TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Southern States scare me
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Well, there are some decent people in the South, so let's not paint everyone in the entire region as a people who think God appointed W president.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Heh, when the south voted democrat, democrats were reactionist while the republicans were progressive. During the time of your civil war, it was the republicans who wanted to abolish slavery, while the democrats wanted to keep the status quo.

Hehe exactly. It's a very interesting history. Basically, the "feel" of the South has never really changed throughout its history, but the party people have voted for has. The South has always been a haven for white supremacy and crazy David Koresh/Pat Robertson types, but the region doesn't always vote that way, as I'm about to prove.


The Democratic Party in the era around the time of Lincoln (especially in the South) billed itself as the "white man's party." It was the party of white supremacy and slavery. The Republican Party was founded on the concept of halting the spread of slavery West, and many in the party abhorred slavery. They were progressive abolitionists who began the cause of civil rights, and gave the Black man a right to vote during Reconstruction after the civil war. Andrew Johnson, the Vice President who became President after Lincoln was killed, was a Southern Democrat. Lincoln picked him in a show of solidarity since Johnson desired to preserve the Union, and did not join the Confederacy. He was a racist white supremacist though, with little regard for the freedman. He was easily one of our worst presidents ever. The Progressive Republican controlled House and Senate was able to override his veto with their 2/3rds majority, and pass many progressive reforms.

President Theodore Roosevelt I believe was the last progressive Republican president, but there remained many progressives in the Republican party until relatively recently when they were scared out by the Pat Robertson �abstinence only� types that now control the modern Republican Party. Woodrow Wilson was the first Democratic president who began to adopt progressive ideals, and his leadership helped the Democratic Party as a whole evolve into what it is today. He also pushed for the right to vote for women.


Then in ~1948, the National Democratic Party and President Truman (a man who had once joined the Klan but quit soon after because of anti-Catholic sentiment) adopted civil rights and desegregation as part of the party platform. Truman then desegregated the military by executive order, and appointed sympathetic judges to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. His appointments, and Eisenhower's appointment of Earl Warren, laid the groundwork for Brown vs. Board of Education that overturned the doctrine of "separate but equal."

When it was announced that the Democratic Party would support civil rights as part of the party platform, Southern Democrats walked out of the convention and more or less seceded from the Democratic Party. Disgruntled Southern Democrats formed a party called the "Dixiecrats" (more like �Dixierats�), and Strom Thurmond ran on the Dixiecrat ticket on a platform of white supremacy in 1948. He actually won four Southern States:



But then again, I doubt any Blacks were allowed to vote down there because of the literacy tests, poll taxes, and other �Jim Crow� tactics used against them.

Thurmond later became a Republican, and most of the Deep South has followed his lead. Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Alabama, for example, is a member of a White Supremacist group called the "White Citizens Council." Actually they've now changed their name of their organization to a less conspicuous one, but I somehow doubt they have any non-white members with their self-professed �pro white� views. Reagan campaigned on the racial fears of whites by opposing school bussing to integrate public schools, and:

quote:

Reagan never supported the use of federal power to provide blacks with civil rights. He opposed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Reagan said in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been �humiliating to the South.�

The voting rights act of 1965 in all practicality gave the Black man the vote in the South. It's hard for me to swallow anyone being opposed to that, or even giving lip service to people who would oppose that. I�ll never forget my father�s story of how he was teaching in an inner city school when Reagan was shot, and the entire class cheered at the news.

If that�s not using racism to get votes, I don�t know what is.


Ok so the South may have some scary folks, but it�s not all bad:


With the help of House Majority leader Lyndon Johnson from Texas, a moderate, the progressive John F. Kennedy was able to win the South, and the presidency in 1960:



Ironically he was killed in the South, but he was a much-loved man in all the country. With Kennedy's death, the struggle for civil rights legislation and enforcement was actualized. It was John and Bobby Kennedy's shared dream along with Martin Luther King Jr., but Lyndon Johnson is the man who pushed that legislation through so that my father�s generation and mine had the opportunity to attend integrated public schools.


Progressive Jimmy Carter of Georgia, our Nation's last truly Christian president and humanitarian, won the South in 1976:




Republican George Bush Sr. won the South and most of the country in 1988, but he was a moderate and not nearly as err�like his son. In fact I respect the guy. He was one of the only Southerners to vote for a bill to end racial discrimination in housing, and unlike his son who plays dress up soldier, he's a real veteran of WWII.


