Life, Death, Time, Religion, Global Warming, War and other controversial subjects

[DairineRules!]

[Emi]

Hmm Can I start?!?

How about...

Do you guys think that the world is becoming a little more crazier each day that passes? I mean there's so many little wars and big wars going on. A lot of people are protesting against so many different problems in the world. And there's so many new laws and rules (especially in schools). Oh and speaking of schools, how many shootings have we had just this year?!? So back to my original question "Do you guys think that the world is becoming a little more crazier each day that passes?"

[Garrett Fitzgerald]

I don't think the world is getting crazier: I think we're just getting more aware of the craziness, and that's not necessarily a good thing. We're afraid to do anything that might hurt us. I rode home from the hospital in my mother's arms after I was born. If I tried to do that today, I'd be ticketed, and maybe arrested.

We have to stop being so paranoid. We have to accept the possibility of being hurt, because without pain, there's no growt8h.

And as Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither." We were far closer to being annihilated in the 80s than we have been since 9/11 - why do we think that one terrorist is a greater threat than one nuclear warhead?

And if we don't, why are we letting our government terrify us in the name of protecting us? Why are we complicit in our own destruction?

[DairineRules!]

[Mona0622]

just before i start, i had a quick comment, DairineRules. if you say that not everything makes sense, than why are you apologizing for possibly not making sense?!? sorry that's where you lost me.

i really don't know how i stand on the current War. i can see the reason's for going to war, but i personally think that we should be gone by now, but someone who was over there said that we need to stay until we are done. I guess that i should listen to someone who been over there but i don't like that fact that our boys are dieing over there.

[DairineRules!]

Originally posted by quelt:
just before i start, i had a quick comment, DairineRules!. if you say that not everything makes sense, than why are you apologizing for possibly not making sense?!? sorry that's where you lost me.

[Rhi]

My feelings on the war are a bit confused. On the one paw I don't want there to be any wars. On the other paw, we did get rid of Saddam Hussein. On another paw, our people (not to mention innocent civilian Iraqis) are dying over there because of the war. On the last paw, if we pull out now we're likely to lose any progress we've made in chasing out the insurgents. War is too confusing; let's just make the ehhif let us cats take over 'cuz we'd do a much better job

[mysss]

I personally support Rhi's last paw. We are there for a good reason(okay, maybe we're not actually there for my reason...). We got rid of an oppressive dictator, which is good. Now that we're there, that issue is moot and we have to help a new democratic nation to develop. We can't just leave, or as my friend told me (just a few minutes ago, actually) "leave it to the PMCs."

(or "nuke the place." my friends... well, some are in need of help at times)

[Garrett Fitzgerald]

If every day we're there, we're turning more ordinary Iraqis against us and creating more terrorists to attack us, why can't we just leave? It can't be any worse than staying, both for us and for the Iraqis we leave behind. If there are people who are endangered by having worked with us, bring them out too, if they ask -- it'll be cheaper than leaving troops there to "protect" them, which might not actually work anyhow.

I get particularly cynical when we read reports that state that x insurgents and y civilians were killed -- and it turns out that all the men who were killed were insurgents, and all the women and children were civilians. Sure, guys. After all, men are never innocent bystanders, women never take up arms to defend their homes, children are never, ever used by adults for their own purposes...

[Cress]

I don't believe we can leave at this point, because we've already screwed things up so much and if we left the Sunnis and Shiites (sp???) would rip each other to shreds. HOWEVER...I don't think it's our place or anyone's place to go into a foreign country and tell them that their government should be different. I don't support Saddam Hussein by any means, but the Iraqi people never ASKED to be "freed" from him. If they wanted a revolution or a civil war, they needed to come to that decision on their own, not be forced into "civilization" and "democracy" by a country that can NEVER fully understand the ancient hatreds between groups there. Beyond that, there are some countries that may never be suited to democracy due to geography, history, factions etc. They need a different kind of government. Not some kind of crazy dictator like Saddam Hussein, but a democracy isn't necessarily one size fits all.

Also, our reasons to be there were entirely HORRIBLE!! There WERE no WMDs, our president lied to us and mostly he wanted OIL and access to oil industries in Iraq. Now the talk of invading Iran disturbs me deeply and I hope, hope, hope that if it comes up all of you will join me in protest!

Btw, Hi alls, long time no see, my internet died, I am alive, I can still talk.

[Emi]

Um, for one thing we weren't just there for oil... the President said that he wanted to get rid of ALL terrorism, and Al Quaeda (sp?) was training some of his troops in Iraq. And there were probably WMD's, the reason we never found them because we gave them like three or more months to get rid of them! (as a threat/warning)...

