Jump to content

USA pulling troops out of Iraq?


hohto
 Share

Recommended Posts

[hide]quote="Eelspremier"]Oh Sorry Ginger, may I offer up my apologies. There was just too much stupidity mixed up with his point that I totally overlooked what he was trying to say. I still can't believe I made that mistake!

[/hide]

 

If all you're gonna so is flame his post instead of actually putting an argument against it, I don't think I need to say much more. Just because his views opposes yours doesn't make it invalid.

 

 

 

[hide]

I'd say that probably gets the award for "the most idiotic comment of the thread". Well done Ginger! Seriously, do you not think that people of authority would not consider the future in what actions or plans they might chose to take now? Your comment is just so stupid I can't bare to pick more holes in it. How do you even come up with a statement like that!?

 

 

 

Looks like stupid people think alike. No wonder you were able to understand "the point" Superson was making!

[/hide]

 

Again, attack the person's argument, not the person themselves. You just look arrogant...

 

 

 

However, at least you managed to provide a point there. Maybe I should have been a bit more specific with that statement. What you say is true when you're talking about your own domestic affairs - because the decisions that you make affect only you and your future. However, the point I'm making still remains. What gives you the right to make a decision, based purely on speculations about your own future, and then force those decisions on another country whom's policies and ideologies really have nothing to do with you? Unless you confess to fact the US is only looking after its own interests, and actually doesn't care about the Iraqi people's opinions at all, considering most want a complete withdrawal and don't feel the US is "obliged" to owe them anything.

 

 

 

Now I'll deal with mad4u689, which much to his/her credit, is actually providing an offer for a debate, not some slagging off duel.

 

 

 

[hide]

I don't see why diplomacy and peace talks couldn't bring about an agreement for a three-state solution or some such thing.
[/hide]

 

Diplomacy only works when all parties can meet in the first place. The impressions I get is that not all groups in Iraq want to be part of Iraq, while others so. For them this is a just a "Red Line" that can't be crossed, so I doubt all three of them can come to a three-state solution, at least not through diplomacy anyway. As for peace talks... you only have to look at the History of Ireland to understand religious tensions don't go away just because people start talking. While it would be nice if this was a solution, I doubt it can be considered as one.

 

 

 

[hide]

Well, schools and hospitals are improved, except for the fact that innocent students and sick people and doctors are being killed and all... So we've helped built up some infrastructure, but I don't know what we think it's going to do.
[/hide]

 

OK, maybe so. Aside form the fact you kinda defeated yourself in your own argument, there's still dozens of key infrastructure that aren't better. Electricity for one. In the modern day, a hospital without electricity would only work to arounds half its efficiency. While there are examples of the situation improving, there are much more examples of things worsening.

 

 

 

[hide]

When a country is undergoing revolution by itself, it's a revolution. When some other country who has already gone through such a revolution is there and can guide you through it, you don't NEED a revolution to get to that point. I think it's a good idea to use history as an example, but you also have to factor in technological change and extreme globalization and how things are DIFFERENT now than in other revolutions.
[/hide]

 

Sure, and I agree - you can understand the present if you understand the past. The revolution wouldn't be the same as others in the past - they were some two-hundred years ago and the world's moved on. But what about America? OK, the British Empire was the state the colonists were opposed to, but those colonists had been through revolution before, or at least knew about it. So in essence, they were guided. They still however needed a revolution before they could establish their own form of government, and I think nearly all Americans would agree that while it's nice, it was necessary. I feel the same for Iraq - it may not be nice, or the ideal solution with hindsight from five years back, but is it necessary to relieve the pressure in the country and its surrounding area? I would say, "Yes". It's fine if you disagree with me on that, but that's what I strongly feel is the best solution for Iraq in the long-term. We can protect them for fifty years while their government establishes itself, and we can carry on losing troops. Would it relieve that pressure? No, so what would be the point in doing that?

 

 

 

[hide]

Yes, American actions have alienated many young Muslims into terrorism. This is largely because most American citizens and soldiers and probably the President are completely culturally insensitive and ignorant. However, that being said, we already have done a lot of damage in terms of alienating many young Muslims into terrorism. There are people there who are angry and have a lot of weapons and are powerful, and we've made them that way, by acting like [wagon] and thus giving them followers. But we're already entrenched in this situation, and to leave now would make these people in power in a position to take more.
[/hide]

 

Agreed, however, I see it like this. We can remove ourselves from the equation while the extemists are strong in numbers, or we can leave later when they're stronger thanks to the fact we're occupying their soil. In my opinion, staying actually poses more of a threat, not less.

