<p>I like your username choopity. Very unique. :)</p>
<p>To think that we are fighting only “insurgents” who are only trying to gain their “freedom” is false choopity there are terrorists in Iraq most have come from across the border to fight Americans from such places as you mentioned</p>
<p>not to mention the fact that bin laden, saddam and countless other known “terrorists” and dictatorships have been put into place due to US intervention for capitalist motives</p>
<p>It was good for us at the time you can’t argue with that especially because bin laden was friendly at the time and we needed an ally against the Soviets who where a bigger threat. Look we might not be there for the right reasons but it was still right to go in Iraq and if you have any kind of morals you will agree with this.</p>
<p>Because of Iraq, Iran has started to cooperate with us way more than they did before and other countries are taking us more seriously</p>
<p>you missed the boat el commando. my argument is not that bin laden or saddam or whoever did not have their uses at the time, rather conservative ideology that constructs the international as chaotic and needing to be controlled by the U.S. produces unforseen and ultimately deadly effects. consider iraq, when we “fought” to contain iran when saddam first came to power, conservative administrations believed it could control saddam and iraq would be a u.s. ally. however, obviously these predictions proved false.</p>
<p>now consider the current elections in iraq in which the shiites won a land slide victory. while it may seem “democracy” will ring throughout the land, note that iran is also a shiite dominated country and i would not be surprised if in the future, the shiite administration becomes profoundly anti american and will begin to sponsor terrorists. afterall, this is what happened in afghanistan.</p>
<p>and no, it was not right to go into iraq. yes he was a dictator but no, not all the countries in the world are ready for democracy. at least iraq under sadaam had top notch education, health care and relative stability compared to the rest of the middle east. people such as yourself who claim liberals are idealists are in fact the idealists; democracy is not some universally exportable ideal that will work in every country and every instance. democracy, if it comes at all, must be organic… (for example, lebanon before israel invaded).</p>
<p>and wow… your argument about other countries cooperating with us is a blatant lie. what about NK, Syria and Iran not to mention the entirety of the EU save the UK? I will answer your argument when you provide one.</p>
<p>AND also you contradict yourself el commando, if the insurgents are coming from other countries (like Syria) then that disproves your argument about other nations and terrorists group fearing u.s. power post our fireworks display in iraq.</p>
<p>i’m pretty sure internationalism isn’t a true conservative ideological view. I think its more that many Republicans now are looking at the world that way.</p>
<p>And as for the war being about oil. That is just like saying the Civil War was about cotton and the rest of the economy.</p>
<p>and wow… your argument about other countries cooperating with us is a blatant lie. </p>
<p>No its not Im just not sure which country it was</p>
<p>if the insurgents are coming from other countries (like Syria) then that disproves your argument about other nations and terrorists group fearing u.s. power post our fireworks display in iraq.</p>
<p>The nation i cant remember allowed our inspectors in and other concessions and i didnt say all the other countries just one which is a start…</p>
<p>I sense bitterness from the oposition that shows you are losing lol</p>
<p>if you cant provide evidence of your claims, then those claims remain just that… random assertions you make not arguments.</p>
<p>"i’m pretty sure internationalism isn’t a true conservative ideological view. I think its more that many Republicans now are looking at the world that way.</p>
<p>And as for the war being about oil. That is just like saying the Civil War was about cotton and the rest of the economy."</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>" and wow… your argument about other countries cooperating with us is a blatant lie.</p>
<p>No its not Im just not sure which country it was"</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>"if the insurgents are coming from other countries (like Syria) then that disproves your argument about other nations and terrorists group fearing u.s. power post our fireworks display in iraq.</p>
<p>The nation i cant remember allowed our inspectors in and other concessions and i didnt say all the other countries just one which is a start…</p>
<p>I sense bitterness from the oposition that shows you are losing lol"</p>
<p>no.</p>
<p>El,</p>
<p>You need to take a sabbatical and do a little research…really dude.</p>
<p>Handsononthedash (cool sn) has a least thought through his positions–even if I disagree with him in general.</p>
<p>oh and the civil war was about the economy… the south wanted to be able to extend slavery into the territories which is why they seceded in the first place.</p>
<p>NO, thats definitely not true. They may have wanted to extend slavery but not at the expense of an all out war!!! You obviously dont know history…and the crittenden compromise was made to keep the balance of power in the government which the northern states tried to take away…and did which resulted in the north bullying the south</p>
<p>Slavery would be prohibited in all territory of the United States “now held, or hereafter acquired,” north of latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes.(quote fron Crittenden Compromise…you are wrong)</p>
<p>The civil war was started because of a couple factors
- The North imposed a huge tariff on europeans which hurt the south because they needed imports and the North wanted the South to buy from them at exorbatant rates
- The North was receiving 90% of the money to build roads, etc. while the south was forced to use its own state earned money.</p>
<p>why dont you show some proof that people like us better after iraq.</p>
<p>We gain a precious ally in the Middle East, Another democratic government, oil!, and we prove to other countries that we are going to back up what we say (EVERYONE thought there were WMD’s even Kerry…what if their actually had been and we had been attacked…im sure your position on Iraq would have changed)</p>
<p>umm i find this debate kind of lame so this will be the last post from me.</p>
<p>“NO, thats definitely not true. They may have wanted to extend slavery but not at the expense of an all out war!!! You obviously dont know history…and the crittenden compromise was made to keep the balance of power in the government which the northern states tried to take away…and did which resulted in the north bullying the south”</p>
<p>The crittenden compromise prohibited Congress from interfering into slavery matters in what is known as the old south. It was a last ditch effort to stop southern secession… and umm what do you mean by balance of power? you make no sense considering the fact the amount of southern congressmen were deliberately equal to the amount of northern congressmen. (via missouri compromise etc.). The civil war was fought over slavery in the territories… not slavery in the south or north south bullying.</p>
<ol>
<li>you are correct in asserting there were other factors to the war… however, this disproves handsonthedash who asserted that the civil war was not fought only on economic grounds, but also on ideological ones. the crittenden compromise example was used to disprove the idea that the civil war was fought to ban slavery. umm… thanks for the evidence. However, your evidence makes no sense whatever. Considering the tarriff issue between Calhoun and Jackson was a whole 40 years before the civil war, i doubt this played a role at all. </li>
</ol>
<p>" 2) The North was receiving 90% of the money to build roads, etc. while the south was forced to use its own state earned money."</p>
<p>umm ok… i fail to see the relevance of this… and second, where are you getting this statistic?</p>
<p>"why dont you show some proof that people like us better after iraq.</p>
<p>We gain a precious ally in the Middle East, Another democratic government, oil!, and we prove to other countries that we are going to back up what we say"</p>
<p>this is not an answer to my question. this fails to demonstrate that the international community or the world at large respects us more due to iraq. even the iraqi peoples who have polled want the u.s. out. you have also conceded my argument about how democracy in iraq is unstable because empirically, democratic elections in iran lead to shiite majoritarianism that is ANTI AMERICAN.</p>
<p>you have also conceded my examples of the EU, the Middle East, etc.</p>
<p>" (EVERYONE thought there were WMD’s even Kerry…what if their actually had been and we had been attacked…im sure your position on Iraq would have changed)"</p>
<p>precisely my point. we were never attacked by iraq and we did not know for sure there were weapons of mass destruction. furthermore, what we did know is that iraq did not have teh weapon sophistication to launch weapons at the united states. additionally, we never attacked countries that we KNEW FOR SURE had WMDs. NORTH KOREA, SYRIA, have all DECLARED they have either NUCLEAR WEAPONS (the former) or CBWs (the latter)… yet we avoided conflict with those countries… why? why is Iraq so special considering the world was against our invasion yet repeatedly called for action against other rogue nations? Furthermore, EVEN IF Iraq had WMD’s, publicizing a war on Iraq for months and months would only seem to give Iraq time to move it’s weapons to other countries (like Iran… or maybe to Hizballah in Lebanon). this means the war is not only ineffectual and misguided, but also made the situation worse.</p>
<p>ElCommando: We gain a precious ally in the Middle East-</p>
<p>And lose the majority of precious allies around the whole world.</p>
<p>ElCommando: Another democratic government, oil</p>
<p>Was it worth all the precious lives? </p>
<p>ElCommando: And we prove to other countries that we are going to back up what we say</p>
<p>And gain just more enemies.</p>
<p>Do you have any idea how much U.S. (Bush administration) is hated around the world simply because of the war? Honestly, I don’t think U.S. has the right to simply invade other nations, even with a clear justification supported by evidence; Bush administration didn’t even have any concrete evidence. </p>
<p>If U.S. is to invade other nations to spread “democracy,” every other democratic nation has as much right as the U.S. to “free” Iraq. However, no one did. Then which nation is at flaw?–every other democratic nation, or the U.S.?</p>
<p>And lose the majority of precious allies around the whole world.</p>
<p>We didnt LOSE the allies they just didnt back us up in the war…why would another country turn away from the most powerful…why do you think Britain supports us…you say all the other allies are “precious” well Britain backs up everything we do.</p>
<p>NO MORE POSTS THIS IS GETTING GAY</p>
<p>Britain backs up everything we do.</p>
<p>The citizens don’t.</p>
<p>This is ridiculous. First off, all of this talk about losing “international prestige” and alienating our “allies” is crap. WE DID NOT ALIENATE OUR ALLIES THEY ALIENATED US. If any of you anti-war guys have watched the news, you would have known that the Vulkner Report released showed that Saddam Hussein was giving $24billion+ in illegal oil kickbacks to the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, etc. governments in return for a guarantee from them that they would block any American attempt at Iraqi military intervention. That is why people like Chirac, Shroeder, and Putin so “bravely” opposed the war. Not because they thought it was wrong, but BECAUSE THEY WERE PROFITING FROM SADDAM!</p>
<p>And to those who say why Iraq, not NK or Iran, this is why: Saddam violated 16 UN Resolutions. Saddam invaded another country with an attempt to control most of the worlds oil fields. Saddam HAD WMDs and used them in the past, so there is no reason to not believe that he would use them again if he attained them. </p>
<p>And BTW, the country that someone couldn’t remember is LIBYA. Because of what we did in Iraq, Libya renounced it’s WMD program and support for terrorism. </p>
<p>Out.</p>
<p>What are you talking about? If Chirac was a U.S. president, he’d be 10 times better than Bush in dealing with terrorism. What you are saying is pathetic.</p>
<p>Bullrider you owned man that is all completely true good job man i couldnt have said it better myself.</p>
<p>Oh and did you guys here that Saudi Arabia and Syria and others (again i cant remember =( have recently started talking about a democracy BECAUSE OF BUSH and experts are saying they are VERY close to getting one.</p>
<p>How can there be democracy in such countries when it took America itself HUNDREDS of years to get it. Democracy doesnt occur in matters of days, you know.</p>
<p>Hey dont tell me go tell the experts…and besides people who say democracy isnt meant for some parts of the world are dumb…we forced it here they will have to force it their…lol it didnt take us HUNDREDS of year…it took us only like 50 years from the last colony being settled…its different for us you know we had to come here the Arabs arent going anywhere soon.</p>
<p>So are you saying the arabs arent civilized? They follow Islam which is a very strict religion. They do not need any help from Americans to form a “democracy.” Bush should think of improving America itself more and less of improving the Middle East.</p>
<p>It’s about oil.</p>