Bush leaves our security 'up in the air'...and you still love him?

[theESCO]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/campaign_rdp&cid=694&ncid=716


COME ON NOW!!!

[richter915]

wait wait...I thought it was mission accomplished over a year ago...wait...Bush flip flopping?!?!?!

this news is absurd...it's just not safe when the president of a country says that the nation's safety is "up in the air". I'm glad Kerry took advantage of this comment.

[yeat182]

wait wait...I thought it was mission accomplished over a year ago...wait...Bush flip flopping?!?!?!

that was refering to Iraq, and before you go further on that, it was refering to major combat operations.

this news is absurd...it's just not safe when the president of a country says that the nation's safety is "up in the air". I'm glad Kerry took advantage of this comment.

this is bogus, he was asked if, "the nation can ever be fully safe from another terror attack" and he said it was up in the air, probably because it depends on who wins the election. he can't garuntee there will never be another attack any more than Kerry can.

[cal1082]

Let's also be real. Had Bush said that the country could be "fully" safe, than this thread would be about how the country could not be fully safe.

[theESCO]

that was refering to Iraq, and before you go further on that, it was refering to major combat operations.

How many people have died since 'the end of major combat'? Only something like 62 had died prior to May 1st, when Bush played pilot and put on that cute little flight suit. We're up to around 1,100 now...do the math. Pretty fucking major if you ask me.

[yeat182]

How many people have died since 'the end of major combat'? Only something like 62 had died prior to May 1st, when Bush played pilot and put on that cute little flight suit. We're up to around 1,100 now...do the math. Pretty fucking major if you ask me.

it isn't a factor of how many died, it is a factor of military planning and operations. they completed and executed their plan to take over iraq and it was complete, hence, there was an end to major combat operations. not to mention, those operations took 2 weeks, the rest of the deaths have occured over the course of months.

[turtlefootrx]

it isn't a factor of how many died, it is a factor of military planning and operations. they completed and executed their plan to take over iraq and it was complete, hence, there was an end to major combat operations. not to mention, those operations took 2 weeks, the rest of the deaths have occured over the course of months.

what exactly is your point here? you make it sound like its fine if the rest of those soldiers died over a longer period of time.

think about this...

mission complete: overthrew saddam and puts an end to 'major combat operations'

now wait a second. all of those deaths over a period of time, im pretty sure they didnt all slip and gash their heads with rocks. notice how the invasion was in part of a 'war on terror', yet the mission is only accomplished once saddam is gone. not when they DIDNT find WMD. not when they COMPLETELY freed iraq. not when they DIDNT defeat al-qaeda. no, the mission is accomplished merely because saddam is no longer in power. i guess iraq and its people arent important enough to be a part of the true mission. theyre just part of the cleanup act.

say what you want, but bush's only just for war now that everyone knows theres no WMD is that saddam was a threat. and we all know THATS true because he had ties to al-qaeda didnt he? :headshake

[yeat182]

what exactly is your point here? you make it sound like its fine if the rest of those soldiers died over a longer period of time.

think about this...

mission complete: overthrew saddam and puts an end to 'major combat operations'

now wait a second. all of those deaths over a period of time, im pretty sure they didnt all slip and gash their heads with rocks. notice how the invasion was in part of a 'war on terror', yet the mission is only accomplished once saddam is gone. not when they DIDNT find WMD. not when they COMPLETELY freed iraq. not when they DIDNT defeat al-qaeda. no, the mission is accomplished merely because saddam is no longer in power. i guess iraq and its people arent important enough to be a part of the true mission. theyre just part of the cleanup act.

say what you want, but bush's only just for war now that everyone knows theres no WMD is that saddam was a threat. and we all know THATS true because he had ties to al-qaeda didnt he? :headshake

don't put words in my mouth. i said that the "mission accomplished" refered to the major combat operations, which refered to the invasion of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein. the consequent deaths that occured over the following months were a result of a unexpected insurrection. as i am sure you are well aware, we did not pack up an leave following the "mission accomplished" statement, so obviously they knew there was going to be more work to be done. if Iraq and its people weren't important enough to be considered part of the mission, we wouldn't be there right now. use your head.

[turtlefootrx]

thats not what i meant. if bush says 'mission accomplished' when suddam is ousted, what does that say to me? his main priority was getting rid of suddam. mission is accomplished when the war on terror is won. not when one leader is gone. (who didnt turn out to be the threat we were told he was.)

unexpected insurrection? dont give me that crap. if you lived in iraq and some country called the U.S.A. comes and takes over your country, detroying the fuck out of it, wouldnt you be just a little pissed? and more-over, wouldnt you think that our great country would be smart enough to think about the chances of insurrection BEFORE entering the country?

[open mind]

that was refering to Iraq, and before you go further on that, it was refering to major combat operations.



this is bogus, he was asked if, "the nation can ever be fully safe from another terror attack" and he said it was up in the air, probably because it depends on who wins the election. he can't garuntee there will never be another attack any more than Kerry can.
major combat operations are still going on, unless you think seiges of large cities don't count as major.

[venus/bacchus]

thats not what i meant. if bush says 'mission accomplished' when suddam is ousted, what does that say to me? his main priority was getting rid of suddam. mission is accomplished when the war on terror is won. not when one leader is gone. (who didnt turn out to be the threat we were told he was.)

unexpected insurrection? dont give me that crap. if you lived in iraq and some country called the U.S.A. comes and takes over your country, detroying the fuck out of it, wouldnt you be just a little pissed? and more-over, wouldnt you think that our great country would be smart enough to think about the chances of insurrection BEFORE entering the country?
That "mission accomplished" wasn't related to the entire war on terror, just the mission involving ousting Saddam from power. When that's done, why wouldn't he be able to say "mission accomplished"? If Saddam is out of power, that part of the mission is satisfied, the Iraqi people are freed from his tyrannical reign, his government no longer has the means to confer with or supply weapons to terrorists, etc. Overthrowing the government was the entire basis for involvement and has a lot of implications beyond just Saddam being ousted.

I'm sure someone thought of the chances of insurrection. There is an insane amount of planning and foresight that goes into these things, but it's pretty apparent that nobody imagined the scope of these problems, or even came up with a viable solution. At this point, they really are in a conundrum, and I just hope they get enough Iraqi troops to be able to pull out a majority of American troops within the year. So yes, you have every right to fault them for the procedure after the mission was accomplished, but you can't say they didn't do what they intended initially with swiftness and efficiency.

[yeat182]

thats not what i meant. if bush says 'mission accomplished' when suddam is ousted, what does that say to me? his main priority was getting rid of suddam. mission is accomplished when the war on terror is won. not when one leader is gone. (who didnt turn out to be the threat we were told he was.)

Ousting saddam was the mission. he never claimed to have won the war on terror, that was your own misinterpritation.

unexpected insurrection? dont give me that crap. if you lived in iraq and some country called the U.S.A. comes and takes over your country, detroying the fuck out of it, wouldnt you be just a little pissed? and more-over, wouldnt you think that our great country would be smart enough to think about the chances of insurrection BEFORE entering the country?

considering the vast majority of insurectionists are foreign terrorists, i can't see how you can call it crap. moreover, those Iraqis that joined the rebels were Baathists and Saddam Fedayeen. the average Iraqi citizen isn't killing his own people, the average Iraqi is overjoyed that Saddam is gone.

[yeat182]

major combat operations are still going on, unless you think seiges of large cities don't count as major.


at the time, 6 months or so ago, we didn't forsee this. events have changed since then, so i don't understand what the problem is?

[UndefinedBoy]

at the time, 6 months or so ago, we didn't forsee this. events have changed since then, so i don't understand what the problem is?

We didn't forsee this? We should have, that's enough to have a problem with how the war is being handled.

[yeat182]

We didn't forsee this? We should have, that's enough to have a problem with how the war is being handled.

i think we knew there would be resistance, but i don't think anyone had any idea it would be on this grand of scale.

[theESCO]

the average Iraqi citizen isn't killing his own people, the average Iraqi is overjoyed that Saddam is gone.


Do you know the average Iraqi? Do you guys correspond by mail? Or is the phone a better option for you?

Or are you just going on what a man who has been full of shit since the beginning tells you?


i think we knew there would be resistance, but i don't think anyone had any idea it would be on this grand of scale.

If a man with half a brain sat down and thought about it, it's pretty obvious there would be a large resistance. All you have to do is look at this wars big brother, Vietnam. Or if you'd like to make the argument this is nothing like Vietnam...Put yourself in their shoes.

What would you do if someone invaded your country?

[turtlefootrx]

exactly what ive been saying. were not iraqis. we dont know what theyre going through. we only know what were told by dubya and the media. so dont speak for the iraqi people. if your innocent son was killed by the united states youre not going to say 'well at least theyre trying to help us...', youre going to side with insurgents out of anger. and alot of parents have lost their children since weve arrived. and alot of children have lost their parents.

[cal1082]

exactly what ive been saying. were not iraqis. we dont know what theyre going through. we only know what were told by dubya and the media. so dont speak for the iraqi people. if your innocent son was killed by the united states youre not going to say 'well at least theyre trying to help us...', youre going to side with insurgents out of anger. and alot of parents have lost their children since weve arrived. and alot of children have lost their parents.

BBC and others have done huge studies on their attitudes. It's pretty obvious they are happy Saddam is gone.

[BrandNew20]

BBC and others have done huge studies on their attitudes. It's pretty obvious they are happy Saddam is gone.

