Liberals or Conservatives: Who is the bigger threat?

[DuoMax]

[color=green] well, some people would say we aren't. That really pisses me off. I have a question for all the so called patriots. Who is more patriotic, the one who follows a leader blindly into the destruction of our ideals, or the one who stands up and says"NO! I wiil NOT let you destroy our ideals!"?[/color]

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoMax [/i]
[B][color=green] I have a question for all the so called patriots. Who is more patriotic, the one who follows a leader blindly into the destruction of our ideals, or the one who stands up and says"NO! I wiil NOT let you destroy our ideals!"?[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
Calling everyone that follows the government blind followers shows your distrust in the general public and the elected officials. Showing your distrust in both probably leads to the conclusion you don't support the country full of sheep and bumbling officials. Now if you didn't call half of the United State's citizens blind sheep, I would agree with you.

[DuoMax]

[color=green] The thing is that they [b]ARE[/b] blind sheep. They listen to whatever the government tells them and buy duct tape and plastic.[/color]

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoMax [/i]
[B][color=green] The thing is that they [b]ARE[/b] blind sheep. They listen to whatever the government tells them and buy duct tape and plastic.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
so all of the 110 million+ people are blind sheep?

[Manic Webb]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoMax [/i]
[B][color=green] The thing is that they [b]ARE[/b] blind sheep. They listen to whatever the government tells them and buy duct tape and plastic.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Ok... you know what?
If you say that you don't like the government officials [b]AND[/b] the citizens, then you're well on your way to being unpatriotic (honestly, who is left?). If you still have faith in the ideals of the written law, then you're not unpatriotic. Otherwise, you're not living in a totalitarian nation and you're free to move out whenever you like.

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Orien_Xel [/i]
[B][color=blue]So if I don't support our government I'm not patriotic?[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Um, you're reading too much into my post. I'm not even going to answer that.[/color]

[Juu]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i]
[B][color=deeppink]I don't know if this is off-topic or not, but today I took some photographs of people rallying [i]for[/i] the war. It was the first organized group of people supporting our troops that I have seen thus far.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=ff00cc] [size=1]Argh. I can't believe [i]anyone[/i] would actually support going to a war. I mean, so many people die, and it just messes alot of things up.

First of all, they should consider their country might not be the one that [i]wins[/i] that war. It's alot like a gamble; I mean, a country could be lucky for a few years/decades/centuries...etc, but every rise has its fall. People should really keep that in mind.

I bet those people have children, too. School funds are really dropping, and alot of schools don't have enough money to buy new books already. Also, war's going to effect businesses too.

My dad and I were driving over to San Jose, which is about an hour away, and I actually saw four stores closing... It's not all about the economy or anything, of course. In my opinion, alot of things are going to be effected. In many ways, I don't think people are taking it seriously enough... *crawls under chair*

I hope this wasn't too off topic. ^_^;[/color] [/size]

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Juuthena [/i]
[B][color=ff00cc] [size=1]Also, war's going to effect businesses too.

My dad and I were driving over to San Jose, which is about an hour away, and I actually saw four stores closing... It's not all about the economy or anything, of course. [/color] [/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Are you saying that war is good or bad for the economy? Because, if you look at past wars, they actually increase the economy and make it better.

Just curious because I couldn't tell what you meant by that :)[/color]

[GhostofSalvtore]

History Lesson(if I am not mistaken)
This was the same thing that happened in World War 2, people protested before US got into the war. They said let the other countries deal with the problems. Adolf Hitler was growing in numbers. But the US didn't do anything. Then out of the blue, Hitler invades some countries. So we don't know what would have happened, how many people would have been saved if we had just gone to war to begin with. Now I am not for the war, I don't like war, but still I don't want history to repeat itself. And now with the technology and weapons countries have, I really don't want war.

[Juu]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i]
[B][color=deeppink]Are you saying that war is good or bad for the economy? Because, if you look at past wars, they actually increase the economy and make it better.

