41 replies to this topic

[NickC]

Its been four years since the war on Iraq was started. How would you rate the president's performance and why?

[katinka]

I dislike the fact that you have various ranges of positive rankings, and only one for the negative.

Myself, i think the war has been a failure. We never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Arguments could be made that the country is now in worse shape then it was originally. And we have lost sight of the real target of the war on terror, which would be afghanistan and bin laden.

[tycoonboy388]

Wow, someone actually voted fair in your poll, thats awfully generous.

Katinka and I have a similar point of view on the war in Iraq. From what I have observed, it has been one failure after another failure. Of course the Democrats in Congress are not really doing anything, but with the possibilty of the 08 race so close, they want to tread carefully. There has been scandal after scandal after scandal that has destroyed American morale in fighitng this war. I sometimes wonder if this happened in times of war like in the 40's or when we went into Korea.

Its just getting more and more depressing, and I don't see how our continued presence will be any better than if we were to leave. If anything, maybe we should just focus our forces on the securing the borders, while we have limited troops, supported by Iraqi forces to control the cities. I don't know, there doesn't seem to be a real solution where we actually achieve what we're being told we're achieving: a stable democracy in the Middle East.

[Josh]

I've edited the poll to make the five choices equally spaced on the spectrum.

[katinka]

In response to the end of tycoonboy's post, do you think its even possible to have a stable democracy in Iraq as it is now? Wouldn't it be better to follow Wilson's principle of self determination and let the Sunnis, Shi'is, and Kurds each have their own country?

[00zeme]

Who will define the borders for each sect's country?

[zaccariah2005]

Let them fight over that. The fighting will end,... eventually. They will fight for eternity if they are left the way they are now.

[tycoonboy388]

katinka, on Mar 20 2007, 04:51 AM, said:

In response to the end of tycoonboy's post, do you think its even possible to have a stable democracy in Iraq as it is now? Wouldn't it be better to follow Wilson's principle of self determination and let the Sunnis, Shi'is, and Kurds each have their own country?

I suppose if we want a less volitile situation, this would be the best bet. I don't have a lot of faith in any state that is formed under the name of Iraq, because of according to the theory of a state, Iraq was never a state, especially since it has not had a unified population in recent history, since the British defined Iraq, it has never had a unified populace. Giving each nation its own jurisdiction might halt most of the sectarian violence, but I'd like to believe that coexistence is possible, especially since each region does not have enough resources to sustain a national economy, there needs to be some unity.

00zeme, on Mar 20 2007, 02:33 PM, said:

Who will define the borders for each sect's country?

The plan is to define borders based on where each ethnic group resides in majority. The Kurds in the mountainous North region, the Shi'ites in the center of the nation, and the Sunnis in the south near the Saudi Border. The only problem is that Iraq's vast oil supplies are centered in the north and center of the nation, and the economic center of the country, Baghdad, is also in the center of the country. The Sunnis get really screwed over in this plan, unless there is an agreement to share oil revenue. There is a plan to share oil revenue, but the situation in Iraq is so unstable that anything could destroy the plan to share oil wealth.

[NickC]

ZoSo, on Mar 20 2007, 01:03 AM, said:

I've edited the poll to make the five choices equally spaced on the spectrum.

THANK YOU ZoSo, you're a life saver
I was going to request one of the mods to help me edit it so thanks again soooooooo much!!
I agree, my choices were mostly leaning toward the "bush nice" side because my D grade was actually "fair " LOL

But I'm a pro Bush person. I'm kind of both, I pity the side thats less popular just to make them feel better. But thats not my whole point. I think that since the president is actually fighting this war, I think he knows what hes doing. You may disagree with me and thats fine. But you need to keep in mind something, when you read the New York Times and they somehow persuade you that the War is bad, you need to understand that the NY Times is actually a democratic newspaper. Even though it doesnt "directly" favor one side over the other, its still somewhat persuading you. WE are saying that the war is bad or horribly fought, but our opinion is based on the limited facts that are presented in front of us. If the government gave you top secret info on what is "realllllly" going on, then your decisions might change. Since the government cannot do that, we must trust what the president is doing because theres always a reason. And trading "blood for oil" is NOT a reason i believe.

[djharkavy]

NickC, on Mar 20 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

But you need to keep in mind something, when you read the New York Times and they somehow persuade you that the War is bad, you need to understand that the NY Times is actually a democratic newspaper.

It is not.

Like all media, it is run for profit, and while it's editorial board leans towards the liberal side, their news does not favor one party or the other. You just need to see how they covered the Clinton Presidency to see that.

Most of the mainstream media favor controversy of whatever sort they can muster. It sells more papers, that way (or more commercial time, or whatever)

NickC, on Mar 20 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

WE are saying that the war is bad or horribly fought, but our opinion is based on the limited facts that are presented in front of us. If the government gave you top secret info on what is "realllllly" going on, then your decisions might change. Since the government cannot do that, we must trust what the president is doing because theres always a reason. And trading "blood for oil" is NOT a reason i believe.

