that wants to be president really probably shouldn't be president (in my opinion).
Hey, is it true you guys consider Fosters crap? A friend that has been down there for work said no one drinks it down there. |
Fosters you never hear of as such.. its CUB, carlton united breweries, which is Fosters Brewing Group.
Victoria Bitter (VB), Crown Lager, Foster's LightIce, Carlton Cold, Carlton Draught.
its pretty much the only beer people drink :P
just not branded as fosters. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 11:51:35 PM · #163 |
Ron, it's not me that keeps repeating the same old lies. Why arne't you applying that term (same old same old) to Bush, who keeps on repeating the same rhetoric about why we are in Iraq? Do you think lying to the American public and Congress about the reasons for war is "same old?" It's criminal and there should be an independent investigation for possible impeachment.
How can we trust a president who has lied to the American public and Congress to lead this country in the coming years? How can any other country in the world trust this government after they mislead the world? Until this is resolved no one can trust the United States.
Originally posted by RonB:
Same old, same old. So, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that you are 100% correct - Bush lied, and there was no threat. BUT. . . that doesn't change the present situation one single bit now, does it. It's water over the dam, so to speak. We cannot change it. It's history. We DID oust Hussein from power. And we DO have troops deployed in Iraq. SO. . . what, in your opinion should the coalition do right NOW, and why? |
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 12:19:08 AM · #164 |
| LOL "possible impeachment"!!! what a joke. you guys are really desperate. hopefully this country will move away from you relativists and hippie decendants. sorry to call you hippies but that's how i see you guys. guess i should call you intelligent people who are so proud of your country you're not afraid to ask for your presidents head on a chopping block. very noble of you. let me know when you guys start makin' big decisions and have some impact on our politics. because as of now you just sound like whining, bickering, fighting, babies. get over yourselves, you're not that intelligent, and like it really f$##ing matters on a DP Challenge message board, LOL, this is comical. great forum for this discussion guys. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 07:26:38 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Same old, same old. So, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that you are 100% correct - Bush lied, and there was no threat. BUT. . . that doesn't change the present situation one single bit now, does it. It's water over the dam, so to speak. We cannot change it. It's history. We DID oust Hussein from power. And we DO have troops deployed in Iraq. SO. . . what, in your opinion should the coalition do right NOW, and why? |
You're absolutely right,Ron..We can't change it-it's history,so we should just keep on keepin' on!! We'll build new housing,and new schools,and new hospitals,and create jobs for those 34,400 people we're 'saving' every year...We'll put a Wal-Mart Supercenter in every city--We'll put a Micky Dee's on every corner,and in 20 years or so,when they've learned to love us,we can all come back home and show the same consideration for the MORE THAN A MILLION homeless children we have right here in the good old self-righteous,we are always right,follow our example U.S. of A.!! |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 08:08:18 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, it's not me that keeps repeating the same old lies. Why arne't you applying that term (same old same old) to Bush, who keeps on repeating the same rhetoric about why we are in Iraq? Do you think lying to the American public and Congress about the reasons for war is "same old?" It's criminal and there should be an independent investigation for possible impeachment.
How can we trust a president who has lied to the American public and Congress to lead this country in the coming years? How can any other country in the world trust this government after they mislead the world? Until this is resolved no one can trust the United States.
Originally posted by RonB:
Same old, same old. So, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that you are 100% correct - Bush lied, and there was no threat. BUT. . . that doesn't change the present situation one single bit now, does it. It's water over the dam, so to speak. We cannot change it. It's history. We DID oust Hussein from power. And we DO have troops deployed in Iraq. SO. . . what, in your opinion should the coalition do right NOW, and why? |
|
Perhaps not, but it IS you who, and those like you, who keep focusing so hard on the PAST that you cannot to offer up any reasonable course of action for the PRESENT or FUTURE.
Again, let's pretend that we can't trust the President, and let's pretend that no other country can trust the U.S. The question remains unanswered: IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW ( Other than sidestep the question ).