Just curious because I couldn't tell what you meant by that :)[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=ff00cc] [size=1]Yeah, it could help our economy alot, but only if we win...
On the other hand, it's already starting to hurt our economy... So if we do lose, it might take a while to patch things up. >>;[/color] [/size]

[tabmow]

War is a bad thing , but to answer the question who is more dangerous Conservativces or Liberals the answer is easy. Neither one and both. The real danger is apathy. People who chose either side and defend it are what has made this country great. When the country has fallen in dangerous circumstances the country is polarized into what is right and what is wrong. Loss of this ideal and not taking a stand on either side is what is dangerous, not being on either side, but not caring about what side you are on. In any given election less than 20% of the population votes (maybe a little higher in Presidential years) of those that vote many vote based on family history, ethnicity, or some other sheepish meathod of selecting a candidate, not from personal beliefs,research, or some other internaly based criteria. So the 5 to 10 % of the population that does its homework is auctually voting and thus controls the fate of the country. The is no tyranny of the majority. The majority are sheep lead by wolves in shepards clothing.

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Juuthena [/i]
[B]Yeah, it could help our economy alot, but only if we win...[/b][/quote]
We are going to win.

[quote][b]On the other hand, it's already starting to hurt our economy... So if we do lose, it might take a while to patch things up. >>;[/B][/QUOTE]
the war hasn't started if you haven't noticed

[Juu]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Harry [/i]
[B]We are going to win.[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=ff00cc] [size=1]How are you sure?
Rome and Babylon didn't expect to lose when they fell.
You can't just assume we're going to win or lose. You have to look at it both ways. [/color] [/size]

[tabmow]

I don't doubt we have tha capability to beat Iraq an North Korea, but what concerns me it the post war world. The war is winnable, but will the peace break us. No military power beat the USSR. It destroyed itself by trying to keep up with the United States's economy. We were able to outspend them by threating them with the loss of their posessions. The terrorist and nations we face now have little to lose and a great possibility for vengefull action. Losses to this powers will be in our personal freedoms and economic difficulties are mor probable than a military loss on the battle field. What if Saddam tells his officers to use the WMD he doesn't have( Clearence to use them has been issued to his field commanders) What happen is the US decides to grow a few mushroom in the Bagdad. WHat will the post war world look like. We must be resolved not just to win the war ,but also win the following peace.

[Manic Webb]

Not to digress from the topic at hand, but I can't help but think of Gundam Wing Endless Waltz. Even after they thought they'd achived everlasting peace, all the world needed was [i]one[/i] psychopathic child with sadistic intentions.

Think about that.

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Juuthena [/i]
[B][color=ff00cc] [size=1]How are you sure?
Rome and Babylon didn't expect to lose when they fell.
You can't just assume we're going to win or lose. You have to look at it both ways. [/color] [/size] [/B][/QUOTE]
Unless Sadam somehow gets 40000 troops to invade Washington D.C., we are going to win. I think you're the only person I've seen that thinks the US can't win.

[Lady Macaiodh]

[color=darkblue]Let's just hope they don't have weapons we're unaware of.[/color]

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lady Macaiodh [/i]
[B][color=darkblue]Let's just hope they don't have weapons we're unaware of.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
Like what? You don't use chemical weapons during war since it can easily blow back onto you (Germany's first try at mustard gas was a huge failure since they released the the gas and the wind blew it straight back to the troops).

[Subversive]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lady Macaiodh [/i]
[B][color=darkblue]Let's just hope they don't have weapons we're unaware of.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, you never know with a psycho. They're probably the only people crazy (or bitter) enough to use nuclear or chemical weapons.

[Red]

[b][color=515050][size=1]Please try and stay on topic instead of starting about Iraq and Saddam Hussein all over again. I know they're related in one way or another but the topic really doesn't revolve around Saddam's supposed arsenal of weapons, or lack thereof.[/b][/color][/size]

[Transtic Nerve]

I'm not saying conservatives are wrong.... I'll say they are misguided, as well as some liberals, but you all should watch Bill Mahr's new show. He was talking about this the other day, which he had a liberal on one side and a conservative on the other and the conservative was just being beaten down with the facts when she kept spewing out what "we should do" as opposed to "why we are doing it"... she kept saying "we should stop this tyrant"... why? She can't answer why, and when she did it had no relevance to anything the Bush administration was going after in the first place.

Saddam supposedly had ties with Al Queda, which I now hear was a load of horse garbage. So tell me again, why going after Saddam has anything to do with the "Campain on Terrorism"... oh thats right, IT DOESN'T which is precisely why we have like... 5 countries on our side instead of the however many we had when we went into Afganistan. All these other countries can see it, why can't we? lol. Although I won't say Saddam doesn't pose a threat, why he might. In fact he's said, as well as the people of Iraq (many times) that they don't hate Americans. They just don't like our idiots we elect to office. Hell half of us don't like them either! I just think that North Korea as well as other middle eastern countries besides Iraq pose a much larger threat. With radical Muslims running around with Jihad on their mind, I think thats more than a guy who runs a litle country that Georgy has a vandeta on because daddy couldn't take care of the job.

