Ted kennedy

[spathariossa]

[quote name='curtins' date='Jan 30 2005, 12:11 AM'] terrorists are anyone that is fighting our troops.
[/quote]
Are you out of your mind? So would you be a terrorist if you fought against an invading army? I mean, I won't deny that I think Saddam should have been removed. That's definitely my stance. But one could argue forcefully that those fighting American soldiers are Iraqi patriots.

[toledo_jesus]

right now the troops are a stabilizing force. They will need to stay for a while and remove themselves as the Iraqis achieve stability for themselves. However much the Iraqis dislike it, without the occupation forces there would be chaos of Iraqi vs. Iraqi on a scale much greater than at present. I'm quite willing for the troops to be a unitive force by being mutually disliked by most of those in Iraq.
What I don't think is necessary is for us to debate what should be happening, and who is wrong. What is happening is happening, getting into an argument won't solve a thing, unless one of you is the President.

[Iacobus]

I love you Jenni and Rich and all the others who posted here.

Speaking of which, I have two comments,

1: If you want news, real news, "laura [sic] ingrahm [sic], mark [sic] lavin [sic], rush [sic] limbaugh [sic], and sean [sic] hanity [sic]" (Sorry for all the sic notes) are probly not the places to get it. I could much more easily argue against Bush by listening to Air America or whatever that is or in enviromental threads by talking about Rifkin.

However, AA or whatever, probly isn't the most basis-free soucre of news. Rifkin is considered a quack by the professional sci. community. You must break up your sources into what is reliable and what isn't.

2. If you want people to talk you seriously, take basic grammar. Plus, placing a sic after every word in your quote can drive a person nuts.

[curtins]

i dont get the whole sic thing

and actually all those peeps are great sources for news cause THEY ARE RIGHT AND THEY TELL THE TRUTH- maybe you should try listenin to them sometimes

[StColette]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 30 2005, 04:14 PM'] I love you Jenni and Rich and all the others who posted here.

[/quote]
Love ya too Jacob lol bring a little peace to this thread

[crusader1234]

[quote name='curtins' date='Jan 30 2005, 04:30 PM'] i dont get the whole sic thing

and actually all those peeps are great sources for news cause THEY ARE RIGHT AND THEY TELL THE TRUTH- maybe you should try listenin to them sometimes [/quote]
Sic means that he copied your post and was pointing out that its you, not he, that made the error and he left it there to prove his point.

Anyways, they aren't right and they don't always tell the truth. That group of people are notorious for being unreliable. Just because there is a left wing bias (possibly) in the media doesn't mean that the best way to balance it out is with a right wing bias. The best way to correct a bias is with the TRUTH. Propaganda and 'cooked books' aren't the best way to negate truth.

[Guest Aluigi]

The 911 Commission said that Iraq had no hand in planning the 911 Attacks. However, there is a ton of evidence that the Iraqui government and Alquaida were in communication under the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend idea. That cannot be denied, that there was communication. And that Saddam funded palistinean suicide bombers (which is why if Israel had gone to war with Iraq that would've been a just war no question in my book)

Ted Kennedy is wrong here. Not because of all the republican spin blah blah blah you must hate the troups (I absolutely love Shawn Hannity, but he really gets too illogical about stuff like that.) The Iraqui elections were held today and people were celebrating in the streets, there was an over 60% turnout. The only people that are mad about it are the few that used to have power during Saddam's reign. But the terrorists do not have popular support or sympathy, they are not freedom fighters. They are fighting democracy, they do not want the Iraqui people to be represented in their government. They are fighting for fascism and even the Iraqui people know that. They are wary of a U.S. presence, they'd like us out of here. But they are definitely not supportive of the Insurgence.

It is working out very well according to the President's plan and in the long run this is going to be good for the country. The U.S. plans to get out when it feels Iraq is ready to hold itself up on its own and protect its people. We can already see the U.S. not holding control, the people who won the election definitely have more pro-Iranian stances than we would like, these are not the people we would have chosen. We continue to give up control little by little and help Iraq develope its own security.

There is no reason not to be optimistic about the future of Iraq. Kennedy is wrong because the troops being there is the only thing stopping fascist insurgents from taking over the country. We're on the side of the Iraqui people, they're greatful Saddam is gone and want us gone too but they don't want the insurgents in control. Keep the insurgents out of control and your doing the will of the Iraqui people. We are gradually turning into a force to enforce and defend the will of the Iraqui people and less of a force simply defending our presence there.

[crusader1234]

Thanks Aloysius, that was actually an educated post.

However, I'd point out that the USA was still part of the problem, as the Sunni population did not vote in almost all cases. This, to me, is definately a problem. Of course, with reportedly over 70% turnout (which honestly sounds like a fake number but whatever), nobody is really going to challenge it.

In the end, I still think there are reasons to be pessimistic about the future of Iraq. This mainly comes from the convoluted process. They elected an Assembly, which will elect a President, who will elect two Deputy Presidents, who will elect a Prime Minister, who will appoint a cabinet. The Assembly has to create a Constitution, which will go to referendum in September, which could go either way. Its still progress, but not exactly assured.

[Guest Aluigi]

nothing's a sure thing. the places with low turnout were places like Saddam's hometown. Yeah that needs to be worked on, but those people had the oppurtunity to vote. the other 60% (I heard predictions of 70% but the only actual number I heard they said [u]at least[/u] 60% meaning they're not sure it could be more) risked their lives and voted, so what the heck they chose who runs the country cause they were brave enough to do it. the only problem is that there'd be inadequate representation and the people would be discontent with the gov't' and I don't think they'd buy the "if you didn't vote you can't complain" line, lol. So yeah, that's a problem and there are some bad factors but I am still overall optimistic about Iraq's future.

[crusader1234]

So you admit there's a problem... meaning Ted Kennedy was partially right

[Guest Aluigi]

Ted Kennedy said that the US Army's presence is part of the problem. The fact is, our presence is part of the solution. Even if you admit that the people there kinda want us gone, you still have to say Ted's comments were in very poor taste because that doesn't make the US Army "part of the problem"

So I'll submit on one point that Ted Kennedy is wrong and another point at the very very least the wording of it was in poor taste.

[crusader1234]

The whole reason that the Sunni minority didn't vote was the American military presence. That makes you a problem, even if you are also part of a solution.

[Guest Aluigi]

no, the reason they didn't vote is because they are mad that they lost power and/or are afraid of the people that threaten voters. the US military was not present at the polling places, they made certain to get the Iraqui security there instead. we are not part of the problem, and at the very least the statement implies that it'd be better without the US military presence. Ted Kennedy's comments were misinformed and in bad taste.

[Paladin D]

Joe Liberman (blah typo) doesn't agree with Ted.

[Crusader_4]

I want to jump into this one.

1) As much as Ted Kennedy puts distaste is my mouth there is a partial truth in his rhetoric PARTIAL truth in the sense that any time a country occupies another there will be issues arising...(i do think now the troops are part of the solution)

2) Now in regards to terrorists. Not everyone fighting the US is a terrorist its not a black and white issue there is a lot of grey room. A person who is a Fundementalist Religious Fanatic does not have the same motives as the 15 year old boy whos fighting and whos mom dad and brothers were killed by a misguided bomb. They are not in the same league or have the same motives. So to label all fighters as terrorists is very misleading.