 

 

 

As for the last quote, I really CBB doing all the coding for that as well lol, but fine. If that's what the Iraqi people want, then so be it. I'm not suggesting revolution would be what most Iraqis want, I'm saying it would be best for them. And before someone holds me to hypocracy for what I said earlier on that, unlike the Americans, I'm not taking action on what I think it best for them, but I'd rather let them make that decision themselves.

 

 

 

Also, while the main priority of the American Government is the wellbeing of its citizens, this isn't a justification to stay in Iraq, only a motive. The two are very different.

 

 

 

Over... phew...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Second, is that a serious [bleep] statement? Do you need proof that terrorism is horrible?? 3 numbers pal... 9/11

 

 

 

What I meant is that Where's the proof that there would be horrible amounts of terrorism, I know that if it happened it would be tragic, but who's to prove that it will happen.

 

 

 

And yes, the last one is stupid, but it's true, everybody thinks they're really likely to die in terrorism acts, and it really just isn't true. They focus so much on that that they don't think of any other things that could happen to them.

 

 

 

Many Things that Ginger said

 

 

 

Thank you for supporting me 8-)

 

 

 

There is no proof Iraq would descend into a cesspool of terrorism if you withdraw your forces. You can't decide your actions based on what might happen in the future.

 

 

 

I'd say that probably gets the award for "the most idiotic comment of the thread". Well done Ginger! Seriously, do you not think that people of authority would not consider the future in what actions or plans they might chose to take now? Your comment is just so stupid I can't bare to pick more holes in it. How do you even come up with a statement like that!? :lol:

 

 

 

Looks like stupid people think alike. No wonder you were able to understand "the point" Superson was making! :roll:

 

 

 

Ginger didn't mean 'what might happen' I think, they meant 'what could happen but there is a very small possibility that it will'

In Soviet Russia, glass eats OTers.

 

Alansson Alansson, woo woo woo!

Pink owns yes, just like you!

GOOOOOOOOOO ALAN! WOO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't listen much to what Bush says. He's a flunkie. The scary ones in the U.S. government are Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. They are quite a bit smarter and more devious.

2480+ total

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush will veto, so I garuntee it wont happen. But anyway, if it did it's not like America cuts all ties with Iraq and lets it fend for itself. I mean they'll still be support there, only a moron would take everything away as it would lead to many problems internationally and with the UN.

Signature3.gif

With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that whole last comment

 

 

 

By the way, I'd like to thank you for providing an interesting and intelligent debate. I'm not 100% confident at all that I don't agree with you. Unfortunately, like with the Israel & Palestine situation, I don't see any ideal route to take. Innocent people will die no matter what we do, and ethnic and national tensions will be high for at least a while, no matter what we do. So it's really hard for me to say what the best thing to do is, and I think there's a good chance you could be right - that staying in Iraq at all will just cause more problems, get in the way, and make Iraqis (justified-ly) dislike America more.

 

 

 

Still, a little more than half of me thinks that we should avoid major conflict if it's at all possible, and that it may still be possible. Looking at the situation in Israel and Palestine, we see that a single binational state might have worked, but at this point in time, tensions have risen so that it's almost impossible, and a two-state solution is really the only one possible. Similarly, I think any one-state solution in Iraq would result in a brutal government that would oppress "the other," whoever winds up "winning." And I think that after Hussein's regime was defeated (and this was probably a good thing, considering the atrocities he committed), it would be so sad if after all that, another similarly brutal regime took power. And we should prevent that if we can.

 

 

 

To be honest, I really don't know enough about the conflicts between the different groups in Iraq. This lack of knowledge is pretty inexcusable, and means that my opinion really shouldn't have that much value (though also to be honest, I doubt many tip.it'ers do know more - most of the Western world is woefully ignorant, of course, including myself). So I don't know. Maybe (I hope) I'm wrong and it doesn't turn out in a disaster scenario. I don't like using the military, of which I'm pretty distrustful, when it's not necessary. I also don't like spending all this money on the military when the government is so far in debt, and domestic concerns (education, health care) should be getting more funding.

Everybody hug and spread the love :D

 

siggypooro0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once we pull the troops out I wonder how long it will take for everyone to say that was a bad decision as well. :roll:

 

 

 

It really can't get much worse. It'll take 10-15 years before we really start to see the retaliation, via little kids who grew up and want revenge for having their families killed.

 

 

 

You can fight an army and win, but you can't defeat an idealogy. Muslims do not want our "help", and there will never be democracy in Iraq. They run things via Sharia (hey, I rhymed!) and everyone (except women, for obvious reasons) likes it that way.

The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past.

