How do unicyclists feel about what has become of Iraq?

Off-topic
21

Well, to get bac to the situation in Iraq…

I’m really in doubt about that, but since Kraze asked for oppinions from around the world, I’ll see if I can put it in writing.

What I hear from the media is that it’s a mess down there. Noone is 100% in controll at the moment. I’m not convinced that every person in Iraq is better off now than before the invasion (certainly not the dead ones).

That said I’m still for the war. The current situation holds the promise of better future if things are done right.
It’s hard to know if it’s better to stay and take responsibility or to get out let the Iraqis take over.

I think the troops are doing a good job but the whole Abu Grahib situation has done a lot of damage to their public image. I’m surprised someone was dumb enough to risk taking the bad publicity.

Slightly off topic…

The war was started for all the wrong reasons.
WMD? Not proven.
Terrorism? Not proven.
Enforcing UN policy? Shaky argument since the security council voted against shortly before.

The troops where there, the invasion had to be over before winter. It would cost too much to wait another year. No time to do things right. Just Go!
If the reason had been: “It’s the only way to stop Sadam. We have to do it for the sake of the Iraqi people” I would have been all for it.

22

The study you cite analyzes the reporters as individuals not their journalistic output. The two do not necessarily correlate.

As you yourself say, the media produces what sells.

There are numerous studies showing that newspaper sources and broadcast media guests are largely and in some cases overwhelmingly government and military officials and corporate representatives. Opposition voices are vastly under-represented. (I will have to dig some of them up).

What immediately comes to mind to counter the study you cite (and I realize it’s only one bit of data and not strictly speaking reportage) is the interview Michael Moore conducted in Bowling for Columbine with a former producer of the television program Cops. This person identified himself as a liberal going so far as to say that if you look up liberal in a dictionary, you’d find of picture of him.

However, when confronted with the fact that cops shows minorities, particularly young black men, in a particularly negative light, his answer basically boiled down to that it sells. His liberalism apparently does not extend to his professional output.

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

23

I think it was a good thing to get rid of Sadam.I also think war is bad,people moan about civilians getting killed i know it’s a bad thing and all but it’s a war it’s gonna happen!
I think even if you not believe in the war you should support the troops when they come back.They have done a scarey and dangerous job and i would not like to come home to people booing me would you?
Ben

24

Here’s another question:
First, let’s put a few suppositions on the table.
Let’s suppose that Iraq really is better without Hussein.
Let’s suppose that there really weren’t any WMD.
(The jury is still out on both of these, but let’s pretend for a minute that both of these are true)

Should the U.S. go into a country to liberate it from a bad government? Should we take the role of “policemen of the world?”

25

Nope. That should be the UN’s job, but various factors keep them from doing their job. It doesn’t make sense to have the US take over the UN’s role any more than it would make sense to have canada, albania, iran, or new zealand take over for the UN.

Fix the UN, or replace it with something similar, but to let any one country police the rest of the world would be too close to a global dictatorship for my liking.

26

Agreed, if the UN was functional then the current world military power would not have to get envolved.

Genocide should never be tolerated for any period of time.

27

It does make a little more sense, since we are the world’s superpower. I doubt New Zealand has an army strong enough to take over a country like the U.S. did.
That does not make the U.S. any better than New Zealand. As a matter of fact, the U.S. has to be even more careful to not overstep its boundaries because it would be very easy to do so.

28

ZOD wrote “Genocide should never be tolerated for any period of time”.

I completely agree with this,

its just too bad the guys in charge are not as into Daimonds as much as they are into oil, then maybe they would take action against the evil dictator in Sierra Leone who has been committing genocide for quite a while or the Sudan.

29

I’m picking up a lot from the debate between JJuggle and Bugman. I kind of agree with both of them, and they both sound pretty informed. I am less informed. I have opinions of my own, based in part on what I’ve seen and heard, and tempered by my knowledge of how “the news” usually works.

President:
Democrats, get over yourselves. George W. Bush is the president. Everybody knows he did not win the popular vote. Where is the massive effort at voting-system reform, other than in the machinery to be used at the polls?

And if you didn’t vote for anybody, you’re not helping. If you’re proud to be an American, do your citizenly duty. If you’re not proud of your country, do something about it. I’m proud of my country in general, but well aware of its many mistakes and problems.

Saddam:
Everybody agrees he was a bad guy. Was he the worst guy? There are plenty of other countries, all over the world, with evil dictators. Some arguably worse than him. So why pick on Saddam? Oh yeah. So maybe it’s not so much about him, and more about “control and stability” in oil country.

UN:
If the UN keeps drawing lines in the sand, and guys like Saddam keep stepping over them, and the UN just keeps drawing new lines, it becomes obvious that the UN isn’t being effective. As they are an organization that’s about peace, this is a good thing. But if they aren’t willing to enforce their own resolutions, they lose their credibility.

Moving away from the UN, then, the United States had to come up with its own set of criteria for attacking Iraq. I think we dove in too soon, without sufficient evidence of our main stated reasons for attacking. We had bad (or manufactured) intelligence, and not enough evidence. We didn’t go in because “Saddam is bad.” Unfortunately I have to agree with Bugman that the timing of the attack was because the U.S. couldn’t wait. All the troups and assets were in place, but even though the evidence or other “political ammunition” weren’t sufficiently there, we went anyway. A very bad precedent for our country.

Terrorist Mecca:
There are two ways of thinking on this. one is that the current situation in Iraq makes it a breeding (and testing) ground for terrorists, and there are tons more of them there now than there were before this war, possibly being attracted from many other countries. Bad for Iraq.

Another way to think about it is that this may have been intentional. All the active terrorists are focused in one place, now let’s “get-em.” This argument would be great if we had the skills to actually get-em. Terrorism, by nature, makes is hard to fight out in the open.

It is hard to predict the amount of resistance there would be to a situation like the ousting of Saddam Hussein. The resistance has been strong. Is it getting stronger? Weaker? We’re still heading for the June 30 milestone. We’ll have to see how it goes after that. It won’t stop overnight.

What’s Life Like in Iraq Now?:
I have no idea. I have heard amazingly little. The mass media doesn’t seem to think we’re interested in anything other then whether any Americans were killed or not. I assume Bush’s publicity machine would be highly motivated to spread stories of all the rebuilding and improvements that have happened in the past year. I know it’s happening and am surprised to not hear about it, especially during an election year.

I heard about such things from Afganistan. Roads, schools, clean water, massive infrastructure improvement. It didn’t seem to get much attention though. This is the “good” of U.S. occupation, if it happens. Why not more bragging? I don’t understand.

If you were not a member of the Bath party, or not on Saddam’s “good side,” life in Iraq before this war was probably very risky. Certainly life is better for all Iraquis that weren’t part of his power structure. Certainly there are tons of people there who are very happy about the current situation. Remember though, these are the ones most likely to want to talk to you. If they think it’s a bad idea and support the rebels, they won’t tell you this.

As “good” as I think this occupation will be for the Iraqui people, that does not justify our barging in there. I believe we were wrong to go into Iraq when we did. We owe the rest of the world an apology. For the Iraqui people, we owe a lot of fixing up of the place. This is costing an incredible amount of money. I’d have preferred to have a say in this as a voter. What are we spending, $150 million a day over there? This will not end on June 30!

U.S. Out of Iraq:
Protest is a healthy thing for a free government. War protests are always in order. War is bad. I don’t think this nation has fought in any wars that were not the subject of large protests. This is our conscience as a nation, reminding us that peace is preferred.

Protestors: What’s your plan? I honestly have not heard one. We can’t just up and leave. Hopefully that’s not what you have in mind. What do the protestors want (understanding it could be many different plans)?

We’re There, Can’t Change That:
By far, the worst thing we could do, I believe, is up and leave. The political ramifications of this will reverberate for years, and all come back to us in bad ways. Even though we would stand to save many billions of dollars, and perhaps look a little better to the international community, it would be like digging a huge hole in our neighbor’s garden, in the interest of putting in a pool they didn’t want, but then leaving them with nothing but a hole. If we finish the pool, our neighbor might not even be so mad at us in the end.

