|
|
Post by flamefoxrose on Jan 20, 2008 14:34:24 GMT -5
Nuh uh, he'd bribe the others with presents and if they refuse he'll throw coal at them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jan 20, 2008 21:12:22 GMT -5
lol.
So how is Hillary a murderer?
---
And about the war:
Who thinks we should get out of there, and who thinks we should stay?
|
|
|
|
Post by flamefoxrose on Jan 21, 2008 18:33:20 GMT -5
She killed a reporter that had dirt on her and her hubby.
I think we sould get out of there. We're dieing and it's not our problem. The only thing is how to get out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Mar 11, 2008 18:15:47 GMT -5
XD I am replying sooooo much later... but oh well.
Well this problem goes back all the way to the early 1900s when Imperialism was a big deal. Is it our DUTY to protect the... (eh, how do we say this & sound politically correct...?) less modern nations? aka, "third world countries"? Should nations, such as the recent Kosovo, be allowed to form just because some rebels are fighting for what they believe in? Should we allow such instability? What's the limit if we DO permit it? :/
The Bush Administration's spoken intentions were noble, certainly, but was it the BEST choice? People need to stop yapping about how it was a bad choice and need to find a good choice to conclude the war. However, there will always be a "war on terrorism", so you can't just pack your bags permanently... It's a moot debate, no matter what angle you take.
~*~
Argh! BOTH Hillary and Obama were in Jackson this month. *sigh* It cost too much money for a poor li'l student like myself to afford, haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by flamefoxrose on Mar 11, 2008 19:18:39 GMT -5
1 You are forgeting that back in the late 1700's /we/ were just a bunch of rebels who formed our own nation, and for the first few years did a /Terrible/ job of running it.
2 Just get the troops out of there, they don't want to be there so why are we forcing them? They have families they probably miss and this isn't their choice. Did Bush /ask/ the troops if they wanted to go to war? /NO/!! So what are they doing over there? Bush meddled when he shouldn't have, and got /the people of the united states military/ into deep shit and now we have to deal with the loss of family and friends. Yes, 911 was bad and instigated the fighting, but can you honestly say that this war is any better? I thought we were taught "An eye for and eye leaves the whole world blind", so where was this when we sent our troops over seas? Most contries are already removing their troops, why can't we? Chivilary? Pride?...Revenge? Or maybe we have no good reason except Guilt and Fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Mar 26, 2008 20:05:08 GMT -5
I wouldn't call it a "terrible" job unless you mean Washington's first few years. Once we got the Constitution & Bill of Rights, we were fiiiine. (just maybe not our debt..........). And not everyone was a reb.  A lot of the population was on Britain's side, and some were neutral. A few rebellions, acceptance of taxes, & proper checks & balances were all we needed to become more stable. But, just so ya know, imperialism wasn't big until the mid-1800s, just before the Civil War. Germany, Britain, and even the U.S. were big names in imperialism by the early 1900s. We still kinda are, but "imperialism" has become a word with what we'll call bad breath. People don't like that word anymore, and for a lot of reasons, that's also why people don't like this war. Keep in mind that a lot of those men & women serving are doing so voluntarily. It's their CHOSEN duty. We're not forcing them at all! And has a President or any ruler ever asked his followers if they want to go to war? Hell no. That's not how democracy or any form of government works (and any form of a utopian society would include the hatred of war-- at least, according to Thomas More), unfortunately. As for the reasons for the war itself, "spreading democracy" or saving the citizens of a bad regime... Democracy won't last forever...neither will their former form of government. The question of the war is, was this excuse good enough? What reasons are moral enough to go to war? It's a paradox --mirror within a mirror, if you will. There are certainly some good reasons for going to war, but there are always negative ones. You have to ask yourself, is it one nation's duty to play superhero? We all idolize superheroes... Look at some of America's icons: Superman, Spiderman, Batman, etc. Individualism is strongest here in America, so maybe our country itself has become the embodiment of individualism. Maybe some people believe America to be the martyr for justice --for its beloved democracy. I don't think this had to do with revenge. I think this had to do with flexing our muscles and promoting our beliefs. American Pride? Oh yeah, definitely. Our nationalism has become internationalism (not the commie party XD). The War in Iraq didn't have to do with 9-11. It had to do with this neo-imperialistic view. Bush may not be as robust as Teddy Roosevelt nor as enthusiastic or intelligent or eccentric, BUT they share very similar ideas. Whether these beliefs are good ideas or not are merely opinions. The facts of the matter are that we are at war. People die in war. 1929 looms before us, maybe preparing to re-appear. We need to think about ourselves, our people, not other nations' responsibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by flamefoxrose on Mar 30, 2008 18:56:57 GMT -5
...That was too much to read so let's just say I won.
|
|
A lot of the population was on Britain's side, and some were neutral. A few rebellions, acceptance of taxes, & proper checks & balances were all we needed to become more stable. But, just so ya know, imperialism wasn't big until the mid-1800s, just before the Civil War. Germany, Britain, and even the U.S. were big names in imperialism by the early 1900s. We still kinda are, but "imperialism" has become a word with what we'll call bad breath. People don't like that word anymore, and for a lot of reasons, that's also why people don't like this war.