- Me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against pulling out, in fact, I have no idea what the politicians are thinking when they try to pull the troops out. Have you seen the situation in London? How is pulling out of Iraq going to help other than just moving the war to London or New York?

 

 

 

The whole "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" argument is a well known fallacy. In fact, the reason they try to attack us over here is because of our involvement over there.

Tetsuya.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we pull out now, what will all the lives lost be for?

 

 

 

Look at it this way:

 

 

 

You tear down the empire state building, to remake it bigger and better. You tear it down, and build start building. When you get to the 15'th floor, they decide to pull out of the project, because 7 people died in a crane accident. The building is in worse shape now, and the lives lost will have been for nothing.

 

 

 

It's the same with Iraq. The project is half done, and if we pull out now, Iraq will be in ruins, and all the lives lost will be for nothing. Not to mentioin the terrorists will be there, and will probably attack us again.

 

 

 

And that brings up another point. Why are people so upset whenever someone dies? I mean, sure. A life is a life, but in terms of deaths, this war has had almost no death toll compared to most other wars. I mean, we're in the hundreds of lives lost now, right? In past wars, 10,000 people have died in one day. And this war has been going on for what, 5 and a half years? Thats less than 1/10 the deaths in 2008x the amount of time, or ONE TWENTY THOUSANDTH the amount of deaths. So if death toll is the problem, it is nothing compared to past events.

 

 

 

AND, we would probably loose more lives if we pulled out. They're called TERRORISTS for a reason. They terrorise us. Meaning kill. If we pulled out now, they WOULD attack us, and more than likely other countries too. Other countries without such a high alert level. Imagine all the lives lost in those countries. Aren't they're lives just as valuable as ours?

 

 

 

So incase you havn't gathered this, I am AGAINST pulling out of the war.

 

 

 

First off.. you say only a few hundred lives have been lost... What about all the Iraqi's who've died, BECAUSE WE WEN'T IN.

 

 

 

Second, if we pulled out, where's the proof that terrorism would be horrible?

 

 

 

And last, terrorism is made into such a huge deal, but you are something like 100 times more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack.

 

Now it might be 80times or something... Not a huge increase.

 

 

 

First off - Sadam would have killed his own people anyways, as it has been prooven that he's done in the past

 

 

 

Second, is that a serious [bleep] statement? Do you need proof that terrorism is horrible?? 3 numbers pal... 9/11

 

 

 

And last, that is the stupidest comparison about anything I've ever read in all 19 years of my life.

 

 

 

Don't worry Knight its just another 7 year old whose come down from the General Boards. We need to learn to ignore stupidity. :wink:

 

 

 

Edit: I thought you were calling me a 7 year old... the word "Its" I read as "is"

- Only character in Runescape History maxed out in RSC and RS2

x843.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that the people in Congress can agree about is if they should give themselves a raise for the people coming in congress next. They get paid about 10k a day when they just sit around. IT will be a while till they come up with something

And the cavemen wondered how to make fire...

Im in the .00001% that finds Firemaking fun. If you find it fun add this to your siggy.

blaster909.gif

Blaster909.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sure, and I agree - you can understand the present if you understand the past. The revolution wouldn't be the same as others in the past - they were some two-hundred years ago and the world's moved on. But what about America? OK, the British Empire was the state the colonists were opposed to, but those colonists had been through revolution before, or at least knew about it. So in essence, they were guided. They still however needed a revolution before they could establish their own form of government, and I think nearly all Americans would agree that while it's nice, it was necessary. I feel the same for Iraq - it may not be nice, or the ideal solution with hindsight from five years back, but is it necessary to relieve the pressure in the country and its surrounding area? I would say, "Yes". It's fine if you disagree with me on that, but that's what I strongly feel is the best solution for Iraq in the long-term. We can protect them for fifty years while their government establishes itself, and we can carry on losing troops. Would it relieve that pressure? No, so what would be the point in doing that?

 

 

 

"Relieving the pressure" is a nice, neutral, geopolitical phrase. What you're talking about is basically telling the, what, 20 million citizens of Iraq that they are going to be left at the mercy of various extremist organizations, religious and etnical groupings, whatever and whoever the surronding countries decides to send in - apart from exporting oil, exporting your extremists so they don't make trouble at home is becoming quite an industry in the middle east - in what would classify as a civil war. Well, that's assuming Teheran doesn't get a bit to obvious about it's funding of various troublemaking organizations, decide to finally put into effect Khomenei's idea of exporting the islamic revolution, or just plain snag parts of the mutual border - the parts they had an 8 year war about.

 

 

 

You would then sit back and watch this power struggle, which would involve a fair few more local countries in the region, unfold into a civil war, which would undoubtly lead to ethnic cleansing - they've already tried it smallscale and the only thing keeping a lid on it is men and women with weapons - and all the horrors that entails, with the argument that "it'll be best for them in the long run".

 

 

 

Where the long run involvs the Iraqi people, after - in your own words - decades manage to get a working democratic government going. They'll have to deal with Iran - who by then could very well have decided to annex all of Iraq for the "protection of it's citizenry" - and they'll be doing so with an economy and infrastructure that'd be shot straight to hell after decades of civil war. And this is a best-case scenario. The worst case scenario is an even tie between becoming a province in the Islamic Republic of Iran and becoming the Islamic Republic of Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

Call my silly, but in my opinion, preventing ethnic cleansing with peacekeepers is a point in it's own right.

-This message was deviously brought to you by: mischief1at.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, i wish bush would pullout however..

 

 

 

He is again the STUPIDEST PERSON on this planet, he's almost worse then saddam and hitler to be honest. He sent a war, a stupid one to capture a murderour but also take a million lives with it? not a good idea..Iwish he'd pullout, he'd end a stupid war hes done. BUt actually, both scienroies would still cointine the killing..

 

 

 

 

 

STUPID BUSH PIECE OF CRAP :shame: :ohnoes: :notalk:

--Quit--(As of December 22th, 2007)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, i wish bush would pullout however..

 

 

 

He is again the STUPIDEST PERSON on this planet, he's almost worse then saddam and hitler to be honest. He sent a war, a stupid one to capture a murderour but also take a million lives with it? not a good idea..Iwish he'd pullout, he'd end a stupid war hes done. BUt actually, both scienroies would still cointine the killing..

 

 

 

 

 

STUPID BUSH PIECE OF CRAP :shame: :ohnoes: :notalk:

 

 

 

You can't even compare George W. Bush to Hitler. The president is not a dictator contrary to what you may think. Mr. Bush didn't even start this war by himself.

"A time comes when silence is betrayal" MLKJ

 

Speak your mind, but be civil.

Get mad, but do not rage.

Do unto others as you would want done to yourself.

 

"]doughnutt.jpg

 

Follow the doughnut to my blog! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide]

Oh Sorry Ginger, may I offer up my apologies. There was just too much stupidity mixed up with his point that I totally overlooked what he was trying to say. I still can't believe I made that mistake!

 

If all you're gonna so is flame his post instead of actually putting an argument against it, I don't think I need to say much more. Just because his views opposes yours doesn't make it invalid.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure "Blind Freddy" could realise that I was originally agreeing with KnightLite. I don't like to have to repeat an argument when I've already agreed with it just so that you can understand it better. Especially when its such stupidity. As KnightLite clearly showed in his argument against that comment.

 

 

 

And yeah you don't need to say much more, you've got nothing to come back with, especially with such a comment, that I quoted before.

 

 

 

[hide]

I'd say that probably gets the award for "the most idiotic comment of the thread". Well done Ginger! Seriously, do you not think that people of authority would not consider the future in what actions or plans they might chose to take now? Your comment is just so stupid I can't bare to pick more holes in it. How do you even come up with a statement like that!?

 

 

 

Looks like stupid people think alike. No wonder you were able to understand "the point" Superson was making!

 

 

 

Again, attack the person's argument, not the person themselves. You just look arrogant...

 

 

 

However, at least you managed to provide a point there. Maybe I should have been a bit more specific with that statement. What you say is true when you're talking about your own domestic affairs - because the decisions that you make affect only you and your future. However, the point I'm making still remains. What gives you the right to make a decision, based purely on speculations about your own future, and then force those decisions on another country whom's policies and ideologies really have nothing to do with you? Unless you confess to fact the US is only looking after its own interests, and actually doesn't care about the Iraqi people's opinions at all, considering most want a complete withdrawal and don't feel the US is "obliged" to owe them anything.

[/hide]

 

 

 

And you just look foolish. :wink:

 

 

 

Ok and on to your argument. Who says the Iraqi people want them gone? Where's that information? I'd be willing to happily correct myself if you come up with that statistic that more Iraqi's want them gone now then to actually stay, but until then I'm of the opinion that it would be the opposite to that. They all would know that through what's happening a Civil War would eventuate, and that the newly formed government over there would have barely any chance at keeping the peace.

 

 

 

And also if you evade a country and set up a new Government and a new leadership it gives you every right to make decisions about that countries future. Considering they do have hundreds of thousands of their own men over there at the moment. And of course America is only looking after its own interests. It was their own "interests" which started the war in the first place. But I'm sure in saying that the US Government still has a care for the Iraqi people themselves. You only have to look at the good things their doing over there with the orphanages and such that they do still care. And rightly so!

