Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

All those who oppose the war in Iraq(or anyone else).

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: MAllen82

I see lots of articles on this forum talking about the Bush white house and how its policies are horrible. I also hear a lot of name calling(which I'm sure I've taken part in at some level) from both sides of the arguments. I just wanted to start a thread with one question. As everyone can type however they feel, I must respect that, but I would like to hear, without any remarks on how Bush sucks, or how bad of a job he did, what you think we should have done after 9/11, and also how we should have handled Iraq pre-war. Also, what you would do if you were made president today, what policies you would change, etc.

Posted by: Joeychgo

VERY Good Question

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

VERY Good Question

LOL so answer it already!

Posted by: Kbob

I can give you a synopsis of what some of the responses will probably be:

"Taking out the Taliban and going after al Qaida was a good thing. But we should have put more resources and personnel into that theater to get Osama. The sanctions against Iraq were working. Saddam didn't have any WMD's. He would have eventually been ousted or died or something. We should have just let that sleeping dog lie. If I were president, I'd push to end the Patriot Act and secure our borders with my magical wand. I'd also start a massive goodwill campaign toward all of our allies so that our prestige would increase in the world. "Understanding Islam 101" would be a requirement in our public school system. I'd end the war in Iraq in 1 year (how, I don't know). Plus, I'd appoint Al Gore to invent an alternative fuel to end our dependence on foreign oil."

Posted by: barry2952

I just posted virtually the same question in another thread.

"Phil,

I have to play devil's advocate here. What do you think we should do now? We're there and, by all reconing, we need to finish the job. Put aside our feelings about BuSh and make a recommendation for what can be done now, right now, to resolve the situation in Iraq?

Please put aside the rhetoric and the animosity for a moment and suggest a direction. We, on their left, are very quick to criticize but sometimes bring little else to the table. The right is known for adamantly opposing anything that's not party line. What solution would work best for all concerned.

I'd like to hear from all about some solutions for Iraq. IMHO reducing the fire in Iraq will buy us some time to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists elsewhere."

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

I can give you a synopsis of what some of the responses will probably be:

"Taking out the Taliban and going after al Qaida was a good thing. But we should have put more resources and personnel into that theater to get Osama. The sanctions against Iraq were working. Saddam didn't have any WMD's. He would have eventually been ousted or died or something. We should have just let that sleeping dog lie. If I were president, I'd push to end the Patriot Act and secure our borders with my magical wand. I'd also start a massive goodwill campaign toward all of our allies so that our prestige would increase in the world. "Understanding Islam 101" would be a requirement in our public school system. I'd end the war in Iraq in 1 year (how, I don't know). Plus, I'd appoint Al Gore to invent an alternative fuel to end our dependence on foreign oil."

You were going great until "Understanding Islam 101" part, then it started going down hill. But yeah, pretty much what you said. If we open the door to teaching Islam, we'd have to open the door to all religions. While I think it'd be a hard-sell to teach ANY religion in public schools, teaching a little about all of them can't be a bad thing. That's probably an area of "worldly knowledge" that no one is exposed to unless you further your education towards it beyond HS.

We DO need to develop a long-term answer to our energy needs. We need the goverment to focus on results / efficiency / environmental-frendliness and keep the "profit mongers" the hell out of it. All the "profit mongers" will do is compromise the result at us consumer's expense.

To address Barry's question: We need to finish the job in Iraq ASAP. This will probably require more of our troops. We also need to protect ourselves better than this empty "Patriot Act" does. If we want to continue fighting this GWOT, we are either going to have to focus our efforts to avoid spreading ourselves too thin, or we are going to have to have substantial increases in recruiting. If that means re-instituting the draft, so be it. We also need to improve our intelligence quality / quantity. Develop more special-forces teams and more covert agents to infiltrate the terrorists hold-outs.

Posted by: mespock

Most General (Intro) Social Studies Textbooks cover the major religions of the world.

I don't feel that any religion should be taught unless it is offered as an exploritory classt. Religion is for the home and the churches to teach.

