Why not kill al-Zarqawi when we had the chance?

[Voronwë]

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

so we had 3 chances to kill Zarqawi, and didnt take any of them because it would hurt the war propaganda.

discuss.

[noel]

Discussion: The current administration have their own agenda that only sometimes corresponds to the agenda of the American people. Spinning said agenda is a lot of work.

[Akaran_D]

Bush wanted Iraq for reasons known only to him and Rumsfield.
While I do not miss Sadam and I believe that *eventually* we will get our heads out of our asses, I think we have missed OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of oppertunities to kick some hardcore ass.

That said, I do expect the capture of osoma or someone of equivilent stature by the election.

[miir]

I can't see anyone being surprised or shocked by this info.

Bush was just too busy making Iraq public enemy number 1 to be concerned about real terrorists.

[Winnow]

I can't see anyone being surprised or shocked by this info.

Bush was just too busy making Iraq public enemy number 1 to be concerned about real terrorists.

So do you think peace loving kerry would have taken him out?

[Cartalas]

I can't see anyone being surprised or shocked by this info.

Bush was just too busy making Iraq public enemy number 1 to be concerned about real terrorists.

So were the Democrats!

[miir]

So where the Democrats!

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Is english even your first language?

[Voronwë]

excellent argument winnow!

it doestn matter what persons who were not the commander in chief would do with the commander in chief's responsibilities.

for example, it does not matter to the shareholders of IBM what I would do differently than the CEO is doing. The CEO will still have to answer to the board and the shareholders. He is *accountable* to them.

but to answer your question, Kerry would not have manufactured a false pretense for an strategically dubious war, then supply the military with half the personnel that they wanted, then when the military over the course of A YEAR continually says they need more people to run the occupation..when senators say we need more people to run the occupation, i'm pretty sure Kerry wouldn't insist on keeping a limited number of troops there. A number too small to perform the strategic interests of the US.

This war effort subserves 2 agendas: 1. Bush's reelection campaign and 2. Rumsfeld's desire to transform the military into a smaller more technologically dependent body. If Bush was scared of being reelected so didnt want to commit the necessary 300,000 troops for 3-5 years, he should have waited until 2005 to start this war of choice. Instead he has absolutely managed it in a completely hamfisted manner. At every single crossroad that the executive branch has had a say in the mattter, we have taken the wrong choice. Against the advice of our own military. Against the advice of our government's experts on the middle east and on terrorism.

Cartalas, "The Democrats" had no say in this matter. The information flowed from the DoD to the White House, where action was halted. this is the domain of the executive branch, legislature has no say in the matter.

[Cartalas]

So where the Democrats!

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Is english even your first language?

Is it yours? Dumb ass!!

Its real simple let me spell it out for you!!


Mirr says " Bush was just too busy making Iraq public enemy number 1 to be concerned about real terrorists."


And I said "So were the Democrats"

[Cartalas]

excellent argument winnow!

it doestn matter what persons who were not the commander in chief would do with the commander in chief's responsibilities.

for example, it does not matter to the shareholders of IBM what I would do differently than the CEO is doing.

Cartalas, "The Democrats" had no say in this matter. The information flowed from the DoD to the White House, where action was halted. this is the domain of the executive branch, legislature has no say in the matter.

so you are saying that Peace loving John Kerry and his fellow dove fuckers never expressed intrest in going into Iraq?

[Toshira]

I think he meant "were"...trollspeak is difficult though, I could be wrong.

[Winnow]

excellent argument winnow!

it doestn matter what persons who were not the commander in chief would do with the commander in chief's responsibilities.

agreed it didn't matter then, but it matters when pondering our future. Point out past breakdowns must be combined with considering what our possible new president would do in a similar situation.

Kerry may or may not have kept us out of Iraq but that doesn't mean he'd have taken out Zarqawi instead. It may have boosted the confidence of the evil doers and increased terror attacks.

edit: serious typos

[Cartalas]

So I added a H big deal he understands.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

People around the world, just like on this board, spent all their energy trying to make the Bush Administration look like war mongers, trying to put the war off until every body and their grandmother said "we support you".

It is but another example of how the populace shouldn't be privy to too much information and allowed to sway the important decisions countries need to make that the populace has no fucking basis to even conjecture.

Why isn't their a big contingent trying to sway the way surgeons do procedures? Because they don't know jack about medicine. People don't know shit about politics, real world governmental decisions, the pro and cons to all of them, etc....but for some reason they think they do.

[miir]

so you are saying that Peace loving John Kerry and his fellow dove fuckers never expressed intrest in going into Iraq?

