Kerry Supporters: Some Consolation

[oracle]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I know having lived in a country that for centuries practiced Imperalism, it's hard to understand that's not what we are doing.

That's real rich, you being American and all. Perhaps you should study your own history of imperialism, before you let the sarcasm fly.

Since you seem to be such a big proponent of Iraqi and Afghani democracy, let me ask you this. If the Iraqi people were to freely elect an Islamic fundamentalist regime (similar to the one in Iran), would that be acceptable to you?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by oracle


That's real rich, you being American and all. Perhaps you should study your own history of imperialism, before you let the sarcasm fly.

Since you seem to be such a big proponent of Iraqi and Afghani democracy, let me ask you this. If the Iraqi people were to freely elect an Islamic fundamentalist regime (similar to the one in Iran), would that be acceptable to you? [/B]

What Imperialism. What nations have we overtaken? Who said I was American? Assume, much?

I don't care who the Iraqi's elect. The fact that that they will have free and open elections is acceptable enough.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by oracle


That's real rich, you being American and all. Perhaps you should study your own history of imperialism, before you let the sarcasm fly.

Since you seem to be such a big proponent of Iraqi and Afghani democracy, let me ask you this. If the Iraqi people were to freely elect an Islamic fundamentalist regime (similar to the one in Iran), would that be acceptable to you? [/B]

Oracle, wouldn't that be a tyrannical majority? That could not be permitted because too many would suffer under that type of rule.

 

[oracle]

Originally posted by dmadman43
What Imperialism. What nations have we overtaken? Who said I was American? Assume, much?

My how people here have selective memories. Let's take a little trip back to 1898, shall we? The Spanish-American War began a series of American imperialist decisions. I guess the list would include places such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillippines, and Samoa. And a propped up Cuban government to boot! Did you miss that day of American history class?

BTW, if you want to deny being American, perhaps you shouldn't refer to it as 'we'.

I don't care who the Iraqi's elect. The fact that that they will have free and open elections is acceptable enough.

So if they elect a fundamentalist regime that oppresses its people, just as Iran has, that won't matter to you? What about liberation? Won't this defeat the whole purpose of going to Iraq? If they elect a fundamentalist regime, won't they potentially be a threat to America again?

 

[oracle]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Oracle, wouldn't that be a tyrannical majority? That could not be permitted because too many would suffer under that type of rule.

But if you want to have free and open elections, you have to face the possibility that this type of government would be elected. If they were elected, freely and fairly, would the Americans recognize them as the legitimate government? I'm not sure. But it's a question they'll have to think about.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by oracle
My how people here have selective memories.

You would be suprized how little most of America knows about their history. I saw some graphs and such in my class today and I was extremely suprized.

 

[Jennifer S]

Chad - you still here? Last I heard you were looking for a house in Canada w/ your girlfriend.

 

[Teejay32]

We just spent 12 years trying to protect the fundamentalists from a "secular" regime. Fundamentalism is obviously not the threat we had in mind.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by oracle
My how people here have selective memories. Let's take a little trip back to 1898, shall we? The Spanish-American War began a series of American imperialist decisions. I guess the list would include places such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillippines, and Samoa. And a propped up Cuban government to boot! Did you miss that day of American history class?

BTW, if you want to deny being American, perhaps you shouldn't refer to it as 'we'.
[/quote

Playing the liberals game of everything being relative, I'll be happy to do a compare an contrast of our supposed imperialism vs. England's any day. In fact let's start with the Middle East, shall we?

I never said I was denying being an American.

So if they elect a fundamentalist regime that oppresses its people, just as Iran has, that won't matter to you? What about liberation? Won't this defeat the whole purpose of going to Iraq? If they elect a fundamentalist regime, won't they potentially be a threat to America again?

I rather doubt fundamentalism will get elected, but like I said, if it happens, as long as it was via free and open elections, I won't complain. I know this screws up your attempted argument, but that's how I feel.

 

[richiebaseball]

I think we should give the Kerry supporters a break. Many are suffering from Post Election Stress Trauma.

Richard

 

[oracle]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Playing the liberals game of everything being relative, I'll be happy to do a compare an contrast of our supposed imperialism vs. England's any day. In fact let's start with the Middle East, shall we?

Supposed imperialism? There's no denying the facts on this one. It happened. Read any history textbook, and you'll find it. It's pretty basic stuff.

I never said I was denying being an American.

Well you said I was making assumptions. Yet, you've repeatedly referred to America as 'we' or 'us'. I was just pointing out that my "assumption" had your own statements as evidence.

I rather doubt fundamentalism will get elected, but like I said, if it happens, as long as it was via free and open elections, I won't complain. I know this screws up your attempted argument, but that's how I feel.

On the contrary, it doesn't screw up my argument up at all. If you agree that fundamentalism is OK in Iraq, then what was the point of this whole exercise in Iraq? How would the United States be any safer? How would Iraqis (specifically women) be any more free? If this was actually a grand quest to bring freedom and security, it would seem to have failed on both counts.

 

[WishingStar]

Originally posted by dmadman43
So if it was better planned his death wouldn't have been a tragedy?

Wow, is there anything you won't argue about? It is tragic that there are children that will never know there parents because of this war. That woman will soon be raising twins without there father. Don't you get it? First we were going to war because we were attacked on 9/11. I believe the president said something along the lines of "We will smoke him (Bin Laden) out of his hole. Then we were at war because of the WMD, and there were none.What now? I won't speak for anyone but myself when I say I'm tired of the excuses, I want reasons. If there are children that have to grow up without a parent then I think we should have clear reasons. I did agree that we needed to get Bin Laden since he was behind 9/11. And whether the president remembers or not he first said we'd go after him then he said he wasn't worried about him. It's just ridiculous.

 

[raidermatt]

If you agree that fundamentalism is OK in Iraq, then what was the point of this whole exercise in Iraq?

Because it wasn't decided democratically. That should be pretty clear from dmadman's last post.

 

[raidermatt]

there are children that have to grow up without a parent then I think we should have clear reasons.

Roughly 1000 Americans have been lost in Iraq, and that's tragic. Its also tragic that a portion of those were parents.

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been exterminated by the previous regime. Not soldiers, but innocent civilians. Not people caught in an unfortunate crossfire, but intentionally EXTERMINATED. Many were parents, though many of their children will not grow up without a parent because they were exterminated along with them.

Seems like a pretty good reason.

Now, I don't pretend to believe that this is the sole reason, or even a primary reason, why we went to war. However, if you are looking for some kind of justification for the deaths, it is very easy to find.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by dmadman43

Afghantistan didn't seem to mind voting, given their turn out. they are now free to form whatever govt they like. I know having lived in a country that for centuries practiced Imperalism, it's hard to understand that's not what we are doing. We'll see what the voter turn out in Iraq is in Jan. Get back to me then.

Re-read. The world and your actions. Not what the affected bits do afterwards.

You obviously have not been keeping up with current events. Read the Dulfer report and get back to me

I stand corrected. Virtually all connections were disproven, including one odd one with Scotland involved as a go between.

You REALLY believe Saddam would have stopped killing? Really? It's a matter of scale with you? "Well, he wouldn't have killed all that many if we let him stay in power". Is that what you are saying?

The amount of people killed by the US invasion heavily outweighs around about 10 years of Saddam's regime. More death is, obviously, bad. Freedom is yet to arrive given the increase in militia activity.

I am hearing you correctly. Leaving Saddam in power would have been better, all things considered?

He had to go. But it was done wrong. Results: huge death tolls, militias sprouting up, more misery.



Rich::

 

[raidermatt]

The amount of people killed by the US invasion heavily outweighs around about 10 years of Saddam's regime.

Source?

Also, please breakdown by combat deaths vs. civilian deaths, as I think that is very relevant.

 

[dcentity2000]

Already mentioned in thread. Number is Iraqi nationals only.

The question is, will any future result compensate? I think it will, but it could have all been done much better.



Rich::

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by oracle
On the contrary, it doesn't screw up my argument up at all. If you agree that fundamentalism is OK in Iraq, then what was the point of this whole exercise in Iraq? How would the United States be any safer? How would Iraqis (specifically women) be any more free? If this was actually a grand quest to bring freedom and security, it would seem to have failed on both counts.

I'm not understanding this at all. To my knowledge no one has even suggested that Iraq was a threat because of religious fundamentalism. What looks like oppression to me is another person's religious freedom...but we generally agree on matters like what constitutes terrorism, genocide, etc.

 

[oracle]

Originally posted by Teejay32
I'm not understanding this at all. To my knowledge no one has even suggested that Iraq was a threat because of religious fundamentalism. What looks like oppression to me is another person's religious freedom...but we generally agree on matters like what constitutes terrorism, genocide, etc.

The point is that accepting a fundamentalist regime means that Iraq can continue to be a hotbed for anti-American, or more generally, anti-Western thought. The same sort of stuff that is taught in Iran or Saudi Arabia could be taught there. Women and minorities could be oppressed, etc.. My point was that if a fundamentalist regime is accepted, it would defeat the principles of a safe and liberated Middle East.

 

[WishingStar]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Roughly 1000 Americans have been lost in Iraq, and that's tragic. Its also tragic that a portion of those were parents.

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been exterminated by the previous regime. Not soldiers, but innocent civilians. Not people caught in an unfortunate crossfire, but intentionally EXTERMINATED. Many were parents, though many of their children will not grow up without a parent because they were exterminated along with them.

Seems like a pretty good reason.

Now, I don't pretend to believe that this is the sole reason, or even a primary reason, why we went to war. However, if you are looking for some kind of justification for the deaths, it is very easy to find.

I am reasonable enough to accept your opinion, but it's still your opinion. I would be more willing to agree with you if that was the reason given at the start of the conflict. One excuse after another after another.