I guess this argument is done, so let's change the topic...
...On Ron Paul.
Basically, are his policies good?
I mean what he says about the economy, government (spending/size), and upholding the Constitution. Also, what about his position on foreign policy?
I haven't really decided on him, but what he said today (on Glenn Beck) is that if the U.S. leaves the Middle East, the countries will not attack the U.S. (or Israel) because they have strong militaries(sp?). I can see where he's coming from, but I don't know if that's actually going to happen.
The decision to attack Iraq for the reasons given has already contributed
to Bush being, unarguably, termed one of the worst presidents in the
history of the United States. Every day young men are dying in Iraq because
of his decision.
No, the United States will not win. This is mainly because we are not "fighting." US troops are stained throughout Iraq but no strong offensive plans are in place. In my opinion, you're either all in or you stay home. Since we're "half-in", young troops are prone to getting blown up in daily bombings.
Was it justified? I don't know, I do not have access to military
intelligence, nor do I have the desire to read it if I did. And it doesn't
really matter any more. I do believe, knowing what i do know, something
really needed to be done, but I think it could have used a little better
planing, but military force was probably inevitable either way.
Will we win? I believe so, unless Hillary becomes president. It would help if we were able to really fight instead of pussyfooting around, but recently there has been good news, and it appears we may have finally gained the upper hand. It will still take a long time before anything is close to normal over there, but I think it is possible.
While your statements are not entirely without merit, your opinions are not
supported by evidence.
1. Some of the reasons that our country decided to invade Iraq were in fact flawed. However, to blame the president for using what was believed to be the best intelligence possible in his decision making is ignorant. Former president Clinton and most of the House and Senate also had this information and agreed with his decision. This intelligence came not only from US sources but Great Britain, France and Germany to name a few. The only people who believe President Bush is "unarguably" one of the worst presidents in American history, are those that get all their "news and information” from CNN and their ilk or have something to gain by denigrating his character.
2. Every day more young American men die in Detroit or DC than in Iraq. That is a fact, but I don’t hear you complaining about it. The funny thing about freedom is that it comes at a high price. I’m happy and proud to be lucky enough to live in a country where young men and women are willing to pay the ultimate price for a cause larger than themselves. You are able sit at home or school speaking freely and passing judgment because you live in a country that is safe and free because of the sacrifice of others now and in the past. I gave 23 years to my country, my wife is still active duty and my son is soon to enlist in the Navy. What have you done for your country lately?
3. The United States will prevail. The reason we are “not fighting” or “all in” is because the population of the United States generally doesn’t have the stomach for it. We as a group are pussies, more concerned about Britney and K-Fed than we are about important world events. You now have a Democratically controlled legislature that is doing everything in their power to make sure we loose by cutting funding. And because people like you buy into their agenda, if we loose it’ll be because of decisions that you’ve empowered them to make. Congratulations.
4. Once again the facts don’t support your opinion. American GI’s are still dying, but at a tremendously reduced rate. The surge is working. Every day progress is being made. I would love for them all to be able to come home right now. I don’t want my wife to have to go back again and I don’t want my son to have to go at all. But the thing is that even in this “all about me” world that people like you live in, where the bad guys are looked on as good guys and the good guys are considered villains, the US is the country everyone looks to for help and to make the world a better place. It’s not always easy, but it’s the right thing to do.
I’m pretty sure that if you actually take an unbiased look at the facts you’ll substantially rethink your position. I know that at your age, especially being indoctrinated at college, you honestly believe that being anti-war and anti-establishment is smart. But without previous wars and the blood of great Americans in the past, we couldn’t even have this exchange right here. And the war we’re in right now will help not only to ensure that freedom for you, your children and their children, but also people in another part of the world that you’ll never get the chance to meet.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
How can you have an argument thread without flaming? The two just....happen
where an agument at CF ensues, lol. Also, I'm a bit nervous about cleaning
threads now. Just incase...:ohcrap:
As for my opinion on what's happening in Iraq...I don't know much about it really, so I appologise if what follows is a tad on the ignorant side. I think war as a whole is a necessary evil that will never simply go away, whether that makes it right is another matter. I don't agree with any war (especially flame war :wink2:), but steps have to be taken to stand up for ourselves.
One of the reasons that I have decided to post in this thread is to hear
other's opinions on the matter. When the war in Iraq just started, I was a
tad too young (still fairly young) to understand politics in a manner that
is necessary to completely and unbiasedly comprehend the war. Therefore, I
am willing to learn anything new along the way.
I must admit that the media portrays the president and the decision to attack Iraq even more negatively than it really is. In learning that the president's decision to attack Iraq was so largely supported by the government of this country, and others, I must admit that my bashing Bush was wrong. However, I still do not think that the decision to attack Iraq was correct. Moreover, the reasons FOR attacking Iraq were completely incorrect. Weapons of mass destruction? Where are they then? Overthrow a dictator? But how many of them are there to overthrow throughout the world? Al Queda? They're not in Iraq. So, why are we in war again?
There is no denying that America is the best country in the world when it comes to freedom, living, and opportunities. There is also no denying that war is a necessary price to pay for living free. I give my utmost respect to every soldier of this country, including yourself, your wife, and your son, for doing what I am both incapable and unwilling to do. However, I think that it is a stronger reason to not start the war in Iraq. I am not denying that war is necessary, but I do think that it can sometimes be avoided. Can you honestly tell me that the US would be much worse off today if we had not went to the Middle East? I know that there are deaths everywhere in bad neighborhoods, but isn't 50 deaths better than 75?
I do not think that the US will lose the war. Our forces are considerably stronger. However, I just don't think the US can win the war outright either. We have now reached a point where we are neither willing to completely fight nor are we able to simply withdraw. I think we can, at least, both agree that we should all stop being pussies and be "all in". Perhaps this would also limit the deaths of our soldiers.
That is great news and I hope we can achieve that. However, can you say that (in the near future) we can achieve full victory and withdraw? I am not asking you in a rhetorical, stubborn matter, but more as just an opinion question. I remember reading in the newspaper somewhat recently that the US has decided to employ even more troops to fight in Iraq.[/QUOTE]
I do not think that my position is very dogmatic. It is possible that I will re-think my position substantially over the the next period of time. I don't think that it is smart to always be anti-war or anti-establishment, but I do think that if it's possible to save lives by avoiding a war, it's not a bad idea. While fighting is something that must happen, I once again ask how much worse of we would be (both the US and other specific countries) if we did not invade Iraq in this war? Regardless, I offer my utmost respect to every person that fights so that we (and others such as the in-my-opinion-beyond-stupid Michael Moore) can discuss this in an open manner.
Perhaps you'd be surprised to know, then, that it is possible to have a difference of opinion without an open fight/flame war, provided that both sides do not say the most ignorant points possible. Don't clean the thread.
I don't intend to do much cleaning, don't worry. However, in my experience here at CF, I have come to realise that wherever there's an open discussion, something is said that somebody else doesn't agree with and the flames begin. :laughing:
This message has been brought to you by your friendly Military Industrial Complex.
where do you think he got it?
He's probably got stock in haliburton
Just a guess but...maybe by going to school, learning his trade, starting his trade, and being good at it?
I meant his message, not his trade.
First off, hobo, I want to thank your wife and son for what they are doing.
They are true heroes, and I can't thank them enough. I'm sure it's hard on
them and you.Yeah, I'm the same on lack of knowledge. Up until 2003 or so I
was for the war because of what people around me and on TV were saying, and
then until 2005 I was against Bush in general because of what people would
say (including teachers). Then for some reason, I started reading more and
paying more attention--Still know very little though.Saddam DID have WMD.
Southern Regional Commander under Hussein, Al-Tikriti recently said that
Iraq did have the weapons, and Russia helped to smuggle them out just prior
to the initial invasion. Also, don't forget that Saddam also supported
terrorism, and he was responsible for the death of something like 1,000,000
of his own people (and even more Iranians). He himself was a weapon of mass
destruction.Yes, I do think that the US would be worse off today had they
not attacked. Way back in 1999, people still feared chemical attacks...From
Usama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (they were in talks back then). People
dying to protect the rest of us is tragic, and they truly are heroes, but
you have to realize that they are there for a reason. If the enemy is not
being fought there, they're being fought here.I can't see the US winning
like in WWII, because of the type of enemy that they are fighting. The
enemy is not a whole country or a region, but rather several not too
closely tied groups of people. However, the military has done most of the
work that they can. The rest depends on the Iraqi government. The surge is
making progress (especially in recent days), and Al Qaeda has been
virtually removed from Baghdad. I think victory for the Iraqi people would
be them having a democratic government and freedom and safety comparable to
the rest of the world. The Iraqi government needs to do their part too,
though.I can't say that I've heard anything about deploying more troops. I
thought that there weren't enough troops, actually.
bbaddog, please don't tell me you're part of the Ron Paul rEVILution.
ok, I won't
I will say that active Military personnel contribute more money to Ron Paul's campaign than any other occupation classification ....
I can't understand how he makes so much money, and has so little support compared to everyone else.
he doesn't make so much money when compared to candidates that are financed
by special interest groups. But the highest percentage of his
contributions come from active and veteran military employees.
Is that the only thing you Ron Paul people have? I just heard the same thing from like 3 different people today. good grief! does that mean he can run a country?
I know he does. All of his money (excepts for a couple grand) comes from
individuals (click here
disclosure). What I meant was that I can't see how that's possible when
he's polling under 10% for Republicans. I agree with every one of his
policies, and his record, excepts for his foreign policy, which is both
overly simplistic and outright dangerous.
I can't stand Ron Paul supporters though. Every single poll with Ron Paul in it, you guys (I'm throwing all of you into one group) bomb it and make it so that 90% of the people support Ron Paul. I do respect how organized you all are though lol.
Hobo's gonna rape you now :laughing:
I've never voted for Ron Paul in a poll.
So you support him? Alright, I didn't mean that for all Ron Paul supporters, but there are a lot of people who support him who spam the internets lol.
I don't if I'd say I support him quite yet, but he says alot of things that I like.
i don't think anyone is going to take a jab from the friendly local brokedick tire repair expert too seriously...:2cents:
Alright, new argument. Mods can delete this thread, in 48 hours-->Thursday
evening, just in case anyone has anything else to throw in.
Also, does anyone have suggestions for new arguments? I don't think this one will last too long.
Pirates VS. Ninjas
damn thats a tough one......cant spell Pirate without Irate so im votin for the pirate at this stage in the game