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 08:12:49 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by RonB:
Same old, same old. So, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that you are 100% correct - Bush lied, and there was no threat. BUT. . . that doesn't change the present situation one single bit now, does it. It's water over the dam, so to speak. We cannot change it. It's history. We DID oust Hussein from power. And we DO have troops deployed in Iraq. SO. . . what, in your opinion should the coalition do right NOW, and why? |
First part of dealing with a problem is admitting that there is a problem. In an interview Bush had a while ago when an reporter asked if he could name a single mistake that he had made as president he could not give a reply. Part of history includes deciding what was right and wrong in retrospect, that is how you learn from history. The day Bush admits he was wrong in invading iraq will be the turning point for the better.
And stop fooling yourself that there is a coalition there in iraq right now. The coalition of the bribed and coerced have spoken with their actions, seems that no amount of dollars can keep them in iraq. |
Same old, same old. Lots of folks complaining about Bush, and his reasons, and his actions, but NO ONE offering up a better plan of action. The question for y'all STILL remains: WHAT, in your opinion, SHOULD we do NOW ( besides complain about the situation )? |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 08:32:39 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by RonB:
Same old, same old. So, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that you are 100% correct - Bush lied, and there was no threat. BUT. . . that doesn't change the present situation one single bit now, does it. It's water over the dam, so to speak. We cannot change it. It's history. We DID oust Hussein from power. And we DO have troops deployed in Iraq. SO. . . what, in your opinion should the coalition do right NOW, and why? |
First part of dealing with a problem is admitting that there is a problem. In an interview Bush had a while ago when an reporter asked if he could name a single mistake that he had made as president he could not give a reply. Part of history includes deciding what was right and wrong in retrospect, that is how you learn from history. The day Bush admits he was wrong in invading iraq will be the turning point for the better.
And stop fooling yourself that there is a coalition there in iraq right now. The coalition of the bribed and coerced have spoken with their actions, seems that no amount of dollars can keep them in iraq. |
Same old, same old. Lots of folks complaining about Bush, and his reasons, and his actions, but NO ONE offering up a better plan of action. The question for y'all STILL remains: WHAT, in your opinion, SHOULD we do NOW ( besides complain about the situation )? |
Sometimes you dig a hole and it gets so deep, there's no other option but to keep on digging. Yes, some mistakes are THAT monumental.
My solution:
Messrs Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and all those who supported the war "effort" and its continuation should trade in their nicely laundered suits and ties for battle fatigues, then pick up M16s and whatever other weapons that can kill, maim and otherwise hurt other people (things that our government has spent billions upon billions researching over the past however many decades), fly over to Baghdad and start to lead BY EXAMPLE.
You want a war so badly, you bloody fight it. Get yourself on the frontlines. Get your precious children right up next to the enemy. Mr W Bush is such a wonderful leader, I'm sure with his presence amongst the troops on the ground, the war would be won within a short period of time.
It's time to stop cashing in deadly cheques using the lives of other people, or the lives of their children. You want war, then don't just send our kids to war. Fight it with them, the hard way.
Looking ahead to the future, I firmly believe that should we have a policy that forces hawks to actually do the dirty work themselves, we'd pretty soon run out of them. Either they get killed by the enemy's bullets or bombs, or they realize what the real costs of going to war might be, and how perhaps other solutions should be sought.
Either way, America and the world become better places.
Want to volunteer, Ron???
Message edited by author 2005-08-26 08:34:18.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 09:58:36 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by elderell:
Originally posted by RonB:
Same old, same old. So, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that you are 100% correct - Bush lied, and there was no threat. BUT. . . that doesn't change the present situation one single bit now, does it. It's water over the dam, so to speak. We cannot change it. It's history. We DID oust Hussein from power. And we DO have troops deployed in Iraq. SO. . . what, in your opinion should the coalition do right NOW, and why? |
You're absolutely right,Ron..We can't change it-it's history,so we should just keep on keepin' on!! We'll build new housing,and new schools,and new hospitals,and create jobs for those 34,400 people we're 'saving' every year...We'll put a Wal-Mart Supercenter in every city--We'll put a Micky Dee's on every corner,and in 20 years or so,when they've learned to love us,we can all come back home and show the same consideration for the MORE THAN A MILLION homeless children we have right here in the good old self-righteous,we are always right,follow our example U.S. of A.!! |
Tell me, Gary, other than members of your own family, how many "homeless" folks have spent one or more nights at your house? How many dollars have you given to local organizations that provide shelter and/or food to the homeless? If your answer is "none" to those questions, then it would appear that you, like many, think that it's the "government's" responsibility to do "something" about the homeless "problem". One of the problems, of course, is that probably you, like many, do NOT want the government to address the problem by giving any money to faith-based organizations that actually DO run shelters and food banks for fear that they might ( horrors! ) mix "church" and state.
