Who will be the next American President ?

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm pretty sure we weren't attacked because of our "freedoms" and they wanted us to be like them.

They're attacking us because we want THEM to be like US. They're happy in their country, we should leave them alone. We've been over in that area maliciously LONG before 9/11...they hate us because of our international policies and relations.

WE are the ones who need to change that.

I am not sure which people you mean by "they," Playainda, but the context suggests that you mean at least to include those who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.

To say that Islamist terrorists and their supporters and well-wishers are "happy in their country" is absurd. The terrorists are absolutely NOT "happy" under the existing governments of Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Pakistan or Morocco or Afghanistan: they would bring those governments down if they could, and are constantly doing what they can, very bloodily, toward that end.

It is true that the Islamists hate the United States for supporting Israel and for maintaining a military presence in Arab countries, among other things. But they also hate us for supporting secular governments in Muslim countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. To suggest that if we just let them alone they would leave us alone is preposterous — unless perhaps your idea of letting them alone includes withdrawing all support for Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so on.

If they could overthrow all secular governments in Muslim countries, destroy the state of Israel, and re-establish the Muslim Caliphate throughout the Mideast, southern Asia, northern Africa, and Europe — which I believe is among the declared goals of Al-Qaeda — then indeed they might "leave us alone." And alone we would be, too.
 

viking1

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Posts
4,600
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Without saying we deserved to be attacked........I think a productive discussion CAN be had about what the USA has done to foment such hatred among a portion of the Islamic world......and if there is anything we can/need to do to change it.

I know what we can do to change it. We can build neutron weapons, and vaporize the entire middle east. That'll end the mess, and the oil will be ours too...
 

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,357
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Your point is laughable. if we did that:
1) We'd be no better than the people who attacked at 9/11.
2) We'd be stealing oil that wasn't ours to begin with and WE'D be the terrorists.
3) We'd blow up the oil if we did that. Then it'd be a waste of time and money.
I am not sure which people you mean by "they," Playainda, but the context suggests that you mean at least to include those who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.
I was referring to the Iraqis of whom we declared war unfairly on.
To say that Islamist terrorists and their supporters and well-wishers are "happy in their country" is absurd. The terrorists are absolutely NOT "happy" under the existing governments of Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Pakistan or Morocco or Afghanistan: they would bring those governments down if they could, and are constantly doing what they can, very bloodily, toward that end.
If they were unhappy with their government, they'd be bombing themselves not us. Make sense? They are bombing and attacking us. Why do you think that?

If we are sincerely trying to help...which is obviously not the case.
It is true that the Islamists hate the United States for supporting Israel and for maintaining a military presence in Arab countries, among other things. But they also hate us for supporting secular governments in Muslim countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. To suggest that if we just let them alone they would leave us alone is preposterous — unless perhaps your idea of letting them alone includes withdrawing all support for Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so on.
So who's fault is that? Sounds like OURS to me. We should've left all those foreign countries alone to deal with their OWN wars. That's what George Washington warned us to do anyway...you know...when he FOUNDED the country? How patriotic is that? I mean everything we're doing now says "FUCK OUR FOUNDING FATHERS! AMERICA BITCHES!"
If they could overthrow all secular governments in Muslim countries, destroy the state of Israel, and re-establish the Muslim Caliphate throughout the Mideast, southern Asia, northern Africa, and Europe — which I believe is among the declared goals of Al-Qaeda — then indeed they might "leave us alone." And alone we would be, too.
Hey...if that's what they want let them. That war has been going on forever and obviously nothing we do with man-made weapons is going to stop it. So why are we wasting time and precious resources that could be better spent helping the AMERICAN people...you know...the one's that are ON AMERICAN SOIL?!

I mean...I totally support the troops. WHOLEHEARTEDLY. But I feel sorry that they're fighting a war that has nothing to do with them. I'm sorry to hear that the suicide rate has increased 500% in the past two years.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
... I'm sorry to hear that the suicide rate has increased 500% in the past two years.
It's a disservice to state the percentage increase out-of-context.

The army's 2007 rate was 18 per 100,000 troops, in 2006 it was 13 per 100,000, and in 2004 it was 18 per 100,000 but then in 2005 it dropped to 8 per 100,000. Safe to say, it fluctuates. Source of data: strategypage.com

For comparison, the suicide rate for the entire U.S. population is about 11 per 100,000.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I was referring to the Iraqis of whom we declared war unfairly on.
If they were unhappy with their government, they'd be bombing themselves not us. Make sense? They are bombing and attacking us. Why do you think that?

