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

[Gemfire]

I've not read most of these posts, but ill put my two cents in on one topic...dont know if its been stated or not...Most people believe that every US Citizen is 100% behind the war in Iraq...but that isnt true...some(if not most) of us just want our soldiers (and family of many, many people) home safe and sound..and out of Iraq(part of the reason im saying go kerry! :d)

Did Spain vow to attack Iraq or Afgan after that bombing of Marid?

Um...kind of a bad parallel...seeing as theyre both already taken over

[THE ENFORCER]

Most people believe that every US Citizen is 100% behind the war in Iraq...but that isnt true...some(if not most) of us just want our soldiers (and family of many, many people) home safe and sound..and out of Iraq(part of the reason im saying go kerry! :d)

Who the hell thinks that, im Australian and i see so many protests (in US) on news about the Iraq war leading up to it and so many interviews (Americans) on people speaking out agianst it so i dont think anyone believes all US citizens support the Iraq war!
If the think that about US citizens the same could be said about Aust citizens and i know that alot of Aust citizens are agianst the Iraq war!

[THE ENFORCER]

just got one comment:

who/what give US the right to attack anyone he wants? "Oh we attack Iraq because they have WMD".. well, do they? "Oh we attack al Qieda because they are terrorists".. well, do you have to kill so many civiliances too?
Did Spain vow to attack Iraq or Afgan after that bombing of Marid? no.. So why does US has the right to attack someone instantly? EVEN without UN's approval?
Somethings need action and to rely on the UN to do it is placing all your eggs in an unstable basket!To wait for the UN to do what it did in the gulf war (which was a watershed for the UN) is like waiting for some intervention from G-d, it can take forever!Who gives US the right? the US do, if the US dont fight for injustices then no-one will-they are the superpower of the world! The point about spain is irrelevant anyway because they initally were for the war the only reason they pulled out is because they were afraid of terrorist attacks, (alittle too close to home)! The only thing that turned the election around was that attack, otherwise spanish soliders would still be in Iraq as it was shown statisically that the spanish party in charge would retain its power as that socialist party was way too behind!

And have you ever wondered why all these things happened while Bush is in power? Bush, like his dad, are power/war-hunger, if i may, morons.
-Maybe they arent war hungry but rather prefer take action then let civilians die!!! Just because many other presidents did nothing when it came to war doesnt mean the ones that do take action are war hungry!

O ya, and talk about smart. Good job to Bush for using 9/11 as his campaign ad.

I think Bush has done a good job against terrorism and i hope he is re-elected because voting for Kerry due to the economy is stupid as the economy is going to turn itself around (Bush nor Kerry cant do anything more).

[THE ENFORCER]

What drives a person to be Homosexual?

Your moms face!

[Amok]

You say you're Aussie yet you spell mum like an American..?

[THE ENFORCER]

You say you're Aussie yet you spell mum like an American..?

I do that purposefully so i dont get some pedantic idiot stating ahhh you spelt mom wrong! I acutally go back an edit each post if i realize i made a spelling error that an American would pick up so i dont get those annoying posts.

[Displaced]

There may be a greater proportion of Jewish people in power than there is in the actual population. But to think they control the US is very dumb to think. Whereas they may be like 1% in population, they maybe control 5% of politics maybe. We fight on Israel's side because they are being bombed and they have a very democratic well run country where everyone lives relatively well. Talk to some Arabs that live in Israel, they have nothing to do with jihad or terrorism because they have no reason for it. Also if you have been to Saudi Arabia, I doubt you are a westerner (unless very rich and influential) because Saudi Arabia hardly ever let's foreigners in. You probably are in the Saudi elite and everyone around has benefitted because of the oil. But most people don't and have no say at all in your government.

Im from Finland, and very much non muslim, however pretty much any westener can gain access to Saudi, given he can find himself a local sponsor, as well as gain a work/entry visa (lots of paperwork and over 6 months of waiting) but its not "hard".

as for the "controlling" of the US by jewish people. im not stating my opinions, rather reasons for why Arabs dont like the US government. This statement comes from 14 years of experience in the ME, and as such is a "concencis" of how the "general" population in the ME feels about the US government.

