<p>whoa... haha... i totally read Justinians first post wrong. i thought he was talking about the current iraq war and finding WMDs right now. sorry about that</p>
<p>"Hussein did not found Al Qaeda" I never said that. I said that Hussein funded Al Qaeda.</p>
<pre><code>Kman1456,
I agree with you completely about finding alternative sources of energy. In a sense, America is enslaved to the Middle East with regards to oil. Unfortunately, most hybrid vehicles cost nearly $100,000 and a lack of hydrogen filling stations prohibit the use of these. Perhaps Bush needs to drill in Alaska or Mexico. Something must be done, however.
</code></pre>
<p>He can use liquefied coal out of Montana; solar cells (needs some major development with cryogenics, mid-range superconductors and silicon doping) in Arizona; wind power off of New England and the Northwest (requires cryogenics and mid-range superconductors), for stationary power. For moving power, unfortunately, the only feasible option is fuel cells. These will not be around until at least 2035. I would say the best short-term option is to increase fuel efficiency in cars (to 2015) and find new drilling areas-possibly taking oil from Mexico, Russia, or Azerbaijan.
The only good hybrid vehicle that is currently affordable (<40,000) is the Prius, and it has good, but not great mileage. The only way to increase it would be to increase battery and gas consumption effiency or to reduce the size of the already small car.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Only a fool would discredit the Iraq war.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only a fool would not realize that the Iraqi people want the Americans to pack up, go home, and leave them alone. Well, the troops weren't welcome there in the first place.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and why do WE have to go in there and remove the dictator that used poison gas against his own people? Why is it that we're not in Zimbabwe kicking Robert Mugabe out of office? He's just as repressive, and we supported him too. Why did Bush lie to us in the first place? Why did he say WMD's and connection with 9/11 when there was none of either? That puts his integrity in question.</p>
<p>That is what angers me about liberal new media. The only aspect that you see on TV is the sanguinary carnage of Irag, nothing else. You never see the pictures of women removing their veil as they go to vote, you never see pictures of young children hugging the troops, nor anything else. The news media never show that. The fanaticals in Iraq are indirectly terrorists trying to fuel panic and outcry in Iraq. The Bush Administration is trying the best that it can to make good out of the situation.</p>
<pre><code> "Oh yeah, and why do WE have to go in there and remove the dictator that used poison gas against his own people?" We still have war and terror in this world because of people like you. Liberals are especially guilty of this when saying, "Its not my problem." I believe that the ultimate goal of the US is to pervade peace and freedom throughout the world, whether that be removing a dictator from power ir dismantling a terror group. I guess we should have eliminated Mao Tse Tung. Why? He murdered roughly 45 million people during his power. Not our problem, I guess.
</code></pre>
<p>Well Justinian I, many African ethnic nations before the whole 300 years maafa thing were somewhat democratic societies. Elders were the counsels and such and the adults along with the wisdom and such of elders made decisions for the communities. They had more democracy and are closer to it now than Iraq has ever been. Also, most African nations would not be fundamentalists wanting to take over the world they'd want all...They'd not be trying to make everyone Muslim and angainst Western technological progression especially the tropical peoples. (not Sahel people; like the Yoruba, Akan and Igbo) Why does America always screw with Africa or not help? Even SE Asia needs help and where the hekk are we? The US intervened in the unification of 3 west african states in the 60's under Kwame Nkrumah and that failed as a result. It would have been democratic simply because the people developed that way; the Akan and similar groups always had democratic kingship. All you have to do is take the king and make brush a little dust off him and call him the pres... Conservatives are not progressive and don't see the prag... unless you call oil/isolationism/we-don't-want-anyone-but-Indo-Europeans-to-have-better-government-black-people-and-Asians-sukk pragmatism...but then you're going against our obligation to rise and progress as the "intelligent" species of this planet and you're wasting our air by not wanting to help the entire world community...</p>
<p>"Al quida" Justinian...hmmm...I'm doubting your credibility...it's spelled Al Qaeda... u may as well just call it Ayall Kydugh...lol i'm just playin round it's good to discuss these things though because of thesis antithesis => synthesis...I fully respect you although not your beliefs/complacency about conservativism...back it up...convince me...</p>
<p>
[quote]
the ultimate goal of the US is to pervade peace and freedom throughout the world, whether that be removing a dictator from power ir dismantling a terror group.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's NOT the ultimate goal of the US. Don't claim that it is so because as of now, we haven't put any of it in action. If Bush is going to lie to me so we can protract a war in Iraq, I don't want my tax dollars going there, EVEN IF we're feeding starving children. If I wanted to see starving children fed, I wouldn't go thru the gov't. I'd go to Safeway, buy a truckload of food, and PERSONALLY deliver it and cook it for the starving children. BTW, I DO want to see starving children fed, no question about it. But, given the amount of time I have (as I'm a junior), I CAN'T fly a truckload of food to Iraq and have a cookout in Baghdad for starving Iraqi children (but of course, if I did that, I'd probably win the Prudential Spirit of the (Global) Community Award and therefore be able to use it as a hook to get into University of Michigan).</p>
<p>Now I get it, I guess it the country has no oil, it's useless? If we make ourselves the bastion of humanitarian aid, we should be in almost every country in the world. But, we're not.</p>
<p>I think the saddest, most neglected issue is Sudan.</p>
<p>""Hussein did not found Al Qaeda" I never said that. I said that Hussein funded Al Qaeda."</p>
<p>Not true at all. Hussein had a fairly secular dictatorship (except for promotion of Sunnis), did not let them train in Iraq, and was on quite unfriendly terms with Osama bin Laden. </p>
<p>The US's greatest fear upon invading Iraq is coming true - civil war. Even if Hussein killed all those who opposed them, massacred Kurds, and held a reign of terror, how different is that from the streets of Baghdad today? Not at all. At least Hussein, with his incredibly tight rein over his country, kept the country from falling into chaos because of ethnic strife. I would argue that more people have died since the US has invaded Iraq and that more people will die in the years of civil war to come (Bush has even said himself that he sees no end for US involvement in Iraq, that troops will definitely not be able to leave by the end of his Presidency, and probably will have to stay longer) than ever died under Hussein. </p>
<p>EDIT: "furthermore, even if abortion is illegalized, women will still be getting them done, so wouldn't it be a lot safer if they were being performed correctly, in a safe environment by people who know what they're doing, instead of well..the spoke method?" </p>
<p>This is also why I believe that abortion should remain legal. Furthermore, backyard abortions used to cause the many deaths of mothers - not only of fetuses through abortions - who attempted the procedure with plastic flowers and only the aid of their own mothers or neighbors. Thousands were sent to the ER each year, hemorrhaging and bleeding, and eventually died, some were found dead in dumps in Mexico after trying to get an illegal abortion there - some were even given basically plastic tubes of HCl to stick into their womb, not really knowing what it wasy they were doing and so tettered on the brink of death for a year or so, and those who did survive were never able to have children again...</p>
<p>It is also a social justice problem. Many rich women could fly to countries in Europe to get abortions or pay their way into "therapeutic" abortions in the USA, while the poor and the young had to resort to these backyard abortions or to Mexico (where abortion is also illegal, but there is a thriving illegal abortion industry). </p>
<p>This point is emphasized by the current situation in Latin America, where abortion is nearly illegal everywhere. Yet, according to the World Health Organization, at least four million women a year have an illegal abortion in Latin America. In October 2003, an international conference was held specifically on the issue of illegal abortions, and the subsequent death and/or suffering of the woman. Maria Consuelo Mejilla, the chairwoman of the conference, said, "[Abortion] is the first to the third cause of maternal death in different countries in Latin America . It is affecting mostly poor women . Unsafe and illegal abortion in Latin America is a social justice problem. Women who have no resources die." Poverty and inadequate access to contraception and reproductive health advice, were cited as reasons for the high illegal abortion rate.</p>
<p>It is infinitely preferable to keep abortion legal, so that all abortions may be performed in sanitary facilities, by trained doctors, and under government regulation. It is infinitely preferable to preserve the life of the woman, especially when the government cannot feasibly preserve the life of the child (women who can decide to abort their child most likely will be able to go to great lengths to do it - it is not an easy decision).</p>
<p>"That's NOT the ultimate goal of the US. Don't claim that it is so because as of now, we haven't put any of it in action. If Bush is going to lie to me so we can protract a war in Iraq, I don't want my tax dollars going there, EVEN IF we're feeding starving children. If I wanted to see starving children fed, I wouldn't go thru the gov't. I'd go to Safeway, buy a truckload of food, and PERSONALLY deliver it and cook it for the starving children. BTW, I DO want to see starving children fed, no question about it. But, given the amount of time I have (as I'm a junior), I CAN'T fly a truckload of food to Iraq and have a cookout in Baghdad for starving Iraqi children (but of course, if I did that, I'd probably win the Prudential Spirit of the (Global) Community Award and therefore be able to use it as a hook to get into University of Michigan)."</p>
<pre><code> What a lame arguement. Are you saying that Bush intentionally protracted the war to watch some missles explode in down town Baghdad? Did he commence the war to manifest carnage and bloodshed for his pure enjoyment. I think not.
The US sends millions of dollars in aid to Africa each year; unfortunately, much of the aid is seized by terrorists or dictators of an African country.
"Now I get it, I guess it the country has no oil, it's useless? If we make ourselves the bastion of humanitarian aid, we should be in almost every country in the world. But, we're not."
Hmmm? I wonder why. When Bush wanted to invade Iraq, he met myriads of opposition in the process, including many of the liberals in Congress. Perhaps we wish to be the bastion of freedom in this world had we not recieved so much opposition. And why shouldn't we be the bastion of humanitarian aid and freedom?
What is the main goal of the USA? To sit back and wait for a tyrannical dictator to aim a nuclear weapon at the US?
Last question: Had Hussein possessed nuclear weapons and facilities, would he have used them against Israel and perhaps Europe?
</code></pre>
<p>
[quote]
What a lame arguement. Are you saying that Bush intentionally protracted the war to watch some missles explode in down town Baghdad? Did he commence the war to manifest carnage and bloodshed for his pure enjoyment. I think not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NONSEQUITUR!!!!!! I never said that Bush was a sadistic butthead. I said that if he wants to go to war for humanitarian reasons, then he should say so flat out loud. You get trust from the nation by being honest and upfront, not hiding facts. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The US sends millions of dollars in aid to Africa each year; unfortunately, much of the aid is seized by terrorists or dictators of an African country.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then maybe we're NOT DOING ENOUGH to help Africa. Then maybe we should have kicked those dictators out of office. They're certainly more repressive than Saddam.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is the main goal of the USA? To sit back and wait for a tyrannical dictator to aim a nuclear weapon at the US?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do we take it upon ourselves to depose tyrannical dictators? Why does Bush have to make it OUR problem? Why isn't Bush increasing financial aid for college education? We have enough problems of our own. We have college students dropping out of college, not due to lack of motivation, but DUE TO LACK OF MONEY. A study shows that with all the money we dumped on Iraq we can put 15 million kids through college AND graduate school, for free.</p>
<p>Besides that, did we have ANY proof whatsoever that Saddam had nuclear weapons aimed at us. It's not like after the cold war where Fidel Castro told Robert McNamara in 1990 that they did indeed have nuclear weapons aimed at us. (even then we acted during the Cuban Missile Crisis AFTER we have thoroughly analyzed the evidence and made a conclusion) But do we even have evidence that Saddam even HAS nuclear weapons, let alone have them aimed at us? And no, the fact that he bought plutonium from some african country isn't good enough evidence-if I were to use that logic, then would I become a murderer instantly if I buy a kitchen knife or a car? Thousands of people die due to car crashes and knifing incidents involving kitchen knives. (Plutonium is used to build bombs...cars and kitchen knives are sometimes used to murder people.). Let's not be silly here: if Bush can't show me that he actually has evidence of a BOMB BEING PHYSICALLY BUILT, OR AIMED AT US, he's not getting my support-hearsay isn't admissible (just cuz someone says so it doesn't mean it's true.).</p>
<p>Last answer: He hasn't. Let's not hypothesize. UN inspectors have found NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq whatsoever, not even facilities. These UN inspectors, BTW, know what they're doing. Most have more than 10 years of experience. Most of them have done inspections more than just a couple times. Most have education relating to those fields. Would he have? I don't know. Could he have? Absolutely. DID HE? ***** No. I guess if you use that argument, we would have to get rid of our OWN nuclear weapons and facilities. </p>
<p>Had we possessed nuclear weapons and facilities, would we have used them against Iraq and perhaps the middle east?</p>
<p>Yes, we had possessed, we do possess, and we WILL possess nuclear weapons an facilities. And we may possibly have used them agaisnt Iraq and the middle east. Could we? Yes. Would we? I don't know. Did we? ***** NO. So I think you have a weak argument by stating that Saddam COULD HAVE/WOULD HAVE (do we know he would have?) used those weapons against us or anyone else, because he didn't have the financial resources to launch missiles at random people, let alone HAD missiles to launch at people.</p>
<p>This war is protracted in the sense that there was no planning, no oversight, no evidence that the allegations for which we were going to war were true, and most importantly, NO PLAN TO GET OUT. We occupied a sovereign, independent country based upon ALLEGATIONS that the aforementioned sovereign country had nuclear weapons aimed at us and was involved in 9/11, NOT PROOF. Simple as that. We see ourselves as "liberators," but they see us as OCCUPIERS. </p>
<p>Denouement: Later, UN inspectors found NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR ANY EVIDENCE OF THEM WHATSOEVER. Later in 2004, the 9/11 Commission proved that there was ABSOLUTELY no Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Are you going to dismiss them as liars?</p>
<p>There was NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE TRUE. If there was, why does the Bush administation INSIST that they hide every piece of information about 9/11 or the Iraqi war? What are they afraid of, if they haven't lied to us? This is like sentencing a SUSPECTED murder to life in prison (and refusing to allow the suspected murder's attorney to see the evidence upon which the sentence was based, or not having any evidence), NOT A CONVICTED ONE. In this case, Iraq was the SUSPECTED MURDERER, and had no day in court. If you, or the Bush administration can't produce COLD, HARD evidence that all of those allegations were true, they'll remain false and unsubstantiated in history books forever. "If we let them be they would/could do such and such..." Oh please, did you ASK THEM? How do you know? So Bush gave me a poor excuse for getting into Iraq in the first place, a poor excuse later when his allegations were proved false, and a poor excuse why we can't fix the mess we created there.</p>
<p>"Then maybe we're NOT DOING ENOUGH to help Africa. Then maybe we should have kicked those dictators out of office. They're certainly more repressive than Saddam."</p>
<pre><code> Well, then hopefully when we wish to liberate a nation that Bush or a future president will not meet so much opposition in Congress from the democrats.
"Besides that, did we have ANY proof whatsoever that Saddam had nuclear weapons aimed at us. It's not like after the cold war where Fidel Castro told Robert McNamara in 1990 that they did indeed have nuclear weapons aimed at us."
Sure there is proof. Hussein was building a nuclear weapons facility in the 60s and early 70s. He intended to use these weapons first on Israel, then other nations in the Middle East, and perhaps the US. Thankfully, the Israeli airforce bombed the facility and destroyed it before the evil Saddam had these weapons.
Quote: He hasn't. Let's not hypothesize. UN inspectors have found NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq whatsoever, not even facilities. These UN inspectors, BTW, know what they're doing. Most have more than 10 years of experience. Most of them have done inspections more than just a couple times. Most have education
Who is to say that Saddam hearing of the UN inspectors quickly collected all of the wmds and other items and sent them on trucks to neighboring countries or in the mountains, or in underground bunkers. With speed, this is not impossible to do. The weapons inspectors, I believe, did not completely search the area. Did they search every cave in the mountains? I don't think so.
Quote: So I think you have a weak argument by stating that Saddam COULD HAVE/WOULD HAVE (do we know he would have?) used those weapons against us or anyone else, because he didn't have the financial resources to launch missiles at random people, let alone HAD missiles to launch at people.
Then you are quite naive to believe that Saddam was a peace lovving activist. Saddam hated Israel and hated the Western world. Had he the opportunity, I know that he would have used them, especially on Israel.
</code></pre>
<p>Look, whatever you're trying, you're failing. So stop imposing your opinions on us and go away. </p>
<p>Stop being an immature butthead. You're not going to persuade anyone to become conservative, and/or change their mind about how the Iraqi war was a total mess.</p>
<p>the Iraqi war was a mess? First of all, the war is still going on, and second, Bush never knew that hundreds of thousands of insurgents would still remain there after the capture of Saddam. If there were no insurgents, as planned, then of course we would be out of Iraq by now.</p>
<p>"Stop being an immature butthead. You're not going to persuade anyone to become conservative, and/or change their mind about how the Iraqi war was a total mess.</p>
<pre><code>I guess calling me a butthead is the only arguement that you have left on account of that your faulty rhetoric is ineffectual. Good day!
</code></pre>
<p>I wasn't arguing with you. Period.</p>
<p>Rhetoric means nothing. It's just bull***** with a nice name.</p>
<p>"I wasn't arguing with you. Period" </p>
<pre><code>Huh? Where have you been the past few posts?
</code></pre>
<p>Your attempt to assert intellectual superiority of conservatives over liberals is truly pathetic. Go away and stay on the conservatives thread, because whatever you're trying, you're failing.</p>
<p>maybe Justinian (what kind of name is that) was trying to insult me?
Hmm, well you didn't "own" anyone by calling me a 'butthead,' infact that was such a stupid insult . . . could you not come up with anything better?</p>
<p>And I wasn't necessarily "going to persuade anyone to become conservative."</p>
<p>And since you have no point about the Iraq war (you only called me a "butthead"), I still regard your posts as lacking a meaning.</p>
<p>"Good day!"</p>
<p>I wasn't addressing you when I called Justinian a butthead.</p>