"Nonstopdrivel"This is all I have to say about this issue.

Before the first George Bush imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, the number one epidemiological problem in Iraq was obesity.
By the time we invaded Iraq the second time, the number one epidemiological problem in Iraq was starvation.
Estimates range as high as 600,000 children starved to death as a direct result of the sanctions.

I've read estimates that Saddam Hussein's thugs killed as many as 35,000 to 50,000 Iraqis in the 35+ years they were in power. Sounds like a lot at first glance.

Until you consider the fact that in
a mere six years since we invaded, legions more Iraqis have died (estimates range widely, from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands).
Thousands of doctors, lawyers, engineers, university professors, scientists, and religious leaders have been slaughtered or forced to flee.
The brain drain has been frightful. Hospitals remain in critical condition.
Water purification systems remain in shambles.
Much of the country still doesn't have power for more than a few hours a day.
The highways, formerly some of the
best in the Middle East, are a wreck.

And that doesn't even count the thousands of troops we've lost over there.

We often forget that Iraq was formerly a liberal secular state.
Now it's swiftly becoming, for all practical purposes, a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.
Between my first and second deployments I was shocked at the level of deterioration I saw.
Before we invaded Iraq, a woman could walk the streets of Baghdad alone in blue jeans without fear.
Now she must
walk around in full hijaab with a male escort to avoid being targeted by Islamic fundamentalists.


So I ask you: Who really unleashed terror in Iraq?

Whether in ousting Saddam Hussein we did what had to be done is a matter for debate, but to say we are leaving Iraq a better place is just laughable.
Saddam Hussein may have been an evil man, but he understood intuitively something we can't seem to figure out:
The country of Iraq is an unnatural entity that can only be held together through sheer threat of force.
The Iraqis are not an individualistic culture like ours; they are a collectivist tribal culture.
They don't want democracy; they never have; and they probably never will.
So why don't we just let them have the kind of government they want and solve our own mounting problems at home?

wow, +1 for that

"IronMan"So please tell me the plan to make sure there is NEVER a repeat of Hussein. There is no plan. Because that would be impossible. And if that is the reason we are still over there, then we will be there forever.

And I like how you guys always try to turn this into democrat vs republicans. Its impossible to discuss politics with anyone, because no one can ever be objective. I once asked a friend who he was voting for and he said "John Kerry" After asking him why, he simply said, "Because I'm a democrat."

I always found it amuzing how people who have no official ties to either party, decide that they are either one or the other, and will vote that way no matter what. And whenever something goes wrong, its always the OTHER parties fault.

I'm sorry.

I must have missed the memo where I'm not supposed to vote for the guy who stands closer to my opinions/values.

I totally misfired on that one..
=/

"Formo"

"IronMan"So please tell me the plan to make sure there is NEVER a repeat of Hussein. There is no plan. Because that would be impossible. And if that is the reason we are still over there, then we will be there forever.

And I like how you guys always try to turn this into democrat vs republicans. Its impossible to discuss politics with anyone, because no one can ever be objective. I once asked a friend who he was voting for and he said "John Kerry" After asking him why, he simply said, "Because I'm a democrat."

I always found it amuzing how people who have no official ties to either party, decide that they are either one or the other, and will vote that way no matter what. And whenever something goes wrong, its always the OTHER parties fault.

I'm sorry.

I must have missed the memo where I'm not supposed to vote for the guy who stands closer to my opinions/values.

I totally misfired on that one..
=/

The point is, you should. People shouldn't get tied up to one party, just because they liked what one guy said. I mean, republicans from 50 years ago look nothing like republicans from now, yet, the republicans will still receive votes from that same person, most likely his entire life long. It's all based on pretty much nothing.

I find it funny that everyone votes republican and democrat every single time, though? Are there no other parties who stand closer to the values of the people over there? It's usually a 3-way tie with quite a few smaller parties over here. Not saying that that is better, just wondering.

"Rockmolder"

"Formo"

"IronMan"So please tell me the plan to make sure there is NEVER a repeat of Hussein. There is no plan. Because that would be impossible. And if that is the reason we are still over there, then we will be there forever.

And I like how you guys always try to turn this into democrat vs republicans. Its impossible to discuss politics with anyone, because no one can ever be objective. I once asked a friend who he was voting for and he said "John Kerry" After asking him why, he simply said, "Because I'm a democrat."

I always found it amuzing how people who have no official ties to either party, decide that they are either one or the other, and will vote that way no matter what. And whenever something goes wrong, its always the OTHER parties fault.

I'm sorry.

I must have missed the memo where I'm not supposed to vote for the guy who stands closer to my opinions/values.

I totally misfired on that one..
=/

The point is, you should. People shouldn't get tied up to one party, just because they liked what one guy said. I mean, republicans from 50 years ago look nothing like republicans from now, yet, the republicans will still receive votes from that same person, most likely his entire life long. It's all based on pretty much nothing.

I find it funny that everyone votes republican and democrat every single time, though? Are there no other parties who stand closer to the values of the people over there? It's usually a 3-way tie with quite a few smaller parties over here. Not saying that that is better, just wondering.

I vote for whomever I vote for because his/her values match up with my own more so than the other guy/gal.
Nothing more, and nothing less.
Most of the time, it's Repubs.

The reason it's mostly either Repubs vs. Demos is because those are the two main parties.
Yes, there are Indies, among others..
But for one reason or another (I'm guessing it's a combination of many reasons) it tends to swing to either the Red party or the Blue one.