Are they happy Saddam is gone? Yes, most definatly. But in the same study conducted by BBC, the results showed that a majority of iraqis felt as though the US has greatly embarressed Iraq by invading.

I would like to know what the average Iraqi thinks about the US being there in general, once they have weighed the results of Saddam being gone and the US having invaded.

[cal1082]

Are they happy Saddam is gone? Yes, most definatly. But in the same study conducted by BBC, the results showed that a majority of iraqis felt as though the US has greatly embarressed Iraq by invading.

I would like to know what the average Iraqi thinks about the US being there in generel, once they have weighed the results of Saddam being gone and the US having invaded.

It was a really good study. I posted it on here a long time ago, but can't find it anymore. I'd like to repost it if i can find it.

[turtlefootrx]

Are they happy Saddam is gone? Yes, most definatly. But in the same study conducted by BBC, the results showed that a majority of iraqis felt as though the US has greatly embarressed Iraq by invading.

I would like to know what the average Iraqi thinks about the US being there in generel, once they have weighed the results of Saddam being gone and the US having invaded.


what he said

[BrandNew20]

It was a really good study. I posted it on here a long time ago, but can't find it anymore. I'd like to repost it if i can find it.

yeah, I do remember reading it, I just can't really clearly remember all the results.

[yeat182]

If a man with half a brain sat down and thought about it, it's pretty obvious there would be a large resistance. All you have to do is look at this wars big brother, Vietnam. Or if you'd like to make the argument this is nothing like Vietnam...Put yourself in their shoes.

What would you do if someone invaded your country?


how exactly do you come to that conclusion?

[commatosa]

Do you guys honestly believe that these polls and surveys are accurate? I highly doubt that any media group asked anyone involved in the resistance or any of the 37,000 dead Iraqi civilians how they feel about the US occupation. Don't try to spread propaganda, especially if you know for a fact that it's just that. The truth is, the majority of Iraqis don't want Americans there and the Americans don't want to be there.

[cal1082]

Do you guys honestly believe that these polls and surveys are accurate? I highly doubt that any media group asked anyone involved in the resistance or any of the 37,000 dead Iraqi civilians how they feel about the US occupation. Don't try to spread propaganda, especially if you know for a fact that it's just that. The truth is, the majority of Iraqis don't want Americans there and the Americans don't want to be there.

I'll take scientific surveys over SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) answers anyday. How do you know it's the TRUTH the majority of Iraqis dont want Americans there?

[turtlefootrx]

I'll take scientific surveys over SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) answers anyday. How do you know it's the TRUTH the majority of Iraqis dont want Americans there?


how do you know its not?
seriously try to put yourself in their shoes. would you honestly be happy with us being there and with whats going on? id just like to know why all the death and destruction is outweighed by any sort of good done in the country. not saying there hasnt been any at all, but not enough to justify the current situation.

[theESCO]

YAY, Sadaam is gone.

That still doesn't make this whole blunder not a sham. The reasons we are there where bogus, and the Bush administration has done an amazing job at making the people forget they where lied to.

::looks at sig::

[cal1082]

how do you know its not?
seriously try to put yourself in their shoes. would you honestly be happy with us being there and with whats going on? id just like to know why all the death and destruction is outweighed by any sort of good done in the country. not saying there hasnt been any at all, but not enough to justify the current situation.

I know it's not by almost every survey and study that has come out of Iraq. They all say they're happy Saddams gone, and the US forces should stay until security is better. The vast majority have a bright outlook on the next 5 years as well.

Funny side note you're doing the same thing you say we can't do. You say we can't know cause we're not Iraqis, then you tell us to put ourselves in their shoes. Give me a break.

"seriously try to put yourself in their shoes."................"were not iraqis. we dont know what theyre going through. we only know what were told by dubya and the media. so dont speak for the iraqi people."

[turtlefootrx]

I know it's not by almost every survey and study that has come out of Iraq. They all say they're happy Saddams gone, and the US forces should stay until security is better. The vast majority have a bright outlook on the next 5 years as well.

Funny side note you're doing the same thing you say we can't do. You say we can't know cause we're not Iraqis, then you tell us to put ourselves in their shoes. Give me a break.

"seriously try to put yourself in their shoes."................"were not iraqis. we dont know what theyre going through. we only know what were told by dubya and the media. so dont speak for the iraqi people."

how do you figure? sure, we arent the iraqis. but that doesnt mean we dont have our own opinions of how each of us would personally feel if we were in that situation. but im just gonna let you have this one because it has become a waste of my time to try and get you to understand.

[open mind]

at the time, 6 months or so ago, we didn't forsee this. events have changed since then, so i don't understand what the problem is?
there were those who saw it coming and said they saw it coming, they were just ignored.

[Lueda Alia]

I'll take scientific surveys over SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) answers anyday. How do you know it's the TRUTH the majority of Iraqis dont want Americans there?

Well maybe we know because of how Iraqis are reacting to the US troops being there: FIGHTING back.


Not hard to guess whether or not they like being invaded. Besides, who the hell would like to be invaded?!

[venus/bacchus]

Well maybe we know because of how Iraqis are reacting to the US troops being there: FIGHTING back.


Not hard to guess whether or not they like being invaded. Besides, who the hell would like to be invaded?!
The majority of people fighting back are insurgents, they aren't native Iraqis. And if they are native Iraqis, those numbers are very minimal. So because there is responsive fighting in 10% of the country, that would mean 10% of Iraqis are against the US being there, while the other 90% believe we're there to help?

You can't just look at what you see on the news to know what's going on in their heads.

[Lueda Alia]

The majority of people fighting back are insurgents, they aren't native Iraqis. And if they are native Iraqis, those numbers are very minimal. So because there is responsive fighting in 10% of the country, that would mean 10% of Iraqis are against the US being there, while the other 90% believe we're there to help?

You can't just look at what you see on the news to know what's going on in their heads.

Take your own advice.

And not everyone is an insurgent. Don't some actually call them "Freedom Fighters"?!

But anyway as I said, NO ONE likes to be invaded, so I think it's pretty stupid to actually even think that they do. I know a lot of Iraqis because the school I used to go to, was full of people from middle east, and none of them like the US invasion. They all hate the US even more now.

[cal1082]

Take your own advice.

And not everyone is an insurgent. Don't some actually call them "Freedom Fighters"?!

But anyway as I said, NO ONE likes to be invaded, so I think it's pretty stupid to actually even think that they do. I know a lot of Iraqis because the school I used to go to, was full of people from middle east, and none of them like the US invasion. They all hate the US even more now.

Oh well there you go there's your concensus. Everyone spread the word and quit looking at every survey that says Iraqis are happy with the ousting by the US.

[venus/bacchus]

Take your own advice.

And not everyone is an insurgent. Don't some actually call them "Freedom Fighters"?!

But anyway as I said, NO ONE likes to be invaded, so I think it's pretty stupid to actually even think that they do. I know a lot of Iraqis because the school I used to go to, was full of people from middle east, and none of them like the US invasion. They all hate the US even more now.
I never claimed to know what was going on in their heads besides what I've seen in scientific polls. However, you and others have claimed that you just know by putting yourself in their shoes. You and I have no idea what's going on in their heads or how they feel.

I didn't say everyone was an insurgent, I said a lot were.

You live in cushy little Canada (much like I live in cushy little America), you don't know what it's like to live under a brutal dictator, so therefore you can't say no one likes being invaded. If you were in constant fear for your life, you might feel differently.

[UndefinedBoy]

You live in cushy little Canada (much like I live in cushy little America), you don't know what it's like to live under a brutal dictator, so therefore you can't say no one likes being invaded. If you were in constant fear for your life, you might feel differently.

You have a point, but I think that people still remain in constant fear for their lives in Iraq.

[richter915]

You live in cushy little Canada (much like I live in cushy little America), you don't know what it's like to live under a brutal dictator, so therefore you can't say no one likes being invaded. If you were in constant fear for your life, you might feel differently.
though she does not know what it's like to live in Iraq and all...she does have a TV and a computer and does watch the news. It's not like she has no basis...the media has exposed so much of what's going on in Iraq. I think when they aired the whole "shock and awe" thing back in 03...many people at some point or another really thought like...wow it must be horrible to hear that noise outside your window and know that it's the thunder of war. The media has given many people the chance to empathize with Iraqis...it's not like we're seeing them happy...The only time I heard about rejoice in Iraq was when there was a celebration in regards to a new sewage pipe being involved (which is so sad because we take that kinda thing for granted here in N. America)...but right after there was a bombing in that area.

I think you can definitely see how bad some Iraqis must be feeling right now.

[venus/bacchus]

The news shows what it will get the most viewers to watch. They show sensationalism and anything that will get the highest ratings. The news isn't a reliable tool for knowing the complete story of Iraq. I think for us to make rash judgments about what they're feeling is irresponsible. We aren't in their shoes, we really don't know. The only thing we have to rely on are polls, many of which are also unreliable and none are perfect.

I won't tell you they're rejoicing or they aren't in constant fear, I just think it's ridiculous for anyone to say it's only one extreme but none of the other because "put yourself in their shoes".

[yeat182]

i think the Iraqis probably feel alot like we did after 9/11, they are living in fear of terrorist attacks everyday. in that way, they probably have similar feeling to the Israeli people (kind of ironic). but that fear doesn't nessisarily translate into hatred of the US. i think alot of them want to be fully independent and not have US forces in the country, but realistically they realize that until they can stop the terrorists attacks, and until they can create a capable defense/police force, they are going to have to live with the US in their country.

