View Poll Results: Should we let the UN into Iraq?

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes: Weapons inspectors, reconstruction, the whole shebang

    7 58.33%
  • Sorta: Weapons inspectors but not government or reconstruction

    2 16.67%
  • Kinda: No weapons inspectors, but they can help with everything else

    0 0%
  • No: We can find the WMDs, we can form the Gov't

    3 25.00%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 89
  1. #21  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    You're taking your information from a liberal op-ed piece citing The Institute for Foreign Policy?! That's like asking the NRA for an unbiased bio of Wayne LaPierre!

    I wonder if you would have anything to say if the piece was a conservative/right wing op-ed piece? No matter what the source, the fact is the fact. Whether you are conservative or liberal 2+2=4.


    Also the cultural relics issue is a non-issue as it hasn't been proved that they were actually removed during the war by looters. They could have as easily been removed before hand by Baath party members. And they are just things. I'd give them all for just one life.
    ANd don't forget that the infrastructure is what's going to keep the Iraqis fed. Right now that's their number one export. Tribal rugs will not keep their economy afloat.
    [/QUOTE]

    I wonder if this would be a non-issue if these stolen treasures were American? Why have museums and art galleries in the West when we are well fed? I guess TV shots showing people looting the museum were fake.


    Let's wait and see how it pans out. There's a lot of turmoil now and the paople crying out for the US to leave now could change their minds in a week, month, or year.
    [/QUOTE]

    I think the longer the U.S. occupies the country, the more restless the people will become. I wouldn't be surprised if more Americans are killed and injured in post-war Iraq than during the war itself.


    I have to respectfully disagree. Our system works pretty much as it was intended to, except when the Supreme Court tries to reinterpet the Constitution to fit their current view of how things should be. (I really don't think the framers ever thought that would happen!)I don't like the party politics (like the Dem. filibuster of the Judicial nominees) because for the most part we, the people, are the ones that have to pay- but I'd rather live here than anywhere else. Every nation that I can think of that uses a parlimentry form of government is plagued by the same problems, or worse.
    [/QUOTE]


    I think the American Supreme Court is too politicized. How can you say that something is unconstitutional 20 years ago and then come back and say it is? In Canada, Supreme Court decisions stick and stays law until changes are made in the constitution itself that specifically addresses the issue.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  2. #22  
    The U.S. only cares about areas of the world where it has an interest (strategic or economic). If Iraq was in Africa, the way thing unfolded could have been different. Ditto for Bosnia.


    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Well, half a million only has 5 zeroes.

    I'm always amazed that this country doesn't do more to improve the quality of life around the world and save millions upon millions of lives. Merely doing things like ending agriculture subsidies that drive down the price of grain (you want to give farmers money--go for it--just don't do it in a way that affects the market price of their goods) and eliminating import quotas and tariffs we can lift income in the third world without any real outlay on our part. Simple things like that. If Bush sticks to his pledge for $15B to fund aids research, that is great as well. Problem is I'm not sure it was an honest move (as opposed to a political one) and I'm not sure if its going to be ongoing or a one off deal.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I am sure that are millions of Americans who are ashamed because of their goverment's action in Iraq. I do not think there is anything to be proud of. The whole adventure in Iraq only proves that Saddam was no threat to anyone outside Iraq.
    I've always thought the best reason to go in was for exactly the reason you implied: he was a threat to the people of Iraq. Just because the people dying aren't your own doesn't mean you can ignore it. I just hope the US handles the situation correctly now.
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by yardie
    The U.S. only cares about areas of the world where it has an interest (strategic or economic). If Iraq was in Africa, the way thing unfolded could have been different. Ditto for Bosnia.