Even if we elect a new president in the fall, it’s important for us to finish what we’ve started. We can change the game plan, but we can’t drop it. I am not aware of Kerry’s plan, but then again, I’m not aware of a Bush plan for after June 30 either.

After June 30:
But the Bush administration has at no time implied everything would be over then either. Little will change, other than who’s responsible for decisions made by the Iraqui government. Our forces will probably remain there. I’m guessing a minimum of 10 years assuming a success for the new government. As somebody mentioned, we have bases all over the world as it is. Hopefully Iraq will be come as safe a place to live as those other ones.

America as Policeman:
We are labeled as the world’s only superpower. This should make any other nation fear us, at least to some extent. If we act responsibly, the world can relax. If we start barging into other countries on weak evidence, or trumped-up charges, it is only natural for the rest of the world to get scared, and less trusting of us.

I think we have been irresponsible. Our nation is too powerful to be irresponsible. Though we can’t afford to move as slowly as the UN, we have to move carefully just the same. The more we throw our weight around, the more enemies we will create for ourselves.

George W. Bush has been very good at showing a strong face to terrorists and other potential enemies of our nation. This goes a long way and I’m in favor of that. Going into Afganistan after Osama Bin Laden, I’m in favor of that. Iraq? I’m not buying it. There was not a terrorist threat there, other than from Saddam himself, until we “invited” the world’s terrorists over there to get involved in fighting us.

Internationally, though Bush has made us look strong and resolute, he has also made the United States look dangerous. This in turn creates more danger for us.

So I wish I had a better picture of Kerry. I would rather vote for someone I think would be an improvement over Bush. But if necessary, I will vote for whoever is not Bush.

Anyway, please pick all of this apart and let’s see what we learn.

30

does anyone else find themself scrolling through threads such as this, hoping that gerble posted something so that we can be enlightened and awed by what he has to say?

I know the day has not wasted when i read something by gerble. i always learn something new :slight_smile: and, simulaneously, feel stupid by comparison…

Personally, im completely against the war. In fact, I truly cannot understand how anyone can be for it. Especially after no WMDs have been found!

Here’s my philosophy:

I read somewhere that you can learn a lot about a man by finding out what his father failed at. Let’s apply this to the Bush family. What three things did Bush Senior fail at?

-he raised taxes
-he didn’t kill the son of a gun when he had the chance
-he looked like a wuss

Thus, what has Bush Junior done?

-lowered taxes at any expense
-done everything in his power to kill saddam
-tried to build his image as a tough cowboy

its pretty straightforward if you ask me.

It’s too bad the democrats chose kerry. Its pretty sad in my opinion. Both candidates. I mean, out of 300 million people in the U.S., there have got to be some political prodigies out there, right? Some super geniuses? And the best we can come up with is a draft dodging illiterate republican, and a democrat that doesn’t know anything about politics. But hey, at least he didn’t scream during any of his campaign speeches, so he must be at least a decent candidate… :-/

I really dont care who the president is, as long as its not bush. It can be a republican, democrat (preferably), whoever, just as long as they’re SMART for crying out loud. is this too much to ask?! how is it that both lieberman and cheney are 500 times smarter than gore and bush, respectively?

if you’re not outraged at the current president then you’re not paying attention. wake up. vote. if you dont vote, then i dont wanna hear one word about how you’re frustrated with politics today. you have no right to complain if you’re too lazy to go out and vote once every four years.

the way i see it, the u.s. and the rest of the world are going to try to recover looong after he’s left office. The deficit could take 20, 30 years to get back on track. Good relations with the middle east and the UN might take longer. I only wish that bush could only be screwing up his four years, and not everyone elses thats coming after him…

we need someone like clinton back. someone who can give us a surplus, start good foreign relations, and lower unemployment.

if you’re a kid out there, and you’re just taking the exact same views as your parents in the world of politics, then you gotta start making up your own mind. don’t let anyone influence you (except for me, of course :stuck_out_tongue: ) or tell you what to think. wow i can’t believe i kept a straight face saying that. the irony…

im just saying you should pay attention to whats going thats all.

sorry for ranting.

may the force be with you always,

-grant

31

For the most part, your points were pretty well thought out. Not much to argue with.

