The War
 

I Just was wondering does anyone think Bush is doing the right thing?

Depends on what side you lean to. No matter what he does it will spun in the media to be negative.

:iagree:

Should I take that as yes from your side?

While I don't want more troops in Iraq, if field Generals are saying that is what's needed...so be it. I would rather a war General make the decision then a politician.

I'm sure the management at Haliburton and Bechtel think so. :thumbup:

Eric what do you think?

YES, I think Bush is doing the right thing.

I think we should do a poll, but don't know how?

It should ask the war question and party affiliation

I think that debating what strategy to use to fight the war over there is like debating what brand of ovens we should use to commit genocide. There is no "right thing" to do regarding this war. By starting this war, our government has caused what will probably amount to over a million deaths by the time this is all finished. Perhaps we should debate what kind of wood to use to build the coffins.

I've got mixed feelings.
The war, if it was really, truly about WMDs, was fine. If there was a threat, we needed to get rid of it. However, I think Bush should have spent more time finding out if they were actually there. At least Saddam is gone. That was a huge benefit. As bad as the fighting still is over there, at least now there's a chance for peace over there. With Saddam in power, it would have never happened. However, we need a really good, effective plan to get out of there. I think if we just immediately withdrew all the troops the country would collapse and the 3000+ dead soldiers would be in vain. We can't just stay there indefinitely. It's just eating up time and money and lives. We need a concrete plan to get out of there, that involves setting up a strong government that can control the conflicts between the Sunnis, Shi'ites, etc. on their own. We should give them the knowledge and power to do it, then set them free.
But hey, what do I know. I'm only 18. Politics are still a mystery to me. This is just my $0.02.

There was peace for around 9 years prior to the 2003 invasion. The civil war there ended around 1994.

That's because they were ruled by a leader with an iron hand, he kill those that had a different opinion. We saw civil war break out in a number of USSR countries once their rule of fear ended.

Wow does that ever depend on your definition of "peace". Or more so what places you are discussing. There are portions of Baltimore MD that are "nice" then portions that contribute to the city having the highest per capita murder rate. So one could say Baltimore is peaceful while another couldn't wait to get out of the cesspool.

True. I meant peace as in "lack of war" or killing on a large scale. Some would say that parts of Los Angeles are war zones.

I don't recall any civil wars, except in Chechnya, and that one is still going on.

OK now Eric what do you think about Bush's latest war plan?

I think the only thing that will change is we will see more of these:

http://www.ukuleleman.net/uploaded_i...ins-769123.jpg

I don't think it will change anything in Iraq.

:iagree:

But does that mean we should just pull out? (Cut and run)

While US serviceman and woman dieing is sad, it is a cost they are willing to bare. When a serviceman signs up they are under the full understanding that they may be put in harms way for a ruling administration. And almost every soldier I speak with accepts this without question. People who didn't foresee the sight of caskets with flags draped on them were delusional and the loss of 3000 serviceman lives, while tragic, is the cost a nation must bare to secure its place. And a 3000 person loss over nearly 5 years of conflict in one area is a testimony to how well equipped US soldiers are. While I don't agree with the rational for the war, I do believe it was a necessary evil. There has never been a clearly defined conflict in the history of the world, so to assume decisions would be so clear now is asinine.

There is a good reason why reporters have been banned from taking pictures of the ceremonies when the draped caskets are unloaded from transport planes. This ban has been in place since the Persian Gulf War. Whoever took the picture I posted above was breaking the law.

People are not moved by statistics and numbers. People are indeed moved by pictures, and the Pentagon wants to make sure that nobody actually sees death, for then they may make a mental connection between death and war. Very few people make that connection otherwise.

You should read about how US troops burried thousands of dead civilians in mass graves in Panama in 1989 in an attempt to hide how many had been killed. Or how they burried thousands of Iraqi troops in Kuwait in 1991 and then used Earth Movers to smooth out the land and make sure that nobody could see what was there. It's too early to know yet what has been done in the current war, but I can only imagine. They are indeed worried about public perception and they do whatever they can to hide what is really going on.

Whoever didn't think war equaled death needs to stop watching American Idol and crack open a book. OK now I'm going to volley the ball back over and get back on topic. :)

Here is my uneducated opinion.

I think the U.S. needs to have a presence in the middle east. At least until some level of stability happens. We also need to be within arms reach of any terrorist organizations that may be fueling an attack against the US, Israel, or any other area of the Western world.
Regardless of WMD's which at the time were a great excuse. The US is on the ground in Iraq for more reasons than just Iraq.
It is my belief that having a large US army within a stones throw from other "aggressive" anti-western countries is important right now.
If we pull out of Iraq, I am pretty confident, we are going to be sending an army back to the Middle East as quickly as we can pull out.
And I would also not be surprised if Israel were to come under attack with a US withdrawl from the Middle East.

So now the question of, MORE TROOPS?
If that's what the General's need and that's what the existing troops need, then I say it's a good decision.

No, we might not be able to "win" this war. But what is "winning" a war? We beat Germany in WWII when we killed Hitler and entered Berlin. Well, we entered Bahdad and took care of Saddam.

The problem as I see it, is the war that will continue to exist between people that hate the U.S. and Israel. So if the fighting is in Iraq, it's in Iraq. If it's Afghanistan, then that is where the fighting will be. Iran, who knows... But I don't think it's time to retire the entire U.S. armed services and hope the fundamentalists start to like us.

I don't have an answer on how to win this war against the West. Except maybe, other West countries might realize we are fighting for them too. Things will probably have to get much worse before they get any better.

So, I'm sorry for the coutry of Iraq that the fighting, for now, has to be on their land. But if it's not there, it's going to be somewhere else.

B

The trouble with our "wars" is that they become politized, the media adds their $.02, and we end up never following through with what needs to be done. The 1991 Iraq war should have brought Saddam down if we followed through, but the bleeding hearts crying over the "road of death" out of Kuwait brought about a political end to the war instead of a military end. The Kurds thought (and was most likely promised) they would have our help. It cost them thousands of lives. The UN was supposed to oversee the sanctions on Saddam, but instead went to bed with him. Saddam should have been captured and brought to trial in 1991. We did not have enough troops to secure Iraq this time, and we still don't. We had a misguided belief that with Saddam's fall and capture, the country would embrace freedom. We STILL do not understand the influence the many different Islamic mullahs and imans have on the public opinion and the political process. I STILL do not hear ANYONE talking about getting the religious leaders to speak out against the bombings. Until they unite their voices and speak out against the indiscriminant killings, NOTHING'S GOING TO CHANGE.

The war is a combined mistake of political commentary and assuming that military might can change minds...which is only true if you kill everyone. Similar to what happened in Japan in WWII. The idea of losing hundreds of thousands of people gave the Japanese pause. IMO.

Side Note: Has anyone noticed that the new DEFSEC is looking into sending more troops to Afghanistan. Where exactly are we getting all these troops? At this rate, Canada could invade us since we will have no one left in the full time military :)

Everyone has been so hyped up on Iraq that Afghanistan has received a complete free-ride. They use the US military almost entirely as their military. How come no one is asking for an exit strategy in Afghanistan? How come Karzai hasn't been asked to step up and take control of his country? Oh thats right, Karzai and Bush are old friends from way back.

The US military removed the Taliban, they are now fighting Afghanistan via Pakistan. The US military needs to pull out of Afghanistan, long before Iraq. Afghanistan now needs to protect its own border....6 years later.

I'm sorry to disappoint you...,
The US troops are in Afghanistan to defend and protect Halliburton interests. Not to prevent terrorism…
I think you guys know that the Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, was ( I quote ) “a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (Cent Gas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan”.
By the way…congratulations MR. Bush…after the Taliban’s, Afghanistan became the world's top producer of heroin and opium. That’s a coincidence.

Well thanks for the obvious ;)

BTW, Afghanistan's main export for decades has been opium..that is by NO means new to the region.

Thanks for the ;)

:iagree: Afghanistan's main export for decades has been opium...(And that’s not going to change).
But the fact is that there was a major boom in drug production after the Taliban’s.

Actually, the Taliban almost got rid of the Opium production entirely in their last couple of years in power:


Afghanistan’s cash crop wilts
Taliban ban on opium yields impressive results

WAZIRAN, Afghanistan, May 23, 2001 - There are few signs of wealth in Afghanistan, but farmer Mohammed Hasan’s shiny late-model Toyota is a dead giveaway. Hasan once grew Afghanistan’s premier cash crop, poppies from which opium is produced. This year is different. He may have to sell his car just to survive.

Last year, Afghanistan was the world’s largest opium producer, with 75 percent of the world’s crop, a staggering output of some 3,500 tons of one of the most addictive drugs on earth. The opium, a key ingredient in heroin, is smuggled into Europe and Asia, where it commands a fortune on international markets.

So stunning was Afghanistan’s opium production last year that the CIA estimates 39 percent of the world’s supply came from just a single province.

For years the ruling Taliban government relied on lucrative opium sales to fuel its war with opposition forces in the north. Farmers like Hasan earned thousands of dollars a year from their crops — a true fortune in a country where the average monthly income isonly a few dollars.

Drug growing deemed un-Islamic

But last July, the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, issued an extraordinary edict. It banned poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, calling drug production un-Islamic. Few in international law enforcement took Omar’s edict seriously — until now.

Earlier this month, an international delegation led by the United Nations Drug Control Program — which included two U.S. government narcotics experts —visited Afghanistan to study the impact of Omar’s ban.