[img]http://www.multied.com/elections/elects/1988.gif[/img]


Bill Clinton, a moderate left-wing Democrat won the Southern states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky in 1992:




In Clinton�s reelection, he still did well in the South:



Gore was a really weak candidate compared to John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton, so it doesn't surprise me he did so poorly in the South and even lost his home state. Bush was a pretty weak candidate as well, but he's improved his speech reading immensely since that time.

So if you want to know why most Blacks, Latinos, Jews, Asians, and other minorities mostly vote Democratic, it's because of Harry Truman, John and Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. I don�t think minority voters tend to think too fondly of Reagan�s opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or George W. Bush�s endorsement by, and speech at, Bob Jones University; a non accredited �university� that teaches �creation science� and until 3 or 4 years ago had a policy that banned interracial dating.

Racial division in the South continues to this day. In Texas for example, the Republicans split up many voting districts that are largely Black and Latino in order to dilute minority voting strength and give them more seats in the House of Representatives.

Of course political parties throughout history have been guilty of this practice of �gerrymandering,� but in the South it takes on a racist component. Personally, I�d like to see some reforms in how we create congressional districts so that they are competitive throughout the country. It should be �The People�s House� after all.


The Southern Democrats are still there; the Dixiecrats are still there. They�ve just traded names once again.

Now you see why I have a beef, no President can get into the White House without a significant victory in the Southern States and that is what scares me when you have G.W. Bush as president and up for re-election in November. I hope the Democrats can formulate a strategy to win some States down there.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Now you see why I have a beef, no President can get into the White House without a significant victory in the Southern States and that is what scares me when you have G.W. Bush as president and up for re-election in November. I hope the Democrats can formulate a strategy to win some States down there.

0

precisely because!

you are a communist!!!!!!


but seriously...

its interesting to view the changes. above all it shows that you cant rely on one state or another. i shuddered when viewing the differences between my 2 home states - but that doesnt change the fact that during both elections the results were different!

your mom|

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Now you see why I have a beef, no President can get into the White House without a significant victory in the Southern States and that is what scares me when you have G.W. Bush as president and up for re-election in November. I hope the Democrats can formulate a strategy to win some States down there.

I'm not that scared. We have Clark and Edwards.

I am a "southerner", but I think you are quite wrong NYCTranceFan. As Dave showed nicely, the south has not voted republican repeatedly whatsoever. I do not lean towards Bush at all.

I show full support for Clark. I have a high disinclination towards Howard Dean, whom I believe to be a hypocrite, with his principal foundation relying on the abhorrence of the current President, George W. Bush. His address� to the nation focus on what the existent president is executing inequitably, and not upon his own strategies to improve the American Government. I said as much in my essay.

HOWEVER, If it came down to it, and the only choices I had were Dean or Bush, and noone else, I would chose Bush. I find Deans conduct preposterous and with the evident lack of discipline that Dean retains, it�s a phenomenon how he got to become a presidential aspirant. He knows nearly nothing of many issues, including the mainstream ones such as state-to-state gun laws (Brady, the rep of NRA stated this in an interview with Boston Globe), and all of Dean�s declarations are open ended and without true resoluteness.

[/Dean rant]

Anyway, all said and done. I am a southerner (though not by birth). I do not favor Bush at all, and plan on voting for Clark. That is all.

I couldn't agree more. I am from Oklahoma which as everyone knows always votes Republican, no contest. But the majority of people I know/my friends (I live in Oklahoma City, the biggest city in Oklahoma), would not vote for bush, under no circumstances. It is not necessarily that we are all democrats, just intelligent . But the thread starter has a point with most southern places. In oklahoma, if you go anywhere outside of a fairly large city's city limits, you are in religious, republican, war-mongering, bush-supporting territory.

I do dislike the pic that smokeape put up though, because it draws out the southern-stereotype that is not true in alot of cases.
Oklahoman by birth, Oklahoman at heart, but in no way a "Southerner".

