Lumpy, the reason we don’t solve the world’s problems by invading everyone and changing the world to a democracy is becuase we live in one. It’s hard to get the public support up to go in and fix the problems in Africa, for instance. Most Americans look at the situation over there and think it’s aweful and tragic but who’s willing to put there neck out for a part of the world that largely has no impact on us. It has little to do with morality, instead the American people and its leaders have to make difficult choices of where to spend our blood and treasure and administrations will only do so when there is a measure of public support. And generally, public suport is only available when the folks think there is a threat to the homeland. Despite what liberals say, a majority of US citizens supported action in Iraq because they beleived Saddam either was a threat or would be in the future.
America and every other country’s domestic policy is based on their individual intersts abroad. Imagine that, only sending people to fight and die when American interests are at stake.
There, I’m sure you are now completely convinced and plan to join the young Republican’s club.
it’s so funny that the bleeding hearts have only complaints about doing so much good for so many people. and complaints about doing bad to bad people. what is their true intent here? to hate on the republicans at any cost? even going so far as aid and comfort to the enemy? (yes, that’s what you liberals do when you say all this untrue crap…it gives the enemy hope that maybe if they kill a few more americans they can win.)
and i love the stats that say something like “30% of iraqies don’t want america there.” that 30% is the people that had power under sadam! of course they don’t want america there!
i think once the people get a real good taste of their freedom and all that, they will want to defend their freedom.
but shit, we didn’t solve everything in a matter of months, so the liberals think it’s all a failure.
“The fact is that we have not achieved any of the objectives in Iraq, except one: Saddam is no longer in power.”
Wasn’t that the objective after all, to get rid of him because he posed a danger. I know, I know, he didn’t pose a threat to anyone, and you and every other liberal knew that before hand (except Clinton when he was in office).
Tme,
Islamists won’t get control in Iraq. The Shiites there are too historically moderate, and have a leader who can strongly voice anti-American criticism without Iranian-style religious law. Also, the women there are used to too many rights to let their society be taken over by Islamism.
On the other hand, the US screwing up could lead to a civil war in Iraq with Islamists involved, and on the whole, an anti-American populace for years to come.
Morg, remember, to the liberals we’re only doing all this good becaue we have alterior motives, so it doesn’t really count. And another nice little comeback is that why are we doing all this in the first place when Iraq will fall to the hands of the Islamic militants anyway. Of course, the Isalmic militatnts aren’t really so bad, it’s the evils of the west that piss of these folks.
The consistency is clear if you look for it. The bad people will win in the end and they’re not really that bad anyway. An even if they are bad, they wouldn’t be bad if America didn’t make them bad ('cause we made Bin Laden and Saddam, they were nice before we got to them). And even if they are bad without America making them bad, who’s to say what bad is anyway.
i love how these political discussions get boiled down to the most simple terms: “liberals are idiots”, “republicans are evil”, “bill clinton is a liar”, etc.
to both sides, US politics are more complex than any single person can fathom, and much more complex than any single post can convey. it’s a bad idea to consistently argue along party lines because in the end the debate becomes “red vs. blue” and all the real substance gets tossed around to prove some retarded argument.
lumpy, i completely understand what you mean by being misled by bush and i get the same vibe from this administration. however, i dont think the country/administration should conduct policy based on polls. if the administration where to follow polls, then those who control the media would be those who control the country.
maybe it comes down to “liberals are idiots” because some idiot liberal posts something retarded. just something to think about.
and if larryalavender’s reponse was 3rd grade, then you liberals must still be in pre-school (i’d say that’s being nice).
i’m sick of the “bush is a liar and deceived us” crap. our country’s intelligence was not the only one that found the info we did. the whole “wmd” thing was based on british intelligence and they stood by their info. seems that sadam’s people lied to sadam about what they had. there were all sorts of things they had in iraq that would indicate wmd’s…why would they have that if there were none? but BUSH is the one that lied! hah.
that’s not even mentioning the fact that if something is well hidden, it can take a REALLY long time to find…if they find it at all. someone would have to say where they were anyway.
didn’t sadam have weapons he shouldn’t have anyway?
Polls are easily manipulated and tells more about who conducted them than anything.
I agree we’d all be better off ignoring the hype in mainstream media, be it from any side and spend some time reading.
Such intelligent comments such as “liberal morons” are in the same vein as “muscleheads are idiots.”
Its probably not realistic to hope people would actually research a topic before spewing meaningless garbage… nevertheless to continue in dialog is better than retreating to a hermit lair.