Look to the Past or Future (election, terrorism etc)

[THE ENFORCER]

I hope you realise that iraq will not become a democratic state anytime soon rofl enforcer.

Hopefully within a year (fingers crossed) but it will eventually

[Da1andonly]

Bush: Entered office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Go bush!

[THE ENFORCER]

Bush: Entered office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Go bush!

But if you knew anything about economics you would know that there has to be a cycle thus there had to of been a downswing or recession! So the fact that the economy declined has little to do with Bush the extent is the question! Also 9/11 was a shock to the economy. So economic arguments have very little weight i reckon!

Like you stated in less than two years! you cant do much with that!

The question then is what is each party going to do to stabilise the cyclical fluctuations well The Democrats are arguing with Microeconomic reform and the Bush admin is arguing with fiscal policy whose right I dont know they both kinda are!

So economic arguments is a grey area and therefore at our knowledge we can not pass judgement!

Believe or not spending on war actually helps boost the economy so there is an economic reason for the Iraq war as well! So i dont think Bush could do much for the economy!

[Force of Nature]

Fuck it! I had a point by point rebuttal but it was too long and it wouldn't let me post it. And then I lost it all

[bloodzombie]

Hopefully within a year (fingers crossed) but it will eventually

riiiiiight..

[THE ENFORCER]

Fuck it! I had a point by point rebuttal but it was too long and it wouldn't let me post it. And then I lost it all

lol, i was interested in what you had to say maybe you will repost it tomorrow?

[Force of Nature]

Here have the stuff I had in the copy paste buffer to munch on.

No im not sick of hearing the same argument im sick of hearing the same argument when i already have stated the same response but people are just too lazy to read them thats why i get pissed off. So "Why aren't we invading other dictorial regimes" because Iraq posed the biggest threat to world peace so far no other country has posed such a big threat yet, but i wouldnt have any complaints in dismantling the Hamas organisation and i hope USA does get involved but once agian thats my opinon and others can state thiers with an argument!

Well you can not say that i gave you a warning! You should just be happy i had a good day today or i would of been alot more harsh!
I just realized how long this post is Dam!
I hope Labor doesnt get voted in over here or they will take out all our troops out of Iraq by Christmas and that wont send a good image to USA or terrorists!

I'm sorry, I'm not all about ass kissing to the USA. So, I think labour should do what it thinks is right. What about our own country? I feel the Iraq war wasn't justified probably because it was to initiated under false pretenses. Any reason might be enough for you but it isn't for me. And just because it makes us have closer ties to the USA does not make it alright to keep the troops in there. What false pretenses. The main reason as stated in the security council was that there were WMD which now is claimed that there aren't any. No matter what the other reasons or good you might think might come from it doesn't justify going to war under false pretenses. If it did, I can claim well Australia is a danger to World peace! We should invade it! And then after invading Australia I can claim, well its all ok since I mean those Australians were going no where. I needed to put some direction so I can make Australia a part of my empire so it can prosper and truely become a global power. See how retarded this reasoning is? I'm not saying that this is the same reasoning that the USA used against Iraq but the war was waged under false pretenses.

[THE ENFORCER]

Here have the stuff I had in the copy paste buffer to munch on.

That was hardly a point by point rebuttal but i do conceed that it is hard for defining reasoning for invasion for future purposes, thats i guess was the whole reasoning for the WMD (if had WMD pose immediate threat) i mean if Bush could place the argument we could invade Iraq simply because of the atrocities i think he would and i would find that more plausable too however UN wouldnt buy that and they havent! But if we look at it by itself and not as a definition for future invasions is pretty clear for a humanity sake to invade Iraq politically i agree its hard! Im sure if we did a thorough look into Iraq and saw all the facts we probably could find a criteria/reason for invading a country i mean if USA interevened in Germany before 1938 because it just knew they would pose a threat to world peace in the future like they did to Iraq think of how different the world would be. Fact is politics is very grey just some things you cant over analyse if politicians didnt hesistate like they did in Iraq for Germany then the world would be in a better shape. Some things are done just because they are the right thing to do even though its hard to fit a criteria to it for future references.

Note: thats why i dont care about the WMD because it was simply a means to an end to grab support i dont believe for a second that Bush went into Iraq to grab these weapons from Sadam.Yes it would of been better if there was a more definitive reason for invasion but im glad sadam isnt in control and i think thats the main point as long as this doesnt go out of control enabling USA to inavde other countries without proper reasoning which i dont think will happen!

This might be hard to understand maybe ill tweek it up tomorrow when i get a fresh night sleep but if you get it just tell me so i dont have to rewrite it please.

You also failed to see my second reasoning why i want Australian troops in Iraq 1. yes is because i want a strong ally with USA (we have talked about that no need to argue agian) 2. is however because i dont want the terrorist world to see what they are doing is having an impact and seem like they are winning!