[Lueda Alia]

I never claimed to know what was going on in their heads besides what I've seen in scientific polls. However, you and others have claimed that you just know by putting yourself in their shoes. You and I have no idea what's going on in their heads or how they feel.

I didn't say everyone was an insurgent, I said a lot were.

You live in cushy little Canada (much like I live in cushy little America), you don't know what it's like to live under a brutal dictator, so therefore you can't say no one likes being invaded. If you were in constant fear for your life, you might feel differently.
I don't know what it's like to live under a brutal dictator? Think before you speak.

I lived in Albania my whole life, and since you probably don't know shit about my country, let me tell you: The country was under a regime, much like Saddam's, for over 50 fuckin years. Why didn't ANYONE come help my country??!?!?!?



And btw, lookie here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480


LONDON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the U.S.-led invasion last year, American public health experts have calculated in a report that estimates there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.

[Lueda Alia]

Oh well there you go there's your concensus. Everyone spread the word and quit looking at every survey that says Iraqis are happy with the ousting by the US.
your "surveys" are so freakin biased that it's not even funny.

i don't care if you support bush... i really don't give a shit.. but to say that people actually like to be invaded? that's bullshit.

[yeat182]

I don't know what it's like to live under a brutal dictator? Think before you speak.

I lived in Albania my whole life, and since you probably don't know shit about my country, let me tell you: The country was under a regime, much like Saddam's, for over 50 fuckin years. Why didn't ANYONE come help my country??!?!?!?



And btw, lookie here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480

first of all, how would anyone know that you lived in albania for your whole life?


also, "Two-thirds of violent deaths in the study were reported in Falluja, the insurgent held city 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad which had been repeatedly hit by U.S. air strikes. "

[cal1082]

your "surveys" are so freakin biased that it's not even funny.

i don't care if you support bush... i really don't give a shit.. but to say that people actually like to be invaded? that's bullshit.

which survey are you referring to? if they're that obviously bias maybe you could point out why?

[Lueda Alia]

first of all, how would anyone know that you lived in albania for your whole life?
um ask anyone who knows me from here [paul maybe? and also my bf comes here too, you could ask him as well]. and i can speak albanian. is that enough for you?

i think i've actually mentioned it before too on a lot of threads on the general forum.

[venus/bacchus]

I don't know what it's like to live under a brutal dictator? Think before you speak.

I lived in Albania my whole life, and since you probably don't know shit about my country, let me tell you: The country was under a regime, much like Saddam's, for over 50 fuckin years. Why didn't ANYONE come help my country??!?!?!?



And btw, lookie here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480
How old were you when you left? If you're only 17 now, I'd assume you were fairly young. So either you were too young to know what was really going on, or you were completely aware and can empathize with the Iraqis. Why do you say "Why didn't ANYONE come help my country??!?!?!?"? It sounds like you wish someone would have ousted the dictatorship in Albania, but you know what it's like, wish it happened to you, but don't think the Iraqis are happy?

And I know a lot of people have died, and it's terrible. I don't know what else you want me to say to that.

[yeat182]

um ask anyone who knows me from here [paul maybe? and also my bf comes here too, you could ask him as well]. and i can speak albanian. is that enough for you?

i think i've actually mentioned it before too on a lot of threads on the general forum.


first of all, i wasn't questioning the fact that you are albanian, i was questioning why you would assume we would all know that. This is the politics forum, not the genral forum, unless you mentioned it here, not many people would know, and my first question to someone is rarely, "hey, are you from albania?". why are you so defensive about it?

[Lueda Alia]

How old were you when you left? If you're only 17 now, I'd assume you were fairly young. So either you were too young to know what was really going on, or you were completely aware and can empathize with the Iraqis. Why do you say "Why didn't ANYONE come help my country??!?!?!?"? It sounds like you wish someone would have ousted the dictatorship in Albania, but you know what it's like, wish it happened to you, but don't think the Iraqis are happy?

And I know a lot of people have died, and it's terrible. I don't know what else you want me to say to that.


i left only three years ago. i was almost 15. so no, not too young. and besides, i have heard all my relatives [my mom too] talk about it all the time because albania suffered so much from that regime. and there was democracy only in the late 90s. you couldn't even say anything about the "government"... because even if your own friends would go tell on you. and you'd pretty much die. my mom's cousin was in jail for 35 years only because he said, "there's not enough sugar". i know it sounds sort of funny in a sad way... but it's true. no one could speak their mind. they weren't even allowed to listen to foreign music or anything foreign for the matter.. because they'd be "traitors". and so much other shit. a lot of people died. but no one came to rescue my country. and it just pisses me off how the bush administration is now saying that they're in Iraq to liberate those people. how about other people in 3rd world countries? as i've said before, what makes the Iraqis better than the rest of us? or maybe its just because there's nothing for the US in albania?

and no, i don't wish for anyone to have helped us. because my country did it on their own. there was a huge freakin revolution in the late 90s... and there was democracy from that moment on. and im sure the Iraqis would've been able to do the same about saddam's regime... because NOTHING can go on forever if the people are against it & if they unite to bring it down. so there was no need for the US to put it's nose in that country. that is all.

[Lueda Alia]

first of all, i wasn't questioning the fact that you are albanian, i was questioning why you would assume we would all know that. This is the politics forum, not the genral forum, unless you mentioned it here, not many people would know, and my first question to someone is rarely, "hey, are you from albania?". why are you so defensive about it?
i'm not defensive about it. it's just that you asked me how would you know that i'm from albania as in... "i don't believe that you're from there". or at least that's how it sounded. so no, i'm not being defensive at all. just thought you were doubting me so i told you to ask others who know for sure that i'm from there.

[cal1082]

I don't know what it's like to live under a brutal dictator? Think before you speak.

I lived in Albania my whole life, and since you probably don't know shit about my country, let me tell you: The country was under a regime, much like Saddam's, for over 50 fuckin years. Why didn't ANYONE come help my country??!?!?!?



And btw, lookie here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480

Should be noted that the "regime" ended around the same time the Soviet Union broke up in the early 90's making you around the age of 4-6 years old.

[yeat182]

i left only three years ago. i was almost 15. so no, not too young. and besides, i have heard all my relatives [my mom too] talk about it all the time because albania suffered so much from that regime. and there was democracy only in the late 90s. you couldn't even say anything about the "government"... because even if your own friends would go tell on you. and you'd pretty much die. my mom's cousin was in jail for 35 years only because he said, "there's not enough sugar". i know it sounds sort of funny in a sad way... but it's true. no one could speak their mind. they weren't even allowed to listen to foreign music or anything foreign for the matter.. because they'd be "traitors". and so much other shit. a lot of people died. but no one came to rescue my country. and it just pisses me off how the bush administration is now saying that they're in Iraq to liberate those people. how about other people in 3rd world countries? as i've said before, what makes the Iraqis better than the rest of us? or maybe its just because there's nothing for the US in albania?


you say all of that and yet you don't empathize with the Iraqis that had to go through the same things? also, pres. Bush wasn't president then, you should hate president clinton.

and no, i don't wish for anyone to have helped us. because my country did it on their own. there was a huge freakin revolution in the late 90s... and there was democracy from that moment on. and im sure the Iraqis would've been able to do the same about saddam's regime... because NOTHING can go on forever if the people are against it & if they unite to bring it down. so there was no need for the US to put it's nose in that country. that is all.

if you didn't want anyones help, why do you hold it against them that they didn't help?

[Lueda Alia]

Should be noted that the "regime" ended around the same time the Soviet Union broke up in the early 90's making you around the age of 4-6 years old.

it happened only on '93. and i was 7 years old then. in fact, when the revolution started i was downtown with my aunt because she owned a restaurant.. and i saw all the people out there, on the protests etc. it was uhh, frightening to say the least. and i still remember it as if it happened yesterday.

either way, it doesn't matter what age i was. point is, albania was under a fucked up regime and no one came to help us.

[yeat182]

i'm not defensive about it. it's just that you asked me how would you know that i'm from albania as in... "i don't believe that you're from there". or at least that's how it sounded. so no, i'm not being defensive at all. just thought you were doubting me so i told you to ask others who know for sure that i'm from there.

no no, i meant, how would we know that you are from albainia unless you told us, because your location says canada and whatnot. i mean, no one would assume you were from albania unless you told them.

[yeat182]

it happened only on '93. and i was 7 years old then. in fact, when the revolution started i was downtown with my aunt because she owned a restaurant.. and i saw all the people out there, on the protests etc. it was uhh, frightening to say the least. and i still remember it as if it happened yesterday.

either way, it doesn't matter what age i was. point is, albania was under a fucked up regime and no one came to help us.

but you just said you didn't want help.

[Lueda Alia]

you say all of that and yet you don't empathize with the Iraqis that had to go through the same things? also, pres. Bush wasn't president then, you should hate president clinton.



if you didn't want anyones help, why do you hold it against them that they didn't help?

no, i don't hold anything against ANYONE. albanians actually love america because they helped with the war in kosovo. so no, i don't have anything against the US. it's just the double standards that piss me the hell off. if the US cared so much about others, if there was nothing in for them, then they'd help others too.. not only Iraqis. that's the only thing that bugs me.. how bush&co are using that as a reason for invading iraq [now that we found out there's no WMD's, no ties to al qaeda]. because its simply not true.

and it's not that i don't "empathize" with the iraqi people. i think it would've been much better if they did it on their own. which i'm sure they would've.

[Lueda Alia]

but you just said you didn't want help.
i don't think you're actually understanding where i'm trying to get at...