As for Kerry, which Kerry would you like a better picture of. He will tell you anything you want to hear. Even if you don’t agree with Bush at least you know where he stands. I can assure you I don’t agree with everything Bush has done since he became President. At least I know he won’t sit around waiting for another useless UN resolution while those that would do us harm can do anything they desire.

There is no doubt that the stablility of the Middle East is imparitive for the economic stability of the world, not just the United States. It would certainly be in our best interest to wean ourselves from our dependence on their oil. If they keep screwing around over there it will happen sooner than later, and they will have nothing to offer the world, but terrorists.

I hope that with a representative republic/democracy in Iraq we will begin to see freedom flourish and those that live there will feel they to have something to live for and stop driving buses into elementary schools.

32

I don’t know if for/against is a good way of putting it at this point. Too late to argue, as the war is over. Same goes for the current “peace,” whatever you want to call it. For or against, it’s still there. It’s too late to unmake the war, but there is time to work with the peace.

What do you think we should do in Iraq, starting now? I need to hear more from the “against” community.

All the geniuses are too smart to run for president! It takes a special kind of person, and being smart is apparently not one of the more important ingredients. I certainly wouldn’t want the job.

I wish we had more than two choices. Yes, there are other candidates, but until something changes, voting for one of the others only has the effect of taking votes away from one of the two real contenders.

Do we really need this party system? I think it takes away from the process. By being associated with a party, it suggests your basic set of values. By doing so, it kind of takes away from your ability to have your own. By labeling yourself a democrat, republican, or any other party, it presupposes a set of political ideals onto you, and in a way removes from you the necessity to think for yourself.

I don’t know what to replace the party system with, but I definitely don’t like it. It exists to serve the politicians more than it does to serve the people. It sets up a system for hand-washing that helps to perpetuate the system, and cuts down on individual thinking.

To not have a party system would probably be chaos, but I’m sure an alternative is possible.

And no one ever called Bill Clinton a wuss in the nookie department! :slight_smile:

How about Ronald Reagan? I wasn’t a big fan of his during his two terms, but if we had the choice, I’d have him back in a heartbeat, even though I did not vote for him in 1980 or 84!

Kraze, what about you? What do you see in Iraq? Tell us what you know, or what you’re allowed to pass on. We know it will be limited to just your local area and experiences, but a window on the country would be nice.

33

So I haven’t been paying attention Grant if I don’t agree with you? Come on now, we are all entitled to our opinions…but that doesn’t mean they are anything more than that.

Some of us could care less about relations with the UN. The UN in it’s current state is a total joke. I personally don’t give a crap about a world governing party, but I especially have no use for one that’s useless.

Everything you just named was put into place and/or completed before Clinton even came into office. Understand that Clinton made insignificant changes to economic policy that was put in place by years of Reagan economics. The model worked, he knew it, and he didn’t touch it…I will give Clinton credit for not breaking what ain’t broken. Reagan put us in a situation where we had excellent foreign relations again not Clinton, he lowered unemployment, the prime intrest rate dropped by half during his Presidency, and because of it industry/jobs boomed. Don’t give Clinton credit for a ball that was already rolling. Between what Reagan did and the .com boom Clinton was in the right place at the right time. He’s the president you grew up with so he’s all you have a first hand basis with.
Clinton represents nothing that is American, and represents nothing that I want to be associated with. He is an adulterer and a liar and those are the two main things I remember about him.

I am ashamed to admit I voted him into office in his first term, I’m older and wiser now. Kerry reminds me too much of him.

Hate to throw the age card out Grant, but your opinion of the world often changes when you move away from your parents, have a spouse, family, cars, a house, student loans, bills, job, etc. Not to say that your views will change but they may. I sound like a total geez saying you have little life experience at 16 but it’s true. Let your thoughts and ideals always be questionable and never get caught in a one party stance. From some of the things you have said I think you’re on the right track. One of the worst things children can do is simply follow what their parents think even if they know they don’t agree. And for the love of God…don’t follow party lines, that’s what the politicians want you to do, vote for who you like regardless of the party they represent!