 

 

 

 

 

By the way:

 

 

 

That >>

You can't decide your actions based on what might happen in the future.

 

 

 

Sounds a whole lot different to this >>

What gives you the right to make a decision, based purely on speculations about your own future, and then force those decisions on another country whom's policies and ideologies really have nothing to do with you?

 

 

 

 

 

Either you can't explain yourself properly, or you've changed your argument after you've been seen to make a senseless comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, i wish bush would pullout however..

 

 

 

He is again the STUPIDEST PERSON on this planet, he's almost worse then saddam and hitler to be honest. He sent a war, a stupid one to capture a murderour but also take a million lives with it? not a good idea..Iwish he'd pullout, he'd end a stupid war hes done. BUt actually, both scienroies would still cointine the killing..

 

 

 

 

 

STUPID BUSH PIECE OF CRAP :shame: :ohnoes: :notalk:

 

 

 

You can't even compare George W. Bush to Hitler. The president is not a dictator contrary to what you may think. Mr. Bush didn't even start this war by himself.

 

 

 

Sure you can, and sure he is. George Bush has, thus far, listened and cooperated with absolutely NO ONE else in the government. Congress brings him a bill he doesn't like for some reason? Insta-Veto. He doesn't even read them, he just knows what they're generally about (pulling out of the war, stem cell research, etc) and just flat-out Veto's them, essentially ruining any progress the Congress may have actually made for once in their lives.

 

 

 

I ask you - What is more important? What 400 some people conclude is the "right way" to go, or what one man thinks is the right way to go? I do believe it's "Majority rules" not "Authority rules". Bush (and every President from here on out) shouldn't have instant-veto power like they do now, because they can set their idealogies into laws by essentially snapping their fingers. Banning gay marriage is absolutely unconstitutional (people are being denied their freedoms and benefits when they've committed no crimes), but...Since George Bush doesn't like it, it can't happen. He won't allow it. Would current Congress allow it? Probably, since it's a Democratic majority, and they, while morons just like Republicans, are slightly LESS moronic because they don't have the blinding veil of "Christian law" over their eyes when deciding whats best for the countries people as a whole.

 

 

 

Anyways, back to Bush. You can compare him to Hitler, except one thing...Hitler was an excellent public speaker, George Bush is a talking chimp, essentially.

The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past.

- Me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide=Quote]

Yeah, i wish bush would pullout however..

 

 

 

He is again the STUPIDEST PERSON on this planet, he's almost worse then saddam and hitler to be honest. He sent a war, a stupid one to capture a murderour but also take a million lives with it? not a good idea..Iwish he'd pullout, he'd end a stupid war hes done. BUt actually, both scienroies would still cointine the killing..

 

 

 

 

 

STUPID BUSH PIECE OF CRAP :shame: :ohnoes: :notalk:

 

 

 

You can't even compare George W. Bush to Hitler. The president is not a dictator contrary to what you may think. Mr. Bush didn't even start this war by himself.

 

 

 

Sure you can, and sure he is. George Bush has, thus far, listened and cooperated with absolutely NO ONE else in the government. Congress brings him a bill he doesn't like for some reason? Insta-Veto. He doesn't even read them, he just knows what they're generally about (pulling out of the war, stem cell research, etc) and just flat-out Veto's them, essentially ruining any progress the Congress may have actually made for once in their lives.

 

 

 

I ask you - What is more important? What 400 some people conclude is the "right way" to go, or what one man thinks is the right way to go? I do believe it's "Majority rules" not "Authority rules". Bush (and every President from here on out) shouldn't have instant-veto power like they do now, because they can set their idealogies into laws by essentially snapping their fingers. Banning gay marriage is absolutely unconstitutional (people are being denied their freedoms and benefits when they've committed no crimes), but...Since George Bush doesn't like it, it can't happen. He won't allow it. Would current Congress allow it? Probably, since it's a Democratic majority, and they, while morons just like Republicans, are slightly LESS moronic because they don't have the blinding veil of "Christian law" over their eyes when deciding whats best for the countries people as a whole.

 

 

 

Anyways, back to Bush. You can compare him to Hitler, except one thing...Hitler was an excellent public speaker, George Bush is a talking chimp, essentially.

[/hide]

 

 

 

The American Government is not a dictatorship, the congress has to approve the funds for the war. Our government was set up so one person isn't all powerful, and everyone is so [bleep]ing blinded they don't seem to see that.

 

 

 

Your second paragraph coincides with my first as well.

