Who´s going to win ?

[EiZei 0]

[KJAM 0]

ice fire seeingt hat you are having a tough tmie describing "conservative" ive took the liberty of helping you out

Quote[/b] ]Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.

Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

there, og and FYI icefire if our ancestors were conservatives we would still be living in caves now.......yeah that makes your beliefs right.

(note i dont really give a shit about politics so dont go calling me a liberal or democrat or ill just find you and kick your lil ass )

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, we can't force it on them, and it would be wrong to try.  But it would be equally wrong to ignore our obligations as a free society to provide those oppressed by a murdering regime the opportunity to make that choice.  Maybe we haven't always done that in the past, but that doesn't mean we should always continue to sit on our hands.  I don't believe that was the intention of our administration, but I do believe it was and is the intention of the American people, else we'd be up in arms to bring those troops home.  Doing nothing in the face of human rights violations and genocide is just as wrong as lending a helping hand in the killing.  Its easy to sit back in safety and comfort, worrying only about your own selfish interests and criticize the tactics and ideas of the man who rolled his sleeves up and got his hands dirty.  Its much harder trying to find a solution to a complex and ongoing problem by wending your way into the middle of a dirty stream.

I can understand that perspective ,but it's a bad argument.Because you would be VERY SELLECTIVE in wich oppressed people to safe (those with oil) ,as their are litteraly dozens of dictators around the world and the U.S.A does nothing for those other oppressed people's ,in addition one can also note that some of these oppressing dictator's have come to power even with the AID of the U.S.A. .Just look at South America ,many of the South American country's have seen dictatoral regime's during the cold war ,put to power by the U.S because theyre was a "leftist" president ruling the country ,hence Communist.Take Allende from Chile as an ex. .

The argument of WMD's has been shatterd ,and this argument won't stand neither.America aint no saint when it come's to dictator's ,it's history on that prove's that the U.S will rather oust a president ,democratic or dictator ,for their own national benifit rather than for a moral reason.Heck at some point the U.S.A even supported Saddam ,what more proof do you want?

THE REASON FOR THE WAR WAS OIL!!!

Is that so hard to understand?

[Scorpio 0]

THE REASON FOR THE WAR WAS OIL!!!

Is that so hard to understand?

Not to mention building up a strategic point in the middle-east, which will allow the US to have an advantage over the other arab states there.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam could have moved them out of the country for all we know.

LMAO!Saddam is trully a mistery..He managed to move chemical plants over boarders under the America satilites eyes but he can`t hide himself and ends up in a spider hole.. Talk about common sense..

But the way in Iraq there is a popular ICP(Iraqi communist party) that opposed Saddam and was persecuted,you think that if Iraqis would like to adopt communism US will let them?

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Not to mention building up a strategic point in the middle-east, which will allow the US to have an advantage over the other arab states there.

true ,but then for the same reasons.It will certainly force Saudi Arabia ,America's biggest oil supplier ,to keep low.It will certainly be easier fotr the U.S to keep their "oil-vazzal's" in line.

[denoir 0]

there, og and FYI icefire if our ancestors were conservatives we would still be living in caves now.......yeah that makes your beliefs right.

You know, he would probably not object to that:

The fact that we have computers and electronics(I only really support inventions that are purely mechanical in nature) is bad enough, but now ROBOTs???

I don't understand people who keep wanting more and more technology.   If anything we should be trying to limit the advance of technology, and focusing on gradually eliminating technology.    

....

Because technology itslelf is not a good thing, it's a bad thing.  

...

Technology does the things that shoudn't be done.   It's just a matter of principle.  Sure you could have a little robot going around doing all your chores.  But that's soo cheap. Ever been to a cheap hooker when you were too horny to know better?  Know that feeling you get after you're done and she has your money?   Wasn't worth it, was it? Technology is like that.

....

But at the same time I still do not really trust ANY form of technology.

Mechanical technology just doesn't worry me as much.

[ source thread ]

[OmniMax 0]

As far as technology and civilization as whole go (somebody mentioned it with living in caves as conservitives) there will always be two extremes no matter what the situation is.

Less Technology, Hard working, isolationists, (Conservitive)

Max Technology (overpopulation?), lazy, utopian, (True Communism?)

This is just some insight of the movement of civilization as a whole and the two extremes.

Of course, it is possible to advance in technology and only technology, but more likely then not, technology will dictate how the civilization operates.

The reason Ice is afraid of digital (that is to say, micro electronics and up) technology is because he doesn't understand it.

This was common with the protesters\conservs of the 60s\70s with their paranoid ideas of the government spying on them with use of such devices.

Bush still "wins" even if he isn't reellected. He already has private oil contractors out there and his friendly pal Chenny is on the board or some other comfortable VIP spot. So he made out under the noses of the unsuspecting American public, not to mention he already came from a wealthy family..

[Apollo 0]

i read some thing's on what Howard Dean stands for (democrat running for president) ,and i like it.I would vote for him (if i was American) ,or otherwise maybe for W. Clark.

[KJAM 0]

Quote[/b] ]The fact that we have computers and electronics(I only really support inventions that are purely mechanical in nature) is bad enough, but now ROBOTs???

I don't understand people who keep wanting more and more technology. If anything we should be trying to limit the advance of technology, and focusing on gradually eliminating technology.

....

Because technology itslelf is not a good thing, it's a bad thing.

...

Technology does the things that shoudn't be done. It's just a matter of principle. Sure you could have a little robot going around doing all your chores. But that's soo cheap. Ever been to a cheap hooker when you were too horny to know better? Know that feeling you get after you're done and she has your money? Wasn't worth it, was it? Technology is like that.

....

But at the same time I still do not really trust ANY form of technology.

Mechanical technology just doesn't worry me as much.

but you dont mind using computers to get your point across........that were built by robots, man you do really sound bad, like some christians who claim science is the work of the devil just because it disproves their theorys.

Quote[/b] ]If anything we should be trying to limit the advance of technology, and focusing on gradually eliminating technology.

why so we can go back to living in caves............one day technology might just save your life,

saying that i dont like eVERY bit of technology, only those that serve a proper purpose, like technology for construction i think thats good.......

Quote[/b] ]Sure you could have a little robot going around doing all your chores

youve been watching too many TV adverts (remembers Mr Roboto or whatever it was on british Tv.......with the hoover ) but if robots who could go round doing chores were available.......you know what........i wouldnt say "lets get rid of all technology" i would just simply NOT buy one as it promotes the inherent lazyness humans have

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, we can't force it on them, and it would be wrong to try.  But it would be equally wrong to ignore our obligations as a free society to provide those oppressed by a murdering regime the opportunity to make that choice.  Maybe we haven't always done that in the past, but that doesn't mean we should always continue to sit on our hands.  I don't believe that was the intention of our administration, but I do believe it was and is the intention of the American people, else we'd be up in arms to bring those troops home.  Doing nothing in the face of human rights violations and genocide is just as wrong as lending a helping hand in the killing.  Its easy to sit back in safety and comfort, worrying only about your own selfish interests and criticize the tactics and ideas of the man who rolled his sleeves up and got his hands dirty.  Its much harder trying to find a solution to a complex and ongoing problem by wending your way into the middle of a dirty stream.

I can understand that perspective ,but it's a bad argument.Because you would be VERY SELLECTIVE in wich oppressed people to safe (those with oil) ,as their are litteraly dozens of dictators around the world and the U.S.A does nothing for those other oppressed people's ,in addition one can also note that some of these oppressing dictator's have come to power even with the AID of the U.S.A. .Just look at South America ,many of the South American country's have seen dictatoral regime's during the cold war ,put to power by the U.S because theyre was a "leftist" president ruling the country ,hence Communist.Take Allende from Chile as an ex. .

The argument of WMD's has been shatterd ,and this argument won't stand neither.America aint no saint when it come's to dictator's ,it's history on that prove's that the U.S will rather oust a president ,democratic or dictator ,for their own national benifit rather than for a moral reason.Heck at some point the U.S.A even supported Saddam ,what more proof do you want?