If Kerry had been running against Bush...
If Kerry (like Dole) had defeated Bush...
If Kerry had been elected into the White House...

I really doubt Kerry would have expended so much time, effort and money into convincing the gulliable American public that invading and occupying Iraq was a good idea.

Irrespective of that, your not really addressing any of the questions or points being made here.

[miir]

Its real simple let me spell it out for you!!

How ironic

[Cartalas]

so you are saying that Peace loving John Kerry and his fellow dove fuckers never expressed intrest in going into Iraq?

If Kerry had been running against Bush...
If Kerry (like Dole) had defeated Bush...
If Kerry had been elected into the White House...

I really doubt Kerry would have expended so much time, effort and money into convincing the gulliable American public that invading and occupying Iraq was a good idea.

Irrespective of that, your not really addressing any of the questions or points being made here.

Maybe not, but Im just pointing out that you seem to point fingers at Bush to much. When I know for a fact Capt. Dove Bar supported the invasion of Iraq as well as many democrats.

[Voronwë]

a lot of people supported the war based on the false propaganda that the administration distributed. which this article directly speaks to.


you 3 for instance

[Winnow]

so in other words you concede my point?

WTF, you snuck in a bunch of text with your edit! : ) Reading it now.

And now that quote's gone too! : )

[noel]

People around the world, just like on this board, spent all their energy trying to make the Bush Administration look like war mongers, trying to put the war off until every body and their grandmother said "we support you".

Everybody and their grandmother never said, "We support you." At the most they said, "You're going to invade Iraq no matter what we say, so we support our troops."

Do you see the difference?

It is but another example of how the populace shouldn't be privy to too much information and allowed to sway the important decisions countries need to make that the populace has no fucking basis to even conjecture.

Wow, I think I just learned to speak Midnyte... ><
I've got news for you Mid, the populace needs all the information we can get. It's pretty clear that the administration lied to us about WMD in Iraq, which begs the question, "What else have they lied to us about?" Kyoukan's made the joke before, but I have yet to see anyone show us the secret underground Iraqi war lair. The war in Iraq is a sham, and I feel sorry for the troops who have been sent over there. Maybe you've forgotten how the original point of invading Iraq was WMD... no wait Iraq supporting terrorists... no wait freeing the Iraqi people... Do you see my point? The administration couldn't even decide why the fuck we were there.

Why isn't their a big contingent trying to sway the way surgeons do procedures? Because they don't know jack about medicine. People don't know shit about politics, real world governmental decisions, the pro and cons to all of them, etc....but for some reason they think they do.

Actually, people do challenge the way surgeons do procedures. It's called a 'malpractice suit'. The difference is, even though there are far more surgeons, the vast majority of them are qualified to do their job and competent. It's questionable if our current President/Administration is either.

[miir]

People around the world, just like on this board, spent all their energy trying to make the Bush Administration look like war mongers, trying to put the war off until every body and their grandmother said "we support you".

It takes zero energy or effort to make the Bush administration look like warmongers. Rumsfeld is a notorious warmonger.
Your government was scrambling for a year trying to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They shifted focus so many times to garner public and international support. When it sunk in that world leaders weren't going to be fooled by your simpleton of a president, they settled on using 'LCD' propaganda... ie: Saddam is an evil man and needs to be deposed. Nobody could argue that Saddam wasn't an asshole, so viola! They had the justification to spend billions and billions of dollars to fight the enemy they had been fabricating for the past 12+ months.

It is but another example of how the populace shouldn't be privy to too much information and allowed to sway the important decisions countries need to make that the populace has no fucking basis to even conjecture.

Yeah, keep your constituency ignorant.
Convince them that you know better than them.
The common folk should not be concerned about matters of foreign policy and world affairs.

Are you fucking serious?
We aren't living in the dark ages.

Why isn't their a big contingent trying to sway the way surgeons do procedures? Because they don't know jack about medicine.

Surgeons are required by law to be accountable.
They are responsible for the lives of their patients.
If they are irresponsible they can be sued for malpractice.

Should we be able to sure our governments for malpractice?

People don't know shit about politics, real world governmental decisions, the pro and cons to all of them, etc....but for some reason they think they do.

Knowing it is half the battle.

[Cartalas]

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"Miir is a cock goobling pig fucker" - Cartalas (R-MN),May 18,2004
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chem! ical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

[Winnow]

but to answer your question, Kerry would not have manufactured a false pretense for an strategically dubious war, then supply the military with half the personnel that they wanted, then when the military over the course of A YEAR continually says they need more people to run the occupation..when senators say we need more people to run the occupation, i'm pretty sure Kerry wouldn't insist on keeping a limited number of troops there. A number too small to perform the strategic interests of the US.