These statements are so full of error and confusion that I hardly know what to make of them. You say now that when you said earlier, "They're happy in their country," you were referring to the people of Iraq. Well, the people of Iraq are clearly not happy in their country: that is why millions of them have fled the country. And no wonder, given what a bloodbath is taking place there. You say, "If they were unhappy with their government, they'd be bombing themselves not us." Playainda, they are bombing themselves! The number of American casualties in Iraq is dwarfed by the number of Iraqis killed and wounded by terrorist attacks. Yes, some of the killers are foreigners who have come into Iraq to fight The Great Satan, but most of them are Iraqis out to kill other Iraqis.

Perhaps what you mean to say (though it is not what you have said) is that Iraqis were content being ruled by Saddam Hussein. If that is your view, then you are living in dreamland. There are some Iraqis who were content with Saddam's rule, namely Saddam and that minority of the population, mainly Sunni, who benefited from his rule. There are many Iraqis who, given a choice between the present state of Iraq and the state of things under Saddam, would choose to return to living under Saddam. That is not to say that they were "happy" under Saddam.
 

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,357
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Ok. And I'll concede to that point. However...why is it our obligation to step in?

I still stick by the fact that we have so many damn problems in this country that there is no need to try to fix someone else's country without fixing our own.

How can you help those when you cannot help yourself. We are NOT helping ourselves fighting a war in Iraq. ESPECIALLY a war that was unconstitutional and one that has YET to prove the principle of utility for sending so many troops over there to die. The suicide rate is one thing, the friendly fire rate is ridiculous. And statistics or not, I've talked to people who've COME from Iraq and talk about the hells that they have to go through.

Why are we over there? For what purpose? What reason other than a person's greed or personal agenda? There WERE no weapons of Mass Destruction. There WAS no evidence that tied the Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. How do you justify that?

If I were Iraqi, I'd hate the United States too.

So the Iraqi people hated Saddam Hussein. The American people hated Clinton at the end of his term. They hated Bush the MAJORITY of his term. Maybe Great Britain should have invaded the United States and converted us to a monarchy for our own good.

It can't be morally justified, dude.
It's a disservice to state the percentage increase out-of-context.

The army's 2007 rate was 18 per 100,000 troops, in 2006 it was 13 per 100,000, and in 2004 it was 18 per 100,000 but then in 2005 it dropped to 8 per 100,000. Safe to say, it fluctuates. Source of data: strategypage.com

For comparison, the suicide rate for the entire U.S. population is about 11 per 100,000.
Gah...I'd think anyone with half a brain would note that saying a 500% increase would be an exaggeration. The truth is that the suicide rate in Iraq is 50% greater than the suicide rate here. Either way...it's time to pull those troops home.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,024
Media
29
Likes
7,717
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Playainda, I am glad to see that you are amenable to the influence of argument. But I suspect that you have not been doing enough to test your opinions against facts. You claim now, for example, that our invasion of Iraq was "unconstitutional." How can it possibly have been that? The president has the authority under the Constitution to send the US armed forces into action, and President Bush even obtained the express consent of Congress for doing so in this particular instance.

I suspect that what you had in mind to say was that our invasion of Iraq was in contravention of international law. But surely you can see that that is an entirely different claim. You seem to want to make a substantiated case for your position, but you do not help your cause by mixing fact with fantasy in this way, and just laying hold of any claim that sounds like plausible support for the conclusions that you want to reach, regardless of whether the claim is credible itself.

For the record, I am far from being a defender of the conduct of the Bush administration toward Iraq. I was opposed to the invasion before, during, and after its occurrence (even though, like most Americans, I thought it probable that Saddam had the banned weapons that Bush and company claimed that he had). However, from the fact that the invasion was undertaken from base motives, on false and disingenuous pretexts, by means of systematic deception of Congress and the American public, and contrary to international law, it does not follow that the best thing that the US can do now either for Iraq or for ourselves is to withdraw immediately. The United States clearly bears essential responsibility for the chaos that now prevails in Iraq: that seems to me a strong reason to believe that we have an obligation to do something about it. It is also clearly in our national interest that Iraq should become a stable, democratically governed state. Whether our continued military presence there is the most effective way in which we can promote this end is a separate question; but you seem to talk as if such considerations simply did not count, which is implausible and irresponsible.

So the Iraqi people hated Saddam Hussein. The American people hated Clinton at the end of his term. They hated Bush the MAJORITY of his term. Maybe Great Britain should have invaded the United States and converted us to a monarchy for our own good.

See, now this is the sort of thing that makes me wonder why you bother to enter into a discussion of these issues at all. I can't believe that you believe what you are saying here. Setting aside your erroneous claim that "the American people hated Clinton at the end of his term" — I believe that his approval ratings were well above the 50% mark — you profess to consider the discontent of the American people with their elected president comparable to the condition of the Iraqi people under a dictator who held power through acts of terror against them. That is just silly, as is your curious musing about a British invasion.

You seem to be interested in political issues. The issues are serious: your thinking about them, as evidenced in remarks like these, is not. I hope that you will in time come to think about them in a more disciplined and realistic fashion.