I love America with all my heart, all 50 states included, well except Mississippi kidding, but that is the precise reason why I want G.W.Bush out of the White House along with his Cabinet, to spare this beautiful nation anymore of his religous sermons, foreign policy bumbling, corporate fatcat benefactors and need I get started on his articulation as president He must work real hard at pronouncing his words to not stutter in his speeches, keep trying Bush you'll finally speak properly one day like a U.S. president should do in front of the people. I am ashamed to even here him speak at times. His speech has nothing to do with the South by the way, after all Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Edwards to name a few politicians are all from there and they all sound better, its the person not the accent.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King The Axis of Evil

I dont see Karl Rove in there

quote:

Originally posted by biznology Well technically you wouldnt have 'an America' without: Canada, USA, Mexico, Latin America, and all of South America... they are all "america" you know|

Not the same America I'm speaking of.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology hmm...give me some more information as to where free speech is protected, but not certain *types* of free speech? we may be in some form loudmouthed, liberal, Northerners - but i dont think that should limit our free speech|

With freedom of speech comes responsibility, I read it in American Government last year. I'll have to pull the book out again, if I can find it. But, with every freedom comes a responsibility. If you know what I mean. Going out and being immature,calling people names,and being rude with your mouth isn't being responsible, you can get in trouble for shooting your mouth off when you shouldn't.

quote:

Originally posted by priveye03 I couldn't agree more. I am from Oklahoma which as everyone knows always votes Republican, no contest. But the majority of people I know/my friends (I live in Oklahoma City, the biggest city in Oklahoma), would not vote for bush, under no circumstances. It is not necessarily that we are all democrats, just intelligent . But the thread starter has a point with most southern places. In oklahoma, if you go anywhere outside of a fairly large city's city limits, you are in religious, republican, war-mongering, bush-supporting territory. I do dislike the pic that smokeape put up though, because it draws out the southern-stereotype that is not true in alot of cases. Oklahoman by birth, Oklahoman at heart, but in no way a "Southerner".

I agree with you there man. I've known very few people my age who support Bush where I live.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 With freedom of speech comes responsibility, I read it in American Government last year. I'll have to pull the book out again, if I can find it. But, with every freedom comes a responsibility. If you know what I mean. Going out and being immature,calling people names,and being rude with your mouth isn't being responsible, you can get in trouble for shooting your mouth off when you shouldn't.

Correct. Inciting a riot is one example where freedom of speech is exempt.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Hey definitely my intention is not to offend Southerners as a people, this is simply an opinion on my part in the context of politics, not lifestyle, accents, decorum, attittudes,etc. We must admit that the influence of the South on the electoral process at the national level is profound. I was making reference to the fact that I saw quite a few opinions from the South on Bush's speech and you heard themes such as "it was a terrific speech, God Bless America, its nice that he was against homosexuality because its a sin, Bush is making America more secure, etc. How can anyone offer up a worthwile defence for a man who has led our nation into war and failed to verify the claims that he made before the nation about Iraq, I would under no circumstance supported the Iraq war if it was simply to get rid of Hussein, as it now seems to have been the case. Now I look back on it Iraq posed no more of a threat than North Korea, Iran, etc. Maybe the South will wake up and realize that young Americans have died in a foreign land and it is time for G.W. Bush to be held accountable for his lies eminating from Washington. This administration no longer represents the American people, but its own clique. Why are there no W.M.Ds in Iraq, why are there fewer American jobs under Bush, why is it only the U.S. that should be spreading "democracy" in the Middle East, why is it that the compassionate conservative and the leave no child behind candidate in 2000 is at odds with those very statements right now, why is it that the patriotism of any American has to be questioned if they are against this government's policies, I am an American but will no longer blindly say that Bush is a positive leader for this nation, he is not. I just hope the South awakens to this reality.

Well saying something like " southerners scare me..." That can def. be taken as an insult. You really have to watch how you word stuff.

Yes,It was an excellent speech. He did a very good job. He hasn't failed, I assure you.

This makes me sick, Everyones platform getting in the way. Drop conservatism for a moment, Drop liberalism for a moment. Put both aside.

Put your feet into an Iraqi persons shoes. These people were raped, beaten, gased, put into shredders,You name it.
We didn't just go in to take out Saddam,"for revenge" or to make us look good, We went to liberate the people. Now, they don't have to be afraid anymore. Many US soldiers were telling us back here that hundreds,even thousands of families came to them and thanked them for what they'd done. Of course you and I don't see that on the news! Because the media won't let it be shown, Not even Fox shows it. It's really sad to, We've done these people a favor and I for one am glad to see them not under oppression anymore. That's one of the main reasons we went over there. We've done our job well. As for the WMD's, They are there. Just give us time, We've already started finding things. If you want to ignore that, Go ahead but it's right there in the news.

