0

Yes I know. We planeed for it though - due to our past experiences in Northern Ireland the MOD planned for at least 5 years of sectarian hostilities in iraq whereas the US thaught that when the initial invasion was done, they could go home..


And wtf did we go to iraq anyway?

There was no way in hell that

a) sadamm was mates with osama
b) sadamm could hit us with WMDs in 45 mins (i mean wtf right does america have to go saying that anyway - there the nuke kings...)

0

it was more Bush trying to come up with a good excuse to invade Iraq. he is one of the worst presidents ever.

0

indeed

I hated tony blair too. Gordon brown is okay but hes a total idiot for not giving us a referendum on the EU constitution (better than david cameron though, hes a fool, makes a new policy each day almost, depending on whats popular)

0

it was more Bush trying to come up with a good excuse to invade Iraq. he is one of the worst presidents ever.

Oh, come on! Bush isn't a good president, but this lie about him trying to get us into wars has got to stop.

We went into Iraq because Saddam was using a fake memo to smoke out a double agent. He found and killed the double agent, but our intelligence got the memo. It was about a stockpile of weapons of mass destructions. Saddam admitted this was true shortly after he was captured.

The news media haven't publicized this, because they hate President Bush.

0

Many potential voters get discouraged because there isn't much to pick from.

The main reason voters are discouraged is that they are not allowed to vote the way they want. A voter is discouraged if any of the following happens:

- His candidate couldn't meet the requirements to get on the ballot.
- His candidate was eliminated in the primaries.
- He wants to vote for a political belief instead of a candidate.
- He favors more than one candidate.
- He doesn't like any of the candidates on the ballot.
- There are no candidates on the ballot sharing his political views.
- His political belief was defeated by the inherent bias in Plurality Voting, even though a majority of voters favors it.

The Plurality Voting System (the kind of vote in most US elections) has all of these faults. It has an especially bad fault when more than two candidates run: It favors the candidate most different from the other candidates.

This fault has cost three presidential candidates the Presidency since World War II ended. In each case, a third party candidate siphoned off enough votes from the leading candidate to change the outcome:

1968 George Wallace took votes from Hubert Humphrey, allowing Richard Nixon to win.

Ross Perot took votes from George Bush Sr, allowing Bill Clinton to win.

Ralph Nader took votes from Al Gore, allowing George Bush Jr to win.

The solution is to use a fair election system instead of Plurality Voting. The only fair election system is the Independent Voting System:

http://geocities.com/midimagic@sbcglobal.net/indepelc.htm

Independent voting makes the following changes:

- Any candidate can get on the ballot with no requirements other than eligibility for the office..
- The voter is allowed to vote YES, NO, or ABSTAIN on each candidate independently.
- Candidates don't siphon votes from other candidates.
- A candidate cannot affect the outcome of the election by entering the race, except by winning.
- There is no primary. All declared candidates compete in the main election.
- There are no such things as undervotes and overvotes. All combinations are legal.
- Independent Voting chooses the candidate who satisfies the most voters.
- There is no recount. In the event of a tie or a dispute, there is a revote among the tied or disputed candidates.

Elections would be a lot more fair if Independent Voting were used.

0

i too think bush was looking for an excuse to invade iraq.

i do however believe that he believed that he was doing the right thing. and it can be argued that iraq now is better than iraq before although i am tempted to agree with jasimp on "the peace of sadam".

i sincerely doubt whether the conflicts in iraq is about america and as because of that i am not sure if it can be compared to UK and ireland. ireland was about independence while the current conflict in iraq is more like a civil war.

but america in iraq definitely acts as a catalyst there. that means that the presence of america can be used in recruitment campaigns to get people to become suicide bombers. but i dont know if america's presence there prevents a full scale civil war.

0

that iraq now is better than iraq before

I know people who have served there. The iraqis themseleves think it was better under sadamm

0

I know people who have served there. The iraqis themseleves think it was better under sadamm

yes but who thinks so and why.

is it the minority in the central regions?(sunnis i think). because under their leader, sadam, they ruled iraq and commited all kinds of atrocities on the kurds and the other moslem brand(shiite i think)

if it is the shiite and the kurds who think that then america has opened up a can of worms and it is going to be interesting to see how they are going to close it!

why do they think that. do they think that the slow, silent but persistent persecution of the dictator is preferable to a civil war?

if that is so then it is only up to themselves. nobody said that they should kill each other.

look carefully and you will see that mostly they target each other. far more civilians rather than american or brittish troops get hit by suicide bombers.

i think that it is pretty stupid to kill the guy next door just because you could not agree who the prophet's heir should be.

0

Whoever the dudes in the south (basra) are

i think that most in the south are shiite. i am not sure though. i am going to check. but if most of the people in the south said just that then america did open up a can of worms. lets hope that they can close it again.

but as i said. why are the iraqi people killing each other just because of religious differences of opinion? the prophet died hundreds of years ago.

0

why are the iraqi people killing each other just because of religious differences of opinion

we do/did the same thing

0

@ jbennet

>we do/did the same thing

that is why i think abolishment of religion can only be good. throughout history religion has done little good and a lot of bad.

0

I agree Ravenous Wolf. To be fair, religion has done some good but on the whole its corrupt and a bad idea. I like the idea of personal religion as opposed to organised religion (believe whatever you want to believe by yourself)

0

Mmm. I like religious people, just so long as they dont try to convert me. If they are preachy e.g jehova witnesses then i get kind of annoyed (those people are always knocking on my door trying to make me buy thier magazine, i think its called the watchtower ?:( )

and i dont mean any offense to jehova witnesses out there (i have pals who are jehova witnesses :) ) , i was just using them as an example everyone can relate to.

0

Congratulations. You've just defined the basis of true Christianity.

sorry. i dont understand what you mean. is it not christianity which says "believe as i believe or you will burn in hell!"?

0

sorry. i dont understand what you mean. is it not christianity which says "believe as i believe or you will burn in hell!"?

True Christianity is not a religion, as the term is normally defined. While there are churches and gatherings of believers, the ultimate core of Christianity is a personal relationship between the individual and Jesus Christ, based on His sinless life and the blood He shed in atonement for our sins.

Yes, there are laws in the scriptures. However, it is literally impossible for any normal human being to obey these; we are inherently sinful, meaning we've got an inbuilt inclination to break them as a way of rebelling against God's authority. This is why we need the sacrifice of atonement that was given on our behalf.

If someone is not a christian, will they go to hell? Yes. The scriptures are fairly clear on that. However, no human being can make someone believe something. I'm not talking about 'okay, I think I see your point' here. That's not what the kind of belief needed is. What I'm referring to is what's commonly called faith.

True, saving faith cannot be imposed from outside. It doesn't matter how much someone tells you you've got to believe something, the decision is still on your part, as a matter of the mind and the heart.

Yes, Christians are called to warn others of hell, and to tell others about Christ. The best analogy I can think of is this: Imagine you're walking down the street. You've got your Ipod with you, and you're having a good time listening to your music. Behind you, there's an eighteen-wheeler that's just lost control; if you don't get out of the way, you'll be killed. However, because of your current status (back turned, ears filled with music) you don't know this is happening. In this case, the appropriate response for me would be to attempt to either warn you and allow you to run to safety, or pull you out of harm's way. This is where the analogy breaks down; in theory, I could move you to safety against your will, because the threat is a purely physical one and we can interact on the physical plane whether you like it or not. This is not true between individuals on the spiritual plane, so with a threat there I could not move you on my own. All I can do is to simply warn you of the coming destruction and hope you get the message in time to escape. And the scriptures make it clear that the only valid escape is through Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ.

Anything else you'd like to discuss? Feel free to PM me if you'd rather not have it publicly posted; I can't promise that I know all the answers, but I'm quite willing to share what I do have.

-EnderX

0

You know maths? There are real numbers and imaginary numbers? The imaginary numbers are said to be on the imaginary plane. That kind of idea?

0

What imaginary plane? I know what imaginary numbers are, I have just never heard of them on the imaginary plane.

0

Its really wierd how threads take on a life of their own -- a discussion began about dictatorships and democries, then turned into discussion about religion, and finally about mathametics. Whew!

0

What imaginary plane? I know what imaginary numbers are, I have just never heard of them on the imaginary plane.

There is no imaginary plane. There's an imaginary axis, and the real and imaginary axes make up the axes of the complex plane.

I still don't understand what the spiritual plane is.

0

>> dictatorships and democries, then turned into discussion about religion, and finally about mathametics
Why finally, dragon? :)

>> There is no imaginary plane.
I meant the domain rather than plane. Which does exist ... kinda.

0

twomers:
There is no imaginary plane.

Now i have an excuse to change the topic to UFOs

Edited by __avd: fixed formatting.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.