The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (country, house, rock, doors)

[ally]

im liking this debate, some very good points brought up.

[jibber]

who cares made a good point, when i refer to bush, i'm actually referring to his administration. I read in a book recently from a guy who was fired from his post in the bush admin. that he would just sit there in the meetings, not saying anything, not giving away any information or changing the expressions on his face, just letting the decisions be debated and decided on while putting in very little of his own imput, not surprising really.

[Thrice]

Originally Posted by Who_Cares

Sorry about the word to the end there, lol forgot you wanted it clean... not too bad though

HA HA, IF IT DOESNT CENSOR IT, IM FINE WITH IT!
I LOVE DEBATES...THIS IS GREAT

I WISH INTERACTIVE AND MOBILIZE WERE HERE THOUGH THEY WERE GREAT AT THIS STUFF...THEY OPENED ALOT OF EYES, BUT DIDNT KNOW.

[jibber]

^ i agree, this debate is pretty one sided, which gets really damn boring very fast, we need someone else with different opinions. interactive and mobilize were both good at arguing their points while still making sense and not resorting to immature insults.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by jibber

I read in a book recently from a guy who was fired from his post in the bush admin

So...If your boss fired you, I bet you'd have some lovely things to say about them? Probably not. So I don't see how you can really go off things written in that book.

The one thing that gets me mad is when people talk about "Killing Innocent Iraqi Civilians." When the "innocent" civilians are the one's housing the people we are searching for, trying to attack, what is there to do? Same thing happened in Vietnam, when we refused to attack the Religious buildings in the area. What happened? The Vietnameese hid in the buildings, firing from those areas, knowing we wouldn't attack. I'm glad to see Bush making it clear that if you house these refugees, you are just as much as an enemy to the troops then the actual refugee. Bush had a great administration? No, all the Presidents have sucked. The last person to actually have some intelligence (book smarts) was Bush Senior. Clinton was an idiot, but most people are so blinded by their "Party" that they don't seem to care. Are you telling me Kerry, a guy who bitched and moan about a war he was in after signing up for the armed forces, is gonna be the next great president? If so, give me a break. O yeah, and I've said this before. If you aren't from USA, don't even respond to what I've said, cause you don't know what goes on here, so it's not needed. I've got more to say, but my fingers are cramping.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by jibber

syria, iran, and iraq. now lets think, what do all these countries have in common? all have regimes that are VERY anti-american, and all have pretty huge supplies of oil.

America has helped out more countries than any other country on the map, often helping too much, and has led to our National Debt. It's not our own buying that has put us where we are. But the one thign that cracks me up...the "huge supply of oil". Yeah, we started this war for oil. Especially when we have oil in Alaska that we haven't cracked. Especially when Saudi Arabia has twice as much oil as Iraq. We decided we'd go to Iraq so we could get second most. Good point. [end sarcasm]. If the war was for oil, we would have totally destroyed everything, which in my point is almost the way to go now with all the resistance. We have been trying to help Iraqi civilians, setting up schools etc, but often they are the spots attacked by the refugees (since we'd least expect it) Often CNN and other news casts are run by Democrats, and FOX is run by Republicans. Very different news casts are on every night. I truly don't trust either 100%. But that's just me.

[Thrice]

Good points Alejo, this is why i like these debates...very informative

[brokenheartsandfallenhero]

Whoa whoa whoa our helping other countries has not led to natonal debt our economic problem began in 1913 when the federal reserve banking system was created by Alridge, that is a private banking system that the american government borrows money from all the time so they can fund these unconstitutional agencies and departments. Also I agree that the whole reason we are in Iraq is not for oil, no we are there becasue in Bush's childish mind he is walking in Daddy Bush's footsteps, or somebody in Iraq pissed off a rockerfeller,rothchild,or Kennedy and as far as great presidents whose to judge? The american people who have been blinded by media and "patriotic acts" it is humorus to me that we can look back at John Brown with views of a patriot and with sorrow but look at Robert E. Lee as a biggot and murderer. But this is because our educational system is controlled by socialist bastards that were allowed in this country in the 1800s thinking they could better our government with the kissing cousin of communism and are now dumbing down americas youth so that free choice is a thing of the past and there is now more freedom, just contentment.

