|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:31 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:44 am
xsparklersx xsparklersx Monkeyinafryingpan xsparklersx Monkeyinafryingpan Actually I am a lot smarter than you. Bush's popularity, DUE TO THE WAR, went from 70% to a weeping 28% in just three years time. The country as a whole does not support the war, and without the support of the people, you can't keep a steady supply of troops or support, making it impossible. The Civil War lasted 5 years, the Revolutionary War lasted three years, WW1 lasted 3 years, WW2 lasted 4 years. To think that this war would be any different, considering the Democratic Party has already released three possible candidates for the Convention, when the new president leaves, is idiotic. The country as a whole HATES the war. The next president, who will most certainly be a Democrat, will retake our troops. Kerry last election held the popularity but lost due to the electoral votes. The country hated the War at the beginning. They despise it now. A Republican will not win this election. We don't need one. All Bush did wassend in troops and crush our political strengths. So next time you think you're smart because you write about how you are going to join the war in 4 years, remember that "those who can't think, fight- Martin Luther." Those who can't think will have their thinking done for them. - (I don't remember who, but it's a pretty famous quote XP) Well, the war was a stupid move on Bush's part, but now that we've destroyed their political infrastructure on the basis of hearsay about WMDs, the least we could do is: try to restabilize their nation, rid it of foreign insurgents who came to Iraq after we destroyed Saddam's government because they wanted to vie for rule, and possibly set up some sort of suitable structure for government that the nation will be able to sustain. The problem with the common masses of US citizens, however, is that all they see is the climbing death toll of American troops, they don't agree with the initial cause of the war, and other nations are doing the equivalent of a smear campaign by suggesting that it is a war of American imperialism. They don't understand that, if we withdraw too soon, the world will blame us for the destruction of Iraq and for any unrest that follows as a result. We have to leave Iraq better than we found it for the sake of our nation's safety as well as foreign relations. We took away their horrible dictator, but it will be much worse if we leave their nation in shambles for warlords and insurgents to fight over. Unfortunately, most Americans don't realize this and only care about neighbor Joe who went off to war and might get killed like many other soldiers if the war goes on too long. Most people are very near sighted and care more about the people they know than their nation and its safety. The support of Iraq drops because of that, and because of people's assumption that we're still there because of the initial reasons for the war. Yes, Bush was an idiot and it was not justified, but we have to get past that and address the best course of action for the situation that we are in NOW. As a nation, pulling out of Iraq now would hurt more than help us. It is not idiotic to think this war will not be like those you've mentioned because this war IS different. If you must make comparisons, try the Vietnam war, in which the US's involvement lasted for 8 years. Take into account that Bush still has another two years in office and the situation in Iraq could change by then. Either way, if we do withdraw from Iraq (which is just as likely as not), it will be because of the nearsighted stupidity and selfishness of a majority of Americans that vote someone into office because the candidate pinkie swears to end the war. You are smarter than Krauser, but, then again, you'll have to admit that's not saying much. xp rofl Seriously, though, you do show quite a bit of insight and intellect. Lol, well thank you for the compliment, but it;s only becuase I'm forced to do a presidential outline that's 25 pages every week on each president,lol. But I would have to disagree with you, as you know, when it comes to your idea about the reason for the war. We went there, and I believe this honestly, for two reasons. One, is that we wanted revenge for what happened for 911 and nuking them would have led to mass chaos, especially since, due to our promises to the League of Nations when it existed and the present U.N., we stated that ours were disarmed. However, and this is my second thought, going in and blasting up infrastructure and helping their political position would have been a good idea...but we did not do that. We were and are there becuase we wanted to kill Sadaam, which we did, and we wanted Bin Laden, which we have not found yet, believed to be dead. We were told as a public that are need was to help the country but think about it...would you help your enemy build itself to a great power when your own allies, like those in the Phillippines and even in the U.S. for instance, need it more and were at your side? Our country after 911 needed a president who would put down the leader who did such an act onto us, thus showing we would not tolerate it, and then project his attention to the needs of his people. Bush ignored the U.S. citizens, increasing our gas prices and such for example, to pay for a war that 70% of the country is FIRMLY AGAINST. We got our revenge...it's high time wel eft, no matter what state Iraq and Afghanistan are in. That is our punishment and gift for them. They have a fresh start and don't even want our help, as was shown by their constant harm to our soldiers. They want us to leave, and I believe we should not lose any more soldiers to a country that does not want our help. We need a president to make the U.S. stronger, not the world. You have to be one of the smartest political influences to whom I have yet spoken, even if we have conflicting views, and yes, you are DEFINENTLY smarter than Krauser as well, whatever that may mean...lmao. Haha, thanks. You flatter me greatly. smile I don't believe the Iraqis don't want our help, though. Many of the people that are constantly trying to harm our soldiers are foreign insurgents and not truly Iraqi citizens. The people who are citizens actually want us there to stabilize their country and create some sort of structured government to represent them. We shouldn't leave and let insurgents from all over the place come to fight for rule in Iraq like it's a free for all. If we do leave, the only thing we can hope for is that the next dictator that manages to gain enough military influence to control Iraq is better than Saddam was. At least if we give them a government based on representation, we could ensure that the country is led by something more than another (maybe even worse) Saddam, and an added benefit would be that the people will finally have a say in their own government. It's not that Iraqis don't want our help, but more that there are militant groups who don't want us to help Iraqis because they want Iraq for themselves. They know that if we help Iraqis establish a stable government, it will be that much harder for them to take over the country. We don't need another Cuba. One Fidel Castro is bad enough without a second military takeover in Iraq. In addition, helping them to build a government does not mean we are building them into a greater power. They will still have to clean up and rebuild their economy and everything else that they lost during the war. P.S. Why do you put up with him? I mean, if I'm not mistaken, he did just make a thread advertising that you're gay. confused I should probably bring this back now. I'm interested in Monkey's response. My skedule is delayed due to the snow so I got on early this morning to find our post count up 200 in one night. Trust me I was plesantly surprised and you two are hilarious to read about. And yes I agree about the fact that another Fidel Castro would be a bad thing, but I still believe our work there is done and that even though the military insurgents are fighting to take control and we are preventing it, it is only a matter of time before they start to work together in order to quelch our interference. I would much rather have a bunch of annoying militant groups than one powerful one. The Iraqi people, due to their centuries of barbaric rule, will never find the peace we seek for them. There will always be another Sadaam, even if we start a Republic. The people there only truly know how to respond to a dictator, nothing more or less. I believe in time a gradual look at a Republic will seem fit for them, but remember, for years they WORSHIPPED Sadaam. Many of the people themselves, not just the insurgents, are angered by this, and of course, many were also eternally greatful. In the long run, our interference will not mean much, whether we leave now, or stay for another decade. I say we just cut to the chase and leave them be now so that our troops will no longer be taken for a goal that we will not reach in this life time. Don't interpret this as sympathy however for our troops, for I understand in most wars the necessity of sacrificing your men for the high ground, as in the Civil War when Grant sacrificed 100,000 si=oldiers in two battles to get rid of 20,000 from Lee, thus defeating him. I agree with that wholeheartedly, even if it was just a meat grinder technique. But this war is now for America, it is for a country that has produced some of the worlds most infamous beings, and our making them more powerful will only amplify the situation. By the way, I keep Krauser because he's good at heart, even if he is a dweeb on Gaia.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:39 am
Monkeyinafryingpan xsparklersx xsparklersx Monkeyinafryingpan xsparklersx Monkeyinafryingpan Actually I am a lot smarter than you. Bush's popularity, DUE TO THE WAR, went from 70% to a weeping 28% in just three years time. The country as a whole does not support the war, and without the support of the people, you can't keep a steady supply of troops or support, making it impossible. The Civil War lasted 5 years, the Revolutionary War lasted three years, WW1 lasted 3 years, WW2 lasted 4 years. To think that this war would be any different, considering the Democratic Party has already released three possible candidates for the Convention, when the new president leaves, is idiotic. The country as a whole HATES the war. The next president, who will most certainly be a Democrat, will retake our troops. Kerry last election held the popularity but lost due to the electoral votes. The