But what I want to say is that if we pull out now, they'll just come over here, and dozens of innocent (sp? sorry no spell check and the state testing is messing me up.) civilians in AMERICA will be killed... Just like 9/11?!?! I don't like having the troops there as much as the next person, (I know someone that's over there right now, and he's not liking it AT ALL), but I really don't want to end up fighting against terrorism in our own backyards and risk having more Americans die. But, then again, I don't like the idea of killing innocent Iraqis either!! Ugh such a touchy subject!!

I agree with you on one point, Cress, that democracy isn't the right government for the Iraqis, and we need to study their history to help find the right one. Hopefully the upcoming candidates will figure that one out.

Sorry if I sounded rude/angry/harsh/or anything remotely close to that, it wasn't meant that way, and I'm not trying to yell/lecture anyone... Just stating my opinions.

[Garrett Fitzgerald]

the President said that he wanted to get rid of ALL terrorism, and Al Quaeda (sp?) was training some of his troops in Iraq.

I haven't seen any credible evidence of that. Iraq was a secular society, and Al Qaeda (sp?) wanted religious rule. Hussein wasn't providing any direct support.

And there were probably WMD's, the reason we never found them because we gave them like three or more months to get rid of them!

Actually, we gave them 10 years to get rid of them, and they did. According to the weapons inspectors we yanked out so we could invade, he had no WMDs -- but that's not what Bush wanted to hear, so that's not what got passed on to the rest of us.

But what I want to say is that if we pull out now, they'll just come over here, and dozens of innocent (sp? sorry no spell check and the state testing is messing me up.) civilians in AMERICA will be killed...

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. That's something Bush puts out to terrorize us (and I use that term deliberately). Taking off our shoes at airports? That's terrorizing us. Never reducing the threat level below yellow in 6 years? Terrorizing us.

We were in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden was. We were closing in on his mountain hideout, where we could take him "dead or alive", as Bush said. Bush decided that the troops were needed more in Iraq. Mere months later, Bush was saying, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

We let him do this. We elected him twice, and we elected the Congress that enabled him for the first six years of his presidency. Then we elected a Congress that pretends they're going to do something about him and his cronies, and does nothing useful -- the leadership is too busy worrying about how to get elected next year.

[Gryphon]

There are so many people in the world... how is it that there are lonely people who have no one? The unfortunate souls who slip through the cracks because it seems that everyone else around them already has their crowd, and their quota for new people has been met. Or the people who have so many friends, amiable faces around them, but would be lonely anyway. Why is there lonliness in a world of six billion?

I think, in some ways, we're dessensitized to injustice, and also, people take no responsibility for the excess hype that they shamelessly create on the media.

I don't think we appreciate how effective the ex oppressive dictator was at controlling the many conflicting groups in Iraq. And, yeah, the unfortunate truth is that democracy cannot exist when security/safety is not ensured. The voices of democracy, as you could say, are a little staunched if they're afraid their vocal views would get them killed. And I have no idea how you can expect to enfore rule with democracy alone in a country so violent. ><

But no one said democracy was perfection.

[Sean L.]

Offense not meant, but Emi is pretty much what Rove, Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons would like voters to be, eh?

Apparently they did a good job of fooling you that they had WMDs, that they'll come here if we pull out, and that we actually had a legitmate reason to be in Iraq.

As Garrett says, pretty much all of your assumptions are false, and his responses are pretty good, though a bit simple :P.

One thing I would like to say is that the sociopolitical objective of terrorists makes it prohibitive to engage enemy combatants directly - killing soldiers isn't the most effective way of achieving their goal, because killing civilians is more polarizing. Whether or not we pull out has no direct effect on terrorists coming over - it's not as if we'll pull out and then suddenly there will be an invasion. We're kinda separated by an ocean and a lot of borders; it's not a walk in the park to come here. Any attack will be done the way it was before - by terrorists that infiltrate in - so pulling out won't mean dead civilians right away.

On the other hand, one of the biggest reasons for not pulling out right now is that it will leave an unstable country to perhaps become a hotbed of terrorist activity. There are, of course, arguments against this as well - first and foremost that if we get the heck out of another country, they'll probably be a bit more interested in rebuilding and not too interested in attacking us.

But I was always curious how Bush and Cheney got reelected in 2004, even after the truth was beginning to get out. But now it's late 2007 and apparently people still think "Iraq had WMDs' and 'They'll kill us if we leave'. It's kinda sad to know what a good spin job they did.

Edited to disannoy filters - GF

[Garrett Fitzgerald]

As Garrett says, pretty much all of your assumptions are false, and his responses are pretty good, though a bit simple :P.

It was half-past midnight, what did you expect?

I did consider browsing around and coming up with web links for my assertions, but it didn't quite seem like the right place for it -- and I was a little ambivalent about going too far out on it here, as this shouldn't be a political forum (especially on Diane's dime).

I strongly recommend Glenn Greenwald's column at Salon for further exploration of what the neocons are doing to us: Greenwald is a non-partisan Constitutional ligitator who has been documenting the administration's erosion of the Constitution for the past few years.