I agree we have to find away to finish the job in Iraq. But I don't feel that Iraq will be self-governed until it goes through a civil war, with out our involvment. I do feel that it is our presence in the middle east that will keep the US in great threat to more terrorist attackst.

What we should have done after 911 was to go after those responsible. Which we did, but then we quit and changed direction leaving those responsible to get away and say a great threat.

We (the left and center) do need to stop saying what is wrong and start giving suggestions on what to do.

The right needs to start seeing the mistakes and work to solve the problem and not just ignore or cover up for the mistakest.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Well, I believe we changed direction and went after Iraq for undisclosed reasons. WMD was never an issue, and has proven to be non existant.

And before some of you want to tell me all about how it was trucked to Syria or elsewhere, I want to point out, that there havent been so much as traces of WMD found. These chemicals and what not, leave a trail, and we would have found a factory with the chemicals by now. We also would have found someone who knew about their location.

SO, we were BS'd. Fine, I can swallow that to a point. But the real reason that I believe we went into Iraq was to intimidate Iran. Realize, Iran sits between Iraq and Afganistan. Thus, Iran currently has us on 3 of its borders (including the Persian Gulf)

But the question becomes, now what?

Posted by: lincolnboy

why are we still in a war..what the real purpose? i got saidam h. nothing else has happen to use....look @ desert storm. the ones that are being attack is other countries and what are they doing not a dam thing...leave that place. we made a point already. we will have to wait another 10 yrs again.....i mean really waht are we doing over their. hell just bomb them

er and leave. ...BUSH suxed from the begining. dam puppet

Posted by: barry2952

Lincolnboy,

Why don't you tell us what you really think! This was supposed to be about solutions, not more bickering about who's at fault.

Mespock's idea might be best. Let them have their civil war. We had ours. The troublemakers (Sunnis) would be overrun by the Shiites in short order. The Kurds seem to be able to take care of themselves.

Posted by: MAllen82

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

We (the left and center) do need to stop saying what is wrong and start giving suggestions on what to do.

The right needs to start seeing the mistakes and work to solve the problem and not just ignore or cover up for the mistakest.

I agree with you totally on this point. I can't stand many Republicans like Ann Coulter who say things over there are going perfect. I think that is a ridiculous assertation to make, and makes many mainstream republicans look bad. War is never perfect. That being said, I feel things are going quite well under the circumstances, and I hope we continue on this path because I believe it will be the one to victory in the end.

I also agree that the Iran factor played into this war as well, but how much, obviously I can't say. As far as the WMD's go, it wasn't just Bush who thought that Saddam had them, it was pretty much the whole world. Most intelligence agencies in Europe even conceded that there was extremely strong evidence that he had them. Also, looking at his behavior leading up to the war, you see a man who is unwilling to cooperate with the rest of the world. He was extremely uncooperative with the weapons inspectors who were sent to assess the threat. If someone doesn't allow you to do something like that, I think it is safe to assume that he is hiding something. And what do you think it was, a stack of Hustlers??

Also, the zero presence of WMD's is not true. They have found WMD's and traces of them, just no where near in the amounts we thought. Very small caches of the weapons. But still doesn't make it alright for a man with a proven history of aggression(Saddam was also responsible for having Carlos the Jackel kidnap a bunch of high up middle eastern honchos of the oil industry, I think it was part of the Saudi royal family, and the minister of oil or something) to stay in power.

Posted by: MAllen82

I too agree with the civil war theory. I think that is something that is needed in many countries including Iran, N. Korea, and especially China.

Posted by: FreeFaller

Quote:

Originally Posted by lincolnboy

why are we still in a war..what the real purpose? i got saidam h. nothing else has happen to use....look @ desert storm. the ones that are being attack is other countries and what are they doing not a dam thing...leave that place. we made a point already. we will have to wait another 10 yrs again.....i mean really waht are we doing over their. hell just bomb them

er and leave. ...BUSH suxed from the begining. dam puppet

Read this thread...maybe it will help you understand a little.

