2008 Presidential Candidates Comparison ( Side By side)... DOn't know what to think.

[SkylarV217]

Quote:

Originally Posted by florabundance But wasn't there a whole media frenzy regarding the fact that the Bush Administration were well aware there were no weapons of mass destruction. And also that Saddam Hussein really had nothing to do with September 11th.

YES to the WOMD which is why support of the war faltered so drastcilly with the American people.... But it wasn't about 9/11 with Hussein ... 9/11 had happened there was nothing we could do about it after the fact so the answer was to curtail any other attacks that may be in the works... So shutting down a major terrorist leader/supporter was a good answer.

While the opinion foreigners hold of America may be correct, i feel the opinion of American's may be overall incorrect. The American people don't necessarily want to be in this war, the problem comes with .... do we pull out immediately and loose everything that has been worked for and have essentially made room for another "evil" possibly worse evil to take control , or do we stay. Staying means more money that we may not have and the loss of more American lives, while pulling out could mean more terrorist attacks in America and other country's. It's a tough decision and one most American's don't agree on.

 

[Lapis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkylarV217 YES to the WOMD which is why support of the war faltered so drastcilly with the American people.... But it wasn't about 9/11 with Hussein ... 9/11 had happened there was nothing we could do about it after the fact so the answer was to curtail any other attacks that may be in the works... So shutting down a major terrorist leader/supporter was a good answer. While the opinion foreigners hold of America may be correct, i feel the opinion of American's may be overall incorrect. The American people don't necessarily want to be in this war, the problem comes with .... do we pull out immediately and loose everything that has been worked for and have essentially made room for another "evil" possibly worse evil to take control , or do we stay. Staying means more money that we may not have and the loss of more American lives, while pulling out could mean more terrorist attacks in America and other country's. It's a tough decision and one most American's don't agree on.

Ok I moved to the US after 9/11 and the war started so I have the view of a non national on this.

I think the problem is that Hussein had received these weapons from the US! And when other countries said to America before the invasion that it wasn't a good step they were told f off basically and if they didn't support the US she would never forget so get onboard, the reasons given to the UN for going in was WMD's and a terrorist link between Saddam and Osama there was neither

So now as they see the trillions in debt, all the young lives of Americans and Iraqis lost and the whole issue with pulling out we think
"hello never should have been there!!"
The truth is the US being in Iraq is a huge marketing for terrorist organizations, pulling out removes that marketing strategy but no one says it, they talk about the gains and so on but truthfully if the US had concentrated their energies and money in Afghanistan instead of a resurgence of the Taliban and Osama still alluding them, the Taliban foot hold could have been totally stomped out, now these organizations have 2 training grounds, Saddamn was not extremist friendly unless he was the extremist so I think international pressure for democratic elections would have been best, by going in there splitting the funding/troops neither war zone was properly staffed, and terrorist could go "look see America lied to get into Iraq for the oil, they are war mongers! see how many Iraqi's have died."

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowy Lady I didn't want to get involved in this as political discussions always turn into arguments. However, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Afganistan, yes, that is where the Wahabi's funded by Saudi Arabia and responsible for the 9/11 attack are based. I would like to see documentation that says otherwise and blames Iraq for 9/11.

sadaam funded terrorism. article from: Find Articles at BNET | News Articles, Magazine Back Issues & Reference Articles on All Topics

Quote:

Even as President George W. Bush and CIA Director George Tenet lay out the evidence of Iraq's operational ties to al-Qaeda terrorists, new documents seized by Israel from Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah and other terrorist operational centers in the West Bank show in extraordinary detail how Iraq has been funding terror and mayhem against Israeli civilians during the last two years. Among Saddam's victims have been U.S. and European citizens who were visiting Israel. And yet for some reason, as with the evidence showing Iraq's alliance with al-Qaeda, few Western reporters have been willing to pay attention.

imagine that, western reporters ignoring facts that don't work towards proving that america is the devil in disguise. who would have thought?!