Delegates told MSNBC.com that during the 10-day visit they found no evidence of poppy crops anywhere in the survey area, which concentrated on the biggest poppy-growing region of Afghanistan.

“There are no poppies,” said Bernard Frahi, the head of the U.N. program’s Afghanistan project. “It’s amazing.”

Ban cripples economy

That in less than a year Afghanistan has gone from being the biggest opium producer in the world to providing a trickle of the global supply may be the single-most successful drug moratorium in modern history.

But relief officials and former poppy farmers interviewed by MSNBC.com said the Taliban’s uncompromising approach to the opium ban, rather than a phased reduction in the crop, is having a devastating effect on the country’s economy.

“It was not a good year to ban poppies,” said one senior aid official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They are drought resistant, labor intensive — that’s to say, a sector that employed large numbers of people — and the farmers used every part of the poppy, for fuel and fodder.”



And after 2001....

Afghanistan Opium Crop Sets Record
U.S.-Backed Efforts At Eradication Fail

Opium production in Afghanistan, which provides more than 90 percent of the world's heroin, broke all records in 2006, reaching a historic high despite ongoing U.S.-sponsored eradication efforts, the Bush administration reported yesterday.

In addition to a 26 percent production increase over past year -- for a total of 5,644 metric tons -- the amount of land under cultivation in opium poppies grew by 61 percent. Cultivation in the two main production provinces, Helmand in the southwest and Oruzgan in central Afghanistan, was up by 132 percent.

White House drug policy chief John Walters called the news "disappointing."

The administration has cited resurgent Taliban forces as the main impediment to stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and the U.S. military investment has far exceeded anti-narcotic and development programs. But U.S. military and intelligence officials have increasingly described the drug trade as a problem that rivals and in some ways exceeds the Taliban, threatening to derail other aspects of U.S. policy.

"It is truly the Achilles' heel of Afghanistan," Gen. James L. Jones, the supreme allied commander for NATO, said in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. Afghanistan is NATO's biggest operation, with more than 30,000 troops. Drug cartels with their own armies engage in regular combat with NATO forces deployed in Afghanistan, he said. "It would be wrong to say that this is just the Taliban. I think I need to set that record straight," he added.

"They have their own capability to inflict damage, to make sure that the roads and the passages stay open and they get to where they want to go, whether it's through Pakistan, Iran, up through Russia and all the known trade routes. So this is a very violent cartel," Jones said. "They are buying their protection by funding other organizations, from criminal gangs to tribes, to inciting any kind of resistance to keep the government off of their back."

Any disruption of the drug trade has enormous implications for Afghanistan's economic and political stability. Although its relative strength in the overall economy has diminished as other sectors have expanded in recent years, narcotics is a $2.6 billion-a-year industry that this year provided more than a third of the country's gross domestic product. Farmers who cultivate opium poppies receive only a small percentage of the profits, but U.S. officials estimate the crop provides up to 12 times as much income per acre as conventional farming, and there is violent local resistance to eradication.

"It's almost the devil's own problem," CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told Congress last month. "Right now the issue is stability. . . . Going in there in itself and attacking the drug trade actually feeds the instability that you want to overcome."

"Attacking the problem directly in terms of the drug trade . . . would undermine the attempt to gain popular support in the region," agreed Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "There's a real conflict, I think."

The Afghan government has prohibited the aerial herbicide spraying used by U.S. anti-narcotic programs in Latin America. Instead, opium poppy plants in Afghanistan are destroyed by tractors dragging heavy bars. But only 38,500 of nearly 430,000 acres under cultivation were eradicated this year.

Because of security concerns and local sensibilities, all eradication is done by Afghan police, and corruption is a major problem at every level from cultivation to international trafficking. Although the drug trade is believed to provide some financing to the Taliban, most experts believe it is largely an organized criminal enterprise. According to a major report on the Afghan drug industry jointly released last week by the World Bank and the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, key narcotics traffickers "work closely with sponsors in top government and political positions."

The report drew specific attention to the Afghan Interior Ministry, saying its officials were increasingly involved in providing protection for and facilitating consolidation of the drug industry in the hands of leading traffickers. "At the lower levels," the report said, "payments to police to avoid eradication or arrest reportedly are very widespread. At higher levels, provincial and district police chief appointments appear to be a tool for key traffickers and sponsors to exercise control and favor their proteges at middle levels in the drug industry."

Opium cultivation was outlawed during Taliban rule in the late 1990s and was nearly eliminated by 2001. After the overthrow of the Taliban government by U.S. forces in the fall of that year, the Bush administration said that keeping a lid on production was among its highest priorities. But corruption and alliances formed by Washington and the Afghan government with anti-Taliban tribal chieftains, some of whom are believed to be deeply involved in the trade, undercut the effort.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently noted that "once we thought terrorism was Afghanistan's biggest enemy" but said that now "poppy, its cultivation and drugs are Afghanistan's major enemy."

Eradication and alternative development programs have made little discernible headway. Cultivation -- measured annually with high-resolution satellite imagery that is then parsed by analysts using specialized computer software -- is nearly double its highest pre-Karzai level.

"There is supposed to be a tremendous energy associated with this," Jones said of the counter-narcotics programs, "but it needs a fresh look because . . . we're losing ground.

Well said B-line.

:iagree:

Isent that a form of brainwashing in snort.

I doubt that it really matters a hell of alot about what I think, because I am not a field commander nor the commander in chief. So, this whole argument is pointless.

I still think we should divide the country and keep some land for "safe keeping bases"

These different groups/tribes will never coexist.

Say what? :wtf:

I have no idea what you are trying to say. :dunno:

Just so we can be 100% impartial here in our discussion, how about you give a solution that you would accept from another country if they were in the same position that the US is in. Unless of course you believe in a double standard. ;)

Let's suppose that it had been Iran who invaded a country 8,000 miles away from them because that country "possed a threat to their national security" (the reason given by our government for the Iraq war). And let's suppose after 3 years of their troops being there, there was civil war. What solution would you accept from them as a good one?

Or let's suppose that it had been China. Or Russia. Or Venezuela.

Please share your opinions.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yes, you are right, we didn't "KILL" Hitler. Hitler killed himself when we arrived at his doorstep. SAME DIFFERENCE....

And, in terms of losing every war we ever fought, if that were true, we would still be 13 colonies, not 50 states and, you would be speaking German or waiting in line for 6 hours for a loaf of bread..

B

p.s.
-- If your going to argue my points, at least "try" to make some valid arguements...

The war in Afganistan was just and right.

Look, the war in Iraq was a HUGE MISTAKE. I knew this going in. All I could think was nooooooo... That said, we are where we are and the stakes are way too high to bail out now.

The only way we are going to truly create peace there is by brute force. That is all these people understand. We need 300,000 more troops in there to lock the place down. You can't just give people freedom all at once after they have lived under an iron fist.

We should have sent more troops like 3 years ago. Bush unfortunately was too fricken pig headed and one sided to understand that he may not be right. Now, finally he has admitted it, too little too late.

Your civil war dosent count becouse they were all Americans. You lost the war of 1812 and Hitler killed him self when the Russians were at his door step not Americans. I guess you lost that race as well. I dont know much about Korea but you lost Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Is that not valid enough?

Oh, so the Russians ended WWII. What was I thinking. The US, I suppose, had nothing to do with it. About as big a role as Canada did, I guess.

Yes, and it's certainly not something unique to the United States. It happens everywhere, some places more than others. The problem is that most people do not believe it happens to them.

:rofl: love that, the war doesn't count because..... :loco:

As for the Russians were at his door...that was because he was getting TORCHED on every single front, the only door left was Russia. Had Germany not been in a fight with every other nation, Russia would have been lost to Germany.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, definition of "winning" really depends on what your agenda was. If you defined winning in Iraq by removing Saddam...we won. If you consider winning in Afghanistan as removing the Taliban from power, we did that as well. If you define winning as coming in and creating stable peace loving countries that drink wine and collect art, then no...we didn't succeed.... :( poor US.

The US role was huge in the Asian war, not as much in the European war. Just take a look at the number of casualties:

US Military Casualties: 407,300

Soviet Military Casualties: 10,700,000

(and half of the US casualties were in the Asian war)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s-Piechart.png


The numbers tell the story here. Most of the German forces and most if their military power was on the Eastern front fighting the Russians.

While obviously the US/British invasion from the West was not an "easy" invasion due to the fact that the German military was superior to ours (in terms of technology and hardware), it was a cakewalk compared to the battle that went on in the East.

Overall there were 20+ times as many casualties (both sides included) in the war on the Eastern front than there were in the war on the Western front.

Eric, BS pie chart bro. That was a direct result of Russia getting invaded and HAMMERED. Troop deaths could also be handed to Stalin who guided his military forces as well as a blind man running through a maze. Not to mention, Russia switched sides in the middle of the conflict, much like Italy.

:rofl: :rofl:

Eric...I thought you'd like that :thumbup:

Read it again....thats not what I said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern..._(World_War_II)

The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II. It is generally accepted as being the most costly conflict in human history with over 30 million dead as a result. It involved more land combat than all other World War II theatres combined.


http://www.answers.com/topic/world-war-ii-casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern...II)#Casualties

According to these websites, the German Military casualties in the Western war were approximately 340,000, while in the Eastern war they were 4.3 million (13 times as much).