This war effort subserves 2 agendas: 1. Bush's reelection campaign and 2. Rumsfeld's desire to transform the military into a smaller more technologically dependent body. If Bush was scared of being reelected so didnt want to commit the necessary 300,000 troops for 3-5 years, he should have waited until 2005 to start this war of choice. Instead he has absolutely managed it in a completely hamfisted manner. At every single crossroad that the executive branch has had a say in the mattter, we have taken the wrong choice. Against the advice of our own military. Against the advice of our government's experts on the middle east and on terrorism.

This has nothing to do with the topic. We were discussing whether Kerry would have taken out Zarqawi regardless of the war. The terror threat was independant of the war unless you think it wouldn't have happened if we didn't invade Iraq. To my knowledge, these terrorists had an agenda to attack us whether we were in Iraq or not.

[Toshira]

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

so we had 3 chances to kill Zarqawi, and didnt take any of them because it would hurt the war propaganda.

discuss.

First, I count two "chances" not three. The President's plan? No, Wolfiwitz's plan. I don't know if I would call Powell's efforts at the U.N. propoganda - I'm thinking history will view this as an excellent example of the U.N. functioning very well. The U.S. brought it's case for war and could not get support for it. We had no smoking gun, Blix couldn't find any evidence of WMD, most of the security council didn't think we had a leg to stand on, and when it came time to vote, we got our asses kicked.

The U.S. chose to go off on it's own (and now cries for mommy U.N. to help restore order, because we can't).

This guy is a fuck, anyway. Look at his language. "[P]eople were more obsessed", "execute the [P]resident's policy" - obsess bad! follow orders, good! He's not ticked off at the plan to take Iraq, he's bitching because we spent time trying to gather international support. I'd like to see if he has any quotes anywhere dating before the war in Iraq where he is cited as saying "no, no, we need to be taking out this guy instead!"

Midnyte, I can explain to you why your analogy is painfully suck, but in order to dumb myself down that much, I charge $200/hour.

[miir]

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say, Cartalas.

Other than the fact that politicians can only base their opinions on what information is available to them. Bush went on national TV and said that they had found evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass distruction... that he was confident that they will find weapons of mass distruction.... that Saddam is actively persuing a nuclear weapons program.

When the president of the most powerful country on earth goes on record making such assertions, it would make sense to believe that there is some semblance of truth in the statements.

Little did any of us know that he was just blowing smoke up our asses.

[Ashur]

"Miir is a cock goobling pig fucker" - Cartalas (R-MN),May 18,2004

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say, Cartalas.

Reading comprehension problem, Miir? I think it's clear (for once) what he's trying to say.

[Akaran_D]

Miir, Bush is a politican too. Like you said:

Other than the fact that politicians can only base their opinions on what information is available to them.

If I had info that I beleived was completely reliable that stated - in no uncertain terms - that "Charles R. Nation the Third has chemical and nuclear weapon platforms available at his command to launch devestating attacks that would kill millions of individuals and Charles R. Nation had been proven in the past to be a unpredictable sociopath" and if I had a method at my disposal to ensure that he would not have the oppertunity to use them.. I would. I beleive you would too.

I just wish he would OWN UP TO IT when he's wrong.
And for the love of all, I wish he would quit backing up Rumsfield.

[Cartalas]

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say, Cartalas.

Other than the fact that politicians can only base their opinions on what information is available to them. Bush went on national TV and said that they had found evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass distruction... that he was confident that they will find weapons of mass distruction.... that Saddam is actively persuing a nuclear weapons program.

When the president of the most powerful country on earth goes on record making such assertions, it would make sense to believe that there is some semblance of truth in the statements.

Little did any of us know that he was just blowing smoke up our asses.

I thought you might come back with that response so I saved these take a look at the dates.


Remember Bush was sworn in on Jan 20,2001

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the Greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton N ational Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998


Saddam Hussein has been engage! d in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999



There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a lic! it missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

[Cartalas]

"Miir is a cock goobling pig fucker" - Cartalas (R-MN),May 18,2004

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say, Cartalas.

Reading comprehension problem, Miir? I think it's clear (for once) what he's trying to say.

Kinda snuck that one in

[miir]

Good points....
You're actually capable of rational thought when you're not too busy being a retard.

What does that say about the Clinton administration that they didn't act on their claims by invading and occupying Iraq?

Regardless, the previous governments are not the ones in question here... and I don't think anyone can claim that any previous administrations made no mistakes. However, the sheer volume and magnitude of the mastakes made by Bush far surpass those of Clinton. You can't justify the mistakes of one administration by pointing out the mistakes of another.

[Cartalas]

Good points....
You're actually capable of rational thought when you're not too busy being a retard.

What does that say about the Clinton administration that they didn't act on their claims by invading and occupying Iraq?

Regardless, the previous governments are not the ones in question here... and I don't think anyone can claim that any previous administrations made no mistakes. However, the sheer volume and magnitude of the mastakes made by Bush far surpass those of Clinton. You can't justify the mistakes of one administration by pointing out the mistakes of another.

"You can't justify the mistakes of one administration by pointing out the mistakes of another"


I agree but just sit back and think, maybe this whole plan was set in motion a long time ago. Clinton had 8 years to fix Bush Sr's fuck up by not going after Saddam in the first place. Clinton chose to ignore the problem for 8 years and now Bush jr. has chose to finish what should of been finished decades ago.

[Akaran_D]

I never trusted the Clinton admin, and I hated some of the policies they put into play. One more issue with them doesn't change my opinion of that worthless bunch.

[Arilain]

So how would you have all responded to Iraq if you lead the country?



Arilain

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Cart...thank you for posting those quotes. It's an excellent example of how full of shit most politicians are.

Miir, seriously dude, grow the fuck up. Those quotes didn't come from the supposed bad info and lies. And they haven't switched because they think they were lied to either. They have switched because they think it is much more politically viable to do so.

Toshira, that analogy was the best I could do atm. You get the jist of what I was getting at.

[Cartalas]

So how would you have all responded to Iraq if you lead the country?



Arilain

I would of taken Aranuil,VMan and myself and challanged Saddam,Uday,and Pusya to a 6 man cage match. winner take all.

[Winnow]

Cartalas is the quote mastaah!

[miir]

Clinton had 8 years to fix Bush Sr's fuck up by not going after Saddam in the first place. Clinton chose to ignore the problem for 8 years and now Bush jr. has chose to finish what should of been finished decades ago

In hindsight, it seems the UN imposed sanctions were actually doing the intended job of keeping Saddam in check.

Accusing Clinton of 'ignoring' the problem 8 years is just ignorant.
It's possible that the Clinton administration while being concerned about Saddam never really considered him an immediate threat.

[Arborealus]

So how would you have all responded to Iraq if you lead the country?

Respond to Iraq?...Iraq was pretty quite largely at the time...The whole Iraq thing was not a response as such...Or more to the point it was a response wholly out of proportion...

The majority of Americans equated and still equate the attack on Iraq with the War on Terrorism...Which of course it has tangental relation to, at best.

[Akaran_D]

Well, number 1, I probably wouldn't have gone after Iraq until I was sure Afghanastan was back online and under some sort of controll. Right now, it isn't; the news is doing a great job of ignoring that country too and it's going to come up and bite us in the ass in a few years or less.

If - for whatever reason - I had reliable intell that said that Iraq was going to be a major problem in the next (insert short ammount of time here), I would have sent our armed forces in to it. I wouldn't have given as much warning about it - Iraq had MONTHS to hide the things we were going after - and I wouldn't have given them as many chances as we had.

I would have made sure that we had someone on the inside (or someones) that would be able to take over as soon as the existing political infastructure was disposed of. I would have allowed contracts to be assigned to american companies to do the rebuilding before the attack even began instead of a wait period. I would have also made sure that the hospitals would be the first repairs, followed by oil. From there, every major oil well in the country would have been turned into armred fortresses for all intents and purposes, with similar being setup for oil piplines. I would have also made sure that the oil production of the coutnry would have resumed within weeks - not months - as the second top priority.

I would not have hesitated to tell the UN that we were going to need help with the populace - weather they supported the war or not. Red Cross and the WHO should have been the second wave of personell in; securing a city is one thing, shoring up its infastructure is another.

An immedate curfue would have been posted in any territory that we entered. I would have met the riots and ransacking with the same force that met the Iraqi army; quick, blunt, permament. Anyone caught with weapons would have them confiscated with no chance of being returned / have them destroyed infront of their faces.

All borders would be closed. Noone in, noone out UNLESS they had photo ID and some sort of tracking number (like a passport type system that would be accessed via a wireless card reader attached to a wireless network controlled by the army.. to ID, say, redcross workers and others) to verify them. Anyone attempting to cross the border would be met by leathal force.. set up a mile radius no-man's-land inside the border that would serve as a killzone for any patrolls.

Above all else, I'd remove Rumsfield and put Powel in his position. I'd also make sure our troops knew what the bloody geneava principles were before they even THOUGHT about being placed in charge of a countries prison system.

I know I'm forgetting a lot, but that's a good start.

[Truant]

It is but another example of how the populace shouldn't be privy to too much information and allowed to sway the important decisions countries need to make that the populace has no fucking basis to even conjecture.

Wow...that pretty much goes against everything our government was created for.

[Dregor Thule]

You guys brained my damage. WTG!

[Arborealus]

It is but another example of how the populace shouldn't be privy to too much information and allowed to sway the important decisions countries need to make that the populace has no fucking basis to even conjecture.

Wow...that pretty much goes against everything our government was created for.

Hush he knows what the founding fathers intended!...

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It is but another example of how the populace shouldn't be privy to too much information and allowed to sway the important decisions countries need to make that the populace has no fucking basis to even conjecture.

Wow...that pretty much goes against everything our government was created for.

Oh really? hmmm

Maybe you forgot about the whole "elect someone to represent us" thing. Their job is to handle that shit. Our job, is whatever it is, IT, garbage man, teacher, etc. Let them do their fuckign job. If you don't like how they did it, then don't re-elect them.

I am well aware of the principles this country was founded on. Take a look in the mirror wise guy.

[Truant]

It is but another example of how the populace shouldn't be privy to too much information and allowed to sway the important decisions countries need to make that the populace has no fucking basis to even conjecture.

Wow...that pretty much goes against everything our government was created for.

Oh really? hmmm

Maybe you forgot about the whole "elect someone to represent us" thing. Their job is to handle that shit. Our job, is whatever it is, IT, garbage man, teacher, etc. Let them do their fuckign job. If you don't like how they did it, then don't re-elect them.

I am well aware of the principles this country was founded on. Take a look in the mirror wise guy.

I went and looked in the mirror, I need a shave...but it's my day off, so I said fuck it.

I want to point you to two things you say, which contradict one another.

1. Elect someone to represent us.

This is fine and dandy standalone. We have a democratic republic here, and your statement is correct. We elect someone who is to represent us as a voice in the government.

2. It is but another example of how the populace shouldn't be privy(sic) to too much information and allowed to sway the important decisions countries need to make...etc, etc.

This statement says that we should have no say in the important decisions of our country. So then, you say we elect people, not to represent us, but to keep us in the dark and make decisions for us.

There are several problems with that.

First, it's what the whole revolution was about. Getting away from a government in which the people had no representation, and therefor no say in the important decisions.

Second, should elected officials act as you say, we get into a whole new possibility of corruption. When does said official feel the power of their position and begin to act in their own interests, instead of the country's.

Third, if we should have no say in the important decisions of our country. Why doesn't the government just take care of the elections for us. We shouldn't vote, we don't know what it takes to run the country, so we should have no say!

[Arilain]

The American revolution had more to do with money than the average nobody wanting a say in the government. Personally I think the way we do elections in this country is fucked up. Too many people that do not contribute to our society have a say as to who runs the country. I just think thats wrong. The government is wise to hold some info back cause if you all knew whats going on outside our borders and within you would be very scared.

Arilain

[kyoukan]

Personally I think the way we do elections in this country is fucked up. Too many people that do not contribute to our society have a say as to who runs the country.

haha I think you paraphrased pol pot almost perfectly.

[Arilain]

Pol Pot views are tame compared to mine. What we need in this country is a complete overhaul of the way we doing business as a government. I laugh at the people that believe that either the Republican or Democratic party can fix things. The problem is too deep and both sides are majorly corrupted.


Arilain

[kyoukan]

so the only solution is worse a military dictatorship that murdered hundreds of thousands of people?

[Arilain]

Nah. There is no reason to kill millions of people nor is there a reason to have a military dictatorship. What is needed is a complete overhaul of the existing government and the political process in the US. Ever played that game where one person said something and the next whispered to the next on down the line and the original saying was completely different? Imagine how the information is passed through the chain of command in the present government. We do not need half of the agencies that we do have. For example...why do we have a border patrol agency? The same job can be done by the military or by local police. Why do we contract out services domesticly when we pay people welfare, and unemployment, that could do the jobs we pay others to do. The answer is pretty simple and out there. It's all about votes and money. "Need a Job? I'll create one." or "Vote for me cause the other guy will take your benefits away." One day in my utopian vision of the US people will see past the propaganda and actually take a hard look at the facts of whats happened in the past 60 years. Hopefully after seeing that they might actually do something about it other than blindly hate.

Arilain