Advocate wrote:If we have done so much for Iraq, why is that 80% of the people there want us out, and 60% want us dead? Our invasion didn't cause Libya to cede weapons. The middle class was making noise that they were living in poverty because of economic sanctions, despite the great oil wealth of the country. Regarding helping terrorists, that is not why we went in.
That's 140%, Advocate. Last time someone traded on those percentages, they went to jail. Seriously, these polling numbers most probably reflect the opinions of Sunnis, who are loyal to Saddam. The Shiites very much want to us to remain there.
Quote:Have you been living on the moon? There has been a ton of evidence that bush had intelligence that Saddam was not a threat.
This "ton of evidence" all has been compiled after the fact in hindsight.
Quote:Iraq has one of the world's most bullish Gross National Products, are being produced at nearly prewar levels (reference
here and
here), women have gained the freedom to work, go to college and vote, and Iraq has a constitution.
I guess they don't love us because we have killed over 600,000 and destroyed the country.
Again, these wild claims have zero substantiation.
Quote:Quote:Of course we captured Saddam and a proper death sentence just rendered after a fully year tribunal. Al Zarquawi has been killed, and the finger has been placed on Iran for the mounting insurgency that has recently taken place in that country.
Some good that did! Saddam kept this fractous country together. Moreover, there is a civil war and we are in the middle.
Aha, I thought it wouldn't take long to find out you favor the old regime and probably would acquit Saddam and restore him to power. Why do you think so many people joke about this particular point of view from democrats?
Quote:[/b]The military is largely young kids who are not very knowledgeable or educated. I wager a large percentage wouldn't now vote for Bush. Academia and the fouth estate are about 90% opposed to Bush and company. There people are knowledgeable and educated.
This reminds me of John Kerry's joke a few weeks ago. The military has a higher average intelligence than the general public does, and of course does not have as high an average intelligence as a community of undergraduate or graduate alumni. Academia are not willing, in large numbers to enlist for military service. That is no reason to look down your nose at our military, though. I'm willing to wager that this military is, on average, at least as intelligent as the military that fought in any other war that you might happen to agree with.
Quote:Nam was our greatest misadventure. We killed over 3 million in that little agrarian country that was no threat to us. But you admire Hitlerian policies.
You just finished defending Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator in your last paragraph ("Saddam kept this fractous country together."), and you accuse
me of admiring Hitlerian policies?
Your statement that Vietnam was not a threat is in at least part, incorrect. In 1964, North Vietnamese warships twice attacked the United States, our U.S.S. Maddox and the U.S.S.C. Turner Joy in the Gulf of Tonkin. We hadn't fired on these warships and these attacks were unprovoked.
The French ran a colony in Indochina. During WWII, the Axis Japanese kicked the French out and occupied Indochina. Afterwards Ho Chi Minh ruled North Vietnam and Ngo Dinh Diem ran the south. Owing to the fact that Diem probably knew that his days as a leader would be over in the planned 1956 election following the Geneva Acords, Diem prohibited the election and gained U.S. sympathy, also at the request of the French. Since the U.S. was so anti-communist, we offered our assitance in the form of advisors until the Gulf of Tonkin incident when it became a war.
I don't necessarily agree with the premise of our initial entry into Vietnam. After being slapped around by the Fascists for two years, the people of then South Vietnam weren't anxious for Diem's rule and like the Japanese, they chose communism. If left alone, the people of Vietnam would probably have elected Ho Chi Minh. As a single nation, Vietnam didn't pose a threat, but Communism was a menace. Don't forget the 1962 Cuban missle crisis. We nearly went to nuclear war with the Soviets.
Iraq's population was steeply divided into a relatively small minority of Saddam's loyalists who benefited unfairly from the Saddam regime and the remainder of the Iraqui population who were under Saddam's ironfisted rule. I think your figures back there are way off and likely the result of some biased anti-war source.
Quote:Quote:Once again, you people have nothing but complaints and talking points, but no plans, no suggestions, no alternatives.
[/b]You will get plenty of positions once the Dems take over.
You've got two years to make it work. The republicans had to work very hard to blow it in the 109th Congress. Bush didn't help with the Dubai ports deal, the wild spending, mishandling of Katrina, being uncooperative with the press, and his amnesty deal for illegal immigration. On the other hand, the view looks to me as if the 110th Congress in their first 100 hours, if running unfettered would:
1). Vote John Murtha (a corrupt drunk) in as Senate majority leader
2). Vote Alcee L. Hastings (a former Carter judicial appointee impeached and convicted of accepting a bribe) as head of the Intelligence Committee
3). Raise our taxes
4). Institute impeachment proceedings against Bush
5). Bring back Hilarycare (take over 14% of the economy for socialized medicine)
6). Weaken the national defense
7). Further weaken our immigration laws to allow amnesty for illegals
The dems, over the next few months will back away from these wildly unpopular policies and deeds, only to be pressured by the far left who have hijacked the democratic party.
I see the only new direction the democrats will take in the Iraq War and that direction has a name and it's called "REVERSE".