country hated the War at the beginning. They despise it now. A Republican will not win this election. We don't need one. All Bush did wassend in troops and crush our political strengths. So next time you think you're smart because you write about how you are going to join the war in 4 years, remember that "those who can't think, fight- Martin Luther." Those who can't think will have their thinking done for them. - (I don't remember who, but it's a pretty famous quote XP) Well, the war was a stupid move on Bush's part, but now that we've destroyed their political infrastructure on the basis of hearsay about WMDs, the least we could do is: try to restabilize their nation, rid it of foreign insurgents who came to Iraq after we destroyed Saddam's government because they wanted to vie for rule, and possibly set up some sort of suitable structure for government that the nation will be able to sustain. The problem with the common masses of US citizens, however, is that all they see is the climbing death toll of American troops, they don't agree with the initial cause of the war, and other nations are doing the equivalent of a smear campaign by suggesting that it is a war of American imperialism. They don't understand that, if we withdraw too soon, the world will blame us for the destruction of Iraq and for any unrest that follows as a result. We have to leave Iraq better than we found it for the sake of our nation's safety as well as foreign relations. We took away their horrible dictator, but it will be much worse if we leave their nation in shambles for warlords and insurgents to fight over. Unfortunately, most Americans don't realize this and only care about neighbor Joe who went off to war and might get killed like many other soldiers if the war goes on too long. Most people are very near sighted and care more about the people they know than their nation and its safety. The support of Iraq drops because of that, and because of people's assumption that we're still there because of the initial reasons for the war. Yes, Bush was an idiot and it was not justified, but we have to get past that and address the best course of action for the situation that we are in NOW. As a nation, pulling out of Iraq now would hurt more than help us. It is not idiotic to think this war will not be like those you've mentioned because this war IS different. If you must make comparisons, try the Vietnam war, in which the US's involvement lasted for 8 years. Take into account that Bush still has another two years in office and the situation in Iraq could change by then. Either way, if we do withdraw from Iraq (which is just as likely as not), it will be because of the nearsighted stupidity and selfishness of a majority of Americans that vote someone into office because the candidate pinkie swears to end the war. You are smarter than Krauser, but, then again, you'll have to admit that's not saying much. xp rofl Seriously, though, you do show quite a bit of insight and intellect. Lol, well thank you for the compliment, but it;s only becuase I'm forced to do a presidential outline that's 25 pages every week on each president,lol. But I would have to disagree with you, as you know, when it comes to your idea about the reason for the war. We went there, and I believe this honestly, for two reasons. One, is that we wanted revenge for what happened for 911 and nuking them would have led to mass chaos, especially since, due to our promises to the League of Nations when it existed and the present U.N., we stated that ours were disarmed. However, and this is my second thought, going in and blasting up infrastructure and helping their political position would have been a good idea...but we did not do that. We were and are there becuase we wanted to kill Sadaam, which we did, and we wanted Bin Laden, which we have not found yet, believed to be dead. We were told as a public that are need was to help the country but think about it...would you help your enemy build itself to a great power when your own allies, like those in the Phillippines and even in the U.S. for instance, need it more and were at your side? Our country after 911 needed a president who would put down the leader who did such an act onto us, thus showing we would not tolerate it, and then project his attention to the needs of his people. Bush ignored the U.S. citizens, increasing our gas prices and such for example, to pay for a war that 70% of the country is FIRMLY AGAINST. We got our revenge...it's high time wel eft, no matter what state Iraq and Afghanistan are in. That is our punishment and gift for them. They have a fresh start and don't even want our help, as was shown by their constant harm to our soldiers. They want us to leave, and I believe we should not lose any more soldiers to a country that does not want our help. We need a president to make the U.S. stronger, not the world. You have to be one of the smartest political influences to whom I have yet spoken, even if we have conflicting views, and yes, you are DEFINENTLY smarter than Krauser as well, whatever that may mean...lmao. Haha, thanks. You flatter me greatly. smile I don't believe the Iraqis don't want our help, though. Many of the people that are constantly trying to harm our soldiers are foreign insurgents and not truly Iraqi citizens. The people who are