The Global War on Terror

Posted by: MAllen82

Barry, in light of you last post I realize in hindsight I probably shouldn't have put my post up considering my original intentions. Feel free to skip over that to keep to the heart of this thread.

I guess it's the defense lawyer in my heart that always wants to argue my point.....

Posted by: FreeFaller

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Lincolnboy,

Why don't you tell us what you really think! This was supposed to be about solutions, not more bickering about who's at fault.

Mespock's idea might be best. Let them have their civil war. We had ours. The troublemakers (Sunnis) would be overrun by the Shiites in short order. The Kurds seem to be able to take care of themselves.

Yes, but do we want another Rwanda? Our Civil War was based on states rights and political in nature. Theirs would be based on religous beliefs and considerably more personal. Not a good way to have such a war. Those ingredients lead down the path to genocide.

Posted by: Kbob

There's absolutely no way any president, and I mean any president, is going to stand idly by as the most important region in the world is thrown into turmoil. The actions of the U.S. the past few decades (right or wrong) have been an attempt to stabilize the middle east favorably towards the U.S. It's the oil. It's always been the oil. Our entire way of life and that of the industrialized world as well depends on that oil. Whoever controls it, controls the world. If you think that every other country in the world and/or political/religious organization will leave that region alone while they go through their "revolution", (forgive the insult) you're completely crazy and naive. We have no choice but to be a part of what's going on over there. Otherwise, we'd be putting our future in someone else's hands. And I have a feeling that someone else would not be nearly as benevolent as we are. That's the world we live in and it's a tough reality.

EDIT: Let's not forget that France played a major part in our own revolution. Without their help, we probably would not have won our independence.

Posted by: barry2952

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

Let's not forget that France played a major part in our own revolution. Without their help, we probably would not have won our independence.

Point taken.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Johnny, I find myself leaning toward your point of view on this.

Personally, I think we teach too much cultural diversity as it is. It tends to create division more than it helps understanding, IMHO.

Keep Christianity from being taught in school, but teach Understanding Islam 101? Totally hypocritical! What about the so-called "Separation of Church and State?"

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

EDIT: Let's not forget that France played a major part in our own revolution. Without their help, we probably would not have won our independence.

Speaking of France, if you want to have a little fun, go to Google, type in "French Military Victories" without the quotes, and click the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button. Check out your results, then follow the link. You will get a good synopsis of France's military history.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Haha! That's a good one.

Posted by: barry2952

Rotfl!!!

Posted by: barry2952

I though this thread was still relevant.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

It all comes down to the fact that no one person is running this country. Hating bush is not the answer, as he is such a small part in the overall scheme of things. That said, solutions are easy to state, but very hard to put into practice.

Letting the Iraqis have their own civil war may be one of the best solutions that has been suggested, but only if the coalition troops are close by to act as referees so that we do not have troublesome outsiders like Osama, Zarqawi, or any of the other foreign radicals taking advantage or providing unfair assistance to any one group of people.

I remember when I was in JR. High school that we had an entire 2 semesters of social studies devoted to nothing else but the "other" religions.

Posted by: StincolnLincoln

1 question for ya all .. do u think the prez would send his own blood to fight in the war and risk there lives ...

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by StincolnLincoln

1 question for ya all .. do u think the prez would send his own blood to fight in the war and risk there lives ...

If you were the chief of police for some town and your son was a cop under you, would you send him on a domestic dispute call or a robbery call? The President (any President) must make decisions on what he feels is best for the country. Sometimes that means putting our armed forces in harms way.

Posted by: ToddG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

Peter Schweitzer published an article on the late Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense under Reagan. It concludes with this remark:

Quote:

Weinberger was a soldier himself during the Second World War and served under MacArthur in the Pacific. He was a member of "The Greatest Generation," but he would speak movingly about the heroic acts of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. When I asked him to compare today's heroism with that of his generation, he made an interesting point. "Members of 'the greatest generation' were drafted," he told me in a broken voice. "These soldiers all volunteered."

I had not thought about this before, but he's right.