StarGateWars Forums

.:SOULLESS:. wrote:im australian so im obviously not voting in this election.

however, those who say this thread is not about the war, i agree, but it most definitely is an important area to consider.

no matter if you beleive whether the war in iraq is the right thing or not, you cannot ignore the fact that it exists no matter who gets voted into the oval office. on this path, any logical answer to the situation is a stabilisation of the population in iraq, thus the troops must stay there. If we would pull out now, the problems left behind would cause long term problems.

I dont know whether I support the war or not. and I dont know whether or not bringing a democracy to another culture like this is right either. however i do know that the job MUST BE FINISHED for the long term.

as such I could never vote for a candidate who wishes to withdraw ASAP from Iraq, unless ASAP is defined clearly as 'After no military presence is required.' the simple truth, whether we like it or not, weve started something we must finish.

I'm sorry but I don't trust people that are still on the fence now-a-days. I too believe the war is of very important consequence. This election will determine the future of not only this country but the future 'security' of the middle east as well. Over the 'long term' anything wrongly committed to, can be down played, just like the decision to go to war with Iraq. It was a stupid decision then and it's a stupid decision to say there will be chaos there if we leave when it's been like that for thousands of years, and nothing we've done since getting involved has changed that. But it's the same people that feel that our troops should finish the job that are giving politicians support to make-up war propaganda about Iran having WMD's. The war is unconstitutional and people like myself already admit blame for the people that have started it on our behalf, if we stay there to save face, we aren't helping anyone and especially not our troops.

In the 'long term' maybe it will even make sense to go to war with other countries for trying to get around sanctions placed on them, by us to prevent them from making one WMD as apposed to our some - 14,000 (according to 1995 estimates).

I've tried my hardest to justify the war, why we should keep it going and why we shouldn't leave but the bottom-line is, we're demonizing the middle east and people that justify the war with hate speech, fear mongering and denialistic notions of what otherwise constitutes 'mission failure' are the very real people hurting America right now, not terrorists.

Soulless summed up my thoughts precisely. However, I have chosen to not post in this thread anymore (instead focusing on placing my emphasis on the McCain thread, which has died out). I will, however, extend my support for soulless's post.

I don't know if Semper would allow it, but a debate on Iraq would be interesting...

Phoenix of Terra wrote:Soulless summed up my thoughts precisely. However, I have chosen to not post in this thread anymore (instead focusing on placing my emphasis on the McCain thread, which has died out). I will, however, extend my support for soulless's post.

I don't know if Semper would allow it, but a debate on Iraq would be interesting...

What's to debate?

It's a battle of ideology. No one wins.

That's half way true, the FBI is needed for various reasons. Possibly the most important for us, is they're the ones that track down kidnapped children/adults. So in that regard they are needed, though as far as tracking down escaped criminals, that's not their job, and they don't do that. That's the job of the U.S. Marshals. The FBI only works on high-profile cases, such as bombings and what not.

You're completely wrong.

The FBI investigates ALL crimes that cross state lines, or organized crime that is it multiple states.

The US marshals do absolutely nothing like that, and for the most part,

From Wikipedia:

The USMS is the enforcement arm of the federal courts, protecting federal courts and ensuring the effective operation of the judicial system.

Oh and, You strike me as one of the 9-11 conspiracy theorists that have no evidence to support your claims. Not even your candidate loves you: Ron Paul wants you to stop endorsing those claims, as he said in the South Carolina Republican debate.

Nicholai Brocov wrote:

.:SOULLESS:. wrote:im australian so im obviously not voting in this election.

however, those who say this thread is not about the war, i agree, but it most definitely is an important area to consider.

no matter if you beleive whether the war in iraq is the right thing or not, you cannot ignore the fact that it exists no matter who gets voted into the oval office. on this path, any logical answer to the situation is a stabilisation of the population in iraq, thus the troops must stay there. If we would pull out now, the problems left behind would cause long term problems.

I dont know whether I support the war or not. and I dont know whether or not bringing a democracy to another culture like this is right either. however i do know that the job MUST BE FINISHED for the long term.

as such I could never vote for a candidate who wishes to withdraw ASAP from Iraq, unless ASAP is defined clearly as 'After no military presence is required.' the simple truth, whether we like it or not, weve started something we must finish.

I'm sorry but I don't trust people that are still on the fence now-a-days. I too believe the war is of very important consequence. This election will determine the future of not only this country but the future 'security' of the middle east as well. Over the 'long term' anything wrongly committed to, can be down played, just like the decision to go to war with Iraq. It was a stupid decision then and it's a stupid decision to say there will be chaos there if we leave when it's been like that for thousands of years, and nothing we've done since getting involved has changed that. But it's the same people that feel that our troops should finish the job that are giving politicians support to make-up war propaganda about Iran having WMD's. The war is unconstitutional and people like myself already admit blame for the people that have started it on our behalf, if we stay there to save face, we aren't helping anyone and especially not our troops.

In the 'long term' maybe it will even make sense to go to war with other countries for trying to get around sanctions placed on them, by us to prevent them from making one WMD as apposed to our some - 14,000 (according to 1995 estimates).

