Worry when your king says ...

[CrAz3D]

Well, since we've dumped more money into Iraq & its infrastructure & police & military & government than it was EVER worth before, I think we should leave.

Prove that the vote was rigged.
A democrat wrote it proposing to remove the troops from Iraq now, ooh, that sounds suspicious & shady, it must be the work on an evil conservative group.

Looks to me you'verun out of things to complain about so just sit there like your country.

[Adron]

Well, since we've dumped more money into Iraq & its infrastructure & police & military & government than it was EVER worth before, I think we should leave.

Human lives are worth a lot. You may have to pay more.

Prove that the vote was rigged.
A democrat wrote it proposing to remove the troops from Iraq now, ooh, that sounds suspicious & shady, it must be the work on an evil conservative group.

Looks to me you'verun out of things to complain about so just sit there like your country.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House late Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by the Republicans that was intended to fail.

A vote engineered by republicans......

Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The Republican alternative simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

And we, as a country, own. We follow the Kyoto agreement, unlike your environment-marauding country. We pay our bills, unlike your cheapskate country. So I think I will keep complaining at you and your country. It will likely never actually make you improve, but it is better than just doing nothing.

[CrAz3D]

Given that many of the Iraqi deaths are the fault of insurgents, maybe that debt should be passed along to them, partially of course.

I believe if we stopped giving out foriegn aid & forgiving other countries debs we could be pretty close to all paid up, but then the entire economy of the world would fall to pieces.

[iago]

I don't see how you can call that vote ridiculous when we have one group of politicians calling for immediate withdraw and when the vote is put right in front of them only 3 out of hundreds vote for an immediate withdraw.

See Grok and Adron's statements, I want no more part in the "rigged vote" idea.

Your analogy is not completely accurate since the factor of your analogy is age implying that it was bad for the United States to initially invade when the majority of the people agreed with the initial invasion. My point is in your country and my country the majority of the people believed that it's not ok for a 16 year old boy to impregnate a girl. If the majority of people in my country and your country believed that it was okay for a 16 year old boy to impregnate a girl then your analogy would work just fine and your argument would fail.

That analogy is apt! APT!!! (-Simpsons)
You've argued yourself in a circle, though.  You were arguing that the war was ok because Iraq is better off now (the vote and statistics you keep bringing up).  However, the reasons for initially going to war were totally fraudulent (WMD, etc.).  So the reasons for going to war weren't true, and maybe the boy who knocked up the girl also thought it was a good idea because of lies he's been told. 

In any case, the analogy has nothing to do with the initial invasion, the fact is that, whether or not I or anybody else supports it, it happened.  And now they have the responsibility to carry through, and fix anything they've broken. 

Also when the majority of Iraqis (A poll conducted Oct. 8 to Nov. 22, 2005, in person, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample

of 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and up by Oxford Research International) say that their life is better now then it was under Sadams regime is an indication that the country as a whole is doing better according to Iraqis.

I would worry about how that poll was conducted.  Did they go out into the streets in non-American controlled areas, where the guys are trying to kill Americans, and poll them?  Or did they stay in the American part of the city, where everybody is ready to kill everybody else for saying the wrong thing, and ask people around there?  I'd be willing to bet that the person conducting the poll didn't put himself into jeopardy by finding people who hate Americans to ask.  I very much doubt that the poll says anything useful. 

You say that we robbed Iraq of culture without any proof behind your statement, not very convincing of you.

You're correct, it wasn't an appropriate thing to say.  I have no proof of it, but it just seems logical that an ancient country (like it was) compared to an occupied country (like it is) would just naturally have less culture.  But I have no evidence to back it up. 

Let me point this out to you, the people of the United States wanted this to happen to Iraq before President G. W. Bush was even in office. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed in the House and Senate and signed into law by the then United States President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998. Its stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." And the Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Here is the link to Public Law 105-338: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there is a big difference between "support[ing] a transition to democracy" and "going to war"?  In any case, even if that's what they meant, the fact that it was proposed by somebody other than Bush makes no difference.  I'm not Republican or Democrat, I hate all politicians equally.  The fact is that the US attacked Iraq based on a fraudulent premise.  If they had gone into it saying what that says (" the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"), I would have been much more supportive of the war.  The major problem I have is the lies. 

[Invert]

Keep rebuilding and eventually you may not owe them. Other than that, all the property destroyed and all the people killed during your invasion of Iraq is what you owe them.

And yes, the vote was rigged. The text as it was laid out to vote on was dumb, while the suggestion from the democrat was not.

The vote was not rigged. You are right the vote was engineered by the republicans but was brought on by the democratic lawmakers call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. It was engineered by the republicans to point out that those democratic lawmakers that are calling for an immediate withdraw of the troops will not put their vote where their mouth is. There were more than 3 democrats that called for an immediate withdraw.


By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 18, 2005; Page A01

The top House Democrat on military spending matters stunned colleagues yesterday by calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while many congressional Democrats reacted defiantly to President Bush's latest attack on his critics.



You said that the suggestion from the democrats was not dumb which was for an immediate pullout but above that statement you are all for rebuilding Iraq. How can the United States rebuild Iraq if we pull our troops out now? You are contradicting yourself.

A country that sits there idly and ignores everything is as bad as the enemy. In WW2 Sweden did the same thing, it even allowed the Nazis to transport Jews using Sweden's railroad system to concentration camps.

[Invert]

I don't see how you can call that vote ridiculous when we have one group of politicians calling for immediate withdraw and when the vote is put right in front of them only 3 out of hundreds vote for an immediate withdraw.

See Grok and Adron's statements, I want no more part in the "rigged vote" idea.