Goodnight make some fresh points for me tomorrow to "munch" upon

[bloodzombie]

You're basically suggesting that the US should police the world even if most US people don't want to do that. Bush had to lie to get over there, he even lied to his own congress. The fact is that iraq was no threat to the US, not even close, who are we to decide what their government should be? if the people were asking for our help, that would be different, but they don't want us there.

Maybe you think invading iraq was the right thing to do, but was that the right way to do it? I don't want a president who is going to decide what's right for me and then lie to me until I agree.

[Rob Dougan]

Everyone always pays attention to the biggest nut in the room.

[Mr. Peanuts]

The arabs only hate the USA because Bush is a dickhead and sticks his fuckin nose into other countries business...

Also, fuck the Isrealis, OK, they come kick the Palestinians out of their own country saying "Waaaah, this is our promise land" then when the Palestinians want back in, they get shot. Great isnt it?

[Gemfire]

I'm only going to talk about the whole economy issue that..Da1 brought up. Every economy has a natural upward and downward turn(except in extreme cases i.e. after WW1 which was brought on by a war)(The Great Depression :P). The thing is....once the economy goes up...infaltion and uch also rise in accordance. When inflation starts to occur, people spend less and the economy goes down..and the cycle repeats itself...

Bleh I couldnt think of what to say...words escaped me....give me a few hours i may be able to remember all what i was going to say.(i had what i was going to say in memory, went to the bathroom, and apparently it went to ;-; )

[Mantra-Slider]

Hopefully within a year (fingers crossed) but it will eventually

lol? ROFL!!!
You do realise that it takes at least 10-20 years before ANY state will ever become democratic (with our western civilization eyes)
Sure maybe there will be "free elections" within a year (I even doubt that) but you see, that isnt enough to be considered democratic... Maybe it is to you guys living in the land of the free..
It will be a time with revolution and violence and people not being able to trust anyone, corruption etc etc. You cant just walk into a land "LIBERATE" them and then "help them organise a democratic structure" and then within 2 years its all settled. How can you even THINK that? Open your eyes and take a look around the world... Look at the ex communist states, the countries in africa,south america and so on. HELL, Italy has been "free" for more than 50 years and its still not democratic enough.

Then again, Im talking with a guy who thinks the worst constitution in the world is ok and something every country should aim for.

really Im not anti american or anything, but I think its a shame that you guys rather go abroad fighting another country (no, RAPE another country) than dealing with the problems you have in your OWN country. Sure I have never been in USA, so I might be wrong... But from what I hear on tv/movies/documentary and read in books (from both left wingers right wingers and liberals) you guys have a fucked up economy,you got guns everywhere that anyone can get and there are murderers everywhere and people being afraid to even go out (and this being in "the home of the brave").According to UN about 1/9 of the population live under the official poverty line and with that I dont mean people who have to live on welfare.. no I mean people with just as bad conditions that you have around the world in other countries that has "been deomcratic" within a year after "liberation".

[Gemfire]

Also, fuck the Isrealis, OK, they come kick the Palestinians out of their own country saying "Waaaah, this is our promise land" then when the Palestinians want back in, they get shot. Great isnt it?

Actually, Israel was the israelites country back in Roman times. They Israelis didnt want to be ruled by anyone, and wanted to be their own people not dominated by others. The rebelled, and the romans sent a couple legions (the number escapes me) to quell it. The romans crushed the rebellion, and sent the israelis scurrying across the then "conquered" world, afraid of being eradicated by the Romans. So technially, it WAS the Israelis untill tehy were thrown out, and then the Palestinians moved in, and lived there till after WW2 when the Israelis wanted their homeland back

[Mattey]

Israeli suicide bombings????? Israel has never sent a suicide bomber! They have sent missiles to strategic buildings and now stragetically assisnated terrorist org's Hamas's leader Yassin.

Israel just added 10 years and 100,000 more bodies to that conflict. Assasinating an old blind man in a wheelchair with a missle, while he's leaving a church was probably the dumbest thing anybody could do ever.



Onto the war joant, USA invaded Iraq under false pretenses, then changed the reason for the war post facto. Ends do not justify the means no matter how much you like the ends. Saddam Hussein = bad man, Alfred Moisiu = bad man, Ali Hoseini = bad man, Nawaf Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah = bad man, so what distinguishes Hussein as someone to assasinate? Is it because of the intercontinental missles he had (that went 250 miles), or the Weapons of mass destruction he had his finger on (SCARE SCARE SCARE!!) or how about those drones he was testing (that, like everything I've mentioned didn't exist). Saddam was no bigger of a threat than any of these other "evil-doers". So why him? Why Iraq?