Quote:

Captured documents include ledgers of "martyrs" who have carried out suicide operations against Israel, showing how much and when each was paid and the number of the check. It includes internal memoranda, computer disks, hard drives, videotapes and bank statements. In many cases the Israelis managed to seize checkbooks showing the stubs of these payments; in others, they have the actual wire transfers from Iraq.

giving a monetary incentive to strap a bomb to your chest and kill innocent people really sounds like "funding terrorism" to me...but maybe i'm misunderstanding something here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapis And when other countries said to America before the invasion that it wasn't a good step

it's easy to say "that's not the way to handle it," when it's not your buildings in ruins and when it's not yours being buried. i don't think we ever told those other nations to "fuck off," but if we did...well, i think we're allowed to be a little emotional when our very freedom has just been attacked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowyLady Btw, I'm glad I'm not American so I don't have to vote. I don't like any of the two main candidates. Too bad Ron Paul couldn't make it It's the same here in Canada though, I'm not impressed with either Conservative nor Liberal parties.

i think it's too bad ron paul couldn't make it, too. i think he really could have done this country some good.

 

[Shadowy Lady]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy sadaam funded terrorism. article from: Find Articles at BNET | News Articles, Magazine Back Issues & Reference Articles on All Topics .

I'm happy to see another Ron Paul fan here

He certainly doesn't get a lot of publicity.

I know Saddam has been involved in terrorism (not in 9/11 however) and he has had his WMD for a while. He used them against Iranian ppl in the 80's and against his own ppl in the 80's and 90's. My question always is, why attack Iraq in the 2000's? When Saddam was committing his crimes, nobody stood up to him, so why now? There must have been a benefit to to let Saddam go on then and only start talking about WMD now.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be Anti-American or anything. I'm just sharing my views with you as a peace supporter and someone who has experienced Saddam's crimes first hand (I was born during the Iran-Iraq war and my parents left Iran for Canada when I was 9). America has a lot of say in the world affairs that is why everybody gives their opinions when it comes to american affairs. What America does can change the life of millions.

Best of luck in this election

. I hope whoever gets elected does not start another war.

 

[xStarryEyedX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer For real. Then again, my position is somewhat mitigated because I'll not be using my baby maker for anything other than a temporary repository for...well. You get the idea. I'm not having anymore babies. What do y'all think about McCain having a female VP candidate?

Palin is a female, but I don't think that will gain any female voters. She does not have feminist views (abortion etc). I read an article about this that a women in literature teacher emailed me, and it's true. Just because she's female doesn't mean anything. It's her views that do. Especially with women! Jeez, we're not stupid!

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xStarryEyedX Palin is a female, but I don't think that will gain any female voters. She does not have feminist views (abortion etc). I read an article about this that a women in literature teacher emailed me, and it's true. Just because she's female doesn't mean anything. It's her views that do. Especially with women! Jeez, we're not stupid!

If that were the case, Obama's skincolor wouldn't make a difference, and neither would McCain's. Clinton's gender wouldn't have made a difference either.
I'm not a typical feminist. I'm a 'people are made to be people regardless of whatever plumbing they have' ist.

 

[Beauty Mark]

People are going to vote Palin because she's a woman. People are going to vote Obama because he's black, McCain because he's white, etc.

I don't know how many, but in my life, I've personally known fairly liberal types vote for our House rep (Republican) because he's from our home town. I've heard liberals at school say that they'd vote Condi Rice if she ever runs, because she is a black woman.

I don't know why McCain picked Palin, but I can't blame him if he picked her because she's a woman. That's how politics roll sometimes. I'm kind of baffled why if he wanted to pick a woman, why he didn't find someone a bit more moderate.

 

[Lapis]

Quote:

it's easy to say "that's not the way to handle it," when it's not your buildings in ruins and when it's not yours being buried. i don't think we ever told those other nations to "fuck off," but if we did...well, i think we're allowed to be a little emotional when our very freedom has just been attacked.

My dh is American and lived in NYC and had done temp work in the WTC just weeks before 9/11, for 2 days his dad, aunt and I tried to reach him and his mom and bro and couldn't, I didn't sleep for those 2 days and cried constantly, my son up to this day HATES to fly, I know how it feels.
That said Iraq didn't have crap to do with 9/11 and the facts were there that they didn't the rest of the world called
Even Colin Powell said he had "private doubts"
And f off on political speak may not be that blunt but it's awfully clear when you send your ambassors to strong arms leaders of other countries.

