d33p said:

unbeliever said:

Exactly, that's why I tried to emphasis education. If education and prosperity can be brought to many of the peaceful "3rd world" countries by the U.S. and the UN, that would go a long way I think towards moralizing countries with oppressive regimes. They would have something to hope for. There would be credibility involved.
What would they becoming educated for? Factory jobs?

Ah, no. I was thinking more along the lines of education towards building a better society in general. A way to enable the citizens to create and sustain a more peaceful, productive and free nation.


Instead we have Iraq as an example. We attack and occupy them because an unrelated terrorist group attacked us. We kills tens of thousands of their people and have the gross hubris to claim we're LIBERATING them. Mean while their whole country is complete shambles, not only from the war but also because there were no serious and large scale efforts done to alleviate the consequences of long-term sanctions and restrictions. That admittedly is a failure of american and international policy and is inexcusable in my opinion.

Well many more than one reasonf rot he war. Conditions are now better than before the war. It is rebuilding and the sanctions in time will be forgotten(also they are beign praised in another thread currently). It is getting better. It is just retarded that a few non-iraqis are coming to disrupt the effort. I mean serriously we just want to help. If something happened where it was obviosu the war was for oil, or they start stealing oil then i could maybe give them some leeway.

Just because Bush & Cheney tell you it's better, does not make it true. I think the facts and figures speak for themselves:


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0629-10.htm
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=3050
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3125iraq_firsthand.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5973272/site/newsweek
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-02.htm

Quote:

Colin Powell said:
"Yes, it's getting worse" he said of the insurgency on ABC's "This Week."

---

Nice try though. Fact is, Iraq is in shambles and it's the fault of our idiot leader and his complete lack of any kind of exit plan or general strategy to secure the peace.

The lies and the actions based upon those lies that lead us into the mess we're in now with Iraq give no hope to any other countries in similar situations. Working with Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China or any other of the numerous countries in the world where there are either oppressive regimes, deplorable civil and social conditions or both, is going to be that much harder because of our track record so far.

I'm not intirely turned off by our now percieved hardline stance on opressive regimes and terrorism.

But then, you're not a fearful populace stuck between more of the same under an oppressive regime or the likely hood that your neighborhood and family will be bombed into oblivion by the "liberating" army.

My election take on all this is that yes, we have created our own sisyphean task of getting back our credibility, of actually securing some sort of global peace. Bush has no plan except more of the same. He wants us to not only push the boulder up the highest mountain, he wants to push away anyone or anything that would help us. If that suits you, go ahead and vote for Bush. If not, there are other options.

Please, we want help and are trying to get more. And goodness of global standing is over rated.

Over-rated by you perhaps.

---

---

mushmaster said:

you don't see why that line of reasoning is absurd, do you?

if a person supports a cause, he or she must become an active participant or otherwise is a hypocrite?

what if a person supports multiple causes?

listen... i understand that you didn't support the invasion of iraq but come now. the assertion you're making here just doesn't add up.

---

mushmaster said:

I'm just saying that it's my opinion that if you specifically continue to support a pack of lies like the war on iraq...

it seems that you saying this:

if you support a good cause, it's perfectly ok if you don't participate directly.

but if you support that which is wrong, you must actively participate to avoid contradiction....

for instance... if i support the genocide of black sudanese, but i'm not currently over there helping kill them, i am a hypocrite?

---

EonTan said:

Hell is the impossibility of Reason.

The Left should just come out and say it. War is bad mmmmkay. Saadam wasn't really that bad mmmkay. He really really was going to cooperate this time mmmmkay. Who cares if he did something really bad a decade ago mmmkay, he hasn't done anything bad lately mmkay. A few inspectors who never actually got to suprise inspect anything in Iraq said he was clean,mmmkay, even though the guy in charge of inspecting Iraq said he had know real idea, becasue he couldn't do his job effectively mmkay. I think we should just believe Saadam becasue that guarentees that we don't lose any lives holding him accountable.

---

Quote:

VIENNA, Austria - The head of the U.N. nuclear agency will tell the Security Council next week that his inspectors need more time in Iraq, but that Saddam Hussein gets "quite satisfactory" grades for his cooperation, an agency spokesman said Friday.

"Their report card will be a `B,'" International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told The Associated Press.

---

Quote:

it seems that you saying this:

if you support a good cause, it's perfectly ok if you don't participate directly.

but if you support that which is wrong, you must actively participate to avoid contradiction....

for instance... if i support the genocide of black sudanese, but i'm not currently over there helping kill them, i am a hypocrite?

---