Bush hasn't lied, and if anyone, I think it's the south that has their heads on straight. The south is mainly military, IF you didn't know. Of course we all know about the lives being lost, A lot of those men and women come from the south. Didn't you know?

This administration represents the American people. Bush and his administration are doing a good job.

Now, I know for a fact there are not fewer jobs under Bush. For example,Where my father works... He said there are way more jobs than people can fill. There are always help wanted signs up everywhere. There aren't enough people to fill the jobs. So our economy is just fine, I have no idea what you're complaining about.

The south is awake, It's known all along. We're not stupid, We know exactly what's going on.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Well saying something like " southerners scare me..." That can def. be taken as an insult. You really have to watch how you word stuff. Yes,It was an excellent speech. He did a very good job. He hasn't failed, I assure you. This makes me sick, Everyones platform getting in the way. Drop conservatism for a moment, Drop liberalism for a moment. Put both aside. Put your feet into an Iraqi persons shoes. These people were raped, beaten, gased, put into shredders,You name it. We didn't just go in to take out Saddam,"for revenge" or to make us look good, We went to liberate the people. Now, they don't have to be afraid anymore. Many US soldiers were telling us back here that hundreds,even thousands of families came to them and thanked them for what they'd done. Of course you and I don't see that on the news! Because the media won't let it be shown, Not even Fox shows it. It's really sad to, We've done these people a favor and I for one am glad to see them not under oppression anymore. That's one of the main reasons we went over there. We've done our job well. As for the WMD's, They are there. Just give us time, We've already started finding things. If you want to ignore that, Go ahead but it's right there in the news. Bush hasn't lied, and if anyone, I think it's the south that has their heads on straight. The south is mainly military, IF you didn't know. Of course we all know about the lives being lost, A lot of those men and women come from the south. Didn't you know? This administration represents the American people. Bush and his administration are doing a good job. Now, I know for a fact there are not fewer jobs under Bush. For example,Where my father works... He said there are way more jobs than people can fill. There are always help wanted signs up everywhere. There aren't enough people to fill the jobs. So our economy is just fine, I have no idea what you're complaining about. The south is awake, It's known all along. We're not stupid, We know exactly what's going on.

You seem to be under the impression that I am launching a personal attack on Southerners as a culture, I must once again re-emphasize that this is not the case, my uncle lives in the heart of Texas in Houston, another lives in Virginia and served in the U.S. Navy. At one point in time I may have shared your beliefs about this president but no longer is that the case. He lost my respect a while back when I watched our Secretary of State stand before the world in New York at the U.N. and claim what different weapons programs Iraq has, none of which has been corroborated in any capacity. I ask you this question if Iraq posed an immediate threat to our nation, then what was that threat, how did it directly affect us, the only reason I supported this war was because of the claims of W.M.D. and lets be correct none has been found, not one, if you have a source that shows me otherwise and that they posed an immediate threat to us then please be obliged to post it on the forum. The South as you say may be awake but are they getting the whole picture of the Iraq conflict and where it has left our nation in the eyes of credibility on world issues No longer does Bush reserve the right to lay claims of W.M.D. against any nation and he is going to be believed by informed people, he lost that right when he stopped making mention of it in his speeches and statements in regards to Iraq, wonder why that is the current case.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan He lost my respect a while back when I watched our Secretary of State stand before the world in New York at the U.N. and claim what different weapons programs Iraq has, none of which has been corroborated in any capacity. I ask you this question if Iraq posed an immediate threat to our nation, then what was that threat, how did it directly affect us, the only reason I supported this war was because of the claims of W.M.D.

I believe the terminology used was not an "immediate" threat, but rather an "imminent" threat, which is a much more politically neutral way of saying, "at some point, sooner rather than later, Iraq will directly pose a threat to the U.S." This is a statement that doesn't imply an "if", but a "when". Many in the military have always believed that with terrorists it has never been an issue of "if", rather always "when" they will choose to attack. Saddam had connections with terrorist organizations, Saddam harbored terrorists, Saddam had used chemical and biological weapons on his own people in the 80's and 90's. All he needed to do was put someone on another plane and have them hijack it and slam into a building, or just crash it. Saddam tried to assasinate Bush I. Not to mention the 10+ U.N. resolutions he was already violoating, and then 1441 to really shine the world on--almost like saying "I dare you to come in here and make me leave--this is MY Iraq".

