Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Christopher Columbus

2007-08-10T17:22:18Z

Albobsman:

Columbus sailed from Spain on August 3 1492, and after sailing in unkown waters and not sighting land for three weeks, the sailors began to talk of mutiny. On October 10, Columbus promised that if they did not find land in three days they would turn back. On October 12, they reached an island that Columbus named San Salvador. Columbus did not reach his original destination but he did set the stage for Europian exploration of the New World.

Citations?
Sentence/Paragraph Structure?
Proper Grammar?

Ouch! Reading this article killed brain cells.

== He was liberal ==

Chrisopher Columbus was a liberal whe tried to find new ways. He could also be called a scientist in geography and navigation.
He did not believe in what the conservative world was thinking (the world is flat and that he will fall down its surface at the end of the world).

This should be mentioned in the article. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 16:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Factually Incorrect==
He was not "the second European sailor to reach the Americas." Ericson's voyage prompted many more trips to the America's, and Columbus arrived with more men than just himself. Perhaps a better way to phrase this would be "headed the first expedition from the European mainland to reach the Americas."

This article mentions nothing of his work in the slave trade prostitution buisness, raping natives, etc. [[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 13:22, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Front Page

2007-08-10T17:09:15Z

Albobsman:

Wikipedia also has News on the right side, but most of the front page matter is "encylopedic". Here, today, on the right it is about the madman at Virginia Tech and several references to his Anti Christian Rant - on the right and the left side ... and am sure it will dominate the front page. Also, Bible quotations on the front page? Encylopedia or a platform to push the Bible? Is anything else quotable on the front page? [[User:Seekcommon]]

I know what you mean, shouldn't we wait until the official investigation reveals new facts, instead of immediately politicizing the whole case and just maybe try to use reason and logic to analyse this case.

Maybe something like this: (I know it's just speculation and I have no tangible evidence for this.)

To me it seems that guy was a troubled kid, probably obsessed with unreachable women, who was laughed by his "rich-kid" classmates and felt cornered by his parent's strong religious beliefs and one day decided he wanted to "make the world pay", like those kids from Columbine.
The name Ishmael could be (notice the use of the words "could be" instead of "is") a reference to him recognizing himself in the biblical Ishmael who was rejected by his society, instead of an alledged Muslim connection.

I'd say that's the just about the whole story, no conspiracies against "America" and no evil brainwashing porn.

So yes, propaganda like this and all of the "liberals this and liberals that" crap doesn't belong on the front page of an encyclopedia"

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==What quotation?==

I don't see any Bible quotations. What are you ranting about?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Before Mr. Cho posed on the main page, they had a fresh bible quotation every day.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, they did (as Middle Man has noted) and THAT was what I was talking about, RANT if you choose to say I do. So, is IT or is IT not propaganda for advancing the Bible? And why the rush to judgement about "anti christian" rant(s) or whatever that madman may have said/written? Would Conservapedia have said anything if the rants were anti-(fill in the religion other than the christianity practiced by the moderators)?? I think not. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::Oh, so you're having a problem when a quotation from the Bible is posted everyday.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Is this a Bible encyclopedia? Or a Conservative Encyclopedia? If Conservapedia, and Bible quotations are to be included, SAY SO. Do not claim it is an "Encylopedia" and put Bible quotations on the front. Unless, to you and a lot of others, being a Conservative means the Bible (and ofcourse the version the moderators are willing to accept and what they reject selectively or accept selectively) - Perhaps it would be a good idea to put quotes from the Bible about the blood thirsty almighty that is always seeking/asking put people to death - including for working on the sabbath and on and on. Have I committed blasphemy and should I await thunder and lightning and all that?[[User:Seekcommon]]

I just believe a truly reliable and unbiased encyclopedia would be more credible without this much propaganda on its main page.
Like Seekcommon said, if they posted quotations from the Koran or the Vedda's on the main page, every moderater on here would call it propaganda.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Not to many I am afraid. Selective quotes and the spreading of paranoia is what drives many extremists and yes there is no difference between a "Christian" extremist and an "Islamic" extremist or a "Hindu" extremist or a "Jewish" extremist. They all think THEY know the answer and the way to the truth. [[User:Seekcommon]]

"Conservative" does not equal evangelist or christian or (fill-in-the-blanks), neither does "Liberal" mean "one that wants to kill the unborn" or people who do not believe in God. Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century may be called "Conservative" by many, but I have heard him describe himself as "Liberal" - and as he explained, "Liberal" used to mean what many today called themselves "Conservatives". But then again I have heard many of today's "Liberals" characterize conservatives as religious nuts which they are not. Yes, there is "Liberal" evil (good) and "Conservative" evil (good)[[User:Seekcommon]]