And before you ask - yes, I have sheltered homless individuals in my house ( one for over a month! )and I DO give significant sums of money to local faith-based charities that operate shelters and food banks.
An earlier posting warned about not trying to impose western "culture" on other countires. Well, it appears that the "culture" in the U.S. is such that the "average" homeless family ( 40% of all the homeless, in fact ), is a single mother with two children under the age of six. Would you infer, as I do, that a "culture" of promiscuity might be part of the problem in the U.S.? Do you believe that it is the "government's" responsibility to fix that problem, too? It would be a lot easier, you know, if the "separation of church and state" advocates weren't so adamant about NOT spending a dime of the government's money on creating a cultural change by teaching abstinence. Oh, no. Instead it should be free condoms for all ( and abortion on demand ( without parental notification, of course )). They would rather treat the SYMPTOMS and not the PROBLEM.
Homelessness, Gary, is but one of the problems in the U.S. that are due, in large part, to the cultural changes which conservatives have been trying to stem for years. It's still true - You reap what you sow.
Then tell me, Gary - are we not building new housing, new schools, new hospitals, and creating new jobs in the U.S.? As for housing, in the U.S., "permits for future groundbreaking, an indicator of builder confidence, exceeded economists' expectations, rising 1.6 percent to a 2.167 million unit pace -- a high not seen in more than 32 years." ( ref: here).
As for schools, "The percentage of dollars devoted to new buildings was the greatest in more than 20 years, signaling an end to better than two
decades during which school districts spent far more dollars on expanding and fixing up older buildings, rather than building new." ( ref = here}
As for hospitals,"In 2004, starts reached 93 million square feet—fully one-third higher than in 1995 when the upward trend in construction began. And so, the story of today’s historically robust healthcare construction does indeed ring true." ( ref: here)
And for new jobs, "So far this year, a strong economy has generated an average of 191,000 new jobs per month, better than last year's average of 183,000. Employers created 207,000 jobs in July, which helped to keep the unemployment rate at a low level of 5 percent." ( ref: here)
Yet you complain about the good things happening in Iraq. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 10:17:04 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by RonB:
Same old, same old. So, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that you are 100% correct - Bush lied, and there was no threat. BUT. . . that doesn't change the present situation one single bit now, does it. It's water over the dam, so to speak. We cannot change it. It's history. We DID oust Hussein from power. And we DO have troops deployed in Iraq. SO. . . what, in your opinion should the coalition do right NOW, and why? |
First part of dealing with a problem is admitting that there is a problem. In an interview Bush had a while ago when an reporter asked if he could name a single mistake that he had made as president he could not give a reply. Part of history includes deciding what was right and wrong in retrospect, that is how you learn from history. The day Bush admits he was wrong in invading iraq will be the turning point for the better.
And stop fooling yourself that there is a coalition there in iraq right now. The coalition of the bribed and coerced have spoken with their actions, seems that no amount of dollars can keep them in iraq. |
Same old, same old. Lots of folks complaining about Bush, and his reasons, and his actions, but NO ONE offering up a better plan of action. The question for y'all STILL remains: WHAT, in your opinion, SHOULD we do NOW ( besides complain about the situation )? |
Sometimes you dig a hole and it gets so deep, there's no other option but to keep on digging. Yes, some mistakes are THAT monumental.
My solution:
Messrs Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and all those who supported the war "effort" and its continuation should trade in their nicely laundered suits and ties for battle fatigues, then pick up M16s and whatever other weapons that can kill, maim and otherwise hurt other people (things that our government has spent billions upon billions researching over the past however many decades), fly over to Baghdad and start to lead BY EXAMPLE.