No offense NYTrancefan, but Saddam needed to go, and he needed to go sooner rather than later. I'm sorry you feel like the only justification would've been if the WMD's had already been found, but that was really just a talking point in the end. Funny how according to Howard Dean it's perfectly fine (an obligation at that) to go into Bosnia/Kosovo for humanitarian reasons, but it's not enough of a reason to go to Iraq, aside from the other facts already mentioned? Saddam Hussein is a madman with bad intentions--I feel no remorse for going into Iraq to liberate the country from a brutal dictator--history will show that it was the right thing to do.

And as for Southerners, I think you're still living in the 60's if you think they are not as intelligent as you. I think you're getting flamed now for making a broad, false generalization. And FYI, neither Texas or Virginia really counts as the South. Any Texan will tell you that Texas is it's own country (with a smile of course), and Virginia is so borderline that it really doesn't speak for the South. Just because Robert E. Lee was from Virginia doesn't make it a good representative state of the South.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And as for Southerners, I think you're still living in the 60's if you think they are not as intelligent as you. I think you're getting flamed now for making a broad, false generalization. And FYI, neither Texas or Virginia really counts as the South. Any Texan will tell you that Texas is it's own country (with a smile of course), and Virginia is so borderline that it really doesn't speak for the South. Just because Robert E. Lee was from Virginia doesn't make it a good representative state of the South.

Whoa hold up dude, where did I once state that Southerners are not intelligent or as intelligent as me. Highlight clearly for me where that is the case, and there is no flaming towards my comment, I went out of my way a couple of times to explain to WhoaNellie that I am in no way some northern, liberal yuppie that believes that Southerners are bucked tooth hicks. I feel that maybe it is the thread title that leaves a lot to be desired. So for once and for all let me say that my opinion is in regards to the South's polical stance that is it, nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing special up here in NYC that makes it better than the South in any capacity. So for all Southerners who may view my opinion as an insult that is not my desire, this is simply a matter of politics, hence the forum

If you were to review my statements on this board you will see that there was a time when I would have agreed with you about Saddam Hussein having to go, but should a war be done simply to necessitate that alone on the part of the U.S. If we operate on that premise then many more nations should be invaded on the principles of liberation from human suffering, otherwise the Bush policy becomes hypocritical in leaving a lot of other parts of the world suffering under brutal, oppressive, maniacal dictators, North Korea for example.

The irony of all this is that at one point on this forum I would have defended Bush tooth and nail, no longer is that the case, let him demonstrate that he is a compassionate conservative and will leave no child behind as he claimed so often. The man is a hypocrite in his statements and I will bid him adeu from the White House without a second thought, its time that Americans benefit from record budget deficit instead of overseas wars and large corporations.

If you can accept the loss of American lives in Iraq without any weapons being discovered, while many of the supposed Iraqis that we are freeing are still killing U.S. troops including 2 more today, people are looking at the U.S. as the greatest threat to stability thanks to one man and the impression being left that we now live in Fort U.S.A. then that is your position, I resoundingly however disagree.

Shakka, I invite you to read the thread I just made, by the own man David Kay.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I believe the terminology used was not an "immediate" threat, but rather an "imminent" threat, which is a much more politically neutral way of saying, "at some point, sooner rather than later, Iraq will directly pose a threat to the U.S." This is a statement that doesn't imply an "if", but a "when".

How was iraq's shitty army or saddam any sort of threat to my country?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Many in the military have always believed that with terrorists it has never been an issue of "if", rather always "when" they will choose to attack. Saddam had connections with terrorist organizations, Saddam harbored terrorists

Yeah terrorist against Israel, not the US. I doubt many people in the US would go along with helping Israel, especially the KKK south. Besides Israel can protect themselves well enough with all the goodies we gave them

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Saddam had used chemical and biological weapons on his own people in the 80's and 90's.