[Who_Cares]

My fantasy/sci-fi Lit teacher was telling me about this book written by a retired teacher in NY called Dumbing Us Down , although i can't remember his name. But anyways, the teacher was awarded the teacher of the year award for the entire state of NY the year he retired. Afterwards he wrote this book which basically says that the government is intentionally restricting education so we all become sheep for the elections and everything. I thought that this was very interesting, because a respected educator wrote it and it also shows a reason why many Americans follow and support the war in Iraq without really knowing anything about it what-so-ever.... especially the people in my stupid ass hick town! LOL

[shadowsniper]

Originally Posted by jibber

nicely done shadowsniper. there was actually a huge debate on the war in iraq a few months ago, went to about 7 or 8 pages as I remember. I was watching a program on CNN a few weeks ago, might have been larry king, but i don't really remember. anyway, they had three political analyists, one a die hard conservative, one who was kind of in the middle, and one a pretty adamant democrat. During a discussion, the conservative voiced his opinions on the actual motives for going to war with iraq. now these aren't his exact words of course, but the general idea. "I agree with you that our government did not go to war on the sole purpose of helping those in iraq, we really don't care about the civillians of iraq. what we really needed was a base in the middle east from which we could develop a pro-american system and attempt to quell hostilities towards america from other nations in the middle east" again, I don't remember his exact wording, but I do KNOW that he said (word for word) "we really don't care about the civillians of iraq"a statement like that wouldn't easily be forgotten. Now of course most conservatives will completely deny this, saying they're main concern has always been and always will be the welfare of the iraqi people, but you have to wonder how true this is. Why now of all times did Bush suddenly feel a surge of compassion towards the iraqi people and decide to overthrow their brutal dictatorial government? because of alleged WMD's? well that's proven to be a bust. links to al queda? no remotely intelligent person can argue that hussein has ties with bin laden. threat to american security? when has hussein made a direct threat to america in recent memory? so that pretty much leave us with the possibility that Bush woke up one day feeling an immense feeling of sympathy for all those poor iraqi;s and decided to spend billions of dollars and end thousdands and thousands of american and iraqi lives to be a nice guy. something wrong with this picture? just maybe there were other perks in going into iraq, like the ability to establish a government with pro-american policies who will allow american corporations to run the oil business, or having a starting off point in the middle east from which to attempt to establish other pro-american governments. just look at other countries included in bush's "axis of evil" when the war in iraq was first proposed. syria, iran, and iraq. now lets think, what do all these countries have in common? all have regimes that are VERY anti-american, and all have pretty huge supplies of oil. ya, i'm sure bush is just concerned about the welfare of all the innocent little syrians and iranians too.