    A good part of that is true. But the potential for good is too great for us to ignore.
  5.    #25  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I've always thought the best reason to go in was for exactly the reason you implied: he was a threat to the people of Iraq. Just because the people dying aren't your own doesn't mean you can ignore it. I just hope the US handles the situation correctly now.
    That was never the primary justification for the war until we got there and discovered that all the other justifications were false. In his campaign speech on the aircraft carrier, Bush still is saying that there were links bewteen al qaeda and iraq - there is simply no reasonable evidence for that.
  6. #26  
    Thanks Septimus. This was my point.

    Originally posted by septimus

    That was never the primary justification for the war until we got there and discovered that all the other justifications were false. In his campaign speech on the aircraft carrier, Bush still is saying that there were links bewteen al qaeda and iraq - there is simply no reasonable evidence for that.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I am sure that are millions of Americans who are ashamed because of their goverment's action in Iraq. I do not think there is anything to be proud of. The whole adventure in Iraq only proves that Saddam was no threat to anyone outside Iraq.

    As for the Theocracy, I think the U.S. should realize that democracy is not the right solution for every country. But there is saying be careful what you wish for.... Countries where democracy truly works usually have a long history..and a mostly homogenous population to start with.



    Well that's probably true. Only 70% believes that the President did the right thing. I'm also sure that there are millions of Canadians that are ashamed at the Canadian officials who placed tourism dollars over possible health risks when they verbally attacked WHO for issuing a travel advisory last month (concerning SARS).

    As to your personal belief, that's fine. 70% of our nation obviously feels differently from you. If you were an American citizen you would be in the 30% minority. Since we live in a democratic republic you would have to be staisfied with being ashamed of our president.

    ??? The US had a long history prior to the formation of it's democratic republic?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  8. #28  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I think you would be more accurate if you say that the U.S. stands up for the rights of the American individual. If you are muslim, Pakistani etc. the U.S. when stand up for your rights only if it matters.

    Or if you're an American citizen that happens to be muslim, or of pakistani descent.

    What are you trying to say really? That other nations don't do the same? If you are you're flying way off into either;

    a) A complete divorce from reality towards fabrication (lying).

    b) Innocent confusion resulting from ignorance.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by yardie

    I wonder if you would have anything to say if the piece was a conservative/right wing op-ed piece? No matter what the source, the fact is the fact. Whether you are conservative or liberal 2+2=4.
    Opinion means that two (or more) people can look at the same facts and insert their own interpetations onto them. That's why they are called Op/Ed. That's short for Opinion/Editorial. So 2+2 doesn't have to add up to 4.

    Originally posted by yardie
    I wonder if this would be a non-issue if these stolen treasures were American? Why have museums and art galleries in the West when we are well fed? I guess TV shots showing people looting the museum were fake.
    You bring up a lot of interesting, but byzantine, questions. First, why bring up the first question? Why would ethnicity of the museums collection matter? They were things.

    The second question is too deep for me. I don't understand it.

    No one has denied that people were taking objects out of the museums. I personally saw things like sinks and chairs. I didn't see any cultural treasures being hiked across the street.

    Originally posted by yardie
    I think the longer the U.S. occupies the country, the more restless the people will become. I wouldn't be surprised if more Americans are killed and injured in post-war Iraq than during the war itself.
    I wouldn't be surprised to find out that less Iraqis are killed during and after this war than before.

    Originally posted by yardie
    I think the American Supreme Court is too politicized. How can you say that something is unconstitutional 20 years ago and then come back and say it is? In Canada, Supreme Court decisions stick and stays law until changes are made in the constitution itself that specifically addresses the issue.
    All law is based on interpetation.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  10. #30  
    Originally posted by yardie
    The U.S. only cares about areas of the world where it has an interest (strategic or economic). If Iraq was in Africa, the way thing unfolded could have been different. Ditto for Bosnia.


    Is that why Pres. Bush is pushing a $15 billion in AIDS initiative right now? We, as a country are doing pretty good in that regards. If we didn't actually care about poorer countries like the ones in Africa, we would let them die and spend the money on something else.