THE REASON FOR THE WAR WAS OIL!!!

Is that so hard to understand?

That too is a bad argument. The support of those dictators was the wrong thing to do, but does that preclude us doing the right thing now? In short, no it doesn't. Don't forget, the American people don't get to pick and choose which dictator or oppressive regime we get to go after, the President does. Past mistakes were made by past administrations. Don't forget also, that the American government is in new hands every four years. The governments that made those poor choices are no longer in power. Were Bush's intentions noble? No they weren't, we went into Iraq mostly because we wanted that oil to bring stability to the world market. After 9-11, it became obvious we couldn't rely on the Saudis and interruption in the flow of Saudi oil to the global market would lead to a global economic downturn. Oil is an inelastic resource that commands a worldwide benchmark price. A reduction in supply from one source leads to an increase in price market wide. Why? Because it's too difficult and costly to find alternative resources in the short term. Buyers have to simply suck it up and pay the higher prices. That means economic downturns worldwide. Price increases of just a few dollars per gallon have lead to two worldwide recessions during the gas crunch in 1973 and again during the Iranian Revolution in '81. That's just simple economics. So in essence , the war was about oil. Is that such a bad thing? Not really, but the way we went about it was wrong. Looking out for global economic stability isn't wrong, ignoring or bypassing the U.N. to do it was. In one year, the odds are the American government has a very good chance of undergoing another peaceful revolution using the election process and a new government will come to power. The American people supported the war to free Iraq and get rid of Saddam. We've gone a long way towards doing that. We still have a long way to go. Our administrations intentions may not have been entirely noble or entirely honest, but those of the American people were and continue to be. We are going to continue sacrificing our sons and daughters to honor the committment we made to the Iraqi people. Maybe in the future, with the precedent we set in Iraq, we will honor the committment to freedom and human rights we have made to the rest of the world.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]That too is a bad argument.  The support of those dictators was the wrong thing to do, but does that preclude us doing the right thing now?

Pff i don't call that an argument ,rather a prommise that you even can't fulfill.America has more than enough problems as it is now controlling a mere 40 million people in ex-dictatorial country's like Afhanistan and Iraq.Not only millitarely ,but definatly economicly.the U.S simply hasn't got the funds to make such a prommise hard ,neither does it has the manpower.The stabilety in country's like Afhanistan and Iraq at this moment is about unexisting as attacks happen on a daily bases.One cannot build a democracy on such an unstable ground.Democratic reforms in Afhanistan have failed before they began ,President Karzai is the mear major of Kabul ,the rest of the country is controlled by ruthless and barbaric warlords.Even with all the U.S soldiers now present in Iraq they have it hard to controll an x% of the territory ,then what will the situatio be when U.S troops leave Iraq like they did with Afhanistan?

The thought that America can be the spreader of democracy in the world is naive.those country's that arn't democratic are as such because they are usually not ready for it.by extensivly bombing the country just to oust the dictator won't make the country more ready for democracy.

One also has to review the short revolution that happened recently in Venezuela with the short ousting of thedemocraticly ellected leftist president Hugh chavez in favour for an dictatorial president supported by the Cia.For oil really ,Chavez was to nationalize the Venezuelan oil industry ,an important exporter to the U.S.So it seems that for oil the U.S seems also preparred to oust a democratic president in favour for a dictatorial one.

Quote[/b] ]Were Bush's intentions noble?  No they weren't, we went into Iraq mostly because we wanted that oil to bring stability to the world market.  After 9-11, it became obvious we couldn't rely on the Saudis and interruption in the flow of Saudi oil to the global market would lead to a global economic downturn.  Oil is an inelastic resource that commands a worldwide benchmark price.  A reduction in supply from one source leads to an increase in price market wide.  Why?  Because it's too difficult and costly to find alternative resources in the short term.  Buyers have to simply suck it up and pay the higher prices.  That means economic downturns worldwide.  Price increases of just a few dollars per gallon have lead to two worldwide recessions during the gas crunch in 1973 and again during the Iranian Revolution in '81.  That's just simple economics.  So in essence , the war was about oil.  Is that such a bad thing?

Yes! i understand the motive's behind the war very clearly and youre correct in youre annalysis ,however on the questio, if that was wrong to do i sa YES!

U.S oil prices are one of the lowest of the world ,they have been favoured due to their power by oil producing country's by decades.In Europe the oil prices have always been higher than in the U.S.Nobody got the right to attack a country for economical reasons.if it was for a lack of energy resources the U.S should either finance more funds in alternative energy sooner or face the increase of oil prices.I repeat ,economical problems is not a casus belli for war!

Quote[/b] ]Our administrations intentions may not have been entirely noble or entirely honest, but those of the American people were and continue to be. We are going to continue sacrificing our sons and daughters to honor the committment we made to the Iraqi people. Maybe in the future, with the precedent we set in Iraq, we will honor the committment to freedom and human rights we have made to the rest of the world.

Thats rediculous ,for who do you spek? Youre just one U.S citizin with 1 vote.You cannot force the decissions of youre president individually ,the vote of the majority decides.Nor have the U.S population decided to attack iras ,it was bush who did unnilaterally.And when Bush pull's his troops out of Iraq ,the American population will have nothing to change to that.most of the U.S citizin's follow slavely the U.S media steered by company's that steer politics.The power of the industry in U.S politics is hughe and mainly is the reason for the Iraq war ,be it a war for cheap resources.

[denoir 0]

Our administrations intentions may not have been entirely noble or entirely honest, but those of the American people were and continue to be.  We are going to continue sacrificing our sons and daughters to honor the committment we made to the Iraqi people.  Maybe in the future, with the precedent we set in Iraq, we will honor the committment to freedom and human rights we have made to the rest of the world.

45% of the "honorable American people" thought that Saddam had something to do with the WTC attacks. More than half of your dear population still consider thanks to Bush's propaganda that Iraq was somehow a threat to USA. You are projecting your own justification on a population that actually doesn't agree with your views, or that any justification is needed.

In a democracy where the government is of the people, by the people and for the people the people have to take SOME fucking responsibilty. Bush may be a lier, but you elected him and after all his lies actually more people support him today than those who voted for him in 2000.

So, you first mistake is to think that it's a question of evil bad politicians who fooled and decieved the poor altruistic people. After September 11th, the American public has been anything but altruistic. They have been scared, hateful and looking for revenge, no matter at what cost that reveng wout come and how many innocent non-Americans would pay with their lives for Americans to feel less impotent and vulnerable. Your countrymen willingly and knowingly supported Bush and they still do. And they've shown that they don't give a fuck about all the lies. You may disapprove of Bush, but a majority of your countrymen don't.

Your second error is much graver and is not just a question of wishful thinking but a scary example of cultural indoctrination. You are arguing that it's your duty to remove regimes who are bad by your standards, which you naturally assume are universal. I've got news for you. That's a very slight variation of the standard Euro-centric imperialism. If you want to look at some pretty results of it, look at the state of Africa. That happens when you enforce your culture and your values upon others, in combination with economic exploatation.

Wow, the Iraqis are free now and can watch Hollywood movies and soon they'll be able to vote for parties pre-selected by America. Yeah, you support free trade as long as it's one way. Let me ask you this: how many Iraqi movies have been shown in America recently? How many Iraqi restaurants have opened up as an equivalent of the dozens of Burger Kings and McDonalds that have opened up in Iraq?

Yeah, the whole 'freedom' package. This 'freedom' - or more appropriately, libertarian individualism which promotes the pursuit of endless consumption of American goods, beliefs and traditions. This undermines everything that the indigenous cultures, traditions and history stands for. Local cultural production becomes at best marginalised, at wrost totally suppressed.

And it's due to your conviction of the superiority of the American culture. I'm sure it's just as altruistic as when the Europeans roamed around the world convering poor heathens to Christianity. It's the exactly same thing.