Beyond some moral beliefs I have, I’ll vote for whoever will shrink government and lower my taxes in the process. I’m a bit of a sovereign states person I suppose. As much as I am not 100% enthrawled by the job Bush is doing I know what Kerry will want to do if he gets into office, grow government and raise my taxes. Currently I work basically about 3.5 months out of the 12 month year to pay taxes to the federal government (4.5 months including my state taxes). That’s way too much as it is, I don’t need my taxes any higher. See, when your 16 taxes just don’t matter, but if 38% of every check you get is going straight to big government spending I’m pretty sure you’d feel different, just as I do :wink:

Oops, I got a little side tracked…were we talking about Iraq??? :smiley:

34

Funny how people think.

Democrats usually hold Draft Dodgers in high esteem. They also loath Veterans.

Bush was not a Draft Dodger as some would try to claim, but served honorably in the National Guard. Many of our troops currently in Iraq are guardsman.

John Kerry on the other hand is a self professed baby killer and personally committed and supposedly watched others commit war crimes in Vietnam. He is the one the Democrats get behind as the best their party has to offer.

As for Bush missing drills… If you haven’t been in the National Guard, you don’t really understand how it works. Missing a drill isn’t anything like being AWOL in the Regular Army. You just make it up later in order to have credit for a “good year” toward retirement. If you don’t make it up, you don’t get credit for that year. Big Deal. If the standard was different, it would be a big deal, but that is the way it is.

Unemployment is currently at 5.6% Some would say that is great. All of a sudden that isn’t very good. If you are an employer, it is incredible. It means there is a pool of qualified people to choose from as you grow your business. I don’t think the rate was much better during the Clinton years. Clinton didn’t have 3 planes crash into buildings while he was President. I wonder how long it would have taken for Clinton to get the economy back on track?

Not only that but the treasury is taking in more money from taxes than they originally though, and the deficit is going to be at least 100 Billion less than originally thought. Whether you agree with the war or not, deficits are a part of waging war not tax cuts. There is never anything wrong with giving those that earn the money the chance to keep and spend it the way they see fit. Deficits are good to keep politicians from spending money they shouldn’t be spending.

For those of you who are “against” this war, which war were you in favor of?

35

These claims are so wide sweeping, untrue, and general that if they weren’t so inflamatory they could be ignored as the blather they are. You watch too much Sean Hannity and read too much Anne Coulter. If these comments are overly personal, I apologize. However, your comments amount to ad hominem attacks and have no place, in my opinion, in this debate.

Frankly, as long as Bush is honest and upfront about his service or non-service, I personally don’t care what he did or didn’t do.

Well, here’s something we agree on. I will vote for Kerry because I am convinced that not Bush is enough right now. But I am very disappointed that this is what the Democratic party came up with. I voted for Dennis Kucinich on Tuesday.

This to me is the most amazingly perverse attitude imaginable. You are essentially saying that the interests of business and capital trump those of the working men and women of our country. You are saying having some people unemployed is good because then businesses get to pick and choose and as an added bonus put a downward pressure on wages. This is, in my opinion, the same attitude that willingly sends men and women to fight and die in the interest of business which is, unfortunately, what I believe is going on now.

No comment on this hypothetical.

What do you know?, “Federal Deficit Likely to Narrow $100 Billion; Tax Receipts Pare Borrowing” - Washington Post, May 4, 2004.

George Bush is spending $200,000,000,000 and counting to wage this war. Is this money he should be spending. Or is it just that as long as the money is going into the hands of Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Halliburton and not to feed, house, and educate Americans that it’s OK for politicians to spend money?

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

36

Disappointed that’s the choice we have? Yes. Because of his war record? No. If George W. Bush and Kerry were in the same unit in Vietnam, they most likely would have committed the same war crimes. I don’t know the details of Kerry’s service, but I’m going to guess he was following orders. I do not believe he acted on his own.