Im not anti semetic, i dont feel any way about the israel/palestine "scenario" or about much else for that matter.

If you want to talk about Iraq, the number of civilians that died by US forces/bombs are probably equivalent to those killed within 2 months, on average, by Saddam and his man in order to keep the fear and terror that allows them their regime to exist

ive been to Baghdad (after the first desert storm), it is not as bad as you describe it. sure its not exactly the best place on earth, with a low standard of living, and not exactly the best judicial systems etc, however had the iraqi people REALLY wanted change, they would have been able to change it by themselves. Sure getting Saddam out is a commendable thing, but the way it was handled and done is why the Iraqi people are so against the US.

Also, many Iraqis (especially "better off" young people) treat Saddam like a hero for standing up to the US and not backing down to their demands, as well as not fleeing the country when war broke out. The US has created a martyr out of Saddam, and i dont see Iraq becoming a better place in the long run from this emposed government.

Sooner or later someone else will come to power (not put there by the Bush Administration) who could be just as bad as Saddam. Leave it alone, itl sort itself out eventually.

[THE ENFORCER]

as for the "controlling" of the US by jewish people. im not stating my opinions, rather reasons for why Arabs dont like the US government. This statement comes from 14 years of experience in the ME, and as such is a "concencis" of how the "general" population in the ME feels about the US government.

Im not anti semetic, i dont feel any way about the israel/palestine "scenario" or about much else for that matter.

Could of fooled me, maybe next time you should state outright that you dont feel this way..............

[lunch3]

ive been to Baghdad (after the first desert storm), it is not as bad as you describe it.

Well I disagree with most of your post, but I have already stated views on them. But above quote I can add some new knowledge too.

1. Fedayamen (think spelled wrong but basically aka Saddam's henchmen) will probably not take someone away for questioning and torture in front of a westerner.

2. Baghdad is in the center of Iraq, where the Sunni's, Saddam's people, live and prosper compared to other faiths in Iraq. There are some Shiite slums but I doubt you been there. Also Shites live in the southern part of country mostly while the Kurds live in the northern part of the country. It is in the south where most of this happens, while the Kurds, before the recent war and after the Gulf war, were semi-automous and free of Saddam's people partly because they halfway succeeded in their rebellion while the US helped their autonomy by making the north a no fly zone (ie no warplanes can quell rebellion, but helicoptors could still for some reason). So no wonder you didn't see it.

3. To remove all doubt read about all the mass graves they found and interviews of people who escaped by pretending to be dead as they were lined up for firing squad and buried in huge shared pit.

Also you are right some view Saddam as matyr, but not many, and most of them are Sunni's who benefitted from Saddam. But there is a decent amount of people outside Iraq who believe he was matyr just because they hate US and Saddam defended against US. But I'm sure those pictures of Saddam being found in a rat hole and not putting up a fight made his matyr image die for those that believed the reports. But of course there are many synicle people out there that think Saddam is still on run or fighting US, laff.

[Dabram]

I decided to read this thread and I'm surprised how little most of you know. If we ever want to solve terrorism we will have to look at the roots of terrorism. If we ever want to be able to solve this problem, which is with no doubt the biggest issue in the world atm, we have to look at our own actions and realise we are as much to blame for terrorism as the terrorists-self.
I can't really be bothered enough to write a long post myself about this since what Richard said is pretty much the truth.

Anyway I decided to google for a minute, and pretty soon found these two links, that I believe pretty accuratly show what's the problem with the world today;

http://www.stickman-escrima.com/NYC/capra.htm
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/brainard/20011227.htm

[THE ENFORCER]

"Conditions that breed violence and terrorism can at least be moderated through efforts to resolve conflicts and through assistance for economic development, education, and population control.
and above all justice and prosperity for the poor and dispossessed"
Quotes from your first link,
Isnt that what Bush is doing, by invading Iraq and forcing a change in govt to a more democratic style should increase wealth per person in Iraq rather than letting one dictator control all the wealth?? (and i have already said that money is the biggest problem with terrorism), Rather than Saddam manipulate the edcuation system a democratic govt is able to have a fairer and more accurate education system?

