November Election

[Logic1]

You might try asking those tens of thousands of people (his OWN people) that Saddam and his sadistic sons had tortured and executed whether their country worked well under Saddam. I doubt they would agree. The same logic applies to Nazi Germany in the 30's. The country prospered under the Nazi rule. For a while. I don't think those who were sent to the camps could be considered happy about that, though.

No, any government which must rule by fear and terror (and that MAY include the US government: the Patriot Act, and others like it, are meant to instill fear in the US population, I believe) can hardly be considered acceptable. At least in a democracy, though, the people can only blame themselves for allowing their government to get out of control.

all you said is true ofcourse. I am not denying that at all. He did kill an awful amount of people but on the other hand the country as a whole was actually prosperous with oil money coming in and with that came way better living conditions than they used to have. We are talking about half of the people, the side Saddam was part of (which I cant remember but I am sure some of you know that better than I do or can be arsed to Google it .

Coming from you Logic, this seems pretty cynical; do I read you correctly?

Stability is more important than justice? Peace before liberty?

Would you apply that same criteria to your own nation?

I just might be a cynical one at heart .
I am not sure if stability is better than justice. Sometimes it just might be under certain circumstances. Peace definitely before liberty because without peace there wouldnt be any liberty.
But then again a country that was working although it was under rule of an evil Saddam and then suddenly it was without leadership heading for civil war with all the factions that Saddam was actually making submit to him and no fighting between them.
Now they are fighting eatchother and the invaders.
Is it better? I honestly dont know.. Is it even possible to answer?
Saddam killed lots of Iraqis and attacked Iran and Kuwait which in turn killed loads of people. Now the people there have slim to no future and are falling into the hands of fanatic Islamists or their clan leaders learning to kill their enemies. Tens of Thousands of civilian Iraqis have died from bombings, suicide bombs and other attacks including those killed by american soldiers scared shitless in a faraway place very unlike home.
What is better? I mean, Is that question even possible to answer?

Dont consider me somebody who judges here but as an onlooker getting saddend by all the horror and death happening there.
It looks like you got another Vietnam though and I really hope it can be solved real soon.

The surge in Iraq might have worked somewhat though and letting them govern themselves is hopefully a step in the right direction to peace and stability with a better ruling than they had with Saddam.
Moving troops into Afghanistan to search for Usama will most likely be just another Vietnam again. The Russians failed horribly and bombing civilian weddings sure isnt making the civilian afghans anymore likely to love you and betray Usama for you either.
Again I sure hope it is solved real soon and he is found and brought to justice.


may the best man win in the US

[Virulent]

I am not sure if stability is better than justice. Sometimes it just might be under certain circumstances. Peace definitely before liberty because without peace there wouldnt be any liberty.

I disagree, but I respect your opinion; I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the implications.

I'm full-blooded Swedish; my grandparents emigrated to the U.S. just before WW2. I've always wondered how my viking ancestors turned into the people whom Winston Churchill called "that small, coward country". I wonder why when the Soviets and the Nazis invaded Finland, and tried to starve them to their knees, the Finns gave them Molotov cocktails and Simo Hayha, but my people made bullets and tank parts for the fascist war machine. Is pacifism popular in Sweden?

[Logic1]

I disagree, but I respect your opinion; I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the implications.

I'm full-blooded Swedish; my grandparents emigrated to the U.S. just before WW2. I've always wondered how my viking ancestors turned into the people whom Winston Churchill called "that small, coward country". I wonder why when the Soviets and the Nazis invaded Finland, and tried to starve them to their knees, the Finns gave them Molotov cocktails and Simo Hayha, but my people made bullets and tank parts for the fascist war machine. Is pacifism popular in Sweden?

yeah I am quite aware of what it means thankyou.
cut and paste makes for a bad quote though but alrightey.
Perhaps if you read the rest you will understand my reasoning. Can you have liberty without peace? Can you have justice without stability? Can you really?

That small coward country as you say that Churchill said didnt have a defence at all back then. "Our defence is good" is what our king and state minister said back then and we had wodden tanks defending our beaches .
That started an arms "race" here but we didnt really have anything to defend or attack anything for that matter during WW2. We did however have plenty of Swedes fighting in Finland. "The Finnish cause is ours".
We are a neutral country sitting between the Russians and the west and the Swedish people firmly believes that neutral is the best for us. There are people who wants us to join NATO but the majority dont.
What good would come from us being attacked by the Nazis during WW2? We acted like we had one helluva defence and apparently it worked.
Sweden is a trading people that hasnt really been to war since 1814 and that is well rooted in the Swedish mindset.
Your reply to me seems to indicate that not making a futile war declaration against the Nazis was an act by cowards for some reason. I think the decisions were the right ones at that point in time for us yes.
Not that it has anything to do with the US elections but

[yourlilslave86]

I haven't posted in this thread due to everyone having their own opinions. I don't think us pulling out of Iraq is going to solve the gas price issue. Even if we started drilling in Alaska or doing offshore drilling it isn't going to be a quick fix whatsoever. I have gone from complaining about gas prices to really looking at exactly how much gas I have used and I have cut it back a lot. I have also started looking at energy efficient cars. This can be a blessing in disguise if one wants to look at that way. Either way both presidential candidates will have one hell of a time fixing what is going on.

[denuseri]

i think the real reason prices are going up for oil is: the oil companies have forecast the dwindling supply to end sonner than later, so they are squeezing as much money out of it as they can

[denuseri]

imajines goverment officials monitoring the internet and masterbaiting to the posts on this site and laughs until i allmost cum without permission

[Logic1]

imajines goverment officials monitoring the internet and masterbaiting to the posts on this site and laughs until i allmost cum without permission

the way too nasty thing is that it is very easy for governments to actually do that and I am sure it happens in some countries and were not just talking about the dictatorships but countries like yours and mine. Perhaps not looking at this page but watching email and scanning for when you write an email to your friends or tell them that that past party was a bomb! or something.
Big brother is definitely here and I for one dont like it.

[mkemse]

To of you who posted a reply to this thread and the Poll, thank you for your imput and comments