# "George Bush our hero!"



## kendall (Apr 9, 2003)

Quoted from the cheers of 1000s of Iraqis on Al-Jazeera this morning.

Even though the war is far from over, it is amazing to turn on the television and see spirit and joy of the Iraqi people who are realizing for the first time in over 20 years that they are free.

I am overwhelmed with pride and thankful to be a citizen of one of the few countries that was willing to give their lives for this moment and will continue to do so until the Iraqi people are in control of their country.

And for those who doubted our actions, open your damn eyes! 

::alien::


----------



## twister (Apr 9, 2003)

I was thinking the same thing!!


----------



## mdnky (Apr 9, 2003)

Couldn't agree more.


----------



## dixonbm (Apr 9, 2003)

Absolutely!  Perhaps now our actions will be vindicated.


----------



## chevy (Apr 9, 2003)

Where are the weapons of mass destruction ?


----------



## kendall (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *Where are the weapons of mass destruction ? *



i dunno, where?  

the Iraqi desert is a big place, im sure they're buried somewhere.  we know they're there, we'll find them when we're ready. 

in anycase, we're a little busy toppling a fascist regime and liberating millions of people.  finding weapons of mass destruction is down a few on our list of things to do while in Iraq.


----------



## dixonbm (Apr 9, 2003)

I could personally care less if there are any weapons of mass destruction, although I'm betting there are plenty there.  

The US will be able to help Iraq form a democratic governmen and quickly rebuild the country.  We will have a friendly democracy in the middle east with which we can use to further the US agenda. 

 I agree with what many anti war people say about there being a greater agenda, but I'm all for it as long as it further's the interests of America and it's people.  The American people have no desire to play second fiddle to any other country.  We will do everything in our power to remain Number ONE!


----------



## Ricky (Apr 9, 2003)

It must feel great to finally be rid of a dictator after countless years of his unfair rule.    I'm happy for them.  It's great that they can finally feel what it's like to be free.


----------



## habilis (Apr 9, 2003)

*These are Iraqi citizens.*
"Not in your name" is damn right. Just remember that every time you see a happy and free Iraqi jubilent in the streets celebrating with the American liberators it wasn't "in your name" - it was in *MINE*.

America will remember in who's name the Iraqi's were freed from tyranny, and it wasn't the socialist democrats and their ilk. Iraq will remember and always be grateful. Americans will also remember when they go to the voting booth in 2004 and that's what's gonna hurt the most.

The UN is now irrelevant. France and Germany are a disgrace to the civilized world. The democrats are in total disarray and running for dark corners to hide their shameful heads in and the Peace movement is a complete joke.


----------



## dlloyd (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> "Not in your name" is damn right. Just remember that every time you see a happy and free Iraqi jubilent in the streets celebrating with the American liberators it wasn't "in your name" - it was in *MINE*.
> 
> America will remember in who's name the Iraqi's were freed from tyranny, and it wasn't the socialist democrats and their ilk. Iraq will remember and always be grateful. Americans will also remember when they go to the voting booth in 2004 and that's what's gonna hurt the most.
> ...



I am really happy that the Iraqis are being liberated. That is just about the _*only*_ reason that I think this war is OK in _any_ way.
My opinion is that an assassination squad would have been a better choice. I know about this  'policy' that the US isn't allowed to kill heads of state, but the Airforce is doing all this 'preemptive strike' stuff anyway, and an assassin would have done it without all the civilians being killed.
Mr. Bush has done other things wrong, I do not think that we will make the mistake of electing him again (Technically we didn't in 2000 either.)
The UN was, and still is, IMHO, one of the best things that ever happened in the International relations area. I think that it will rebound eventually. You must remember that only about 10% of the world's population actually _supports_ the US right now.
A few other things: Remember that if it weren't for France, the US probably wouldn't exist right now, and the world would still probably be ruled by the Nazis.
Germany was the center of Naziism, but was one of the US's best allis during the Cold war.
Just because these two countries don't support us right now doesn't mean that they couldn't save our butts again in five years!


----------



## dixonbm (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *A few other things: Remember that if it weren't for France, the US probably wouldn't exist right now, and the world would still probably be ruled by the Nazis.
> Germany was the center of Naziism, but was one of the US's best allis during the Cold war.*



Please don't go there. France was a different country then.  It was a monarchy and the chief rival to British domination.  French most definitely had alterior motives in supporting American independence in the same way that America had alterior motives for helping Afgahnistan against the Soviets.  America was just a little country at that time with little international power or influence.  

Not to mention the fact that America has paid their so called ally back on more than one occassion.  WWI we helped the beleagered French and English forces to finally put an end to the war.  Secondly it could also be said that France would not exist were it not for America.  It would be apart of the greater German Reich or split in two as Vichy and German Territory.  

Don't use that arguement.  We've paid France back what we owe them and then some.  Yet some frenchmen still had the nerve to desecrate American/British forces who died and were buried in French soil.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> * the Iraqi people who are realizing for the first time in over 20 years that they are free.
> 
> I am overwhelmed with pride and thankful to be a citizen of one of the few countries that was willing to give their lives for this moment and will continue to do so until the Iraqi people are in control of their country.
> ...



Free from what?

George Bush has made it perfectly clear that the Iraqis will rule themselves and judge themselves, but not until all the contracts for reconstruction have been given to his oil buds.  Is that freedom?  Why shouldn't Iraq make that decision?  Or, are the Iraqis incapable?  

The profits from all that oil should be reinvested into the country for the benefit of the Iraqis not for a bunch of GW's and Dick's cronies.  Unless of course the entire point of this war was oil.

Although I did not support this war in Iraq there was no doubt in my mind of the outcome.  It remains to be seen how well the people of Iraq fare in a post-war environment.  I'm not holding my breath, the US has failed in every attempt it has made since WWII to install a "democratic" government in any country it has invaded or "freed".  

Despite the secularity of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there is a whole passle of fundamentalist Iraqis just waiting for their chance at the podium.  Iraq is not Japan nor Germany.  It is made up of at three major subgroups who, to put it lightly, hate each others' guts.  

If the US is unwilling to hang in there for the long haul like it did in Japan and Germany then this war was a pointless display of America's military prowess.  

I hale the downfall of Saddam's regime, but fear for the Iraqi people.  Their future is far from settled.


----------



## dlloyd (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dixonbm _
> *Please don't go there. France was a different country then.  It was a monarchy and the chief rival to British domination.  French most definitely had alterior motives in supporting American independence in the same way that America had alterior motives for helping Afgahnistan against the Soviets.  America was just a little country at that time with little international power or influence.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that America has paid their so called ally back on more than one occassion.  WWI we helped the beleagered French and English forces to finally put an end to the war.  Secondly it could also be said that France would not exist were it not for America.  It would be apart of the greater German Reich or split in two as Vichy and German Territory.
> ...



Okay okay, I won't go there _*in this thread*_
I still don't see what the problem with being pacifist is.


----------



## dixonbm (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *I still don't see what the problem with being pacifist is. *



No problem being a pacifist.  My wife is too.  



> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *Okay okay, I won't go there in this thread. *



Whenever you are ready, I'll be ready to debate it.  I love debates and I love history.


----------



## dlloyd (Apr 9, 2003)

Okay, good 
I'll debate you, eventually! I'd better do some reading first though!


----------



## ScottW (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *Okay okay, I won't go there in this thread
> I still don't see what the problem with being pacifist is. *



The problem of being a pacifists is the millions of people who have died at Saddams hand.

You have much to learn, young Jedi.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 9, 2003)

Scott, you must be saying that Ghandi and King were wrong.  Millions of African-Americans and Indians who are alive and well today and leading lives free from oppression would disagree with your opintion.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ScottW _
> *The problem of being a pacifists is the millions of people who have died at Saddams hand.
> 
> *



Rummy has just elevated Saddam to the status of a God.  He didn't state a religion but....

"Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, said Saddam Hussein had yesterday joined Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Lenin and Nicolae Ceausescu in "the pantheon of failed, brutal dictators", but warned that "difficult and dangerous" combat still lay ahead in cities where regime hardliners retained control. ""

Financial Times article via Google News 

Pantheon as per Merriam Webster's online dictionary.

Main Entry: pan·the·on  
Function: noun 
Etymology:        Middle English Panteon, a temple at Rome, from Latin Pantheon, from Greek pantheion temple of all the gods, from neuter of pantheios of all gods, from pan- + theos god 
Date:        14th century 
1:a temple dedicated to all the gods 
2:a building serving as the burial place of or containing memorials to the famous dead of a nation 
3:the gods of a people; especially :the officially recognized gods 
4:a group of illustrious persons 

Admittedly # 4 is a bit hazy so here is how M-W defines illustrious:

Main Entry: il·lus·tri·ous 
Function: adjective 
Etymology:        Latin illustris, probably from illustrare 
1:notably or brilliantly outstanding because of dignity or achievements or actions :EMINENT 
2archaic a:shining brightly with light b:clearly evident 
synonym see FAMOUS 
-il·lus·tri·ous·ly adverb 
-il·lus·tri·ous·ness noun

Hmmm, and we've entrusted our military to a man who considers Saddam a famous demi-god?  Has the guy gone soft in the head?  Even I, pacificus americanus would not grant Saddam such status.


----------



## wiz (Apr 9, 2003)

i give no credit to those trigger happy b*st*rds, yes those USA fools. they behave and act liek cheap cowboys!

The British were a lot more cautious. They truly fought for freedom. And nothing else but freedom!

(i'm not giong to argue against the USA, since majority of kind mac folks here are americans! And most certainly they will defend their country _even_by_words_ )


and u know what i mean by trigger happy


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 10, 2003)

Freakin....

UN isn't, or ever will be, irrelevant.  Man, without it, there'd be a lot more countries at each others' throats.  It *is* the best thing that happened to international politics and relations.

Also....how long do you think a democracy would last in Iraq surrounded by nations that think the word is synonymous with the devil?  Unless America actually _stays_ there in perpetuity (and that's a drain we definitely don't need right now).  And why should America force a nation that has nothing to do with it into a democracy?  They should decide what government, not us.

As to France...how do you pay back something that never had a price? Agreed that they had their own agenda (who doesn't?), but they could have just as easily _not_ helped us out.  Us helping them out doesn't pay anything back at all.  Different circumstances, different times.  And I do believe that the US tried very hard *not* to enter that war...how is that very different?  We only entered because we were provoked.  Was France provoked at all in this in any way?

And do you really believe that France changed all that radically just because the government changed?


----------



## Cat (Apr 10, 2003)

George Bush, your hero. This borders on the type of cultus Saddam himself enforced ... Americans `enforce' it more subtly with propaganda. When will you be organizing the 5 minutes of hate? You already have flags everywhere I suppose...

Not in my name ... not indeed. Not in my name have the US invasion troops killed civilians and reporters, destroyed public and private infrastructure.

Not in my name has the US government violated international law, by attacking unprovoked. Not in my name has Gearge Bush, your hero, jeopardized international democratic institutions.

You may well stay top nation for a while, by brutish enforcement of your ideology, by creating satellite states with puppet governments, by neocolonialism, but in the end you will fail, like every other empire has. You're in the last stages right now, you have lost your moral authority through your primitive methods. Repent, and you will be remembered honorably, persist and history will damn you.

Have a nice day.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *George Bush, your hero. This borders on the type of cultus Saddam himself enforced ... Americans `enforce' it more subtly with propaganda. When will you be organizing the 5 minutes of hate? You already have flags everywhere I suppose...
> 
> ...
> *



I think you misread the original post.  "George Bush our hero" was shouted by the Iraqi people (well some of them anyway).  The original poster wasn't making a comment about GB being his/her hero (he may well be, but the post was about the Iraqi's).  To say that this is the same or similar as the forced piety of Saddam is a stretch of the highest order.


----------



## kendall (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *George Bush, your hero. This borders on the type of cultus Saddam himself enforced ... Americans `enforce' it more subtly with propaganda. When will you be organizing the 5 minutes of hate? You already have flags everywhere I suppose...
> 
> Not in my name ... not indeed. Not in my name have the US invasion troops killed civilians and reporters, destroyed public and private infrastructure.
> ...




bwahahahaha!

its pathetic that even though a country that has been oppressed for almost 3 decades is on the brink of freedom, you still chant your BS angry anti war sentiments.

why can't you just be happy for these people?  no longer will they have to live in fear of death squads nor live in sub-humane conditions.

pull your head out of your ass.  where the hell are your priorities? 

as for an "unprovoked attack", saddam has killed 100,000s of his own people! *he released chemical weapons on 1000s of kurds!  do you know what its like to be eaten alive by chemicals?!  i dont and dont want to find out! * 

we should have smeared that son of a bitch all over the interior of a under ground bunker with a tomahawk missile 10 years ago and would have if it wasn't for the UN.


----------



## kermit64 (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kendall _
> *bwahahahaha!
> 
> its pathetic that even though a country that has been oppressed for almost 3 decades is on the brink of freedom, you still chant your BS angry anti war sentiments.
> ...



the iraqi people will be better off without the government that they had.  i'm so glad that the iraqi people seem to be happy.

that being said, a little history is in order.  saddam hussein rose to power through his ba'ath party which was a radical political organization in iraq in the 60's and 70's.  the cia wanted a change in iraqi leadership at that time as well as now.  the ba'ath party was their choice for funding and support.  saddam hussein took power in a quasi-coup and eliminated many of his political enemies by execution.  so at this point in the late 70's saddam was basically the dictator of iraq.  during the 80's ronald reagan, in a throwback to containment, extended american support to iraq to try to build a relationship with them.  the reagan administration wanted to sever ties between russia and iraq, and it also wanted iraq to be victorious over iran.  the my enemy's enemy is my friend philosophy.  in order to help iraq win that war, we gave them military aid and intelligience, specifically the helicopters that were used to gas the kurds in the north were american.  the war came to a stailmate and ended, but support for the iraqi regime kept coming through reagan's vice turned president george bush sr.  america along with other countries furiousely protested the chemical attacks against the kurds, but little action resulted.  i forget who, but one of the cabinet members went to visit iraq and during late 1990 i think.  there was a meeting with a top iraqi official, and iraq was expressing their desire to invade kuwait for various reasons.  price of oil and territorial claims were some of them.  the u.s. official had an apathetic response and basically told them to do it nicely or something.  the whole world responded to the invasion.  american people were overwhelmingly opposed to any military action.  most people kept saying it would be another vietnam, and that scared a lot of people.  colin powell was an advocate of no military action but prolonged sanctions.  president bush wanted to get the job done quickly and wasn't prepared to wait 2 years or more.  through the un they assembled a coalition, and most of the countries in the un supported the action.  the forces quickly "liberated" kuwait and reinstated the non-democratic government that existed prior to iraqi invasion.  there was an oppurtunity to pursue iraqi forces into iraq and destroy them, the coalition made some progress in iraq, perhaps a little too much progress.  after it was clear that it was becoming a turkey shoot, specifically the highway of death incident, international and domestic opinion concluded that the mission was over because the objectives had been met.  there un didn't prevent the removal of saddam, it was  decision made by the leaders of the coalition.  the post desert storm inspections were hindered by saddam's willingness to prevent access to random places.  the inspectors worked however for several years untill iraq officially expelled them in 1998.  during that seven years the inspectors made huge strides in dismantling iraqs wmd production capability.  after the expulsion of inspectors, then during the clinton administration, there were randam clashes above the no fly zones in iraq, there were airstrikes ordered against targets in iraq.  in 2001 bush jr. became president, in september of that year, the world trade center was destroyed by terrorists that hijacked airplanes and flew them into the buildings.  this terrorist attack prompted a wordwide war on terror, and immediately brought military action to afghanistan where the alleged master mind osama bin laden was living.  in january 2002, president bush delivered the state of the union adress that grouped iran, iraq, and north korea into "an axis of evil".  during the second half of 2002 those words seemed to manifest themselves.  north korea, in a series of off the wall foreign policy moves, further isolated itself from the rest of the world.  iran is believed to have started building a nuclear reactor which the u.s. claims is for nuclear weapons production, and then iranians claim is benign.  then the rhetoric about iraq began to heat up.  the u.s. started making claims about iraq having weapons of mass destruction and how that was illegal under the u.n. resolutions following desert storm.  the bigger claim was that iraq was a threat to national security and so that justified regime change in iraq.  after much talk the u.s. decided to submit a resolution to the u.n. demanding that iraq disarm or "face the concequences" which meant the u.s. would invade.  the inspections regime resumed in order to verify iraqi compliance with the u.n. resolution after iraq submitted a report declaring that they had no weapons of mass destruction.  a six month political battle ensued over how to deal with iraq.  the u.s. was consistantly pushing for war, arguing that iraq had not met the terms.  other countries like france, germany, and russia, saw no evidence of wmd being reported by the weapons inspectors so saw no need for military action.  the u.s. tried to argue the link between iraq and terrorism, and then tried to argue that a regime change was necessary because of humanitarian reasons.  the countries opposed to war stood more or less steadfast in their oppinions.  since france and russia are permanent veto wielding members, their support of u.n. action was fairly crucial.  late in january the u.s. set itself on a course to go to war.  continually proclaiming that it was up to saddam hussein to prove that iraq has disarmed, or the u.s. will invade.  the final diplomatic thrust would have been a second resolution calling for invasion.  the u.s. and britain failed however to convince any of the previousely opposed countries on the security council that it was necessary to go to war with iraq.  those countries cited recent cooperation with inspectors as evidence that inspections were working.  the u.s. was set to propse the resolution but failed to secure the nine votes it would need for passage.  france and russia had threatened to veto the resolution had it been introduced, but many argue that the u.s. would have introduced it regardless if it knew it had the nine votes.  the diplomatic failure led to action by the u.s. and britain invading iraq.

feel free to add or change any of these facts if i got them wrong.

hopefully people realize that governmental actions are very complex and are rooted in history.  to slap a label on a war like "operation iraqi freedom" is to ignore the entire string of events that led up to the invasion.  freedom of the iraqi people was never the reason we wanted a regime change untill the administration realized it was a good argument.  imagine if from the get go bush had said, "look, saddam has got to go because he murders innocent people and has used chemical weapons on innocent people in the past."  imagine if bush had said that, and then asked the u.n. to help remove a dictator that commits human rights violations, which countries would be arguing against that?  no one, because it's a good argument.

i hope we don't always have to rely on military action.  but if bush is going to be using the military anyway, i think he should go ahead and rid the world of any government where the people aren't free.  i'm being completely serious by the way.  i don't want my government to claim that we're invading iraq to free the iraqi's, but just ignore the fate of other countries with similar situations.  why not have "operation free the planet."