Still think the war on the Western front was what brought Germany down?

xxx, what can I say. You are right. Maybe we should learn from the Canadians, we should just bend over and do nothing. -- Maybe we should learn French too!
And, I don't know how you "win" a war. There are no winners in war. Our objectives in entering Iraq were to oust Saddam. We did that. No more Saddam or his kids... They dead !!
So we were successful in that manner. We beat his army. Now we are fighting a different war in Iraq. We are no longer fighting the Iraq Army which we beat. We are fighting guerillas that had nothing to do with the war, rather they are the "POST WAR".
Matter of fact, I just thought of a good marketing idea. I don't think the war in Iraq should be called the war in Iraq anymore. It should be called, "The war against the people who hate democracy that is taking place on the soil of Iraq" ... Would that fit on a bumper sticker? EH ?

Ohhh but just in case your counting:
1) Won the Gulf War (Desert Storm/Shield)
2) Beat Saddam, his kids, his National Guard, his army.
2) Won the Cold War (how quickly you forget.)
3) Won WWI
4) Won WWII
-- And I wasn't quoting the civil war, I was quoting the Revolutionary War...But:
5) I am from the North, so technically, yes, I won the civil war too. :)
6) Didn't we have a two day war in Panama.. I think we won that one too.
7) We did win the war in Afghanistan, even if it was only temporary. We got rid of the Taliban. But what should we be fighting for there, a couple of unscathed rocks?

So XXX what's next? You going to tell us that we lost the War on Drugs as well?

B

The Afghanistan was for Osama.....if they went into Iraq for Saddam dont you think they could have eliminated him in a less expensive way. As far as ww2 the same could have been said the other way around. Im not saying anything bad about the US im just saying the Russians were the first there and thats why Hitler killed himself.

The Russians were there AFTER the US troops were in Germany on their way to Berlin. Truman wanted Stalin on the Allies side against, Japan. Stalin wouldn't commit without some perks, one being taking Berlin..the other Hiroshima.

Now you've changed your tune on Afghanistan and Iraq, nobody ever said the US was cost efficient in war time. Afghanistan was NEVER defined as lets go kill Bin Laden, that was just a portion of the effort. The goal was to remove the Taliban and instill a leadership more in line with the West. Goal achieved.

BTW, I'm not concerned with whether you like the US or not, just keep the facts straight.

Yes, American troops did cross into Germany about a month before Russian troops did, but if you look at the map, you will see why:

http://www.ericandjoan.com/worldtrip...ny/map-ger.gif

Berlin is near the eastern border. The Germans had more troops in western Poland and Austria than they did in Western Germany. The goal at the end was to protect Berlin.



Ummm....the military says this:

The military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to the country, include the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan.

Of course you are correct, and they were full of BS, but that is what they said. You should add a couple of important words to your statement:

The goal was to remove the Taliban and instill a leadership more in line with Western business interests.

:iagree:
You’re the best Eric !!:2thumbs:

Yes I do. You're not making a point, just naming statistics. Just because more people died doesn't mean ANYTHING was accomplished.

And where does it say Bin Laden? It doesn't. And apparently you are discounting who achieved what based on where the bulk of the troops were. The US forces still pulled into Berlin and could have removed Hitler before the Russians. This of course is directed to the populous that thinks "Russia" was the reason Hitler killed himself.

:confused: We definitely don’t have the same history books… :rolleyes:

Do you have a point or just like the icons?

just for you...
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Hitler was dead by the time American troops entered Berlin. They were still 50 miles out when he killed himself. The Russians entered Berlin many days before the American troops did, and they were a few hundred yards away from Hitler when he killed himself. There are plenty of WWII timelines online.....look at one.

And yes, the key to winning the war was to dismantle the German armed forces. The Russians took out over 4 million German soldiers, while the American forces took out less than 10% that number. There were very few surrenders, as the German commanders were instructed to never surrender.

90% of the European war was fought on the Eastern Front. All the elite and experienced German soldiers were in the East. The Western front was mostly 12-16 year olds in divisions called known as "Hitlerjugend", or "Hitler Youth".

I said it before, US forces held up as political agreements with Stalin.

I can't agree with you if you say that Allied Armies offensive was the key factor that decided the WW2 in Europe.
Yes the Allied Armies contribution to win WW2 in Europe was important but the Red Army offensive was the key factor that decided the war in Europe.


I agree with you If you say that the Allied Armies (US troops) win WW2 in Asia and the Pacific.:iagree:

Did the Russian army liberate anything but their own lands for the most part? The deciding factor was not the Russian Army but Hitlers move to occupy Russia in 1941.


Just for some reading:
http://www.pattonuncovered.com/html/war.html <-- US Army ordered to halt.
http://www.pattonhq.com/textfiles/resign.html

We have to pull out. Whether it is now, in one year, five year, never(to prove it was all for oil). Once we pull out, Iraq will rip itself apart from within. We went to Iraq based on whole bunch of BS premises. We demonstated an unforgivable ignorance of the countries' society, with its vast cultural, religious and ethnic differences. What we have now is an eye for an eye civil war. We cannot stop it. We do not know how to stop it. Asking Arab countries for help might not help since they are not that similar either. It is a very multifaceted part of the world- what we call Arab World.

The longer non arab troops stay in Iraq, the more of those troops and Iraquis are gonna get killed. Whoever says that pulling now does not do justice to over 3,000 US troops killed todate is being naive. The way we are going that number will doulble in no time with no visible progress in that coutry.

We, as a country, have messed up a big time. Current Iraqi government is IMPOTENT, even if it is democratically elected. We need to plead with Arab countries for their help in this war. But then we'll be giving up all the OIL.

You cannot change centuries and centuries of country's development with B-52s and thousand's of troop support.

Kent :iagree: . Eric, you really did a lot of research. :2thumbs:

Is not important for me to know who won the war (it wasn’t me, I wasn’t there). My grandmother lived during the war, many times she tell me stories of those times. My wife’s family escape from Germany to Spain during WW2 and because Francisco Franco dictatorship they escape into Portugal.

The most important facts of WW2 (for me) are:

- 50,000,000 Casualties (Military and Civilian)
-A free world (for some of us…). Don’t tell that to the people that where stuck in the Eastern bloc for decades.

I think we must respect the people that died fighting for what they believed.

I would agree that we went in on BS and the simple military force will not win. I also would be of the same opinion that the Iraqi government is entirely useless.

My grandfather was a diamond 4 Marine who fought at Iwo Jima. Had 2 uncles in the Marine corps (Vietnam) and 1 uncle who served two tours for the Army in Vietnam and a Great Uncle that served in WWII and Korea. I agree with your quoted comments and I don't believe any one debated that notion.

Yes, they liberated 90% of the concentration camps, and many countries including Poland, Hungary, Austria, and the Baltic countries.

Yeah, they were great..when they wanted to be:
------
Poland
1944
Warsaw uprising by resistance Polish Home Army receives no
Soviet assistance, is crushed by Nazis.
1945
Red Army liberates Polish territories and establishes
communist-dominated coalition government.
1947
Communists consolidate political monopoly after rigged
elections.

Hungary
1945, Hungary became part of the Soviet area of influence and was appropriated into a communist state following a short period of democracy in 1946-1947. After 1948, Communist leader Mátyás Rákosi established a Stalinist rule in the country.

Aside from Briton the whole significant world was against the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is a disgrace not to mention illegal. Your administration is responsible for more death and destruction then Saddam could ever be. I'm not going to get into the hundreds of tons of depleted uranium your army dumped into Iraq or the weapons of mass destruction you all used. The only people that want you in Iraq are the puppet government you setup there. As far as your marketing idea I would never scar my x with a bumper sticker of any sort especially one that big. LOL...



1) You did such a good job you had to do it again...and still your not done your looking for a way out. (saving face)

2) That was a secondary objective. Your main objective were WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION or did you forget.

3) In my opinion both the US and Russia realized how stupid that was in the first place but you did win that.

4) I guess only the US participated in both ww1 and ww3.

5) ok

6) Who cares.

7) Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to get Osama?

And yes you are loosing the war on drugs.

I guess that depends on what side of the war you are rooting for...
<///////////////////>~~~~~~

So what you're saying is that the US forces moved much faster than the Russian ones. Cool.

No argument here. But you obviously know your history, and I'm sure you know about the same crap that was done in many of the Western European countries that the US liberated. Italy and Greece come to mind.

:iagree: :thumbup:

That's their problem, not ours. Look around the world - plenty of "impotent" governments to be had.

Yes, they marched across Western Europe with very little resistance.

What color is the sky in your world.

Its your problem becouse you put them in power and by doing so say you won.

That is our problem. After "completing" the military phase we went light speed to give them a chance for "democratic" election. It is like asking a toddler participate in elections. Not every society can make that switch that fast. Great multitude of political processes inside the coutry(without foreign influence) has to take place over many, many, many years and quite possibly generations for it to have an open mind towards democracy, monarchy, dictatorship.

Victors are not judged. But there is no imaginable way of US and its allies coming out of that country as Victorious as we were led to believe.

As far as their"impotent" government is concerned, thay are not very far from ours. When the greatest minds have no clue of what to to in Iraq, what can you expect of the government that is in the state of infacy with its people cutting each others throats by hundreds week in and week out.

History proved that for a foreing power to be succesful in a given country thay have to take everything from its people(land, rights, life). You have to have stomach strong enough for genocide or something close to it. If you do not do that every gallon of gasoline from that region that we'll be putting into our nice vehicles is gonna be stained by blood of thousands of troops and husdreds of thousands of civilians.

I might be going on a limb here, but I believe this a prelude to a mass military conflict that will involve lots and lots of countries in the region and the world.

So let's get out now, is that what you're saying?

Makes sense. You say we "pushed" them into democracy too fast, so let's just leave them swinging in the breeze. Very well thought-out and mature.

I've heard this over and over and it's simply BS. Iraq was a parlamentary dictatorship under Saddam. What it means is that there were elections and people voted for members of the parlament and Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all held many positions in the parlament. So the people of Iraq know exactly what democracy is. The only difference now is that instead of Saddam as "president for life", the prime minister was chosen by the Parlament. The voting process for the people was the same, except perhaps with more choices than in the past.

This whole idea is probably the fault of our own media. Those pictures of the people with the purple paint on their fingers would make you think these people had never seen a ballot box before in their lives.

The issue here is that this country should not be a country and it never should have been. It should be 2 or 3 different countries. The British drew the borders this way to "divide and conquer" -- to keep infighting going on amongst the Iraqi people so as not to allow them to unify and kick the British out.

You've officially reached :confused: status. Have fun there. And once again....Afghanistan was not to get Osama......:loco:

I'd agree with that, I'm having a hard time understanding why this thread is trying to depict the Russian forces as this great thing that could have taken out Hitler all by itself.

OMG, I'll have to get tell all those dead WWII soldiers there wasn't any resistance. Eric, that comment was asinine. You're better then a xxx type war comment :thumbup:

Rebound, thanks for joining in brother :thumbup:

XXX, you're adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Eric, very able debating partner as usual :thumbup:

:iagree: The media and our administration made it out to be as though Iraqi's had never voted in their lives. Were their options limited, YES. Was there a free and open election process, NO. However, there was an election process. I can't recall who it was that said it but one leader said of Israel, "just because the voted, didn't make it democratic" :)

The whole middle east has a portion of the problems it has today because the ruling "empires" at the time thought they were smart enough to know who should live with who. A while back I made the comparison to if China, Russia and Britain decided to make a colony out of Kansas and put the Taliban there, how upset would the US be? It is similar to what happened with many of the middle easter "countries" now.

By us staying there military with nothing reasonable political scenarios to offer we'll see endless stream of coffins coming home, mothers losing their sons and daughters, US being hated all-over the world. Name One country in the entire world where people consider us allies or at least do not hate us. We have no clue of who we are fighting.

The slightest chance we have is trying to put together a consortium of Arab countries to hand the country over, get out of the region completely and start paying $6-$7 a gallon- Just like the rest of the world does.

Staying in the middle of the endless, revenge fueled ethnic clensing only might slow it down but not stop it.

We voted in the Soviet Union - would you call that democratic too?

I think you are missing the point.

I meant they had little resistance when compared to what the Russians faced on the Eastern front. And yes, I believe that the Russians would have defeated the Nazis regardless of whether or not the allies ever invaded Normandy. It would have taken them longer, but it would have happened. I think the outcome of the war was decided by early 1944.

As I said in an earlier post, over the 1943-1944 winter, Germany lost two-thirds of their army in Russia. The supply lines became too long, and over 2 million of their soldiers either starved to death or froze to death. That was too much for them to be able to overcome regardless of what happened after that.

Comparing the population of Germany back then to the United States now, that would be the equivalent of 10 million American soldiers dying. To put that in perspective, we currently have slightly more than 1 million total people in the Armed forces.

Actually, he's not. You are.

Just because people can vote, doesn't mean it's truly a democracy. Is anyone free to run for any office? Are people forced to vote for certain people/parties (or not to vote for same)?

Plenty of countries have elections. If you think that truly makes them democratic, you're smoking better stuff than I have access to.

That was not what I said. I was not arguing that Iraq had democracy. I was saying that the people were familiar with the voting process -- it was not a new one to them.

This may have already been posted but here we go again, we do and did have a presence to strike from in the Middle East. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...lity/udeid.htm

The biggest problem is getting permission from some of the countries in the Middle East to perform operations unless you do what the Israeli's do which only leads to pissing everyone off even more.

There is no such thing as a state for the majority of people in the Middle East, most of them are still tribal and do not even recognize borders. We are infidels in their eyes because of the difference in religions and even though the crusades were over in the 12th Century these stories are told like TV series around camp fires so we just look like the 21st Century crusaders.

My $0.02 no refunds given!

I think it is easy to criticize the current or past Bush plans, that's easy.

The question what plan to you have?

Bring the troops home immediately. This will cause a decrease in violence as much of the fighting going on is against our troops and we are having no effect at curbing the other infighting.

So we cut and run then what happens when civil war breaks out and the neighboring countries take over sections of the country?

Breaks out? (future tense?)

Ummm...apparently you have not been watching the news, but I'll let you in on a little secret. Civil war has already broken out bigtime. Over 34,000 civilians were killed in 2006 alone due to this civil war.

As for neighboring countries taking over sections of Iraq, that is very doubtful. Most of them just want some stability. Having a neighboring country in the midst of civil war is not good for the stability of your own country.

And as far as I know, none of Iraq's neighboring countries have shown any tendencies to being agressive. In fact, I don't think a single one of Iraq's neighbors has ever started a war with anyone except for Syria which did start the 1973 war with Israel (33 years ago). All of their other neighbors are very peaceful countries who have never started a war with anyone.

Stop believing the propoganda that the American media shoves at you, and think logically about this all.

BTW, 20 more American soldiers died today in Iraq. :(

Did you ever hear of the Iran-Iraq War.

Sure sit back and won't move in right if we leave.

Guess the media that made that war up.

A country defending itself after being attacked is hardly evidence of that country not being a peaceful country. 90% of the Iraq-Iran war took place in Iranian terrority, and the war was started when Iraq attacked Iran.

Again with the double standard when it comes to viewing other countries and then when viewing the United States and/or Israel. The US and Israel can even attack first when they suspect they may be attacked and that is considered fine, but when another country even defends themselves after being attacked first, they are a rogue nation and warlike, and if their people fight back after their government is overthrown by the invading force, then they are "terrorists". What a double standard you have there.

Discussing anything related to war is useless if you are unable to apply the same rules and logic to other countries that you do to your own country. Next time you are trying to decide what would be best in Iraq, imagine if another country had invaded the United States and we were the ones in middle of civil war. What would your solution be then?

Here's some history for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and demands for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. The conflict saw early successes by the Iraqis, but before long they were repelled and the conflict stabilized into a long war of attrition. The United States Security Council called upon both parties to end the conflict on multiple occasions, but a ceasefire was not agreed to until 20 August 1988, and the last prisoners of war were not exchanged until 2003. The war irrevocably altered politics in the area, playing into wider global politics and leading to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

The war is also noted for extensive use of chemical by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops, Iranian civilians, and Iraqi Kurds.

IMO, coalition troops should be only placed to guard the Iraq borders from outsiders, weapons coming in. Let Iraqi military do the clean up of existing militants inside the country. There is no place for a foreign entity, troops in the middle of a civil war. As strange as it might sound but Saddam, using his horrible means was the only one that controlled it. Todate neither us not Iraq government can find a workable alternative to Saddam in that particular country. It is a tough task to persuade shiites, sunnies, kurds and everyone inbetween to live in peace when you are dealing with simple incompatibility present over tens if not hundreds of years.

DIviding the country is not a workable scenario. Maybe they need to divide their government 1/3-1/3-1/3 ingoring the population ratio. Give that government a chance to ask for help from outside. They might choose China, former Yugoslavian states for input on how to deal with this shit. US, Britain, none of the big guys have had experience like that to be able to draw on the experience in offering possible ways out.

One thing for certain, coalition forces' presence only fuels the situation. We get out. If government falls and new comes into power it will be an internal affair. If a threat, and only a real theat arises from that country for its neighbours and the world we bomb the shit out of them.

The sooner we get out, the more lives will be saved even if we end up with a govenment that does not dance to our tunes or even openly opposes to our way of life, political structure and refusal to mind our own business.

Well put. Bravo.

All figured out, you continue to not contribute. Just simply contribute to the conversation like Eric and everyone else has. Bush and I allot in common, that is hilarious considering I never voted for him and if you spent any time on the board would realize I disagree with his decisions 9 out of 10 times.

In that case how do you not condemn his actions in Iraq? How much time do you need to realize that retreat is inevitable. Do you not realize that however terrible Saddam was he has less blood on his hands then Bush not to mention he was doing a better job with Iraq.

If Saddam was the target then its over, get out and let the Arabs solve their own problem.

Going by the French flag you have waiving, I can see why you think retreat is inevitable. Please qualify "better job" in Iraq? You set no definition of what is better? Arabs solve their own problems, that is a contradiction in terms. Arabs haven't solved their own problems for 3000 years not so say Europe has done any better. The area has never been "peaceful" in the written history of its existence. As far as "condemning his actions in Iraq", I don't take the position of some screw ups mean the entire endeavor was incorrect. The world outside the middle-east is safer for the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has given terrorist and extremists a central location from which to wage their battles.

Hi guys, i'm back!!!

BTW
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
XXX isn’t French, he’s from Montenegro!!!!

That’s the 1993 – 2004 Montenegro’s flag; the new one is this one

Not true at all. The Middle East was very peaceful during the 18th and 19th centuries, while Europe and the United States had constant wars during this time period. Things did not become violent in this area until the Europeans came in the late 19th century.


