G$f3arl3ssG$
Cadet
yea that's why we suck at the whole uniting thing.
how do you come to that conclusion?G$f3arl3ssG$ said:i hate republicans 'nuff said. davis is being blamed for the loss of money on california's budget, but i say it was bush's fault in the first place...grrr....
Exactly!Existentialist said:oints to Cherry: Yeah, what she said! :lol:crazy spinster said:okay, i just got here and i've been spending a most of the time reading back a bit and can i just say - ENOUGH WITH THE FRIGGIN' QUOTES. please edit. it makes it easier on the eyes. thank you.
as for whether the war is actually over or not - that's up for a matter of debate. the major fighting is over, but there are still skirmishes everyday, soldiers are still getting killed because they're over there doing something that they weren't trained for. they're soldiers, NOT policemen and they shouldn't be used as such.
and while i've been reading back, i've only heard one or two mentions of the WMD (weapons of mass destruction). in my opinion, those were the very foundation of going to war with iraq. i've said it before and i'll say it again - calling the war "operation: iraqi freedom" was a COMPLETE misnomer. bush's primary purpose was to find those WMDs and destroy them. the fact that they have found NONE whatsoever does a lot to shake his credibility as a president (not that he had much to begin with, in my opinion). the fact that he tried to brush this off onto the CIA shows poor leadership. when the bay of pigs occurred, kennedy didn't try to point fingers at the CIA; he took responsibility for the incident himself as a good president should.
so it's starting to look as if this war happened for no good reason. yes, good did come out of it with saddam gone, but the main reason i was so opposed to this war was because it sets an extremely bad precedent for the rest of the world. we launched a pre-emptive strike on another country with circumstantial evidence that's starting to look more and more imaginary. what's to stop, say, india and pakistan from going at one another? heck, the U.S. did it, why can't we? we think the other side has WMDs that could hurt us, so let's just go ahead and wipe them out then go look for these supposed weapons.
blah, i know i'm repeating the argument i made months ago, but my argument is even stronger now that we're realizing that these WMDs -bush's reasons for going to war - may not have even existed in the first place.
so the main question you have to ask yourself is: why did we even go to war in the first place? yes, the iraqis have been "liberated" but that was just a "side effect." bush's primary intention was to get rid of those WMDs which is impossible because they most likely did not exist. the fact that he dethroned a dictator and "freed" the iraqi people was just a bonus for him, in my opinion.
and now that everyone has left and the major debating has finished, i will post this long-ass response. late, as usual, cherry.
And didn't I say before that the only way this war would be justified for me is if Saddam was killed and WMD were found? Well... it seems that neither has been done... but a whole lot of people sure have died.
Basically, all I have to add is that since when is the US the world police? The US shouldn't feel the need to fix every since problem in the world. That's why I bought up the alarmingly high rate of illiteracy in Georgia. And yes, more tax dollars SHOULD go towards education. I think education is really quite important... don't you?
but who are we to impose our form of government on another country? just because democracy works for us doesn't mean it will work for everyone and we have no right to force another country to accept it.Milo47 said:the US is just staying over there to protect the citizens of Iraq from terrorists who are still to this day living there and attacking the US Troops. Democracy will work, the Iraqi people and the US and other nations must fight for them in order for the Tyranny to fall and for them to get back up on their feet.
Your post takes the cake as the dumbest thing said....G$f3arl3ssG$ said:i hate republicans 'nuff said. davis is being blamed for the loss of money on california's budget, but i say it was bush's fault in the first place...grrr....
HAHAHA!!!!!!! I'm lovin' that one!!!!!AliasHombre said:Your post takes the cake as the dumbest thing said....G$f3arl3ssG$ said:i hate republicans 'nuff said. davis is being blamed for the loss of money on california's budget, but i say it was bush's fault in the first place...grrr....
pOuring money into education doesn't do anything. That has been proven once and again.Existentialist said:[And yes, more tax dollars SHOULD go towards education. I think education is really quite important... don't you?