LOL oh man, you do know who supported and gave him chemical and biological weapons right?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka All he needed to do was put someone on another plane and have them hijack it and slam into a building, or just crash it. Saddam tried to assasinate Bush I. Not to mention the 10+ U.N. resolutions he was already violoating, and then 1441 to really shine the world on--almost like saying "I dare you to come in here and make me leave--this is MY Iraq".

Saddam only wanted to be a cool dude and hang out with the world super powers, just ask the CIA. Anyway Saddam was never a threat to us. Hey Israel violated alot more than 10 UN resolutions, wtf are they still our ally? oh don't forget our cool ally Uzbekistan too who had/has a leader worse than Saddam.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka No offense NYTrancefan, but Saddam needed to go, and he needed to go sooner rather than later.

I agree he needed to go, but not at our expense. Let the people rise up and so on, but it looks like that is going to happen soon anyway with all the Iraq civil war news bits i've heard.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm sorry you feel like the only justification would've been if the WMD's had already been found, but that was really just a talking point in the end.

Hey Bush said WMDs, not liberate some towel heads or to protect some jewsbags from saddam. I doubt many people would of been up for that, especially how I phrased it in the way many people think about arabs and israelis.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Funny how according to Howard Dean it's perfectly fine (an obligation at that) to go into Bosnia/Kosovo for humanitarian reasons, but it's not enough of a reason to go to Iraq, aside from the other facts already mentioned? Saddam Hussein is a madman with bad intentions--I feel no remorse for going into Iraq to liberate the country from a brutal dictator--history will show that it was the right thing to do.

Funny how we are just spending money out of our ass and have no real allies besides the UK to help out, unlike how it went in Bosnia/Kosovo. I'm glad Iraqi's are somewhat better off, well except for the women. Also seriously how can you say that when we created Saddam and support Uzbekistan.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And as for Southerners, I think you're still living in the 60's if you think they are not as intelligent as you. I think you're getting flamed now for making a broad, false generalization. And FYI, neither Texas or Virginia really counts as the South. Any Texan will tell you that Texas is it's own country (with a smile of course), and Virginia is so borderline that it really doesn't speak for the South. Just because Robert E. Lee was from Virginia doesn't make it a good representative state of the South.

Excuse me but my sister lives in Texas and agrees with what NYTrancefan stated it out to be, well everywhere outside of the major cities such as Dallas. No comment on Virginia though.

Whatever, dude. Defend your position, I'll defend mine.

I hardly believe that the U.S. purposefully created some eveil monster, hoping that he would eventually murder hundreds of thousands of people and ultimately be a threat to the people whom had helped him 30 years prior. That's what they were going for alright. And now the Americans who put him there have realized they're wrong and are trying to fix the situation, right? Oh, yeah, by your argument you're saying he should still be in power, otherwise you'd have to admit that he was a bad person.

It would be ok for someone 30 years ago to make what would turn around to be a catastrophic mistake, but it wouldn't be alright for anyone in the future to right the situation, if that really were the case? That argument just doesn't jive with me.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Whatever, dude. Defend your position, I'll defend mine. I hardly believe that the U.S. purposefully created some eveil monster, hoping that he would eventually murder hundreds of thousands of people and ultimately be a threat to the people whom had helped him 30 years prior. That's what they were going for alright. And now the Americans who put him there have realized they're wrong and are trying to fix the situation, right? Oh, yeah, by your argument you're saying he should still be in power, otherwise you'd have to admit that he was a bad person. It would be ok for someone 30 years ago to make what would turn around to be a catastrophic mistake, but it wouldn't be alright for anyone in the future to right the situation, if that really were the case? That argument just doesn't jive with me.

yes just ignore history i never said saddam was an angel, and yes him being in power still would be better for us and the women in iraq seeing how they are worse off not to mention this upcoming civil war. guess senior bush was right, taking out saddam would be/was a bad idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Any Texan will tell you that Texas is it's own country (with a smile of course)

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Put your feet into an Iraqi persons shoes. These people were raped, beaten, gased, put into shredders,You name it. We didn't just go in to take out Saddam,"for revenge" or to make us look good, We went to liberate the people. Now, they don't have to be afraid anymore. Many US soldiers were telling us back here that hundreds,even thousands of families came to them and thanked them for what they'd done. Of course you and I don't see that on the news! Because the media won't let it be shown, Not even Fox shows it. It's really sad to, We've done these people a favor and I for one am glad to see them not under oppression anymore. That's one of the main reasons we went over there. We've done our job well.