You make it sound like the number of extremists is a fixed number. If that was the case, we would have killed almost all of them by now. Every day we hear reports that we killed 20, 50, 80, etc. How many are there exactly?

Do you not realize that this war has caused the number of extremists to increase substantially?

I don't buy for a second that any significant number of extremists have come from other countries to Iraq. I think the extremists we are fighting in Iraq are new extremists who were mostly regular Iraqis prior to 2003, and who joined extremist groups after a family member, friend, or someone they knew was killed by US forces, Shiite death squads, or Sunni insurgents. And what is obvious is that the number of extremists is still increasing every day.

War and death makes normal people into extremists.

Well you left out everything up until the 18th century....

The number of extremist will increase REGARDLESS of a war. The fact of the matter is these extremists are simply looking for a cause. I saw a picture of a 7 year old with an Al-Sadr shirt on chanting "down with the US". Yeah...sure he has just cause... :confused:

As for the French flag F-up, my bad. But I thought someone had a Frenchy comment earlier :) hahaha.

I don't believe that at all. Al-Sadr was not even considered an extremist prior to 2004. He originally welcomed the US invasion of Iraq. He only turned on us after we wore out our welcome.

Extremism is fueled by war and violence. Peace and prosperity causes extremism to disappear.

If you want evidence of this, you only have to look at American history between 1865-1875 in the Southern states during the "reconstruction" period. Things were very similar to what you currently have in Iraq. You had an "occupying" force (the union army), and you had a country that was destroyed and war-ravaged with most people having lost family members and friends to the war.

And during this period, you had constant violence, infighting between various groups (white abolitionists, former slave owners, former confederate soldiers, blacks), and you had the formation of extremists groups, the most popular being the Klu Klux Klan. And they were not some small fringe group back then. They had million of members, and were not so unlike Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. There were battles they had against union troops where the KKK assembled armies numbering in the thousands. You had riots in cities like New Orleans, Atlanta, and Memphis that resulted in thousands of deaths and cities being burned to the ground. I don't doubt that if IEDs were around then, they would most certainly have been used against union soldiers.

And if you study history, you will know that "reconstruction" was considered a total failure. In the end, the union army withdrew, and the southern states set up their Jim Crow laws and did things the way they wanted to. It wasn't until blacks decided to stick up for themselves that things changed.

You cannot force change on people. You must allow the change to happen on its own.

Eric, I have to bow my hat to you. You are officially the king of morphing topics to fit your thoughts. You are the next Reagan :)

Only you could convert a topic of "your thoughts on the Iraq war" into "the KKK".

Other than Eric's cut and run plan what do you suggest should be our approach to the war. And lets leave the KKK out of this.;)

After 12 pages and 119 posts....I think we have done enough.

You are probably right back to natural child birth, sex and cars;)

Guess we could also talk about seiko devises

The only way to get people in this forum to think logically about issues in other countries seems to be to use analogies to things in our own country. Otherwise the comments written seem to be bias, imply double standards, etc.

The great thing about history is that history repeats itself. Whatever situation presents itself in the world today, you can bet that the same situation has presented itself before many many times. And you can learn a lot from the past. Being that your dad is a history professor, I'm sure you know that. ;)

http://www.brocktoon.net/img/ronald_reagan.jpg
:)

I would like to write a couple of things:

- The terrorist attacks and the assassinations will continue on Iraq with or without US troops. I don’t know if the solution is to remove the US troops or not. But I do know that with the number of US soldiers on Iraq it’s impossible to control the territory.

What are the missions of US soldiers on Iraq:
Protect the population?
Protect Oil installations?
Protect borders?
Protect US investments?
Kill terrorists?
Prevent crime?

I don’t have an answer to those questions, but what I see on TV every day is that US soldiers are being killed in ambush and the population is being killed in terrorist attacks. Until today 3055 US soldiers and 60000 civilians died in Iraq.

What are they dying for?

Oil?
Money?
Revenge?
Freedom?
Religion?
Politics?
Protect us?

These are the questions that we should ask ourselves.

I think that Iraq should be split in 3 different countries. The North for the Curds, South four the Shiites and the centre for the Sunnites. (I know, there’s no oil in the centre of Iraq, the majors oil wells are in the North and South of Iraq)

There’s also the question of what will Iran, Syria and Turkey do if Iraq is splinted in 3 different countries.
Probably nothing, they have already enough problems inside their own borders.

I sincerely don’t think that the world is a safer place after the Afghanistan and Iraq’s war.
Just remember all the terrorist attacks we had since the beginning of those wars.

The speculation in Oil prices reflect the insecurity we live today, you cannot deny that.

Before invading another countries to destroy the terrorist training camps, we should destroy the financing network of those terrorist organisations. Everybody knows that they have a financing network in Europe and in US.

I sincerely think that US and Europe should have a common politics to solve the Middle East issue and also to prevent terrorism

Don’t forget that terrorists are already in US and Europe just waiting for the right moment to attack.

We should ask ourselves, why those people hate US and Europe?

If we think that they are the bad guys and we’re the good guys, we’re wrong!!!

We must understand the reason of the hate to find a solution to this problem.

could get worse !
 

:takecover :takecover

OMG that is the grossest thing I've ever seen!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I don't believe people know how true that is. If they did everybody would be cleaning up their act. But it aint gonna happen.

Try adding another zero. ;)

It depends in how the statistics are calculated.
Some say 60000 ( http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ ) (http://antiwar.com/casualties/)
and the latest reports say 600000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...raq-dead_x.htm)
:thumbup:

Eric, I was going to ask whether YOU are a professor. My Dad -- born in Washington, raised in LA -- is 100% American, and his family has been for many generations. He has a Ph.D. in cultural geography from UMich, and like most PhD's, his very education necessitated his learning the fine art of "reading behind the news," and learning how to filter the "true" news from the "propaganda news," if you will.

Anyway, your reasoning sounds almost verbatim to what he tries to teach me. For a guy who's never been very politically inclined, I've definitely tried to learn more about the state of affairs in recent years, especially since now that I'm in law school, I rather feel it's my duty to better educate myself with politics.

Anyway, I'm finding much of this discussion fascinating. That I happen to be 50% Persian obviously increases my interest too, of course. Thank you.

(BTW: I can contribute SOMETHING I have at least SOME knowledge on: as far as i know, Iran, at least, was an AWESOME country until the 20th century when its government started to fall to the Islamic regime, most of which, to my knowledge, was propagated by the US, correct me if I'm wrong. As for Iraq, I'm not sure. But I know this: notwithstanding political views, none can here deny the tragic loss of history that has been suffered during this "war" -- Iraq had some of the world's most ancient building, temples, etc. If we're not careful, we'll not only lose a significant number of PRESENT life, but a huge piece of our HISTORY as well. :()

Very well said. Iran was an awesome country. I am not Persian, I am armenian but my family has lived in teheran since the genocide.

Much of the regime was propagated by the US. But the US and the British had their hands deep in Irans pockets well before the revolution.

What happened in Iran will happen in Iraq. There are rumours about a bill that Ms. Rice hopes to pass for oil drilling rights in Iraq which would allow foreign oil companies (i.e US companies) to drill in Iraq for the next 20 years.

For those who think the war in Iraq is for democracy think again. History has a way of repeating itself.




From WIKI:



During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, to stop an Axis-supported coup and secure Iran's petroleum infrastructure. The Allies forced the Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive. In 1951, an eccentric pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) that had controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain immediately embargoed Iran. Soon after, members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them in covertly overthrowing the democratically-elected Mossadegh. Initially, United States President Harry S. Truman refused, but after Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected the British proposed the plan again. After convincing Eisenhower that Mossadegh was sympathetic to communism (even though he was an avowed anti-communist), the United States agreed to assist Britain in Operation Ajax. President Eisenhower authorized the CIA to take the lead in the operation of overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a US-friendly monarch.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ah-Pahlavi.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/co...gnify-clip.png
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi overthrown in the 1979 Iranian revolution. Farah Pahlavi former Empress of Iran


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-Mossadeq.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/co...gnify-clip.png
Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, founder of Iran's first democratic government, overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1953




The CIA faced many setbacks, but the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from the US Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. Agents were hired to facilitate violence; and, as a result, protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost three hundred dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on 19 August 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.

This is why communists and socialists have always been enemies of our government. It has nothing to do with them not being democratic, or with their human rights records or how they treat their people. It has to do with the fact that they want to nationalize major industry which means American corporations can no longer exploint the population of that country or their resources for profit.

If you look at the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror, you will find that almost every country on the list is a socialist country. Furthermore, if you look at the list over the years, you will find that countries typically were added to the list shortly after nationalizing major industry, and countries have typically been removed from the list after privatizing major industry that was previously nationalized or agreeing to allow in foreign investment.

Notice how Venezuela has now been added to the list shortly after nationalizing major industry. Also notice how Libya was recently removed from the list after agreeing to allow in foreign oil companies to their state run oil industry.

While they often talk about "evil" countries such as Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc., and they make it sound like the issues they have with such countries have to do with issues such as WMDs, democracy, and human rights, the reality is that it all has to do with economics. I would bet that whatever negotiations they have going on with Iran and with North Korea, they have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear weapons and have everything to do with economics. If an agreement is reached, they will then announce it in the context of that they came to an agreement regarding the nuclear weapons, but there will be much more to it than that.