    As to Bosnia, why aren't the UN and the EU being blamed for their non-action in their own backyards?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  11. #31  
    Originally posted by septimus

    That was never the primary justification for the war until we got there and discovered that all the other justifications were false. In his campaign speech on the aircraft carrier, Bush still is saying that there were links bewteen al qaeda and iraq - there is simply no reasonable evidence for that.
    Yes it was. He was considered a threat to everyone, everywhere. He supported terrorism overtly and gleefully. Way back in when, right after Sept. 11th, Geo. W. said that we (as a nation) were going to start to go after terrorists and the nations that harbor and help them.

    The other justifications have not been "discovered ... false". To the contrary the findings, while not as dramatic as they could be, are pointing towards exactly what was said, that he had ongoing WMD R&D programs in place, that he had prohibited weapons, that he was supporting terrorism, and that he was directly connected to the Al - Quadi "network".

    You're free to say that in your opinion there hasn't been enough information/materials discovered to change your mind, but to assert that the evidence/justification isn't "reasonable" or "false" isn't fact, it's opinion. Some people still assert that the holocaust ( 5 and 1/2 million Jews, 7 million Christians massacred) never happened - does that make it fact? Or opinion?

    You're veering off towards hyperbole here.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    Some people still assert that the holocaust ( 5 and 1/2 million Jews, 7 million Christians massacred) never happened -
    Mmmm more christians then jews killed in the holocaust? that doesnt sound right...
    Hitler went after Jews, homosexuals, jehova witnesses, gypsies etc.
    Never heard he targeted christians...actually that was his support group...
    Sounds kind of odd to me. (Not saying it is wrong data, just doesnt make sense) where did you get that data from?

    Or are you adding the soldiers to your death toll? I personally dont since they were not targeted by the holocaust. They were war casualties.. the two were tied closely but were 2 seperate issues IMHO..
    Just curious..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  13. #33  
    Aren't Jehovah Witnesses christians? The last time I checked they were. But I am curious where BobbyMike got his numbers from as well.


    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Mmmm more christians then jews killed in the holocaust? that doesnt sound right...
    Hitler went after Jews, homosexuals, jehova witnesses, gypsies etc.
    Never heard he targeted christians...actually that was his support group...
    Sounds kind of odd to me. (Not saying it is wrong data, just doesnt make sense) where did you get that data from?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Aren't Jehovah Witnesses christians? The last time I checked they were.
    Yes and no.. yes they believe is Christ which would make them christians. No since they seem to be pretty far removed from main stream chrisitianity..
    But technically I guess you are right..
    Still no way so many JW's were killed compared to Jews...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  15. #35  

    Well that's probably true. Only 70% believes that the President did the right thing. I'm also sure that there are millions of Canadians that are ashamed at the Canadian officials who placed tourism dollars over possible health risks when they verbally attacked WHO for issuing a travel advisory last month (concerning SARS).


    Well I didn't spoke to anyone who agreed with the WHO's advisory. The polls were taking after the WHO annoucement were overwhelmingly in favour of the Canadian government's decision to appeal the WHO ruling. The fact that the WHO rescind edthe advisory a few days after indicates that they didn't do their home work. BTW The U.S. CDC also thought that the WHO decision was off base.


    ??? The US had a long history prior to the formation of it's democratic republic?


    Americans were largely WASPs when the republic was created. I am arguing that it would have been much more difficult to establish a functioning democracy if the U.S. was as diverse then as it is now.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  16. #36  
    Originally posted by yardie

    Well that's probably true. Only 70% believes that the President did the right thing. I'm also sure that there are millions of Canadians that are ashamed at the Canadian officials who placed tourism dollars over possible health risks when they verbally attacked WHO for issuing a travel advisory last month (concerning SARS).