[Lueda Alia]

no no, i meant, how would we know that you are from albainia unless you told us, because your location says canada and whatnot. i mean, no one would assume you were from albania unless you told them.
oh okay. yeah i misunderstood you. could've taken what you said in two ways and yeah.

[yeat182]

no, i don't hold anything against ANYONE. albanians actually love america because they helped with the war in kosovo. so no, i don't have anything against the US. it's just the double standards that piss me the hell off. if the US cared so much about others, if there was nothing in for them, then they'd help others too.. not only Iraqis. that's the only thing that bugs me.. how bush&co are using that as a reason for invading iraq [now that we found out there's no WMD's, no ties to al qaeda]. because its simply not true.

but can't you see that there was a different administration involved. blaming bush for the double standard isn't fair because he wasn't in power, he owned a freaking baseball team at the time. and liberating the iraqis was the reason from day 1, among the others you listed.

and it's not that i don't "empathize" with the iraqi people. i think it would've been much better if they did it on their own. which i'm sure they would've.

perhaps.

[cal1082]

no, i don't hold anything against ANYONE. albanians actually love america because they helped with the war in kosovo. so no, i don't have anything against the US. it's just the double standards that piss me the hell off. if the US cared so much about others, if there was nothing in for them, then they'd help others too.. not only Iraqis. that's the only thing that bugs me.. how bush&co are using that as a reason for invading iraq [now that we found out there's no WMD's, no ties to al qaeda]. because its simply not true.

and it's not that i don't "empathize" with the iraqi people. i think it would've been much better if they did it on their own. which i'm sure they would've.

Well if it's the double standard that makes you mad I can see why you would be angry the US doesnt go into other suppressed places, but why would you be angry they went into Iraq? Seems you want it both ways.......you don't like the double standard of not helping other places but also dont like the invasion of iraq?

[Lueda Alia]

Well if it's the double standard that makes you mad I can see why you would be angry the US doesnt go into other suppressed places, but why would you be angry they went into Iraq? Seems you want it both ways.......you don't like the double standard of not helping other places but also dont like the invasion of iraq?
because every country should be treated the same way if they're in the same situation. which of course wasn't the case this time, was it?


and as i said... im not saying i wanted the US help my country. i don't think anyone did. because we won democracy in a much better way.. on OUR own. and it means so much more. and besides, there were not as many deaths during the revolution. no way near as many deaths in fact. so yeah.

[cal1082]

because every country should be treated the same way if they're in the same situation. which of course wasn't the case this time, was it?


and as i said... im not saying i wanted the US help my country. i don't think anyone did. because we won democracy in a much better way.. on OUR own. and it means so much more. and besides, there were not as many deaths during the revolution. no way near as many deaths in fact. so yeah.

That's a dangerous philosophy. So everyone should have to win their own freedoms and democracy?

[yeat182]

so by your logic, we shouldn't help anyone, because we haven't helped everyone? doesn't make sense to me.

[Lueda Alia]

but can't you see that there was a different administration involved. blaming bush for the double standard isn't fair because he wasn't in power, he owned a freaking baseball team at the time. and liberating the iraqis was the reason from day 1, among the others you listed.


right, cause the bush administration is much better than the clinton one was. the clinton adminstration DID help when we needed help with another country [serbia]. which was the right thing to do. they knew that invading albania because they were under a regime, wouldn't have been a good idea. sometimes its just the country's business, you know? and you should keep your nose out of it.

and besides, there were other presidents, not only clinton. there was bush sr.. who i'm sure would've liked to invade iraq too.. cause uhh he cared for the freedom of the iraqi people.

thing is, as i said before, this isn't about the iraqis freedom. it has never been and it will never be. i don't think that was even one of the first reasons why the US invaded iraq. it wasn't a reason until we all found out there were no WMD's. you think the US citizens would've actually approved of a war for the freedom of the Iraqi people? if the bush administration had said that "saddam is an evil man. he needs to be removed, because the iraqis deserve freedom".. anyone would've supported them on this war? cause i reaaally doubt it.

[Lueda Alia]

so by your logic, we shouldn't help anyone, because we haven't helped everyone? doesn't make sense to me.
no, all i'm saying is to stop using the "we're there to free the iraqis" crap as a reason. because it's not true.

[cal1082]

right, cause the bush administration is much better than the clinton one was. the clinton adminstration DID help when we needed help with another country [serbia]. which was the right thing to do. they knew that invading albania because they were under a regime, wouldn't have been a good idea. sometimes its just the country's business, you know? and you should keep your nose out of it.

and besides, there were other presidents, not only clinton. there was bush sr.. who i'm sure would've liked to invade iraq too.. cause uhh he cared for the freedom of the iraqi people.

thing is, as i said before, this isn't about the iraqis freedom. it has never been and it will never be. i don't think that was even one of the first reasons why the US invaded iraq. it wasn't a reason until we all found out there were no WMD's. you think the US citizens would've actually approved of a far for the freedom of the Iraqi people? if the bush administration had said that "saddam is an evil man. he needs to be removed, because the iraqis deserve freedom".. anyone would've supported them on this war? cause i reaaally doubt it.

You won't everyone treated the same in the same situation.........except Iraq??????

It just doesnt make sense that you think Serbia citizens needed help but Iraq's doesnt.

[Lueda Alia]

You won't everyone treated the same in the same situation.........except Iraq??????

siigh. i should really quit trying to "explain" myself because you don't get it.

[cal1082]

siigh. i should really quit trying to "explain" myself because you don't get it.

because it doesnt make any sense.

"every country should be treated the same way if they're in the same situation."

"clinton adminstration DID help when we needed help with another country [serbia]. which was the right thing to do."

"this war should have never happened" ------in regards to Iraq

Surely you can see how one can be confused? You clearly have a philosophy of do something in "B" as you did it in "A". Yet you have 2 countries with ethincs being suppressed and you have conflicting views on the wars.

[yeat182]

right, cause the bush administration is much better than the clinton one was. the clinton adminstration DID help when we needed help with another country [serbia]. which was the right thing to do. they knew that invading albania because they were under a regime, wouldn't have been a good idea. sometimes its just the country's business, you know? and you should keep your nose out of it.

they helped the serbs because they lived under a brutal dictator who was committing genocide. there a pretty good comparisons between milosvic and saddam. not to mention, the UN wouldn't send help to kosovo, the US went about it on our own with our NATO allies.

and besides, there were other presidents, not only clinton. there was bush sr.. who i'm sure would've liked to invade iraq too.. cause uhh he cared for the freedom of the iraqi people.

actually, Bush Sr. purposely didn't invade Iraq. he wanted to let the people rise up and overthrow saddam, and they were massacred.

thing is, as i said before, this isn't about the iraqis freedom. it has never been and it will never be. i don't think that was even one of the first reasons why the US invaded iraq. it wasn't a reason until we all found out there were no WMD's. you think the US citizens would've actually approved of a war for the freedom of the Iraqi people? if the bush administration had said that "saddam is an evil man. he needs to be removed, because the iraqis deserve freedom".. anyone would've supported them on this war? cause i reaaally doubt it.

a free Iraq is a huge stragetic bonus for the world. a free democracy other than Israel in the middle east will make it much easier to fight terrorism and control the proliferation of WMDs.

[yeat182]

no, all i'm saying is to stop using the "we're there to free the iraqis" crap as a reason. because it's not true.

how do you know that isn't true?

[venus/bacchus]

well I think cal and yeat have said everything I wanted to, so no real reason for me to reply now

but as a side note: your name's Eda right?...is that short for something? because it's very western sounding and I never knew you were Albanian, just curious

[Lueda Alia]

I said this: "right, cause the bush administration is much better than the clinton one was. the clinton adminstration DID help when we needed help with another country [serbia]. which was the right thing to do. they knew that invading albania because they were under a regime, wouldn't have been a good idea. sometimes its just the country's business, you know? and you should keep your nose out of it."


maybe if you quote the whole thing and not just what you like to quote, it'd make sense. they helped kosovo against serbia. because kosovo was being invaded by serbia. kosovo didn't have any inside problems.. like with its own government or anything. so it was a good move by the clinton administration to help them. ONLY BECAUSE TWO COUNTRIES WERE FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER. can't you see the difference that i'm trying to show you? the difference between a country having problems and between TWO countries having problems?!??!!

[venus/bacchus]

Oh, and also, in Powell's speech to the UN trying to garner support for the war he mentioned that freeing the Iraqi citizens was one of the reasons we'd be heading in. I'm sure cal has the link somewhere if you need to see it.

[Lueda Alia]

well I think cal and yeat have said everything I wanted to, so no real reason for me to reply now

but as a side note: your name's Eda right?...is that short for something? because it's very western sounding and I never knew you were Albanian, just curious

haha it's western sounding? that's news to me. because everyone i know here & from the US.. say they've never heard the name. its pretty used in my country though. and no, its not my full name. lueda is my full name. long story. but just so you know, albanians don't have names like the people in middle east and stuff.

[Lueda Alia]

i still doubt anyone would've supported the war if it was only about the Iraqis freedom.

[venus/bacchus]

haha it's western sounding? that's news to me. because everyone i know here & from the US.. say they've never heard the name. its pretty used in my country though. and no, its not my full name. lueda is my full name. long story. but just so you know, albanians don't have names like the people in middle east and stuff.
ok cool...I think it sounds pretty western, maybe that's just me though

I can't say I've heard anyone else with that name, but it just has that sound...who knows?

