user created polls & quizzes      

We want your opinion!
Please vote on the ballot you see below.
No registration required.

would you : political :
[+] serious ballot by Corrupt

It seems to me that liberals around the world have a collective orgasm everytime a carbomb goes off in Iraq.They sit around the T.V cheering for Iraq to pluge into chaos because they see Iraq as Bush's war and not America's.However I wonder how many of you would admit that Bush's plan worked if Iraq became a successful democracy?Would you loud mouths, who speak your minds so freely on the streets of America, be willing to acknowledge how right Bush was and how wrong you were?I pose this same question to right-wig opponets of the war.People like Michael Savage who say that Bush is not fighting hard enough in Iraq.

Yes,I will be a man and admit that Bush's plan worked
No,Iraq was and always will be an Illegal war
Register to submit choices

Ballot #76639 : SEE RESULTS

Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?


Welcome, You landed on! Please Vote on the ballot on the left!

corrupt rather.

entered by : mobsie666
Submitted on : Jul 04,2005 5:32:51 pm

the question was a good one. the rant after was not. iraq will never be a recognised democracy. the baathists and sunnis will make sure of that. The war was lost the moment We stepped foot in iraq illegally. Note to corruption i said we. and im not a liberal or a republican. so dont assume world politics are the same as yours. their not.

corrupt rather.
Ironic name for a republican is corrupt.
^Typical hatred, but I won't adress it. The truth is this is one of the most monumental wars of our time, IMO. This war will likely shape the outcome of the mid-east and have worldwide impact for many many many many many years. I am 50/50 as of now, I neither support or oppose it. If you pushed me off the fence, I'd probably fall against it, but its a question of what you would rather have: A more unstable mideast now in exchange for a less unstable 1 in the future or a constantly unstable mideast. I'd take the former. Face it, Bin Laden declared war on America, America did not declare war on him. Will Bush's strategy of striking back and then beating down the opponent's friends work I think so, but only time will tell.
Now, to answer your question, I sadly believe that many opponents would still make up the same old generic excuses : "The war was illegal" - bullshit, the US can do what it wants when it wants to serve its and its allies' interests, the UN is irrelevant. "So many US soldiers died"- agreed, that is aweful, even though the soldiers knew that battle and death were possible when signing up for the army. 80,000 Americans died in 1 battle in WW2, so this alone is not an option to accept/reject the war becdase the total dead in this war will not even come close to that, and thats just 1 battle. "They just wanted oil" - interesting, they also went there under Bush's dad in Gulf 1 and left without taking it. Also, its much cheaper to trade for oil than to spend 250 mil. a day and "steal" it. Shall I continue?
Who's labeling who now?I'm not a republican, I consider my self a libertarian.But that's neither here nor there;why don't you answer the question?

Wow, yet again someone managed to say Iraq and Bin laden in the same sentence, I cannot believe people still link these totally separate issues.
And, of course, if it turns out good, most of the world will have enjoyed their free-ridership, again. Thank you to Britain, Australia, and Japan, the only decent allies willing to step up in a time of conflict, whether they are doing the right thing or making a mistake. They play the games while most others call the talk radio show the next day to second guess them.
Steel, I saw that one coming. I did not mean a direct link. However, would you agree that Iraq is a terrorist hotspot? The connection is as terrorists, not as direct friends. I apologize if I confused you. :-)
Another excuse will be "Iraq had no WMD's" - It appears as if that is true, although nobody will ever really know for sure. The administration did a bad job of making a case for this war, I won't argue that. However, anybody out there really think it was abotu WMD's? Give me a brake. It seems to be about spreading democracy , which the Bush administration has been very successful at influencing, and I'm not even a huge Bush fan. Look at the democratic shifts in Eastern Europe and the mid-east. The Bush administration has been a catalyst in most, if not all, of them.
If Iraq became a successful PEACEFUL democracy I would have to say I stand corrected. But at this point the only sure thing is all the unessesary civilian deaths are horrible and when the US & UK leave and stop supporting the Iraq government (like they did with Saddam when he was put into power) it will be civil war.
by ABC [+]

I think you've got most anti-war advocates wrong on one front. We don't want Iraq in chaos. We want Iraq capable of taking care of itself, so we don't have to be there anymore. We would've liked to have been told the truth for us going in in the first place as well.
(I hope that if Americans had all known the truth then they'd've still wanted to go to war. Actually looking around it seems most of us love a bloody war! :) It's a good thing we don't mind shooting in the dark.)
by Jyl [+]

Yes. However, my reading on the odds of achieving "victory" in terms of a "successful democracy" are that it would be roughly equivalent to winning the Powerball Lottery three times in a row.