I tend to disagree with you on this issue. You see, the iraqi people were often murdered, yes, but not because they were innocent, it was because they wanted to topple Saddam's regime. The general population was largely unaffected. But, since the US forces invaded, the situation has largely turned worse. The security situation is horrible, unemployment rate is at about 50% and people are more often than not left without electrical power and water. Not really some improvement over the previous condition.

quote:

As for the WMD's, They are there. Just give us time, We've already started finding things. If you want to ignore that, Go ahead but it's right there in the news.

Heh, I see the news come up every few days with claims of "new brekahtroughs" in wmd search, but so far they have always been proven false. Even the white house now admits there most likely aren't any wmds. Which brings it into direct conflict with everything they claimed prior to the war.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I tend to disagree with you on this issue. You see, the iraqi people were often murdered, yes, but not because they were innocent, it was because they wanted to topple Saddam's regime. The general population was largely unaffected. But, since the US forces invaded, the situation has largely turned worse. The security situation is horrible, unemployment rate is at about 50% and people are more often than not left without electrical power and water. Not really some improvement over the previous condition. Heh, I see the news come up every few days with claims of "new brekahtroughs" in wmd search, but so far they have always been proven false. Even the white house now admits there most likely aren't any wmds. Which brings it into direct conflict with everything they claimed prior to the war.

I'd trust a US soldier over you anyday(no offense). There have been letters come back from the US soldiers over there, they have said quite the opposite. Things in Iraq are improving,not getting worse, again the media doesn't show this.

No,They haven't been proven false. Infact, there was something shown on the drudge report a few days ago, I'll ask my dad if he can dig it up. ( It might not be there since it's older news ) but, something has been found leading to that, and it wasn't " Proven false ".

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan You seem to be under the impression that I am launching a personal attack on Southerners as a culture, I must once again re-emphasize that this is not the case, my uncle lives in the heart of Texas in Houston, another lives in Virginia and served in the U.S. Navy. At one point in time I may have shared your beliefs about this president but no longer is that the case. He lost my respect a while back when I watched our Secretary of State stand before the world in New York at the U.N. and claim what different weapons programs Iraq has, none of which has been corroborated in any capacity. I ask you this question if Iraq posed an immediate threat to our nation, then what was that threat, how did it directly affect us, the only reason I supported this war was because of the claims of W.M.D. and lets be correct none has been found, not one, if you have a source that shows me otherwise and that they posed an immediate threat to us then please be obliged to post it on the forum. The South as you say may be awake but are they getting the whole picture of the Iraq conflict and where it has left our nation in the eyes of credibility on world issues No longer does Bush reserve the right to lay claims of W.M.D. against any nation and he is going to be believed by informed people, he lost that right when he stopped making mention of it in his speeches and statements in regards to Iraq, wonder why that is the current case.

I can't see why you would lose respect for a great man,such as our President. He has done nothing to lose respect,but he has done much to gain more respect.

WMD's aren't the only reason we went into this war, I think I've mentioned that more than once. I supported this war for many reasons, We had every right to go in and help the people. That's just what we've done,and are continuing to do.

Bush has just as many rights to say there are WMD's, just as you have as many rights to criticize him.
I'm sure there are WMD's out there. It's like you want them to be found in an instant, Well that isn't going to happen. We'll find them,I have faith we will.

This subject is important,I'm sure you will agree. But, hasn't it been debated several times? Isn't it like chewing old fat going over and over it?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I tend to disagree with you on this issue. You see, the iraqi people were often murdered, yes, but not because they were innocent, it was because they wanted to topple Saddam's regime. The general population was largely unaffected. But, since the US forces invaded, the situation has largely turned worse. The security situation is horrible, unemployment rate is at about 50% and people are more often than not left without electrical power and water. Not really some improvement over the previous condition.

As much as we may tend to disagree with Bush for his reasoning for leading us into this war, let us at least try to be factually accurate. I've often stated that when you try to "gauge" the state of the Iraqi people, forget your own opinion and look straight to the source. Granted it's several months old but it likely serves as a better indicator than any kind of conjecture on our part.

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/audio/20031...ting-saddam.pdf

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.