For example, we now know that the State Department negotations with the Taliban in the summer of 2001 had very little to do with terrorism and turning over Osama bin Laden, and had more to do with negotiations to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. If the Taliban had agreed to their terms, they would still be in power.

Isn't China our biggest trade partner?

:iagree:

There is always more to the story then meets the eye. When the top secret CIA docs become public in 50 odd years from now only then will we know the rest of this story.

Yes. Indeed it was finally figured out that they were too big to bully around and that they would not change to capitalism, so Nixon went over there and normalized relations after 30 years of ignoring them.

They only bully the little countries that they know they can kick around.

who are you??????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????


who ever you think you are, your Persian at heart.:rofl: :rofl:

English is my 3rd language but im sure Armenian is spelled with a capital AAAAAAAAAAAA......

Those will get "lost".

what alot of bullshit in this thread but not all but mostly 14 pages of one trying to out do the other.

Is it a how many words you can type in reponse to anothers post.?? contest.


Anyway just lets cut to the chase.


America got it wrong "as usual" us his sheep the UK didn't do any better

we should withdraw from Iraq now

we should have never gone there in the first place.

Who says it's up to America to save the world from WMD of terrorist who made them captain??

:rofl: :rofl:

You'd actually be surprised how much stuff is never "lost". I was shocked at the kind of stuff they released after the JFK Act in the 1990s. When I tell some people about it, they don't believe me or think it is some kind of big conspiracy theory, but I've seen the documents with my own eyes (a family member likes to make frequent trips to the national archives and make use of FOIA).

Stuff on subjects like MK-ULTRA, the Cuban Missle Crisis, JFK Assassination, Vietnam War, MLK Assassination, etc. Lots of information has become public record over the last 15 years. Unfortunately the media ignores this stuff for the most part, and so most people are unaware.

Eric - I sometimes have a hard time figuring out why you live in the USA, partaking in its horrible capalistic society and exercising the freedoms guaranteed under its Constitution, when you hate it so much?

I also have a hard time figuring if you hate the POTUS, and generalize that hatred to all Americans, businesses, and institutions of government, of if you actually hate Americans, businesses, and institutions of government.

Whatever the case may be, I often also wonder how there are so few people in this country who are so enlightened as to what really happens, and the other 300 million of us are mindless dolts caught up in the government propoganda machine. Actually, maybe I'm more offended that the enlightened few actually believe that I have no mind of my own.

At least Scottie throws stones from another country. I don't agree with some (OK most, when it come sot politics) of the stuff she says, but she's not having it both ways.

One thing to remember Scottie - no one appointed us captain. It was thrust upon us when we were attacked, by terrorists, who wish to acquire WMD to do us even more harm. Prior to 9/11, there was actually a trend towards isolationism in this country - you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. It all changed that day.

We can argue the Iraq war all day long and get about as far as our own Congress is getting (that would be nowhere). Personally, I think there is no doubt that our President and Congress overestimated the size of the mandate they were handed by the people. But, in our form of government, you live with it until you can change it.

However - we have the absolute inalienable right to act in our own self-defense. And, for better or for worse, depending upon your perspective, we have the will, the personnel, and the means to do so.

I often wonder if the self-righteous Europeans would turn the other cheek in the face of a terrorist attack on the scale of what happened to the US. I tend to doubt it. On the other hand, outside of the UK, there probably isn't a damn thing they could do about it either, for want of means and will.

They 'lost' JFK's brain after the assassination, they can lose anything.

:iagree:

We need one of those forums that allows readers to assign points for great posts, because ylwjacket's post here would be getting 10 points from me. :thumbup:

I am of many minds about some of the recent post:

1) We should not gang up against another member and being a American he is entitled to his views.

2) His view are so extreme that he can't be for real

3) How could such a socialist own a capitalist car like a BMW. Furthermore how can a liberal own a SUV instead of a Hybrid?

Eric I am not trying to attack you personally just trying to understand; would you please help me with this?

:popcorn: Let me get a :drinking:

My guess on number 3 has something to do with the "Trustafarian" principle

The trustafarian is common in mountanous regions and can often be found sitting on a range rover wearing north face, smoking pot, and smelling of pauchulli discussing how awful capitalism is whilest ignoring the fact thier parents bought them an 70k SUV so these kids could go to colorado and waste the little oxygen found at high altitudes.

Look at the icons of liberalism how many of them are truly "down with the cause" Noam Chomsky lives in a gated community in a house last appraised at over 6 million how does he represent the people? He preaches about higher taxes to improve the lives of the impoverished yet makes minimal charitable donations...if you cannot spend your own money on your causes don't expect others to follow. Hell the kennedy fortune was made from Bootlegging whisky from canada durnig prohibition...truly capitalism at it's finest. Overall the hypocracy within the liberal phsyche is something I am always amazed with.

:popcorn:

Being a socialist does not mean that I think we all should be poor and not have nice things. Unfortunately socialism/communism has that reputation because only extremely poor countries have changed to this economic system. So when people think of communist countries, poor countries where poor people had to wait on line for goods and services come to mind.

I can tell from posts in this forum that very few (if any) of you have read Karl Marx. Communism is not meant to grow an economy. It is only meant to spread the wealth evenly among the population. If there is very little wealth, then everyone will be equally poor.

Marx meant for Communism to be the next natural progression AFTER Capitalism. As we are seeing in the world today, Capitalism implodes after a while. There are no new markets to expand to, so the result becomes infighting and corruption and an eventual progression towards Fascism.

Competition is both good and bad. The good part is that it motivates people. The bad part is that time is wasted competing instead of being productive. For example, a company like BMW will spend a certain percentage of their resources on building good cars, and a certain percentage on advertising and promotion. If their goal was not to make money, but instead only to produce good vehicles, then they could spend 100% of their resources on building good cars and thus we would have a better product, but for the same cost to the consumer.

When there are constant new markets to expand to, most resources are spent on product development and distribution and only a much smaller amount on advertising and promotion. But when there are no new markets to expand to, then the only way to increase business is to take market share from another company, and you do this through advertising and promotion.

If you look at economics of major industries over the last 30 years, you will find an increasing percentage of resources being spent on advertising and a decreasing percentage spent on product development. This part that is being spent on advertising is wasteful and amounts to "infighting" rather than true productivity. Nothing useful is being produced by advertising, and thus the productivity factor is zero. You might as well have the entire advertising industry spend their days digging holes and filling them in. The total size of our economy would not change any if you did this. Stop thinking about productivity in terms of dollars and cents, and instead think of productivity in terms of what is being actually produced or accomplished. That is true productivity.

By changing to a Communist system, you become more productive in that all of your resources are spent on true productivity, and not on infighting. You work together, instead of competing against eachother.

And if the total wealth of the country is like what we have in the United States today, then everyone would not be "equally poor" but instead "equally rich".

With the wealth and resources we have in the United States, everyone could have practially everything they wanted, and there would still be extra resources to spare.

Stop thinking on a level of dollars and cents and start thinking on a level of goods and services. Would you want your BMW any more or less if it costed $5,000 instead of $50,000? It would still be the same car. Would you want to live in a big house if it didn't cost any more than a small one? Is your only drive in life to be better than someone else, or do you want to succeed for you (and your family) only? What defines "success"?

Regarding my business, I do enjoy what I do today. And I would enjoy it just as much even if I didn't own the company, but instead just managed it. I take pride in my work and would not put in any less effort. And if I didn't have to worry about making profit, the product I would produce could be a lot better as well.

So does this mean you are not liberal?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

--Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry

--Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.


No, I'd say I am a liberal. :thumbup:

But you drive a SUV instead of a Hybrid?

... to continue my discussion from http://www.xoutpost.com/lounge/25962-out-curiosity-why-our-news-sooooooo-local-3.html:

As my best friend always says when he criticizes me, "hey, it's just part of my job description." In other words, if he, as my best friend, didn't point out my flaws ... then who would?!

In other words, as Americans, we have a DUTY to criticize our government and its policies -- NOT blindly follow it and just assume/pretend that it's good and right just out of blind national pride. Any chimpanzee can do that. I'd like to believe we are a little more intelligent than that.

As my Dad -- who's 100% American -- always says, "it is precisely BECAUSE I'm a proud American, BECAUSE I'm so patriotic, that I so strongly voice my crticisms of our present regime."

Put another way: suppose a Frenchman; and Italian; a Russian; a Brazilian; or anyone else NOT American, were to criticize our heretofore wonderful country. OBVIOUSLY we can VERY EASILY shut them up MERELY on the grounds that they are not American, e.g., what right do THEY have to criticize our land?

That then leaves ONLY AMERICANS to criticize the wrongs of our government. Thus, if WE do not do so ... then ... WHO WOULD?!

Indeed: I submit that *NOT* vehemently criticizing our governemnt is in fact the ANTITHESIS of true patriotism; vocal outcries of disapproval then ARE the most fundamental elements of a true patriot as it shows concern rather than blind following.

But as B-Line frighteningly suggests in the aforementioned thread, or as YellowJacket explictly states a few msgs above, if being American means only loving local news; explosions; deaths; and natural disasters; and if being American means never criticizing our government when it is clearly at fault ... then wow, y'all can keep your NASCAR.

But I for one am proud to be of this country, if only because we CAN speak up and voice our disapprovals, as opposed to the modernly corrupt Islamic regimes in Iran, for instance, where this very essence of nationalism is mutable by death -- an Islamic extremist corruption of what once was a beautiful and democratic society.

Well said, which is why my Dad was so apalled when I told him of our Econ prof's opening lecture in Econ 1 at UCLA several years ago: "Countries are poor because they choose to be poor."

Talk about skirting the main issue.

However, Eric, I must say I -- paradoxically -- both agree AND disagree with you quite literally at the same time. I AGREE with the logic you say, but, embarassingly, our econ dpt at UCLA did NOT have us read Marx, and so I cannot put aside the simple concepts of competition set forth by Adam Smith: what was that famous alliteration of his? Something like, "it's not because of the benevolence of the baker, the butcher, or the bread maker, that we have our bread; our meat; and our bread."

ALSO: how do you reconcile Marxism with what happened during the early colonial days of New England? Those first winters nearly took the lives all the colonists because they were operating with a communal system: there were no private personal or real property rights as we have them today, and the colonists nearly starved. But once they enacted a system of property rights, suddenly food shortages became a thing of the past and here we are today.

So that's something I cannot look past and see it as a rather profound indicator of, while communism/socialism may work at some level, it cannot work ultimately. Just look at Russia -- it's far better off today -- at least economically -- than it was back in the day.

TFYQA, TFYQA, TFYQA

Let common sence prevail.

Peace.

I don't know who your dad is, and I don't really understand all of what you are trying to say, other than your dad is 100% American.

It is our duty to quetion the gov't. What annoys me is that there is a certain class of people in this country who feel that they, and they alone, are the enlightened class, and if you don't agree with the, you are a mindless idiot.

You missed my point.

"Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

Cool, so I can benefit off your hard work.

Or put another way, someone else can benefit off the fact that I risked everyting I own, my kid's college futures, and my family's well being to take the huge risk of starting my own company. My first 2 years, wherein I got 1 paycheck, would count for nothing now that we are more successful.

Everyone could share the welath and prosperity created by moy own hard work and willingness to take a risk.

Wait - 30 families fdo benefit, through gainful employment (avg salary of 70k). And, those who do nothing benefit - it's called taxes.

You think?

Russia's GDP is 40% lower today than it was in 1990, and they have the highest child poverty rate, and highest homelessness rate of any industrialized country in the world.

According to the Russian Interior Ministry, the homeless rate in Russia is between 2.76% and 3.44% and this number continues to increase.

And here's an article for you:

Number of Russian Homeless Children Nears Post-WW2 Rates

That is simply pathatic. WW2 resulted in most major cities in Russia being destroyed and over 20 million of their people being killed. Now in a time of peace, their child homeless rate is the same.

Here's the GDP patterns of a couple of former Soviet republics:

http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publ...images/GDP.jpg

How is capitalism treating them?

Eric- i stand corrected, thank you

One thing to remember ylwjacket your country in not Captain.:confused: they just think they are.:confused:

Listen what's the problem here anyone can have a go at the UK/Scotland I'd more than likely agree with you. Just because I voice a opinion about America does not mean I hate Americans

You guys need to lighten up a bit and stop taking yourselves and country so serious.

Just because I am a Scot/UK citizen does not mean I think our Country is great I would openly admit it's faults. I have no time for our politicians not a decent one among the lot of them.

I am not proud our country went to war in Iraq taken there by Tony Blair

I am proud to be a Scot (first) British (second) not because of what my country does today but because of my heritage we are a proud race that is the MacGregor Clan.;)

'S Rioghal Mo Dhream
(Royal is my Race)

Being one of the people that has read Marx's writings and having a business economics background I have done a lot of research when I was younger regarding the benefits and drawbacks of communism....basically the problem in communism is people, the theory and excution is only truly valid if everyone pulls thier weight your two largest problems in communist societies are greed and lethargy both of them cause imbalance in the system this is the essential paradox of the theory. Also this presents the reasoning that in a small society (where everyone has contact with the other people) these urges of greed and lethargy can be monitered and those taking advantage of the system have a higher risk of being caught thus preventing them from taking advantage. As for your statement about Russia, while it's homelessness increased it was primarily due to those that took advantage of the system of communism for so long and all of a sudden they actually had to participate in the economy and work hard to earn money that was given to them before...it was a big change but definately from what I see when I am there (been to moscow and st petersburg multiple times) it is a change for the better.

Before you mention China remember that the chinese have had FTZs since the mid 80's which are run as strict capitalist societies and have turned the FTZs into the most densly populated areas in the country and also made the Buick one of the best selling cars in china.

Ok lets say we quit giving money, troops, supplies, etc to other countries (even through the UN, IMF, World Bank, whatever) who would make up that large amount of money that would no longer be donated or loaned to other countries to improve their standard of living, increase thier security or improve thier infrastructure...without our equipment and ability to mobilize the UN loses its ability to do anything (provided a vote in the council would ever actually accomplish anything) the reason is Russia doesn't have the money to keep thier vehicles moving and they are the only ones with the equipment and the population to provide what we do...I do feel that if Russia could have kept the states together even after the fall of the government they could have kept thier superpower status but when one destroys the infrastructure without a new plan in place it can become difficult to finance the country. I view the necessity of multiple large industrialized countries as a much better choice, but since there are no other options at this time given China's Laze Fare concept for international aid we are the last superpower remaining...which makes us both loved and hated throughout the world

OK, I agree with you here.

I think you fail to realize the reason for all of this aid...

Our government does not do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Foreign Aid in the Federal Budget is basically corporate welfare with an excuse. Our government never just gives money to other countries. There are always strings attached.

90% of the money we give is in the form of military aid. The money never even goes to these countries. Instead, the money goes from the State Department to the American military contractor, and the weapons are sent to the country. In the Federal Budget, this appears under "foreign aid", but it is nothing more than a bone for the military contractors.

Likewise, 90% of the money that has been designated for "rebuilding Iraq" is more of the same. The money is simply being paid to American firms like Bechtel and Haliburton, even though there are Iraqi firms (who hire Iraqi employees) that can do the same work for less money. And even though Iraq has an unemployment rate of around 50%, Bechtel and Haliburton bring in workers from the Burma and Indonesia to do the work because they will work for less money.

And the worst part about this all is that these contracts are never bargained and there is no bidding process. The State Department vastly overpays in these contracts. Because the goal here is not really to provide aid, but instead to find a way in which more of our taxpayer dollars can be given to these large corporations.

And I'm sure you have read the articles over the last few years how Haliburton has been caught overcharging the government. Do you know what the penalty was? Nothing. They did not even have to return the money. The Justice Department never prosecuted anyone, and it was simply forgotton.

while a large part of our self administered aid goes to these people moneys send through the world bank are administered for national infrastructure projects...Brazil had a loan in this manner, held by the united states that allowed them to get in more business to drive thier economy, and create the gasahol programs that have allowed them to claim oil independence 4th qtr of last year...that loan was held by the United States so a much as you like to vilify our government blanket statements are ballsy at least and ignorant at best

cheers
J

those "LOANS" to countries like Brazil were *NOT* asked for by those countries: they were forced upon them, with impossibly high interest rates, under the guise of "helping" the countries to modernize, usually by building out electrical infrastructure, etc. What result? Those countries are forever indebted to us allowing us to install more puppet governments.

Seriously, until there is explicit evidence to DISPROVE his account, read CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN.

I don't understand why there's such an infatuation with presuming that our country -- MERELY because it is OUR country -- is doing the right things for the right reasons??

how many people cheer when they have money forced to them and impossibly high interest rates....besides the interest rate thing with the world bank was broached and fixed about 6 or 7 years ago

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2899637.stm

http://www.aceee.org/press/brazil.htm

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/Externa...7?OpenDocument


I am not saying that everything is done for the right reasons merely stating that they are always done for the wrong reasons is not correct

and I had to read Confessions for my international finance class great book lots of information and I by no means discount it just saying that while some of the moves made are quite unethical some things are actually done for the right reasons...

Amazon.com: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

John Perkins started and stopped writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man four times over 20 years. He says he was threatened and bribed in an effort to kill the project, but after 9/11 he finally decided to go through with this expose of his former professional life. Perkins, a former chief economist at Boston strategic-consulting firm Chas. T. Main, says he was an "economic hit man" for 10 years, helping U.S. intelligence agencies and multinationals cajole and blackmail foreign leaders into serving U.S. foreign policy and awarding lucrative contracts to American business. "Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars," Perkins writes. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is an extraordinary and gripping tale of intrigue and dark machinations. Think John Le Carré, except it's a true story.

Perkins writes that his economic projections cooked the books Enron-style to convince foreign governments to accept billions of dollars of loans from the World Bank and other institutions to build dams, airports, electric grids, and other infrastructure he knew they couldn't afford. The loans were given on condition that construction and engineering contracts went to U.S. companies. Often, the money would simply be transferred from one bank account in Washington, D.C., to another one in New York or San Francisco. The deals were smoothed over with bribes for foreign officials, but it was the taxpayers in the foreign countries who had to pay back the loans. When their governments couldn't do so, as was often the case, the U.S. or its henchmen at the World Bank or International Monetary Fund would step in and essentially place the country in trusteeship, dictating everything from its spending budget to security agreements and even its United Nations votes. It was, Perkins writes, a clever way for the U.S. to expand its "empire" at the expense of Third World citizens.

thank you for that, eric :)

(p.s. funny how the usual suspects have dropped out of this discussion it seems like........)

Similarly, I don't understand why there is an infatuation with thinking that everything the government does is crooked.