That was a very very informative reply you had there. Thankx for the detail, I just want to add and modify a bit on what you said though. The only thing I dont agree on was that there are links with Al-Qaeda. Any remotely intelligent person will know that Iraq had no ties at all with Al-Qaeda. Several fundemental differences exist between Saddam and Osama. Its like comparing Hitler to Lenin. Know both of them have power, but their intentions are like night and day. Hussein was a secular person, religion was a means of control, not a reason to control. His sole purpose was to create a state in the middle east that was the leader of the arab people. He even let women go into universities to persue careers and he wasnt fundamental at all, he just wanted a modern arab state. The shining beacon upon a hill if you will. Hussein was helped into power by the US in the first place. He was given tons of weapons by not only Americans, but Europeans. He collected warcrafts from many countries actually. On a military airport you could see the best airpower from many countries that he purchased these items from. Example, he had French Mirage Jets, he had U.S.S.R. MIGs, he had American F-16, etc. He had T-72's and other tanks. Most of his firearms were Soviet as well; plenty of Ak-47 and Ak-74, as well as modified Ak's produced by the communist Chines. Hussein had the 4th largest standing army on earth before the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. had suffered from the chaos produced from the overthrow of the US puppet in Iran (the Shah) that let the revolutionaries capture the US embassy and take hostage the diplomats there. The US tried a ops operation to save them but it was a disaster and the US hasnt talked to Iran from then on. So the US to take back on Iran gives and sells weapons to Iraq, these INCLUDE chemical weapons! At the same time, the US was trying to profit as much as they could, so instead of incouraging ONLY Iraq to win, they also sould Chemical and other weapons to Iran. So you can imagin the slaughter produced by such weapons and the aftermath of such a war. Iraq basically won but they hit a deal with Iran that made the war a stalemate. Iraq couldnt handle more casualties. So Hussein finds him self as no long being in such a great position, his glorious army couldnt over run the positioned Iranian army. His country was in debt now and the infrastructure was in ruins. All these countries that were supporting Hussein with oil before the war turned their backs on him. Hussein asked them to clear his debt for him like they did for the UK at some point I believe. Hussein created a rich country by kicking out all the American and other foreign companies out of his country that were taking his oil. He then nationalized the oil and made the country the most prosporous country in the middle east. Now we have to understand that there was not much oil coming out of Iraq because many of the oil rigs were damaged from the war and after the war Kuwait purposefully pumped a surplus of oil into the market, this created a downing of the prices and Iraq couldnt compete! Kuwait didnt want to clear the debt and Hussein even warned the US in advance that they will invade if Kuwait doesnt clear the debt. They ignored Hussein. Saddam had another intention in conquering Kuwait, he stated that Kuwait was a former Iraqi province. And it was! Kuwait was divided and taken away from Iraq when the British divided the land into mandates they controlled. So with his threat out and no opposition, he rolls into Kuwait and then the US realizes that soon enough, Hussein could even conquer Saudi Arabia if they wanted to and thus would have a virtual monopoly on the oil coming out of the middle east. "OH NO!!!" So to boost the US economy once more and impose friendly dictatorships in the middle east, the US leads an attack on Iraq land kuwaiti land. When I say "lead", they lead more with words then actions. The British actually were the forerunners in most battles because they were smart and used diesel on most of their war machines and this helped because the supply convoys only needed to bring one type of oil instead of many types of oil like the US had. The US oil also evaporated in heat, so here the US is in one of the hottest places on earth and they have evaporating oil. :S For the most part, this made them incapable of leading and so the UK took the lead. The US was only running 1/3 of what they thought they would and the UK was running the 3/3 that the US thought they would be running. Besides this technical stuff. What happened was that the US actually had support of the UN through a resolution and the US attacked. They "liberated" Kuwait from one dictator and imposed the another dictator. The US didnt want a major war, so they didnt push into Iraq much. Just enough to destroy most of their tanks. They used airplanes to bomb the Cra* out of Iraq though and they damaged alot of water pipes. Saddam claimed a victory because the US didnt move on and conquer Iraq. Later on, in 1998, the US restarted the bombing of Iraq because of WMD. So here we are. Hussein has a destroyed country, the water system is destroyed, the country has sanctions and the only way for the people to get food is by trading in REALLY REALLY cheap oil for food. So the US is profiting from this program of course and they are getting cheap oil, perfect! These sanctions kill around half a million kids and women though, to bad. They cant send any water pipes to fix things because these pipes can supposedly be used dually by not only getting water to homes but they can also be used to create atomic bombs. So we never let them have water instead and let them die. That really creates peace brothers, especially when a kid loses his family and the only murder in his eyes is the cause of the problem; the US. "There is nothing worst than someone who has nothing to lose." In 2003, we figure that Saddam is still a really bad guy and he still can afford WMD. Bushs dad was almost assassinated by Saddams' spies, so he has to pay. We dont mention how the US tried to kill Saddam many times. The same goes for Castro, we tried to kill him like 8 times. How paranoid would you get? No wonder the guy kills any dissenter. I probably would too. So now the US attacks and they win, OMG, WHAT SUPRISE! Never thought we would have such a victory against a 3rd world country. So bush embarks on that ship by landing on it with a jet. Im a warrior now, look at me daddy. So the gates come down, now what do we do? Well lets give kids candy like wwII. Well the kids love it, "yey, America". After there is no more candy around and after the kids have parents that die because of the looting and crisis after, they start taking up rifles. When US soldiers are kicking down doors and asking everyone to give up those weapons they cherished for years and are part of their culture. When troops get near their most religious sites. When the US doesnt protect everyone, doesnt give them proper money, food, water, electricity.