 

 

 

Hitler was an extremist insane person. He tried to fight the whole world, George w. Bush and the American government went over to fight in the middle east, not the whole world. I guess the Presidents during the Vietnam war and the Korean war were Hitlers as well right? :roll:

"A time comes when silence is betrayal" MLKJ

 

Speak your mind, but be civil.

Get mad, but do not rage.

Do unto others as you would want done to yourself.

 

"]doughnutt.jpg

 

Follow the doughnut to my blog! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure you can, and sure he is. George Bush has, thus far, listened and cooperated with absolutely NO ONE else in the government. Congress brings him a bill he doesn't like for some reason? Insta-Veto. He doesn't even read them, he just knows what they're generally about (pulling out of the war, stem cell research, etc) and just flat-out Veto's them, essentially ruining any progress the Congress may have actually made for once in their lives.

 

 

 

Wait, so Bush is a dictator because he exercises his constitutional right to a veto? Nevermind that the Congress can override the veto with a 2/3 majority - checks and balances, don't ya know.

 

 

 

Furthermore, Bush did not veto a bill until 5 years into his presidency, and he has cast only 3 vetoes so far. Compare that to Clinton's 37, Reagan's 78, or Eisenhower's 181. Heck, it's a small number even compared to Andrew Jackson's 12. Even George Washington used the veto twice; is three really dictatorial?

 

 

 

Furthermore, Bush cooperated very well with Congress for the first six years, mainly because his party was the majority. Throughout American history, the executive and legislative branches have worked well together when controlled by the same party, and been at odds when controlled by opposite parties. Does the fact that Bush doesn't cooperate with a party whose views run counter to his make him dictatorial?

 

 

 

I ask you - What is more important? What 400 some people conclude is the "right way" to go, or what one man thinks is the right way to go? I do believe it's "Majority rules" not "Authority rules". Bush (and every President from here on out) shouldn't have instant-veto power like they do now, because they can set their idealogies into laws by essentially snapping their fingers. Banning gay marriage is absolutely unconstitutional (people are being denied their freedoms and benefits when they've committed no crimes), but...Since George Bush doesn't like it, it can't happen. He won't allow it. Would current Congress allow it? Probably, since it's a Democratic majority, and they, while morons just like Republicans, are slightly LESS moronic because they don't have the blinding veil of "Christian law" over their eyes when deciding whats best for the countries people as a whole.

 

 

 

Gay marriage is a poor choice of examples, as the states, and not the federal government, make the marriage laws. As far as I know the only federal law that has anything to do with the issue is the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which defined marriage (for the purposes of federal law) as between one man and one woman, and was signed into law by Clinton. However, while it prevents the federal government from recognized same-sex unions, it does nothing to prohibit the states from recognizing them.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the only federal attempt at banning gay marriage during Bush's presidency was by Republicans in Congress, and the proposal was shot down by the Congress. (You say a ban would be unconstitutional; they tried to make it constitutional with an amendment.) So now Bush is dictatorial because of a law signed by Clinton and an amendment proposed and shot down in Congress. Right.

 

 

 

Anyways, back to Bush. You can compare him to Hitler, except one thing...Hitler was an excellent public speaker, George Bush is a talking chimp, essentially.

 

 

 

At last! we agree on something, haha. :P I've got a calendar of Bushisms - priceless!

 

 

 

Criticize the quality of Bush's leadership and the success of his policies all you like. I defintely wouldn't call him a great president, and it's debatable whether or not he's even a good president. He's certainly made some mistakes in his presidency, and I disagree with several of his actions and stances. But don't let your dislike for the man make you irrational or hateful, and don't listen to or spread such unfounded accusations. You've yet to back up your charges with any substantial evidence; all you've done is slander a man. Vetoing three bills hardly makes Bush a dictator, and he's certainly no Hitler.

Punctuation.gif

 

"In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, i wish bush would pullout however..

 

 

 

He is again the STUPIDEST PERSON on this planet, he's almost worse then saddam and hitler to be honest. He sent a war, a stupid one to capture a murderour but also take a million lives with it? not a good idea..Iwish he'd pullout, he'd end a stupid war hes done. BUt actually, both scienroies would still cointine the killing..

 

 

 

 

 

STUPID BUSH PIECE OF CRAP :shame: :ohnoes: :notalk:

 

 

 

You can't even compare George W. Bush to Hitler. The president is not a dictator contrary to what you may think. Mr. Bush didn't even start this war by himself.

 

 

 

Sure you can, and sure he is. George Bush has, thus far, listened and cooperated with absolutely NO ONE else in the government. Congress brings him a bill he doesn't like for some reason? Insta-Veto. He doesn't even read them, he just knows what they're generally about (pulling out of the war, stem cell research, etc) and just flat-out Veto's them, essentially ruining any progress the Congress may have actually made for once in their lives.

 

 

 

I ask you - What is more important? What 400 some people conclude is the "right way" to go, or what one man thinks is the right way to go? I do believe it's "Majority rules" not "Authority rules". Bush (and every President from here on out) shouldn't have instant-veto power like they do now, because they can set their idealogies into laws by essentially snapping their fingers. Banning gay marriage is absolutely unconstitutional (people are being denied their freedoms and benefits when they've committed no crimes), but...Since George Bush doesn't like it, it can't happen. He won't allow it. Would current Congress allow it? Probably, since it's a Democratic majority, and they, while morons just like Republicans, are slightly LESS moronic because they don't have the blinding veil of "Christian law" over their eyes when deciding whats best for the countries people as a whole.

 

 

 

Anyways, back to Bush. You can compare him to Hitler, except one thing...Hitler was an excellent public speaker, George Bush is a talking chimp, essentially.

 

 

 

Wow.. You need to learn how the American Legal system works.... You are wrong on sooooo many accounts.

 

 

 

Edit: Astralinre, good work and research :) *post above me*

- Only character in Runescape History maxed out in RSC and RS2

x843.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we pull out now because the 9/11 terrorists came from Afghanistan, not Iraq. Bush just used Middle eastern terrorism (all from Afghanistan) as an excuse to go into Iraq to finish what his father started.

 

 

 

That's true, but ironic part is that Afghanistan isn't even in the middle east.

 

 

 

Exactly, which is what makes Bush's plan so flawed! I swear, I don;t know how that man got into power.

whalenuke.png

Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

angel2w.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the only reason this whole war started was so he could finish his daddy's unfinished business in Iraq. Think about it, the war is based completely on Lies.

 

 

 

Wow.. dynamite input. Thank you for changing everybodys beliefs with this amazing factual piece of brilliance..

- Only character in Runescape History maxed out in RSC and RS2

x843.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightLite, nothing I said had anything to do with "law", but thanks for playing.

 

 

 

Astra, I tend to exaggerate. My posts aren't necessarily meant to be taken 100% seriously, as I like to write satirically and make fun of things more than actually talk seriously...It's more fun.

 

 

 

Bush has veto'd less, but his veto's have been over things that shouldn't be his choice, was my point. Stem cell research bills were veto'd because he's a Christian, pure and simple. Now, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to abort babies, because abortion is pretty lame, but using the ones that ARE aborted would be wise. At least their life isn't a waste. And there is a proposal...or was...or will be, whatever it is now :P, that we could use them from placenta or spinal fluid or whatever, and George Bush, in all his ignorance, says it's no different than farming fetuses for scientific gain, and he's promised to veto anything that comes his way about stem cells. I'd love for him to become paralyzed just to see how fast his mind changes.

 

 

 

As for gay marriage, I don't think he's veto'd anything about it, but he has stated that he'd never allow anything having to do with it (pro, not against) to be made into law. Why? Essentially his excuse is "gay sex is icky!" :lol:

 

 

 

I say gay marriage banning is unconstitutional because the people who are unable to get married are being denied government tax cuts and stuff for married couples. They live just like married couples, but they don't have it down on paper because the government won't allow it. That is unconstitutional no matter what the Bible or whatever else says.

 

 

 

As for the war, that's where the serious part comes in. Two proposals have been put forward and he said he'd veto them without even reading a word of it beforehand. He isn't cooperating at all and it's making him seem like he thinks he just owns the country. You and I both know that a 2/3 majority for getting out of the war, or for most matters in general, will never happen. There is a near 50/50 split in the Congress and one side votes one way and the other side votes the other way almost exclusively. Bush's vetoing of something, quite blindly, just because he has a little agenda, is killing the country. If the country was TRUELY run by the American citizens like they want us to think, then we'd be gone and Bush would be too, because 70%+ of the country hates both of them. The war has killed social security, which I'll be paying for my whole life and will never receive, etc etc etc. Bill Clinton left office with a surplus, and now we have like the biggest defecit ever, lol.

The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past.

- Me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astra, I tend to exaggerate. My posts aren't necessarily meant to be taken 100% seriously, as I like to write satirically and make fun of things more than actually talk seriously...It's more fun.

 

 

 

I know, but when you say things like that, especially on the internet, people are going to take you seriously. Even if you mean in it jest, plenty of young teenagers on this forum will believe it as if it were in their history text books, so I wanted to clear up the slander and misrepresentation.

 

 

 

Bush has veto'd less, but his veto's have been over things that shouldn't be his choice, was my point. Stem cell research bills were veto'd because he's a Christian, pure and simple. Now, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to abort babies, because abortion is pretty lame, but using the ones that ARE aborted would be wise. At least their life isn't a waste. And there is a proposal...or was...or will be, whatever it is now :P, that we could use them from placenta or spinal fluid or whatever, and George Bush, in all his ignorance, says it's no different than farming fetuses for scientific gain, and he's promised to veto anything that comes his way about stem cells. I'd love for him to become paralyzed just to see how fast his mind changes.

 

 

 

Who are you to say it's not his choice? He's the President, the American Head of State, and that doesn't give him the right to enforce his own policies? Is he not allowed to veto something he considers unethical? Not only that, but it would have forced American taxpayers to fund something many believed was unethical. Bush said that if the bill became law, "American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos, and I'm not going to allow it." You act as if he's a moron for having convictions and acting on them. You've complained about him not representing the American people, yet there are millions of Americans - mostly his political base - against embryonic stem cell research, whom he is representing very well. Also, don't forget that Bush did allow federal funding of the 60 existing lines of embryonic stem cells in research facilities, and has increased funding for stem cells from adults, umbilical cords, and placentas - all of which hold great promise without destroying human embryos. Under Bush's policy, "federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research has grown from zero dollars in 2001 to $24.8 million now, with no cap on future funding." (USA Today)

 

 

 

(As an aside, most of the successful research and cures being developed through stem research have been through adult stem cells, scraped from places as innocent as the patient's nose. Literally, the lame are walking through these therapies. Embryonic stem cells, however, are rarely used on human patients, because in animal experiments, they have too high a risk of forming tumors. Embryonic stem cells are designed to grow - and they do grow, which is a danger to the patient. Adult stem cells, however, are designed to heal, and they do a marvelous job of that when handled properly. I'll find you some sources if you like.)

 

 

 

As for gay marriage, I don't think he's veto'd anything about it, but he has stated that he'd never allow anything having to do with it (pro, not against) to be made into law. Why? Essentially his excuse is "gay sex is icky!" :lol:

 

 

 

Once again, does the President not have the right to represent his potical base and his own morality? You may disagree with his stance on the issues, but does that make him a moron, or to your original point, a dictator?

 

 

 

I say gay marriage banning is unconstitutional because the people who are unable to get married are being denied government tax cuts and stuff for married couples. They live just like married couples, but they don't have it down on paper because the government won't allow it. That is unconstitutional no matter what the Bible or whatever else says.

 

 

 

I understand why you believe it was unconstitutional, and I agree, though for different reasons. I believe that marriage laws are the business of the states, not the federal government, as per the 10th Amendment. Regardless, the attempts at banning it were proposed and shot down in Congress, and had nothing to do with Bush.

 

 

 

As for the war, that's where the serious part comes in. Two proposals have been put forward and he said he'd veto them without even reading a word of it beforehand. He isn't cooperating at all and it's making him seem like he thinks he just owns the country. You and I both know that a 2/3 majority for getting out of the war, or for most matters in general, will never happen. There is a near 50/50 split in the Congress and one side votes one way and the other side votes the other way almost exclusively. Bush's vetoing of something, quite blindly, just because he has a little agenda, is killing the country. If the country was TRUELY run by the American citizens like they want us to think, then we'd be gone and Bush would be too, because 70%+ of the country hates both of them. The war has killed social security, which I'll be paying for my whole life and will never receive, etc etc etc. Bill Clinton left office with a surplus, and now we have like the biggest defecit ever, lol.

 

 

 

First, what makes you think he hasn't read a word of the proposals? Even if he doesn't read them in their entirity, he knows what they say and what they do. Despite his appearance and some bad choices he's made, you don't get to be president by being an idiot. Second, he may not own the country, but the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and is surrounded by military advisors. Congress has to approve wars (which it has with Iraq) and it has to fund them (which, despite Democratic opposition, it has done), but it's not Constitutional for them to make military policy. You say Bush is vetoing the legislation blindly; how is that so? He plans on finishing this war, cleaning up the mistakes he made in the occupation, and setting up a solid, democratic, U.S. friendly government in Iraq, and Congress is opposed to his plan. Is it blind or ignorant of him to resist those who would destroy any chance at meeting his goals? Regardless of the wisdom or rightness of this war, your accusations are still nothing but hateful. It's fine to disagree with Bush, I disagree with him on some things as well. There's plenty of valid complaints about him, but you've yet to bring up one. All you've done is slander a man with baseless insults, and whether or not you meant it seriously, other people are going to be influenced by that false information.

Punctuation.gif

 

"In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.