[yeat182]

I said this: "right, cause the bush administration is much better than the clinton one was. the clinton adminstration DID help when we needed help with another country [serbia]. which was the right thing to do. they knew that invading albania because they were under a regime, wouldn't have been a good idea. sometimes its just the country's business, you know? and you should keep your nose out of it."


maybe if you quote the whole thing and not just what you like to quote, it'd make sense. they helped kosovo against serbia. because kosovo was being invaded by serbia. kosovo didn't have any inside problems.. like with its own government or anything. so it was a good move by the clinton administration to help them. ONLY BECAUSE TWO COUNTRIES WERE FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER. can't you see the difference that i'm trying to show you? the difference between a country having problems and between TWO countries having problems?!??!!

i did quote the whole thing.

[Lueda Alia]

ok cool...I think it sounds pretty western, maybe that's just me though

I can't say I've heard anyone else with that name, but it just has that sound...who knows?
haha i don't know. but i'm sure a lot of albanian names would sound western.. cause i guess in a way they are.

[Lueda Alia]

i did quote the whole thing.
i was talking to cal.

[yeat182]

i still doubt anyone would've supported the war if it was only about the Iraqis freedom.


obvioulsy we would because that would mean getting rid of saddam, who was a threat to everyone. he invaded 2 of his neighbors, launched missile attacks against Israel, killed his own people, pursued WMD's, bought off the UN oil-for-food program, supported terrorists, fired missiles at coalition aircraft on a daily basis, attempted to assisnate a US president. i think we all would have supported that, and we did.

[cal1082]

I said this: "right, cause the bush administration is much better than the clinton one was. the clinton adminstration DID help when we needed help with another country [serbia]. which was the right thing to do. they knew that invading albania because they were under a regime, wouldn't have been a good idea. sometimes its just the country's business, you know? and you should keep your nose out of it."


maybe if you quote the whole thing and not just what you like to quote, it'd make sense. they helped kosovo against serbia. because kosovo was being invaded by serbia. kosovo didn't have any inside problems.. like with its own government or anything. so it was a good move by the clinton administration to help them. ONLY BECAUSE TWO COUNTRIES WERE FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER. can't you see the difference that i'm trying to show you? the difference between a country having problems and between TWO countries having problems?!??!!

I see the differnce. I'm just saying in both cases (Kosovo, and Iraq) you have civilans being suppressed. Yet you have diffrent views on whether the war was right or wrong.

[Lueda Alia]

I see the differnce. I'm just saying in both cases (Kosovo, and Iraq) you have civilans being suppressed. Yet you have diffrent views on whether the war was right or wrong.
because as i said in my other post.. sometimes countries have to take care of themselves. during like, civil wars etc.

[Lueda Alia]

obvioulsy we would because that would mean getting rid of saddam, who was a threat to everyone. he invaded 2 of his neighbors, launched missile attacks against Israel, killed his own people, pursued WMD's, bought off the UN oil-for-food program, supported terrorists, fired missiles at coalition aircraft on a daily basis, attempted to assisnate a US president. i think we all would have supported that, and we did.

i very much doubt anyone would have supported the war then. i know a lot of people who supported the war, did so only because they were scared that saddam had wmd's.

[cal1082]

because as i said in my other post.. sometimes countries have to take care of themselves. during like, civil wars etc.

Yes, and you also said:

"every country should be treated the same way if they're in the same situation."

So again you can see how I would be confused. Both were in the same situation because civilians were being suppressed.

That's my point.......what you're saying and then what you're arguing are different.

[UndefinedBoy]

obvioulsy we would because that would mean getting rid of saddam, who was a threat to everyone. he invaded 2 of his neighbors, launched missile attacks against Israel, killed his own people, pursued WMD's, bought off the UN oil-for-food program, supported terrorists, fired missiles at coalition aircraft on a daily basis, attempted to assisnate a US president. i think we all would have supported that, and we did.

I strongly disagree. Without the talks of WMDs and imminent threats, this war would never have happened.

[yeat182]

I strongly disagree. Without the talks of WMDs and imminent threats, this war would never have happened.


that is like saying, if there was no Saddam, this war wouldn't have happened. which is probably true. but Saddam is part and parcel of this whole thing, you can't have Iraqi liberation and freedom with out removing saddam hussein. saddam was a threat and an evil person and the world thought he had WMD's. they go together.

[UndefinedBoy]

that is like saying, if there was no Saddam, this war wouldn't have happened. which is probably true. but Saddam is part and parcel of this whole thing, you can't have Iraqi liberation and freedom with out removing saddam hussein. saddam was a threat and an evil person and the world thought he had WMD's. they go together.

Again I disagree...as has been said many times there are plenty of cruel dictators out there that we aren't touching...the majority of this country only supported action because they thought a nuke was on its way here already. Also, the world couldn't have been TOO sure about WMDs, after all there are none.

[yeat182]

Again I disagree...as has been said many times there are plenty of cruel dictators out there that we aren't touching...the majority of this country only supported action because they thought a nuke was on its way here already. Also, the world couldn't have been TOO sure about WMDs, after all there are none.


my point is, to liberate Iraq, was to remove Saddam. they went hand in hand.

[UndefinedBoy]

my point is, to liberate Iraq, was to remove Saddam. they went hand in hand.

My point is this war would never have been supported had the only goal been liberation and not "protecting" ourselves.

[richter915]

yeat..you're just talking about the goals the public knew for sure.

undefinedboy is talking about those things that are done underneath the table and under cover of darkness. His comments have less basis but I don't think you can completely deny it.

[turtlefootrx]

i think its on the tip of everyones tongues, its just a matter if you really want to admit it or not.

[yeat182]

yeat..you're just talking about the goals the public knew for sure.

undefinedboy is talking about those things that are done underneath the table and under cover of darkness. His comments have less basis but I don't think you can completely deny it.

i don't deny the fact that there were multiple reasons for going into Iraq, chief among them was protection. I guess what i am trying to say was that, for all practical purposes, the main goal of this war was to remove Saddam. by doing so, we would liberate the Iraqi people, help protect ourselves and the region, and thwart any WMD program he had. so argueing over which result we were hoping for, be it liberation or protection, is irrelevant because we were going to accomplish them all by removing saddam.

[commatosa]

i don't deny the fact that there were multiple reasons for going into Iraq, chief among them was protection. I guess what i am trying to say was that, for all practical purposes, the main goal of this war was to remove Saddam. by doing so, we would liberate the Iraqi people, help protect ourselves and the region, and thwart any WMD program he had. so argueing over which result we were hoping for, be it liberation or protection, is irrelevant because we were going to accomplish them all by removing saddam.

Ya know, Bush supporters and Kerry supporters could argue about the Iraq war being justified or unjustified until the sun comes up. But the fact of the matter is that this president didn't have a plan to win the peace. That's not debatable, that's a fact. If the president didn't rush into this war and though about an effective exit strategy, then I'd probably be casting my vote in his favor on Tuesday. However, he proved to me that he's not interested in America's safety or our troops' safety. What this president is interested in is power and doesn't mind sharing that power with a bunch of greedy corporations (ie Halliburton, Enron, The Carlyle Group etc.) I think everyone knows where I'm going with this :)

[cal1082]

Ya know, Bush supporters and Kerry supporters could argue about the Iraq war being justified or unjustified until the sun comes up. But the fact of the matter is that this president didn't have a plan to win the peace. That's not debatable, that's a fact. If the president didn't rush into this war and though about an effective exit strategy, then I'd probably be casting my vote in his favor on Tuesday. However, he proved to me that he's not interested in America's safety or our troops' safety. What this president is interested in is power and doesn't mind sharing that power with a bunch of greedy corporations (ie Halliburton, Enron, The Carlyle Group etc.) I think everyone knows where I'm going with this :)

Perhaps it's me, but I don't understand the "plan for peace" argument? Can someone tell me what a "plan for peace" would involve after the war?

[turtlefootrx]

Ya know, Bush supporters and Kerry supporters could argue about the Iraq war being justified or unjustified until the sun comes up. But the fact of the matter is that this president didn't have a plan to win the peace. That's not debatable, that's a fact. If the president didn't rush into this war and though about an effective exit strategy, then I'd probably be casting my vote in his favor on Tuesday. However, he proved to me that he's not interested in America's safety or our troops' safety. What this president is interested in is power and doesn't mind sharing that power with a bunch of greedy corporations (ie Halliburton, Enron, The Carlyle Group etc.) I think everyone knows where I'm going with this :)

i sure do

Perhaps it's me, but I don't understand the "plan for peace" argument? Can someone tell me what a "plan for peace" would involve after the war?

with the way things are going now its hard to really have a plan for peace after the war, which is going to be hard for either candidate that wins on tueday. if things had been done a little more diplomatic from the start the exit strategy would have been much easier.

[venus/bacchus]

with the way things are going now its hard to really have a plan for peace after the war, which is going to be hard for either candidate that wins on tueday. if things had been done a little more diplomatic from the start the exit strategy would have been much easier.
Wait wait wait....diplomatic??....Iraq??

[cal1082]

with the way things are going now its hard to really have a plan for peace after the war, which is going to be hard for either candidate that wins on tueday. if things had been done a little more diplomatic from the start the exit strategy would have been much easier.

How? What's a plan for peace involve?

[turtlefootrx]

what i meant is that if we wouldnt have jumped in there from the start and what not maybe things would be a little more easier. im not exactly sure on what to tell you for a plan for peace. but its also not my job to design such things. its the presidents and the pentagons.

[cal1082]

what i meant is that if we wouldnt have jumped in there from the start and what not maybe things would be a little more easier. im not exactly sure on what to tell you for a plan for peace. but its also not my job to design such things. its the presidents and the pentagons.

If you don't know what a plan for peace would intel, how can you say Bush didnt have one?

[commatosa]

If you don't know what a plan for peace would intel, how can you say Bush didnt have one?

Easy, Iraq is not a peaceful country right now. And turtlefootrx is right... it's not our job to think of one.

[cal1082]

Easy, Iraq is not a peaceful country right now. And turtlefootrx is right... it's not our job to think of one.

That doesnt mean he didnt have a plan for peace (unless you jump to assumptions), could just mean the plan didnt work. I've never heard John Kerry draw is plan out to win the peace. If you know what it is post it cause I'd like to see the difference in his plan and what Bush has done.

[commatosa]

That doesnt mean he didnt have a plan for peace (unless you jump to assumptions), could just mean the plan didnt work. I've never heard John Kerry draw is plan out to win the peace. If you know what it is post it cause I'd like to see the difference in his plan and what Bush has done.

Okay, you gotta keep in mind that if Kerry had been president we would have never gone to Iraq. But Kerry's peace plan (in a nutshell) is to build up Iraqi forces EFFECTIVELY (ie training them outside of Iraq so they won't keep getting killed by the resistance). Put the credibility back in the oval office where Bush threw it away by alienating us from our allies. With Kerry we have a better chance of getting more allies involved (and yes, I realize that it might not happen but why not take a chance?) Pretty much those two things. For more info go to www.johnkerry.com

[cal1082]

Okay, you gotta keep in mind that if Kerry had been president we would have never gone to Iraq. But Kerry's peace plan (in a nutshell) is to build up Iraqi forces EFFECTIVELY (ie training them outside of Iraq so they won't keep getting killed by the resistance). Put the credibility back in the oval office where Bush threw it away by alienating us from our allies. With Kerry we have a better chance of getting more allies involved (and yes, I realize that it might not happen but why not take a chance?) Pretty much those two things. For more info go to www.johnkerry.com

Sorry but my side is splitting. You pointed 2 parts out of "Kerry's Peace Plan". You say Bush had NO peace plan, but what you are suggesting above is the exact same thing Bush has been trying to do. It's comical you don't see they're the same plan.

The only difference between "Kerry's Peace Plan" and the "Bush's Peace Plan" (for some reason you don't believe existed) is Kerry says he could do it better.

So in a nutshell, don't say Bush has or had no plan to win the peace and say Kerry does..........then to show Kerry's peace plan..........point out the exact same things Bush has already been doing.

[cal1082]

Sorry but my side is splitting. You pointed 2 parts out of "Kerry's Peace Plan". You say Bush had NO peace plan, but what you are suggesting above is the exact same thing Bush has been trying to do. It's comical you don't see they're the same plan.

The only difference between "Kerry's Peace Plan" and the "Bush's Peace Plan" (for some reason you don't believe existed) is Kerry says he could do it better.

So in a nutshell, don't say Bush has or had no plan to win the peace and say Kerry does..........then to show Kerry's peace plan..........point out the exact same things Bush has already been doing.

That's just another reason Kerry doesnt work for me.

His plan for peace is the exact same as Bush's, but he says he'll do it better (obviously without details how). Yet Kerry marches up to the podium everyday and claims Bush had no plan to win the peace. Please, please tell me you can see Bush and Kerry have the exact same plan?

[turtlefootrx]

That doesnt mean he didnt have a plan for peace (unless you jump to assumptions), could just mean the plan didnt work. I've never heard John Kerry draw is plan out to win the peace. If you know what it is post it cause I'd like to see the difference in his plan and what Bush has done.

since you seem to know so much about the bush administration, tell me what his peace plan is then. be specific.

[cal1082]

since you seem to know so much about the bush administration, tell me what his peace plan is then. be specific.

First look at the money spent. I forgot the exact original number for the rebuilding of Iraq, but one of the key things the administration fought for was to make all that money a grant, and if I remember right maybe half of it was made a grant and the rest a loan.

Second, he tried to get other nations to allow Iraq to cancel their debts. This would inable the to concentrate their oil revenues on paying for rebuidling. Some countries did I believe and some canceled parts of loans.

Third, the administration's goal was to turn over power as quickly as possible to the Iraq's. June 30th was the scheduled date and many felt this was to early. They pushed on with the day and it worked. You also saw this in the oil industry. US gave control up months before June 30th as a sign of trust.

Fourth, Bush has also been training Iraqi forces. As I recall when Sadr was being dealt a couple of weeks ago, it was a majority of Iraqi forces who were in charge, with the Iraqi government directing them.

Fifth, Bush as also tried to get other allies involved. Even before the war we went to the UN TWICE. And like I said above we tried to get other countries involved by canceling past Iraq loans. The UN even came after Saddam fell, but soon left after someone set a bomb off during a meeting.

Sixth, the administration made the attempt to get NATO to train Iraqi soldiers. This is yet another aspect of the training of soldiers and involving other nations.

Seventh, I don't know how much this was the Bush administration, but amnesty has been used as a tool to stop insurgents and to get weapons.

Eighth, during the war smart bombs were used primarily. This left the basic infrastructure in place, so rebuilding would not be needed. I remember hearing during the war that Iraqs were going to work during the day in Bahgdad despite bombings at night.

Those are 8 examples and I'd be willing to bet there's more I can't think of off the top of my head. It's funny that you avoided my question though just by shooting the same one back at me. Now I'd like to see you tell me how Bush had no plan for peace, and how Kerry's is that much different?

[cal1082]

Can anyone tell me how Bush had no plan for peace, yet tell me how Kerry's ideas are any different?

[yeat182]

Easy, Iraq is not a peaceful country right now. And turtlefootrx is right... it's not our job to think of one.

it wasn't a peaceful country before.

[yeat182]

Can anyone tell me how Bush had no plan for peace, yet tell me how Kerry's ideas are any different?


kerry has no plans for anything. if you watched any of the debates, rather than explain his plan, all he ever said was that he could do it better than bush. never once did he explain HOW he'd do it better.

[cal1082]

kerry has no plans for anything. if you watched any of the debates, rather than explain his plan, all he ever said was that he could do it better than bush. never once did he explain HOW he'd do it better.

Exactly, and I don't see why anyone can't see this. Many feel Bush is slow.......come on people. It's plain as day.

Kerry's gonna stand up at every speech and say "Bush had no plan to win the peace". What's his............to do everything Bush is doing, BUT better. How does he do it better? We don't know because he won't say.

Quit eating of his tree about Bush having no plan to win the peace. I just gave you an example of 8 diffrent things Bush did to try for peace/stability/ and better relations with Iraq and the Iraq people. Now show me Kerry's plan, and show me how it's different?

[cal1082]

Commatosa, can you field this one? Earlier you knew it was a fact Bush had no plan to win the peace.

"But the fact of the matter is that this president didn't have a plan to win the peace. That's not debatable, that's a fact"

I'd like you to point out what's wrong with the 8 things I listed among others that Bush has done for his "plan", and point out Kerry's plan (and if kerry has a plan, what's the difference in it from what Bush has been doing?).

[yeat182]

Commatosa, can you field this one? Earlier you knew it was a fact Bush had no plan to win the peace.

"But the fact of the matter is that this president didn't have a plan to win the peace. That's not debatable, that's a fact"

I'd like you to point out what's wrong with the 8 things I listed among others that Bush has done for his "plan", and point out Kerry's plan (and if kerry has a plan, what's the difference in it from what Bush has been doing?).

he can't point anything out because he has no idea what he is talking about.

[UndefinedBoy]

First look at the money spent. I forgot the exact original number for the rebuilding of Iraq, but one of the key things the administration fought for was to make all that money a grant, and if I remember right maybe half of it was made a grant and the rest a loan.

Second, he tried to get other nations to allow Iraq to cancel their debts. This would inable the to concentrate their oil revenues on paying for rebuidling. Some countries did I believe and some canceled parts of loans.

Third, the administration's goal was to turn over power as quickly as possible to the Iraq's. June 30th was the scheduled date and many felt this was to early. They pushed on with the day and it worked. You also saw this in the oil industry. US gave control up months before June 30th as a sign of trust.

Fourth, Bush has also been training Iraqi forces. As I recall when Sadr was being dealt a couple of weeks ago, it was a majority of Iraqi forces who were in charge, with the Iraqi government directing them.

Fifth, Bush as also tried to get other allies involved. Even before the war we went to the UN TWICE. And like I said above we tried to get other countries involved by canceling past Iraq loans. The UN even came after Saddam fell, but soon left after someone set a bomb off during a meeting.

Sixth, the administration made the attempt to get NATO to train Iraqi soldiers. This is yet another aspect of the training of soldiers and involving other nations.

Seventh, I don't know how much this was the Bush administration, but amnesty has been used as a tool to stop insurgents and to get weapons.

Eighth, during the war smart bombs were used primarily. This left the basic infrastructure in place, so rebuilding would not be needed. I remember hearing during the war that Iraqs were going to work during the day in Bahgdad despite bombings at night.

Those are 8 examples and I'd be willing to bet there's more I can't think of off the top of my head. It's funny that you avoided my question though just by shooting the same one back at me. Now I'd like to see you tell me how Bush had no plan for peace, and how Kerry's is that much different?

So tell me Cal, is this plan working?

[cal1082]

So tell me Cal, is this plan working?

Parts of it definetly not, some parts yet to be determined, and some parts I'd say yes.

Still doesnt answer why Kerry says Bush had no plan and why Kerry's proposing the exact same "no plan" that Bush used.

It's weird cause I asked the original question about a page or so back and no one answered it. I've just been tossed questions back about Bush. Come on if your a Kerry supporter (don't know if you specifically are) this should be a softball because it's pretty much the foremost issue in the campaign.

[UndefinedBoy]

Parts of it definetly not, some parts yet to be determined, and some parts I'd say yes.

Still doesnt answer why Kerry says Bush had no plan and why Kerry's proposing the exact same "no plan" that Bush used.

It's weird cause I asked the original question about a page or so back and no one answered it. I've just been tossed questions back about Bush. Come on if your a Kerry supporter (don't know if you specifically are) this should be a softball because it's pretty much the foremost issue in the campaign.

Neither candidate has explained what their "plan" is as far as I know. What you listed are steps that seem pretty logical, and I'm guessing either candidate would have proceeded like that. What this plan consists of for either candidate is unknown to me, but as was said it's not my job to think of things like that.

It just seems Kerry has a different "plan," which I support because I don't feel Bush's "plan" is going anywhere. The specifics aren't important to me. It's similar to U.S. battleplans as in I don't care what the plans are just as long as the U.S. comes out on top and alive and well.

[cal1082]

Neither candidate has explained what their "plan" is as far as I know. What you listed are steps that seem pretty logical, and I'm guessing either candidate would have proceeded like that. What this plan consists of for either candidate is unknown to me, but as was said it's not my job to think of things like that.

It just seems Kerry has a different "plan," which I support because I don't feel Bush's "plan" is going anywhere. The specifics aren't important to me. It's similar to U.S. battleplans as in I don't care what the plans are just as long as the U.S. comes out on top and alive and well.

How's his plan different? You say it seems yet everything he has described is the same thing Bush has done or tried.

I mean you're supporting something that you knowingly admit you don't know.

My point behind all of this is that Kerry says Bush had "no plan to win the peace" and it's not challenged because many of you just accept it. I showed you 8 things in Bush's strategy simply off the top of my head. Also Kerry's ideas on Iraq are the EXACT same as Bush's. So if you honestly think Bush has no plan, than that would mean Kerry had no plan.

[yeat182]

Neither candidate has explained what their "plan" is as far as I know. What you listed are steps that seem pretty logical, and I'm guessing either candidate would have proceeded like that. What this plan consists of for either candidate is unknown to me, but as was said it's not my job to think of things like that.

It just seems Kerry has a different "plan," which I support because I don't feel Bush's "plan" is going anywhere. The specifics aren't important to me. It's similar to U.S. battleplans as in I don't care what the plans are just as long as the U.S. comes out on top and alive and well.

the specifics aren't important to you?

[UndefinedBoy]

the specifics aren't important to you?

I don't think I made how I feel clear enough. I'll try to use examples to justify my point, sorry if I confuse you guys more.

Take wars for example. During the Iraq war I wasn't concerned with the details of each individual battle, only the outcome. It's not my job to plan which troops go where and when, I only want the U.S. troops to be safe and come out on top. Apply this same idea to peace plans. The specifics interest me, and I'd love to know them, but at the same time the ends are more important to me than the means. This may sound bad but it may be because I'm bad at explaining myself.

Hope I don't sound ignorant, let me know if you want me to clear it up further and I'll try.

[yeat182]

I don't think I made how I feel clear enough. I'll try to use examples to justify my point, sorry if I confuse you guys more.

Take wars for example. During the Iraq war I wasn't concerned with the details of each individual battle, only the outcome. It's not my job to plan which troops go where and when, I only want the U.S. troops to be safe and come out on top. Apply this same idea to peace plans. The specifics interest me, and I'd love to know them, but at the same time the ends are more important to me than the means. This may sound bad but it may be because I'm bad at explaining myself.

Hope I don't sound ignorant, let me know if you want me to clear it up further and I'll try.

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt because i think i have a sense of what you mean, but one could say that saying the ends are more important than the means, would mean that for example, the number of deaths in Iraq don't matter as much because in the end, if there is peace, then it was worth it.

[UndefinedBoy]

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt because i think i have a sense of what you mean, but one could say that saying the ends are more important than the means, would mean that for example, the number of deaths in Iraq don't matter as much because in the end, if there is peace, then it was worth it.

Thats what I was afraid it would sound like. But I appreciate the benefit of the doubt, I think you all know my views well enough to know that's not what I mean.

[cal1082]

I don't think I made how I feel clear enough. I'll try to use examples to justify my point, sorry if I confuse you guys more.

Take wars for example. During the Iraq war I wasn't concerned with the details of each individual battle, only the outcome. It's not my job to plan which troops go where and when, I only want the U.S. troops to be safe and come out on top. Apply this same idea to peace plans. The specifics interest me, and I'd love to know them, but at the same time the ends are more important to me than the means. This may sound bad but it may be because I'm bad at explaining myself.

Hope I don't sound ignorant, let me know if you want me to clear it up further and I'll try.

I understand what you're saying I just don't see how you can see Kerry's plan as "seeming" to be better than Bush's when everything he has layed out for his plan has already been done by Bush (eventhough Bush has no plan according to Kerry).

[UndefinedBoy]

I understand what you're saying I just don't see how you can see Kerry's plan as "seeming" to be better than Bush's when everything he has layed out for his plan has already been done by Bush (eventhough Bush has no plan according to Kerry).

More than anything there needs to be a change in whatever is going on in Iraq. I feel Kerry could provide better results than Bush. And hey, if Kerry is elected and his "plan" is pure shit, I'd be one of the first to admit it. I want change, which is why I'm voting for Kerry.

[yeat182]

More than anything there needs to be a change in whatever is going on in Iraq. I feel Kerry could provide better results than Bush. And hey, if Kerry is elected and his "plan" is pure shit, I'd be one of the first to admit it. I want change, which is why I'm voting for Kerry.

i totally understand that, but what cal and I are asking is, what is Kerry's plan? he has never mentioned it and all he ever says is that he can do it better than bush, yet he never says how.

[cal1082]

More than anything there needs to be a change in whatever is going on in Iraq. I feel Kerry could provide better results than Bush. And hey, if Kerry is elected and his "plan" is pure shit, I'd be one of the first to admit it. I want change, which is why I'm voting for Kerry.

First, like I said everything Kerry has proposed doing is already being done.

Second, why could he provide better results? When you yourself admit you have no idea what his plan is?

[turtlefootrx]

i would have responded to this earlier but ive been out of time for a few days.

i will admit, that i have never heard kerry lay out a specific plan. youve got me on that. the only thing i can find is on his website...its good enough.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

i have a question. will cal or yeat honestly say that bush has not done anything wrong during his presidency? im just curious. because it seems to me that bush supporters ignore all of the bad he has done as president and id really like to know why.

[UndefinedBoy]

First, like I said everything Kerry has proposed doing is already being done.

Second, why could he provide better results? When you yourself admit you have no idea what his plan is?

I think Kerry would have more success gaining international support for the simple fact that he's not Bush. That could be debated till the end of time, but after travelling around Europe and seeing how most of the world feels about Bush as a person, I think they would be far more willing to support Kerry's efforts.

turtlefootrx just posted what Kerry's plan is. As I said, I think more international support would help our cause there. I don't think Bush can get that.

[turtlefootrx]

I think Kerry would have more success gaining international support for the simple fact that he's not Bush. That could be debated till the end of time, but after travelling around Europe and seeing how most of the world feels about Bush as a person, I think they would be far more willing to support Kerry's efforts.

turtlefootrx just posted what Kerry's plan is. As I said, I think more international support would help our cause there. I don't think Bush can get that.

true. this is why i said we should have been more diplomatic from the start. we went into iraq with no factual proof of WMDs. the rest of the world would have supported us much more if there had been proof. hell, i bet more countries would have been more willing to send troops.

when we went to afghanistan after 9/11, the world supported us because we were standing up for our freedom.

but now the world body is not respecting us. there was an article from a british newspaper (our number one ally) that explained exactly how much the rest of the world hates america now. but the article was deleted off the website because dubya's feelings were hurt.

[venus/bacchus]

i have a question. will cal or yeat honestly say that bush has not done anything wrong during his presidency? im just curious. because it seems to me that bush supporters ignore all of the bad he has done as president and id really like to know why.
Well I wasn't addressed personally, but I feel I apply, so I'll answer.

I think the post-war plan was completely fumbled and they turned what could have been a great war, gaining a lot of support in the Middle East, into something very dangerous, although I still think the war itself was very much justified. I think proposing an amendment banning gay marriage was a mistake (although something had to be done to stop rebel courts), and that may be more important of an issue than the economy or the war. He really alienated a lot of people with such an extreme stance. He also hasn't dealt with the issue of illegal immigration head on, which I think is another major mistake.

I suppose that's all off the top of my head. Mind you, those are just the mistakes I think he's made during his presidency, not the things I disagree with him on ideologically.

[UndefinedBoy]

i have a question. will cal or yeat honestly say that bush has not done anything wrong during his presidency? im just curious. because it seems to me that bush supporters ignore all of the bad he has done as president and id really like to know why.

The conservatives you're calling out are the ones who are willing to admit Bush has made mistakes (venus included, as he has shown). I know who you're referring to when you talk of the conservatives who feel Bush can do no wrong though...

[cal1082]

i would have responded to this earlier but ive been out of time for a few days.

i will admit, that i have never heard kerry lay out a specific plan. youve got me on that. the only thing i can find is on his website...its good enough.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

i have a question. will cal or yeat honestly say that bush has not done anything wrong during his presidency? im just curious. because it seems to me that bush supporters ignore all of the bad he has done as president and id really like to know why.