And since I worked in politics at one time, I will say no you don't get to be emotional when people hurt you, lie to you and do dispicable things, you have to stay calm, and look at the facts!!
Plus the Iraq war was started 2 years after the attacks.

 

[florabundance]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowy Lady I know Saddam has been involved in terrorism (not in 9/11 however) and he has had his WMD for a while. He used them against Iranian ppl in the 80's and against his own ppl in the 80's and 90's. My question always is, why attack Iraq in the 2000's? When Saddam was committing his crimes, nobody stood up to him, so why now? There must have been a benefit to to let Saddam go on then and only start talking about WMD now.

i agree with this completely

 

[rbella]

I love Ron Paul. He would have made everything better.

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowy Lady My question always is, why attack Iraq in the 2000's?

we had eight years of bill clinton before that, and the man who was in white house before him did go to iraq, he just didn't finish what he started. clinton was familiar with terrorism. the world trade center was bombed while he was in office, and of course...we had that uss cole thing while he was in office. however, he always chose to remain idle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lapis Plus the Iraq war was started 2 years after the attacks.

since you worked in politics, you should know that we can't go to war overnight anymore. it takes time to amass troops and equipment. it takes time to gather funds and to get the go ahead from congress. that morning, we did not put all the pieces together. it also takes time to gather intel on where we need to go and who we need to "take care of."

Quote:

Originally Posted by lapis That said Iraq didn't have crap to do with 9/11 and the facts were there that they didn't the rest of the world called Even Colin Powell said he had "private doubts"

colin powell is a politician, meaning he has absolutely no spine and will bend to the popular opinion at any given time in an effort to win more love for his party. aside from that, i really don't understand how iraq had nothing to do with terrorism when they FUNDED TERRORISM.

 

[Lapis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy we had eight years of bill clinton before that, and the man who was in white house before him did go to iraq, he just didn't finish what he started. clinton was familiar with terrorism. the world trade center was bombed while he was in office, and of course...we had that uss cole thing while he was in office. however, he always chose to remain idle. since you worked in politics, you should know that we can't go to war overnight anymore. it takes time to amass troops and equipment. it takes time to gather funds and to get the go ahead from congress. that morning, we did not put all the pieces together. it also takes time to gather intel on where we need to go and who we need to "take care of." colin powell is a politician, meaning he has absolutely no spine and will bend to the popular opinion at any given time in an effort to win more love for his party. aside from that, i really don't understand how iraq had nothing to do with terrorism when they FUNDED TERRORISM.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the US went into Afghanistan within a month, since my country's army is tiny and I've never worked with the army I think that launching an offensive within a month of an attack is pretty good, funding didn't seem to be a problem because congress worked to push it thru quickly.
The UN and the rest of the world stood with the US on entering Afghanistan because of the Taliban and Osama.

Now we come to Iraq in 2003
Which took men away from Afghanistan, I don't know dates but I remember the whole Tora Bora issue, that they were close to catching the mastermind of 9/11 Osama and then the troops were sent to Iraq, which means they didn't have the troop power to have 2 intensive attacks, and decided ***please remember at that time the powers that be knew that the info on WMD's was given to them by known liars and they sent Colin Powell to the UN with that information and the UN did not give it's expressed approval of the use of force in Iraq!!** to instead of keeping troops there to split them?!! To take troops and supplies from one front and send them to another?
I'm sorry but it shows a lack of thought as it comes to the person who made these decisions.


Iraq funded terrorism?? you have lost me, please explain?

If you mean the chemical weapons they used in Iran and on the Kurds in the 80's this was provided to them from the US? Which also protected them from international backlash.
Because Saddam was far from a Muslim extremist and wanted NO part of jihad or Bin Laden.
Google Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam and you'll find lots of info in the Reagan administration picking sides in the Iran/Iraq war.

 

[Shadowy Lady]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy we had eight years of bill clinton before that, and the man who was in white house before him did go to iraq, he just didn't finish what he started. clinton was familiar with terrorism. the world trade center was bombed while he was in office, and of course...we had that uss cole thing while he was in office. however, he always chose to remain idle. colin powell is a politician, meaning he has absolutely no spine and will bend to the popular opinion at any given time in an effort to win more love for his party. aside from that, i really don't understand how iraq had nothing to do with terrorism when they FUNDED TERRORISM.

Kimmy, I don't believe you are well informed when it comes to terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs. It's shown from your sentence "they Funded Terrorism". I will recommend, when you have some free time, to read a book called "All the Shah's Men". It's quite an eye opener.

US attacks Afghanistan pretty much immediately after 9/11. Why doesn't US do anything about Saudi Arabia? US and Saudi Arabia are on very frienly terms. Meanwhile Taliban and all extremist madrasas in the Middle East are directy funded by Saudi Arabia (Wahabi's to be exact). Saddam was a puppet, once he started disobeying, he was taken down.

On a final note, I know you come from a military family. But to really understand war and how damaging it is, you have to be in the middle of it as a civilian. After 19 years, I still wake up with nigthtmares of bombs falling on our house. I do not wish this on anyone. That is why I support peace and hope for a peace supporting US president.

I rest my case here...back to makeup boards

 

[MxAxC-_ATTACK]

eh.. I'm not super pleased with Either candidate , So I Just have to go with the lesser of the two evils.

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapis Correct me if I'm wrong but the US went into Afghanistan within a month, since my country's army is tiny and I've never worked with the army I think that launching an offensive within a month of an attack is pretty good, funding didn't seem to be a problem because congress worked to push it thru quickly. The UN and the rest of the world stood with the US on entering Afghanistan because of the Taliban and Osama.

re-read my post and the part of gathering intel. we went to afghanistan immediately because we knew for a fact that bin laden was responsible for the attacks and that he was, at the time, in afghanistan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapis Now we come to Iraq in 2003

the intel that linked iraq to the terrorist attacks came later than the intel linking afghanistan, hence we went to iraq later on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapis Iraq funded terrorism?? you have lost me, please explain?

i won't waste my time reposting links i have already provided.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapis Because Saddam was far from a Muslim extremist and wanted NO part of jihad or Bin Laden.

i have never equated the saddam to a muslim extremist and i never said that he was all for a jihad, because that i do not know. all i know is, he funded the terrorists that attacked my country and he has killed millions of innocent people for no reason other than his own personal hatred. i remember a guy like that from history class, they called him hitler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapis Google Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam and you'll find lots of info in the Reagan administration picking sides in the Iran/Iraq war.

things were different then. we helped iraq out during that time solely because we didn't want iran to win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowyLady Kimmy, I don't believe you are well informed when it comes to terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs. It's shown from your sentence "they Funded Terrorism". I will recommend, when you have some free time, to read a book called "All the Shah's Men". It's quite an eye opener.

i'm not as ignorant on this subject as you might think. i've had enough family and friends serve in the middle east during this war to know what's really going on. and iraq did fund terrorism. it's well documented and that's an inarguable fact. i'll believe first hand knowledge from the men and women who have been there over a book any day. i read a book one time that said "gangbanging is rarely passed on from father to son," yet i know from first hand experience that just isn't true. anyone can write a book and say any damn thing they please in it, but somebody who's been there is a much different, and more valuable resource.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowyLady US attacks Afghanistan pretty much immediately after 9/11. Why doesn't US do anything about Saudi Arabia? US and Saudi Arabia are on very frienly terms. Meanwhile Taliban and all extremist madrasas in the Middle East are directy funded by Saudi Arabia (Wahabi's to be exact). Saddam was a puppet, once he started disobeying, he was taken down.

show me documents that prove that the saudi arabian government is directly funding terrorism. aside from a lack of evidence, i can't really explain why we didn't go there...i'm not the president. if i was, things would have been done alot differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowyLady On a final note, I know you come from a military family. But to really understand war and how damaging it is, you have to be in the middle of it as a civilian. After 19 years, I still wake up with nigthtmares of bombs falling on our house. I do not wish this on anyone. That is why I support peace and hope for a peace supporting US president.

i may not have grown up in the midst of a war between countries, but i've spent my life in the middle of a war between cultures. i've seen plenty of bad, trust me. i've had nightmares. i've feard for my life in my own home. i know how damaging violence can be, but i also know that there are times when diplomacy will not work. it won't work in our street wars, and it won't help in a war where our enemy loathes our very being.

 

[Lapis]

Quote:

i have never equated the saddam to a muslim extremist and i never said that he was all for a jihad, because that i do not know. all i know is, he funded the terrorists that attacked mycountry and he has killed millions of innocent people for no reason other than his own personal hatred. i remember a guy like that from history class, they called him hitler.

Look this is my country too! It maybe my adopted country but my father, husband, of one my children and countless family members are Americans, my step brother serves in the Army as do many of my friends, getting that out of the way.

The 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001"
What info do you have that they did not?
Because the government says there was no link, no money between the 2 and I'd love to see government links from the last year that says differently


Saddam didn't help fund 9/11 he wouldn't have given a penny to a man who wanted Sharia it went against what he wanted total power, plus he may have been a murderer but he certainly lacked the for (lack of better word) "finesse" that Hitler had, to lie to an entire country and have them support him, he was more of a strong arm them into submission than make them believe what he said out of fear type.

Let me just quote what US officials/CIA reps said
Quote:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [*]Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio in January that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. Among the evidence he cited was Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Cheney didn't mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive. [*] Administration officials reported that Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him safe haven in Iraq. They left out the rest of the story, however. Bin Laden said he'd consider the offer, U.S. intelligence officials said. But according to a report later made available to the CIA, the al-Qaida leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because "if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours." [*] The administration tied Saddam to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. That network may be behind the latest violence in Iraq, which killed at least 143 people Tuesday. But U.S. officials say the evidence that Zarqawi had close operational ties to al-Qaida appears increasingly doubtful. Asked for Cheney's views on Iraq and terrorism, vice presidential spokesman Kevin Kellems referred Knight Ridder to the vice president's television interviews Tuesday. Cheney, in an interview with CNN, said Zarqawi ran an "al-Qaida-affiliated" group. He cited an intercepted letter that Zarqawi is believed to have written to al-Qaida leaders, and a White House official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said the CIA has described Zarqawi as an al-Qaida "associate." But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al-Qaida rebuffed. Linguistic analysis of the letter indicates it was written from one equal to another, not from a subordinate to a superior, suggesting that Zarqawi considered himself an independent operator and not a part of bin Laden's organization. [*] Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued. The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility. [*] The allegation that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer now is contradicted by FBI evidence that Atta was taking flight training in Florida at the time. The Iraqi, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, is now in U.S. custody and has told interrogators he never met Atta. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that there's no evidence to support the allegation. [*] Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell made much of occasional contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida, dating to the early 1990s when bin Laden was based in the Sudan. But intelligence indicates that nothing ever came of the contacts. " Were there meetings? Yes, of course there were meetings. But what resulted? Nothing," said one senior U.S. official.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Shadowy Lady]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimmy things were different then. we helped iraq out during that time solely because we didn't want iran to win. i'm not as ignorant on this subject as you might think. i've had enough family and friends serve in the middle east during this war to know what's really going on. and iraq did fund terrorism. it's well documented and that's an inarguable fact. i'll believe first hand knowledge from the men and women who have been there over a book any day. i read a book one time that said "gangbanging is rarely passed on from father to son," yet i know from first hand experience that just isn't true. anyone can write a book and say any damn thing they please in it, but somebody who's been there is a much different, and more valuable resource. show me documents that prove that the saudi arabian government is directly funding terrorism. aside from a lack of evidence, i can't really explain why we didn't go there...i'm not the president. if i was, things would have been done alot differently. i may not have grown up in the midst of a war between countries, but i've spent my life in the middle of a war between cultures. i've seen plenty of bad, trust me. i've had nightmares. i've feard for my life in my own home. i know how damaging violence can be, but i also know that there are times when diplomacy will not work. it won't work in our street wars, and it won't help in a war where our enemy loathes our very being.

Kimmy, the first sentence in this quote bugs me. So, you didn't want Iran to win hence you (by you I mean your government) supported Saddam who proceeded to kill about 1,000,000 ppl from my country of birth, a lot of them civilans. Do you actually support this masacre? How about Saddam's use of chemical weapon against his own countrymen?

Btw, I never called you ignorant. I just said you were misinformed. I can show you many documents about Saudi Arabia, but you will probably deny them the same way you denied the book I referenced. It’s a book written by gathering historic facts; I’m actually surprised you never heard of it before. It’s as good as any links I send you (or vice versa). I can deny your links and you can deny mine. It will be a never ending circle.