You want a war so badly, you bloody fight it. Get yourself on the frontlines. Get your precious children right up next to the enemy. Mr W Bush is such a wonderful leader, I'm sure with his presence amongst the troops on the ground, the war would be won within a short period of time.
It's time to stop cashing in deadly cheques using the lives of other people, or the lives of their children. You want war, then don't just send our kids to war. Fight it with them, the hard way.
Looking ahead to the future, I firmly believe that should we have a policy that forces hawks to actually do the dirty work themselves, we'd pretty soon run out of them. Either they get killed by the enemy's bullets or bombs, or they realize what the real costs of going to war might be, and how perhaps other solutions should be sought.
Either way, America and the world become better places.
Want to volunteer, Ron??? |
1) I must say that your suggestion of what we should do now is extremely lame - first of all, it is ludicrous to suggest that the President remain in a combat zone for more than an hour or two - and we can't afford to elect a new President every few days ( it takes the Supreme Court longer than that to decide national election cases ); secondly, our armed forces have, for a number of years, been "all volunteer" - without conscription, no one can be "forced" into military service; thirdly, a "policy" is only rhetoric - it doesn't actually DO anything.
2) Been there, done that - 1963-1968. You?
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 11:08:34 AM · #171 |
| Ron..Yes,I HAVE sheltered homeless people,I DO contribute to their betterment in more ways than just monetarily..And yes,I DO believe the Government should take care of these people,because,after all,we ARE the Government....It's just that I have some strange notion that maybe we should heal our OWN illnesses before we start a crusade to heal everyone else's.. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 11:36:54 AM · #172 |
FYI: People 18 years old and older that volunteer to serve their country really should not be called kids. It's very insulting.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 11:44:23 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by elderell:
Ron..Yes,I HAVE sheltered homeless people,I DO contribute to their betterment in more ways than just monetarily..And yes,I DO believe the Government should take care of these people,because,after all,we ARE the Government....It's just that I have some strange notion that maybe we should heal our OWN illnesses before we start a crusade to heal everyone else's.. |
1) I commend you for being someone who doesn't just talk the talk.
2) You can't have it both ways. If we ARE the Government, then you really can't blame the Government if you don't like the situation in Iraq - after all, over 50% of the people voted to re-elect Bush as President, ( and over 50% of the Congress voted to grant him the power to oust Hussein.
3) It is, to my way of thinking, a notion that has hints of xenophobia. If you really want to heal our OWN illnesses, then it may benefit you to spend more time lobbying for the conservative agenda, which tries to address the root of the PROBLEM rather than the SYMPTOMS. Not to mention the fact that many in the U.S. are adamently opposed to efforts to heal our own illnesses. It's better, don't you agree, to spend money on anti-smoking advertisements aimed at the YOUNG who do NOT smoke rather than spend it on efforts to get older smokers to quit.
Message edited by author 2005-08-26 11:48:31. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 12:02:50 PM · #174 |
Nothing will improve in Iraq until President Bush and his administration are out of office. We need to get other countries and the UN in there to help rebuild and settle things down but they don't want to get involved because it would put those countries at risk for terrorist attacks. Very few foreign government officials trust the current administration and don't want to be aligned with them in any way.
A second problem is that the Bush administration is changing over the Iraqi economy to an American style economy and changing laws that give American companies advantage. The laws that have been put in place through the urging of the Bush administration will be permanent and promote privatization, which the Iraqi people do not want. They already have very high unemployment and fear that these new laws and new economy will mean further job cuts. A whole special category of laws was written especially for the oil industry.
RonB, what are your recommendations for Iraq? |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 12:07:13 PM · #175 |
| Ron...There are many points I DON'T disagree with you on...But do you think the majority of voters would have voted for Dubya the first time around,had they KNOWN we would be invading Iraq ?? Oh,sorry...My Bad...I remember now-the majority voted for the other guy..Dubya was appointed to the position...As for the second election,why bring in someone else to clean up HIS mess?? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/23/2025 06:55:42 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/23/2025 06:55:42 PM EDT.
|