citizens actually want us there to stabilize their country and create some sort of structured government to represent them. We shouldn't leave and let insurgents from all over the place come to fight for rule in Iraq like it's a free for all. If we do leave, the only thing we can hope for is that the next dictator that manages to gain enough military influence to control Iraq is better than Saddam was. At least if we give them a government based on representation, we could ensure that the country is led by something more than another (maybe even worse) Saddam, and an added benefit would be that the people will finally have a say in their own government. It's not that Iraqis don't want our help, but more that there are militant groups who don't want us to help Iraqis because they want Iraq for themselves. They know that if we help Iraqis establish a stable government, it will be that much harder for them to take over the country. We don't need another Cuba. One Fidel Castro is bad enough without a second military takeover in Iraq. In addition, helping them to build a government does not mean we are building them into a greater power. They will still have to clean up and rebuild their economy and everything else that they lost during the war. P.S. Why do you put up with him? I mean, if I'm not mistaken, he did just make a thread advertising that you're gay. confused I should probably bring this back now. I'm interested in Monkey's response. My skedule is delayed due to the snow so I got on early this morning to find our post count up 200 in one night. Trust me I was plesantly surprised and you two are hilarious to read about. And yes I agree about the fact that another Fidel Castro would be a bad thing, but I still believe our work there is done and that even though the military insurgents are fighting to take control and we are preventing it, it is only a matter of time before they start to work together in order to quelch our interference. I would much rather have a bunch of annoying militant groups than one powerful one. The Iraqi people, due to their centuries of barbaric rule, will never find the peace we seek for them. There will always be another Sadaam, even if we start a Republic. The people there only truly know how to respond to a dictator, nothing more or less. I believe in time a gradual look at a Republic will seem fit for them, but remember, for years they WORSHIPPED Sadaam. Many of the people themselves, not just the insurgents, are angered by this, and of course, many were also eternally greatful. In the long run, our interference will not mean much, whether we leave now, or stay for another decade. I say we just cut to the chase and leave them be now so that our troops will no longer be taken for a goal that we will not reach in this life time. Don't interpret this as sympathy however for our troops, for I understand in most wars the necessity of sacrificing your men for the high ground, as in the Civil War when Grant sacrificed 100,000 si=oldiers in two battles to get rid of 20,000 from Lee, thus defeating him. I agree with that wholeheartedly, even if it was just a meat grinder technique. But this war is now for America, it is for a country that has produced some of the worlds most infamous beings, and our making them more powerful will only amplify the situation. By the way, I keep Krauser because he's good at heart, even if he is a dweeb on Gaia. I think we've come to the point where we agree to disagree. The basis is that we hold conflicting opinions on the following: whether or not the Iraqis desire/can handle a republic, and whether or not the length and result of our stay in Iraq will mean something. You will believe Iraqis can't handle it, and I will think otherwise. You will think the length and result of our involvement doesn't matter, I will think it matters, especially considering the world's opinion of our nation. The only thing left to do, I suppose, is wait and see what will come of this great mess...and that will take years. All in all, though, it was an interesting debate and I'm glad I finally found someone with enough grey matter to discuss the topic intelligently. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:29 pm
Thanl you, your grey matter is rather impressive as well xd . See Krauser? This is debating. Calling names gets you nowhere, we just retreived opposing views, thus making us smarter and more aware that there are others out there who think differently....unlike you...stupid 13 year old... rofl rofl rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:36 pm
Krauser5821  ...?LOLZ! I love Kermit! It's not easy being green... mrgreen mrgreen mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:41 pm
lol im just bored, so im posting pictures blaugh 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:50 pm
That is so hilarious I'm not even going to delete it,lmao.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:26 pm
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:48 pm
He's 5 and he ways 220 pounds?????? How does one do that?!?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:26 pm
I guess, but dang...that's a lot for a 5 year old...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:16 pm
yeah...that's like being a baby whale... eek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