Meanwhile, we have some “war crimes” that happened in a prison in Iraq. Investigations are ongoing and some convictions have already been made, but for some reason I’m not seeing any heads rolling up the chain of command. This is a national disgrace. The CIA (and/or whoever is responsible) needs to be held accountable. If our government’s executive branch has the will, I’m sure this can be done. I think they are mistaking the “bad publicity” or loss of face this would cause, for the improvement of our image that could be made by dealing with those responsible. Fast.

All the stuff that was reported, photographed and videotaped could not have taken place without either a gaping hole in the command structure, or by deliberate permission. I don’t care which it was, but it is not being dealt with fast enough, nor I think in a way that will appeal to the people of Iraq and the international community. Or me.

What happened to military justice? Maybe I’m expecting too much, but are we to expect the same kind of long, drawn-out procedures we see in the civilian legal system? Yuck. In any case, someone is responsible for letting those atrocities happen, not just the low-ranking soldiers shown in the pictures. This person or persons needs to go, soon.

37

Who are they?

As for my generalizations, they are just that. If they fit wear them, if they don’t then it doesn’t apply to you. As for being too personal, no problem, I just consider the source. :wink:

What could anyone expect from a kid raised in Grenich Village. Believe it or not, we probably agree on more politically than you think. We just haven’t broached those subjects.

38

“The model worked”. trying to tell me that reagan’s economics was better than clinton’s is like trying to sell me another savage unicycle. i ain’t buying it.

Reagan increased the debt more than any other president in history, by over a quarter trillion each year!! That whole Star Wars baloney ruined the country. In 198, Reagan failed to keep his promise to balance the budget by 1983. Instead, he raised national debt by more than 200 billion. No wait dont tell me. The record-breaking debts during Reagan’s 8 years were a result of the presidency before him, right? Then Bush Sr. pushed up the debt another trillion in only three years (1988 to 1991). Not his fault either? Then, a democrat came into office and everything settled down for 8 years of prosperity. Bush gets elected, and a few years henceforth we’re setting deficit records all over again.

I hate to throw the age card out there, but as you get older you lean towards conservatism (not you personally, im just saying in general). Why? Because you’re not the one thats going to be paying for the deficit bush is causing. I am. How much of a deficit? An estimated three trillion over the next ten years. Or, my generation could just pass it on to the next generation as you seem to be doing to me. I can only hope my generation has too much dignity to do that.

I consider myself a democrat, but definitely not in a one party stance. I would take a smart republican over kerry any day. I also completely agree with you that people should vote for who they like regardless of their party.

Maybe I should take my age out of my profile… :wink:

-Grant

p.s. its 1am, i have two finals tomorrow, i take my driver’s test tomorrow, tomorrow is my last day of school, and my kh24 should arrive very soon. WOOHOO

39

No, that we don’t.

But did the US/George Bush make the world a better place by going to war with Iraq?
Sure, Saddam was an evil dictator. But are Iraqis better off now than before the war? Was it worth all the ‘collateral’ damage/ dead women/children in order to ‘liberate’ a country that now seems in further chaos than ever before?
Did going to war stop the threat of terrorism? It seems to me if I was American I would fear the threat of terrorism now more than ever…

Perhaps the UN is irrelevant because the US can do whatever it likes and has the power to do so.

Just my thoughts from lil ol’ New Zealand.

Ken

40

Good cops wait for a judges order before entering private property :). On a global scale the UN is needed to make the policework legal. (I realize this is an analogy which doesn’t work 100% on a global scale, but I’m just trying to make a point)

I don’t think the US should have to do all the policing. That kind of thing costs money and lives.It would be unfair to let one country pull all the weight.

How come I hear so much from non-americans is how the US is against UN and trying to undermine its authority etc. when most americans I hear are generally for the UN?
Are you badly represented or am I being misinformed?

If you like to spend your own money, why let politicians spend it on interest?

I completely agree. There should always be a surplus in the workforce. Buissness owners should be happy to spend a small amount of their revenue on having a reserve of qualified potential employees and upgrading their qualifications.

Thanks for the positive attitude. I was getting worried about the tone in the debate :slight_smile: