Strong opinions.

[lazyJman2603]

please, no matter what your political affiliation, read this. Insult me, attack me, do whatever. I must state my opinion. I recently posted this in a forum on another website, so there might be a few things unrelated to the topic buried within, though I tried to remove them.

Attention Liberals and other Kerry supporters. Bush has viewpoints. You have viewpoints. You are both wrong at times and both right at times. Neither of you are stupid for your beliefs. And if you think it is right to degrade people with beliefs opposite yours, you are undoing everything modern society is based on. If you think that having someone elected is a bad idea, go on and go live under a king and see how long your peace goes there. We are blessed to live in a world where a war does not mean you always have to fear for your life. You are lucky to live at a time where your differences dont get you killed. And if you say "Oh the war is killing more soldiers every day, and Bush is killing innocents there," I have a story to tell you.

There was a small town in a country. A little girl was walking down the street and a car pulled up. Some men got out of the car and pulled her in, screaming. A few days later, she was dumped on the street. Everyone knew what the men had done to her, and she was no longer allowed to be part of their religion, their society, nothing. She was outcast. All because some of a dictator's men raped her. And all you can do is sit around in your climate controlled homes sitting at your computers talking about how one man is killing off innocents? No. I will not stand for it.

[lazyJman2603]

Anyone care to comment?

[lazyJman2603]

If you are afraid to comment just go ahead and say it. I will not flame or violently respond to anyone's opinion.

[Sonya Khatsworth]

One girl's story is one thing, but the american bomb that landed in a grade school in iraq is another thing.

Problem is, dictatorship and democracy both have their problems and sadly, we don't see that many good dictators because power corrupts and when you're a dictator, you get lots of it.

If any country was blessed with a good man in a dictatorial system, it wouldn't really need any help, it just depends who's on the throne. Same goes for democracy. The system might allow us to vote for someone, but that doesn't necessarily mean the right person is going to win. there are some instances where a total dumb-arse can be put up to power, and they have to live with it afterwards.

The right way to do things would be to get rid of a bad dictator whilst still keeping civilian casualties at a minimum, something people can forget when they're at war. Just because you're fighting for the "good" side doesn't mean you have to start killing anyone, anywhere untill you reach your goal. neutral

As for my political standpoint, I think both Kerry and Bush were bad choices to begin with.

[speez]

DoomNeko

One girl's story is one thing, but the american bomb that landed in a grade school in iraq is another thing.

Problem is, dictatorship and democracy both have their problems and sadly, we don't see that many good dictators because power corrupts and when you're a dictator, you get lots of it.

If any country was blessed with a good man in a dictatorial system, it wouldn't really need any help, it just depends who's on the throne. Same goes for democracy. The system might allow us to vote for someone, but that doesn't necessarily mean the right person is going to win. there are some instances where a total dumb-arse can be put up to power, and they have to live with it afterwards.

The right way to do things would be to get rid of a bad dictator whilst still keeping civilian casualties at a minimum, something people can forget when they're at war. Just because you're fighting for the "good" side doesn't mean you have to start killing anyone, anywhere untill you reach your goal. neutral

As for my political standpoint, I think both Kerry and Bush were bad choices to begin with.

But... we are keeping civilian casualties at a minimum.... I don't see how we are not. There's no real way to keep civilians 100% safe, but since we are not going out and targeting them, and we are trying to stop the people who do that (as we have already stopped the guy who did that more then anyone else). More Iraqi's are kidnapped then foreigners by insurgents...

and that one story... is a timid version of thousands of stories... Sadam had fun things like rape rooms and secrete police that pulled familes out in the middle of the night and bashed the child's head in till they died while the parents watch just to make the survivors do what Sadam wanted them to do.

[Sonya Khatsworth]

speez

DoomNeko

One girl's story is one thing, but the american bomb that landed in a grade school in iraq is another thing.

Problem is, dictatorship and democracy both have their problems and sadly, we don't see that many good dictators because power corrupts and when you're a dictator, you get lots of it.

If any country was blessed with a good man in a dictatorial system, it wouldn't really need any help, it just depends who's on the throne. Same goes for democracy. The system might allow us to vote for someone, but that doesn't necessarily mean the right person is going to win. there are some instances where a total dumb-arse can be put up to power, and they have to live with it afterwards.