Certainly the President MUST know more than he is showing us. But in a Democratic country (technically a Republic, but why argue details) it is important that we be open and above board. And if the President cannot communicate successes to us, we have no reason to assume that they are there.

What sort of top-secret info would turn this pig's ear into a silk purse? What sort of information do you think the President has?

49% of Iraqis believe that they are better off now than under Saddam Hussein. Not even half, according to a recent British poll. Doesn't seem like there is much to pull out of the hat.

[Transparent Reality]

NickC, on Mar 20 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

THANK YOU ZoSo, you're a life saver
I was going to request one of the mods to help me edit it so thanks again soooooooo much!!
I agree, my choices were mostly leaning toward the "bush nice" side because my D grade was actually "fair " LOL

But I'm a pro Bush person. I'm kind of both, I pity the side thats less popular just to make them feel better. But thats not my whole point. I think that since the president is actually fighting this war, I think he knows what hes doing. You may disagree with me and thats fine. But you need to keep in mind something, when you read the New York Times and they somehow persuade you that the War is bad, you need to understand that the NY Times is actually a democratic newspaper. Even though it doesnt "directly" favor one side over the other, its still somewhat persuading you. WE are saying that the war is bad or horribly fought, but our opinion is based on the limited facts that are presented in front of us. If the government gave you top secret info on what is "realllllly" going on, then your decisions might change. Since the government cannot do that, we must trust what the president is doing because theres always a reason. And trading "blood for oil" is NOT a reason i believe.

Bush is out there in the field battle-equipped?

[NickC]

Transparent Reality, on Mar 20 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

Bush is out there in the field battle-equipped?

No. What led you to believe that?

[z2z007]

Quote

I think that since the president is actually fighting this war, I think he knows what hes doing.

[NickC]

When I said that i meant, that hes actually commanding the war. Its like when people say , "we are fighting a war" are we actually fighting the war ourselves like we the individuals are at the battle ground? No of course not.

[tycoonboy388]

Personally, I don't think that he's doing a good job of commanding the war. I don't think ignoring all of your generals in Iraq constitutes actually controlling the situation. Four years for a war that should not have been started is more than enough.

[zaccariah2005]

NickC, on Mar 20 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

... we must trust what the president is doing because theres always a reason...

you must have a lot of faith in George W. Bush.

[PinKkFloyDd]

NickC, on Mar 20 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

THANK YOU ZoSo, you're a life saver
I was going to request one of the mods to help me edit it so thanks again soooooooo much!!
I agree, my choices were mostly leaning toward the "bush nice" side because my D grade was actually "fair " LOL

But I'm a pro Bush person. I'm kind of both, I pity the side thats less popular just to make them feel better. But thats not my whole point. I think that since the president is actually fighting this war, I think he knows what hes doing. You may disagree with me and thats fine. But you need to keep in mind something, when you read the New York Times and they somehow persuade you that the War is bad, you need to understand that the NY Times is actually a democratic newspaper. Even though it doesnt "directly" favor one side over the other, its still somewhat persuading you. WE are saying that the war is bad or horribly fought, but our opinion is based on the limited facts that are presented in front of us. If the government gave you top secret info on what is "realllllly" going on, then your decisions might change. Since the government cannot do that, we must trust what the president is doing because theres always a reason. And trading "blood for oil" is NOT a reason i believe.

So, basically, you're saying we should follow our leaders blindly and trust their decisions without questioning them? That's nice, that should work out well. And if he knows what he is doing, why did he have to change his reasoning for the war time and time again? And if he knew what he was doing, why isn't there an exit plan? And yes, some information we do not know, but the public MUST be informed about what is going on and not have it all kept hidden from the public. Regular people are fighting this war, not politicians. We deserve the right to know what is going on.

[katinka]

There's a line in a [anti-bush] song, that goes "Will his daughters ever go to war or do we save that for the poor?......."

Bush is not out there on the front lines. Its regular people who are. He was never in the army. He was never even really in the national guard. His family won't go to war.

The President doesn't always know what he is doing, and we should not trust blindly in our leader. We can look to Hitler for an example of that-- He shut out all opposition [kinda like bush] and was the sole decision maker, and wiped out 12 million people. If someone had questioned him, like, the new york times or whatnot, maybe we could've saved more lives.

Does anyone even remember anymore why we went to war? We went to war with afghanistan to stop terrorists. Not with Saddam Hussein to "make Iraq democratic". The war was never a good idea to start with, and it has just deteriorated.

[esong27]

I find it appalling that you'll "pity the side less popular to make them feel better."

My God.

[katinka]

esong27, on Mar 20 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

I find it appalling that you'll "pity the side less popular to make them feel better."

My God.

Agreed. We're talking about running a country here, not grade school.