“paul bunyan wrote:
I’m sorry to have to say something that has probably been repeated here a million times. But Iraq was invaded for no reason whatsoever. Bush and Cheney lied, we all know this. So why do republicans always bring up something that they should be trying desperatly to have people forget. There are just so many different angles in which the Iraq war was incredibly wrong. And please, someone explain to me how the bush buddies (cheney,rumsfeld, ect) can claim to be spreading democracy by taking out Hussein, when they were the ones who helped him out in the 80s.”
I have a serious question: Why do people send posts like this?
Let’s take one talking point. Imagine if paul was correct about us “helping out hussein.”
In order to accept that premise, you would have to look past the FACT that the United States was not the number one supplier of weapons to hussein. I think we were number eight if memory serves. Guess what? It was our pals the Germans who have that dubious honor.
For the sake of argument, let’s look past this. If we are culpable in hussein’s rise, doesn’t it behoove us to accept responsibility and remove the error?
So I think a better, more honest explanation is that liberals really don’t want a neutral government - they want a government that promotes the social values they like. Tolerance and social egalitarianism are values just like anything else, and when the government is used to try and promote these values, it ceases being neutral.
But don’t take that the wrong way - I thought it was a good post.[/quote]
-Your revised definition is a little unfair. You make it sound like only the liberals support these values.
-Tolerance and egalitarianism are, or should be, universal social values. How anybody can be against them is beyond me. So, in that respect, I guess the government should not be neutral. Although, it really should be a non-issue.
-Would some of the conservatives, or anybody, on this board care to explain why these would not be considered universal values?
Please give some examples of where tolerance and social egalitarianism would not fit in with the conservative viewpoint. I would be interested in hearing what the “other side” has to say about this.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
All in all he was a decent president, however I get turned off by the ignorant hero worship that you still hear today.
Sure – now tell me: do you believe you are equally objectively critical of GWB?[/quote]
Absolutely. What I am not objective about is our troops. I support them 100%. I will not bad mouth a mission when they are in the middle of it.
I realize Bush is a politician and has bent the truth just like his political opponents. I believe he did it because he thought deposing Saddam was important to the long term security of our nation and not to steal the oil.
I believe the Democrats are bending the truth for pure political gain.
Many mistakes have been made in the War on Terror and in other areas. Just like every predident before him has made many mistakes.
I’m sorry to have to say something that has probably been repeated here a million times. But Iraq was invaded for no reason whatsoever. Bush and Cheney lied, we all know this. So why do republicans always bring up something that they should be trying desperatly to have people forget. There are just so many different angles in which the Iraq war was incredibly wrong. And please, someone explain to me how the bush buddies (cheney,rumsfeld, ect) can claim to be spreading democracy by taking out Hussein, when they were the ones who helped him out in the 80s.
[/quote]
PB, I realize you are a young kid and are against the war, but you really need to learn the subject material before you post if you want to be taken seriously.