You’re not the president, but you will be voting in this election and your decision (plus that of millions other ppl), will determine who will take office this time around. I know I probably can’t change your mind. I was just hoping that someone here could benefit from my experience and from my knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs. I hope that in the least I achieved that and/or I was a peace advocate.

Take care

 

[Shadowy Lady]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapis Saddam didn't help fund 9/11 he wouldn't have given a penny to a man who wanted Sharia it went against what he wanted total power, plus he may have been a murderer but he certainly lacked the for (lack of better word) "finesse" that Hitler had, to lie to an entire country and have them support him, he was more of a strong arm them into submission than make them believe what he said out of fear type.

haha, you took the words out of my mouth, thank you. This paragraph sums up Saddam. I'm definitely more than happy he's dead, he was a dictator but not a religious fanatic.

 

[kimmy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapis Look this is my country too!

i never said it wasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lapis The 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001" What info do you have that they did not? Because the government says there was no link, no money between the 2 and I'd love to see government links from the last year that says differently Saddam didn't help fund 9/11 he wouldn't have given a penny to a man who wanted Sharia it went against what he wanted total power, plus he may have been a murderer but he certainly lacked the for (lack of better word) "finesse" that Hitler had, to lie to an entire country and have them support him, he was more of a strong arm them into submission than make them believe what he said out of fear type. Let me just quote what US officials/CIA reps said

he wrote checks to the families of "martyrs" for their family member's actions (ie. suicide bombings) how is that NOT funding terrorism? maybe he didn't directly fund the terrorists who planed/carried out 9/11...i'll concede that. BUT him funding any kind of terrorism against this country or her allies makes him an enemy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowy Lady haha, you took the words out of my mouth, thank you. This paragraph sums up Saddam. I'm definitely more than happy he's dead, he was a dictator but not a religious fanatic.

he wasn't a religious fanatic. i am well aware of that, which is why i equated his killing of innocent people because of his own hatred to hitler, not his religious or political agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowy Lady Kimmy, the first sentence in this quote bugs me. So, you didn't want Iran to win hence you (by you I mean your government) supported Saddam who proceeded to kill about 1,000,000 ppl from my country of birth, a lot of them civilans. Do you actually support this masacre? How about Saddam's use of chemical weapon against his own countrymen?

i do not agree with what we did in the iraq/iran war. however, i will state again that i am not the president and have no control over what he does. i don't believe that the united states government wanted saddam to do the things he did, i think the government was more worried about what iran would do if they won since they were allies with russia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowy Lady Btw, I never called you ignorant. I just said you were misinformed.

you said i wasn't well-informed.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com ig·no·rant /ˈɪgnərənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ig-ner-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man. 2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics. 3. uninformed; unaware. 4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

just sayin' this is why i took your statement for an accusation of ignorance. i don't want you to think i'm just being mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowy Lady I can show you many documents about Saudi Arabia, but you will probably deny them the same way you denied the book I referenced. It’s a book written by gathering historic facts; I’m actually surprised you never heard of it before. It’s as good as any links I send you (or vice versa). I can deny your links and you can deny mine. It will be a never ending circle.

i actually would like to see such documents. i just don't prefer to believe a book or a reporter's account of things over people i trust who have seen this stuff first hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowy Lady You’re not the president, but you will be voting in this election and your decision (plus that of millions other ppl), will determine who will take office this time around. I know I probably can’t change your mind. I was just hoping that someone here could benefit from my experience and from my knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs. I hope that in the least I achieved that and/or I was a peace advocate. Take care

i'm all for peace as long as its achievable, but i still believe that sometimes it just isn't. maybe it's just because we're from different backgrounds, and like i said we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

but when i vote, i do take into account the war...it's on the forefront of my mind at all times simply because it has such a big direct impact on me as most of my friends are military men and have either been there or will be sent there in the near future.

 

[Aprilrobin]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned, I looked but did not see it.

Obama does NOT support gay marriage, people just assume he does - slightly frightening to make such a big assumption. He said he is against it. Against.

They're both have slightly different opinions about contracts versus domestic partnerships. Both opposed a federal ban on gay marriage.

Obama says "leave it up to the state", but McCain said it was wrong of the state of California to overrule the will of the people.

Murky waters for both.