Debate Is the US goverment that bad

Andrew Johnson (numero 17) was impeached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson

Clinton was also officially impeached, but aquitted.

 

what type of comment is that? can i claim contradiction on this?
my comment was how we are stuck in this war now, and that our role in it now is final...ye you counter it by questioning my future reading abilities.....blargh to you....

well, let me restate it this way....i know we will be involved in this war and "reconstruction" because thats the way we read history. we cannot just leave Iraq alone after we have gone in...that would be assinine(sp?) and common sense tells us this. what country has ever just left a war right after it was "won"? really now....what point would that get across?
history repeats itself often, and the war in Iraq is no different. first, secon or third time around, the outcome may always be the same....but the U.S. trying over and over again atleast shows some concern for the people of the country.

kat lucky~

 

Because superstition plays a massive role in war.

Edit: Didn't Rome have a general policy of giving three chances at war for weaker nations? One war as a general warning not to bother them again, taking a few territories, another to within an inch of their life, and then the third and final war being a complete takeover? Granted for major threats this policy might be altered, but...

 

*looks up* and a clap to nephilim for his very interesting logic^^ you make me happy to love history^^

 

Something I don't understand is why people blame Bush for so much stuff and why so many people don't like him. All I hear is people saying how he had no right to send us to Iraq and that the Taliban in Afghanistan were the only ones we needed to go after. True that it was the Taliban that attacked us on 9-11 but after that day President Bush said that America was not going to tolerate terrorism against us and we were going to seek out and bring to justice any other terrorist organizations and anyone supporting terrorism. After we started to gain a foothold and the upper hand in Afghanistan President Bush had to evaluate what other terrorist threats were present. He was given information on Saddam Husein (sorry if I spelled his name wrong) and how he had invaded other countries before, how he had been creating and even used deadly chemical and biological weapons (i.e. weapons of mass destruction) on his own people, and most importantly how he was funding, hiding, and many in Washington even believed training terrorists. So I ask you, is that or is that not a threat to the U.S. and supporting terrorism?

 

*applaudes to zealot* thats my exact point. if bush was so wrong to attack Husein, then is it wrong for us to even try and say we are against terrorism? yes, we needed to stop husein. no, war isn't as horrible as some people say it is...And for all those who believe I'm only saying this because it's not me fighting...you are right. I'm not fighting....But my father is leaving in a week. my cousin Kayen just left. tell me that i have no right to judge....If my family members can go and risk their lives, then i can support their decisions.

 

Replying to what Zealot said. No I dont believe Bush had the right to attack Iraq. I mean sure there were WOMD but tell me a country where there isnt. I mean wasnt there talk on the news about korea doing nuclear studies and Iran (the axis of evil i believe) I mean in my opinion...we are just picking on the little guy here. In this case...lets invade korea and Iran...and all those other countries.

 

Nope, there weren't. This is taken from a report on Yahoo! News; the exact URL isn't active anymore, as the story is from mid-January, but this is the transcript:

Sorry if that's a little too long, but I felt the whole article was important and relevant to the discussion.

 

The main difference that made Iraq a bigger target than Iran and Korea was the fact that Iraq had shown signs of agression in the past. Saddam had invaded Kuwait I believe it was and we went over and pushed him back into Iraq and out of Kuwait. He had also numerous times used deadly chemical weapons on his own people (think of the movie "The Rock" except not quite that bad). Then there is the real last straw of the points against Iraq. Saddam Hussein had been sent 13...let me repeat that 13 United Nation resolutions telling him to dismember his weapons of mass destruction and his factories producing them or else... He completely blew all of them off and gave no respect or anything to the decisions made collectively by the rest of the world. We were all still hurting from 9/11 and the last thing Bush wanted was for a chemical missile to hit somewhere on U.S. soil and horrificly kill thousands of people. He didn't want to take the risk of another 9/11 type incident with losses of that magnitude, and as commander in chief it is his responsibility to not take those kind of risks. The secondary goal of going into Iraq was to free an entire nation from the cruel, unjust, and oppressive rejime that Saddam had inflicted uppon it. So we went for two main reasons: to protect ourselves from a possible second 9/11 type incident and to free thousands of innocent people from a ruthless dictator. I for one believe President Bush did the right thing both for America and for the people of Iraq.