    Well I didn't spoke to anyone who agreed with the WHO's advisory. The polls were taking after the WHO annoucement were overwhelmingly in favour of the Canadian government's decision to appeal the WHO ruling. The fact that the WHO rescind edthe advisory a few days after indicates that they didn't do their home work. BTW The U.S. CDC also thought that the WHO decision was off base.
    This discussion handles the same topic:
    http://www.letmestayforaday.com/cgi-...0976749;start=

    I'm leaning towards the Can. Gov. SARS hyped in the media, but the more info they find the more innocent SARS is starting to look.
    I see sars as a very nasty flue. The normal flue kills a lot of people every year and SARS seems to be a more agressive one.
    SARS is a concern, but it is not the plague...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  17. #37  
    BobbyMike said: That's why they are called Op/Ed. That's short for Opinion/Editorial.

    Sorry but you're wrong there. The "title" OpEd (used without a slash) was coined by the New York Times because the articles were on the page in the newspaper OPposite the EDitorial page.

    Now as to your purported statistics in regtard to the Holocaust - I too would be very interested to learn where you came up with those numbers, first off the number of Jews killed was not 5,500,000 but rather in excess of 6 million so right away we know the the source of the numbers is wrong.
    Jonathan
  18.    #38  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    The other justifications have not been "discovered ... false". To the contrary the findings, while not as dramatic as they could be, are pointing towards exactly what was said, that he had ongoing WMD R&D programs in place, that he had prohibited weapons, that he was supporting terrorism, and that he was directly connected to the Al - Quadi "network".
    Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough, but everything I've seen has been discredited. The evidence is subpar by any reasonable anaysis. Provide links to difinitive evidence, please. I have yet to see it.

    Once again, was this a just war? could be, I'm not sure, but I think that it could be. But if it is just, it is not yet been shown to be just on the basis of either WMD or connections to al queda. It looks to be justified because of the liberation of the Iraqi People---but if that is the only standard, then we ought to be liberating a good portion of the planet.

    You're free to say that in your opinion there hasn't been enough information/materials discovered to change your mind, but to assert that the evidence/justification isn't "reasonable" or "false" isn't fact, it's opinion. Some people still assert that the holocaust ( 5 and 1/2 million Jews, 7 million Christians massacred) never happened - does that make it fact? Or opinion?

    You're veering off towards hyperbole here.
    oh please. This is just ad hominem.

    There's no "fact" on Bush's side here either, just "opinion." And his "opinion" is unreasonable in my and most of the world's view. The difference is that when I express my opinion all that happens is the neocons here get their underwear in a bunch, when Bush expresses his opinion he does it with bombs.

    Look, the Administration has admitted that this is as much about showing american power as is it about anything else--and it always was.

    the only "hyperbole" here is saying that the claim that the WMD evidence is scant is somehow analogous to the claim that the holocaust didn't happen. It's the same hyperbole that drives people to call them freedom fries: a blind refusal to admit that the justifications for the war are morally relative and not morally absolute. I'm okay with that, but not when everybody is pretending that the justifications are absolute. They aren't.
  19. #39  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Mmmm more christians then jews killed in the holocaust? that doesnt sound right...
    Hitler went after Jews, homosexuals, jehova witnesses, gypsies etc.
    Never heard he targeted christians...actually that was his support group...
    Sounds kind of odd to me. (Not saying it is wrong data, just doesnt make sense) where did you get that data from?

    Or are you adding the soldiers to your death toll? I personally dont since they were not targeted by the holocaust. They were war casualties.. the two were tied closely but were 2 seperate issues IMHO..
    Just curious..
    Christians were his support group? You must be kidding. My numbers reflected the number of people killed in the death camps, not as participants in combat. I'll find some different references that I can post from websites.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Aren't Jehovah Witnesses christians? The last time I checked they were. But I am curious where BobbyMike got his numbers from as well.


    By whose definition? Mainstream Christians consider them a cult as they believe you must be a Jehovah Witness to get into heaven (like Mormons or the followers of Rev. Moon).
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions