Are all of our Congress men and women idiots???

[Dbldown11]

Also don't forget Dwight that there were people that initially thought going into Iraq was good even though they didn't have WMD's, and it probably was the "right" thing to do morally because of the way Saddam treated his people.

However look what it has turned into. Look at the expense it has had on our country. It has divided our country, it has cost thousands of American (and innocent civilian) lives, and it has cost A TON. The situation would be as bad or worse in Iran.

The fact is there are too many extremist in that region. Any successfull revolution will come from within and it won't require our assitance, in fact they probably don't want out assistance at this point. I've heard reports where the citizens have actually said they have a better chance of succeeding if we stay out.

And also remember the key is at this point. If things did get bad we could always step in and get involved. I wouldnt call 7 deaths bad. Obviously it's a tragedy, however there have been our protests in our countries history involving worse tragedys

[reno cool]

I agree with the philosophy Dwight, however in reality the "change" that they voted for is still fairly extreme by out standards. It's not like the Iranians tried to elect Ghandi and this revolution is what has followed.

And again I state that if we do get involved and some sort of revolution is attempted where are we going to get the military force to assist in the revolution?

If you recall when the first Bush tried "speaking his feelings" and telling the Iraqi's to rise against Sadaam Hussein, and then did not assist with actual force. This resulted in MASS KILLINGS of 10's of thousands. Talk is good, but only if you can back it up. And since we currently cannot back it up it will only do harm

You make it sound like one country has the right to get involved in another's civil war.

[Dbldown11]

yeah sorry Dwight I could keep going back and forth and we are saying the same things over and over. You deffinately have a valid opinion and are right morally for sure. we just disagree on the effects such statements would have.

Good debate

[Dbldown11]

not civil wars....revolutions to overthrow oppressive governments...

not sure but have you ever heard of France Reno? I'm pretty sure the assisted us in getting our freedom

[DwightShrute]

I am not saying we should get involved in Iran other than voice our support for free elections.

As for Iraq, we obviously disagree on that whole liberation. We actually saved thousands upon thousands of peoples lives and we are heros to most in that country. We did the right thing and thousands of brave men and women paid the ultimate sacrifice. As far as the cost of being in Iraq, lets compare the trillions of $$ the current guy in office has committed to spending and putting possibly the next 2 or 3 generations of US citizens if financial debt and not mentioning the ever increasing role the government will play in the future of the free democracy that used the be the USA. That is the real tragedy if you ask me.

[Richkas]

Are all of our Congress men and women idiots???

Yes

[DwightShrute]

Yes

LOL that would have saved a lot of time! You are right!

[Dbldown11]

well perhaps we shouldnt get involved in that debate.....but suffice to say I have significanlty different opinions on all of that...starting with the fact that those men and women werent sent to Iraq on the premise of liberating citizens they were sent with the intent of stopping terrorism and getting rid of WMD's. Iraq has never been linked to Al Queda, and no MWD's were found, then at that point the government came up with the "liberation" idea...

Also many argue that the trillions we have spent...while it is a lot of money and does suck it was neccessary to keep from making the problem far worse.

I read an interesting quote the other day from FDR's book "Looking Forward" that is really interesting, and is all too relevant today considering he wrote it in 1933 I believe:

"The same man who says he does not want to see the government interfere in business-is the first to go to Washington to ask the government for a prohibitory tariff on his product. When things get just bad enough-as they did in 1930-he will go with equal speed to the United States Government and ask for a loan."

[DwightShrute]

well perhaps we shouldnt get involved in that debate.....but suffice to say I have significanlty different opinions on all of that...starting with the fact that those men and women werent sent to Iraq on the premise of liberating citizens they were sent with the intent of stopping terrorism and getting rid of WMD's. Iraq has never been linked to Al Queda, and no MWD's were found, then at that point the government came up with the "liberation" idea...

Also many argue that the trillions we have spent...while it is a lot of money and does suck it was neccessary to keep from making the problem far worse.

I read an interesting quote the other day from FDR's book "Looking Forward" that is really interesting, and is all too relevant today considering he wrote it in 1933 I believe:

"The same man who says he does not want to see the government interfere in business-is the first to go to Washington to ask the government for a prohibitory tariff on his product. When things get just bad enough-as they did in 1930-he will go with equal speed to the United States Government and ask for a loan."

Perhaps we shouldn't but you are obviously a smart guy even though we disagree on some major policies. I am a political junkie and look forward to a worthy debate from a "foe" and I want to say that I appreciate the respectful debate and not the childish name calling that seems to be a common theme.

2 things: you said .. while it is a lot of money and does suck it was neccessary to keep from making the problem far worse.

I don't know that you can say with 100% certainty, that statement is true.

and take a second to read another of view if you dare....

In the coming months, years and decades, history will be the judge of what kind of leader former President Bush was, but those Americans interested in preserving his legacy must take an aggressive approach to dispel the many myths and lies that already exist.
Clearly, the most contested area of Mr. Bush's presidency will be his foreign policy, namely his decision to send troops to Iraq. For several years, numerous myths have existed about the war, and it is imperative that we correct any falsehoods for the historical record.
These myths have falsely portrayed Mr. Bush as an imperialist president who illegally invaded a foreign country to seize its oil and dominate its people. The truth however, is that Mr. Bush liberated a country from the cruelty and oppression of a sadistic dictator, returned the oil to the Iraqi people and acted in full compliance with both domestic and international law. In fact, Mr. Bush's decision to send troops back to Iraq not only complied with international law but fulfilled obligations set by the United Nations.
In October 2002, Congress authorized the president to use whatever military force was necessary to fulfill U.N. resolutions pertaining to Iraq and the Gulf war. This was because after the U.N. authorized a coalition of the willing to use military force against Iraq for its illegal invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the U.N. temporarily suspended the Gulf war in 1991 with a cease-fire agreement that imposed stipulations upon Saddam Hussein.
Saddam violated those cease-fire conditions by failing to give U.N. weapon inspectors unfettered access, which actually prompted military action from President Clinton in 1998 when he launched a massive bombing campaign against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox.
In 2002, the United Nations resolved that Saddam was in "material breach" of the cease-fire agreement and that Iraq faced "serious consequences." Because the cease-fire did not end but merely suspended the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein's continued violations of the agreement reactivated the war.
President Bush did not start a new war in 2003 that violated domestic or international law. He merely complied with Congress' 2002 vote by honoring resolutions passed by the United Nations that reactivated the original Gulf war.
The president's critics accuse his administration of falsifying intelligence about Saddam Hussein having the capability of building weapons of mass destruction. This stems from the claim that the president solely relied on intelligence that Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapons program. These reports later proved to be inaccurate.
The media failed to emphasize, however, that Saddam was already in possession of 550 tons of yellowcake uranium, which he was storing at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex south of Baghdad. That uranium was found and secured by coalition troops in 2003 after they liberated Iraq and was finally transported to Canada in July 2008.
The president's critics also blast him for allegedly implementing a new policy of Iraqi regime change when in fact that policy was established in the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Clinton in 1998. The Act made it the official policy of the United States to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. President Bush did not implement a new policy of regime change in Iraq. He was acting in the spirit of the policy already established by President Clinton.
The decision to send troops back to Iraq in 2003 was indeed liberation and not an invasion. Investigations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the U.S. Department of State and the British government have all found evidence that the Iraqi people lived under a regime that systematically employed methods of torture and fear. Dissidents suffered from bizarre, cruel methods of torture including dismemberment, piercing, bone-crushing, cutting, acid baths and imprisonment inside coffin-size cells.
Women accused of prostitution were publicly beheaded without a trial and male soldiers were authorized to rape women to punish their family members for political resistance. Men were often forced to watch soldiers rape their wives, sisters and daughters as a method of punishment when the female victim was innocent.
The removal of Saddam Hussein from power was not an invasion, it was liberation.
One of the most widely spread conspiracy theories about President Bush and the war is the false allegation that he sent troops to Iraq to illegally steal its oil. There is no truth to this allegation. In fact, the new Oil Draft Law under consideration by the Iraqi government proposes using "production-sharing agreements," which is the same type of oil distribution system used in Iraq for decades.
Production-sharing agreements allow foreign governments or private corporations to drill for oil and keep a small percentage of profits for their work while giving the majority of profits earned to the host country. The new Oil Draft Law will continue to implement production-sharing agreements, but the Iraqi profits will now go to the new democratic government instead of Saddam. The United States is not stealing any oil from Iraq.
There are many more myths and lies the far left has successfully perpetuated about Mr. Bush and the liberation of Iraq, but this column is not the appropriate forum to dispel them. Because these lies have been so deeply ingrained in the consciousness of the American public, those wishing to restore the president's reputation must take a pro-active, aggressive approach that exports knowledge to the people.
Merely relying on a passive institute such as a presidential library and waiting for people to learn the truth on their own will not be sufficient in this unique case. Most people who visit the new George W. Bush presidential library will most likely already be sympathetic to him and there must be a more aggressive approach used to inform all Americans.
It is perhaps one of the greatest historical ironies and tragedies that a leader who cares so deeply about human rights and the freedom of oppressed people has been falsely portrayed as an imperialist invader. It is time for those working on the former president's legacy to adequately communicate his vision of worldwide liberation to the American people. The historical record must be corrected to accurately reflect President Bush's legacy and for the honor of our country.

[Dbldown11]

wow....sorry Dwight I just wrote a long response to that and exited out of the window on accident. Rather frustrating.

It has been good debating this with you. And we need more people actual willing to debate things speaking to eachother and finding common ground as opposed to what is and has been going on.

Our government used to work much better when our politicians actually debated things and Republicans and Democrats worked together. It wasnt that long ago but it all changed with the need to get millions from your party.

I am a big proponent of Publicly funded federal elections, so our federal politicians can worry about the actual issues plauging our country instead of constantly campaigning and going to bed with corporations for donations. When you need millions of dollars to run for office you are bound to have to scratch some back when you get there.

[DwightShrute]

so I win then right?

Kidding!

good debate

[lakerboy]

Noone cares about Persians. Alexander should have killed them all when he had a chance instead of trying to civilize them. They are animals.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

THAT WAY THE GREEKS WOULDNT HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH THE LEFTOVERS