----------



## chevy (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *I think you misread the original post.  "George Bush our hero" was shouted by the Iraqi people (well some of them anyway).  The original poster wasn't making a comment about GB being his/her hero (he may well be, but the post was about the Iraqi's).  To say that this is the same or similar as the forced piety of Saddam is a stretch of the highest order. *



Don't forget the same man, the same throat, said "Saddam our hero" one week ago. What will he say tomorrow ?


----------



## Cat (Apr 10, 2003)

Dear kermit64, exept for the very last paragraph I appreciated your post a lot!  Unlike other contributors to the discussion (and regrettably sometimes myself), you come with facts and reasons instead of insults and ignorance. 

If Iraq is on the brink of anything, right now that would be the brink of a humanitarian disaster: vast portions of its infrastructure (electricity, water) have been destroyed. Hospitals can barely handle the wounded and dying. People in the streets are looting public institutions like universities. It is the prime responsibility of the invader, according to international law, to care for the safety and well being of the citizens of the occupied territory. This means to bring law and order, something the US shouldn't dislike.

The United States of America have literally violated an international agreement, whihc they for once have signed and ratified, of the UN, which states that no country is to attack another unless provoked. You can laugh at me, you can ridicule me, yell at me and call me names, but you cannot change the facts. Irak did not in any way provoke or menace the USA. The mere suspicion of the possibility that there could be some kind of weapons that maybe could be used against the US, is in no way a sufficient reason to attack and invade another country. Especially not when the United Nations are actively undertaking investigatons to prove or disprove the charges. The unilateral action of the US is therefore basically unjust. It would be a comparable situation as when you decide to charge a man in court with beating his wife, but then instead of waiting for the verdict, shooting him. If the man indeed hit his wife, he should be punished, but not by you, but by the established law, which has the authority to do so.

If you like big numbers, I can give you big numbers. Saddam has killed thousands of kurds, but the first gulf war had as a consequence the death of at least 200.000 children.

BTW. Nice post too, chevy. Very true.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *Don't forget the same man, the same throat, said "Saddam our hero" one week ago. What will he say tomorrow ? *



Depends on why he said what he said.  If one week ago he was afraid to have his head bashed in by Saddams henchmen while today he is jubilant over not having that cloud over him, then tomorrow he'll say "who the hell is running this place and how can I get my family some food and clothing".

If last week he feared as above, and now today he fears the US soldiders, then he will say "<insert current "leader" here> our hero".

etc, etc.

Which one you think is most likely depends I guess on how cynical/negative/positive/idealistic you are.  Which one is actually the truth will remain to be seen, and obviously they'll be those that fall into all the camps, which one holds the majority will be the bigger question.


----------



## toast (Apr 10, 2003)

In his last book, Kissinger explains how the US liberated South-East Asia during WWII, then how they completely f*cked up the construction of new peaceful, stable, democratic regimes there, thanks to Mc Arthur.

There is nothing 'heroic' in winning an unequal war against a disarmed country. What would be 'heroic' would be to build the first muslim democracy, just like democratic Germany was. This has already been attempted in 1991, in Afgh., in Palestine, in many places, and always failed.


----------



## chevy (Apr 10, 2003)

Please allow me a pint of humor in a sad world.

http://www.globecartoon.com/war/

Luckily they are still plenty of nice people in this world.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *Please allow me a pint of humor in a sad world.
> 
> http://www.globecartoon.com/war/
> ...



I fail to find the humour in that cartoon, whether your for the war or against.  Perhaps you meant irony, for it does contain that.

If you are anti-war and find that cartoon "funny", then I'd suggest that your anti-war stance has nothing to do with humanity and everything to do with politics, and that would be the saddest of all.


----------



## chevy (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *I fail to find the humour in that cartoon, whether your for the war or against.  Perhaps you meant irony, for it does contain that.
> 
> If you are anti-war and find that cartoon "funny", then I'd suggest that your anti-war stance has nothing to do with humanity and everything to do with politics, and that would be the saddest of all. *



Humor is not just funny and laugh, it's also another look at a situation, often opposing two sides of the same coin. Sometimes humor doesn't make me laugh, neither do poems, even if they are romantics. But they always show me the world from another eye.

(they are several cartoons, some funny, some not, if you follow the drop-down menu)


----------



## fryke (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dixonbm _
> *The US will be able to help Iraq form a democratic governmen and quickly rebuild the country.  We will have a friendly democracy in the middle east with which we can use to further the US agenda.*



I don't know what I fear more. A) The US realising that countries in the Middle East do not really _want_ to be democratised or B) the US 'going further' with their agenda of bringing war to the world.


----------



## toast (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *B) the US 'going further' with their agenda of bringing war to the world. *



Who's next on the US agenda ? i've been working a lot, no time to watch the news, maybe you can help me.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 11, 2003)

Syria seems to be the best bet, Rummy has made it clear that it is another "evil" nation and deserves to be "freed" by the American "liberators".  US planes have been patrolling the Iraq/Syria border bombing away at anything that moves.  Any major offensive will have to wait until the other ships reach Iraq after being diverted from Turkey so I doubt anything will happen for a few more weeks.


----------



## toast (Apr 11, 2003)

I do not think the US would attack a country with several allies like Syria. Iraq was isolated, the Hussein regime was not friendly to the rest of the Muslim world. Syria is a different story.


----------



## chevy (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *I do not think the US would attack a country with several allies like Syria. Iraq was isolated, the Hussein regime was not friendly to the rest of the Muslim world. Syria is a different story. *



One leader of Bush administration said tonight on Swiss TV that Syria must "pay attention", some things "are not allowed and will not be allowed".


----------



## habilis (Apr 11, 2003)

I think we've made it clear who's next; There's 3 components (Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea) that make up the Axis of Evil regimes, so don't worry, there's plenty of time for you peace people to come in the way of freedom and make abject fools of yourselves defending murder, torture, and extreme totalitarianism.

Or you could try to save face, save the last scraps of dignity for your marxist socialist cause and admit that you were wrong. The answer isn't to now move farther to the left after being proven wrong, better become more centrist. There's still time for you to regain a little of your shredded credibility. 

George Bush will go down in history as the man that saved the world from religious hatred, global terrorism, and extreme totalitarianism and brought the Arab world into a golden age of peace and elightenment, just as Regan brought down the berlin wall and crushed the scurge of worldwide communism. In 30 years Bush will be viewed by the Arabs as an absolute savior, a hero of peace - in total contrast the peace movement will be viewed as the thing that stood in the way of their freedom.

TRUTH:
The Bush mission is a total success story. The Peace mission is a total failure.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *I think we've made it clear who's next; There's 3 components (Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea) that make up the Axis of Evil regimes, so don't worry, there's plenty of time for you peace people to come in the way of freedom and make abject fools of yourselves defending murder, torture, and extreme totalitarianism.
> 
> The Axis of Evil remark was a soundbite.  Anybody who believes the verity of it is certainly no more than a victim of American propaganda.
> ...


----------



## chevy (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *I think we've made it clear who's next; .... *



Who is "we" ?


----------



## dlloyd (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *I think we've made it clear who's next; There's 3 components (Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea) that make up the Axis of Evil regimes, so don't worry, there's plenty of time for you peace people to come in the way of freedom and make abject fools of yourselves defending murder, torture, and extreme totalitarianism. *



Don't worry, we still have plenty of time to prevent it happening again.
If there are three components, then we have only lost _one third_ of the battle so far. There are still two chances to avoid making the same mistake again.

We are not defending "murder, torture, and extreme totalitarianism", we are trying to _prevent_ it. What is the difference between Saddam Hussein killing his people, and soldiers doing it, even by accident, *'in the name of Freedom'*? If you want to kill Saddam, send an assassination squad in. They'll do it without civillian casualties.
Or better yet, go over and fight him yourself. Then come back and tell us whether you are sill pro-war.



> *
> Or you could try to save face, save the last scraps of dignity for your marxist socialist cause and admit that you were wrong. The answer isn't to now move farther to the left after being proven wrong, better become more centrist. There's still time for you to regain a little of your shredded credibility. *



"Shredded credibillity"?
I guess I hadn't thought of it that way before...



> *
> George Bush will go down in history as the man that saved the world from religious hatred, global terrorism, and extreme totalitarianism and brought the Arab world into a golden age of peace and elightenment, just as Regan brought down the berlin wall and crushed the scurge of worldwide communism. In 30 years Bush will be viewed by the Arabs as an absolute savior, a hero of peace - in total contrast the peace movement will be viewed as the thing that stood in the way of their freedom. *



If George Bush goes down in history for doing this, then he will also go down as the man who destroyed the Arctic Wildlife Preserve, broke international law, undid the diplomatic work of many Presidents of the current time, and helped destroy the world-wide image of the United States of America as a power to be _trusted_ in, not feared.



> *
> TRUTH:
> The Bush mission is a total success story. The Peace mission is a total failure. *



Who's _truth_, yours?
The Bush mission is not a "total success story", far from it. Who bombed the hospital? Who keeps on having friendly fire incidents? Who has killed many young Americans when he had no provocation?
I must admit that the peace movement hasn't had much influence on this war, _yet_. Always remember what happend back with Vietnam though.


----------



## toast (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *TRUTH:
> The Bush mission is a total success story. The Peace mission is a total failure. *



The Bush mission was supposed to be a Peace mission. Remember the aim is to free this country, not to annihilate it.


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 11, 2003)

Personally, I think GW is a bit...out of it...at the moment.  He's _not_ acting the same as he used to.

I of course don't know him personally, but I did used to live in Texas...he passed a bunch of dumb laws (IMO), but nothing like this...

I think GW had a nervous breakdown during 9/11 and hasn't really gotten over it, really.  Unless he hired a fanatic to write his speeches...

You ask me, these people should be chanting "George Bush is a whacko" instead.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *Mr. Bush has done other things wrong, I do not think that we will make the mistake of electing him again (Technically we didn't in 2000 either.)*


Yes we did.


----------



## Reality (Apr 11, 2003)

Hahah, I have seem to have heard it all since the war started.

1. Bush was never elected into office.
2. Iraq doesn't want war.
3. The people of Iraq would take Saddam over anything else.
4. America will be wooped.
5. They are in it for the oil.
6. "They war is only killing Iraq people."
7.  The Iraq people don't want the U.S there.

First off, these were all coming from people who live in places like the U.S, Europe, Australia. Places were people wouldn't have a idea what the "Iraq" people want from personal experience. I seen posters make the hugest statements as if they alone can speak for all people and Iraq and what they say it's the coldest form of the truth. When in reality they are just saying their opinion and using the words, *they*.

My opinion on the whole subject. If I was old enough I would have voted for Bush. When I'm old enough this year I will.(only if he stay good as a leader). I support this war to not only free a nation but to remove a world threat. I understand people died in this war and my heart is heavy for the innocent losses but I am also excited for the people in Iraq who think it's the greatest thing in the world to be free. I don't think Bush was just placed into office just because. I think he is there because he won. 

If nothing had happened it would have been a ticking time bomb. Wether it be a civil war in Iraq it's self or weapons of mass destruction. The point, people say the U.S is wrong for doing anything, and they still be wrong for not doing anything depending on the future.


----------



## fryke (Apr 11, 2003)

The first mistake was to ignore that actually something was being done.

The second mistake was to ignore the outcry of THE WORLD when Bush said they would go to war.

The third mistake was going to war.

The fourth mistake was going to war badly prepared/misinformed.

The fifth? I don't know. But you can find similar stories in history-books. Maybe you'll find something good about how the Germans thought A. Hitler was good for them and how they were led into a disaster. Not only for them, but for the world. And then try to look at 'your' country (the USA) from the outside. Objectiveness seems to be a rare thing in America right now. Maybe Bush can find a small country that has some, name it evil and then surprise the hell out of the country with some bombs and try to get some of that rare good back.


----------



## dlloyd (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *Yes we did.  *



No. No we didn't.

I could give you a lecture on the Electoral Collage, how it works, why it was put in place, why it no longer makes sense, and why we should get rid of it.
This position that we are in regarding the year 2000 elections has only happened once before, and caused a similar controversy.

The sad fact is that the majority (I remember seeing figures to the effect of about 52%) of the American people _do not bother_ to vote for our country's future. They make a big fuss about 'freeing' other countries, but then don't bother to take advantage of this freedom in their own nation. Of course, I can't really talk because I am not of legal voting age yet.

Oh, and nice post fryke!


----------



## Reality (Apr 11, 2003)

So do you think then in this case of U.S vs Iraq the U.S would play the bad guy? In your opinion is it more the fact the U.S steep in Iraq that makes the war wrong? Do anyone here think Iraq would have gone away if no one acted? Or is that not even our business? These aren't to be placed as attacks or anything I'm just wanting some opinion sharing. 

I know what your saying and I try to look at it form several ends. I also know that opinions are often molded by the media so I haft to be careful about it. Though there could be loads of ways to handle this thing it came down to this point in history were that action was war. No id Bush was trying to take over Iraq to own I would worry I pro-test against this.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *The first mistake was to ignore that actually something was being done.
> 
> The second mistake was to ignore the outcry of THE WORLD when Bush said they would go to war.
> ...


Looks like you stretched two "mistakes" into 4.  And dude, forgive me, but comparing GWBush to Hitler is a stupid comparison.  Hitler commited genocide.  Bush is liberating from genocide.  Hitler was bent on expansion and conquer.  Bush has will help setup a government the people want and get out.

And we did not "surprise the hell" out of Iraq's dictatorship; they were given chance after chance after chance...

Open your ears and listen!  A great thing has happened!  The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for their liberation -- now it is up to us to let them decide their own fate and get out of there.


----------



## edX (Apr 11, 2003)

my latest heroes - the iraqi soldiers who put down their guns and went home without playing war.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dlloyd _
> *No. No we didn't.
> 
> I could give you a lecture on the Electoral Collage, how it works, why it was put in place, why it no longer makes sense, and why we should get rid of it.
> ...


Yes, *TECHNICALLY*, BUSH WON!!!  You may say "Bush should not have won," or "Gore won the popular vote," but the fact still stands.  Bush won Florida, which held the necessary electoral votes.  The electoral college was in place, and therefore Bush *technically* won.  Recount after recount, Bush won.  Bush won the presidential race of 2000.  He won.  He won!!!  Gore lost and Bush won.

Don't imply that I don't care about my country.  I voted.  I voted for Bush and he won, fair and square.


----------



## Reality (Apr 12, 2003)

I just want to share something. I have a close friend who lives in Venezuela. Now anytime we talk about the war he tells me how he hopes the next country the U.S fights is Venezuela. Now he knows the danger of war and knows he, his family or freinds could be easily killed but he tells me how some many of them die each time they protest against their president. How things like having the power to you whole home cut off for a whole week is the only way you can try to be heard without being gunned down. It's this type of things, though his own opinion that touch me. I wish if I had the power I could go and get his family to live here and they want to try in the future if and in his quote "are not dead before then." I mean what can I say to him? We can't? It's not justified for us to do anything? It may not be our place but what's going to be done?


----------



## fryke (Apr 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Reality _
> *So do you think then in this case of U.S vs Iraq the U.S would play the bad guy? In your opinion is it more the fact the U.S steep in Iraq that makes the war wrong? Do anyone here think Iraq would have gone away if no one acted? Or is that not even our business? These aren't to be placed as attacks or anything I'm just wanting some opinion sharing. *



To the last question: Yes, I think this is the UN's business and not the United States' business. This should also answer my stance on the other ones. It also explains why I don't even care for the reasoning behind this US-made war. The UN made quite clear that the war was not (yet) an option.



> _Originally posted by Reality _
> *I know what your saying and I try to look at it form several ends. I also know that opinions are often molded by the media so I haft to be careful about it. Though there could be loads of ways to handle this thing it came down to this point in history were that action was war. No id Bush was trying to take over Iraq to own I would worry I pro-test against this. *



Well, the biggest problem, as mentioned above, I have with Bush and the US government, is that they play a big part in the UN and claim it's a good thing to have it whenever they can make use of it. However: This time they've shown that it basically doesn't count. And one country deciding over peace and war in the world is playing God. The American president even uses language like this was a holy war. There's a word in the Islam for this: Jihad. And it's a thing you hate. (You = Generalising term for the generalising term USA.)


----------



## Ugg (Apr 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *Yes, TECHNICALLY, BUSH WON!!!  You may say "Bush should not have won," or "Gore won the popular vote," but the fact still stands.  Bush won Florida, which held the necessary electoral votes.  The electoral college was in place, and therefore Bush technically won.  Recount after recount, Bush won.  Bush won the presidential race of 2000.  He won.  He won!!!  Gore lost and Bush won.
> 
> Don't imply that I don't care about my country.  I voted.  I voted for Bush and he won, fair and square. *



Bush won via the electoral college, not via the popular vote but only through intervention of the Supreme Court.  I agree with dlloyd that the electoral college needs to go and that we the people should get rid of it.  

Hitler came to power not because he committed genocide against the jews but because, Hitler, an Austrian, told the Germans that he could lead them out of the mess created by the Treaty of Versailles.  He told the Germans that he was going to free them from the tyranny of the Brits, French and Americans.  He did a remarkable job in building up the German economy and instilling in Germans pride for their country.  Then he began to ruthlessly eliminate those who opposed him.  He did this much like Saddam, Stalin, Mao tse Tung, Castro, Kim Jung and countless other ruthless dicators.  

History speaks loud and clear that he who begins to ruthlessly eliminate those who disagree with him is well on his way to creating a dictatorship.  GW's shameless and brutal behaviour in the UN only proves that he is out to destroy anyone who disagrees with him.  

For Americans, the Patriot Act could be considered the first step in this direction.  

It is all good and well for all of us to speculate on the outcome of this war, but at what point will GW have gone too far?  Has anyone begun to think about that?  If history is correct, we won't know until it is too late.  

Everyone talks about how GW is bringing democracy to Iraq as though it something that can be bought at the local 7-11 and handed out to the people with instructions.  Since WWII America has NEVER succeded in bringing democracy to a country run by a former dictator.  NEVER!!!  We like to think we have but the only thing we have ever succeded in is replacing one dictator with another. If GW succeeds in truly democratizing a Muslim nation consisting of 3 different ethnic groups who hate each other's guts, then I will be the first to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.  I say that with all honesty and sincerity.  

History is the only thing that will tell us that.  I wish him luck.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 12, 2003)

You know, for all the claims that Bush is an idiot and doesn't know anything, I'm amazed at how much credit some give him in the area of cunning and deceit and the desire to rule the world...  For a U.S. president to actually become a dictator would be very hard to do, especially for an idiot like Bush, right?  Bah...


----------



## chevy (Apr 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Reality _
> *Hahah, I have seem to have heard it all since the war started.
> 
> 1. Bush was never elected into office.
> ...



1) It's not my problem
2) That's true
3) That's wrong
4) ?
5) That's partialy true
6) That's wrong
7) That's true


----------



## kermit64 (Apr 12, 2003)

it's a simple concept, and one that people in the u.s. have clung to from the very beginning.
the u.s. relies on the rule of law domestically, there are many cases where courts have thrown out cases against absolute criminals because the evidence wasn't gathered in a laweful manner, or the law enforcement didn't proceed accordingly.
in order for the united states to succeed in democratizing the world, the rule of law must be a cornerstone of such an endevor.  agreed?  principles must be laid out that have to be abided by.
war in iraq can be justified by the fact that iraq is now rid of a government that did some very bad things to the people there.  war in iraq can also be unjustified by the fact that the u.s. and britain attacked and invaded a country without provocation, which violates international law.  regardless of your stance on this war, if you want to argue a side, you will have to extend that stance to the future of foreign policy.
if you think democratization of nations is a good way to rid the world of evil, then be willing to invade every country on the planet that is not a democracy.  let me say that again.  EVERY NATION ON THE PLANET!  it's not fair to pick certain countries and invade them just cause they pose an usubstantiated threat.  (wmd are not a unique threat, if this was true, the u.n. should invade the united states unless they disarm)  if you think disarming countries is a good idea, then you must disarm everyone.  EVERYONE!  again, just so we are all clear.

the united states is not in the business of freeing oppressed people.  the united states is not in the business of ridding the world of the threat of wmds.  the united states is not in the business of securing peace across the world.
if the united states really wanted these things, they would see them through.  but ultimately, our policy is generated from a function of who is the leader at a given time, how our economy is based, and a million other factors, but it is not moral or altruistic or ethical.  it is certainly not consistant.

i think that the united states has done great things.  i think that most people in iraq are truly greatful that the old iraqi government will be gone.  i hope that iraq will be better off (i think they will be).

i hope the united states remains true to the ideals of democracy.


----------



## kermit64 (Apr 12, 2003)

removed (double post)


----------



## toast (Apr 12, 2003)

> *
> 
> 1. Bush was never elected into office.
> 2. Iraq doesn't want war.
> ...



1. Well, he's President now, so you should assume, by retroactive constitutional principles, that he was elected.

Anyway, who cares about 300 Florida votes in a country where abstention has reached such pathetic limits ? In a country where homeless people are so numerous ?

2. Complete your statement: Iraq doesn't want war with the US. Nobody wants. 

3. American propaganda. 'Those people love dictatorship, for sure !' type of affirmation.

4. ?

5. Who wouldn't have been ?

6. I agree.

7. I agree. Recent Bagdad anarchy and looting + Saddam nostalgia already rising meansare bad omens for the US diplomacy.


----------



## fryke (Apr 12, 2003)

Okay. I've been all over the web. It seems I have missed something important: Where is Saddam? Is he caught/dead/vanished?

I have found zillions of pages about a) "Should the UN now decide measures against the US/UK?", b) "Who is going to rebuild Iraq?" and c) "Bagdad taken..." - but I haven't found one line about Saddam.


----------



## dlloyd (Apr 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *Yes, TECHNICALLY, BUSH WON!!!  You may say "Bush should not have won," or "Gore won the popular vote," but the fact still stands.  Bush won Florida, which held the necessary electoral votes.  The electoral college was in place, and therefore Bush technically won.  Recount after recount, Bush won.  Bush won the presidential race of 2000.  He won.  He won!!!  Gore lost and Bush won.
> 
> Don't imply that I don't care about my country.  I voted.  I voted for Bush and he won, fair and square. *



Oooooops! I meant _theoretically_, not technically. Wrong word 
I didn't mean to imply that you did not vote, I was just mentioning the appalling level of abstention in our country.


Fryke: Outside of the Iraqi 'government' and maybe the US high command, I don't think anyone knows.
The US dropped two big 4,000+ pound bombs on a rather lavish neighborhood where Saddam and his sons were _supposed_ to be attending a meeting sometime this week though. There is some speculation that he might have been killed, but also whether he would have permitted both of his 'powerful' sons to gather in the same place as he did.
Anyhow, it doesn't really matter anymore, does it? As long as he hasn't escaped or anything.


----------



## fryke (Apr 12, 2003)

The question after your 'anyhow'-sentence is why I'm asking, really. 

But then again, you're right. Now that the evil part of the US strategy (the war) has ended, I wonder how the 'good' part (the rebuilding of Iraq) will take place. And how the deconstruction of the UN will continue (and if).


----------



## toast (Apr 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *The question after your 'anyhow'-sentence is why I'm asking, really.
> 
> But then again, you're right. Now that the evil part of the US strategy (the war) has ended, I wonder how the 'good' part (the rebuilding of Iraq) will take place. And how the deconstruction of the UN will continue (and if). *



Maybe a less religious way (vocab like 'good', 'evil' sounds there's a crusade taking place somewhere, evil being the killing and good the conversion) to say that would be to state that the easy part of liberating Iraq is over.

In military terms, the USA have never failed at invading a country. Even if history shows _variable duration_ (short: Chili, long: Vietnam), _variable damage_ (little: actual Iraq, heavy: hm... Vietnam again), _variable support from public opinion_ (actual conflict is a good example), the USA have never failed, whereas some other superpowers did in the past. The USSR (Afghanistan), but also older powers such as Napoleonian France, Mogul Khans or the Roman Empire did know some military defeats.

However, history is full of examples of countries who did not turn to democracy after American intervention. Post-war Germany is a counter-example; but most Third World countries which have experienced military intervention from the US obey to this rule: bombs do not bring democracy. May this be repeated.

A metaphor for this would be to say the US have brought more fire than cement to Iraq. More to destroy than to build. I am patiently waiting to see if this opinion turns out true or not in the next months.


----------



## Reality (Apr 12, 2003)

1. Bush was never elected into office.
2. Iraq doesn't want war.
3. The people of Iraq would take Saddam over anything else.
*4. America will get their butt kicked.*
5. They are in it for the oil.
*6. "The war is only killing Iraq people."*
7.  The Iraq people don't want the U.S there.

Hey again, alright I made some mistakes as I'm sure you all can see I just wanted to fix those. Man it was late last night when I posted so sorry about that. I put in bold what was fixed.


----------



## chevy (Apr 12, 2003)

What was the "official" reason to attack Iraq ?
Terrorism ? No (no link with al qaida)
Dictatorship ? No (tenths of other countries could have been attacked)
Petrol ? No
World dominance ? No
Revenge ? No
Internal politics ? No

So what was it that made this attack so urgent ? WMD !

My question: where are the WMD ?


----------



## Ugg (Apr 12, 2003)

My question: where are the WMD ? [/B][/QUOTE] 


The US is desperately searching for them, so far only finding pesticides and removing UN weapons inspection seals from stored nuclear waste.  

There is a very good website that examines the multitude of contradictory statements of the Bush administration with the UN weapons inspectors' reports.  Links are provided to the documents released by the UN and by the US and the UK.


----------



## BoneFill (Apr 12, 2003)

I hate to make this post in spanish... sorry if somebody feels offended... if somebody finds the way to translate what I feel and what I have to say the way I've said in spanish, go ahead, translate the hole thing and re-post it, if not.... just leave it the way it is...

La razón primordial para hacer este "post" en español es porque no quiero que se pierda nada de lo que pienso mientras lo traduzco aunque estoy seguro que se perderá mientras ustedes lo hacen.

Me sorprende saber que en el "país de la libertad" no están ni remotamente enterados de lo que esta pasando realmente debido a que la CNN, las cadenas de USA y de UK están bloqueando cualquier información que pueda perjudicar la estancia de los que actualmente ostentan el poder en esos países, moviendo la "moral" de los habitantes de dichos países (si esque existe alguna)... como ejemplo puedo citar el incidente del tanque del ejercito de USA disparando contra el Hotel Palestina, la declaración de la CNN fue que el ejercito fue atacado desde el piso 15 (me parece) donde se encontraban reporteros españoles haciendo cobertura de la toma de Bagdad un piso más arriba se encontraba el equipo de reporteros de México que lograron captar las imágenes del ataque pero las tropas del ejercito "aliado" destruyeron la cámara aunque el audio quedó intacto, la noticia fue publicada en gran parte del mundo como "agresión deliberada por parte del ejercito sin provocación alguna"... han ocurrido varios incidentes como este en que el gobierno de USA ha bloqueado la información de su ejercito disparando contra civiles desarmados, imágenes de niños mutilados por los ataques, etc. imágenes de miembros del ejercito riendo mientras ocurren saqueos y asesinatos frente a sus ojos... En este momento veo que incluso la información que Publica Reuters, es sumamente pretenciosa y que muchas de las notas que ellos tienen son deliberadamente bloqueadas ya que la historia que cuentan los sistemas conectados a sus fuentes de información es totalmente diferente a la difundido.

Estadísticamente la invasión ha causado mas muertes que Saddam Hussein y no solo muertes que eran de esperarse en un evento como este (militares) sino también civiles (la mayoría debo decir)... imágenes de televisión y fotografías así como reportajes de la prepotencia del ejercito de USA para con la gente de Irak han sido publicados en gran parte del mundo... 

¿Cómo esperar que un pueblo no luzca feliz ondeando la bandera del invasor cuando se les esta apuntando con armas de fuego y tanques?

¿Cómo esperar que no haya anarquía cuando al parecer el objetivo del ejercito se centra en destruir en lugar de ayudar?

¿Cómo creer en lo que se les dice a los ciudadanos de USA cuando a diario veo imágenes y videos que demuestran todo lo contrario?

Puedo entender que el pueblo Iraki no se revelara contra Saddam Hussein debido a la falta de cultura en ese país, lo que no logro entender es al pueblo de USA quedandose de brazos cruzados cuando su gobierno esta cometiendo uno de los mayores crímenes en la historia...

Estoy seguro de que si se hiciera una encuesta global sobre el país mas temido, el resultado seria los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica...

Seguramente algunos de ustedes me pedirán pruebas de lo que digo... solo ABRAN LOS OJOS!!! revisen la información publicada en otros países, y espero que aquellos que exijan dichas pruebas hagan lo mismo con su gobierno cuando todo este asunto termine o antes si es que quieren evitar mayores injusticias...

ARGH!! maldito sea el coraje que siento contra las acciones del gobierno norteamericano, no me deja pensar en nada mas que en la injusticia enorme que está cometiendo... no puedo continuar sin dejar que dicho coraje afecte  lo que digo...

Solo quiero agregar que los únicos con poder para detener esto son los habitantes de USA ya que a su gobierno la opinión del mundo no le impidió comenzarlo.


----------



## sUICIDE_mONKEY (Apr 13, 2003)

Where are the US army now where they are needed, why are they securing oil fields when hospitals and homes are being ransaked, people are being attacked, civil war is bubbling, where are the reporters who are supposed to be informing us of what is happening, already they are coming home, last wed/thurs our own RTE reporters returned. Why am i turning on the tv to see Tony Blair welcoming his British soldiers home and saying that there will be NO more reinforcements when they are obviously needed to protect the people. and why oh why do i open the english independent to see photos of doctors protecting hospitals and equipment with Kalasnikovs 

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=396743

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=395680

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=395412


----------



## fryke (Apr 13, 2003)

Well, it's not like we didn't KNOW that war is bad, or is it? It's not like we'd have expected a 'clean' war, or is it? :/


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 13, 2003)

There's another oxymoron for you...clean war...


----------



## fryke (Apr 13, 2003)

Clean war
(an) Oxymoron
(of) Morons (who)
Go to war (-)
War in their hearts (-)
War on their minds (-)
Warheads,
Nuclear,
Nucleine Acid
Ashes to ashes
Burning bushes
Blushing pumpkins
Gods (theirs and) Gods (ours)
Snakes and rabbits
The wizard of Oz
Osbournes on MTV
And CNN shows happy faces.

(A little TV zapping poetry.)