"established by the WTO were manifestly unsustainable and were producing a multitude of interconnected fatal consequences — a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, a disastrous maldistribution of wealth, and increasing poverty and alienation around the world."- so far that hasnt and i doubt will happen! Globalisation and free trade increases wealth. That theory he stated simply doesnt make sense to me, especially since the things he has forecasted has not happened it and there are no signs that it will!

"nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has emerged, which demands greater transparency in the establishment of market rules and independent reviews of the ensuing social and environmental consequences"- this is going to worsen the economic state of arab countries, most of thier income is from oil now they will either have to pay significant fees for the penalty on the environment or not supply oil at all because of the determient to environment?- that will bankrupt most arab countries!

"ten years of sanctions and military attacks against Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of half a million children"- I doubt that, thats true.

"US. government continually tries to "stabilize" various regions and, in doing so, has often supported undemocratic and repressive regimes. This has included the training and financing of death squads and other support to governments that have engaged in widespread terrorism against their own populations. Ironically, the U.S. has at times supported hard-line Islamic movements."- I dont think the US govt knowingly supported some of these islamic extremists only to have them hit USA back?

"Promoting a peace agreement that includes the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the establishment of a safe and secure Palestinian state together with the guaranteed existence of an equally safe and secure Israeli state, each with its own territorial integrity."- good luck trying to convince palastiens of that, they reject the whole notion of Israel they dont want any part of Israel in the ME.

"In order to carry out these shifts of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, it will be crucial to sever our dependence on Saudi oil. A shift of energy policy from the current heavy emphasis on fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and conservation is not only imperative for moving toward ecological sustainability, but must also be seen as vital to our security"- this is already happening wind and solar power is growing intensively.

Dude everyone knows about these points they are no secret, we must use renewable energy sources, we must increase the wealth and income to be more evenly distributed in the world hes living in a dream world the fact is these things although are achievable will take along time to happen so we have to focus on the immediate goals in detering terrorism such as assinating terrorist leaders and bringing terrorist training camps to an end, creating democratic states through the use of military support until technology is advanced enough to solve these problems. Bringing down the actual structure of terrorism and constructing democratic states in these arab countries is an immediate achievable solution although the actual dissent of civilians will either be solved through democracy or technology but advancement of technology is slow.

To all you people at there dont bother reading the first link, this guy doesnt state anything new ill read the second link later on.

[Displaced]

lunch3 dont get me wrong, im not calling baghdad a nice place.. but its not as bad as the media make it seem..

its not like constant gunfire, torture, killing ppl on the streets etc. sure people were being oppressed, tortured and killed. The same shit happens in Iran too. i dont see the us going over there any time soon.

[Azhran]

more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, a disastrous maldistribution of wealth, and increasing poverty and alienation around the world."- so far that hasnt and i doubt will happen! Globalisation and free trade increases wealth.

Oh really?

[THE ENFORCER]

Oh really?

Ofcourse those things have happened but its not mainly due to the free trade or globalisation its just because of the inefficientcies of technology. Its not like abolishing free trade or globalisation is going to get rid of pollution....

Okay i see how you got that, i actually didnt include all the relevant parts in that quote sorry...
"the mid-1990s this framework for economic globalization was hailed by corporate leaders and politicians as a new order that would benefit all nations, producing worldwide economic expansion whose wealth would "trickle down" to all. However, it soon became apparent to increasing numbers of grassroots activists, both in the United States and around the world, that the new economic rules established by the WTO were manifestly unsustainable and were producing a multitude of interconnected fatal consequences — a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, a disastrous maldistribution of wealth, and increasing poverty and alienation around the world." thats the full quote...

Man i love that ninja where did you get it??