To take an appropriate quote from "Full Metal Jacket":

We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]That too is a bad argument.  The support of those dictators was the wrong thing to do, but does that preclude us doing the right thing now?

Pff i don't call that an argument ,rather a prommise that you even can't fulfill.America has more than enough problems as it is now controlling a mere 40 million people in ex-dictatorial country's like Afhanistan and Iraq.Not only millitarely ,but definatly economicly.the U.S simply hasn't got the funds to make such a prommise hard ,neither does it has the manpower.The stabilety in country's like Afhanistan and Iraq at this moment is about unexisting as attacks happen on a daily bases.One cannot build a democracy on such an unstable ground.Democratic reforms in Afhanistan have failed before they began ,President Karzai is the mear major of Kabul ,the rest of the country is controlled by ruthless and barbaric warlords.Even with all the U.S soldiers now present in Iraq they have it hard to controll an x% of the territory ,then what will the situatio be when U.S troops leave Iraq like they did with Afhanistan?

The thought that America can be the spreader of democracy in the world is naive.those country's that arn't democratic are as such because they are usually not ready for it.by extensivly bombing the country just to oust the dictator won't make the country more ready for democracy.

One also has to review the short revolution that happened recently in Venezuela with the short ousting of thedemocraticly ellected leftist president Hugh chavez in favour for an dictatorial president supported by the Cia.For oil really ,Chavez was to nationalize the Venezuelan oil industry ,an important exporter to the U.S.So it seems that for oil the U.S seems also preparred to oust a democratic president in favour for a dictatorial one.

Quote[/b] ]Were Bush's intentions noble?  No they weren't, we went into Iraq mostly because we wanted that oil to bring stability to the world market.  After 9-11, it became obvious we couldn't rely on the Saudis and interruption in the flow of Saudi oil to the global market would lead to a global economic downturn.  Oil is an inelastic resource that commands a worldwide benchmark price.  A reduction in supply from one source leads to an increase in price market wide.  Why?  Because it's too difficult and costly to find alternative resources in the short term.  Buyers have to simply suck it up and pay the higher prices.  That means economic downturns worldwide.  Price increases of just a few dollars per gallon have lead to two worldwide recessions during the gas crunch in 1973 and again during the Iranian Revolution in '81.  That's just simple economics.  So in essence , the war was about oil.  Is that such a bad thing?

Yes! i understand the motive's behind the war very clearly and youre correct in youre annalysis ,however on the questio, if that was wrong to do i sa YES!

U.S oil prices are one of the lowest of the world ,they have been favoured due to their power by oil producing country's by decades.In Europe the oil prices have always been higher than in the U.S.Nobody got the right to attack a country for economical reasons.if it was for a lack of energy resources the U.S should either finance more funds in alternative energy sooner or face the increase of oil prices.I repeat ,economical problems is not a casus belli for war!

An oil price "shock" would lead to a global economic downturn, not just one in the U.S. Oil prices are high in Europe due to taxation, not due to the price you pay for oil. You pay the same price per barrel that we do. It's a worldwide per barrel benchmark price for oil. Again, because oil is an inelastic resource, any interruption in the flow of oil to the global marketplace, particularly from the world's largest supplier (the Saudis) would cause a dramatic oil price shock. The per barrel price would spike and if it didn't go down in a few months time, you could be looking at the start of another Great Depression. I'm not making this up, its widely known and a few mintues research will lead to articles verifying what I've just said.

If we had a worldwide recession or worse, depression, hundreds of thousands of people in developing nations would starve. You think a lack of economic and political viability leads to global terrorism and brushfire wars now, try living under that scenario.

Developing nations do not have a choice. Oil and coal are their primary sources of energy. They lack the technology, infrastructure and resources to develop alternative sources of energy. Imagine all those african republics with their transportation and energy sectors shut down. How do they get their products to market? How do they refrigerate foods and critical medicines?

Now think about rising superpowers like China. Chinese demand for oil is increasing exponentially. They are now the fastest growing purchaser for oil in the entire world. As China undergoes rapid industrialization, they will only become more and more dependent upon foreign sources of oil. Right now, China iomports more than 75% of its oil, mostly from Indonesia and the Saudis. In five years, China will import nearly 90% of its oil from foreign sources and will increase its imports by 2/3. Now what happens if the Saudi supply gets suddenly cut off due to a revolution, coup, invasion from a neighboring nation with hegemonic aspirations like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or even Iran, or a terrorist action which destroys the pumps in one of their main ports. Hell, all you'd have to do is sink a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Now where does China go? They aren't going to allow their economy to crumble, and hey, guess what? They are sitting on the world's largest army with Indonesia right on their doorstep. Do you see where this is all going?

Energy security is the foremost issue in the global marketplace. Because of the new global economy, we are all inextricably linked. What's bad for Europe is bad for America. What's bad for Asia is bad for us both. Insuring stability of prices in the global oil market (the premier energy market for the entire world) is a major and vital responsbility. The U.S. assumed that responsibility after the British abandoned it in the late '50s. We didn't just want that nice large supply of oil reserves for ourselves, we wanted it as an insurance policy for the global marketplace. You in effect, as a citizen of a freeriding nation, have benefitted from the Iraq war in a number of indirect and intangible ways.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]An oil price "shock" would lead to a global economic downturn, not just one in the U.S.  Oil prices are high in Europe due to taxation, not due to the price you pay for oil.  You pay the same price per barrel that we do.  It's a worldwide per barrel benchmark price for oil.  Again, because oil is an inelastic resource, any interruption in the flow of oil to the global marketplace, particularly from the world's largest supplier (the Saudis) would cause a dramatic oil price shock.  The per barrel price would spike and if it didn't go down in a few months time, you could be looking at the start of another Great Depression.  I'm not making this up, its widely known and a few mintues research will lead to articles verifying what I've just said.

I repeat that im perfectly aware of the GLOBAL implications of rizing oil prices.And again i state that imperialistic economical interests is not a legal casus belli for war.I know it would hurt my country to should Saudi arabia's flow to the western world be broken.

By all means we Westeners have more than any other people on the world ,and our wealth is largly made on the back of the rest of the world.We don't even desreve to be so wealthy really.A recession still doesn't mean that the West will loose all it's wealth and power in the world.However one must also differentiate Iraq from Saudia Arabia ,as far as i know there are a few U.S tank bases in Saudia Arabia and i don't recll Saudia Arabia having the power to defeat those troops stationed there if a case of for ex. Revolution in Saudi Arabia ,given it's oppresive King and princes not bloody unlikely ,the price you get of supporting dictatrial regime's.But the war on Iraq was not nessecary to keep Saudi Arabia in control ,it was nessecary to EXPAND the oil supply to the west ,to SECURE those sources so that the West or the USA could retain it's SUPREMACY ,not equality with other nations around the world.

Goddamned i know enough of global Economics to understand everything what you are saying ,i don't need this lecture i know all of this.That it would hurt the west should most of it's oil supply come in danger well you don't need to be a proffesor to know that.But what the U.S is doing is blatant IMPERIALISTIC ,not just a case of defending it's position of supremacy in the world.

Quote[/b] ]Energy security is the foremost issue in the global marketplace. Because of the new global economy, we are all inextricably linked. What's bad for Europe is bad for America. What's bad for Asia is bad for us both. Insuring stability of prices in the global oil market (the premier energy market for the entire world) is a major and vital responsbility. The U.S. assumed that responsibility after the British abandoned it in the late '50s. We didn't just want that nice large supply of oil reserves for ourselves, we wanted it as an insurance policy for the global marketplace. You in effect, as a citizen of a freeriding nation, have benefitted from the Iraq war in a number of indirect and intangible ways.

There isn't enough oil for the whole world ,and therefore the U.S tries to pull as much as possible of these resources into it's controll regardless of the implications to other country.At the moment it's just an all you can grab situation for the U.S ,knowing that with cheaper resources it's economy will run more efficiant and be more competive against growing powers as China.China already has an lack of oil as it is ,it has to look to alternative sources for their energy already ,like their new massive dam they build.

If you need more energy ,try to build more alternative sources rather than wage war against an other country for it. If it had been done long before now we wouldn't have this problem anyway.

[Schoeler 0]

Apollo, you conveninetly ignored the impications for the third world and for China that I layed out for you. Oil shocks are bad worldwide. It has nothing to do with imperialism and everything to do with preventing chaos and even global war.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Apollo, you conveninetly ignored the impications for the third world and for China that I layed out for you.  Oil shocks are bad worldwide.  It has nothing to do with imperialism and everything to do with preventing chaos and even global war.

Like America cares about the third world.POEG!  

You present a very one sided view.America controls oil supply largly for their benifit ,not for the global one.The shortage's of oil for the future is a problem that isn't solvable with waging war ,period! And even if it can solve some very short term problem's for certain country's ,it's still not justified.Like i said ,build a few more damn dam's instead of waging war ,the costs of the war alone probably had earned you a nice amount of alternative energy source infrastructure.This is a way more fundamental solution ,rather than youre "solution" wich simply put's the oil in control of youre "blessed America".

And i already explained the Saudi case that is seperated from the Iraqi case.You can keep Saudi Arabi in control as it is already ,there are enough U.S troops present in Saudi Arabia to quell any revolt.Iraq was simply a case of expanding the oil supply in favour of the western world and not the global interrests as a whole.

Or what do you think ,that should the U.S present such a motivation for a war to the U.N that the rest of the world would abbide? HAH!

There is a clear reason why the U.S never mentioned oil as a reason for the war ,because they knew that for this reason they would have never got the support of most of the world neither.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]45% of the "honorable American people" thought that Saddam had something to do with the WTC attacks. More than half of your dear population still consider thanks to Bush's propaganda that Iraq was somehow a threat to USA. You are projecting your own justification on a population that actually doesn't agree with your views, or that any justification is needed.

45% of the American people are uninfomed morons. That doesn't mean their hearts weren't in the right place. Look at the average American's response to why they aren't so pissed off about being lied to. They all say they think going into Iraq and getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do. Iraq wasn't just a threat to the USA. Iraq was a threat to global stability. Hussein's regime had regional hegemonic aspirations. Look at the Iran-Iraq war. Hussein was two day tank ride away from capturing the Iranian oil fields. Had he done that, with his strategic reserves and the Iranians in his grasp, he could have assumed the role as the world's swing producer that Saudi Arabia currently enjoys, and outgunned OPEC to set the benchmark price for oil. Saddam DID capture the Kuwaiti oil fields and even more, the critical Kuwaiti ports (which is what he really wanted). He then threatened the Saudi fields. No one doubts his intentions in the middle east region. He saw himself as a king and wanted to rule the entire region. Had he succeeded, he would have had a grip on the world economy and would have had the strenght to force the U.N. into a negotiated concession.

Quote[/b] ]In a democracy where the government is of the people, by the people and for the people the people have to take SOME fucking responsibilty. Bush may be a lier, but you elected him and after all his lies actually more people support him today than those who voted for him in 2000.

We didn't elect Bush. The majority of the American people elected Gore. Bush won the Presidency via a Supreme Court decision. Those among us who are informed intend to do something about that this coming november.

Quote[/b] ]So, you first mistake is to think that it's a question of evil bad politicians who fooled and decieved the poor altruistic people. After September 11th, the American public has been anything but altruistic. They have been scared, hateful and looking for revenge, no matter at what cost that reveng wout come and how many innocent non-Americans would pay with their lives for Americans to feel less impotent and vulnerable. Your countrymen willingly and knowingly supported Bush and they still do. And they've shown that they don't give a fuck about all the lies. You may disapprove of Bush, but a majority of your countrymen don't.

I'll grant you that after 9-11, that most Americans have been scared and we willingly went into Afghanistan for revenge and to try and eliminate the Al-Qaeda threat. I don't think there were a hell of a lot of "innocent" non-Americans who paid with their lives in Afghanistan on a scale that exceeds the usual civilian collateral damage in modern warfare. Getting rid of the Taliban and going after Al-Qaeda were justifiable actions, and you will NEVER convince me that they weren't.

Quote[/b] ]Your second error is much graver and is not just a question of wishful thinking but a scary example of cultural indoctrination. You are arguing that it's your duty to remove regimes who are bad by your standards, which you naturally assume are universal. I've got news for you. That's a very slight variation of the standard Euro-centric imperialism. If you want to look at some pretty results of it, look at the state of Africa. That happens when you enforce your culture and your values upon others, in combination with economic exploatation.

I'm not arguing that it is our duty to remove regimes that are bad by our standards. I am arguing that it is our duty to coerce or remove regimes that are bad by humanity's standards. Its called human rights, and we all have them, and guess what? They are pretty much the fucking same all throughout the world. Any regime denying those basic rights to any person is corrupt and needs to be removed. China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, half of Africa etc... All these regimes need to be brought into the modern world either through economic and military coercion or through the use of force. Its not enough to sit on our fat well-fed, self indulgent candy asses and bitch and whine about how awful some regimes are and how we shouldn't trade with them because they ignore human rights. We have an obligation to give those people what they are due, and to allow them to choose the form of government most appropriate for themselves.

Quote[/b] ]Wow, the Iraqis are free now and can watch Hollywood movies and soon they'll be able to vote for parties pre-selected by America. Yeah, you support free trade as long as it's one way. Let me ask you this: how many Iraqi movies have been shown in America recently? How many Iraqi restaurants have opened up as an equivalent of the dozens of Burger Kings and McDonalds that have opened up in Iraq?

The Iraqis aren't free now. I believe they are already watching hollywood movies and hey why not? Do you know of any other film industry that can produce on the scale and quality of hollywood? They won't be voting on any pre-selected parties. It looks as if they will caucus for an interim government until the United Nations (upon U.S. request) steps in to insure the Iraqi's have the proper ability to freely elect a new government. A government which, incidentally, will operate under a new constitution drafted by representation throughout the Iraqi population. How much one way free trade do you see going on in the world today Denoir? Our corporations wouldn't be anywhere unless they were welcomed in. I didn't see the Marines park a Wasp class LHD of of your coast and force your people to eat at McDonalds. We have a lot of foreign firms operating within our borders. Did you want me to list them for you? Let's start with Nokia. How about Saab? By the way, there is an Iraqi restaraunt in my neighborhood. The owner and proprietor has been a vocal supporter of the war since day one. I've seen several local news articles on him and his thriving business. There are a lot of Iraqi owned businesses in America. Ever heard of Dearborn Michigan? Its an Iraqi-American enclave. I expect that when Iraq has the ability to enter the global marketplace we'll be seeing Iraqi products being sold. I'd even bet they'll be trading with Sweden too, if they aren't already.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, the whole 'freedom' package. This 'freedom' - or more appropriately, libertarian individualism which promotes the pursuit of endless consumption of American goods, beliefs and traditions. This undermines everything that the indigenous cultures, traditions and history stands for. Local cultural production becomes at best marginalised, at wrost totally suppressed.

I think the real issue you have is with capitalism, not with America. Don't blame us for being good at it. I'm not advocating forcing our values and traditions upon anyone. I'm not even advocating global capitalism. I am however advocating human rights and the responsibility of all free society's to see that it is more than just we who enjoy them. I am advocating too, that people be given a choice on how they govern themselves, and that means eliminating every tin pot dictator who prevents that from happening. I think a majority of Americans would support that position.

Quote[/b] ]And it's due to your conviction of the superiority of the American culture. I'm sure it's just as altruistic as when the Europeans roamed around the world convering poor heathens to Christianity. It's the exactly same thing.

I don't think we have a superior culture at all. I find us somewhat backward actually. My culture is at times, downright embarassing and hickish. The better parts of our culture are borrowed form others. Oh, we have a few things like jazz music and baseball to laud about, but that's really it. I don't think its altruism that drives Americans to spread our culture around, I think its simple capitalism. American altruism exists only in seeing other people enjoy the freedom and standard of living we do.

Quote[/b] ]To take an appropriate quote from "Full Metal Jacket":

We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out.

Here's another quote from the same film: "I guess the gookers would rather be alive than free, poor dumb bastards."

That is why Vietnam was a tragedy. We should only fight to insure life and human rights, not capitalism or American style democracy. People should have a choice.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]Like America cares about the third world.POEG!  

Well I suppose all that American aid to third world nations is to corner the market on rice then?  Maybe we are interested in foreign adavance bases in central africa and south america?  Who among nations has contributed more, or even as much to the third world as America has?  I dare you to present me with an example of a more generous nation.  Where is the European support for Iraq now?  

Quote[/b] ]You present a very one sided view.America controls oil supply largly for their benifit ,not for the global one.The shortage's of oil for the future is a problem that isn't solvable with waging war ,period! And even if it can solve some very short term problem's for certain country's ,it's still not justified.Like i said ,build a few more damn dam's instead of waging war ,the costs of the war alone probably had earned you a nice amount of alternative energy source infrastructure.This is a way more fundamental solution ,rather than youre "solution" wich simply put's the oil in control of youre "blessed America".

It's not a one sided view.  It's a carefully researched opinion, based upon reading articles in several economic publications including international sources.  My argument isn't based upon a future shortage of oil in the global marketplace.  The future will give industrialized economies the time to find alternative sources of energy.  My argument is based upon the possibility of a sudden "shock" to the global oil market.  Such a shock would throw the global economy in turmoil and be devastating to developiong nations.  That means hundreds of thousands of deaths and war.  It's not altruistic to try and prevent that from happening?  Those third world nations can't find alternative sources of energy.  Who is going to build their dams?  Who wants them to have nuclear technology?  Who among anyone in the community of nations wants them to expand the use of environmentally damaging coal?  What if they don't have a river to even dam?  We aren't out to "control" that oil.  We can only use so much.  We are out to guarantee its availability to the global marketplace in the event of an oil shock.

Quote[/b] ]And i already explained the Saudi case that is seperated from the Iraqi case.You can keep Saudi Arabi in control as it is already ,there are enough U.S troops present in Saudi Arabia to quell any revolt.Iraq was simply a case of expanding the oil supply in favour of the western world and not the global interrests as a whole.

We can keep the Saudis in control can we?  I'd bet there are a hell of a lot of people in lower Manhattan right now who would disagree with you.  The House of Saud is one of the most corrupt regimes on the face of the earth.  It has become distasteful and costly (9-11) for us to continue doing business with them in the manner that we have.  We don't want to stay where we aren't wanted and generate more and more support for the Bin Ladens of the world.  Notice the U.S. is pulling out of Saudi Arabia after the Iraq war?  Do you think that is a coincidence?  Iraq was a case of opening up the worlds second largets oil reserves to possible development as an insurance policy against Saudi instability.  Glutting the market with Iraqi oil would be as damaging, if not more so than a sudden loss of Saudi production.  That oil won't be being used to fatten American coffers, it will be used to remove the Saudis and OPEC from the driver's seat in the global marketplace, by allowing Iraq to assume the role of being the world's swing producer.

Quote[/b] ]Or what do you think ,that should the U.S present such a motivation for a war to the U.N that the rest of the world would abbide? HAH!

There is a clear reason why the U.S never mentioned oil as a reason for the war ,because they knew that for this reason they would have never got the support of most of the world neither.

I think the clear reason the U.S. didn't present this argument to the world is evidenced in your above emotional response.  Reactionaries like yourself who don't understand how the global marketplace really works, would not tolerate it.

Some facts about the oh so stable Saudis:

Signs of Saudi instability

a. The Saudi population is growing at 3.5% annually.  Since 1980 the Saudi population has more than doubled to 17.3 million.

b.  Saudi GDP is stagnant and per capita GDP has fallen from $15,800 in 1980 to $10,000 in 1990 to $8200 in 2001.  In 16 of the past 17 years, the Saudi government operated at a deficit as its oil revenue failed to keep pace with its spending.  Consequently, the Saudis are deeply in debt and have to cut back on government services and luxuries such as hiring foreign workers.

c.  The bulk of the Saudi population, 3/4 is under the age of 30.  Unskilled, uneducated, unemployed young men make up a significant portion of this demographic.  The Saudi umemployment rate is around 30%.

d.  Radical Islam is on the rise in Saudi Arabia.  15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis.  Osama Bin Laden, a hero to many Saudis, is a Saudi himself.  

e.  The Saudi monarchy is deeply corrupt and is running out of ways to appease a deeply resentful and increasingly more radical populace.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well I suppose all that American aid to third world nations is to corner the market on rice then?  Maybe we are interested in foreign adavance bases in central africa and south america?  Who among nations has contributed more, or even as much to the third world as America has?  I dare you to present me with an example of a more generous nation.  Where is the European support for Iraq now?  

Yea right. Politicians are always fast to say they DONATE money to a 3rd world country when they actually LEND money to the 3rd world ,state loans that have to be repaid with interrest ,the Dictators buys his luxury's with it and the people has to pay.

Quote[/b] ]It's not a one sided view.  It's a carefully researched opinion, based upon reading articles in several economic publications including international sources.  My argument isn't based upon a future shortage of oil in the global marketplace.  The future will give industrialized economies the time to find alternative sources of energy.  My argument is based upon the possibility of a sudden "shock" to the global oil market.  Such a shock would throw the global economy in turmoil and be devastating to developiong nations.  That means hundreds of thousands of deaths and war.  It's not altruistic to try and prevent that from happening?  Those third world nations can't find alternative sources of energy.  Who is going to build their dams?  Who wants them to have nuclear technology?  Who among anyone in the community of nations wants them to expand the use of environmentally damaging coal?  What if they don't have a river to even dam?  We aren't out to "control" that oil.  We can only use so much.  We are out to guarantee its availability to the global marketplace in the event of an oil shock.

goddamned i already explined to you that with our withought Iraq youre oil supply was already as secure as it could be.Iraq didn't impose an direct threat to the continuation of oil supply to the world.America has it's troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and from there iit can effectivly control the region and secure the supply.A revolution in Saudi Arabia could be quelled in matter of days at most in a week.I perfectly understand that youre talking about the schock effect of sudden break in supply ,however IMO oppinion the war has not started out of the grand idea that the U.S must secure an steady supply of oil to the rest of the world ,however to secure strategic resources for the company's that fund GW Bush his campaign for ex. .One most note that the U.S have a large strategic resource of oil already and that it has always and still is expanding that strategic resource.Even in times of shortage it is won't use that strategic resource fast.Iraq is youre perfect strategic resource because manny of the oil fields are not even exploited yet.

Quote[/b] ]We can keep the Saudis in control can we?  I'd bet there are a hell of a lot of people in lower Manhattan right now who would disagree with you.  The House of Saud is one of the most corrupt regimes on the face of the earth.  It has become distasteful and costly (9-11) for us to continue doing business with them in the manner that we have.  We don't want to stay where we aren't wanted and generate more and more support for the Bin Ladens of the world.  Notice the U.S. is pulling out of Saudi Arabia after the Iraq war?  Do you think that is a coincidence?  Iraq was a case of opening up the worlds second largets oil reserves to possible development as an insurance policy against Saudi instability.  Glutting the market with Iraqi oil would be as damaging, if not more so than a sudden loss of Saudi production.  That oil won't be being used to fatten American coffers, it will be used to remove the Saudis and OPEC from the driver's seat in the global marketplace, by allowing Iraq to assume the role of being the world's swing producer.

The problems In Saudi Arabia is the product of the U.S and it's own responsabilety.It's not weird that so many US hating terrorist came from a population so oppresed in aid by the U.S goverment.And you think you will make Iraq a better case? You think you can secure Iraq better than you could Saudi Arabia? HAH you have enough problems as it is in Iraq ,it's a worser case than Saudi Arabia from the perspective of the U.S.And Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism ,the threat that terrorism imposed on oil supply is in no way related or solved by the war in Iraq.

You try to put it as America striving for a equal world where everyone has a secure oil supply ,however it's America pushing to have supremacy over all these resources and be able to use it to manipulate other country's/powers with it ,like Opec ,while other country's don't have that power.It's blatant Imperialism ,what would you say If Russia would suddently invade Iran and Saudia Arabia but then state that they will provide for a secure availabilety of oil for YOU ,out of "generosity"?

Quote[/b] ]I think the clear reason the U.S. didn't present this argument to the world is evidenced in your above emotional response.  Reactionaries like yourself who don't understand how the global marketplace really works, would not tolerate it.

yeah right ,just like everybody got the right to declare war on country's just for the sake 10% BNP more.  

And what does you make to think that i don't undestand the global marketplace less than you do?It seems you got this information out of a number of magazine's wich oppinions you folow ,rather than making a oppinion about it on youre own.I read a lot to ,and i'm not as dumb or "reactionary" as you think.

Saudia Arabia might be terrible unstable ,but it is millitary tottaly uncapable so is it's population.1 devission suffice's to keep the country secured for U.S interrests. (and the rest of the world like you claim)

And Iraq got nothing to do with that.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]45% of the "honorable American people" thought that Saddam had something to do with the WTC attacks. More than half of your dear population still consider thanks to Bush's propaganda that Iraq was somehow a threat to USA. You are projecting your own justification on a population that actually doesn't agree with your views, or that any justification is needed.

45% of the American people are uninfomed morons.  That doesn't mean their hearts weren't in the right place.  Look at the average American's response to why they aren't so pissed off about being lied to.  They all say they think going into Iraq and getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do.  Iraq wasn't just a threat to the USA.  Iraq was a threat to global stability.  Hussein's regime had regional hegemonic aspirations.  Look at the Iran-Iraq war.  Hussein was two day tank ride away from capturing the Iranian oil fields.  Had he done that, with his strategic reserves and the Iranians in his grasp, he could have assumed the role as the world's swing producer that Saudi Arabia currently enjoys, and outgunned OPEC to set the benchmark price for oil.  Saddam DID capture the Kuwaiti oil fields and even more, the critical Kuwaiti ports (which is what he really wanted).  He then threatened the Saudi fields.  No one doubts his intentions in the middle east region.  He saw himself as a king and wanted to rule the entire region.  Had he succeeded, he would have had a grip on the world economy and would have had the strenght to force the U.N. into a negotiated concession.

Saddam didn't have as much as a pot to piss in, much less a military that would be capable of mounting any major operation. Before the war, he didn't even have control of entire Iraq. His ambitions of regional dominance was squashed by the defeat in the Kuwait war. His only ambition these days was to stay in power.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]In a democracy where the government is of the people, by the people and for the people the people have to take SOME fucking responsibilty. Bush may be a lier, but you elected him and after all his lies actually more people support him today than those who voted for him in 2000.

We didn't elect Bush.  The majority of the American people elected Gore.  Bush won the Presidency via a Supreme Court decision.  Those among us who are informed intend to do something about that this coming november.

You elected Bush by a the rules of your system. It was not entirely a democratic election by international standards, but it was according to yours. You have an electoral system, which is a form of indirect democracy.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]So, you first mistake is to think that it's a question of evil bad politicians who fooled and decieved the poor altruistic people. After September 11th, the American public has been anything but altruistic. They have been scared, hateful and looking for revenge, no matter at what cost that reveng wout come and how many innocent non-Americans would pay with their lives for Americans to feel less impotent and vulnerable. Your countrymen willingly and knowingly supported Bush and they still do. And they've shown that they don't give a fuck about all the lies. You may disapprove of Bush, but a majority of your countrymen don't.

I'll grant you that after 9-11, that most Americans have been scared and we willingly went into Afghanistan for revenge and to try and eliminate the Al-Qaeda threat.  I don't think there were a hell of a lot of "innocent" non-Americans who paid with their lives in Afghanistan on a scale that exceeds the usual civilian collateral damage in modern warfare.  Getting rid of the Taliban and going after Al-Qaeda were justifiable actions, and you will NEVER convince me that they weren't.

How about the > 3,000 Afghani and certainly > 10,000 Iraqi civilians that paid with their lifes so that you could feel a bit better about yourself. Going after AQ, sure. Going after the Taliban - well, you did get UN approval, so I won't complain too much there. From your selfish perspective, it was certainly justified. From the Afghani perspective (who you claim that the warm-hearted loving American people care so much about) it was bad. The country is now in worse shape than ever and has more or less been abandoned by USA. The people are actually worse off then they were under the Taliban. Plus, you did neither capture nor kill Osama and his merry men, so it can't very well be called a successful point of view of getting the job done.

Tell me, did it feel good for all the people with "their hearts in the right place" to kill a couple of thousand civilians and plunge a country into deeper chaos? Did your ego feel a bit better when America showed that it could drop bombs and kill people at a rate equal to none in the world?

Quote[/b] ]

I'm not arguing that it is our duty to remove regimes that are bad by our standards.  I am arguing that it is our duty to coerce or remove regimes that are bad by humanity's standards.  Its called human rights, and we all have them, and guess what?  They are pretty much the fucking same all throughout the world.  Any regime denying those basic rights to any person is corrupt and needs to be removed.  China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, half of Africa etc...  All these regimes need to be brought into the modern world either through economic and military coercion or through the use of force.  Its not enough to sit on our fat well-fed, self indulgent candy asses and bitch and whine about how awful some regimes are and how we shouldn't trade with them because they ignore human rights.  We have an obligation to give those people what they are due, and to allow them to choose the form of government most appropriate for themselves.

Really? Well, let me give you a counter-example. USA has the death penalty. This is in Europe considered to be a grave violation of the very basic human right to life. Does that mean that we have a moral responsibility to bomb USA?

You don't respect the basic human rights conventions that exist in the world. FFS, you havn't even signed the elementary UNESCO treaty. You execute your own citizens. You lock up people in cages (literally) without a trial. You have engaged in assasinations, election fraud and espionage on foregin soil at an unprecedented scale. You have started more wars than any other nation in the past century. You have the biggest collection of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass murder (to use Bush's expression) on earth.

And then you have the NERVE to criticize other countries? You can't at the same time be one of the worst offenders and then give moral lessons to the world. How many in the world do you think take it seriously when Americans talk about "human rights"? Not many here, I can tell you. America has become a symbol of hypocracy so assuring everybody of your "good intention" won't do much.

Quote[/b] ]Do you know of any other film industry that can produce on the scale and quality of hollywood?

Quality - sure, that's not difficult to beat.

Scale - India's film industry is the largest producer of movies in the world.

Quote[/b] ]

They won't be voting on any pre-selected parties.  It looks as if they will caucus for an interim government until the United Nations (upon U.S. request) steps in to insure the Iraqi's have the proper ability to freely elect a new government.  A government which, incidentally, will operate under a new constitution drafted by representation throughout the Iraqi population.

The parties allowed to participate have been selected. Incidentally the biggest Shia faction was banned from the governing council and won't be allowed in the election as they are fairly fundamentalist and pro-Iran. Incidentally, they represent about 60% of the shia, which in turn represent 60% of the Iraqi population. One other big party that was banned was the communist party. And not to mention the Baath party, who still has a lot of supporters in Iraq.

And the constitution? No sir, it won't be written according to Iraqi desires. It will be of a standard western form, with separation of church and state etc  I'll dig up a link for you later of an poll that the coalition provisional authority made. It showed that only about 16% of the Iraqis wanted a separation of church and state. Something like 51% wanted free elections. About 90% wanted free speech about politics, but only 25% wanted free speech for all subjects, including religion.

Do you understand that THEY DO NOT SHARE YOUR IDEALS. The same way Europeans don't share your ideals about the death penalty.

Quote[/b] ]

How much one way free trade do you see going on in the world today Denoir?  Our corporations wouldn't be anywhere unless they were welcomed in.  I didn't see the Marines park a Wasp class LHD of of your coast and force your people to eat at McDonalds.

Actually in the Iraq case, you did through military force and without asking the iraqis.

Quote[/b] ]

How about Saab?

Funny you should mention it as Saab is owned by General Motors. And they have entirely ruined the car design from being unique to becoming yet another americanomobil. I just saw the sad results a few weeks ago.

And if powerful western nations can't defend themselves from the American cultural invasion, what chance do you think that the poor countries have? None.

This builds up a lot of resentment against America around the world. This combined with your brilliant foregin policy results in people flying planes into your buildings. And your'e lucky at that - since those that have so far attacked you have had limited resources so no significant damage was done.

Continuing this path of hegemony will inevitably result in one of two possible scenarios:

1) We'll all be Americanized and as brainwashed as you are. The whole world will be one big America.

2) We'll gang up on you and beat the crap out of you. This is typically what has happened so far to other superpowers in history.

I've given up hope that America will anytime soon start to respect cultural diversity and revise it's agressive expansionistic ideals.

Quote[/b] ]

I think the real issue you have is with capitalism, not with America.

It's the unbounded global capitalism that enjoys the full political and military support of a superpower. It's a package deal. The current Iraq war is a good example.

1. You start a war for oil and political influence in the region.

2. The oil goes to US companies and so does the rebuilding contracts (not to mention all the bombs that were dropped)

3. You install a bounded democratic regime that supports your ideas of free trade.

4. With massive amounts of cash you install American business in the country, faithfully protected by the US troops in place.

Iraq's economy and businesses are no match for the US. Any competition is eradicated creating yet another standardized mini-America.

The politicians and the military (which are both in bed with corporations) give the opportunity and protection to US corporations to beat the crap out of any opposition. This is achieved both through political extortion (see what happened when the Czech decided not to buy the f-16), military power (iraq) and espionage (echelon net which is designed specifically for commercial espionage).

If you want a good parallel example, look at Microsoft's beahviour. It mimics the US general attitude very well. They give a standard product, not a bad one and not too good one either. Any opposition is crushed through legal or economic means.

Quote[/b] ]

That is why Vietnam was a tragedy.  We should only fight to insure life and human rights, not capitalism or American style democracy.  People should have a choice.

So, what's the difference between the Vietnam foregin policy and the Iraq foregin policy?  

[shinRaiden 0]

Now we've got to the crux of the issue.

The game Saddam has been playing and quite well is the fact that he can afford to lose far more than we can afford to kill. Just like chess, you could capture every piece without one loss, but untill the king is checkmated, you have not won and are liable to lose. Furthermore, a draw is non-applicable, as it is only a mutual understanding of the non-progressability of the situation. Finally, there is no mutual-win option.

Agreed, his (military?) was joke. For all his threats of neo-stalingrad, the talking-heads worrys about the alleged numerical superiority of his forces, c'mon, it's T-55's vs Paladins, A-10's, AH-64D's, M1A3's, and the Marines. Anybody not stoned should have seen it was going to be a turkey shoot.

Therefore, he appears to have been bluffing. And for what reason? Possiblities:

1) He really had WMD's, and skilled operators and equipment.

2) He was trying to stare down GW

3) He was trying to keep all hell from breaking lose at home and avoid a coup.

4) He's a grumpy old krumedgeon.

I would tend to go with 2,3,4. The fact that everything else was crap tends to PRECLUDE the actual capability and possesion of (1).

------------------------------------------------------------

Would those who disagree with our election methods care to offer some viable solutions readily acceptable by heavily armed hermits and drunken poker players? We just had an election here in an affluent liberal-inclined community of about ~3000 people where they had several recounts and just barely settled in the state supreme court one seat for a city council.

Are there issues with the administration of the system - since the methods and operations vary from state to state? Yes, and the whole purpose of the electoral college is to even out those ambiguities. Problem number one is some states split votes, others lump them in a jackpot. Problem two is it is handled by human delegates who are legally able to vote however they choose, on the 2nd or later ballots. For one, we'd need a constitutional amendment to legaly implement a change to uniformity because the right to chose the method of elections is expressed delegated to the states, and 2, it should be automaticly calculated based off of the official accounting method. The primary problem with a direct election is the ambiguity of tabulating ~200million votes in various formats, locales, and languages, as well as ballot list variants from state to state. This is why the elctoral college system works, it covers for 50 dead people in this county, 20 illegal aliens over there, 75 transients bused from county to county, etc.

------------------------------------------------------------

Osama Bin Laden has declared war on America and all persons supporting America. He has declared that this is the will of God, and all like believers are obligated to join in the fight. He operated from a country that openly avowed support for him and his operations, and defied the US to do anything about it. We asked for Bin Laden to be extradited to face an indictment standing from the Clinton Administration for the first Trade center attack, and the two african embassy bombings, and added to that the USS Cole and the 2nd Trade Center attack.

We asked for Bin Laden alone, the Taliban responded by destroying Buddhist antiquities, and by declaring official war on the US.

We gave Saddam, Uday, and Qusay 48 hours to go whereever they felt like out of the country to any number of countries that had officially or unoffically offered asylum. Saddam declared he would rather die a martyr and would unleash the fires of hell on the allied forces.

While Saddam might have never fired a weapon at a citizen of the US or personally spat on US soil, he harbored Abu Nidal knowing that there was a US warrant out for him, launched tactial missles capable of WMD attacks at an non-participatory ally of the US, ordered an assasination attempt on a sitting US president and all other US personal neccessary to complete the mission, and his sons were found in possesion of photoshop'd porn of Bush's daughters.

------------------------------------------------------------

I admire your consistency in your logic Denoir. You are honest about your opinions, and you make them track all the way through.

However, your reasonable European inhibition against capital punishment should also apply to any and all acts of war, correct? After all, the purpose of war is either armed robbery or restoration of aggrieved rights, depending on who you talk to. Ultimately, it is to insure the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of at least one party to the conflict, who holds that those values have been inhibited to an extent worth the loss of some life. One never goes to war without expecting to lose some casualties. That is the fate of war.

But to resolve this issue, you have to determine the value of life and the objectives of the conflict. Furthermore, if you are indeed clearly the non-agressor (not that I'm saying that this scenario of discussion is that case) is there a point where you have the justification or even obligation to take defensive measures, that could result in the life of an enemy aggressor? How would this fit with a unilateral no-killing belief? I'm not attacking here, I'd actually like to hear your response on this, as it is a topic of particular interest.

------------------------------------------------------------

Another excellent reminder about how folks don't see things the same way. But, how do we determine what is the most moral or honorable platform? Is it the American doctrine of pre-emption and Texan management, is it thie nihlistic collectivism of east asian thought, a mix in between, or what?

What if I choose to not see things the way you do? I could say the sun don't shine and call you a liar because it's night time here and daytime there, and you could say I'm a liar because the sun is always shining, but the two things we are agreed on is that the other party is a liar and that we're using completely unrelated benchmarks. Now how do we reconcile them? After all, by bringing religion or philosophy into the fray we've added a measure of non-negotionability to our individual positions.

[denoir 0]

Osama Bin Laden has declared war on America and all persons supporting America. He has declared that this is the will of God, and all like believers are obligated to join in the fight. He operated from a country that openly avowed support for him and his operations, and defied the US to do anything about it. We asked for Bin Laden to be extradited to face an indictment standing from the Clinton Administration for the first Trade center attack, and the two african embassy bombings, and added to that the USS Cole and the 2nd Trade Center attack.

We asked for Bin Laden alone, the Taliban responded by destroying Buddhist antiquities, and by declaring official war on the US.

Actually the Taliban never declared war officialy, but said that they would wage a jihad if and only if USA attacked them. Still, I have no problem in seeing the war in Afghanistan as an act of self-defence. The issue isn't that really, but the fact that the US has questionable moral grounds to claim that attacking Afghanistan is justifiable as USA is known to harbor terrorists from all around the world, starting with Cuba, various South American countries, Iraq and also Afghanistan. My primary objection lies however in a different direction. It's what actually happened vs. what was supposed to happen.

Before going to war, America declared (as usual) that the Taliban were very bad people who oppressed the people under them. This humanitary argument was just as in the Iraq case a secondary objective, but still declared as important.

What happened was that after the Taliban were ousted the makeshift Northern Allience broke down and the US ran off on to the next war. The Afghani people, who the US supposedly cared so much about fairly soon found themselves in a situation worse than under the Taliban. International forces are in control of part of Kabul and the airport. The rest of the country is governed by local war lords and without any law. Taliban law was not very pretty, but at least there was law. Now it's utter chaos.

If we look at what was achieved:

1) Osama was not captured

2) The Afghanis are worse off then they were

3) A whole bunch of civilians were killed

Which brings me to take a closer look at 3. America has cited self-defence as the primary reason for both the Iraq and Afghanistan war. The question is how many others you have to kill to achieve your goals? In Afghanistan the estimates are varying, but the conservative one seems to be 3,000 civilian deaths. That's roughly the same number that perished in the WTC attacks. So, in absolute terms of killing innocent civilians, what is the differeance between Bin Laden and America? Intent, you might say. Well, that's very vague and while USA does not target civilians directly, as Bin Laden did, the 'collateral' damage is expected and accepted. To those doing the dying, I'd say it doesn't make too much difference .

Quote[/b] ]We gave Saddam, Uday, and Qusay 48 hours to go whereever they felt like out of the country to any number of countries that had officially or unoffically offered asylum. Saddam declared he would rather die a martyr and would unleash the fires of hell on the allied forces.

That means very little. Do you suppose that if I give Bush 48 hours to surrender and leave the country that he will listen? Would that give me the moral and legal right to start attacking USA?

Quote[/b] ]I admire your consistency in your logic Denoir. You are honest about your opinions, and you make them track all the way through.

However, your reasonable European inhibition against capital punishment should also apply to any and all acts of war, correct? After all, the purpose of war is either armed robbery or restoration of aggrieved rights, depending on who you talk to. Ultimately, it is to insure the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of at least one party to the conflict, who holds that those values have been inhibited to an extent worth the loss of some life. One never goes to war without expecting to lose some casualties. That is the fate of war.

But to resolve this issue, you have to determine the value of life and the objectives of the conflict. Furthermore, if you are indeed clearly the non-agressor (not that I'm saying that this scenario of discussion is that case) is there a point where you have the justification or even obligation to take defensive measures, that could result in the life of an enemy aggressor? How would this fit with a unilateral no-killing belief? I'm not attacking here, I'd actually like to hear your response on this, as it is a topic of particular interest.

It's very simple. The point of war is not in killing the enemy, it's achieving some higher objective. Self-defence, defence of an ally and the prevention of genocide are objectives that have a UN stamp of approval. Anything else is considered illegal and wrong.

Ok, now say that you are in your peaceful country and your less-than-peaceful neighbour decides to throw an invasion party. And you fight to defend yourself. It is very imperative to understand that the point lies not in the killing. The enemy has not "forfeited his right to live" by being your enemy. If he surrenders, you won't kill him. If you capture him, you won't execute him on the spot for being the enemy.

The life of an individual is not the ultimate sacred thing. Killing one to save a thousand for example is generally considered as a fair deal and so on. There is a plethora of various objectives that people are willing to risk their lives to achieve.

So what about capital punishment? There the state declares an individual to have "forfeited his right to live" and promptly kills him. It's certainly not self defence. It's certainly also not to achieve some form of higher objective. The purpose of the killing is in the killing. It's revenge and as such it has no place in a civlilized country. The war equivalent would be to execute POW's because they are the enemy.

Quote[/b] ]Another excellent reminder about how folks don't see things the same way. But, how do we determine what is the most moral or honorable platform? Is it the American doctrine of pre-emption and Texan management, is it thie nihlistic collectivism of east asian thought, a mix in between, or what?

What if I choose to not see things the way you do? I could say the sun don't shine and call you a liar because it's night time here and daytime there, and you could say I'm a liar because the sun is always shining, but the two things we are agreed on is that the other party is a liar and that we're using completely unrelated benchmarks. Now how do we reconcile them? After all, by bringing religion or philosophy into the fray we've added a measure of non-negotionability to our individual positions.

The only thing I can say there is science. It's universal, regardless if you live here or in another galaxy. Regardless of your religious and philosophical beliefs, you will still be affected by gravity.

Of course, science means very little when it comes to state policy. The point of this discussion was however the very small requirement of having a system that is at least a little consistent in its ideology. That you don't claim to be the defender of some principles while you totaly disregard them yourself. That you don't require others to fulfill principles that you yourself don't respect.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]1) Osama was not captured

No but he is on the run. And hiding. His training camps no longer function. Much better option than doing nothing.

I don't think even him can go on hiding forever.

Quote[/b] ]2) The Afghanis are worse off then they were

Well go there and ask people. Do you have some statistics/opinion polls that they are worse off than under the Taliban? But maybe you know better. I'm surprised you throw off claims like that without any proof. In your opinion Spanish Inquisition, Hitler or Franco are better to left in power just to avoid chaos afteir their toppling?

Quote[/b] ]3) A whole bunch of civilians were killed

War is hell.

On Presidence: I bet Kerry could have a shot against Bush.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]1) Osama was not captured

No but he is on the run. And hiding. His training camps no longer function. Much better option than doing nothing.

I don't think even him can go on hiding forever.

His training camps were improvised wooden barracks. And as for if they function or not, we don't know, as Afghanistan is neither under US nor UN control. For all we know Osama is frolicing around Afghanistan all he wants. Don't let the pretty satellite pictures you see on TV fool you: they cover very small, mission specific areas. The truth is very little is known what goes on in Afghanistan. There is no central government - the country is divided by hundreds of war lords. The only thing you can say for sure is that he ain't at the Kabul airport or the part of Kabul that's under NATO/UN control.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]2) The Afghanis are worse off then they were

Well go there and ask people. Do you have some statistics/opinion polls that they are worse off than under the Taliban? But maybe you know better. I'm surprised you throw off claims like that without any proof. In your opinion Spanish Inquisition, Hitler or Franco are better to left in power just to avoid chaos afteir their toppling?

I don't have hard numbers. What I have is about a dozen friends and former colleagues that are stationed right now in Afghanistan. What they were unanimously saying is that half of Kabul + the airport are the only areas under control. The rest of the country is divided by opium growing war lords who impose their own arbitrary rules. They are saying that while the people mostly hated the Taliban that there was at least a firm law in the country while now it's total anarchy.

The difference between the removal of Hitler et al is that in those cases (like in Iraq now), efforts were made to come up with a replacement system. In Afghanistan, nothing is done. They threw together a government that didn't represent anybody and didn't have territorial control. The situation is so bad that the ministers of the government have NATO soldiers as body guards, as they are afraid of having other Afghanis. Afghanistan has had war for generations now. They have no basic foundation to build anything of. You have hundreds of ethnic groups and thousands of tribes that don't get along all that well. And it has been once again bombed and abandoned.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]3) A whole bunch of civilians were killed

War is hell.

Would you say the same thing to the families of the WTC attacks?

It's a lame pathetic excuse to justify any behaviour in war. The point being here, that nothing or very little was accomplished. Certainly not the primary goal of capturing and killing Osama. A country in an already terrible state was bombed into an even worse state. And to achieve these magnificent things, to top it all off, several thousand innocent civilians were killed.

Edit: Oh yeah, forgot to mention, I've got a neighbour that's from Afghanistan (actually he's Indian but was born in Afghanistan and has relatives there) and he likes to keep himself informed to the extent possible about what's happening in his country. We've talked about it quite a bit and his perception of the situation is basically the same as of my friends that serve/have served there.