The right way to do things would be to get rid of a bad dictator whilst still keeping civilian casualties at a minimum, something people can forget when they're at war. Just because you're fighting for the "good" side doesn't mean you have to start killing anyone, anywhere untill you reach your goal. neutral

As for my political standpoint, I think both Kerry and Bush were bad choices to begin with.

But... we are keeping civilian casualties at a minimum.... I don't see how we are not. There's no real way to keep civilians 100% safe, but since we are not going out and targeting them, and we are trying to stop the people who do that (as we have already stopped the guy who did that more then anyone else). More Iraqi's are kidnapped then foreigners by insurgents...

and that one story... is a timid version of thousands of stories... Sadam had fun things like rape rooms and secrete police that pulled familes out in the middle of the night and bashed the child's head in till they died while the parents watch just to make the survivors do what Sadam wanted them to do.

I'm not saying pulling out Saddam is a bad thing, just that any system has it's evils. And as for civilian casualties in Iraq, a lot could have been prevented if they didn't jsut drop bombs assuming they'd hit bad people. To put it simple, 50% chance of hitting the civilian, 50% chance of hitting badguy. How can it be any mroe right to gamble people's lives than jsut outright wiping them? The army should have gathered more info and/or used better targeting in their attack. Also, Saddam was put there BY americans in the first place, so in a way they're also responsible for the bad things he was able to do neutral

[Sotek]

Bumping in ED is a no-no.


Furthermore, you present no evidence whatsoever that Bush is doing a damn thing to change that circumstance you cited.


Anecdotes are not statistics or evidence. Anecdotes are simply anecdotes.

[speez]

DoomNeko

speez

DoomNeko

One girl's story is one thing, but the american bomb that landed in a grade school in iraq is another thing.

Problem is, dictatorship and democracy both have their problems and sadly, we don't see that many good dictators because power corrupts and when you're a dictator, you get lots of it.

If any country was blessed with a good man in a dictatorial system, it wouldn't really need any help, it just depends who's on the throne. Same goes for democracy. The system might allow us to vote for someone, but that doesn't necessarily mean the right person is going to win. there are some instances where a total dumb-arse can be put up to power, and they have to live with it afterwards.

The right way to do things would be to get rid of a bad dictator whilst still keeping civilian casualties at a minimum, something people can forget when they're at war. Just because you're fighting for the "good" side doesn't mean you have to start killing anyone, anywhere untill you reach your goal. neutral

As for my political standpoint, I think both Kerry and Bush were bad choices to begin with.

But... we are keeping civilian casualties at a minimum.... I don't see how we are not. There's no real way to keep civilians 100% safe, but since we are not going out and targeting them, and we are trying to stop the people who do that (as we have already stopped the guy who did that more then anyone else). More Iraqi's are kidnapped then foreigners by insurgents...

and that one story... is a timid version of thousands of stories... Sadam had fun things like rape rooms and secrete police that pulled familes out in the middle of the night and bashed the child's head in till they died while the parents watch just to make the survivors do what Sadam wanted them to do.

I'm not saying pulling out Saddam is a bad thing, just that any system has it's evils. And as for civilian casualties in Iraq, a lot could have been prevented if they didn't jsut drop bombs assuming they'd hit bad people. To put it simple, 50% chance of hitting the civilian, 50% chance of hitting badguy. How can it be any mroe right to gamble people's lives than jsut outright wiping them? The army should have gathered more info and/or used better targeting in their attack. Also, Saddam was put there BY americans in the first place, so in a way they're also responsible for the bad things he was able to do neutral

I would not say we hava a 50/50 record in Iraq. I would ask that claim backed up, as we had beter then that in Gulf War I, and we're reportedly even beter by leaps and bounds now.

And you're right. Sadam was supported by both the US and the USSR to one degree or another for a long time. But that was because we feared Iran becomming a third and destabilizing force in the Cold War, and that means nuclear attacks. Even back then the US and USSR had half an eye turned to terrorist getting a WMD, of course there were bigger fish to fry then as well. And again, granted, the US supported Iraq after the USSR stopped, but again, it was the lesser of the regions evils. A secular murdering dickwad is beter to the US then a radically religious regime which holds no serious alliegence to anyone else, nor do they have any way of being controled by any sort of stabilizing force. Was it really the right thing to do? For the time it was the thing we did, and I don't really know what we could have done differently.

