Look to the Past or Future (election, terrorism etc)

[Displaced]

I think thats why Bush is devoting so much energy to Iraq, if Iraq can become a successful democratic country it'll show the world that a democratic country can survive in the islamic world and hopefully other countries will follow suit thus the people will be able to shape thier own govt policies and hopefully end terrorism (since citizens of these countries wont be frustrated with thier own govt nor USA).

Why are you so hellbent on changing the ME to something its not. The people in the ME are happy. Let them change in their own time. Forcing democracy on countries isnt gonna help, it just creates more animocity.

When the people get fed up of their Kings/Sheiks/Sultans they will let us know about it by protesting it.

How would you like it if some Islamic country with a Monarch were to invade your country and instate a King? You wouldn't be pleased.

Just leave it alone.

[THE ENFORCER]

It's like you just make this shit up. rich people were paying WAY more taxes under the clinton administration, bush decided his rich friends needed a break.

Yea so??, Rich people can still use thier power to influence politics.Btw this isnt a major point please dont argue about it.

And taxing corporations doing business overseas doesn't mean importing goods, it means companies who move part of their operation overseas and bring the money back into the states.. that money currently isn't taxed, kerry wants to tax it.

Yea thats outsourcing, that will be deterimental to the economy if done now (need to decrease costs not increase them during a recession) maybe it'll be okay when the economy recovers but i wouldnt do it for quite a while and when the economy is booming people have money so it doenst become such an issue anymore thats why i think politics and the economy doesnt match up well.

P.S i actually think Bush is doing the right thing by lowering taxes for the rich as this will stimulate the economy as more rich folk will invest (have more money) thus jump starting the economy which is good for everyone. Kerry's plan to increase taxes (or keep them the same- not relevant) is not good while the economy is in a recession more can be done to jump start the economy by lowering taxes. If i was to vote purely based on who would do a better job on the economy (which i think is stupid since the economy will turn around anyway when the self-correcting factors kick in) i would actually vote for Bush because he seems to be making sensible macroeconomic polices where as Kerry seems to just care about the individual and not what is good for the economy as a whole. But its not really that important anyway both parties know how the economy works and would probably make the same decisions anyway unless they are politically bias (e.g corrupt or other outside factors) the media just likes to spin on it, its not important you should base your vote around social issues such as war on iraq or gay marriage or something.

P.S i can explain further if you want me to or if you dont get it.

[THE ENFORCER]

Why are you so hellbent on changing the ME to something its not. The people in the ME are happy. Let them change in their own time. Forcing democracy on countries isnt gonna help, it just creates more animocity.

When the people get fed up of their Kings/Sheiks/Sultans they will let us know about it by protesting it.

How would you like it if some Islamic country with a Monarch were to invade your country and instate a King? You wouldn't be pleased.

Just leave it alone.

When i talk about ME im talking about Israel and Palastien, that problem wont be solved by itself its a disturbing problem. And the only reason why i would include the other ME countries is because i think they can also help otherwise i wouldnt care how thier country is run. As long as its humane.

Oh but the quote you were referring to is about the war on terror and i was just referring to countries that have alot of terrorist activities going on, i wasnt being specific to ME.

[Mattey]

Haha, I can't help but laugh at you. Define the "War on Terror". What exactly makes and doesn't make a terrorist? Is a car-bomber a terrorist? Then what about a civilian shooting a rocket-propelled grenade? Then what about a mercenary shooting a rocket-launcher? And finally, what about a soldier firing a tank shell?
war ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states or states.


This is out of my Webster's dictionary, but it seems to me that a war would between two nations, not between 1 nation and an ambiguous noun without a definition.

[bloodzombie]

P.S i actually think Bush is doing the right thing by lowering taxes for the rich as this will stimulate the economy as more rich folk will invest (have more money) thus jump starting the economy which is good for everyone. Kerry's plan to increase taxes (or keep them the same- not relevant) is not good while the economy is in a recession more can be done to jump start the economy by lowering taxes. If i was to vote purely based on who would do a better job on the economy (which i think is stupid since the economy will turn around anyway when the self-correcting factors kick in) i would actually vote for Bush because he seems to be making sensible macroeconomic polices where as Kerry seems to just care about the individual and not what is good for the economy as a whole. But its not really that important anyway both parties know how the economy works and would probably make the same decisions anyway unless they are politically bias (e.g corrupt or other outside factors) the media just likes to spin on it, its not important you should base your vote around social issues such as war on iraq or gay marriage or something.

P.S i can explain further if you want me to or if you dont get it.

You're so fucked. They absolutely won't do the same thing with the economy (where do you get your information? do you really think policies didn't change between past presidents?). it's not hard to tax rich people (again, check out the differences between clinton and bush). Rich people are more likely to NOT spend the extra money they get (think about it really, who's gonna spend their tax breaks? the family that lives paycheck to paycheck and could really use some extra cash or a multi-millionaire?). I agree lowering taxes is a good thing, but give it to the people who need it, and the people who will spend it buying the things that they need. Taxing the people who outsource their jobs will increase their costs and that's the whole idea, the country doesn't benefit from their overseas operations, we're losing jobs and not collecting taxes, of course we want to increase their costs on those operations.

[bloodzombie]

you should base your vote around social issues such as war on iraq or gay marriage or something.

P.S i can explain further if you want me to or if you dont get it.

please explain to me more about social issues like the war in iraq.

[lunch3]

Haha, I can't help but laugh at you. Define the "War on Terror". What exactly makes and doesn't make a terrorist? Is a car-bomber a terrorist? Then what about a civilian shooting a rocket-propelled grenade? Then what about a mercenary shooting a rocket-launcher? And finally, what about a soldier firing a tank shell?
war ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states or states.


This is out of my Webster's dictionary, but it seems to me that a war would between two nations, not between 1 nation and an ambiguous noun without a definition.

Woot, dictionary quotes. Below from Third International Merriam Webster's dictionary.

terrorist: 1) an advocate or practitioner of terror as a means of coercion.

So basically anyone who kills civilians in order to bring about the state of terror, and this terror is to push some agenda. Most of the people killed in Iraq are civilians, and they are being killed by bombs. Of course this scenario fits in Israel too.

Iraqis firing RPG's at American forces are not terrorists for said reason. They are killing military soldiers, and as such are not inciting terror as a means to make an end. But I'm sure many of these people are behind the bombings in some way too.

So basically a terrorist is a soldier who takes away the fight from the military aspect of things and cowardly attacks their own civilians even to reach an end. Don't tell me that crap that US is way too powerful and they need to resort to terrorism. They RESORT to terrorism because many of their countrymen are not willing to join the fight with them because they don't hate the US, or some other entity, as much. American military might, especially only 100,000 soldiers, can be defeated if just a fourth of the Iraqi population fights them.

There is some rebellion happening in Fallujah, if it spreads far then I'm wrong about how Iraqis generally want the Americans to stay, at least for security. Just so people don't respond without knowing, this rebellion is led by a Shiite religious leader named Sadr, and the rebellion started when US troops closed down Sadr's newspaper business for two months because they felt they were lying completely in stories and iciting rebellion. One false story they printed was that the Iraqi police station was not bombed by terrorists (yes police officers are civilians), but hit by an American airstrike. This guy has something like 2-3 thousand in his 'militia' and I believe he only has this power because he is a religious icon.

One reason we made religion and government seperate in the States is because religious beliefs should not be part of the political process because it is based on belief and not fact. With democracy in ME religion will become a less vocal voice in ME politics and therefore you will not have many blind extremists acting out of faith alone. Democracy will also teach ME to use their brains more and not their emotions, and it would be hard for false rumors to spread because everyone is involved in political discussions in the media and lies would be more easily distinguished.

[Pearl Jam]

enforcer has had a long, detailed view of the inside of his rectum

[THE ENFORCER]

You're so fucked. They absolutely won't do the same thing with the economy (where do you get your information? do you really think policies didn't change between past presidents?).

You have to change economic policies through different stages of the economic cycle, like i said before some politicians might have other agendas and not to whats best for the economy.

Rich people are more likely to NOT spend the extra money they get (think about it really, who's gonna spend their tax breaks? the family that lives paycheck to paycheck and could really use some extra cash or a multi-millionaire?).

But Bush is talking about lowering taxes for the rich???
the rich will invest thier extra money or at least put it in the bank for others to take loans from in order to earn a profit.Ummm i suppose some would spend it which spending also creates jobs however most would invest it in order to make a bigger profit which would help alot of businesses.

I agree lowering taxes is a good thing, but give it to the people who need it, and the people who will spend it buying the things that they need. Taxing the people who outsource their jobs will increase their costs and that's the whole idea, the country doesn't benefit from their overseas operations, we're losing jobs and not collecting taxes, of course we want to increase their costs on those operations.

If you lower the taxes on the rich they will invest which will help businesses and stimulate the economy therefore create jobs for the people who need it- thats a better solution and faster too.

Taxing USA companies who ousource (alot of US companies do this) will increase costs therefore increase prices. US citizens will look to cheaper foregin goods instead of US made goods therefore imports will increase, which is a leakage therefore money is leaving the economy causing a downswing (people lose thier jobs, increase in crime etc)- thats in the short run.

In the long run US companies will become more efficient in order to compete with the imported goods and therefore they will decrese thier cost of production which will decrese thier price therefore US citizens will start buying US products. However this will take quite a while at the cost of alot of jobs in the short run so it will be better to do this when the economy is booming and not in a downswing.

P.S lowering taxes to the poor wont be as effective as the poor would save some of the money and spend the rest so its better for the rich to invest the money as all of the money invested is spent. This stuff is on the multiplier effect if you want to type it in google or something it should explain it better if you dont get what im saying.

please explain to me more about social issues like the war in iraq.

Its what ever your personal opinons on the matter are.

[lunch3]

Well just wanted to say this added thing paraphrased from what Bush said at some college today, I think, about US economy.

"We were starting at a recession when I [Bush] took office. We were starting to get out of it but then 9/11 occurred. In the 3 months following 9/11 US lost 1 million jobs (at least these lost jobs we can blame not on Bush but on 9/11 attacks). Then I gave taxcuts for both poor americans (so they have more money to spend and this tax cut also affects and helps small business owners who comprise of 70% of all jobs in US) and rich americans (a bit more tax cuts there but does help investment side of things). We went to war twice, that too hurts our economy but I believed they were neccessary to protect America. And now we are starting to come out of recession yet again, 308,000 jobs were created for March alone. I think this has been the shortest recession in US history."

Time will tell if this is the shortest recession, oh and believe me, it was about time we went into a recession, just look at the economic cycles for when and how long we usually have recessions. As I stated before I think Bush made a smart move in those tax-cuts and did it for the purpose of helping America, not for petty reasons like helping rich friends. I might be wrong about if he did good to our economy, but at the very least I think Bush tried his best with economy and if he failed, he did not fail horribly. Do people really think he made this tax-cut so that he and/or his rich friends would be free of some tax-cuts. What sort of person do you think we let into presidency. You may say he might have made a mistake, or is stupid, or alienated the world from us, but to say he lies in a big way and went to get presidency to get richer?... people who don't understand the issues and wants to make Bush a scape-goat, or you just hate America, say stuff like that. Most of you haven't in this forum without rational arguements, but I see these biased or propaganda filled opinions a lot irl. I agree with what he said above basically and I agree with his foriegn issues. Go to the ballot if you disagree with me, and please go to the ballot if you agree with me.

[Mattey]

So if terrorism is knowingly putting civilians in danger to further political views then explain this http://www.infoshout.com/the_toll.htm.

[THE ENFORCER]

"We went to war twice, that too hurts our economy. I think this has been the shortest recession in US history."

Generally war is pretty good for the economy comming out of a recession since there is major increases in govt spending. This is what happened in ww2.

Just to be pedantic a recession is defined at two consecutive quarters with negative growth.

We raised the same points in a different way so hopefully others can see our points at two different angles just in case they dont get what one of us is saying at least they can rely on the other statement. Which i think is helpful.

[lunch3]

Mattey, I don't know if those numbers are right at all. But from reading the nytimes repeatedly for like 5 months after the start of the war, from the stuff reported, this is what it looked like to me.

Something like 2,000 civilians killed by Saddam's thugs (fedayemen) many times on purpose or used as sheilds.
1,000 killed by US during military war (precision airstrikes and tank/gun deaths).
1,500 killed by terrorist bombs after military war.
maybe something like 500 civilians killed by US/allied soldiers (mostly at night and mostly police officers mistaken as terrorist or guerillas)

so yeah maybe those numbers are close to accurate if continued until now, almost definitely overestimated because of the bias that these surveys were conducted under in order to push forward a political agenda. So I could see 8,000 civilians killed instead of 10,000, while US/allies killed, mistakenly, probably like 1,500 killed after war during guerilla insurrection and 1,000 during military war. That is a lot, but leaves 5,500 killed by terrorist bombs and by saddam's thugs. Of course this is a very vague estimate, and sorry if I seem insensitive I'm just synical, but it looks for everyone killed by accident by us there are two killed by terrorists or guerillas. A good deal of these terrorists bombs took out 100-200 civilians, maybe like 5 bombings, while many more had like 40 casualties, and many many more had like 10 casualties. Most of this information comes from reading the times daily, it is always possible they are wrong or if I remember incorrectly, but that newspaper is one of the most respected newspapers in the world and if they are very inaccurate that puts a dismal light on all news media.

Enforcer, our country went bankrupt, well not bankrupt but spent a lot of money, because of the war (paying for the added bonuses for soldiers for going into a combat zone and the logistics of transporting and feeding them and resupplying ammo and new costly missles), and many funds to services in our country was cut too because of that indirectly. Plus many people in the world hate the US more (ie tourism drops a lot more) and also not many people would like to invest in business within the US (ie foreign investors) during time of war or if they just don't agree with our foreign policy. The government spends money, yes good in a way, but that money came from somewhere for present services or future funds.