[Kent]

Ok, I dont wanna get into the "wanna be mod area," but this has got to end.

The last post by a mod was specific about the idea that this thread should not be about saddam.

What was the very next post after that...?

A long spew about bush and saddam.

Lets stick to what elite posted and stay on topic.

Reminder: the topic is about liberals and conservatives, NOT Iraq.

But if you wanna go another 12 rounds with a moderate who pays attention to the media and not political satirists, Im always up for a good fight.

Oh yea, tn, bush 41 got the job done just fine, and stopped because the world agreed that saddam would hold his end of the cease fire, which he didn't.

And I'm sure you know thats why we are persuing the resolution of this "iraq problem" today, instead of when clinton tried to do it in 1998. (which he did do)

"Someday, some way, I garuntee you he'll use the arsenall. Let there be no doubt we are prepared to act."

" I know the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The american people have to be ready as well."

-Bill Clinton Feb. 1998

Both are excerpts from a speech following senate concurrent resolution 71.

"If not, it's back to buisness. It is the use of force. It is a swift response militarily and by whatever other means may be necessary.
-Tom Daschle Feb 1998

Also following that same resolution, which was sponsored by Mr. Daschle.

So don't blast off your mouth about who didn't get the job done.

And where was the protest then?

This is about hate for the bush administration and partisian politics, not a hate for war and this sort of one sidedness proves that.

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]What was the very next post after that...?

A long spew about bush and saddam.[/B][/QUOTE]

correction:

The second half was a fairly short spew about Bush and Saddam, when taken out of context.. but the first half was actually about the topic of the thread.. and when the second half of the post is taken into the context of the first, it isn't really off topic at all..

As opposed to previous posts consisting of a sentence or two about why Saddam is bad, or something else along those lines



w.r.t. the original topic.. I really have no idea, seeing as the liberal party over here (the liberal democrats) are kind of the third choice at the moment. Labour and conservative are pretty much as bad as each other though..

I'm probably more on the liberal side myself, but I wouldn't necessarily class either one as a "threat"

[Transtic Nerve]

My post wasn't about Saddam... my post was about how Liberals and Conservatives view the war. Or the impending war. Do you really not expect me to mention Saddam when this topic is all about war on Iraq and terrorism. No offense but how stupid can you get? My first paragraph never even mentioned the word "Saddam" in it. (thank you for noticing that as well Deus :))

THIS topic is about how Liberals and Conservatives are dealing with the impending war. How they dealt with it in the past and why it's leading to where it is. Thats why the topic mentions "THREAT" not MORALS. If it were just about liberals and conservatives I'd mention Guns and Abortion, but no one has, so it's about the war and how each political party handles it. THAT'S what this topic is about.

[spoiler][strike]No, Bush senior didn't get the job done, if he did the word Iraq wouldn't even exist. The word Saddam wouldn't exist. He didn't get the job done because he didn't get rid of Saddam. All he did was liberate Kawait. Which I'm sure was reason to begin the gulf war, but not the main point behind it. Japanese attacked us in WWII, that was our reason for getting into the war, although I'm sure eventually we would have sometime or another. But did we go after Japan right away... and only Japan? No, we went after Hitler and Germany as our main focus. After that was over, we focused all our power on Japan. We went into the Gulf war to liberate Kawait, but we had an agenda to rid Saddam of power, and if they didn't then it's still Bushy's fault that Saddam is still there today. Bush didn't get the job done because Bush went in there. Clinton didn't go there, BUSH did. And with that he had the power and authority to get rid of Saddam, and he didn't. Clinton didn't get us into war. He didn't have the responcibility to take out Saddam. He didn't have a reason either. Yeah, Saddam has weapons... WOO HOO... So does Russia, but we aren't attacking them. So does 3/4s of the countries in the world, but we aren't attacking them. Just because Bush has some long repore with Saddam. Everyone is asking why. Even the conservatives are saying "There's no where it says we are going to war" yet we have how many troops over there? I was just listening to fox news and they are saying that in resolution 14 whatever the number was it say nothing about war. It says that Ieaq will pay consequences if it doesn't comply. Hmm I wonder what those would be? Are we going to take their teddy bears away and put them in Time Out? GET REAL. It means war! Which is preciesly why Russia and France are in disagreement. Which is precisely why I AM in disagreement.[/strike][/spoiler]

If you want to leave Saddam out of this, give me one good reason why America is goign to war with Iraq, Thats the discussion now. Or hey, why aren't we going after Bin Laden if you want to answer that. How about North Korea? Why aren't we going after known terrorist and people that pose a much greater threat to Americans and other peoples around the world. It makes no sense to me. I shouldn't ask you this though because no one knows why. You're all just feeding off of what the press throws out. Hell so am I. I should go ask Bushy, but he probably doesn't know either. It's all politics, which you can figure right then is all lies to begin with. I don't trust what anyone says up there, I just know that Iraq didn't use planes to kill all those people in New York and he doesn't have the range in his weapons to fire anything at the US from where he is. I just can't see why this war is a must do, right now, right away sort of thing. Doesn't make any sense to me, doesn't make any sense to Russia, doesn't make any sense to France, and it doesn't make any sense to the majority of American citizens and European citizens. SO why in the hell does it make sense to you?

[Kent]

Well contrary to what some may want from war with Iraq, I support the removal of Saddam because I believe that the people of Iraq deserve freedom and not the totalitarian rule of a stalinistic dictator.

I also believe that North Korea is a nation to be dealt with on a different level.

When you have 2 nuclear powers facing off, a "cold war" is a "better" way to go about the resolution of conflict.

This applies even more so when you are facing a nation such as North Korea, who very well may use a nuclear weapon for unjust reasons.

North Korea is a totally different scenerio when you are talking about war compared to Iraq, and frankly, if you can't see that for yourself, than you need a lesson on the last 60 years of world conflict.

I also want to state again that you have completely taken the first gulf war in the wrong way.

Saddam agreed to a cease fire with specific demands.

This was the only reason the international community did not "destroy" Iraq.

Now Saddam is not honoring that agrement and unlike presidents worried about scandal, "Bushy" is willing to deal with the situation.

Oddly, all the support offered by democrates and the international community dissappeared when Bush entered office.

Plus, I dont know if you have been paying attention, but Russia and France have very different reasons from you or the students at berkely for not wanting war.

You see, France has now been discovered to be the number one seller of conventional weapons to Iraq, as well as one of the largest purchasers of Iraqi oil.

A similar story exist with Russia, only Russia is getting deals from Iraq that involve the development of their own oil fields in Iraq.

Unfortunatly for both of them, the Iraqi government still owes these two countries large quantities of money.

If Saddam is removed and the Iraqi people are able to govern themselves, they will be able to sell their oil to counties like America and therefore collect a much greater profit.

It could also be assumed that once Saddam was removed, any new government would not honor previous deals made by Saddam, hence, no collection of owed money for France and Russia.

Of course, you already knew about the economic ties between Saddam, France and Russia... Im sure you were just asking for the sake of argument.

I also want to ask you what the continual bombing of Iraq during the clinton administration would be?

Would that be aggression or just plain fun and games to be ignored by all democrates?

Would it also be safe to assume that you ignored the qoutes by our former Democratic leadership? I know you saw them, but you seemed to have skipped right over them when it came time to respond.

I ask you this, do you want war?

Then why would you suggest war with Korea?

Why would you support the idea of Saddam keeping his power to do as he wishes to the Iraqi people?

If I lived in Iraq and was not part of the bath party, I would consider myself in constant danger and in a state of civil war at all times.

Do you mention the fact that Saddam can not hurt Americans because you believe that "since it doesn't hurt you, its o.k. to ignore."

Or do you bring up the idea that Saddam can not hurt people because you know of the Ryson poison that turned up in Paris about 4 weeks ago, which originated from Terrorist training camps in northern Iraq?

I am guessing that its neither of those and once again the anti-war agenda is stemming from anger directed at the current administration.

No matter what the situation you need to realize this...

I will not change my mind about the moral correctness of a war removing a dictator such as Saddam. (whether its the removal of Saddam or anyone else with such a horrible record)

I will not change my opinion about the threat that Saddam currently poses to the middle east.

However, I just might change my mind about all the "nice" things I said earlier in this thread about just how "moderate and independant" you are. (tn)

I see more and more on every post that the argument against war is based on the positions of other countries and a "majority of americans" that has not been accounted for in any poll or study done.

Standing back and allowing Saddam to carry on is far more morally incorrect than any actions yet to be taken.