Issue in Iraq - Updated Again!

[pianofrieak2]

 

He is a Goof-ball. I dont care if he went to Harvard - or if he can count to 10, he is a Goof-ball.

 

 

 

You say this why?

 

 

 

 

 

The Iraqi's under Saddams rule were not robots. For the most part - they were safe from one another - because Saddam was there to stop any fights between the 2 clashing sects of Islam.

 

 

 

Freedom is important - but safety is even more important. How can you have freedoms when you dont even know if you will be able to come home at night.

 

 

 

I think the American founding fathers would disagree with you. For one thing, by rebelling against England they were overthrowing their government. Leaving what? Well, a government they had to form by themselves with almost no money. Surely to them freedom is better than safety.

 

 

 

Besides, they gave up their fortunes and, in most cases, their lives.

 

 

 

You sure safety is greater than freedom? :wink:

[Kryptic]

 

He is a Goof-ball. I dont care if he went to Harvard - or if he can count to 10, he is a Goof-ball.

 

 

 

You say this why?

 

 

 

I have my reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

The Iraqi's under Saddams rule were not robots. For the most part - they were safe from one another - because Saddam was there to stop any fights between the 2 clashing sects of Islam.

 

 

 

Freedom is important - but safety is even more important. How can you have freedoms when you dont even know if you will be able to come home at night.

 

 

 

I think the American founding fathers would disagree with you. For one thing, by rebelling against England they were overthrowing their government. Leaving what? Well, a government they had to form by themselves with almost no money. Surely to them freedom is better than safety.

 

 

 

Besides, they gave up their fortunes and, in most cases, their lives.

 

 

 

You sure safety is greater than freedom? :wink:

 

 

 

The American Founding fathers have nothing to do with this - and what you say is their opinion is irrelevant.

 

 

 

And Im positive Iraq has money - they have a lot of oil believe it or not.

 

 

 

And how are you going to have freedoms without having your safety ensured first? That makes no sense... You have the freedom/right to mail anyone a letter - but the mail boxes that you need to put the letters in may contain a bomb. :roll: :roll: :roll: [/b]

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I have my reasons.

 

 

 

Way to lower yourself down to Elite's level.

 

Oh wait, you were already there. :roll:

[Kryptic]

I have my reasons.

 

 

 

Way to lower yourself down to Elite's level.

 

Oh wait, you were already there. :roll:

 

 

 

I choose not to say so because I know people will jump right on me, and flame like no tomorrow - and its not worth it.

 

 

 

I'd rather have you thinking I am at a "lower level" than you, rather than having an arguement with you - which would just lead us no where because there is nothing you can say for me to think otherwise of Bush.

[Guest GhostRanger]

The Iraqi's under Saddams rule were not robots. For the most part - they were safe from one another - because Saddam was there to stop any fights between the 2 clashing sects of Islam.

 

 

 

Freedom is important - but safety is even more important. How can you have freedoms when you dont even know if you will be able to come home at night.

 

 

 

I think the American founding fathers would disagree with you. For one thing, by rebelling against England they were overthrowing their government. Leaving what? Well, a government they had to form by themselves with almost no money. Surely to them freedom is better than safety.

 

 

 

Besides, they gave up their fortunes and, in most cases, their lives.

 

 

 

You sure safety is greater than freedom? :wink:

 

 

 

The American Founding fathers have nothing to do with this - and what you say is their opinion is irrelevant.

 

 

 

And Im positive Iraq has money - they have a lot of oil believe it or not.

 

 

 

And how are you going to have freedoms without having your safety ensured first? That makes no sense... You have the freedom/right to mail anyone a letter - but the mail boxes that you need to put the letters in may contain a bomb. :roll: :roll: :roll: [/b]

 

 

 

I don't think you understand freedom Kryptic. You CANNOT be safe without freedom, because whoever is keeping you safe could decide not to in the middle of no where, and without freedom there is nothing to do about it.

 

 

 

Its nice that you can choose freedom over safety sitting confortably in your chair. But every revolution in world history has proven your theory wrong. People have chosen countless times to put themselves in danger to fight for their freedoms. Why should Iraqis rather be oppressed when everywhere else in the world nations have shown that freedom is worth dying for?

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I choose not to say so because I know people will jump right on me, and flame like no tomorrow - and its not worth it.

 

 

 

You would never have made this in the first place according to what you just said. People have flamed you for 10 pages. You won't reply simply because you do not know. All you care to say is "I know so it's true".

 

 

 

No one cares about what you think if you can't back it up.

[Kryptic]

The Iraqi's under Saddams rule were not robots. For the most part - they were safe from one another - because Saddam was there to stop any fights between the 2 clashing sects of Islam.

 

 

 

Freedom is important - but safety is even more important. How can you have freedoms when you dont even know if you will be able to come home at night.

 

 

 

I think the American founding fathers would disagree with you. For one thing, by rebelling against England they were overthrowing their government. Leaving what? Well, a government they had to form by themselves with almost no money. Surely to them freedom is better than safety.

 

 

 

Besides, they gave up their fortunes and, in most cases, their lives.

 

 

 

You sure safety is greater than freedom? :wink:

 

 

 

The American Founding fathers have nothing to do with this - and what you say is their opinion is irrelevant.

 

 

 

And Im positive Iraq has money - they have a lot of oil believe it or not.

 

 

 

And how are you going to have freedoms without having your safety ensured first? That makes no sense... You have the freedom/right to mail anyone a letter - but the mail boxes that you need to put the letters in may contain a bomb. :roll: :roll: :roll: [/b]

 

 

 

I don't think you understand freedom Kryptic. You CANNOT be safe without freedom, because whoever is keeping you safe could decide not to in the middle of no where, and without freedom there is nothing to do about it.

 

 

 

Its nice that you can choose freedom over safety sitting confortably in your chair. But every revolution in world history has proven your theory wrong. People have chosen countless times to put themselves in danger to fight for their freedoms. Why should Iraqis rather be oppressed when everywhere else in the world nations have shown that freedom is worth dying for?

 

 

 

Guess your right - but I still think I security is a nescessity in Iraq before you reach on any agreement on freedoms.

[kido14]

 

I have my reasons.

 

 

 

The American Founding fathers have nothing to do with this - and what you say is their opinion is irrelevant.

 

 

 

And how are you going to have freedoms without having your safety ensured first? That makes no sense... You have the freedom/right to mail anyone a letter - but the mail boxes that you need to put the letters in may contain a bomb. :roll: :roll: :roll: [/b]

 

Freedom is important - but safety is even more important. How can you have freedoms when you dont even know if you will be able to come home at night.

 

 

 

Why would you bother saying that Bush is a goof-ball if you aren't going to say why? That's stupid.

 

 

 

I guess it depends on the culture you are brought in. I have been brought up American so I guess I would value freedom more than safety. However he is right about their opinion, and it isn't irrelevant. He is debating your point about safety being more important than freedom.

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.

 

 

 

Freedom is important - but safety is even more important. How can you have freedoms when you dont even know if you will be able to come home at night.

 

 

 

Making a mistake once is one thing - but making several of the same mistakes is another.

 

 

 

Who says you can't have freedom AND safety? Americans do. Bush's intentions were that by getting rid of Sadam, the lives of the people he dictated over would be safer, AND they would have freedom. Whether that worked or not, I can't say; I have little knowledge on the life of a citizen before and after Sadam's reign, and the knowledge I do have is only American media, which contains mostly good outcomes of the war in Iraq.

 

 

 

I never said Bush only made one mistake. Besides how is making a mistake one thing but several different? Everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect. No one makes one mistake and that's it, so I don't know how you can say that. No president is perfect, it just so happens that during Bush's presidency terrorism has become a bigger problem than it has before(to my knowledge).

[Guest GhostRanger]

Guess your right - but I still think I security is a nescessity in Iraq before you reach on any agreement on freedoms.

 

 

 

Which is why Coalition troops haven't left yet.

[mrscrounger]

On Bush

 

 

 

Bush Made the right decision Saddam was terrizing the Kurds and Shiites and Bush went in there to Stop it however the was he stopeed it was wrong in coclusion

 

 

 

Bush made the right decisions but carried them out wrong

[Barihawk]

And Im positive Iraq has money - they have a lot of oil believe it or not.

 

 

 

They have money? I thought you said the US was stealing it all.

 

 

 

And you are making claims based on why President Bush is a goofball. Then when we ask why, you just say "I have reasons." I refuse to take you seriously at all until you explain these reasons.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

They have money? I thought you said the US was stealing it all.

 

 

 

I was just about to say it. :P :roll:

[Kryptic]

And you are making claims based on why President Bush is a goofball. Then when we ask why, you just say "I have reasons." I refuse to take you seriously at all until you explain these reasons.

 

 

 

 

Way to lower yourself down to Elite's level.

 

Oh wait, you were already there. :roll:

 

 

 

You would never have made this in the first place according to what you just said. People have flamed you for 10 pages. You won't reply simply because you do not know. All you care to say is "I know so it's true".

 

 

 

No one cares about what you think if you can't back it up.

 

 

 

Three of many reasons why Bush is a goof-ball..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Sec. 8 (g): "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

 

 

 

&

 

 

 

George W. Bush lied about Iraq's alleged attempt to purchase uranium from the African nation of Niger in order to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

 

 

 

&

 

 

 

The cost of the Iraq War has reached $251billion on March 22nd 2006.

 

 

 

I wonder why Bush would ever invest that much money in a war, when he could invest it in his own country. Why doesnt Bush aid Hurricane Katrina victums, who are still homeless? (I know there are homeless victums from watching Oprah...) Why doesnt Bush invest this money in the 37million people who are living in cities such as Pembroke Illinois, which populates people who have no water, electricity, or any resource for that matter..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Updating/editing the post Occasionally - adding new reasons and such..

[imhomer]

First off Kryptic, thanks for the great post. I bleieve what you say about life being better despite the fact that Bush called the war "Operation Iraqi Freedom". You're completely right about Americans being bombarded by only one side of the story. Just keep the ideas coming man.

 

 

 

On an off-topic post:

 

 

 

Jill Carol (i think that's her name) was released from Iraq recently. For those of you who don't know, she's a journalist that was captured in January I believe. Anyways the extremist Islamic group that captured her (take your pick, hamas, al-qaeda, etc.) gave the government a few days to release all the women suspected of terrorism held in coalition prisons or they would kill her. The government has held with its 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' but pleaded with the group to release her. Along with pleads coming from varied groups such as the US, Muslim clerics, and various human rights groups, she was released alive almost 2 months after the deadline. (Very off topic, she went to my high school and many of my teachers remember her)

 

 

 

Anyways this is a vital point that I think needs to be made: terrorists aren't just some crazy people. They honestly believe in their cause to the point where they will risk their lives to achieve it. It is the same thinking that compels people to serve in the armed forces. They are capable of reason and sympathy and are people too, not just cold-blooded killers. Many terrorists are people with families. So don't just think that they are somehow different from us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I'm on a roll explaining my views on Iraq, I'll continue. A lot of press lately is going towards removing troops from Iraq. I personally didn't support the war in the first place but in this case I side with Colin Powell, former Secretary of State. He said something along the lines of 'Iraq is a pottery shop. You break something in it, you gotta buy it.'

 

 

 

I think that now we are committed to a war in Iraq, we cannot just pull out our forces. History is full of wars where we went in half-assed and didn't follow through. Many people discount this but Iraq is very similar to Vietnam. It's almost in or already in a state of religious civil war and if we pull out, it will further destabalize the area.

 

 

 

In almost every revolution throughout history, there are 3 major stages. At first there is a liberal stage where leaders are willing to passivly change the country. The liberal stage leaders tend to be weaker and are then taken over by the redical stage. The radicals frequently use violence and censorship to maintain their power and country in their own image. The people anger and there is a second revolution and the formation of the Moderate stage. The moderate stage forms which not the strongest but is the most stable stage.

 

 

 

Currently I would put Iraq between the liberal and radical stages. A constitution has been agreed upon but there are (alleged) shiite death squads attacking the sunni minority. If we pull out forces now, the radical forces will take over and possibly make Iraq more dangerous than other countries in the "New Axis of Evil" such as Iran and North Korea, due to it's resentment for the occupation. We need to follow through. If anything we need more troops, more international support, UN peacekeeping troops, anything, but we need to stabalize the nation. We broke Iraq, let's not just sweep it under the rug.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I wonder why Bush would ever invest that much money in a war, when he could invest it in his own country. Why doesnt Bush aid Hurricane Katrina victums, who are still homeless? (I know there are homeless victums from watching Oprah...) Why doesnt Bush invest this money in the 37million people who are living in cities such as Pembroke Illinois, which populates people who have no water, electricity, or any resource for that matter..

 

 

 

I don't know, maybe because there is no such thing as a 'victum'.

 

 

 

**Updating/editing the post Occasionally - adding new reasons and such..

 

 

 

"I'm still searching the internet to come up with more crap."

 

 

 

And I'm not even going there with the 'picture'.

 

You don't even live in America, will you quit complaining about it?

[Kryptic]

I wonder why Bush would ever invest that much money in a war, when he could invest it in his own country. Why doesnt Bush aid Hurricane Katrina victums, who are still homeless? (I know there are homeless victums from watching Oprah...) Why doesnt Bush invest this money in the 37million people who are living in cities such as Pembroke Illinois, which populates people who have no water, electricity, or any resource for that matter..

 

 

 

I don't know, maybe because there is no such thing as a 'victum'.

 

 

 

**Updating/editing the post Occasionally - adding new reasons and such..

 

 

 

"I'm still searching the internet to come up with more crap."

 

 

 

And I'm not even going there with the 'picture'.

 

You don't even live in America, will you quit complaining about it?

 

 

 

Is that all you got tough guy? I thought you would put up a better arguement then pointing out a spelling mistake and bringing out your assumptions again?

 

 

 

Nothing else to say?

 

 

 

Whats wrong with the picture? And I dont need to live in America to complain about it. Thats ignorant.

 

 

 

I expected more from you...

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I expected more from you...

 

 

 

Really?

 

Because at first all I planned on doing was ignoring your ignorance.

 

 

 

I don't need to search the web and quote counter-facts. It's pointless and will just cause more of you quoting nonsense.

 

 

 

If you want to think about it this way, yes you got me. It has reached the point on the 11th page where I no longer feel like putting up with you. Everything you write is wrong, and every real point that you try to make has already been said.

[Kryptic]

I expected more from you...

 

 

 

Really?

 

Because at first all I planned on doing was ignoring your ignorance.

 

 

 

I don't need to search the web and quote counter-facts. It's pointless and will just cause more of you quoting nonsense.

 

 

 

If you want to think about it this way, yes you got me. It has reached the point on the 11th page where I no longer feel like putting up with you. Everything you write is wrong, and every real point that you try to make has already been said.

 

 

 

mhmm... ok you are defeated. Dont post no more.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

mhmm... ok you are defeated. Dont post no more.

 

 

 

Hahaha you just told me to post more.

 

You deserve to get punched in the face.

[Kryptic]

mhmm... ok you are defeated. Dont post no more.

 

 

 

Hahaha you just told me to post more.

 

You deserve to get punched in the face.

 

 

 

Didnt you just say Im ignorant? That you had me beat for 11 pages... whatever - just get out of my thread.

 

 

 

Talking big over a computer doesn't accomplish much.. And I think I it quite clear "DONT POST NO MORE"....

 

 

 

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. :roll:

[jackalope14]

I expected more from you...

 

 

 

Really?

 

Because at first all I planned on doing was ignoring your ignorance.

 

 

 

I don't need to search the web and quote counter-facts. It's pointless and will just cause more of you quoting nonsense.

 

 

 

If you want to think about it this way, yes you got me. It has reached the point on the 11th page where I no longer feel like putting up with you. Everything you write is wrong, and every real point that you try to make has already been said.

 

 

 

mhmm... ok you are defeated. Dont post no more.

 

 

 

I dont think he was admitting defeat. He has gotten tired of putting up with your arguments. We have already seen your cop outs and how your arguments got destroyed at page 2.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I expected more from you...

 

 

 

Really?

 

Because at first all I planned on doing was ignoring your ignorance.

 

 

 

I don't need to search the web and quote counter-facts. It's pointless and will just cause more of you quoting nonsense.

 

 

 

If you want to think about it this way, yes you got me. It has reached the point on the 11th page where I no longer feel like putting up with you. Everything you write is wrong, and every real point that you try to make has already been said.

 

 

 

mhmm... ok you are defeated. Dont post no more.

 

 

 

Kryptic, you were "defeated" about 12 pages ago and anytime someone calls you out you flat out ignore their comments or settle with "that's just what I think" or "I don't feel like giving my reasons." You've done nothing but make baseless assertions for 12 pages and its time to quit.

[Kryptic]

I expected more from you...

 

 

 

Really?

 

Because at first all I planned on doing was ignoring your ignorance.

 

 

 

I don't need to search the web and quote counter-facts. It's pointless and will just cause more of you quoting nonsense.

 

 

 

If you want to think about it this way, yes you got me. It has reached the point on the 11th page where I no longer feel like putting up with you. Everything you write is wrong, and every real point that you try to make has already been said.

 

 

 

mhmm... ok you are defeated. Dont post no more.

 

 

 

Kryptic, you were "defeated" about 12 pages ago and anytime someone calls you out you flat out ignore their comments or settle with "that's just what I think" or "I don't feel like giving my reasons." You've done nothing but make baseless assertions for 12 pages and its time to quit.

 

 

 

Look on page 11, I give some of my reasons.

 

 

 

I dont have anything to prove to you, or anyone else. I know what I believe in personally, and I choose to "cop out", "not giving out reasons" because I dont want this thread turning into what it has turned into.

 

 

 

Guess it's too late, and you nor does anyone else care.

 

 

 

Thread was made for the discussion of Iraq, but someone always has to make it into something else.

 

 

 

Really hope you accomplished something out of the 12 pages of bs.

 

 

 

Someone lock this thread, let it die.

[misterxman]

Locked at author's request.