What's good enough for you on Kerry's site says the following:

-Internationalize, because others must share the burden;
-Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security;
-Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror; and
-Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country.

AND THIS IS NO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT BUSH HAS BEEN DOING (eventhough Kerry says he has no plan) Come on people!!!!!!

I'd never say Bush did no wrong. I didnt like the big medicare bill, the immigration proposal, and not using our full force in Iraq. You fight a war to win a war and I think the administration backed off some because of dissent here.

As far as major policy decisions go with terrorism I think Bush has made the right choices. I liked going after the terrorists in Afg. and I like that he backed up the UN resolution with force, rather than just a 19th or 20th resolution that did nothing at all.

[cal1082]

I think Kerry would have more success gaining international support for the simple fact that he's not Bush. That could be debated till the end of time, but after travelling around Europe and seeing how most of the world feels about Bush as a person, I think they would be far more willing to support Kerry's efforts.

turtlefootrx just posted what Kerry's plan is. As I said, I think more international support would help our cause there. I don't think Bush can get that.

See that's an honest call you can make on opinion. I might not agree, but like you said it can be argued forever. I simply don't like Kerry saying Bush had no plan, and people like commatosa and others feeding off this without even actually looking. Cause if you would just look you might see that Kerry's plan is the exact same thing Bush has been doing.

[turtlefootrx]

See that's an honest call you can make on opinion. I might not agree, but like you said it can be argued forever. I simply don't like Kerry saying Bush had no plan, and people like commatosa and others feeding off this without even actually looking. Cause if you would just look you might see that Kerry's plan is the exact same thing Bush has been doing.


see i understand that. i dont deny that bush didnt have a plan. and im not saying that kerrys is any different. but they can have different plans and still share some aspects that are the same. that being said, i honestly believe that the we went about going into iraq for the wrong reasons, and in the wrong way. and someone needs to step in and turn things around before countries as a whole, rather than just terrorist groups, start hating us and become a threat to our country.

before iraq had even become an issue, i fully supported bush. and if it had never happened, id be voting for him tomorrow because i felt he was defending america properly. but now that the truth is coming out about things hes done, i feel like hes got plans for things that if we really knew about, nobody would support.

[yeat182]

i would have responded to this earlier but ive been out of time for a few days.

i will admit, that i have never heard kerry lay out a specific plan. youve got me on that. the only thing i can find is on his website...its good enough.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

i have a question. will cal or yeat honestly say that bush has not done anything wrong during his presidency? im just curious. because it seems to me that bush supporters ignore all of the bad he has done as president and id really like to know why.


there are certainly things i think Bush should have done better, more or less what venus said, especially his stance on gay marriage (i felt he needed to do something since the courts wouldn't but i don't know if this was the best thing) and illegal immigration. i think if this wasn't an election year, things probably would have been either handled better, or there wouldn't have been so much scrutiny into everything he did, somethings are beyond his control (ie. the economy).

[yeat182]

true. this is why i said we should have been more diplomatic from the start. we went into iraq with no factual proof of WMDs. the rest of the world would have supported us much more if there had been proof. hell, i bet more countries would have been more willing to send troops.

when we went to afghanistan after 9/11, the world supported us because we were standing up for our freedom.

but now the world body is not respecting us. there was an article from a british newspaper (our number one ally) that explained exactly how much the rest of the world hates america now. but the article was deleted off the website because dubya's feelings were hurt.

we were very diplomatic from the start, it was two or three countries who wouldn't stand by their vote for resolution 1441 that made it seem otherwise. again, france, germany and russia would not have sent troops for the very reason that they were involved with the oil for food scandal. other countries may or may not have, but we had a fairly strong coalition.

as for that article, following 9/11 there was an article written by a canadian journalist talking about all the good america has done for the world and how much they've helped other countries (i've tried in vain to find a copy of it since then) but when you read it you realize that we are not a bad nation. it just goes to show how short a memory some of these countries we help have.

[yeat182]

see i understand that. i dont deny that bush didnt have a plan. and im not saying that kerrys is any different. but they can have different plans and still share some aspects that are the same. that being said, i honestly believe that the we went about going into iraq for the wrong reasons, and in the wrong way. and someone needs to step in and turn things around before countries as a whole, rather than just terrorist groups, start hating us and become a threat to our country.

before iraq had even become an issue, i fully supported bush. and if it had never happened, id be voting for him tomorrow because i felt he was defending america properly. but now that the truth is coming out about things hes done, i feel like hes got plans for things that if we really knew about, nobody would support.

again, kerry's "plan" doesn't have anything behind it. HOW is he going to internationalize? HOW is he going to train the Iraqis? HOW is it going to be done better than bush? simply saying, "I can do it better" is a ridiculous statement, without backing it up with HOW.

also, when you say the truth is coming out about what bush has done, what do you mean? just curious?

[UndefinedBoy]

again, kerry's "plan" doesn't have anything behind it. HOW is he going to internationalize? HOW is he going to train the Iraqis? HOW is it going to be done better than bush? simply saying, "I can do it better" is a ridiculous statement, without backing it up with HOW.

also, when you say the truth is coming out about what bush has done, what do you mean? just curious?

Read the information on the link he provided.

[yeat182]

Read the information on the link he provided.

i guess i can go to the kerry website, as long as nobody tells anyone i did so...

[UndefinedBoy]

i guess i can go to the kerry website, as long as nobody tells anyone i did so...

Don't worry, we won't tell anyone.

[yeat182]

alright, this bothers me: Give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process

hasn't everyone been saying bush went to Iraq to make money off oil, and now we want to trade oil profits for help? what is the difference? how can they bash bush for that, then turn around and do the exact same thing? maybe i miss understand but it jumped out at me.

also, is there a similar outline on the bush website? i'd be interested to compare the two.

[yeat182]

ok, the website does a decent job and explaining things. but why wouldn't you make these things clear on the debate and in commercials or interviews? that way everyone would understand your policies, rather than having people like me asking "how"?

[turtlefootrx]

also, when you say the truth is coming out about what bush has done, what do you mean? just curious?

bush said there were WMD's. there are none. the chances of them making said weapons were slim to none. and by the time they could have had them, we would have known way before that.

members of bush's cabinet have said outright that bush was planning an invasion in iraq from the day he was inagurated. which was before 9/11. put the two together.

no wmds, but a plan to invade from the day he was elected? it makes a person wonder what his motives really are.

[turtlefootrx]

ok, the website does a decent job and explaining things. but why wouldn't you make these things clear on the debate and in commercials or interviews? that way everyone would understand your policies, rather than having people like me asking "how"?

youre right he should have said something during the debates. but on the same token, you can only discuss so much in a 90 minute period in which the longest you can speak is two minutes. not to mention theres more to discuss than just iraq. but what he DID say in the debate is that if you wanted to see his full plan, that you could go to his website.

[turtlefootrx]

alright, this bothers me: Give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process

hasn't everyone been saying bush went to Iraq to make money off oil, and now we want to trade oil profits for help? what is the difference? how can they bash bush for that, then turn around and do the exact same thing? maybe i miss understand but it jumped out at me.

also, is there a similar outline on the bush website? i'd be interested to compare the two.

bush is from an oil family. bush does want to make money off oil. thus why other countries are locked out.
kerrys plan is to let other countries in on the deal so that not just the U.S. (i.e. bush, cheney, halliburton) is making money off of it. if other countries benefiting, theyre going to be more interested in helping.

[turtlefootrx]

is the ap.net website fucking up for anyone else? its taking me an hour to make one post and when i do finally post it, (with one click mind you) it posts it like a million fucking times.

[yeat182]

bush is from an oil family. bush does want to make money off oil. thus why other countries are locked out.
kerrys plan is to let other countries in on the deal so that not just the U.S. (i.e. bush, cheney, halliburton) is making money off of it. if other countries benefiting, theyre going to be more interested in helping.

i don't know, i guess i just see it as a contradiction, that you don't want to go there for their oil, but you are willing to auction it off to other countries if they help...maybe its just me.

[turtlefootrx]

i don't know, i guess i just see it as a contradiction, that you don't want to go there for their oil, but you are willing to auction it off to other countries if they help...maybe its just me.

i dont want to go there for oil if it means the only people making money are bush and his oil buddies. but offering other countries a cut, is showing to the world that we are not just there to hog the resources/money from it. and in turn, countries would begin to turn their opinions of us around and might even offer support to help rebuild iraq.

[yeat182]

i dont want to go there for oil if it means the only people making money are bush and his oil buddies. but offering other countries a cut, is showing to the world that we are not just there to hog the resources/money from it. and in turn, countries would begin to turn their opinions of us around and might even offer support to help rebuild iraq.

i think the iraqis should get it.

[turtlefootrx]

i think the iraqis should get it.


good point. but we have to do somethin that would intrest other countries in helping us because we really need it. and that would be a good way to do it. how about if it was split so that 1/3 of oil money went towards countries that helped us, and the other 2/3 went to iraqis and reconstruction? theres enough oil money involved in that entire equation that 1/3 of it would be plenty for countries that would help us.

[UndefinedBoy]

i think the iraqis should get it.

If we'd started it that way maybe the world wouldn't have thought we were there only for oil. Now, to convince them for sure and to almost apologize we have to offer them something to come help us.

[yeat182]

i think the people that helped us should share in the reconstruction, and maybe some others, but for the nations in the oil for food scandal, they should be barred from Iraq.