I've tried my hardest to justify the war, why we should keep it going and why we shouldn't leave but the bottom-line is, we're demonizing the middle east and people that justify the war with hate speech, fear mongering and denialistic notions of what otherwise constitutes 'mission failure' are the very real people hurting America right now, not terrorists.

i can see how you disagree with me, the war is a very touchy subject.

the 'sitting on the fence' issue is current because i can see alternate sides of the 'coin' so to speak.

on one hand, we managed to free a nation and in a jury of his own countrymen placed one of the worlds worst dictators on trial.

however the democracy delivered will remain unstable for a time, mainly because the dictatorship was part of their culture. we forced democracy down their throats, and we are now seeing the repercussions of it.

like i said earlier, i beleive the situation needs to be stabilised before any troop withdrawal. other than that, i have no opinion on the situation because of my former statement about both sides of the 'coin'.

Anyway, thats the only issue i have concern with in the US elections, as I dont understand much of American Politics. what little i do understand was observed from episodes of the 'West Wing' which i do not watch regularly.

i don't like political debates people get to animated about them....

*zombie walks over to thal talks monotone* or lack of animation thereof

*walks away*

I support Ron Paul.

Now only if I bothered to vote...

Hmm well I guess I need to stop watching all those crime shows of the FBI...

Anyway, your post proved my point again. Examine the list of what the FBI does. Do you want those tasks no longer done? FBI as all the other agencies are necessry in this world, whether you like it or not.

Oh and referring to your previous comment about terrorist attacks, we have apprehended dozens of terrorists (that are released to the press) and many many more that most people don't hear about trying to enter the US to attack us.

Also, I never said the US had prevented more terrorist attacks after 9-11 than they had prevented before 9-11, just that they have successfully prevented all the attempted terrorist attacks on the US since then.

Please people, if you want to talk about 9/11, conspiracy and the war do it somewhere else. If you aren't debating in the favor or against Ron Paul I don't see why you feel it's necessary to hijack the thread.

Anyways, I am curious did anyone donate on Dec. 14th for the Tea Party? Me and my mom donated $50 each. We saw about 25 people show up in the donation box from around our county. There was even a guy with my name that donated too! Haha.

It felt really good to donate, not for bragging rights really but I can say I've done more then most Americans at this point. Most Americans still don't even know who Ron Paul or what inflation is, I can testify to that through my aunt, she had to ask me 'who is this Ron Paul guy?' as I have much of myspace dedicated to his campaign.

*edit*
Not to mention, Phoenix of Terra was totally against Ron Paul and he himself admitted he didn't know where he stood on most of the issues. It's really sad how it takes opposition to one's beliefs to make them finally research the candidates they feel so strongly against.

Actually, after reading his stances, I'm still against him, mainly because of his foreign policy, an isolationist plan that seems fantastical in today's interconnected, globalized community. The time when America could hide behind the Atlantic and Pacific is over, dead and gone. Also, I sense that he will find his balanced budget the same way the Bill Clinton did, by nailing the military. Our military is already over-extended as it is, to cut spending more would make it worse.

And before you start talking about how much our military takes of the federal budget, I think it should be mentioned that 38% of the budget goes to entitlement programs set up in the 1930's.

Phoenix of Terra wrote:Actually, after reading his stances, I'm still against him, mainly because of his foreign policy, an isolationist plan that seems fantastical in today's interconnected, globalized community.

'Still against' is just a rephrasing of me saying you were against him before you knew why you were, just because now you have your reasons for not supporting Paul (which we have yet to see) doesn't change your premature opposition before you became educated about his policies. John McCain calls Ron Paul an isolationist so now you call him one as well. Even though John McCain and Paul both support free trade, Paul in more ways than John McCain however. John McCain believes that our military might should be the flagship image for America. He believes that we have the right, no - the obligation to go into other countries and tell them what they can and cannot do. If thinking that's wrong makes Paul seem like an isolationist, I support him even more.

Phoenix of Terra wrote:The time when America could hide behind the Atlantic and Pacific is over, dead and gone.

Yes, please keep stipulating with four letter adjectives to really get your point across...

Our military is already over-extended as it is, to cut spending more would make it worse.

Oh really? Wow maybe that's all the more reason we shouldn't stay, or go to war with Iran for that matter. I've heard some of the personnel on the ground are having to use WWII flak armor equipment because they are stretched so thin.

And before YOU start bringing up budget cuts, maybe you should show us all the budget plan your oh-so-great candidate John McCain has in store for the troops to get them what they need.

I'm starting to think you don't even care that the troops are in danger over there. That is also part of the reason I don't want them over there you know, I don't just think of the troops as some huge money vacuum....

Jack wrote:It is however, a good thing that they question it when opposition arises.

If you had taken the time to read into what I was saying Jack, or at least as much as you did to argue it. You'd see I was commenting that it's sad that is the only time people think outside the 'box' so-to-speak.

We should be so lucky as to live in a heretical age. Where everyone is self educated, knowledge is free and government non-existent, or at the very least transparent.

That's crazy alright.

OBOMA all the way

I rest my case Jack.

And that's why I stopped posting here, as I lasted an entire year in a class with a teacher like Brocov, who was firm in their ideology, and I don't feel like going through the experience again if I don't have to. Also, I'd rather not get snubbed for using simple vocabulary, something I've ingrained in myself because I was tired of having to explain words to my friends.

Sad thing is, I actually respect Paul for what he wants to do. I just don't think he's the right person to finish the job in Iraq. In the spirit of Colin Powell, "You break it, you buy it," and even if we tell ourselves that Iraq is no longer something America needs to see through, to turn our backs on the country does not absolve us from the blame or responsibilty.

Oh, and btw, I happen to be a military brat who will be in the ranks of the army which I apparently care so little about once I finish college.