----------



## toast (Apr 14, 2003)

Can anyone help Bonefill to port his post to some English tone please ?  I'm barely French and can't argue one word of Spanish (wait, if my GF wakes up one day, she may help a lot on this one  )


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sUICIDE_mONKEY _
> *Where are the US army now where they are needed, why are they securing oil fields when hospitals and homes are being ransaked, people are being attacked, civil war is bubbling, where are the reporters who are supposed to be informing us of what is happening, already they are coming home, last wed/thurs our own RTE reporters returned. Why am i turning on the tv to see Tony Blair welcoming his British soldiers home and saying that there will be NO more reinforcements when they are obviously needed to protect the people. and why oh why do i open the english independent to see photos of doctors protecting hospitals and equipment with Kalasnikovs
> *



Well policing is a much tougher task than "warring".  Given an enforcement role, esp. when not all of the fighting is over becomes a trickier political situation.  If an Iraqi civilian is running with a small tv in their hands and a US soldier tells him to stop, what is the soldier to do if he doesn't?  If troops start cracking down hard, then it looks bad, because then you have US troops (not police, but soldiers) being placed in situations that specifically could call for harming of civilians (vs the harming of civilians via collateral damage).  So the priorities have been:

1. complete the war part
2. try to build up the Iraqi infrastructure to allow THEM to start taking care of themselves.

There is a large gap between 1 and 2.  Now that things are starting to settle, they can focus on #2.  Once cities like Baghdad are "cool" enough, aid organizations can come in and do what they do (e.g. Red Cross with the hospitals).


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *What was the "official" reason to attack Iraq ?
> Terrorism ? No (no link with al qaida)
> Dictatorship ? No (tenths of other countries could have been attacked)
> ...



This is one point that has bugged me for a while.  Was there a corporate takeover by the al Qaida of all other terrorist organizations?  I realize that they are obviously front and center in the minds of most people, and Bush himself would like for you to think of them first when he says "terrorist", but at last count, there are still plenty of other terrorist orgs out there.  Are we to assume that Saddam helped NO other Islamic terrorist orgs?

There were a few missles launced by the Iraqi's in the begining.  But anyone who thinks that this was about any one singular thing is looking in the wrong place.  This war was about a lot of things, some things concerning terrorism, some things concerning Iraq and its adherence to UN resolutions (or lack thereof), some about Saddams dictatorship, some about oil (though not in the simplistic form that many believe so, i.e. Iraqs oil), some about 9/11, and some about Bush himself.  This war was about ALL those things.  It is a convergence of events and opportunities, that's what this was all about.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *This is one point that has bugged me for a while.  Was there a corporate takeover by the al Qaida of all other terrorist organizations?  I realize that they are obviously front and center in the minds of most people, and Bush himself would like for you to think of them first when he says "terrorist", but at last count, there are still plenty of other terrorist orgs out there.  Are we to assume that Saddam helped NO other Islamic terrorist orgs?
> 
> Of course not, it is widely publicized that Saddam gave a "reward" to Palestinian suicide bombers.  It is also extremely likely that he supported other terrorist groups.  The US has also been a supporter of terrorism around the world, specifically these last years, a supporter of Islamic terrorists.  One doesn't need to look far to find the proof of that.  Therefore the support of Islamic terrorism is a weak point to start a war.
> ...



I would agree with the convergence of opportunities.  However, these opportunities were created by GW & Co. not found.  

Iraq's adherence to UN resolutions was hardly exemplary but due to increasing pressure, they were complying.  

As Chevy stated there are plenty of other dictatorships around the world, some with even worse track records than Saddam's.  

The oil issue is one of the most compelling of course, but also one of the most idiotic.  In about 20 years the supply of oil will no longer be able to keep up with world demand.  Prices will skyrocket and the countries most dependent upon oil imports will of course be driven into the ground.  Unless they are willing to colonize oil producing countries or develop alternative sources.  The $80 billion that Congress approved for this war, had it been devoted to alternative energy R&D  would have ensured the US a leading role in coming technologies.  Instead it was spent on destroying Saddam's regime in the hope that a US sympathetic democratic republic would take its place and provide the US with endless amounts of oil at bargain prices.  In addition, Iraq's telephone, oil, water and transportation contracts will all be given to American or British companies, therefore ensuring that the US will be paid back for its expenses.  

The US rather than furthering democratic republics like its own thru democratic processes at the UN has decided instead to create a neo-colonial world ruled by the might of one rather than the voices of many.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *I would agree with the convergence of opportunities.  However, these opportunities were created by GW & Co. not found.
> 
> Iraq's adherence to UN resolutions was hardly exemplary but due to increasing pressure, they were complying.  *



The pressure of impending war.  Iraq didn't really start to make an effort to comply until after the sword of war was dangled over their infidel heads (sorry, was just at the iraqi information minister site).



> *
> As Chevy stated there are plenty of other dictatorships around the world, some with even worse track records than Saddam's.
> *



But my point was that you can't look at any one single thing.  It's the context of these things that make the argument.  You can't say "well since there are other dictatorships around the world, the war couldn't have been about that".  Not soley, no.  But given the other issues, this did factor into it.  If Iraq were a democratic nation, even with all the other excuses, launching this type of military action would have been extremely difficult (politically).



> *
> ...
> The $80 billion that Congress approved for this war, had it been devoted to alternative energy R&D  would have ensured the US a leading role in coming technologies.  Instead it was spent on destroying Saddam's regime in the hope that a US sympathetic democratic republic would take its place and provide the US with endless amounts of oil at bargain prices.  In addition, Iraq's telephone, oil, water and transportation contracts will all be given to American or British companies, therefore ensuring that the US will be paid back for its expenses.
> *



Again, oil was a minor factor.  Any "price" benefits of this would be minor at best.  Plus do we risk alienating the other members of OPEC by buying oil at cut rate prices directly from Iraq?  Why, to help the airline industry?  It surely isn't to help the American consumer.  Any price reductions probably wouldn't happen soon enough to be of much use to Bush when the next elections roll around.  And they surely wouldn't lead to any major increase in the economy (again, airline sector excluded, and even then, would cheaper gas make up for lost customers due to the war and any subsequent worries of increased terrorist activities).  No, the oil argument by itself and in the context of just Iraq makes no sense.



> *
> The US rather than furthering democratic republics like its own thru democratic processes at the UN has decided instead to create a neo-colonial world ruled by the might of one rather than the voices of many. *



No, the US just did what it and many other countries always do.  They make efforts to remove from power those govt's that they are not particularlly fond of at the moment.  The difference here is that a direct action was taken vs more subversive/subtle/economic actions.  Just like Iraq when Iran was the bad guy.

In the big picture, orgs like the UN don't work.  To see this, just look at any countries own govt.  How do you expect the world to agree on things when their constituant members can't even agree on their own policies.  They do great when everyone happens to agree on something, but in the end, politics and he who carries the biggest stick (either economically or militarily) wins.


----------



## anerki (Apr 14, 2003)

This has probably been said ten times before me on this thread but just wanted to get off my mind that I'm absolutely scandalized by what habilis wrote.  

For plenty of reasons that have all been mentioned before me I'm sure ... And what the hell is Bush thinking provocing the entire islamitic world by his words about Syria. The us found samples what could've been chemical weapons, sent to the pentagon for investigation. Within two days they know what it is exactly, and how it can be used. That was 8 days ago. Are they really that stupid to think that people just forget about that?

The US is taking on much more than they can handle, than anyone can handle. The arabians know how it feels, they had crusades, and sadly only a minor part of the world knows how the crusades went ... It was a 1000 years ago, but millions of people were killed, one does not forget the past, and history repeats. The crusades were succesful indeed in the beginning, but the Franks realised that they couldn't manage it in the end ... It'll be the same here ...  

One thing, I'm happy for all the Iraqi's that they're freed at last, at least SOME good got out of this ...


----------



## anerki (Apr 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *In military terms, the USA have never failed at invading a country. Even if history shows variable duration (short: Chili, long: Vietnam), variable damage (little: actual Iraq, heavy: hm... Vietnam again), variable support from public opinion (actual conflict is a good example), the USA have never failed, whereas some other superpowers did in the past. The USSR (Afghanistan), but also older powers such as Napoleonian France, Mogul Khans or the Roman Empire did know some military defeats.*



The US did get their ass kicked in Vietnam ... Anybody remembers Hitler? Ever seen a speech of him on TV? Noticed how entire paragraphs can be found in Bush' speeches? "We're doing this for the good of those people, who cares if they want it? We'll do it anyway, we know it's best ..." Hitler said that too. And a lot of countries and people agreed with him, a lot didn't (like today). Then again, war isn't everything, at least the economy is going great in the US. Oh no wait, it isn't


----------



## Ugg (Apr 14, 2003)

The Patriot Act, and the Homeland Security Dept. and the govt's desire to have us spy on one another come from regimes like Botha's South Africa, The Soviet Union, and yes, Hitler's Germany.  Unfortunately most Americans don't see that.  They only see the above as a way to reign in the excesses of the 70s and 80s.  I just hope GW & Co. get kicked out of office before they do irreparable harm to American Freedom and Democracy.


----------



## toast (Apr 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by anerki _
> *The US did get their ass kicked in Vietnam ...*



True. Important correction to what I wrote: that was the very first US defeat in terms of superpower ruling. Thanks for noticing that.



> _Originally posted by anerki _
> *Anybody remembers Hitler? Ever seen a speech of him on TV? Noticed how entire paragraphs can be found in Bush' speeches? "We're doing this for the good of those people, who cares if they want it? We'll do it anyway, we know it's best ..." Hitler said that too. And a lot of countries and people agreed with him, a lot didn't (like today). Then again, war isn't everything, at least the economy is going great in the US. Oh no wait, it isn't *



_"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. *All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.*"

- Hermann Goerring_


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by anerki _
> *The US did get their ass kicked in Vietnam ... Anybody remembers Hitler? Ever seen a speech of him on TV? Noticed how entire paragraphs can be found in Bush' speeches? "We're doing this for the good of those people, who cares if they want it? We'll do it anyway, we know it's best ..." Hitler said that too. And a lot of countries and people agreed with him, a lot didn't (like today). Then again, war isn't everything, at least the economy is going great in the US. Oh no wait, it isn't *



So do you have any transcripts to support this statement?  "We're doing this for the good of those people" who cares if they want it"?  Well, that paraphrase would be completely wrong, as far as Bush goes anyway.  He says "We're doing this for the good of those people, who cares if the UN doesn't want it".  He's stated all along (rightly or wrongly) that the Iraqi people DID want it.  Care to be a bit more specific and a whole lot more accurate?


----------



## IXis9 (Apr 14, 2003)

It only took him 6 weeks 800billion dollars, 1,000 tons of explosives, 1,500 civilian deaths, and who will ever know how many children suffering concussion injuries to figure out what most of the world's population has told him for six months. Iraq is not a military threat. I'm soooooo proud.


----------



## anerki (Apr 15, 2003)

Some examples of Bush-Hitler resemblance:

State of the Union Speech: Bush Declares war on the world 
Bush Speech on Middle East: Ignorance, Arrogance, Imperialism 
Bush and Hitler: Compare and Contrast

If anybody has more articles, send them to me in a msg and I'll gladly add them here!


----------



## toast (Apr 15, 2003)

Anerki,

Look at your sources:
- World Socialist Web Site, published by the International Committee of the Fourth International.
- Pravda.ru: "Say what you want! PRAVDA.Ru will hear you!"
- Counterpunch seems more credible, hopefully.

The problem is, anerki, that demagogic speech is proper to the political class in general. It has also been proven that those politicians who tend not to use it in normal times do when big political events come (war, elections, etc.). The whole thesis is by a man called Giovanni Sartori. Throw it a glance.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Anerki,
> 
> Look at your sources:
> ...



Thank you toast for throwing a little reasoning into all this.  What's so funny is that many who might consider themselves enlightened (and those who "fall" for Bush's rhetoric unenlightened) will read things like this, take their tenuous conclusions and then propagate them.  Just because some journos (who OBVIOUSLY have differing views) write that "Bush rattled sword, Hitler rattled sword, Bush defies peaceful countries , Hitler defies peaceful countries, therefore Bush == Hitler", all of a sudden this becomes a mantra.  Forgetting things like common sense, context and an understanding of politics.  To compare the two based on their actions is to expose oneself as someone who is so into ones own politics that it has obviously clouded their thinking.


----------



## toast (Apr 15, 2003)

I do not like G.W. Bush very much, as all people here know from reading the war threads.

But if I had to compare him to some people, here's my list. Comparison to...

- Other American political figures: Ros Perot and Ronald Reagan, and also Pdt. Jackson.
- Eurasian political figures: Silvio Berlusconi, Vladimir Putin.


----------



## anerki (Apr 15, 2003)

You do have a point there (both of you), fact remains what he did is wrong  and in my opinion you have to be, well, you know, not to see it.

What I think lacks in the US, sorry for all you americans out there, is a view of history. I don't know what they teach in the US except for what I've heard, the american history and a little bit of world history too. In Belgium and Europe in common, we get everything from the Chinese/Egyptian empires in the ancient times till now: the US, China, Sovjet Union, ... Americans lack history, and knowledge of it. And I think that's a terrible thing not to have (of course if you don't know it you don't know what you're missing)


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by anerki _
> *You do have a point there (both of you), fact remains what he did is wrong  and in my opinion you have to be, well, you know, not to see it.*



Well some agree and some disagree.  I have no problem with either side as long as their arguments are "reasonable".  It's just that sometimes people have a tendency to start to "stray" and their arguments start losing touch with reality.



> *
> What I think lacks in the US, sorry for all you americans out there, is a view of history. I don't know what they teach in the US except for what I've heard, the american history and a little bit of world history too. In Belgium and Europe in common, we get everything from the Chinese/Egyptian empires in the ancient times till now: the US, China, Sovjet Union, ... Americans lack history, and knowledge of it. And I think that's a terrible thing not to have (of course if you don't know it you don't know what you're missing) *



Well we do get a fair amount of history about things other than the US.  Of course most of it is focused on the US (at least the stuff that's required).  I think the bigger problem is one of retention and applicability.  Fact is for a European, you have to be more aware of other European countries at a minimum due to the geography and economics of the area.  Europeans are also much closer to other areas such as the Middle East, keeping these things in for forefront and therefore helping them keep in context.  The US really is a big island in that for many things, we are self contained (with a few notable exceptions).  And even when there is a dependency on other countries, much of what ends up here has been filtered through US companies.  Oil is an excellent example.  Someone from the US usually equates Exxon or Shell with gas, not Iraq or Kuwait (current events not withstanding).


----------



## toast (Apr 15, 2003)

I will speak very frankly about this education question.

Point #1: The US education system is *complete crap*. I can't believe this world still counts some countries where you may be taught creationism in public school (basically, creationism is believing that Adam and Eve founded this Earth and that dinosaurs and Big Bang is state bullsh!t)[/size=1].

Evidence: This report provides initial findings from the first cycle of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).  The report gives information on achievement of 15-year-olds in reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy in the United States and 31 other participating nations.

Point #2: The German education system, for example, is even worse. This three-school system is a total failure, even if what it was aiming at (less scolar failure) is of the most honorable.

Evidence: Program for International Assesment (better known, esp. from german people, as the PISA studies, which are financed and led by the OECD).

Conclusion: education explains a lot. However, the US are not the lower standard of education. If you read both links, you will learn that 25% Americans aged 15 can't locate the US on a world map; but you will also learn 27% Germans aged 15 can't locate Germany on a world map. _Sic._

This is NOT boasting/showing off/etc. , but you should know France is at a very high level, close to Canada, Quebec, Scandinavia etc.


----------



## habilis (Apr 15, 2003)

Toast, I'm gonna defy conventions and agree with you on American Schools. 

I consider myself to be a staunch conservative and capitalist with strong nationalist viewpoints and feelings. I'm so nationalist I get a shiver down my spine and a rush of pride every time I see an American Flag. That being said, when it comes to religion, the consertives and I part ways. In my experience with the dismal failure of American public school we were never taught creationism in any way, as well we shouldn't have.

In fact, there's a movement afoot right now by the religious zealots in my state to institute teaching of a new theory called "Intelligent Design" - in other words, put a new label on creationism and try to sneak it into our children's minds. Luckily it was struck down in Ohio Supreme Court just recently.

I don't mind saying I'm at best a pragmatic agnost, and at worst a skeptical athiest. I can firmly say I don't know what or who god is, and I'm baffled by people that think they do know. I mean, how can 2 religions even co-exist if there is only 1 god? It flys in the face of reason and logic. As strong as I feel about that, I actually don't mind hearing other people invoke his name in certain circumstances, politics and anything run by the state is not one of them.

If intelligent alien life ever reaches the Earth, he's going to see millions of primitive little creatures running about kiling each other in the name of man-made apparitions that tell them to do so. Hitlers first official actions against the German Jews was a boycott on Jewish businesses, stating "I believe that I act today in unison with the Almighty Creator's intention: by fighting Jews, I do battle for The Lord".  If god exists, religion itself is blasphemy.


----------



## habilis (Apr 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by anerki _
> This has probably been said ten times before me on this thread but just wanted to get off my mind that I'm absolutely scandalized by what habilis wrote.



The only reason you would get so frazzled is because you know there's a lot of  truth  to it.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *I will speak very frankly about this education question.
> 
> Point #1: The US education system is complete crap. I can't believe this world still counts some countries where you may be taught creationism in public school (basically, creationism is believing that Adam and Eve founded this Earth and that dinosaurs and Big Bang is state bullsh!t)[/size=1].
> ...


 

Frankly I don't know of any public schools that teach creationism.  I'm sure they're out there, but I would bet that they are a small percentage.  But even if they did, I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything.  My wife and I are looking at private schools for our kids.  The highest scoring schools are most often religiously affliated.  Having a religious bent and having a crap education are totally unrelated, regardless of what your views of religion are.

As for the US school system.  Well as you might guess, we wouldn't be looking at private schools if we thought that the public school system was perfect (though the school district that we live in is excellent).  But I think that what many are learning is that achievement and the "school system" are not absolutely related.  I like to impress upon my wife that _I_ went to public schools (no snickers from the peanut gallery please) and _she_ went to public schools (though with some private schooling as well).  Parental involvment and, relatedly, parental attitude towards education play a huge part.  The good/sad part is that an excellent education is never more than some dollars away (either via private schools or moving to "better" school districts which typically equals more expensive neighborhoods).

To be honest, I think the whole religion in schools thing is a red herring.  Similar to the myth that more money spent per student equals a better education.  After all, being taught one view of our origins does not affect ones ability to read or do math or learn geography.  I know it's important to parents due to their own beliefs, but in the broader sense it has no bearing on the overall quality of education.  When people are more concerned about their kids praying vs their kids being able to do basic math then we start having bigger problems.

Oh and your definition of creationism is but one.  I know many people who have a more "logical" view of creationism.  One that can encompass big bang and pre-oil.  Not all creationists are paranoid zealots who believe anything that counters the things they are taught are govt funded attempts to deceive and cast their citizens unto sin


----------



## edX (Apr 15, 2003)

> you will learn that 25% Americans aged 15 can't locate the US on a world map;



i wouldn't get too excited about this news nor try to use it as some condemnation of the american education system. after seeing this posted in my local post office, i questioned my 14 yo son about this and he was able to verbally describe to me where the US is and what it looks like. when i told him why i asked, he just laughed at me and told me that lots of kids always mark the wrong answers on purpose on anything they aren't being graded on. 

it is true our education system needs work, but i would venture it is a lot better than you think it is toast. don't be quite so quick to judge what you don't know first hand.


----------



## edX (Apr 15, 2003)

as for creationism in schools, i would be more worried if our kids weren't made aware of the variety of theories that exist for how we came to be rather than having any one of them presented as truth. at best, all are only theories. yet, this remains one of the most compelling questions of all times.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 15, 2003)

Education in the US is as varied and as diverse as the population.  Personally, I believe the key to a good education is living in a community with a dedicated school board.  

GW came on board stating that he was going to be the education prez, with his grandiose and 19th century ideas of testing everyone to death.  Rote memorization is definitely a part of education but not all of it.  He also was going to reward the school districts that succeded in the tests and penalize those that failed.  In addition to massive subsidisation of private education at the expense of the public schools.  We've not heard a whisper for months now, although his tax cut continues to be in the headlines.

Religious based education is successful in the US because it is able to educate the cream of American youth.  You'll not find children born dependent on drugs or alcohol, nor will you find autistic, behaviourally disadvantaged; ie the dregs of American children in private schools.  Rarely will you find a private school that is surrounded by barbed wire, with metal detectors at the door and armed officers patrolling the grounds.  Should there be any disruptions in the classroom or illicit drugs/weapons on a private campus, the children can be kicked out with no chance of coming back.  What we are seeing is the beginning of a class based society, one that is turning its back on the problems of society instead of trying to solve them.  

I understand the concerns of parents who want only the best for their children and really don't blame them for pulling them out of what are oftentimes little more than urban warzones.  But, the long term effects of this refusal to deal with the problems of public education will haunt this country for a long time if we don't face up to it now.  

Control of education should be returned to the control of the local community.  Minimum educational standards should be instituted nation wide.  Science should be taught as science, religion as religion.  Congress should be forced to provide direct funding for all of its grandiose schemes rather than force localities to pay for what it often doesn't want.  

The major problem with education and with life in America in general is that we have all bought the lie that we are all created equal and that the pursuit of happiness and wealth is there for the taking.  This has led to an education system that forces all students into 13 years of education in which only the last 3 or 4 allow the student to make any choice.  Not all of us want to bankers or fishermen or lab technicians and in order for us to prepare for our separate dreams we need to have the appropriate education.  There is nothing worse than sitting in a class where 25% of the students are bored stiff because they already know it all, 25% could care less, and the middle 50% muddle along as best they can.  Unless we allow students to make a choice earlier than they do now based on the abilities and desires, what's the point?

The magnet school idea has drawn a lot of acclaim in many areas.  Imagine a school district that has a school for the arts, one for the business professions, one for sciences, one for technology, etc.  Students love these schools because they are able to focus on what they want.  These schools could be the future, but GW wants to take us back a century to a time when only the elite got an education and the poor were allowed to sink or swim.

Universal education is the key to success for any society. Period.


----------



## habilis (Apr 16, 2003)

quote by toast:
_you will learn that 25% Americans aged 15 can't locate the US on a world map_

The unstated demographic about that statistic is that probably 80% of that 25% are single-parent welfare-enslaved inner-city kids who's PARENTS don't even know where America is on a map.

And besides that, the only thing I ever really learned at my lily-white public school was that it was a typical example of how anything that is a state-run monopoly, in other words, socialist and communist in nature, fails miserably. That was when it first hit me, 2nd period 9th grade social science class. I'll never forget it.

quote by Ugg:
_GW wants to take us back a century to a time when only the elite got an education and the poor were allowed to sink or swim._

What about the GW administrations idea of vouchers Ugg? That allows inner-city kids to go to a private school?

And besides, the whole idea is to destroy the scurge of welfare because it keeps people addicted to handouts and their minds numbed. That's how the democrats get their precious votes; the welfare-enslaved poor know what party will give them more handouts, the social democrats. Thats how the democrats expanded and broadened the ghettos and segregated us. It keeps people impoverished because why would they ever need to get better at anything if they always get welfare handouts. This is called communism, and that's why it failed and will always fail. People never learn to feed themselves in a welfare state. Like the old saying goes; "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, TEACH a man to fish and you feed him for life."


----------



## aliscafo (Apr 16, 2003)

> in anycase, we're a little busy toppling a fascist regime and liberating millions of people. finding weapons of mass destruction is down a few on our list of things to do while in Iraq.



Take oil for example ....


----------



## Ugg (Apr 16, 2003)

You can teach a person to flip burgers but that doesn't mean that he will earn enough to afford to eat them.  

The reason the communists came into existence is because the ruling classes of the time reserved all the profits for themselves.  The peasants were tired of working for little or nothing and being used as cannon fodder for wars created to enrich the leaders not the masses.  One could draw parallels to GW & Co. and one wonders if history will repeat itself if the rich continue to get richer and the poor poorer.

The vouchers don't cover the full cost of education in most private schools.  

Habilis, you rant and rave about the intrusions that government makes but you make no case for what government should be.  I almost think that you must believe that government should exist only for making war.  I would be very interested in hearing your opinion.  By definition any republic needs a government and since we live in a democratic republic, we are all able to vote for the representative of our choice who then, hopefully, will create legislation in line with our desires.  Where has it all gone wrong?  Or, was it ever right in the first place?


----------



## habilis (Apr 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *Habilis, you rant and rave about the intrusions that government makes but you make no case for what government should be.  I almost think that you must believe that government should exist only for making war.  I would be very interested in hearing your opinion.  By definition any republic needs a government and since we live in a democratic republic, we are all able to vote for the representative of our choice who then, hopefully, will create legislation in line with our desires.  Where has it all gone wrong?  Or, was it ever right in the first place? *



Good point Ugg, I agree I haven't explained myself.

To better explain my intentions:
I'm a freedom monger, I think it's the only thing that is worth fighting and dying for. This concept is very hard to grasp if you haven't lived in oppression, very easy to grasp if you have. 

I have 2 grandparents, a father, and about 8 other close relatives that have lived in opression in the Soviet Union for decades and then defected to the U.S. I guess I have seen through their eyes and experiences. This is one of my motivational components when it comes to my lack of respect for the whole socialist/communist structure.

As far as a perfect government in my eyes, I realize most importantly that a perfect utopian government is impossible until people become perfect. I don't want to bore you with paragraphs of my idea of a perfect government but the gist is that by removing social safety nets like the forced Social Security pay deduction and welfare of all types we all have a lot more money to spend, thereby creating more jobs. The other gist is that by strictly limiting these social safety nets(that we pay for in high taxes) the lower class are forced to raise their education levels and become more focused on being a productive member of society and figure out where to best invest their money for the future. It also promotes stronger family bonds because if there are very limited social safety nets, the only place to turn would be family if you lost your job. Government does need to play a role in industry regulation but it's been proven by the Soviets that hardline government intrusion leads to disaster.

Those proven principals are what built the U.S. and what can save it from the inevitable implosion that lurks on the horizon. By default we are an Empire, and empires collapse when they overextend not only in foreign policy but in domestic policy as well. This overextension in our domestic policy to me is what will eventually lead to our collapse and I would love to prevent it.


----------



## toast (Apr 16, 2003)

As a complement to what was said about creationism (Habilis got it right: Intelligent Design they call it), there's a link page about it.



> _Ed wrote:_
> * i wouldn't get too excited about this news nor try to use it as some condemnation of the american education system. after seeing this posted in my local post office, i questioned my 14 yo son about this and he was able to verbally describe to me where the US is and what it looks like. when i told him why i asked, he just laughed at me and told me that lots of kids always mark the wrong answers on purpose on anything they aren't being graded on. *



The OECD PISA Studies were marked, in such a way to avoid the basic defiant attitude you described just before. See the UK PISA home, or the American one. On top of that, PISA studies obey to the usual polls' trules and techniques, which mean that the core results are altered* to make sure the answers are rational.



> _Ed wrote:_
> *as for creationism in schools, i would be more worried if our kids weren't made aware of the variety of theories that exist for how we came to be rather than having any one of them presented as truth. at best, all are only theories. yet, this remains one of the most compelling questions of all times.*



It is necessary indeed to learn that many _theories_ compete about the origin of life on Earth. The difference is that creationism is _not a theory at all_ but a simplistic credo, made from nothing but pseudo-biblical reference. Check what the Academy of Science has said on the topic.

*NOTE: redressing and confirmation questioning, for example.


----------



## anerki (Apr 16, 2003)

Toast:
Well then let's keep to France and Belgium for example. In Belgium I finished school at 18, well University now but hey ... Anyway, I know 4 languages standard, everyone in Belgium who graduated last 15 years or so knows 4 languages, all others do 3 ... I don't know how things go in Germany but oh well, there's always an exception ... I had an article about countries with the best living standards, I'll look it up : ) Or regions with the best standard or sth like that : )


----------



## anerki (Apr 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *The UN is now irrelevant. France and Germany are a disgrace to the civilized world. The democrats are in total disarray and running for dark corners to hide their shameful heads in and the Peace movement is a complete joke. *



I think you missed it, but this is what I'm furious about : ) I mean, you're claiming to be catholic and all but even the pope condems every single one of you ... France and Germany will never be made useless, just because they have a high living standard. US has one of the middle, lower of the 'civilized countries', Flanders (in Belgium for those of you who don't know, the Dutch-speaking part) has the highest in the world ...


----------



## Decado (Apr 16, 2003)

What i find strange is that in USA (and a lot of other countries too) you have to pay money to go to the university, that it actually COST anything to get an university-education. That is so sick. it makes it too hard for the lesser fortunate, or people without rich parents, to become what they want to become.
Education should be free in all countries!!!


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 16, 2003)

Well, if they made the universities free, the standard of education would go down.  Mostly because of money - to make them free in the US, either the local government, or the state government, or the federal government would have to step in and pay for it.  And none of those doles out very much money for education, sadly.

*habilis* - in your perfect government, where would someone like me, who doesn't really have any family to turn to, go?  I'm not talking about welfare, I personally wouldn't do that, but what about unemployment checks?  It sounds like you wouldn't want that either.


----------



## anerki (Apr 16, 2003)

Well if you don't have any money to pay for university the state (Belgium) pays for you. Of course, for 500 Euros a year for university, that's not that much isn't it. And it gets me a Masters


----------



## habilis (Apr 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by anerki _
> *France and Germany will never be made useless, just because they have a high living standard. *



I never said or meant that France and Germany would become useless. What I was talking about is that the U.N. was created with one of the main purposes being to stop tyranny and genocide on the Hitler-scale from ever happening again, as in it was meant to UNITE NATIONS againt this kind of tyranny. The UN is morally bankrupt. It needs to be gutted and rebuilt and renamed the Global Actions Front. The UN did nothing of consequence to prevent the oppression and genocide commited by the former Saddam regime.

And as for me being Catholic?? I don't know how you concocted that but it can't be any farther from the truth.


----------



## habilis (Apr 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Darkshadow _
> *habilis* - in your perfect government, where would someone like me, who doesn't really have any family to turn to, go?  I'm not talking about welfare, I personally wouldn't do that, but what about unemployment checks?  It sounds like you wouldn't want that either.



In my idea of good government, there still exists welfare, but it has been privatized, and that's the key. A privatized version of the red cross or salvation army is a good example. A great many people still will want to help people without families. Even I would give to this cause.


----------



## fryke (Apr 16, 2003)

That's exactly where I prefer the unemployment system here in Switzerland. I don't want "giving" people to give money to the unemployed. I want a system where everybody gives a percentage of the money he makes. What you're suggesting is just opening doors to crime and class systems at the same time.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Decado _
> *What i find strange is that in USA (and a lot of other countries too) you have to pay money to go to the university, that it actually COST anything to get an university-education. That is so sick. it makes it too hard for the lesser fortunate, or people without rich parents, to become what they want to become.
> Education should be free in all countries!!! *



I vehemently disagree.  My wifes dad worked three jobs (I know and he had to walk 20 miles through the snow up hill in the dark yadda) to put his 5 kids through school (3 Harvard, 1 Berkeley, 1 USC).  And I'm not talking 3 posts on the boards of companies, I'm talking 2nd generation Mexican American auto mechanic.  Did the kids and parent accumilate a lot of debt to achieve this, hell yes, would he/they do it all again, in an instant.  Their family is a testament to what CAN happen given some determination, some decent morals, and a system that may not be perfect, but DOES allow those who are "not rich" to achieve whatever it is that they want. 

There is no denying that those who don't have the money probably have a tougher row to hoe, but hey, that's life.  EVERYBODY gets a publicly funded education up until 12th grade, but that hardly ensures a good quality education.  And there is absolutely no reason to believe that having the availability of a free college level education would create a population that is any smarter than it is now.  I don't know, and have NEVER known a single person who said "I'd love to get a college degree, but I can't afford it".  Now let me clarify that last statement.  There the "afford" it means the simple cost of tuition/books/etc.  I DO know some people that because of their situation can't afford to survive AND go to school (even if it were free).  Single moms are an excellent example.  Even if school was free, they'd still have to find a way to earn money to live and for child care while they went to school and work.  With the multitudes of grants, scholarships and institutions falling all over themselves to loan you money, the case where someone has a valid reason for not attending college is rare indeed.  (Supporting individuals like the single mom example heads off into a completely different topic, which I guess this thread has already  )


----------



## Ugg (Apr 16, 2003)

Habilis, your view of the world ain't gonna happen.  Education for the last century in almost all of the world has been the purview of government.  Private education always leads to elitism or systems that teach little more than religious drivel.  When public education has been put into the hands of private enterprise here in the US the results have been less than promising.  Once again, in my belief, the control of education needs to be in the hands of localities, not the federal government.  

The same with unemployment and welfare.  In the wake of Enron, Global Crossing etc, etc, it has been proven without a doubt that had our retirement plans been controlled by ourselves and our employers, half of all current retirees would have seen themselves begging on the street corners.

America also has no interest in becoming a family-based society, we like our transient lives way too much to put faith in our family.  binarydigit brings up a good point in that traditionally it is only the recent emigres who work their fingers to the bone to achieve greatness.  It always has been, it always will be. 

If we were to put our faith in the family as the center of social welfare, we would soon find the US to resemble southern Italy, Turkey, Egypt etc, where graft is a way of life and a common theme is that if you don't steal from the government then you've stolen from your family.

The post-WWII era in the US was when free or inexpensive tertiary education, Social Security for the elderly, and a host of other programs lifted the majority of this country out of ignorance and poverty.

Europe has proven that it can provide high-quality education and welfare without breaking the bank or creating a world of welfare dependents.  They have it a little easier in that most are fairly homogenous societies where most people share a common history and value system.

The US due to its incredible mix of people, cultures, etc, will never find it as easy to administer a welfare state as successful as those inEurope. But through that diversity, rather than bringing people closer as it has in Canada, we've allowed ourselves to view the poor and disadvantaged as enemies of the state.  

More money is not the answer, more compassion is.


----------



## toast (Apr 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Darkshadow _
> *Well, if they made the universities free, the standard of education would go down.  Mostly because of money - to make them free in the US, either the local government, or the state government, or the federal government would have to step in and pay for it.  And none of those doles out very much money for education, sadly.*



Wrong. France, but also Belgium and Germany are perfect counter-examples of that. The problem goes over Europe/US and federalist/centralist cleavages.

The problem is *government budget*. I have a question for you, if you find the answer, you'll understand why education is charged in the US and not in most European countries.

The question has 2 parts:

1) What's state budget #1 in France, Italy, Germany, Benelux, Spain, Scandinavian countries, Greece, Canada, and Quebec ?

2) What's state budget #1 in the US, in African dictatures, in Russia, in India and Pakistan, in most South America countries and in Central Asia [Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan] ?

*Conclusion*

The higher education level is found where the highest percentage of population has access to school, thus Canada and parts of Western Europe, plus Japan.


----------



## toast (Apr 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Decado _
> *What i find strange is that in USA (and a lot of other countries too) you have to pay money to go to the university, that it actually COST anything to get an university-education. That is so sick. it makes it too hard for the lesser fortunate, or people without rich parents, to become what they want to become.
> Education should be free in all countries!!!*



Amen


----------



## toast (Apr 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *That's exactly where I prefer the unemployment system here in Switzerland. I don't want "giving" people to give money to the unemployed. I want a system where everybody gives a percentage of the money he makes. What you're suggesting is just opening doors to crime and class systems at the same time. *



You are asking for progressive taxation, ie. a fixed percentage of your money is given to the state.

The system knows a variant: you give a percentage which increases when your wage increases. For example, you give close to nothing (0%) when you earn under $120/mth, but you give 18% when you earn $750 or more. This system, called progressive system, is in place in France.


----------



## chevy (Apr 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *I never said or meant that France and Germany would become useless. What I was talking about is that the U.N. was created with one of the main purposes being to stop tyranny and genocide on the Hitler-scale from ever happening again, as in it was meant to UNITE NATIONS againt this kind of tyranny. The UN is morally bankrupt. It needs to be gutted and rebuilt and renamed the Global Actions Front. The UN did nothing of consequence to prevent the oppression and genocide commited by the former Saddam regime.
> 
> And as for me being Catholic?? I don't know how you concocted that but it can't be any farther from the truth. *



So you suggest that the US version of the UN should be named GAF... people that read French will appreciate 

BTW former Saddam regime was armed by the USA to counter balance Iran, but that's another question.


----------



## anerki (Apr 16, 2003)

That's how taxes in Belgium go ...
If you don't earn much, you don't pay much taxes. If you earn a lot, you pay a lot of taxes (in percentage). For example: As a student I don't pay taxes if I work somewhere for a month or so in the holidays or on weekends, which is logical, I'm a student, I don't pay support, my parents still do that for me. Which isn't all too great because at the computer store I worked I earned more than a regular employee, bruto he earned more, but I don't pay taxes, my bruto = my netto. His netto = his bruto - 15% or sth like that. But now my father as a neurologist / psychiatrist is in the highest circle of taxes, and pays 45-55% of what he earns to the governement. Meaning if he earns 30-40 million a year, 15-20 a year goes to the governement 

There's also a difference between employees, employers, people working for the state, students (as I showed), people who work for themselves (like my dad with his own practice). Of course you can also start NVs and BVBAs, so you van start a BVBA, buy it completely and then buy everything as a company (the BVBA) and work for you own BVBA. So you're the owner and the employee, paying less taxes and deducting a lot of your purchases ...

I could go on for hours but I shan't bore you with it 

Grtz,
.anerki


----------



## habilis (Apr 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> Habilis, your view of the world ain't gonna happen.



Well, you're right, not at this particular moment. In fact I may not live to see the day, but if the Bush plan succeeds in keeping America free of future 9/11's, and there is an economic rebound because of it, and the seeds of democracy take up firm roots in the middle east, then the conditions will become ripe for a major paradigm shift, leading to a golden age in the comming century of societal evolution shaped by conservative philosophy.

People don't seem to understand just how much the world has changed in post-9/11 and in particular, the last 3 weeks. There is a major awakening in this country right now even at the lowest social levels. The success of the Bush plan is creating thousands of new conservatives every day. At this pace, my view of the world is not only possible, it's probable.


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 16, 2003)

Um...the US has changed some since 9/11, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the *world* has changed.


----------



## doemel (Apr 17, 2003)

_In fact I may not live to see the day, but if the Bush plan succeeds in keeping America free of future 9/11's, and there is an economic rebound because of it, and the seeds of democracy take up firm roots in the middle east, then the conditions will become ripe for a major paradigm shift, leading to a golden age in the comming century of societal evolution shaped by conservative philosophy._

Right, and when we're there hell will freeze over  . Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the last "golden age" of Conservativism back in the 80's (Reagan/Thatcher era)? I really, really hope that's not what you have in mind.


----------



## anerki (Apr 17, 2003)

You play too much Civilization 3


----------



## IXis9 (Apr 17, 2003)

The "Dark Ages" were a very conservative period too. Hurray I'm celebrating!


----------



## habilis (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by doemel _
> Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the last "golden age" of Conservativism back in the 80's (Reagan/Thatcher era)? I really, really hope that's not what you have in mind. [/B]


[/QUOTE]

Your close, but the Regan era wasn't golden, maybe closer to silver plated. Although Regans total defeat of Communism was glorious, it's not constituting a golden age.


----------



## doemel (Apr 17, 2003)

_Although Regans total defeat of Communism was glorious, it's not constituting a golden age. _


Total defeat of communism! So your version of history would be American tanks rolling into Moscow, right? I think the actual events were a bit different. A lot of Eastern European countries "switched" using peaceful means and were not "liberated" by anyone but themselves. Reagan certainly reactivated the "red scare" phobia that's part of the American version of repression of political dissent, something which has yet another renaissance going on since 9/11.


----------



## IXis9 (Apr 17, 2003)

Actually Reagan didn't defeat Communism...unless of course China has been erased and nobody has bothered to change the maps. I think the Gulf War 1 was more responsible for the fall than anything Reagan ever did. Gulf War 1 was our weapons against thier weapons. The two super powers got to have a war without firing a single shot at each other. That was the first time Iraq took the fall.


----------



## doemel (Apr 17, 2003)

_Gulf War 1 was our weapons against thier weapons._

Actually it was more "our" (speaking from the American point of view) against all sorts of weapons: Russian, American, European... The same applies to the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan. Just another aspect of globalization


----------



## anerki (Apr 17, 2003)

Actually it was your (if you're American) weapons against your (if you're American again) weapons since you supplied the weapons in the first place. As a defense against Iran if I'm not mistaken. GW were again you're weapons since you supplied them just because they were money. You sold them to whichever country and you knew they were going to sell them to Iraq. Not that it matters of course, money is money, right?

And the former USSR fell because of three reasons in my point of view:

1) The people had just about enough, the former DDR revolted as did so many other countries. Enough is enough, they had it with communism.

2) If they kept their communism they weakened it, made it less radical, like what happened during the revolution in Prague, that was just the USSR invading because the leader of the Tsjechs wasn't a hardcore communist like in Moscow. In the end, nobody except Moscow had an interest in fundamentalistical communism.

3) Russia self fell because it couldn't support the weapons. In the cold war they were buying and producing as much weapons as the US, only for them it was 80% or more of the total budget and in the US it was only 30% ... Why did the US have more money? Because they 'helped' Europe get their economy back on track, which was a good thing for everyone, but especially for the US, because the economy is the US wasn't all that great (ever heard of Keynes?) but after WW2, they had a whole new market to exploit and export to!


----------



## kermit64 (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *I never said or meant that France and Germany would become useless. What I was talking about is that the U.N. was created with one of the main purposes being to stop tyranny and genocide on the Hitler-scale from ever happening again, as in it was meant to UNITE NATIONS againt this kind of tyranny. The UN is morally bankrupt. It needs to be gutted and rebuilt and renamed the Global Actions Front. The UN did nothing of consequence to prevent the oppression and genocide commited by the former Saddam regime. *



but it was the united states who was funding iraq's war with iran that lead to the mass murder of the kurds.  it was united states' apache helicopters which were used to deliver the chemical weapons.  many believe that the chemical and biological weapons programs in iraq were started with help from the united states, although no hard proof i don't think.

the united nations is a democratic body, so it's actions aren't independant of it's members.  so, the members are responsible for the action or inaction of the united nations.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by anerki _
> *Actually it was your (if you're American) weapons against your (if you're American again) weapons since you supplied the weapons in the first place. As a defense against Iran if I'm not mistaken. GW were again you're weapons since you supplied them just because they were money. You sold them to whichever country and you knew they were going to sell them to Iraq. Not that it matters of course, money is money, right?
> ...
> *



The Iraqis have/used Migs (Soviet), T54/T62/T72 tanks (Soviet),  Scud missiles (Soviet), Katyusha missle launchers (Soviet), hmm I detect a pattern here.  Which US made weapons played a reasonably sized role for the Iraqi's?


----------



## anerki (Apr 17, 2003)

Yes, but who funded them? I don't know exactly what weapons were used, I'm no war-expert ...


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by anerki _
> *Yes, but who funded them? I don't know exactly what weapons were used, I'm no war-expert ... *



You're no war expert and you don't know which weapons but yet you still said:



> *Actually it was your (if you're American) weapons against your (if you're American again) weapons since you supplied the weapons in the first place.*



There is no doubt that the US actively helped Iraq during the Iraq v Iran wars.  What isn't completely known however is to what extent.  If you have links that can show how this pro-Iraqi involvement somehow has lead to Iraq's pre first Gulf War ability to amass it's army, then please provide them.  It's not like Iraq is some poor backwoods African nation, they have long had the financial and political means to support themselves post Iraq/Iran war.


----------



## toast (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *It's not like Iraq is some poor backwoods African nation, they have long had the financial and political means to support themselves post Iraq/Iran war. *



1) Some African nations are richer than the backwoods cliché given here.

2) How do you finance yourself when your very sole resource, oil, is integrally controlled by an embargo which terms are fixed by another country (that is, the American "oil against food" program) ?

The fact that Saddam's army is using Soviet weapons to fight shows that the country has been and nowadays is ruined and that even the army (which is the first source of investment in dictatures and *hum* some democracies ) did not modernize.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *1) Some African nations are richer than the backwoods cliché given here.*



Really, and the US isn't evil  I was refering to nations that aren't rich, hence the use of the term "poor backwoods".  If I said that something along the lines of "It's not like he's some Mac zealot", does that imply that all Mac users are zealots, no, it would refer to a specific type of Mac user.  Had I been making a generalzation of African nations in general, then you'd have a point.



> *
> 2) How do you finance yourself when your very sole resource, oil, is integrally controlled by an embargo which terms are fixed by another country (that is, the American "oil against food" program) ?
> *



Easy, it's called illegal export.  Ask the Syrians about it.  Or is the Saddam regime so frugal that they've been able to sustain themselves on the, apparently, massive amounts of cash that they didn't spend during the Iraq/Iran war.  Or land and facilities rentals to terrorist orgs must be much more profitable than originally thought.



> *
> The fact that Saddam's army is using Soviet weapons to fight shows that the country has been and nowadays is ruined and that even the army (which is the first source of investment in dictatures and *hum* some democracies ) did not modernize. *



No, they used soviet weapons for economic reasons.  The soviet stuff is cheap (relatively), easy to get, and you already know who to use it.  Given the countries that you're likely to get aggresive against, why would you spend significantly more for the fancy US stuff?  Plus, that would be missing the point right?  The Pakistani military isn't exactly the most modern, but yet even they are capable of producing nuclear weapons.  So it doesn't really show or prove anything.


----------



## chevy (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *...
> Easy, it's called illegal export.  Ask the Syrians about it.  Or is the Saddam regime so frugal that they've been able to sustain themselves on the, apparently, massive amounts of cash that they didn't spend during the Iraq/Iran war.  Or land and facilities rentals to terrorist orgs must be much more profitable than originally thought.
> 
> ... *



Aha, Syria, you're the next target...

Basically the proof that Saddam didn't have any cash during the last 10 years, is that he had no army anymore (he had a strong army before the first gulf war), he had no mass destruction weapons (the only illegal weapons were missiles with 190 km range, nothing chemical of biological, and they were found by the UN inspectors), the bunkers were all quite old, and the population was starving. The only terrorist found in Iraq was a guy who was active in the mid 80's... this terrorist was as old and harmfull as Saddam's weapons.

It's now time to rebuild Iraq (or give it another name). It's one of the oldest world's civilization. One of the richest (nothing to do with oil) civilization.


----------



## anerki (Apr 17, 2003)

Indeed, the war is, almost, over. The US didn't win, since they were never threatened, but they did help free Iraq of its regime, which any way you turn it, was bad.

It's a terrible shame all of it's history was destroyed ... They should've guessed they'd plunder the musea ...


----------



## toast (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *I was refering to nations that aren't rich, hence the use of the term "poor backwoods"*



OK, I had misunderstood that bit.

*illegal export* cannot finance (the term you used in the first place was 'support') a whole country such as Iraq.



> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *they used soviet weapons for economic reasons.  The soviet stuff is cheap (relatively), easy to get, and you already know who to use it.  Given the countries that you're likely to get aggresive against, why would you spend significantly more for the fancy US stuff?  Plus, that would be missing the point right?  The Pakistani military isn't exactly the most modern, but yet even they are capable of producing nuclear weapons.  So it doesn't really show or prove anything. *



- The 'cheap' argument backs up the fact that Iraq did not have the means to support itself after the Iran/Iraq war (see first post of yours).
- The last country Iraq was susceptible to get aggressive against was the US. If Iraq had important financial means and efficient illegal export networks, it would have bought some new weaponry for its army. But the point is, the Iraqi state is ruined, and the black trade networks aren't that powerful. 
- The Pakistani military is capable to _buy_ nukes, not to produce them. Important difference.

I'll repeat last argument from last post: military regimes are obsessed with having the most powerful army they can get. Saddam's army, in terms of men and weapons on the quantitative side and its technology on the qualitative side, show that Iraq was _ruined[/ï] in the 'Third World' sense (ie. all money is in the hands of a microscopic minoritarain aristocracy of businessmen)._


----------



## habilis (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by kermit64 _
> *but it was the united states who was funding iraq's war with iran that lead to the mass murder of the kurds.  *



In that case, the Boeing Aviation Company is responsible for deaths of the 3,000 New Yorkers who died in the WTC, after all, they provided the planes which Boeing knew damn well are nothing more then terrorist weapons which just so happen to have people on board them. And Exxon has blood on their hands for providing the jet fuel that started the fire that melted the steel that caused the structural failure that caused the eventual collapse that caused----insert your conspiracy theory here. 

And I suppose when you spill hot coffee in you lap at McDonalds, it was the restaurants fault. And I suppose when someone kills someone else with a gun, it was the gun maker who's reponsible, or better yet, the gun itself was responsible?

That kind of thinking is what keeps grudges alive and burning in the mid-east today. It's why the Palestinians hate the Israelis and vise-versa.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
VX Nerve gas rockets don't kill people. Saddam kills people.
Accountability - Responibility.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *In that case, the Boeing Aviation Company is responsible for deaths of the 3,000 New Yorkers who died in the WTC, after all, they provided the planes which Boeing knew damn well are nothing more then terrorist weapons which just so happen to have people on board them. And
> That kind of thinking is what keeps grudges alive and burning in the mid-east today. It's why the Palestinians hate the Israelis and vise-versa.
> 
> *



That is the most simplistic and naive argument I've ever heard.  Passenger planes as weapons, come on! Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.  Weapons are built to kill, civilian aircraft don't fit that definition.

The US has a long history of supporting regimes that are likely to use the weapons given them by the US against segments of its own population.  South America, Africa and Asia are littered with the skeletons of people killed with American weapons.  

Of course it's not the weapons themselves that is the cause for worry, it is the fact that the US continues to support regimes that are repressive and divisive.  The US has only been interested in short term economic benefits, not long term stability.  Look at the continued US support for Israel, that support only fuels the fire of Jewish/Muslim hatred in the Middle East.  

Until the US realizes that it is not the world's policeman and that the only way for true world peace is through the democratic methods of the UN, the US will continue to suffer at the hands of terrorism.


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 17, 2003)

Hmm...I think it's more of as long as radical groups (so to speak) conceive that the US is sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, the US will continue to suffer at the hands of terrorism.  Though it boils down to about the same thing.


----------



## edX (Apr 17, 2003)

i think that until most americans stop thinking that america is the only country and people that matter, terrorism will only grow and the number of people from outside the middle east that will join in is going to grow. it is has always happened that extremes spawn equal opposite extremes. extreme american nationalism will only breed extreme american resentment. but who knows, history could suddenly not repeat itself as it always has.


----------



## habilis (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *
> Until the US realizes that it is not the world's policeman and that the only way for true world peace is through the democratic methods of the UN, the US will continue to suffer at the hands of terrorism. *



Allow me to interject;
The radical fundamentalists hate us for allowing our women to work. They hate us because we believe in ANYTHING other than Allah. They hate us because we are Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Athiests. They hate us because we charge interest on loans. They hate us for being liberal. They hate us for allowing our women equality. They hate us because we are free. They hate us because we are tolerant. They hate us for supporting countries that uphold these values(Israel).

These poeple are drivin by hate and envy and jealousy and consequently act only in purview of evil. They care nothing for human values, and until they do, we will continue to rid the world of this cancer, this virus called terrorism.


----------



## edX (Apr 17, 2003)

so habilis, you're supposing that the majority of iraqis - the shiites, aren't going to oppose those things in their new democratic govt.?


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 17, 2003)

I guess I'm just a narrow-minded war-monger then. I believe that so far the war has been a success. War, like pruning, is unfortunately sometimes necessary. Just as you must prune a rose bush for it to grow beautifully, sometimes so too must our world be. war is also somewhat like forging a quality sword. Only through the fire is it purified, and only between the hammer and the anvil is it shaped.

Let the venom flow.......


----------



## Ugg (Apr 18, 2003)

Israel and America are filled with Christian fundamentalists who would love to deny woment the right to vote and feel that all Muslims are heathens who need to be "saved" or eliminated.  

The charging of interest on loans, or usury as the bible calls it, is one of the main reasons the Jews were so hated in Europe.  Since the Bible expressly forbids it, whereas the Jewish tradition doesn't, the Jews became the bankers of Europe and therefore controlled a great deal of the money.  Somehow Christianity was able to overcome the usury issue but it has never been able to overcome the anti-Jew thing.  Most Muslims have also been able to overcome the usury issue through creative financing.  So this is a rather weak attempt to paint the muslims as evil and only reinforces the crimes that Christianity has committed against the Jews in the name of religion.  

Habilis, you are beginning to sound like the tortured russian souls who created communism.  Their hatred of the elite was so powerful that anyone who stood in their way was going to be eliminated.  Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur when it came to annhilating the citizens of Russia.  All in the name of a centralized government with one single goal: to control everything and everyone.  Of course, this was all for their own good.


ebolag4, you've taken a very poetic turn!  The question remains however, who hired the gardener to prune the rose and who commissioned the smith to make the sword? 

Real roses don't need pruning.  Swords are made for one purpose only, to slay humans.  

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we reap what we sow.


----------



## toast (Apr 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *I've said it before and I'll say it again, we reap what we sow. *



RATM forever !


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 18, 2003)

habilis, they hate us some for those things, yes, but mostly they hate us because they see it as the US poking into their affairs.


----------



## toast (Apr 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Darkshadow _
> *habilis, they hate us some for those things, yes, but mostly they hate us because they see it as the US poking into their affairs. *



Arab fundamentalists hate the occidental world as a whole.

But fundamentalism is not only Arab, and not only directed towards the Western democracies. The power of fundamentalism resides in the hatred of:

*Social groups esp. minorities*
Ethnical - Kurds, immigrants
Religious - Jews, Sunnites
Social - idle classes, women
Cultural - homosexuals

*Civilizations*
Distant ones - Arabs fundm. / Western World
Neighbours - China fundm. / Japan (earlier in XXth cent.)


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 21, 2003)

OK Ugg. I'm probably what most of you would call a "fundamentalist" Christian, and I don't believe that women shouldn't be able to vote, or that Muslims should be eliminated. I do, however, desire to see all people (Muslim or otherwise) saved. That is a "fundamental" part of my faith. If I don't follow my faith to the uttermost, then what do I have? Nothing.

OK. So I was poetic. I'll admit, I was being sappy on purpose. I don't know about the rose thing, I'm not a gardener. I'll have to ask Ed about that one. As to the sword analogy, yes swords are made primarily for killing. But sometimes that killing is defensive and not offensive. A sword can be used either way. I collect swords and put them on my wall. I believe they are beautiful works of art. Does that make me a killer?

I agree whole heartedly with your statement "we reap what we sow." We must all be willing to face the consequences of our actions and ideals whether they be postive or negative.

To those sending me messages about my new byline: I'm making fun of the characture that some of you make some of us out to be. Do I want and wish for war? NO! Do I fully support the President and the war effort? YES! So I suppose that make me a dirty, nasty, evil, stupid, right-wing, fundamentalist, Christian whack-job.

Well, so be it!


----------



## Ugg (Apr 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ebolag4 _
> *OK Ugg. I'm probably what most of you would call a "fundamentalist" Christian, and I don't believe that women shouldn't be able to vote, or that Muslims should be eliminated. I do, however, desire to see all people (Muslim or otherwise) saved. That is a "fundamental" part of my faith. If I don't follow my faith to the uttermost, then what do I have? Nothing.
> 
> OK. So I was poetic. I'll admit, I was being sappy on purpose. I don't know about the rose thing, I'm not a gardener. I'll have to ask Ed about that one. As to the sword analogy, yes swords are made primarily for killing. But sometimes that killing is defensive and not offensive. A sword can be used either way. I collect swords and put them on my wall. I believe they are beautiful works of art. Does that make me a killer?
> ...



I've never understood the whole "saved or damned" concept of Christianity.  Does it exist in Islam or Judaism?  Obviously the entire point of it is to provide a club house for religious hatred.  "If you are not of my faith and do not believe in the one and only true god then you are damned for eternity and it is my duty to save you from that damnation."  Where is the tolerance that Christianity trumpets so loudly?  My problem with all the religious hatred going on today is that people only seem to quote from the old testament not the new.  In other words they choose the record of the prophets instead of christ.  What's that all about?

You sword collection doesn't mean that you are killer only that you have a fixation on the human potential for violence, whether it is defensive or offensive is of little importance.  

I love the works of Bach, and all of his musical masterpieces were devoted to the glory of his god.  I think belief is a wonderful thing and if religion were to focus its efforts on the elevation of the good things on this planet rather than the ugly then I would be a lot more tolerant of religion in general.  

I actually like your byline, good sarcasm is hard to come by these days.


----------



## anerki (Apr 21, 2003)

I don't know if any of you remember the speech Blair gave at new year on the 1st of january 2002 ... Certainly he doesn't ... but he said that making swords began a very long time ago with crude clubs of bone or wood. So man invented the crude shield, then swords and metal shield, then guns and bullet-proof vests. But how does one protect himself from bombs other than running away from them?


----------



## habilis (Apr 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by anerki _
> *But how does one protect himself from bombs other than running away from them? *


Don't engage in actions that make bombs fall on you, kinda like pre-emping yourself or like the old saying by Ice Cube goes; "Chikkity Check yourself befor ya wreck yaself". Is this a trick question?


----------



## Ugg (Apr 21, 2003)

Ah, now, habilis, are you saying that every bomb ever dropped was dropped because the people it fell on deserved it?  Somehow this just doesn't quite jibe with what the history books say.  Unless of course it is all a communist/socialist attempt to rewrite history?!?!?!?!?


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *I've never understood the whole "saved or damned" concept of Christianity.  Does it exist in Islam or Judaism?  Obviously the entire point of it is to provide a club house for religious hatred.  "If you are not of my faith and do not believe in the one and only true god then you are damned for eternity and it is my duty to save you from that damnation."  Where is the tolerance that Christianity trumpets so loudly?  My problem with all the religious hatred going on today is that people only seem to quote from the old testament not the new.  In other words they choose the record of the prophets instead of christ.  What's that all about? *



OK, here's the scoop on the whole "saved" thing. Let's just imagine for a moment this scenario: 1. There is a God. 2. He created everything, therefore He decides how everything works. 3. Since He decided how everything works, and since He decided that there was only one way to come to Him (heaven), then that's that. 4. That He has decided that everyone who doesn't do it His way is damned (Hell). 5. That He did command everyone who is His follower to go out and tell others. To "convert" others. 6. That God has revealed Himself to man through various means. 7. That you personally have come to believe and trust in Him. 8. That this faith is the very core of your being. It is who you are. 9. Therefore, every part of your life is governed by these beliefs, and even though sometimes you don't understand, and even many times don't agree with His decisions, it doesn't matter. (Reference #2). It all comes down to this. If those statements are true, then what I think really doesn't matter. If that is hatred in man's eyes, then that's man's opinion. Someone who believes the above is not concerned with man's opinion on the matter. That may sound heartless to some, but........

This is not for the sole purpose of creating a "club" where those who are "saved" are better than others. There is not religious hatred (yes, there are extremist among Christians as with other faiths), but if the steps above are presupposed to be true, then yes there is a belief of one faith being "better" than another. Let's face it, speaking from a purely logical viewpoint, that can't ALL be right. So either they are all wrong (which I obviously don't believe), or only ONE is the "right" one.

Where is the tolerance in Christianity. Witness those who will go to the far reaches of the world to help bring medical care, food and basic necessities to those around the world, regardless of race or religion. (Yes, I acknowledge that there are non-Christian groups that do the same.) Let us not equate tolerance with acceptance or approval. If a murderer walks into my church and asks to be shown how to be "saved" I will accept him as a brother, but I will never condone the murder he has committed.

As for the quoting only the OT and not the NT or the words of Christ. I feel that someone who believes the Bible is God's Word, should read from both. Only through reading both can full understanding even be glimpsed.

Holy cow. Enough rambling! Sorry to turn this thread into yet another theological discussion.


----------



## wiz (Apr 21, 2003)

this may be out of topic, but i have a problem with women working!!

men just don't seem to get those jobs anymore. (well atleast not so easily)


----------



## wiz (Apr 21, 2003)

Alas not even ebolag4 is absoutly right!!

If u want to know more on the Turth, eh by now you should know what to do, but just incase u don't... ATTEND THE SUNDAY MASS  REGULARLY, YES GO TO CHURCH PEOPLE... YOUR WORK and LEISURE IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS GOD.


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 22, 2003)

Everybody clap for the extremist 

I believe *bomb shelters* would be the shield from bombs.  Not that everyone has one convienently close by, but I do believe they were made for that purpose. 

There's only so much of the old testament in the bible that you can quote before you start boring everybody to death with your quotes.  The only interesting parts of it _are_ the prophets - the rest is all about who went where and how many they were, how big this city was or how small that one was...I can't believe people actually wanted to save that. 

Just so I don't start up a flame going on here, no I'm _not_ a Christian, but I _have_ read the bible...more than once...in an attempt to understand the religion better.  It didn't help me any, but I learned that if I ever decide to read it again, I'm gonna skip entire sections of the OT.

Hmm...and for you Christians readin this, I do have a question about Genesis.  Ok, Adam and Eve get kicked out of the garden of eden.  They have two kids, then one kills the other.  Cain goes running off to live with a tribe of people.  If Adam and Eve only had two kids at that point, then who the heck are these people that Cain went off to live with??


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 22, 2003)

Darkshadow: This may not be an acceptable answer unless you believe the Bible is absolutely true. From a literalist's point of view (like me) this is an easy one. Cain moved with brothers and sisters, and cousin and so forth. We do not know how many children Adam and Eve had, but we reason that someone who lives hundreds of years could potentially have hundreds of children and thousands of grandchildren. The restriction against marriage to an immediate family member is not found in the Scripture until hundred (maybe thousands) of years later. Again, this may be an unacceptable answer for some, but this goes back to the faith issue.

wiz: huh?


----------



## Cat (Apr 22, 2003)

What's still more intriguing is that god in the beginning created "Man and woman" (as equals) ... and then created Eve out of Adam yet again ... as a servant ... Mmmh ... 

Then the whole point of women working ... well, I know about the priest thing at least there are two schools of thought: 1) women are not good enough to be priests 2) women are too holy to be priest, since they have the godly function to (pro)create. Pick your choice ...


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 22, 2003)

Christianity, eh?  Ebolag, nice to read from ya again (it's been a while for me.)

I think the official word on the Christian street is that Adam & Eve had many more kiddies than just Cain & Able.  This implies that Cain and his other siblings inter-married and produced the rest of the human race.  Also, it is assumed that genetic mutation by close-family offspring was not an issue at this point of the human race, so it would have been feasible.  Genetic mutation was probably part of the curse of the Fall, and kicked in gradually.  God's commandment later on in history to not marry close relatives was probably (at least partly) because of these mutations.

Ebolag brought up an intersting point about the age of humans in the Old Testament (up to 969 years.)  Again, this phenomenon is explained by the Curse.  Humans were originally designed to live forever, but part of the punishment was death.  The gradual degradation of lifespans is the result.

Now I'm wondering how many eyes I got rolling...    But hey, that's what I believe.


----------



## MDLarson (Apr 22, 2003)

Oh, and p.s.

I don't consider myself a religious fanatic, even though I hold literalist views.  I believe in compassion, whether they are a Christian or not.  But I also believe in appropriate punishment (bring on the Death Penalty debate!)

Eh, back to work.  I'm over my break!


----------



## Ugg (Apr 22, 2003)

I've never understood the whole point of the death penalty outside of the old testament "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".  GW surely didn't have any problems sending hundreds of people to their death but then that is probably an indication of his wannabe Texan status and his born again Christian approach.  Have you ever noticed that it is the people who lead the most f*****ed up lives that seem to become born again?

 The argument seems to be that it is somehow a deterrent for those who commit violent crime.  It seems that when you add drugs and a seriously dysfunctional society, and  a government despite all its rhetoric (rightist or leftist) that is unwilling to tackle the social issues underlying the problem more and more people are going to commit crimes because the lives they lead aren't worth anything anyway.  Plus Hollywood just glorifies the violence of our country so that guns and blood stained streets are viewed as the norm not the exception.  

Why would you ever want to kill another human being?  I can understand self-defense, to a point  but I can't understand cold-blooded murder which the death penalty is.  I also think that the death penalty is a result of the rampant gun cultrue in this country.  Just my rambling thoughts...


----------



## anerki (Apr 22, 2003)

Actually the bible reads 'Thou shallt not murder' and not 'Thou shallt not kill'. This is not known by many but 'Thou shallt not kill' comes from the Hebrew (or sa culture 'a la' Hebrew) version of the Bible, the Aramesian (how do you spell it in English) version says 'Thou shallt not murder'. There is a 70% chance the correct and oldest version is the Aramesian, only 30% probability the Hebrew is the correct and oldest version. By accident and probably because it was more spread, the Hebrew version was copied in Latin, and so on ... Not that that justifies a war, murder is without the consent of the person, killing is an accident or with consent. (Example: You don't murder an ant by accidently stepping on it, of course if you're with Greenpeace that might count towards murder ) Also, this justifies the disconnecting of a terminally ill patient who will die soon and is in suffering.


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 22, 2003)

*UGH*

My head's starting to hurt!

I have a lot I could say at this point, but I just don't have the strength. Ugg, think of some aspects of Christianity like mass media. The reason it seems that those who are born-again are always people that have majorly messed-up pasts (or present) is that it is they are the ones that are trumpted as gloriously changed llives. The Christian media likes to latch onto those who have "dark" pasts, but the average everyday Christian is just a common guy or girl. Many have been brought out of "darkness," but that darkness is no more "heinous" that the average person's. Some are indeed "saved" from tragic/(self)destructive lives/lifestyles, but not all. I would say the minority in fact. (That's my opinion based on nearly 30 years of observation, not based on any hard "stats").

That's the point of view of this Christian Texan.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 22, 2003)

> _Originally found in by ebolag4's sig_
> *Windoze users outnumber Mac users? So what. Cock roaches outnumber humans by a magnitude of hundreds of thousands to one, but that does not automatically make them a higher form of life.*



But alas, when the c*ap hits the fan, who will be left?

(appy polly loggies if someone else has already pointed this out)


----------



## doemel (Apr 22, 2003)

_I don't consider myself a religious fanatic, even though I hold literalist views.  I believe in compassion, whether they are a Christian or not.  But I also believe in appropriate punishment (bring on the Death Penalty debate!)_


OK, it seems like this is the point where I want to join the debate once again. I have to provide some details about my past first: I have grown up in a place that used to be (less than 20 years ago) very catholic and conservative. In fact, even just as little as 15-20 years ago (I personally remember this very well), the priest in my home village ( Ausserberg ) at the time bashed my father from up on the lectern on several Sunday masses to the point that he got up and left the church (he's still a frequent church goer today and hasn't lost any of his faith). All this because his political ideas (yes, leftism has a tradition in my family) and his ideas of good pedagogics (he was teacher at the village primary school) were considered un-Christian and anti-conservative by the priest and some people with power in the village. 
There's still a lot of conservative people there but the church is (fortunately) constantly losing ground in areas where they have no business (politics etc.). I was a strong beliefer when I was young until I really started thinking about what I was told every Sunday (or during the occasional weekday services we attended) which happened shortly after I finished primary school. I found myself being "brainwashed" and wanted to break out of that system. My first reaction was to turn to the opposite side, I got into satanist/occult circles, but quickly turned away from that when I saw the pointlessness and destructiveness of these mind sets. I guess this is what many teenagers of my generation went through. I then developed, over years of experience, reading and dealing with different cultures/belief systems, my very personal ideas of what others rely on religion for. I can't and won't disclaim that there's a strong influence of my Christian upbringing in that system. It is mainly limited to the way I treat people (charity, altruism...) which I regard as the essence of what Jesus (if he ever lived and is not just a legend) taught. *These "beliefs" also make me clearly oppose the death penalty!* I can't understand how anyone who calls him/herself practicing/believing Christian can support this concept of revenge. The number of people on the death row in the U.S. also clearly shows that the intended deterring effect  does not exist (just to poke in another hornet nest: the same applies to the American "war on drugs"). If our societies would indeed follow some basic "Christian" ideas it would be more humane and worth living in. This, my friends, unfortunately remains a utopia.


----------



## habilis (Apr 22, 2003)

A few fun-filled factoids:

1 - We took Iraq in less time than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was the 51-day operation.

2 - It took Teddy Kennedy longer to call the cops after his Oldsmobile sunk at Chappaquiddick than it took the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to obliterate the Medina Republican Guard. 

3 - We took Iraq in less time than it took to count the votes in Florida in the year 2000.

But all the long, there was never a shortage of Viet Nam Quagmire screaming negative naysayers. And the next target for the naysayers will of course be the rebuilding effort, North Korea, Iran, and Homeland Security. So there's plenty more time for good laughs.

Finally, I just wanted to take this occasion to personally thank members of the elite left such as Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, and my personal favorite, Janine Garafolo for exposing yourselves as the negative hate-driven ignoramuses you are, and not letting us forget that the Hollywood blacklist can still be a lot of fun.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 22, 2003)

Wow habilis, you've outdone yourself!  I can see the hatred inside you, devouring your body organ by organ.  

For a republic to work it needs input from all members not just an elite few.  For a republic to succeed, it needs to respect the opinions of all people.  You seem to be advocating, yet once again, a return to tyranny when those with the money ruled the earth and squashed the "little" people for pleasure and profit.  

Russia is a prime example of the extremism occurring today, out of the frying pan and into the fire.  Hope you're willing to fight your daughter tooth and nail when she decides she's had enough of the tyranny of the religious and totalitarian right.  

It might come sooner than that though, since once again a republican president, although committed to less government intervention, has proposed the most massive budget of all time.  At a time when the only thing keeping the US afloat financially is the fact that it is borrowing way beyond its means and living off the largess of other countries.  All it would take is for OPEC to charge euros for its oil instead of dollars and the US will be a big wasteland.  All of this of course is pure speculation but the world is ripe for change.  Whether the world has the will to fight off American economic colonization is yet to be seen but the signs indicate that the time may be ripe.

Good luck in your campaign of hate.


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 22, 2003)

habilis, are you such a small person that other peoples' opinions matter to you _that_ much?


----------



## habilis (Apr 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *Good luck in your campaign of hate. *



Campaign of enlightenment Ugg, enlightenent. The truth hurts, but it shall also set you free.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but it's going to take a catastophe much larger then charging euro's for oil to turn the US "into a wasteland". Our infrastructure and natural resources are far to great for that to happen. Thats just your fantasy.


----------



## anerki (Apr 23, 2003)

I think I was thought to pity you, compassion after all ...


----------



## toast (Apr 23, 2003)

Admins: there is no good reason, in my own opinion, to leave this thread open. Read four/five last posts again if you doubt.


----------



## habilis (Apr 23, 2003)

toast: Why should this thread should be closed? Unless you're talking about the harassment and personal mudslinging that people are engaging in to try to discredit my facts.


----------



## Cat (Apr 23, 2003)

I am tuly astonished at the glorification of this Iraq-Blitzkrieg. I sincerely hope Busholini's motto for the elections won't be a call for faster ways of killing.

BTW. One of the very few things that one can still believe in regarding the concept of a revolution, is that it must develop and proceed out of a spontaneous popular uprising. A foreign invasion and "liberation" will indeed remove the oppressive regime, but the question remains on how to proceed afterwards. Will the occupying power institute its own rule? Then it was no liberation but a conquest. Will it leave the people to oraganize themselves? Then the people better be ready or else all will fail. Since they hadn't decided on their own that the time for change was ripe, nothing guarantees a peaceful or successfull proceeding towards democracy and freedom. However, we nowadays possess a truly unique organization in this world, the United Nations, which are the best means toward the end of building a free, democratic nation. The unwillingness of the invaders to accept their own inadequateness point in the direction of gross imperialism and a very negative form of self-righteousness.


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 23, 2003)

Um...habilis...just for future mention, you might want to say _the_ facts rather than _my_ facts.  The latter suggests that only you percieve or hold those facts.  I'm gathering that's not what you mean. 

I wasn't harrassing or mudslinging you with that last post I made, BTW.  If I offended, I didn't mean to do that, I meant to chastise.  Nobody should take such _glee_ in even trying to discredit someone's _opinions_ - that way leads to chaos.  (And lots of mudslining. )  I'd have said the same to someone showing the same disregard to any of your opinions.

Though really, the thread has gotten waaay outta the original topic.


----------



## toast (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *toast: Why should this thread should be closed? Unless you're talking about the harassment and personal mudslinging that people are engaging in to try to discredit my facts. *



The Iraq crisis is not new any more. People had time to elaborate a position, to reflect. It is no more a question of days or nights, as it was a few weeks ago.

A few weeks ago, we fought (you and many will remember it) for or against war. The debate is somewhat obsolete: the war has occured.

It may be time for new argumentation, new facts. In a simple, pluraal word: news. That's not what we are getting here, unforunately.

What we are getting are things such as:
_Good luck in your campaign of hate.
ampaign of enlightenment Ugg, enlightment.
I think I was thought to pity you, compassion after all ...
Busholini's motto..._

I do not think that those sayings fit either 1) the topic, as said by DarkShadow, or 2)  the debate between intelligent polite people. Again, flaming about opinions on Iraq has lived. In my humble opinion.

I have nothing against people, that's why I'm not accusing anyone of making this thread a waste. I may have many things to oppose to opinions, not only yours by the way; but speaking calmly in a tempest of personal attacks or indignations is futile.

Second point: closing a thread is not closing the debate. Most of the time, threads which are closed but which contained food for thought are reopened shortly after, a week or so, with a more fitting title and behaviour of contributors.

I hope this happen. That the thread receives a new name closer to the real topic of the actual discussion, which could be, indeed, extremely interesting. But the actual ground of opposition in this thread is unfertile ground for thoughtful discussion; hence, I'll wait  and suggest the thread stops before the angers grow between members.


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 23, 2003)

I don't always agree with toast's opinions, but in this case:

Hear! Hear!


----------



## habilis (Apr 23, 2003)

Shadow: Your right, I should have said "_the_" facts, what I meant was facts that I brought to light, since I'm almost the lone voice of right leaning thought around here. This thread _ did_ spiral out of control, but that's gonna happen. 

Cat: for stark comparison of statistics; In *one single night* during the Allied bombing campaign of Hitlers Berlin and surrounding areas, more then *70,000* civilians died. ONE SINGLE NIGHT. It's progress like that, American advances in technology that spare civilian lives that I'm proud of.


----------



## Ugg (Apr 23, 2003)

Toast, thanks for the intervention, this thread has gone way off topic and I've no doubt helped it.  Whether a mod closes it or not I'll no longer contribute.  It is time to move on.  GW has been greeted pretty much as expected, some Iraqis happy, some not, some afraid to take a stand.  

So, on to a new discussion.


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 23, 2003)

Not the lone voice, habilis, just the most vocal.


----------



## habilis (Apr 23, 2003)

toast: excellent points. I'm on board. I'll put more effort in restraining my inflamatory remarks. I was wondering why I hadn't heard from you in a while. 

So this is the new, improved, more diplomatic and stately toast speaking Aye? heh.


----------



## Satcomer (Apr 23, 2003)

Everyone here seems so worldly political. I want to put a test to you ALL. This requires honesty because I don't expect or want a response. I'm trying to point out you need to be aware of the REAL power that directly affects YOU everyday you live. Now the question:


How many people here truly know the name of you mayor, city/town officials, state or provence, congressional and/or parliament representatives? *Without looking them up!* 

Believe it or not you local officials have more power over you everyday lives than George Bush or your country's leader. Think about your local roads, school administration, zoning boards, property taxes, urban development, local/state police, etc. 

So arguing about George Bush's policy is healthy but you should pay just as much attention to where you live. If not more!


----------



## toast (Apr 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Satcomer _
> *How many people here truly know the name of you mayor, city/town officials, state or provence, congressional and/or parliament representatives? Without looking them up!*



*Preliminary remarks*

*1. Parliament*

Parliaments are generally speaking, bicameral. They feature one High and one Low House, one for impulsion (the lowest one), and one for inertia (the highest one), although I can't develop here. 

Examples:
US: Senate (inertia) / House of Rep. (impulse)
Germany: Bundestag (federal) / Bundesrat (state)
Italy: Senate (inertia) / Parl.
UK: Lords (hereditary) / Commons (impulse)

France > French 'Congress' is bicameral, one High (Senate) and one Low (Parliament, composed by 577 deputees or so) houses. Senate is not universally elected, Parliament is.

*2. Hierarchic levels*

If I recall well, most democracies are organized in 4 principal hierarchic levels (people please correct my sayings):

US:
#1- Federal
#2 - State
#3 - County
#4 - Township

Germany:
#1 - Bund
#2 - Land
#3 - Gemeine
#4 - Staat
(Wait, do you still have some _Bezirke_, districts, as had the DDR ?)

France:
#1 - Central state
#2 - Region
#3 - Department
#4 - Town

France > In my case:
#1 - France
#2 - Rhônes-Alpes
#3 - Isère
#4 - Grenoble

*Important notes*

1) I'm answering for France. France is a _centralized_ state, Germany and the US aren't, they're federal, you have more local representation, we don't. So you should know better than me, people. 
2) I'm studying politics, as well as comparative politics. .
3) I haven't referred to anything but my memory before posting that 

*Answer* (at least)

President: this old Jacques. You all know him now 
#1 Parliament: Michèle Rivasi, Rhônes-Alpes deputee. Hasn't been re-elected last year, so I don't know the new one. Damn.
#2 Region: not one person but a list is elected. I know their political tendency (socialist), that's about all.
#3 Department: not one person but a list is elected. I know their political tendency (socialist), same.
#4 Town: Michel Destot, socialist. Adjoints (approx. counsellors): Raymond Avrillier.

Appreciation: Argh ! That's centralism, people. You *never* know your representatives well, for they are so far from home...

_EDIT_: Nota bene: socialism in actual France has strictly nothing to do with Lenin .

There you go


----------



## Cat (Apr 24, 2003)

> Nota bene: socialism in actual France has strictly nothing to do with Lenin.


 LOL! 

Much the same is true for the Netherlands, I couldn't name my mayor or the regional representatives, but I can name the ruling parties. In my town (rather a village) a coalition governs of:
VVD (conservative, liberal),
D66 (centrist, progressive)
and P21 (collaboration between
PvdA, socialist, centre-left and GroenLinks, socialist/environmentalist, left).

However, I can name almost the whole central government (which however is demissionar, ehm fallen? ... anyway a new one is being formed).

Minister President: J.P. Balkenende
Foreign affairs: J. de Hoop-Scheffer
Domestic affairs: J. Remkes
Justice: P.H. Donner
Education: M. van der Hoeven (the only woman)
Integration and Minorities: H. Nawijn
Etc.

I do know even some members of bodies on European level, but not exactly their function ...
F. Bolkestein is a Dutch member of the European Convention (?), I think ...

Anyway, in centralist states the government carries much more influence than the local authorities. Especially in small countries like the Netherlands.


----------



## toast (Apr 24, 2003)

> Anyway, in centralist states the government carries much more influence than the local authorities. Especially in small countries like the Netherlands.



True here too. They're less sympathetic when you ask the people, but they're far more influent.


----------



## doemel (Apr 24, 2003)

_The Iraq crisis is not new any more._

Yes, this one's over, but what's next? Maybe this? The hawks in Washington sure would like to go on a more extensive "warring spree" in the region.


----------



## toast (Apr 24, 2003)

What this comic suggests is not complete science-fiction, you are right. But I guess Bush is aware he should care about national economy before starting any new conflict. Two close conflicts would be bad press outside the US (neocolonization feeling), and inside the US (President not caring of the national problems enough).

But this is only speculation.


----------



## MacPain (Apr 27, 2003)

bah! all this american self-righteousness makes me wanne puke.

the "open your eyes" phrase from the first page of this thread is quite fitting, yet it was directed at the wrong ones. the people of the united states should finally open their eyes. their country is on a straight road down to nationalism and fascism.

the dixie chicks recieved death threats just because they voiced a critical opinion about their government. susan sarandon and tim robbins got their speeches cancelled at public events because of their opinion. 

those are just a few examples of how the united states of america are exactly the opposite of what they claim to be: a free  country, where everyone can voice his own opinion. yeah yeah, freedom of speech... just a fairy tale nowadays in the u.s.


----------



## habilis (Apr 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MacPain _
> the dixie chicks recieved death threats just because they voiced a critical opinion about their government. susan sarandon and tim robbins got their speeches cancelled at public events because of their opinion.


Both of those instances were private citizens excersing their right to free speech in saying they don't like something, there was no US Goverment interdiction. Tim Robbins has the right to go somewhere else and speak. With Robbins or Sarandon at your event, you might end up with another distasteful Michael Moore incident so people that hire these actors to entertain are on gaurd.

Like it or not, Michael Moore has become your representative to the world.


----------



## Cat (Apr 27, 2003)

Hmmm, "road to fascism" ... well, not quite yet, but one of the moves of wannabe - dicatators is to gain special powers during a crisis and then try to retain them when the crisis is over ... same scenarion since the romans really. 

Now Bush did obtain special powers to manage the crisis situation after 9-11, didn't he? And it was proposed, IIRC, to make them permanent, together with the special powers of the entire security apparatus ... I didn't follow the issue closely, can someone tell me if Bush will retain them? 
Now that the crisis is mostly over (9-11 a faint memory, Iraq crushed yet again) the US democracy stands a little test: will Bush keep his special powers or not?


----------



## monktus (May 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *Like it or not, Michael Moore has become your representative to the world. *


I can't think of a better representative to the world for the US than Michael Moore. If only there were more people like him (or any) in the American government. The US, and the planet, would be a much safer place.


----------



## toast (May 6, 2003)

Monktus (and others):

I doubt the US have the power to make the world a safer place. Even if Moore was President, which would be a complete disaster. He's just as much able to rule the US as the Monty Pythons or MTV Jackass are.


----------



## monktus (May 6, 2003)

toast, I see what you're saying but I didn't mean it literally. As the dominant force in world politics, the US effects the stability of the world by its policies, foreign and domestic. As interesting as it would be, I wasn't suggesting that Michael Moore be installed as president but that some of his qualities are sorely needed in the people that are elected to govern in the US and throughout the world.


----------