Our economy was hurt by war, but think tax-cuts helped macroeconomically, but our economy is strong and can handle stresses like this every now and then. Just so you guys don't think I'm being a hypocrite I'm joining the Navy and may someday be a statistic, but I think it is worth it for protecting us and spreading democracy in places where evil/corrupt regimes ruled.

[Sarien]

but I think it is worth it for protecting us and spreading democracy in places where evil/corrupt regimes ruled.

In other words, invading sovereign nations who happen to have views incongruent to your own.

How many times has the notion of war with Korea been bandied about here? And war with Iraq.. what is the legal justification for that now that the illegal weapons have proven to be so much smoke and vapor?

You have to understand something.
I don't care if Saddam anally raped 5000 people, then cut their heads off and added them to his palace gate. It is not our fucking business to say a word one, about it, unless that country asks for our help. Does the word "Somalia" mean anything to you? If we keep going and sticking our country's collective dick into how the rest of the world wishes to run their countries, we're going to get it chopped off, big time. By "spreading democracy" you're doing the exact thing at which Saddam is accused:

Invading a Sovereign Nation with force under false pretenses (Saddam: Kuwait USA: Iraq)
Using force to disrupt and control a style of government.
Inserting your value system in place of the old system and accepting no alternatives.

Let's not forget something here... many.. many .. many.. countries out there have heads of state that aren't exactly elected. You may take this as an insult, I don't know. But entering the military for that reason is quite possibly one of the worst mistakes that you can make. Because you can't undo it. You don't get to just pack up and go home. You're trained to kill people, that is the primary function and duty of any branch of military service. Don't let any veneer of justice/duty/patriotism/non-combat roles fool you. If you're in the military and your commander says "kill that person over there" and you don't do it? That's called sedition, and can find yourself on the wrong end of a legally justified firing squad.

[THE ENFORCER]

Enforcer, our country went bankrupt, well not bankrupt but spent a lot of money, because of the war (paying for the added bonuses for soldiers for going into a combat zone and the logistics of transporting and feeding them and resupplying ammo and new costly missles), and many funds to services in our country was cut too because of that indirectly. Plus many people in the world hate the US more (ie tourism drops a lot more) and also not many people would like to invest in business within the US (ie foreign investors) during time of war or if they just don't agree with our foreign policy. The government spends money, yes good in a way, but that money came from somewhere for present services or future funds.

Country was never in dire straights when it came to finances. Spending on the war whether it was giving added income to soldiers right down to purchasing more uniforms goes straight back into the economy unless govt imported the goods which i doubt. Therefore spending on war helps the economy in a downswing this is widely accepted. As for foregin investors not many would invest in US anyway because of the state of the economy however money does the most walking i.e investors are all out to make a buck so if there is a chance to make a profit from US industries most investors would invest anyway i think the whole reasoning why many investors said they not investing in US due to Iraq was because they werent gonna invest anyway as the economy was in a downturn but they chose to say that so they can be perceived as being patriotic to thier country and create goodwill for its citizens (goodwill=reputation which can lead to more money).

Good that you ar joining the navy, but im confused is it because you feel patriotic to USA and think that you will be needed by your country or for social reasons like you want to help out other people (could be US citizens or abroad) both reasons are good reasoning but i would guess navy would prefer you to join out of patriotism or is it both?. Btw im joining the army reserves.

To Sarien i would feel obliged to go in to a country and protect its citizens from harsh rulers who oppress their citizens thats more of a humane view point then what you are saying. If most citizens in a country are being tormented and living out of fear its the role of other countries to help that should be the one lesson learnt from the holocaust. As for saying we only go in once they ask for help is unrealistic, taking Iraq as a case study these citizens would be afraid to say anything agianst Saddam or would have been shot so how can they ask USA for help? You got to remember these people are not living under the same rules as US citizens they dont have freedom of speech and such. What you say is unrealisitic in the extreme cases and its in these extreme cases that need the most intervention. That is the most humane view point.

As for being trained to kill people in the army, there are many positions you can take where in all your service may have no need to even fire a gun! beyond basic training. The army, navy and airforce is the best institution to teach you leadership and self development while having the satisfaction that you are protecting your country and its interest. I think basic training is something everyone should do. But you may not feel that patriotic as me therefore probably take alot of things for granted in your nation. If you feel that your country has treated you well then there is no other reason why you shouldnt join the service and especially not deter people who will eventually protect your ass!