All true.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

The front page diatribe continues, today the complaint is about a poem that is said to be "Liberal" and the fact that it does not mention "God" or "prayer". Uh?? It is a beautiful poem that shows how sad the VT commumity is due to the tragedy ''We do not understand this tragedy We know we did nothing to deserve it'' - The words reflect the bewilderment of all humans at senseless killings. Since the omniscient God knows everything including the past and the future, were they supposed to have said "Thank God" for "what Thou has brought?" ... Many, many students were shown praying - on TV, openly crying, grieving ... Yet, the diatribe here is about how "God" was missing in the poem. Uh??? [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have to say however that there is a silver lining to the diatribes and the single minded devotion to a specific cause and the lashing out at those that do not fall in line. The more unreasonable the position is, the better most people understand how unreasonable they are and so it does become easier to deal with. So, yea, go ahead and look in every nook and corner on how some "Liberal" somewhere does not mention "God" or "refuses" to pray. Keep saying it loudly and often. There are already references to the mad man's writings/videos and such, next perhaps the effort should be on the victims - and from what I have seen, in addition to "Christians" some of the victims were Muslims and Hindus. Did THEY deserve to be killed? Which "God" "ordered" that?? [[User:Seekcommon]]

Yes, exactly, God has nothing to do with this (talk about unrelated subjects), the poem is fine the way it is.
And if questioning (social) injustice around the world is the work of evil Godless liberals, than I'm proud to be an evil Godless liberal!

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

And here is something from the Good Book. Matthew 6:5-8

''And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
''
[[User:Seekcommon]]

I love that quote! I'm gonna put it on my page!
Jesus had much to teach, he was right there on the same level as Buddha, it's a shame his followers misinterpreted him so often.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I love it too. In fact, the essence of what Jesus wrote/stood for is timeless and will remain uncorrupted by the vain and the power hungry who use what Jesus said/wrote for their own purposes. The breadth of human experience seen through the people, prophets is so similar yet it is painful to watch the hijacking of particulars from one religion to persecute those who in their minds do not follow those teachings. There is a lot more common among the fundamental human experiences and "religion" and more that binds than things that SEEM to separate and differentiate. Peace ... Or, to use another language, ''Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti'' [[User:Seekcommon]]

==Don't Change A Thing==

The front page is everything I expect from a conservative internet publication. You don't like the way it reads, start liberapedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:27, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Id hate to think what they would have on their front page.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I'd be willing to consider this suggestion to create 'liberapedia' a valid one, were it not for the existence of wikipedia. The genuine, unbiased medium that it provides is something that I have often found so-called 'liberals' to approve of strongly. Attempts to immitate it would, I think, be met with skepticism and be percieved as lacking credibility.

:I also find it strange that you even make the suggestion, since the "About Conservapedia" section of this website already proclaims Wikipedia to be "6 times more Liberal than the American Public". [[User:Simple|Simple]]

==2Evil&GodlessLiberals==
1. Religious texts aren't propaganda.
2. Go to the bottom of the web page and read "About Conservapedia".
3. Read previous posts and see where that conflicts with "About Conservapedia" statement.
4. Respond in an evil, godless, liberal manner.
Happy Earth day!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess I am puzzled for referring to a response with quotes from Matthew as Evil and Godless. I guess Matthew is someone else then and in his writing and in the Bible I saw, it is something very different. I appreciate your pointing them out to me. From now on, I will consider everything Matthew has written to be evil. Unless, you can correct me since you know everything. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Look what they came up with now: according to the front page Mr. Schlaffy can apparently predict the future: he already knows who's going to win the second round of the French Presidential elections.

Seekcommon, I'm right there with you.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Since you know everything? Last time I heard that was from a 10 year old girl; and she was right. Dude, he only won the first round, get a grip! Also, thanks for following number four. Please, carry on.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 08:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I do agree with you on the issue of age, we do lose a lot as we age, I know, I have an intelligent one myself that I learn from. But I am curious, point 4, you talk about responding in an "Evil, Godless, Liberal" manner ... Does that also refer to my quoting Matthew? [[User:Seekcommon]]

Of course I know he only won the first round, but the front page says he won the elections altogether.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
: Then again, a story from the Left. When Daniel Ortega was defeated the first time in Nicaragua, Peter Jennings that this incredible look on his face and kept wondering how he lost when "polls" indicated that he should have won. It is as if, Jennings so wanted Ortega to win that he could not accept the decision. Mainstream media were stunned that a left winger lost an election. So, stuff happens. [[User:Seekcommon]]

== Quick Question ==

Might I ask, if Conservapedia is supposed to hold itself to a higher standard of being unbiased, why its front page is so biased? I mean, even the name "Conservapedia" indicates bias. Please stop pretending to be a legitimate encyclopedia when you have such horrors of ignorance as the Communism page. Even if the entirety of your accusations against Wikipedia were true, Wikipedia towers above this little site as a beacon of factual fairness and global knowledge.
[[User:Xenophon]]

:Apparently your own bias against CP doesn't count, does it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:100 million people wouldn't consider the Communism page to be ignorance -- if they were still alive. Conservapedia allows the conservative view to be presented, and can state the facts of what has occurred under Communism. If that offends you, then this isn't the forum for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:15, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Whats the difference/ what does it matter ==

All truth is doctored facts to make good truths for the public reading it. Similarly If the front page had facts, it would be Un-American, becuase a democratic government allows the government toochoose their truths and present it to the people to let them "choose". In short, change nothing [[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 13:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Headline text ==

Conservapedia:Front Page

2007-08-10T17:08:43Z

Albobsman:

Wikipedia also has News on the right side, but most of the front page matter is "encylopedic". Here, today, on the right it is about the madman at Virginia Tech and several references to his Anti Christian Rant - on the right and the left side ... and am sure it will dominate the front page. Also, Bible quotations on the front page? Encylopedia or a platform to push the Bible? Is anything else quotable on the front page? [[User:Seekcommon]]

I know what you mean, shouldn't we wait until the official investigation reveals new facts, instead of immediately politicizing the whole case and just maybe try to use reason and logic to analyse this case.

Maybe something like this: (I know it's just speculation and I have no tangible evidence for this.)

To me it seems that guy was a troubled kid, probably obsessed with unreachable women, who was laughed by his "rich-kid" classmates and felt cornered by his parent's strong religious beliefs and one day decided he wanted to "make the world pay", like those kids from Columbine.
The name Ishmael could be (notice the use of the words "could be" instead of "is") a reference to him recognizing himself in the biblical Ishmael who was rejected by his society, instead of an alledged Muslim connection.

I'd say that's the just about the whole story, no conspiracies against "America" and no evil brainwashing porn.

So yes, propaganda like this and all of the "liberals this and liberals that" crap doesn't belong on the front page of an encyclopedia"

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==What quotation?==

I don't see any Bible quotations. What are you ranting about?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Before Mr. Cho posed on the main page, they had a fresh bible quotation every day.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, they did (as Middle Man has noted) and THAT was what I was talking about, RANT if you choose to say I do. So, is IT or is IT not propaganda for advancing the Bible? And why the rush to judgement about "anti christian" rant(s) or whatever that madman may have said/written? Would Conservapedia have said anything if the rants were anti-(fill in the religion other than the christianity practiced by the moderators)?? I think not. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::Oh, so you're having a problem when a quotation from the Bible is posted everyday.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Is this a Bible encyclopedia? Or a Conservative Encyclopedia? If Conservapedia, and Bible quotations are to be included, SAY SO. Do not claim it is an "Encylopedia" and put Bible quotations on the front. Unless, to you and a lot of others, being a Conservative means the Bible (and ofcourse the version the moderators are willing to accept and what they reject selectively or accept selectively) - Perhaps it would be a good idea to put quotes from the Bible about the blood thirsty almighty that is always seeking/asking put people to death - including for working on the sabbath and on and on. Have I committed blasphemy and should I await thunder and lightning and all that?[[User:Seekcommon]]

I just believe a truly reliable and unbiased encyclopedia would be more credible without this much propaganda on its main page.
Like Seekcommon said, if they posted quotations from the Koran or the Vedda's on the main page, every moderater on here would call it propaganda.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Not to many I am afraid. Selective quotes and the spreading of paranoia is what drives many extremists and yes there is no difference between a "Christian" extremist and an "Islamic" extremist or a "Hindu" extremist or a "Jewish" extremist. They all think THEY know the answer and the way to the truth. [[User:Seekcommon]]

"Conservative" does not equal evangelist or christian or (fill-in-the-blanks), neither does "Liberal" mean "one that wants to kill the unborn" or people who do not believe in God. Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century may be called "Conservative" by many, but I have heard him describe himself as "Liberal" - and as he explained, "Liberal" used to mean what many today called themselves "Conservatives". But then again I have heard many of today's "Liberals" characterize conservatives as religious nuts which they are not. Yes, there is "Liberal" evil (good) and "Conservative" evil (good)[[User:Seekcommon]]

All true.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

The front page diatribe continues, today the complaint is about a poem that is said to be "Liberal" and the fact that it does not mention "God" or "prayer". Uh?? It is a beautiful poem that shows how sad the VT commumity is due to the tragedy ''We do not understand this tragedy We know we did nothing to deserve it'' - The words reflect the bewilderment of all humans at senseless killings. Since the omniscient God knows everything including the past and the future, were they supposed to have said "Thank God" for "what Thou has brought?" ... Many, many students were shown praying - on TV, openly crying, grieving ... Yet, the diatribe here is about how "God" was missing in the poem. Uh??? [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have to say however that there is a silver lining to the diatribes and the single minded devotion to a specific cause and the lashing out at those that do not fall in line. The more unreasonable the position is, the better most people understand how unreasonable they are and so it does become easier to deal with. So, yea, go ahead and look in every nook and corner on how some "Liberal" somewhere does not mention "God" or "refuses" to pray. Keep saying it loudly and often. There are already references to the mad man's writings/videos and such, next perhaps the effort should be on the victims - and from what I have seen, in addition to "Christians" some of the victims were Muslims and Hindus. Did THEY deserve to be killed? Which "God" "ordered" that?? [[User:Seekcommon]]

Yes, exactly, God has nothing to do with this (talk about unrelated subjects), the poem is fine the way it is.
And if questioning (social) injustice around the world is the work of evil Godless liberals, than I'm proud to be an evil Godless liberal!

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

And here is something from the Good Book. Matthew 6:5-8

''And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
''
[[User:Seekcommon]]

I love that quote! I'm gonna put it on my page!
Jesus had much to teach, he was right there on the same level as Buddha, it's a shame his followers misinterpreted him so often.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I love it too. In fact, the essence of what Jesus wrote/stood for is timeless and will remain uncorrupted by the vain and the power hungry who use what Jesus said/wrote for their own purposes. The breadth of human experience seen through the people, prophets is so similar yet it is painful to watch the hijacking of particulars from one religion to persecute those who in their minds do not follow those teachings. There is a lot more common among the fundamental human experiences and "religion" and more that binds than things that SEEM to separate and differentiate. Peace ... Or, to use another language, ''Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti'' [[User:Seekcommon]]

==Don't Change A Thing==

The front page is everything I expect from a conservative internet publication. You don't like the way it reads, start liberapedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:27, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Id hate to think what they would have on their front page.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I'd be willing to consider this suggestion to create 'liberapedia' a valid one, were it not for the existence of wikipedia. The genuine, unbiased medium that it provides is something that I have often found so-called 'liberals' to approve of strongly. Attempts to immitate it would, I think, be met with skepticism and be percieved as lacking credibility.

:I also find it strange that you even make the suggestion, since the "About Conservapedia" section of this website already proclaims Wikipedia to be "6 times more Liberal than the American Public". [[User:Simple|Simple]]

==2Evil&GodlessLiberals==
1. Religious texts aren't propaganda.
2. Go to the bottom of the web page and read "About Conservapedia".
3. Read previous posts and see where that conflicts with "About Conservapedia" statement.
4. Respond in an evil, godless, liberal manner.
Happy Earth day!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess I am puzzled for referring to a response with quotes from Matthew as Evil and Godless. I guess Matthew is someone else then and in his writing and in the Bible I saw, it is something very different. I appreciate your pointing them out to me. From now on, I will consider everything Matthew has written to be evil. Unless, you can correct me since you know everything. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Look what they came up with now: according to the front page Mr. Schlaffy can apparently predict the future: he already knows who's going to win the second round of the French Presidential elections.

Seekcommon, I'm right there with you.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Since you know everything? Last time I heard that was from a 10 year old girl; and she was right. Dude, he only won the first round, get a grip! Also, thanks for following number four. Please, carry on.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 08:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I do agree with you on the issue of age, we do lose a lot as we age, I know, I have an intelligent one myself that I learn from. But I am curious, point 4, you talk about responding in an "Evil, Godless, Liberal" manner ... Does that also refer to my quoting Matthew? [[User:Seekcommon]]

Of course I know he only won the first round, but the front page says he won the elections altogether.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
: Then again, a story from the Left. When Daniel Ortega was defeated the first time in Nicaragua, Peter Jennings that this incredible look on his face and kept wondering how he lost when "polls" indicated that he should have won. It is as if, Jennings so wanted Ortega to win that he could not accept the decision. Mainstream media were stunned that a left winger lost an election. So, stuff happens. [[User:Seekcommon]]

== Quick Question ==

Might I ask, if Conservapedia is supposed to hold itself to a higher standard of being unbiased, why its front page is so biased? I mean, even the name "Conservapedia" indicates bias. Please stop pretending to be a legitimate encyclopedia when you have such horrors of ignorance as the Communism page. Even if the entirety of your accusations against Wikipedia were true, Wikipedia towers above this little site as a beacon of factual fairness and global knowledge.
[[User:Xenophon]]

:Apparently your own bias against CP doesn't count, does it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:100 million people wouldn't consider the Communism page to be ignorance -- if they were still alive. Conservapedia allows the conservative view to be presented, and can state the facts of what has occurred under Communism. If that offends you, then this isn't the forum for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:15, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==
Whats the difference/ what does it matter ==
All truth is doctored facts to make good truths for the public reading it. Similarly If the front page had facts, it would be Un-American, becuase a democratic government allows the government toochoose their truths and present it to the people to let them "choose". In short, change nothing [[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 13:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Headline text ==

Debate:Does History Matter?

2007-08-10T17:03:55Z

Albobsman: /* Henry Ford: "history is bunk" */

[[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Who was closer to being right?

==Henry Ford: "history is bunk"==
If ''"...the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today"'', than who's to say the history we make today will be cared about by our children? ;-). If we don't care about history now, than none of our descendants will care about us. Of course even if we do care about history, there's still a huge chance they still won't care about their past. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:22, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I say let the govrnment take the history books and make their own history, then preach it to us [[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 13:03, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==George Santayana: "condemned to repeat"==
The perfect example of this is the nation of Israel. Fortunately though, we've got a good God. Even when Israel was disobeying God and repenting again... over and over again, God was still faithful to His promises. And if we repent and put our trust in Him alone, we can avoid repeating those bad things in history. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Napoleon Bonaparte: "a lie agreed upon"==
While this is the classic Wikipedia model, I hope Conservapedia can avoid being condemned to repeat this bunk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::"Vulgas vult decepi" -Phaedrus 15BC-50AD. Translated as "The people wish to be deceived."--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:40, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

==Other Perspectives==
If history doesn't matter, why don't we just make it so this wiki no longer stores the history of the pages that are created and edited ;-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 18:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Nobody cares about history==
Hell, look at Afghanistan. You can go back to the 1700s or 1980s to see that nobody can win there. Or, re Iraq, you can go back to the 1970s and Vietnam and see that you can't "liberate" a country that (with substantial justification in both cases) sees you simply as a self-interested neo-colonial oppressor.

Or you can just go to the local library, fire up the microfiche machine and look at the past 50 years of gun crime in the US. At least Australian Prime Minister John Howard outlawed assault rifles after Martin Bryant massacred all those people in Port Arthur in 1996.

What's the next blast from the past we can look forward to from the US? Witch burnings, perhaps, or simply some good, old-fashioned lynchings (though they'd be Mexican illegal immigrants this time, no doubt). Perhaps California, Oregon and New York should secede. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:What does it mean to "win" in Afghanistan? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think he means essentially "conquer". Obviously, if no outside country can "win", the Afghanis must be "winning" the wars of invasion/colonization/conquest etc. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If that's the meaning, then the basic premise is flawed. The US and NATO are not trying ot "conquer" Afghanistan. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Afghan history shows that any try from outside to conquer the country by military finally failed completely. Some success can definitely be reported regarding humanitarian support and building up basic infra structure, which surely needs protection through police forces and sometimes even military forces. Surely no perfect story and still much left to be done. The economy, i.e. farming is still mainly based on opium poppy. But even when slow, some progress has definitely been achieved. The number of children going to school sky rocketed, the number of girls in particular. So, history can teach you a lesson, but it cannot replace your own thinking. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 07:40, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Everything matters ==
How will you know where your going unless you know where you've been. Archaeological history, the history of the sun, moon, earth, ...etc. How else could people plan for the future unless they knew the history of the past. Which is why any historian worth their salt will get their information from multiple sources, archaeological artifacts and/or sites, and anthropological studies. History most definitely doesn't mean anything to those who try to rewrite it for selfish reasons. Such as political or assorted ideological purposes and used as propaganda to further their own agendas. Of which you will no doubt denote many examples of on this debate subject.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
We can learn from it.

Only from America could this question arise.
- of course context matters
- and of course we can learn from those who have gone before us

Mate...I totally agree!! In America, history is important too. Example: If someone had bothered to look at the history of Mnt. St. Helens' eruption, they would've realised that it will blow sideways. If they had but checked this, then many more lives would've been saved.
I can't believe that apparently nobody cares about their history, about the sacrifices people made so that we could be alive today. Just less than 100 years ago and again in 1939, thousands of brave men risked it all, laid down their lives so that we may speak English that we would retain our cultures, our pride, even so that we may live today and I'm sure they didn't do all this so that some idiot could say that they didn't care about history. Whoever that was is an ignorant pig and no I don't think that this view about the person is without evidence. I truly can not believe that someone thinks it appropriate to not recognise the importance of history, as history has shaped us, shaped whole cultures, whole countries, shaped the entire world.

==History *does* matter.==
There are things in history that should NEVER EVER be forgotten. If "history does not matter", this technically would encompass things such as the second world war, or the reasons that lead to it; also forgotten would be the sacrifices millions of people made during that war, and all the inhumane atrocities carried out by people of those times: Nazi Germany´s horrifying human experiments, the Japanese-carried out atrocities in China, Soviet Russia and all the "good" their communist ideals did to the world, or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Actually, "history" would technically encompass even the events of the Bible.

Still some of you dare say "History does not matter?" [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 07:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Coming in contact with other cultures one will notice a lot of differences. Which way is right is often a moot discussion, in particular when neglecting the historical background of these differences.

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-08-10T16:53:08Z

Albobsman:

{{protect|TK}}

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree completely!
No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
== puhlease ==
From this article: ''He is black, and no black person has ever held such responsibility. Also, his first name sounds like Osama, and his middle name is Hussein, calling to mind the two most evil terrorists of modern times'' someone's white hood is showing . . . [[User:Godman|Godman]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aiming to denouce a candidate on the basis of his name, and not his stances on issues or character seems like a pretty poor way to choose the next president. Do people really think the informed voter (aka people who actually end up voting) are going to say "well, i like the guy and what he stands for, but his name just isn't doing it for me. I'll go with Nader instead." I think not.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 15:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
*This article needs to be cleaned up, and fast. We must practice more professionalism and objectiveness. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

From the Wikipedia entry, one could sculpt it into becoming more of a Conservative point-of-view. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm actually of the opinion that the pragmatic audience of this site will think something like: there is no way I'm voting for a negro. As is evidenced in this article. the founder of conservapedia's Jesus was clearly lily white and 'merican. I truly beleive they should not call themselves Christian or conservative and they certainly shouldn't call this an encyclopedia. What in the '''hell''' is he teaching those kids?00:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Off Page Discussion ==

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page. :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President. However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.

:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here). He's got $20+ million; as an Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine. This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain. Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now). McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats. But the dirty little secret is GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain. His biggest problem is in his own party. If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket. This however, is where Bill Richardson can win. If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have. High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate. This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain! Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned. I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere. And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway. The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner. This has been true since Lyndon Johnson. Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc). So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East. Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them. Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share. Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s. Bill Richardson fits this mold. So do Huckabee & McCain. Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also. I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months. This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives". Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash. +42% - 42% = 0 net positive. Neither can win.

:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home. But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~

*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== GSmiley ==

Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2007-08-10T16:29:01Z

Albobsman:

{{debate-politics}}

==No==

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Here it is again Ruchki and with the logical examples. The entire "War on Terror" is a farce meant to advance the conservative agenda and enrich the political leaders who started it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Gladly Ruchki [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year.] That is aproximately $7,750,000.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oil companies that supported Bush make [http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912 obscene profits].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Saidi Arabia has close economic ties to the Bush family has [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html economy saved].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:[http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/americans_with_ties_to_bush_administration_helped_write_iraq.htm "The approved production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favor investing foreign oil companies with 70 percent of oil revenue to recoup their initial outlay, then companies can reap 20 percent of the profit without any tax or other restrictions on their transfers abroad."][http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208055.htm Iraqi deal unusualy generous to oil companies][[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Being conservative does not mean blindly supporting the current administration[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Apparently, some conservatives disagree with you. OBEY. CONSUME. REMAIN SILENT. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''': American troops are dying at a rate of 900 per year. Monthly expeditures have risen from $4.4 billion to $8.4 billion without a corresponding decrease in the overall rate of violence (even if there are temporary local successes following tactical shifts in emphasis). Cities that are pacified to much fanfare must be retaken, sometimes several times. The Bush Administration has resorted to a policy of "kill the messenger", sacking any general who admits we cannot win another country's civil war and putting in place the lone general who thinks we can win this civil war, General Petraeus. One by one, our allies in the "Coalition of the Willing" have dropped out, and we are even witnessing the gradual departure of the United Kingdom from the southern theater. Bush got congressional authority to wage war on Iraq by certifying that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and posed an existential threat to the United States, yet the WMDs were revealed to be a chimera and the only existential threat is to the Republican Party itself, as more and more Americans grow weary of the war. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No:''' It's not a question that the stated objective of the invasion was to find and destroy WMD's, which we were ''positive'' existed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of WMD's found in Iraq is exactly...0. IN that sense, we failed miserably. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That is twisted liberal thought. The fact that no WMD was found is irrelevent. The only reason it is relevent is because it was used as final justification for invasion. Like icing on the cake. All we ended up with is cake, no icing. Saddam has a long history of playing games with inspectors. If Saddam had never used WMD in the past, then it was all a mistake. To wait until he acquired again, then use it, then decide to invade is just backwards logic. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Saddam would have never used WMD's, even if he had them. He was too smart to do that.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Iran Iraq war, Saddam gassed (poison WMD) thousands of innocent Kurdish men women and children. Saddam was a dumb ass, a tyrant, a miscalculating butcher.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sorry, Saddam would have never been dumb enough to use WMD's against powerful Western Nations. To put it frankly, Saddam's actions in Iraq helps to keep Iran in check by destabilizing the region. Now that he's gone, we see possibilities of Arab coalitions and the like, which bodes bad for us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Every time we put together a "coalition" against someone else, it's just us and some other nations as window dressing. By the same token, no coalition of pure window dressing is a threat. But we are learning that America could take all her military technology and prowess, drop back in time to the bronze age even, and still lose every single conflict if the President lacks the willpower to fight. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 21:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"Willpower" isn't the problem here. President Bush '''wanted''' this war, and has been its single biggest booster since day one. Lack of SMARTS is the problem. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHA The iraq war! a success!! wow, that's sad. Why would you have to ask that. Here are the statistics: over 3000 American soldiers dead. over 300,000 iraq civilians dead. NO weapons of mass destruction. NO ties to Osama bin ladin. NO ties to Al Quaeda. And a country in a civil war in complete ruin. Figure it out yourself. My source, CIA 9,11/iraq comission report, UN iraq overview. a success? not in a million years.--[[User:FDRismyhero|FDRismyhero]] 7:10, 31 Juner 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

All Iraqi's are much happier under US rule. This is for the better. They are 200x better off now then ever before. Anyone who denies me is a communist [[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:29, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shown[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finish[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: That is a good analysis, but it stops two step short of naming the human problem. An unamed human problem is the core of the difficulty and people are refusing to look at it. We are all human beings, we are all motivated by the same urges and (broadly) feelings. The West has exploited the Mideast. The West grew strong and remains strong because, in general, people earn their own way. In the west, people contribute to other people, through daily work, through creation, through new inventions, and so forth. This isn't what goes on in the Mideast where the population is supported by the mineral wealth pooled beneath their feet. There, people don't have the need to earn their daily bread as in the West. People of the Mideast can, therefore, hang on to those historical ways that worked in the past because there is a vast pool of mineral wealth beneath their feet. Given nothing to do, people don't develop pride. And that is the human value the West's exploitation has undermined in the Mideast. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P [[User:Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:::::Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left there after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight FOR Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::::WHAT? Ho Chi Minh died of heart failure, not an American GI. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT) Thank you, corrected!

::Jpatt--Said democratic government in Iraq will probably be demoted to "lamp-post ornaments" about 48 hours after the US troops leave, and then Turkey will invade the north and slaughter the Kurds (making the SECOND time an American named Bush has left them twisting in the wind) while the Sunnis and Shi'ites blow each other to Heaven on clouds of Semtex smoke. As other people here have pointed out, declaring war on an abstract noun like "terrorism" does not work too well (unless you have Abhorrent Weaponry and the will to use it). Or we can stay there forever. After all, there's a fixed number of Terrorists, and everyone we defeat means one less forever, since no more people will ever sign up, right? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Actually, Bush Senior's decision to not invade Iraq after expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait was a good decision on his part. Bush Sr. was, unlike his son, a master statesman and knew that by entering into Iraq would go beyond the scope of the UN mission (Sound familiar Georgie?) and would make the US into an international pariah (Again, George, next time listen to Daddy). He also knew that taking the fight from the desert of Kuwait to the streets of Baghdad would result in the death of US troops and unpopularity for the war. After all, the US is fantastic at open ground combat as we have the most advanced weapons on the planet. However, those weapons can't help our soldiers trying to purge buildings of insurgents. Take the US's destruction of the Hammurabi Division on Highway 80 during the end of the Gulf War. It was literally an absolute turkey shoot. You have old Russian tanks and convoy trucks retreating while being pounded from miles away by Apaches and Abrams. However, now, you take the soldier out of the safe tank or assault chopper, and put him in front of a door, and he doesn't know when he opens that door, if there will be no one on the other side, or 12 armed men. And people wonder why the war is unpopular.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Also, Saddam Hussein acted as a buffer between the US, and the regions bigger threat, Iran. Now that buffer is gone...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well LDobbs, you can make the case for falure if we leave and you can make the case if we stay. All hell to break when we leave, maybe. If we don't stand up wherever they are, then its 1996 all over again. The USA too busy and too enept to confront terror. You sound like you favor the Democrats in the House that want to change the wording of 'war on terror'. Let's put aside the fact that the USA is still in Korea after 50 years. Let's talk Iraq and Afghanistan as a launching point against Iran. If there are war moves by Iran, would you rather be launching attacks from America or from the region? 25,000 bandits in Iraq is not a fixed number or one less per each jihadist death. If Iraq is tranformed into the image of South Korea, the region will be a stronger ally of the USA.

:::::Elamdri, Bush Sr. failed America by working through the corrupt UN. The main reason he did not finish the job, besides the mandate, they knew that we couldn't hope for a better leader to emerge that would replace Saddam, Democracy would be hard to establish, formerly occupied by the British, would not welcome English aligned armies. Bush 41 hoped the Iraqis themselves would take control of their leadership. After 9/11, Bush 43 realized that Saddam was part of the problem America had to confront. That Saddam was the last straw of credibility the UN blew away. That Saddam would not be replaced by his people. Bush 43 sought to increase nation states to democracy in the fight against extreme rogue states and their supporters- jihadists. Will it work? Time will tell.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I doubt that. Honestly, the Grand Coalition was probably the greatest success the UN has every had. In reality, Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people. He helps keep Iran in check, and then people started to blow his power out of proportion after 9/11.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I doubt your view as well. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people??? How about the Iranians, how about the Israelis, how about the Kuwaitis? Invasion of Iran, Invasion of Kuwait, 25,000 dollars to suicide bombers families who kill Israelis. I am no expert, can you admitt it?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Let me rephrase, Saddam wasn't a threat to the western world as the Bush Administration tried to make us believe. Should he have been removed? Probably, but right now? Probably not.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::So when ''do'' we removed him - when he becomes a threat? When he has already blown up a tower or two? Why do we have to wait for these things to happen? Secondly, he was a threat to his own people as you have stated. Do you believe it was an unjust cause to go in and liberate the Iraqis, or should America just focus on pleasing its own free people who have never known oppression? That was a long string of questions - forgive me please - but I would like to hear your opinion. As for me, I believe strongly that overthrowing Saddam was the best thing for America and the rest of the free world. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Its not so much removing him as it is using him to stage proxy wars.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::''So when ''do'' we removed him - when he becomes a threat? When he has already blown up a tower or two? Why do we have to wait for these things to happen?'' - DavidR See, that's the difference between Hussein and bin Laden--we KNEW where Hussein was, and he had an actual country we could bomb. That made a powerful disincentive to mess with the US. You will note that he didn't actually DO anything to inspire the US invasion besides sit there 'looking at us funny'. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 18:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

What to you Hawks think about your war now hahahahahaahahahahhaahahahah[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:11, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Rebiu, Ho- and BobD, If Bush had NOT liberated Iraq, WHAT?
Serendipity! If alQaeda had not been busy there, it stated intent to be HERE - using Saddam's sarin (Christian Gen. Georges Sada) or gathering A-bomb knowlege and materials (Duelfer Commission ). Nothing other than the Iraq invasion could have better accomplished the President's first responsibility - protecting us. [User:HowardLong]

Yes. We have won the war in Iraq. Everything has worked out exactly as President Bush has expected. There have been no flaws in his War Plan, and the Democrats should be imprissoned for treason for saying otherwise.