I didn't say Canada had no defense... I said less.
The more weapons you have, the more you are looked upon for help, and then when you need to use them to defend your own country and people, the world looks on it as a bad thing. Overall, the US is hated for defending its people. Surprising to me that this war is more justified than vietnam, but it feels about the same.
No, war is never good. How do you avoid a war when people believe they should kill you? Just let them? exactly.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 11th, 2004 at 09:50 PM
I do get that, but people in the world don't get Saddam. He knew the world would be mad at the US no matter what, so he wasn't going to comply, thinking the US would never believe him. He was given a choice to leave power, but he likes things the hard way.
So you are saying that Saddam would never give terrorists weapons in the future if he was still in power? It would just be a matter of time. Saddam isn't too friendly with the US. The world doesn't really care that Saddam was a huge part of wars in the MiddleEast for 10 years.
You also can't prove they did or didn't have WMDs... yet.
I feel it's a good thing Saddam Hussein is out of power... pretty much the only positive thing to come out of the war. But I still disagree with the war because so far the negative aspects outweigh the positive aspects. I'll have to see what the next 4 years brings before I can decide for sure whether I believe Bush handled Iraq in the correct way... so far the answer is no.
That is what I say. The negative aspect is that there is no power holder. The terrorists are now after the US troops in Iraq. I say it is still positive because they are more occupied with our troops than planning to hit the US here. Selfish? No, thankful.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 11th, 2004 at 10:49 PM
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
He was given a choice to leave power, but he likes things the hard way.
What gives the US the interntional right to invade a country that has done nothing to them? And don't say it was a preventive strike because there was no proof that Sadam was going to do anthing.
You also can't prove they did or didn't have WMDs... yet.
Doesn't it scsare you that you've been there this long and you still have to put a "yet" at the end of that sentence.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
kingcoot: I'd say the negative aspects are the fact that we basically spit on our allies, Iraq is still a hornets nest, and over US 1000 soldiers have died, not to mention the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. The positive aspects are Saddam Hussein, the blood thirsty dictator (who was also supposedly responsible for suicide bombs in Israel) is out of power, and not to sound greedy but wars generate jobs. So far the positives aren't worth the negatives to me seeing that it seems as if we aren't getting any closer to being done with this war.
Kharma dog: It is too early to say whether there are any WMD's yet. Don't call game over quite yet. Iraq isn't as small as you think. Think about how hard it is to find something the size of a car in a country the size of New York, now add the fact that people shoot at the soldiers where ever they go and try to blow up their vehicles. I'm not ready to say there was or wasn't WMD's yet, because if there was and we haven't found them yet that really wouldn't surprise me.
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
Do you not think that if Iraq had wmd's we either would have found them by now, or at least some info regarding their existance? Somebody would have said something by now for the cash that the CIA iwould surley be offering them.
If there was any chemical weapons around I am sure that the insurgents would have used them by now. If they are willing to cut the heads of innocent people I am sure that they would use chemical agents on soldiers.
But none of that has happened yet, because there was none.
It was widely acknowledged that Sadam had no wmd's in february and July 2001, and this invasion has proved it.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
Kharma: I'd have to say at this point and time it doesn't look like Iraq had WMD's, but it's not really a valid statement to make yet. Yeah, I do think the Iraqis are capable of hiding the weapons from the US for this long. Did they? Probably not, but nobody knows for sure yet.
i was in nyc yesterday and there was an anti-bush rally. it was awesome. i personally think that we are royally screwed for the next for years, more death, more destruction and more dick cheney...god help us all
__________________ And a time for every purpose, under heaven
A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time for peace, I swear it’s not too late
NYC is very biased in thinking about any republicans, Rudy? He's just the mayor. I just got done seeing Conan O'Brian. Really doesn't express what we believe around here.
Oh yeah, hate (Anti) rallies are always going to make the parties come together. Good job (some) New Yorkers. Great negativity. Now the job will be harder for President Bush. Really constructive.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 12th, 2004 at 01:55 PM
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
I don't think that Bush is too concerned with who likes him and who hates him. Those ralies are neither constructive or destructive. Actually, and sadly, they don't really mean anything at all to this president or administration.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
That is something a leader has to do, or he is consumed like Bill Clinton. He got depressed because he felt alot of people didn't like him. He suffered in health because he took everything people said about him seriously.
You might think Bush is uncaring. He is looking at the big picture for the better economy and jobs, not this very year. The turnaround is beginning to start from what he did 2 years ago. The economy always has a slow turn around. Think about a Huge object flying at a fast rate and it has to slow down, stop, and go the other way. It takes years.
You are wrong about anti rallies not being destructive. They will keep those narrow views of politics and people will get the urge to kill. Not good at all. It doesn't matter what Bush thinks, the people won't control their anger presidentially.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 12th, 2004 at 02:02 PM
yeah, what do new yorkers know right? only had to deal with the largest terrorist attack in u.s. history...but why should they have any say. leave it up to the armchair patriots of iowa to judge the rest of the country.
just think posative, ignore any negative issues, and everything will work out man...*puffs on hash pipe*
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
You think Bush cares what people think? The entire WORLD opposed the iraqi war, but Bush met his own agenda anyway.
The economy is changing, because the economy always improves during war time. Hence the papers, books and studies about "War time economies".
You speak of narrow views, it is not just the anti bush people who have narrow views. Actually, if they are angry because they are looking past the current situation and see what is developing, then I would say their views are far from narrow.
Their execution of protest may be unhelpful, but their views are not narrow.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
yeah that makes perfect sence. protesting is dangerous. perhaps it should be outlawed? perhaps any feelings of dissatisfaction with our government should also be outlawed?
No, don't outlaw protesting, but you know what an angry mob of people can do right? I'm saying there is a better chance for anger to vent into something bigger.
The world thinks poorly of the future especially when the US is leading them there. The world has different priorities than the majority of US voters. The world can't inflict it's will on the majority of Americans. It is supposed to be a democracy without interferance with outside countries. It isn't the United states and other Countries against the US of America. The world had no say in the war for Iraq. The US Congress voted for it.
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
The world had no say in the war for Iraq. The US Congress voted for it.
Exactly.
The world can't inflict it's will on the majority of Americans.
Nor should they, but Bush should not inflict his will on other countries.
What you seem to be subtly saying here is "Might makes right" and that America can dictate global policies and the rest of the world better learn to deal with it. I sure hope you don't actually believe that.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
KMC Community Forums
Nov 11th, 2004 09:44 PM