NOTE:
This past Presidential election was the first I've ever voted for a President.
The last one (Kerry vs. Bush) I was a completely different person, and wanted nothing to do with voting.
Don't ask, long story..
lol

"Rockmolder"

"Formo"

"IronMan"So please tell me the plan to make sure there is NEVER a repeat of Hussein. There is no plan. Because that would be impossible. And if that is the reason we are still over there, then we will be there forever.

And I like how you guys always try to turn this into democrat vs republicans. Its impossible to discuss politics with anyone, because no one can ever be objective. I once asked a friend who he was voting for and he said "John Kerry" After asking him why, he simply said, "Because I'm a democrat."

I always found it amuzing how people who have no official ties to either party, decide that they are either one or the other, and will vote that way no matter what. And whenever something goes wrong, its always the OTHER parties fault.

I'm sorry.

I must have missed the memo where I'm not supposed to vote for the guy who stands closer to my opinions/values.

I totally misfired on that one..
=/

The point is, you should. People shouldn't get tied up to one party, just because they liked what one guy said. I mean, republicans from 50 years ago look nothing like republicans from now, yet, the republicans will still receive votes from that same person, most likely his entire life long. It's all based on pretty much nothing.

I find it funny that everyone votes republican and democrat every single time, though? Are there no other parties who stand closer to the values of the people over there? It's usually a 3-way tie with quite a few smaller parties over here. Not saying that that is better, just wondering.

I'll tell you why. In the 2000 election I knew someone who voted for Nader because he matched up the most with his political views. We got George W. Bush that day. He says to this day even though he feels good about voting for Nader, he should have used his vote on Gore because Nader was never gonna win in the first place. There's too much money tied to both Republicans and Democrats for independants to be elected.

"Nonstopdrivel"This is all I have to say about this issue.

Before the first George Bush imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, the number one epidemiological problem in Iraq was obesity.
By the time we invaded Iraq the second time, the number one epidemiological problem in Iraq was starvation.
Estimates range as high as 600,000 children starved to death as a direct result of the sanctions.

I've read estimates that Saddam Hussein's thugs killed as many as 35,000 to 50,000 Iraqis in the 35+ years they were in power. Sounds like a lot at first glance.

Until you consider the fact that in
a mere six years since we invaded, legions more Iraqis have died (estimates range widely, from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands).
Thousands of doctors, lawyers, engineers, university professors, scientists, and religious leaders have been slaughtered or forced to flee.
The brain drain has been frightful. Hospitals remain in critical condition.
Water purification systems remain in shambles.
Much of the country still doesn't have power for more than a few hours a day.
The highways, formerly some of the
best in the Middle East, are a wreck.

And that doesn't even count the thousands of troops we've lost over there.

We often forget that Iraq was formerly a liberal secular state.
Now it's swiftly becoming, for all practical purposes, a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.
Between my first and second deployments I was shocked at the level of deterioration I saw.
Before we invaded Iraq, a woman could walk the streets of Baghdad alone in blue jeans without fear.
Now she must
walk around in full hijaab with a male escort to avoid being targeted by Islamic fundamentalists.


So I ask you: Who really unleashed terror in Iraq?

Whether in ousting Saddam Hussein we did what had to be done is a matter for debate, but to say we are leaving Iraq a better place is just laughable.
Saddam Hussein may have been an evil man, but he understood intuitively something we can't seem to figure out:
The country of Iraq is an unnatural entity that can only be held together through sheer threat of force.
The Iraqis are not an individualistic culture like ours; they are a collectivist tribal culture.
They don't want democracy; they never have; and they probably never will.
So why don't we just let them have the kind of government they want and solve our own mounting problems at home?

these words were written by someone who has actually BEEN there, with no political motivation, no money lining his pockets, no nothing...just the honest truth.
i trust these words far & above any politician.

I have a lot of respect for anyone serving.
My sister is in Afghanistan right now (coming home in 2 days!).
I have even more respect, on an entirely different level, for those who serve with their eyes as open as nonstops's are.
Duty and honor do not require ignorance.

I have a friend that was over there that told a completely different story. He told me how every day he had Iraqie people come up to him and thank him for being part of the group that got rid of Saddam. Truth is, if you didn't bow down to Saddam, your life was a living hell. You didn't DARE to oppose him. Look at the city he wiped out of his OWN PEOPLE for just that reason.
Saddam's inner circle had ALL the money, while "his" people suffered. Thats factual.

"djcubez" There's too much money tied to both Republicans and Democrats for independants to be elected.

It's this precise attitude that dooms the campaigns of independents time after time.
If the public at large would stop assuming third-party candidates don't have a chance and start voting for them, they would have a chance.
Abraham Lincoln was for all practical purposes a third-party candidate, though the Whig Party had actually suffered its fatal stroke in the previous election. It was just on life support by the time Lincoln ran as a Republican.

But if the Republican Party could win the presidency in only its second election, there's no reason why another party could not rise today -- if Americans would give it a fighting chance.

Thats the problem. The two "big wig" parties can afford millions of dollars to campaign, where an independant has no way to get their message out. In the "old days" there wasn't millions of dollars, TV, radio, all the high priced ways of getting your word out. If you can't afford that now, you have NO chance to win. An independant had pretty much an equal chance back then, as it wasn't driven by who had the deepest pockets. It was alot more level playing field. That doesn't exist today.