[Sonya Khatsworth]

speez

DoomNeko

I'm not saying pulling out Saddam is a bad thing, just that any system has it's evils. And as for civilian casualties in Iraq, a lot could have been prevented if they didn't jsut drop bombs assuming they'd hit bad people. To put it simple, 50% chance of hitting the civilian, 50% chance of hitting badguy. How can it be any mroe right to gamble people's lives than jsut outright wiping them? The army should have gathered more info and/or used better targeting in their attack. Also, Saddam was put there BY americans in the first place, so in a way they're also responsible for the bad things he was able to do neutral

I would not say we hava a 50/50 record in Iraq. I would ask that claim backed up, as we had beter then that in Gulf War I, and we're reportedly even beter by leaps and bounds now.

And you're right. Sadam was supported by both the US and the USSR to one degree or another for a long time. But that was because we feared Iran becomming a third and destabilizing force in the Cold War, and that means nuclear attacks. Even back then the US and USSR had half an eye turned to terrorist getting a WMD, of course there were bigger fish to fry then as well. And again, granted, the US supported Iraq after the USSR stopped, but again, it was the lesser of the regions evils. A secular murdering dickwad is beter to the US then a radically religious regime which holds no serious alliegence to anyone else, nor do they have any way of being controled by any sort of stabilizing force. Was it really the right thing to do? For the time it was the thing we did, and I don't really know what we could have done differently.

The 50/50 thing was just to simplify the saying that I would rather they had done more precise targeting and actually finding targets than just lobbing bombs at the city in their first attack on a life gamble. Considering all the technology the US says it has, I'm surprised they didn't go with a less damaging tactic that would of eventually proven more effective in the long run anyways.

As for the right thing to do... if at the moment the best thing to do is sticking a democratic government up on the throne, then why didn't you guys just do it the first time around?

[speez]

DoomNeko

speez

DoomNeko

I'm not saying pulling out Saddam is a bad thing, just that any system has it's evils. And as for civilian casualties in Iraq, a lot could have been prevented if they didn't jsut drop bombs assuming they'd hit bad people. To put it simple, 50% chance of hitting the civilian, 50% chance of hitting badguy. How can it be any mroe right to gamble people's lives than jsut outright wiping them? The army should have gathered more info and/or used better targeting in their attack. Also, Saddam was put there BY americans in the first place, so in a way they're also responsible for the bad things he was able to do neutral

I would not say we hava a 50/50 record in Iraq. I would ask that claim backed up, as we had beter then that in Gulf War I, and we're reportedly even beter by leaps and bounds now.

And you're right. Sadam was supported by both the US and the USSR to one degree or another for a long time. But that was because we feared Iran becomming a third and destabilizing force in the Cold War, and that means nuclear attacks. Even back then the US and USSR had half an eye turned to terrorist getting a WMD, of course there were bigger fish to fry then as well. And again, granted, the US supported Iraq after the USSR stopped, but again, it was the lesser of the regions evils. A secular murdering dickwad is beter to the US then a radically religious regime which holds no serious alliegence to anyone else, nor do they have any way of being controled by any sort of stabilizing force. Was it really the right thing to do? For the time it was the thing we did, and I don't really know what we could have done differently.

The 50/50 thing was just to simplify the saying that I would rather they had done more precise targeting and actually finding targets than just lobbing bombs at the city in their first attack on a life gamble. Considering all the technology the US says it has, I'm surprised they didn't go with a less damaging tactic that would of eventually proven more effective in the long run anyways.

As for the right thing to do... if at the moment the best thing to do is sticking a democratic government up on the throne, then why didn't you guys just do it the first time around?

We did not just lob bombs into the cities. That's what you had to do in WW2. We attacked very surgically, hitting government buildings. As far as having even more inteligence, well that's something that we did not have: Folks on the ground. And without them, we didn't have the info... like Sadam's plans for getting WMD's versus what we thought he had already... to be any more surgical then blowing up one building in the middle of a block and leaving the buildings on either side undamaged.

As for why not install a Democracy... well, we could not. Sadam was part of a movement that took over Iraq all on their own through dirty pool, you know, killing anyone who dared, before the US even looked at him. Remember that at the time Islamic Fundamentalism was a secondary priority to the big scarry Communist, and our attention was otherwhere when Sadam came to be. Taking him out in such a way to create a democratic government would have weakened Iraq and given Iran (the guys we were trying to hole up so we didn't have to deal with them) an advantage in a very close war. Iran/Iraq was more like the eastern front of WW2 then Operation Iraqi Freedom... Both sides were still where they were when they were last able to push out, and going no where fast.