Your analogy is not completely accurate since the factor of your analogy is age implying that it was bad for the United States to initially invade when the majority of the people agreed with the initial invasion. My point is in your country and my country the majority of the people believed that it's not ok for a 16 year old boy to impregnate a girl. If the majority of people in my country and your country believed that it was okay for a 16 year old boy to impregnate a girl then your analogy would work just fine and your argument would fail.

That analogy is apt! APT!!! (-Simpsons)
You've argued yourself in a circle, though.  You were arguing that the war was ok because Iraq is better off now (the vote and statistics you keep bringing up).  However, the reasons for initially going to war were totally fraudulent (WMD, etc.).  So the reasons for going to war weren't true, and maybe the boy who knocked up the girl also thought it was a good idea because of lies he's been told. 

In any case, the analogy has nothing to do with the initial invasion, the fact is that, whether or not I or anybody else supports it, it happened.  And now they have the responsibility to carry through, and fix anything they've broken. 

Also when the majority of Iraqis (A poll conducted Oct. 8 to Nov. 22, 2005, in person, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample

of 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and up by Oxford Research International) say that their life is better now then it was under Sadams regime is an indication that the country as a whole is doing better according to Iraqis.

I would worry about how that poll was conducted.  Did they go out into the streets in non-American controlled areas, where the guys are trying to kill Americans, and poll them?  Or did they stay in the American part of the city, where everybody is ready to kill everybody else for saying the wrong thing, and ask people around there?  I'd be willing to bet that the person conducting the poll didn't put himself into jeopardy by finding people who hate Americans to ask.  I very much doubt that the poll says anything useful. 

You say that we robbed Iraq of culture without any proof behind your statement, not very convincing of you.

You're correct, it wasn't an appropriate thing to say.  I have no proof of it, but it just seems logical that an ancient country (like it was) compared to an occupied country (like it is) would just naturally have less culture.  But I have no evidence to back it up. 

Let me point this out to you, the people of the United States wanted this to happen to Iraq before President G. W. Bush was even in office. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed in the House and Senate and signed into law by the then United States President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998. Its stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." And the Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Here is the link to Public Law 105-338: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there is a big difference between "support[ing] a transition to democracy" and "going to war"?  In any case, even if that's what they meant, the fact that it was proposed by somebody other than Bush makes no difference.  I'm not Republican or Democrat, I hate all politicians equally.  The fact is that the US attacked Iraq based on a fraudulent premise.  If they had gone into it saying what that says (" the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"), I would have been much more supportive of the war.  The major problem I have is the lies. 

You accuse me of arguing myself in circles yet you fail to discredit my argument. Just by saying that I'm wrong will not discredit anything I have said. The initial reason for going to war was not fraudulent or lies but poor intelligence that was provided by the CIA and other intelligence organizations.

You have no proof that it was fraudulent or that the information was known to be false at the time the decision to go to war was made. I am still wondering if there were no weapons of mass destruction why did Sadam refuse to let the U.N. inspectors into Iraq and when he did they were restricted from doing their job.

After the discovery that there were no weapons of mass destruction currently in the country (they might have been moved before the invasion) the United States made its secondary mission its primary which was to liberate Iraq and introduce democracy.

The poll that I mentioned was done by a group that has no connection to the United States government. It was done by the Oxford Research International, in person, on a random national sample of Iraqis. If you go out and find people who hate Americans like you suggested it would defeat a purpose of a random poll and then it would be worthless and not accurate. Who is to say that the people they did the poll on did not hate Americans?

There is a difference between supporting a transition to democracy and going to war. The stated purpose of that law was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."

With the war in Iraq you can say that we have established a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

[Adron]

A country that sits there idly and ignores everything is as bad as the enemy.

A country that destroys is worse than one that sits idly.

[topaz]

We've spent billions on repairing the damage we've wrought: We're also one of the countries who helped create the Kyoto agreement. I've lost any respect I've had for you, Adron: The rest of your statement is just blatant bullshit.

[Invert]

A country that sits there idly and ignores everything is as bad as the enemy.

A country that destroys is worse than one that sits idly.

There must be the destruction of bad before there can be creation of good in its place. I still think sitting idly and not doing anything is dishonorable.

[Adron]

We've spent billions on repairing the damage we've wrought: We're also one of the countries who helped create the Kyoto agreement. I've lost any respect I've had for you, Adron: The rest of your statement is just blatant bullshit.

While others ratified the Kyoto agreement, the US did not. Go stand in a corner.

Seems as though you may be improving a bit now, some states even agreeing to limit greenhouse gases. Still far from just doing what should have been done years ago.


And you still do not owe up to your debts. Cheap. http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/core/usvtotalindex.htm


And you still give relatively less to those in need than other countries. Cheap.

[Adron]

There must be the destruction of bad before there can be creation of good in its place. I still think sitting idly and not doing anything is dishonorable.

Well, then the demand that you build up good applies. Merely destroying is way worse than doing nothing. And you should be clear on your intentions, not shroud them in talk of mass destruction.

[CrAz3D]

A country that sits there idly and ignores everything is as bad as the enemy.

A country that destroys is worse than one that sits idly.

There must be the destruction of bad before there can be creation of good in its place. I still think sitting idly and not doing anything is dishonorable.

So what is destroying yourself ranked @?

[Adron]

So what is destroying yourself ranked @?

Well, did you ever see the end of T2?

[CrAz3D]

So what is destroying yourself ranked @?

Well, did you ever see the end of T2?

Haven't seen it

[hismajesty]

Maybe we should leave and just let them figure it out for themselves. Maybe the great nation of Canada or Sweden will jump in and help them, since obviously the US doesn't know how to start a country from scratch or anything.