 

Except, the people of Iraq seem to disagree on that point. As was said of the results of Iraq's election, and those who won:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-iraq14feb14,1,3922130.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

 

Recently I've been hearing on the news, I believe it was either yesterday or monday that new evidence has turned up about a huge convoy of trucks that moved out of Iraq and it is believed that their destinations were either Syrria or Iran. This convoy supposedly left/was recorded at leaving Iraq very shortly after the U.N. agreed to send inspectors into the country.
Now very recently the news has also said that Iran has suddenly revealed possible signs of nuclear capabilities and that they have formed an allegiance or something with Syria. I don't know about everyone else but I think thats just a little bit too big of a coincidence.
It is my personal opinion that before the inspectors were sent in Saddam gathered up all of the weapons he already had as well as any means of producing more and shipped them off to his biggest shall we say sympathizers. There is a very good piece of evidence supporting this view. There are some satelite photos of the country of Iraq before the war or inspectors started and in some of these photos there are gigantic buildings that could be either warehouses or factories based on their size, location etc. The interesting thing is when we went in and took some more recent pictures, I believe around the time of the Inspectors showing up, suddenly all those huge buildings are completaly gone. There is nothing left at the sites where those buildings use to be, coincidence? Now that Saddam's rejime is nearly destroyed, the old "allies"(I couldn't think of a better word because I don't know what kind of relationship the three countries had with one another) are making good use of his so called "legacy".

 

I've not heard any of that. Could you perhaps give an example news report (a URL would be nice) that would back this up? Sorry, it's just that I like to have a bit of proof to back up an argument. It's entirely possible and plausible (in other words, not disagreeing with you on this front as of yet), but I've not seen anything on the subject in some time.

 

I don't know who has but I can tell you right now that pretty much any soldier who has been to Iraq knows that the people of Iraq as a whole don't hate americans. My dad was in Iraq for six months and one of the things he said he noticed was how so many Iraqis were practically begging the American soldiers not to leave because they were afraid the old rejimes and terrorists would come back. The problem in this image being created that most Iraqis hate us is because of the media. So many media stations are very biased and as such mostly put up the news about such-n-such terrorist group holding fort in an iraqi city or like Baphijmm's post they talk about some leader and his group of supporters. Rarely do you see themedia talk about the thousands of iraqis who cheer for our troops as they walk through the streets, rarely do you hear about the Iraqi families who have personally thanked the families of soldiers who saved them or specific members of their families. Based on what my dad has told me (him having a 22 year career in the Air Force) and what other guys that I know who have been in Iraq, 85%-90% of Iraq is thankful for us being there and want our help. The proble is the 10%-15% of iraqis who were involved with the terrorists, rejimes, and fanatics. They are somehow the ones we are always hearing about and if that is all we are hearing about because news show want to get ratings then Iraq is getting a false representation from the American media.

 

I only caught part of the news broadcast but I will do some research and try to get some sources posted up. I'm the same way though, I like people to back up what they say and I will get some stuff up as soon as possible.

(This was in regards to the last post by Baphijmm, sorry I forgot to hit the quote button)

 

While, for the most part, I would agree that the media tends to create false images of varying people during a war (Viet Nam, anyone?), the people did elect this group. They chose that particular group, whereas there were plenty of other tickets who were quite welcoming to US troops. I'm sorry, but I have to go with what the election says on this one. There was a (approximately) 58% turnout rate (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/13/iraq.main/index.html ), and 75% of that chose this group.

 

I was refering to the resistance that our soldiers are still dealing with. I haven't researched anything about who was elected yet.

 

Shouldn't you research your arguement completely before you post it?[/Neph]

Anyway, looking way, way, WAY, back, lucky, you said something a while ago about there being multiple political parties in the US. It makes no difference. Because so few people vote for those parties, people consider it a waste of your vote to choose one of them.

The other problem is voter apathy. Sure, the last election showed record turnouts, but it still wasn't anywhere NEAR the possible number votes. Like I said a while back, if the election turnout is ridiculously low, part of the reason could be that people don't think their vote will make a difference.

 

You are right Shinryu that people including myself should research their arguments completely but I never started anything about the newly elected officials in Iraq so I wasn't putting up anything that I didn't have some info on.
...And before someone says something, I know I need to post some sources to my earlier arguments but I've been a bit busy. Too much homework :anger2:

 

Yes you are right....and the thing is I knew this before but I didnt revise my writing so that was a little mistake (well big) I put. Who didnt hear that there werent WOMD in Iraq? LOL

 

My point in stating that was that if everyone was so unhappy with bush, they had the choice to vote another way. you must have misread the post love.