Crosvs - I am guessing you are not around our gov't very much. There are lots of good people working there, doing their best. My Dad, unlike your PhD father, has worked for the government for 30 years, and is as honest of a man as they come.

Your blanket character assassinations get old, and your condescending attitude is offensive.

That's why everyone dropped out of this thread. You and Eric can intellectually circle jerk each other, you can bounce this crap off your PhD dad (who tells you how to read the newspaper, no less), and the rest of us will move on with our lives. And, some of us will go on appreciating the work that some good, honest, hard-working middle class people do on our behalf.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I dropped out since the tread left "what do you think of the war" and became "America sucks, here is why..."

a day in irak
 

check it out

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a183ef7f78

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef4f7a9c24

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a183ef7f78

Well said.

Our President.
 

God Bless these United States of America.

The president is elected by the people.

I support the president.

We all should regardless of what our personal opinion's are. At the very least, support the war for the benefit of the troops who are there.

Our enemy enjoys our public discourse and is overjoyed when (every single day) the Clinton News Network (CNN) runs stories about the presidents (alleged) approval rating.

Then, when that doesn't work for the leftist media, they begin talking about the price of the war....Trust me, the price of the war pales in comparison to what we spend to medically, scholastically, logistically and criminally to support 30 million illegal immigrants. It makes what we are spending on the war in Iraq look like chump change. But do you hear about that? Of course not.

Reagan was abhored by the same leftist media then. History reflects that his critics didn't know what they hell they were talking about. I believe history will fare favorably for GW.

Chris

Check this out

:confused:

Thanks for the succinct answer to crosvs.
:iagree:

"The story as presented is implausible to say the least, offering so few details that Perkins often seems paranoid, and the simplistic political analysis doesn’t enhance his credibility. Despite the claim that his work left him wracked with guilt, the artless prose is emotionally flat and generally comes across as a personal crisis of conscience blown up to monstrous proportions, casting Perkins as a victim not only of his own neuroses over class and money but of dark forces beyond his control. His claim to have assisted the House of Saud in strengthening its ties to American power brokers may be timely enough to attract some attention, but the yarn he spins is ultimately unconvincing, except perhaps to conspiracy buffs.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved."

:rofl:
Conspiracy buffs! :rofl: No wonder you pulled it up Eric! :rofl:

:bustingup :lmao:

You know, I don't have a problem with this logic, except for the fact that there is a huge double standard mixed in here.

I'm 100% sure that you would not think the same thing if we were talking about the civilians and the troops on the other side.

For example, should a patriotic Afghan have supported the Taliban war effort in 2001 for the benefit of the troops? Or what about an patriotic Iraqi during the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

If we invade Iran, what should a patriotic Iranian do? Does your logic hold up across enemy lines? Answer: No. Thus, your logic is flawed and extremely bias.

Saying we should support a war for the sake of the troops is like saying we should support the slaughter house for the sake of the chickens.



Like I said earlier in this thread, discussing anything related to war is useless if you are unable to apply the same rules and logic to other countries that you do to your own country. Next time you are trying to decide what would be best in Iraq, imagine if another country had invaded the United States and we were the ones in middle of civil war. Then apply the same logic and see if your logic fits.

Yup, it's always a conspiracy theory.

You can add it to your growing list of conspiracy theories like the one about the Spanish not sinking the USS Maine, the one about the Vietnameese not firing on an American naval ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, and even the biggest and craziest conspiracy theory of them all, thought up by the mad scientist Galileo Galilei, who suggested that the Holy Bible and the entire Catholic Church was wrong and that the Earth did indeed revolve around the Sun, not the other way around. Good thing they put him in his place by putting him in prison.

Then there's alway this. Minister blesses the troops on this side to win the battle. Then there's another minister blessing the troops on the other side.
Now the question is who's side is God on???



someon

God doesn't pick sides :)

Nice try.

You're the one that posted the link. I didn't have to look anywhere but your link to Amazon to find that.

As to conspiracies, you're the one that thinks there's some grand conspiracy by the Adminsitration to line their pockets. I don't think there's a conspiracy anywhere. That's what I find so funny about your posts.

Why don't you pull up some more multi-century old "conspiracies" to prove your point? All you ever find is things too old to matter, or a Nazi comparison. The closest you've got is over 40 years old - happened before you were born. You need to broaden your educational base.

Surely you can find something from within your lifetime, as terrible as all these corporation-loving Republican administrations have been?

:popcorn:

I am still amazed that you never came at me on the communist rebuttal but instead go after the low hanging fruit of one scentence in a secondary post but on the other hand I think there are a lot fewer google searches and old conspiracy theories you can bring into that arguement

It really is too bad I am only on here at the office I would have loved to get back to this conversation last night

Unfortunately I had a really hard time getting that done being a republican and all I was way too busy robbing bums, causing poverty and increasing the monetary gap in middle class america while riding on the backs of the working class...and changing tires on my car

Sure, there are lots of them. But what constitutes proof?

I'm pretty sure you would want the following proof:

1) Either the guilty parties confess

or

2) Government files proving guilt


Since FOIA does not allow for the releasing of classified files until many years afterwards, so unless the guilty parties confess (rather unlikely), you will not be satisfied.

For example, the above 3 conspiracies I listed did not become truely accepted until many years after they occured. Even 20 years ago most people did not accept that LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin even though the "Pentagon Papers" had proved this. It was not until actual audio recordings of LBJ in the White House were released several years ago that most people were finally convinced. And with the USS Maine, it wasn't until the 1970s that the government finally admitted that the Spanish were not responsible, 75 years after it happened.

But I ask you this: Why do all these large corporations spend millions of dollars giving campaign contributions to political candidates on both sides, and why do they also spend millions on lobbying? Are they just stupid, or could it be that these investments pay dividends?

Is that the question you really want to ask?

I ask because it's so stupid. :confused:

Let's see...who makes the laws governing corporate behavior in our society?
Hmm...
Would it be the legislative bodies at the local, state, and federal level?

Of course corporations spend money trying to influence politicians! If they didn't, they'd be completely stupid, and unworthy of being in charge of their company.

What point were you trying to make? That attempting to influence the people in charge is wrong? It only is if they break the law in the process - or in the "influencee" breaks the law.

Remember the old maxim: "It's not what you know, but who." You may not like it, but that's the way the world works.

When you say "attempting", then you are implying that it doesn't work. Obviously it does work, or they wouldn't do it.

So if you are Lockheed, why would you give tons of money to both Kerry and Bush campaigns? What possible decisions would the President make that would help your company out? The president does not award contracts to military contractors. In fact, he has no involvement whatsoever in that. So then why would they do this?

The answer is that the president can take the country to war, which will result in increased profits for Lockheed, who is the #1 military contractor. The President can also push for a higher Defense budget, which will also result in increased profits for them.

And Lockheed obviously feels that giving all this campaign money will result in higher profits, which implies that they think they have an effect on his decisions, which they indeed do.

So to sum up, you have large corporations giving money to the President (and congress) which results in them spending more on Defense than they would otherwise, and more likely to go to war than they would otherwise.

And no, in our current messed up system, this is not illegal or "breaking the law".

So are you happy knowing that profit levels of the large military contractors is a major factor in the military decisions our leaders make?

From your comment "Remember the old maxim: "It's not what you know, but who." You may not like it, but that's the way the world works.", it appears you are content with knowing this. I am not.

Does HE-MAN? :nanana:

Man I remember wasting hours and lots of my parents $$$$ calling the hotline just to speak with HE-MAN.

"BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL..... I HAVE THE POWER!"

Wow way off topic, I need mucho sleep. Sorry guys.

I love how you pick one or two minor sidebars out of an argument, and ignore the general thrust of it. Anyway...

Actually, I wasn't implying anything. Please note that that came out of a question. Nice spin, there.

So you're saying the President has no influence in the Legislative process? Ever heard of a little thing called a "veto?" And that's just the Constitutional power he has - never mind the influence he wields behind the scenes.

See, this is why people accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist. So, because of campaign donations from large corporations, we went to war? That's a moonbat claim if I ever heard one. Did you get that here?

No, I just don't agree with your contention that that is the case.


Spin again. That was a rueful observation, not a contented concession. If you're not even going to try, just stop. This is pretty boring.

Care to comment on Chavez' statement that Castro is "almost running?"

:popcorn2:

HE-MAN believes whatever I tell him :rofl:

SWEET! Tell him I'd like some alone time with She-Ra :rofl:

Consider it done ;)

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c7...-ra_intera.jpg

HOT DAMN!!!!!

Wagner I think it's time for......:hijack:

No, I'm saying the president has no involvement in awarding contracts, which BTW has nothing to do with the legislative process.



The president cannot veto a government spending contract.



Oversimplification. I didn't say that was the only reason. I said it was a reason.



Well, you can't have it both ways. Either they are wasting their money, or they are getting results. Which one is it?

(one would think if they were not getting results, they would not continue to donate so much money to political campaigns, and spend so much money on lobbying)



I would comment if I had any idea what you were talking about. Care to enlighten me?

The thread was jacked 100 posts ago :)

What's the record for most posts in a single thread? I forget what this thread was about, cheesecake or size-zero models?

LOLOLOLOL..... Failed to realize that.

Why does everyone take themselves so damn seriously on here? You guys are obviously not gonna change each others mind.

Let your actions dictate your beliefs dont dictate to others what their beliefs should be.

But all in all I do enjoy these debates sometimes. Very informative.

Nah... something about a load.....