where should we go from here?

ADO15 · Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:00 am Post subject: Re: Iraq or not to Iraq

No, not just Republicans - all corrupt capitalist administrations that intervene ruthlessly in others affairs no matter what the cost in lives. Guess that includes Clinton, Carter & Kennedy too.

_________________________________________________________

Il Sotto Seme La Neva

Frank 013 · Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: Iraq or not to Iraq

[ADO15: all corrupt capitalist administrations that intervene ruthlessly in others affairs no matter what the cost in lives.]

So… all politicians then.

ADO15 · Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:51 am Post subject: Re: Iraq or not to Iraq

Quite like Chavez

And Evo Morales

And the new Chilean President - can't remember her name.

And, historically, there's Kenneth Kaunda, Salvador Allende, Aung San, Nelson Mandela, Sam Nujoma...

And if we go beyond leaders, there's Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Dennis Skinner, Peter Heathfield, R Palme Dutt, James Maxton, Phillip Snowden, Eric Heffer and many others.

Mind you, with the exceptions of Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr, and possibly Frederick Douglass, i can't think of an honourable US politician. I rack my brains, but I can't.

_________________________________________________________

Il Sotto Seme La Neva

Frank 013 · Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject: Re: Iraq or not to Iraq

[ADO15: I can't think of an honourable US politician. I rack my brains, but I can't.]

I will have to agree with you here. Ever since the US began creating career politicians things have gotten progressively worse.

Almost every voter (no matter what party line they follow) agrees that they are attempting to choose the lesser of evils.

Later

lanceman1971 · Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject: Re: Iraq or not to Iraq

I think we suffer from a few core problems here. The first is the use of generalizations that most of the time are inaccurate. This concept that you can take a difficult problem such as the war in Iraq and say that it is because of one thing is rediculous. I think the average american is grossly mis-informed from the media and is to lazy to spend more than a single hour researching a topic him/herself. You hear a sound bit, conform that soundbit to your personal opinions and then bam, there is your argument. This type of mentality is why middle class america is refered to as the herd.

Another major point I think we all seem to be missing about Iraq and the war on terror is the real reason we are there and no it is NOT oil. No it's not freedom for Iraq's. Both are certainly part of it. During the Regan administration a paper was written by Paul Wolfawitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George H Bush and several other Advisors pertaining to national security. The paper talked about the road ahead and the problems America would face. The largest portion of the document (189 page) was allocated to the middle east. The question was, in an area of the world that controls so much power (Religious Locations, Oil). How do you rationally deal with civilizations that are fanatical?

The paper came up with a solution. You must control hte middle eastern belt and change those nations to rational democracy's, the middle eastern belt includes the following nations, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. If you control that region than the rest of the middle east will fall in line. If you look at those in power now you will see all those names with the exception of George H Bush. These men have all worked together on this issue for over 26 years and know the real score. But you can't just initiate this war over nothing. 9/11 was the catelyst they needed to proceed forward in creating a middle eastern belt of rational nations. They know it will take decades, these men are not stupid, they don't make decisions on sound bytes.

They also know how to menuveur within the political spectrum. They knew that they had to move fast. Afghanistan was going to be easy to sell. But from there they would have to move quickly into Iraq. They knew people would get sick of it, that the American public would quickly forget about 9/11. It's what we do, we want immediate gratification and if we can't get it we move on. The American middle class is the largest group of boobs that exist in the world today. Iran will take care of itself, they are so fanatical that they will continue to push us until the easily swayed american public agrees to finally do something about them. Or they will bomb us with a nuclear weapon smuggled in through some terrorist faction. I fear that is what it will take for America to stick to its guns.

We are so proud of our selves in the Western world, we think we have evolved so far. But we really haven't, not just us but the world around us as well. You can't isolate yourself on the planet and expect to prosper, that is a fools game. We must continue to eliminate fanatical thinkers both at home and abroad and eliminate fanatical nations. I don't mean kill everybody, I simply mean eliminate these people from positions of power. We will be in this fight for decades. America will get hit again I garuntee it. Because we will need to in order to continue to follow through with this cause. Pulling our troops our and staying home will not solve the problem.

God is the problem. Listen for the past 2000 year countries have tried to leave christian nations alone but that didn't stop their fanaticism from coming to your country and destroying you (ie America was conquered by fanatical christians). The western world is mostly run by moderates now, say what you want about bush, he is still moderate compared to middle eastern leaders. Until we address fanaticism and the world is run by moderate leaders we will have issues. It will take centuries people. We have addressed Europe and parts of Asia and North America, we still have central and south america to address almost all of africa, the middle east and southern asia. This will take centuries.

Edited by: lanceman1971 at: 3/12/06 4:05 pm

RuthlessBob · Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:19 am Post subject: Re: Iraq or not to Iraq

It's statements like these that lead to alienation of the US from other countries. As Niall points out you already give a very small percentage of your funds to international aid and very little of that is without strings.
What I don't understand is why so often when Americans refer to doing more for the social issues in their country it is linked with a "screw the rest of the world" type comment. Why cant you focus on internal and external issues?
On a lighter note I doubt very much that anyone elected president of the US would understand the phrase "bon chance mes amis" isn't that one of them there foreign languages? ::03


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT