Anyone wanna take a shot at what that is? Oh yeah, those are two TEENAGERS (<18) being executed in Iran for having gay sex. I may be a conservative Christian, but this is wrong in every way possible. If anyone has any thoughts on why Ahmadinejad is NOT the next Hitler, I'd love to hear them (he wants to iradicate Jews too; sound familiar?). This is the same country that Democrats swear they will try and impeach Bush for if he invades it.
Slam dunk Nancy Pelosi, slam dunk.
And then there's the whole invading Iraqi waters to attack and hold hostage 15 British soldiers and illegally parade them around on TV. There's that too.
9 comments:
I think the issue is, and should be, more about the checks and balances system than about whether or not deposing Ahmadinejad is the right thing to do; of course anyone who sees this type of thing will sing a resounding "YES!" This kind of problem is not exclusive to Iran, though, and so I do think it's wrong to start using it as justification when the real reason for invading is that they refuse to not arm themselves with nuclear weapons. I think that's a pretty good reason on its own.
With the British soldier incident, it's only going to make it easier for Bush to legitimately commit us to an invasion of Iran. I'm not saying that's inherently a bad thing, but I don't want to see another Iraq (the use of fabricated reasons that will come to light once we're knee-deep in dead Persians). That has always been my issue with the Bush administration's handling of post-9/11--not the targets they chose for the "war on terror" or even the escalation, but simply that they never took the time to just do it legitimately. I don't see why he'd want to cross a Democratic Senate when very soon, judging by Iran's actions to this point, it won't be necessary.
If we knew what we know now before Hitler's plans were in full swing, of course it would be a great idea to go in and take him out. Any real attempt at mass genocide would be noticed immediately in today's world, though, and I don't think it's in anybody's best interest to start a third war and further the rift between the two major parties when a bit of patience will get us to the same place without the bad blood.
Cheers,
Mike
This was all started because of the cold war and trying to contain communism, now that we started trying to stop countries being communistic and turning into anarchy, we have to go into any country that threatens to turn communistic or arm itself with a nuclear weapon. This sucks because what if rest of the world starts to lean this way, are we going to invade the entire world? I certainly don't agree with killing gays, no moral person would...but just because people are persecuted...in extreme ways sometimes like this situation, we can't always just go in guns blazing. Its not as simple as people are getting killed here, we must go in; if we did that, we would be invading every country.
This is exactly the kind of thing the liberals LOVE to ignore. If two gays got lynched in Texas, they'd be all over it. But, because it's in Iran, we should just respect their culture. It's because liberals hate America. Period.
The problem is, Mike, as much as it sucks, attempts at genocide DO go unnoticed. If we have no way to see what's going on, how will we know?
When we got into Iraq we found hundreds of thousands of dead Curds. We did not know that was going on in the least, but it was certainly right that we stopped it.
I do think that them having nuclear weapons is a reason to invade. I am not sure if you were saying that you agree or not, but in all honesty, I think that is a valid reason. Yes, it's true that we have nuclear weapons, but we don't threaten to wipe out countries with them. It's widely known that Iran wants to wipe out Israel just because they exist. Not only that, they want to wipe us out just because we exist. Heck, we're not even threatening to use them on Iran in self defense.
Not only that, but Iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction. We found tons and tons of biological and chemical weapons tested on the curds. So it wasn't fabricated.
The current state of affairs in Iraq is very very exaggerated by the news. We're doing extremely good over there, but that just doesn't make for a good story.
April 11, 2007 3:32 AM
I'm not even going to touch the reason of invasion, I'll just go straight to the point of us being there. A doctor, Dr. Juan Cole just visited my university and spoke about the current situation in Iraq. According to him (you go find him yourself on the internet if you want a source), we supported one group over the other (I don't remember the name, it was something strange), but while supporting this group, we inadvertantly did not support the Sunni Arabs. We wanted to set up a constitution for another government where some of the people were so mad that we were there intervening in their affairs supporting the group they dislike, that they just didn't vote on anything because they were so pissed, so their voice wasn't heard in the draft of their constitution, so it was basically thrown out. They need a constitution that represents all of their people to stop the fighting.
Since then, what progress has been made? Americans are dying, Iraqis (in all shapes and sizes) are dying, they are finding 15-20 people a day murdered because of politcal conflict, which is up from the last statistic in 2003. So, more people are dying, and nothing is being done, LETS FUND THIS PROJECT MORE.
In Dr. Cole's presentation, he brought up immediately before the Q and A session the argument that "if we don't fight it there, we will fight it here," when in reality, its a CIVIL war, a war between the people of the country, if there are no WOMD, then there is no immediate threat (besides the power of oil-one of the main reasons we are still there but I'm still trying to skip initial reasons). And, the longer we are there, the more people we piss off. Another statistic was done in August of 2003 and 2006. In August 2003, 14% of Iraqis want to fight American troops, thats not too bad right-I mean we have the support of 86% of the population (thumbs way up)! In August 2006, 70% of Iraqis want to fight American troops (correct me if I'm wrong, but did that number go up? OMFGWTFBBQ?!?!?!?). So most likely, the longer we stay, we can eventually get up to the 100% mark, any takers on when? I say August of 2008, any other bets?
The point is (Dr. Cole's-whom I support), the longer we stay, the better chance of Iraqis coming together to fight Americans, which is good for their individual country, but bad for ours. We can leave now, and let them fight their civil war and hopefully they see that it is getting nowhere so they eventually compromise under their OWN terms, not ours, or we stay and nothing gets solved and more Americans die, its up to Bush and the next president.
Actually, your "doctor" skewed the facts. The Sunnis BOYCOTTED the election, and therefore none of their people got voted into power.
And actually, the argument's just as coherent if you replace the conclusion with "they'll get fed up of their people killing each other and work towards unity once the inciteful groups prodding the violence along (al-Qadea) are gone.
"We wanted to set up a constitution for another government where some of the people were so mad that we were there intervening in their affairs supporting the group they dislike, that they just didn't vote on anything because they were so pissed, so their voice wasn't heard in the draft of their constitution"-that says they boycotted, so how did he "skew the facts." Obviously if they don't vote, their people won't get VOTED into power.
You're just proving yourself here, because you can't even remember the name of the Shi'ites. The fact that you said this and acted like it was such underground information when it's OLD NEWS is ridiculous. The Sunnis were murdering the Shi'ites and the Curds. The only sane group over there is the Curds. The Shi'ites idea of a government is "hey, let's get back at them for what they did to us. I don't see how that's our fault.
This, however, is not an excuse to let MORE people die. They will kill even more if we're not there. IGNORING PROBLEMS DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY.
Post a Comment