Anyhow, what would a "successful democracy" look like? Would it get to elect its president by popular vote? Or would some system exist through which the votes of the majority didn't count? Or what?

"Victory?" Another tough commodity to define.

I think I can safely bet that there will be no ultimate "victory" in Iraq and certainly no "successful democracy."

If you think differently there's someone out there trying to sell you beach front property in Arizona.

it might last as long as any of the other puppet governments they've put in power and propped up.

remember the shah of iran...they do.

Ever seen the film "Rambo III", where the idiot Stallone allegedly joins forces with the Mujahideen to rid Afghanistan of the Evil Soviets?

The end credits praise the "Brave and Resourceful Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan", which at the time included a certain Mr Bin Laden.

But hey, that's back when the US was still up the Taliban's arse.

In answer to the ballot question: No. That does not excuse the US government riding roughshod over international law and launching an invasion of a sovereign state on a whole number of shoddy pretexts.

Okay, the Taliban and Mujahideen are two distinctly different groups, yes, some of the people were the same, but also realize that when the Taliban, whose leadership for the most part was NOT Afghani by birth, came to Afghanistan, they killed many of the Mujahideen leadership to take control of the war torn country. This, folks, is called history, study it, don't assume things.
Fair point corrupt. but its odd that you seem to be making ballots that make you look like a republican. i guess non affiliation means you can be a smart arse in both direstions/ in answer to your point. IT ISNT GOING TO HAPPEN. it may seem like it has. but it never will.

Oh and cletus? stick to making joke ballots. there are enough clowns in office!

Democracy doesn't have to work in Iraq for Bush's plan to work. That was never his true intention.
Bullshit, jappy. Even the most basic research will show you that Afghanistan's ruling Taliban were Afghans, although many of them had been educated in Pakistan.

Take your own advice & do some study, sonny.

That depends. What would constitute a "successful democracy"? And what would constitue an "unsuccessful democracy"? (corrupt)
^ Oops! Bother ... I got logged off.
To the ballot question:

On one hand, I don't believe it can be pulled off. More to the point, that isn't the real question, for me. The real question is not: Could it be done, but should it have been done.

And the answer to that is: No.

BTW: You are wrong to believe that any American, liberal or conservatiove, "orgasms when a car bomb goes off." It is possible to be against a course of action and still grieve loss of life. It was a nice trick, when certain political elements in this country tried to tie in "Support Our Troops" with "Support the War," but that isn't the way it works. Don't equate opposition to the War with Glee concerning Setbacks.
You know originally I was against this war.I felt it was a mistake that we did not have to make.However after the Iraq election I now see that the Iraqi people really do want democracy.Cathexis,can you really oppose a war that might have been fought over the wrong reasons but has a positive result?

The Chimp's "plan" was to confiscate the WMDs. Bonzo only came up with his "we invaded for the sake of democracy" plan after no WMDs showed up.
Corrupt, I opposed the war because I was certain that Iraq had no WMDs and that Iraq wasn't the threat and "war machine" that the Bush administration said it was. I also opposed it because I knew that George W. Bush was doing it for the sole purposes of getting wealthy off Iraqi natural resources and workforce. So if Iraq becomes another American colony like Panama but still is Democracy then NO, I still won't admit anything except the things I've been saying for the last 8 months. It can't be a democracy, it will be a dictatorship if that is the case.

GWB went into Iraq because:

1. He was 100% sure that Iraq had WMDs. (THAT WAS PROVEN A LIE)
2. Iraq was connected to September 11th. (THAT WAS PROVEN A LIE)
3. Remove Saddam the dictator. (THAT WENT SUCCESSFUL)

66% of the objectives went unsuccessful and they CAN'T be redone.

You can't set up objectives for a war, start the war and then modify the objectives. That's a whole different war then. So even if Iraq becomes a successful democracy, the war won't be successful.

PS. Your anti-Liberal rhetoric only makes you look foolish and immature.

Corrupt, do you believe everything the American government says it does?
No ofcourse I don't believe everything the government tells me.Like I said originally I was against the war in the begining but as the situation in Iraq change so did my opinion.Also if my rhetoric against liberals is immature then it means every talk radio host,fox news anchor and talk radio listner is immature as well:).

"Also if my rhetoric against liberals is immature then it means every talk radio host,fox news anchor and talk radio listner is immature as well:)."

Well, not EVERY talks show host...just the ones who talk bad against liberalism ;).

Voted : No,Iraq was and always will be an Illegal war
The human cost was too great
Voted : No,Iraq was and always will be an Illegal war
The problem is that the same could have been accomplished with far less loss of life. And we needed to finish the job in Afghanistan before messing with Iraq. There weren't even any WMDs there...

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | © 2010 All Rights Reserved