[lunch3]

I decided to read this thread and I'm surprised how little most of you know. If we ever want to solve terrorism we will have to look at the roots of terrorism. If we ever want to be able to solve this problem, which is with no doubt the biggest issue in the world atm, we have to look at our own actions and realise we are as much to blame for terrorism as the terrorists-self.
I can't really be bothered enough to write a long post myself about this since what Richard said is pretty much the truth.

Anyway I decided to google for a minute, and pretty soon found these two links, that I believe pretty accuratly show what's the problem with the world today;

http://www.stickman-escrima.com/NYC/capra.htm
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/brainard/20011227.htm

Thanks for the ammo Dabram, your links and also what you said seems to be what I believe mostly at heart. The first link looks like a thesis by Fritjof Capra, a prominent physicist, systems theorist, and best-selling author who studies how to better human society. The second link is about both sides of the world trade of agriculture and textiles between US and developing nations.

This following quote is for you Displaced from the first link,

To summarize, at the core of the multiple causes of the recent terrorist attacks against the United States lies the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf and our support of the repressive Saudi regime. This presence, in turn, is a consequence of our dependence on Saudi oil, due to many years of misguided energy policies.

We protect Saudi Arabia in return for being able to buy their oil. We should be investing more on electric-car technologies, which have already been developed to a degree where we can commercially use these cars with 'some' performance losses and for only a 'moderately' higher price. Electric cars will also help our environment.

Below is what this guy believes should be US's foreign policy in order to fight terrorism.

Policy shifts
In the long run, the United States will be able to reduce the terrorist threats only if it adopts a series of policy shifts to deal with the legitimate grievances that often underlie terrorist acts. Systemic thinking means shifting our focus from attempting to crush terrorist movements to pursuing policies that discourage their emergence. The following two policy shifts would go a long way toward increasing our national security.

1. A reassessment of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf, including pressure on the Saudi regime to move toward democratization and the provision of basic human rights.

2. Promoting a peace agreement that includes the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the establishment of a safe and secure Palestinian state together with the guaranteed existence of an equally safe and secure Israeli state, each with its own territorial integrity. This would bring the United States in line with international law, UN Security Council resolutions, and with the views of virtually the entire international community. In the words of the Israeli novelist and peace activist Amos Oz, With or without Islamic fundamentalism, with or without Arab terrorism, there is no justification whatsoever for the lasting occupation and suppression of the Palestinian people by Israel. We have no right to deny Palestinians their natural right to self-determination.

This guy believes that this can be done through talks and peaceably. Although granted I think it might work, it would take very many many years in form of decades. I, and people like Bush, believe this can be speed up with war to bring the point home to ME countries that they need to change. Also us handling reconstruction instead of waiting for ME governments to reform is also a lot faster.

In that second policy, that is what Bush has already tried to some succes but honestly not much. The terror attacks need to stop for this to become reality.

This guy in first think is mostly for energy reform that would lessen our dependance on oil and therefore we will not have to sacrifice our moralty when it comes to ME policies.

What THE ENFORCER said is a good point I would have shown if he didn't. Lolz, seems like we are tag teaming against the ignorant, although he is by far more subtle and less insulting.

Now for the second link, I agree with both the arguements presented there to a degree. The US is protecting our agriculture and textile industries by limiting our high tariffing imports because US doesn't want its civilians to lose jobs. But developing countries need these industries as stepping stone into modernization and these tariffs are hurting them greatly. Also from second article,

At the same time, the campaign against terrorism has reminded Americans that our security depends on ensuring that other countries have a stake in the international system—which can only be done if the wealthy nations lower their trade barriers. Delaying the integration of many millions of people into the international economic system has real political costs, as may soon become apparent in Central and South Asia and elsewhere.

I think us, and other developed nations, should stop being so whiney and protective of themselves economically. Maybe we should keep tariffs but gradually lower them so that people in the textile and agriculture have a chance to, over time, find other work or convert their industries for another purpose or market. Then developing nations can develop because it is the right thing to do. Also, like said above, terrorism might grow in these places if we keep them unfairly down economically.

PS Whose Richard?