[Sonya Khatsworth]

speez

DoomNeko

speez

DoomNeko

I'm not saying pulling out Saddam is a bad thing, just that any system has it's evils. And as for civilian casualties in Iraq, a lot could have been prevented if they didn't jsut drop bombs assuming they'd hit bad people. To put it simple, 50% chance of hitting the civilian, 50% chance of hitting badguy. How can it be any mroe right to gamble people's lives than jsut outright wiping them? The army should have gathered more info and/or used better targeting in their attack. Also, Saddam was put there BY americans in the first place, so in a way they're also responsible for the bad things he was able to do neutral

I would not say we hava a 50/50 record in Iraq. I would ask that claim backed up, as we had beter then that in Gulf War I, and we're reportedly even beter by leaps and bounds now.

And you're right. Sadam was supported by both the US and the USSR to one degree or another for a long time. But that was because we feared Iran becomming a third and destabilizing force in the Cold War, and that means nuclear attacks. Even back then the US and USSR had half an eye turned to terrorist getting a WMD, of course there were bigger fish to fry then as well. And again, granted, the US supported Iraq after the USSR stopped, but again, it was the lesser of the regions evils. A secular murdering dickwad is beter to the US then a radically religious regime which holds no serious alliegence to anyone else, nor do they have any way of being controled by any sort of stabilizing force. Was it really the right thing to do? For the time it was the thing we did, and I don't really know what we could have done differently.

The 50/50 thing was just to simplify the saying that I would rather they had done more precise targeting and actually finding targets than just lobbing bombs at the city in their first attack on a life gamble. Considering all the technology the US says it has, I'm surprised they didn't go with a less damaging tactic that would of eventually proven more effective in the long run anyways.

As for the right thing to do... if at the moment the best thing to do is sticking a democratic government up on the throne, then why didn't you guys just do it the first time around?

We did not just lob bombs into the cities. That's what you had to do in WW2. We attacked very surgically, hitting government buildings. As far as having even more inteligence, well that's something that we did not have: Folks on the ground. And without them, we didn't have the info... like Sadam's plans for getting WMD's versus what we thought he had already... to be any more surgical then blowing up one building in the middle of a block and leaving the buildings on either side undamaged.

As for why not install a Democracy... well, we could not. Sadam was part of a movement that took over Iraq all on their own through dirty pool, you know, killing anyone who dared, before the US even looked at him. Remember that at the time Islamic Fundamentalism was a secondary priority to the big scarry Communist, and our attention was otherwhere when Sadam came to be. Taking him out in such a way to create a democratic government would have weakened Iraq and given Iran (the guys we were trying to hole up so we didn't have to deal with them) an advantage in a very close war. Iran/Iraq was more like the eastern front of WW2 then Operation Iraqi Freedom... Both sides were still where they were when they were last able to push out, and going no where fast.

In that case, if the bombs were actually calculated, then I do pray hope for the army that the one that fell on a school full of children was a computer bug.

And thanks for the parenthesis on WW2, I can't say I know much about it sweatdrop

[speez]

DoomNeko

In that case, if the bombs were actually calculated, then I do pray hope for the army that the one that fell on a school full of children was a computer bug.

And thanks for the parenthesis on WW2, I can't say I know much about it sweatdrop

They are beter then they have ever been, but don't let the name "smart bomb" fool you. They're only smart by compairison to other devices. A smart bomb can fly right at an air duct on a building, but it can still miss if due to pilot error or being hit off course or just the computer inside going hicup.

And in WW2, we had nothing even close to presision bombing. Today a fighter/bomber can take off alone, release it's payload, fly back. Then a squadron of bombers would take off, sometimes escorted by fighters, sometimes not, and drop a mass of bombs usually under enemy fire, at the general direction of any target. Now that's bombs, not Bomb, and they just rained down on cities, trying to level everything.

It's not perfect, it's never wanted, but modern day air strikes are impossibly beter then they have ever been.

[ravensavampire]

I think that the whole war was unadvoidable cuz people lied and hide things..cilivans being hit is going to happen and thats just a fact of war-..no one is safe not even the people who seem to be the winners or the good guys
RaveN