Skip to main content

RE: http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...0305/1117/OPINIONS05

The best way to support you're friends and relatives in Iraq is to bring them home. Now if you want to support Bush, Cheney, and other republican war mongers. join up. get yourself one of those cute Nazi helmets, and some boots made in China, and have at it.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by c.patterson:
Have you already forgotten 911? I would much rather fight the war on their soil then ours......or are you too unaware not to realize that we are indeed "in a war". How sad for you and all the other liberals in this country. May Bush and Chaney continue defending us. I am very proud of them.


although I dont totally buy into Tegger's reply, I sure dont buy into yours.

Iraq would have NEVER come to our soil... and in case you have forgotten, 9/11 WAS on our soil... and going to Iraq is NOT keeping them off of our soil, not one bit.

Bin Laden has Sleeper Cells here on OUR soil right now, this very second!!! We can NEVER forget that...

But to use all that crap as an excuse for being in Iraq is so lame...

I don't mean to be ugly, but this has been discussed so many times, and the general consensus is just what I said.
c.patterson:

Have you already forgotten 911? I would much rather fight the war on their soil then ours......or are you too unaware not to realize that we are indeed "in a war". How sad for you and all the other liberals in this country. May Bush and Cheney continue defending us. I am very proud of them.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Iraq did not attack us and there were WMD. There were no "terrorist" in Iraq until we invaded. Since our occupation al Qaeda has grown but they are only a small part of the resistance. At the start the Sunni resistance wanted no part of al Qaeda and even had minor skirmishes with them but since the war has intensified and a civil war has broken out they are moving closer to them.

If we withdraw support for al Qaeda will dry up.

The war has only made it worse and hatred for the US and west has grown around the world. The London and Madrid bombings were both in retaliation for the war.

Al Qeada is really a small group that wants to drive the west from the region. They were decimated after the war in Afghanistan and the capture, mainly by Pakistan, of a number of their leaders. But since the war have now regrouped with new recruits.

Bush and Cheney are only after the oil.
quote:
Originally posted by c.patterson:
Have you already forgotten 911? I would much rather fight the war on their soil then ours......or are you too unaware not to realize that we are indeed "in a war". How sad for you and all the other liberals in this country. May Bush and Chaney continue defending us. I am very proud of them.



Oh boy... Roll Eyes


Just crawled out from under that rock did ya?

Even dumbya himself is on record saying that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11! From his own lips.

Let's not even start up that "have you forgotten" crap again.
quote:
Originally posted by hammbone:
From the looks of the replies to c.patterson's comment--this looks like a pro-liberal board. Isn't this newspaper owned by the NYT? How "fair and balanced" is that?


Can you please explain this? I cannot get the point you are trying to make here and its relevance to the topic?

Thanks Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by hammbone:
From the looks of the replies to c.patterson's comment--this looks like a pro-liberal board. Isn't this newspaper owned by the NYT? How "fair and balanced" is that?


Can you please explain this? I cannot get the point you are trying to make here and its relevance to the topic?

Thanks Smiler



Ahhh...I wouldn't worry about it. No biggie. It's just a usual side step reply one uses when confronted with facts that are inconvenient for their beliefs.


No liberal vs conservative thing here. Just the facts mam Wink
quote:
Originally posted by w_z:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by hammbone:
From the looks of the replies to c.patterson's comment--this looks like a pro-liberal board. Isn't this newspaper owned by the NYT? How "fair and balanced" is that?


Can you please explain this? I cannot get the point you are trying to make here and its relevance to the topic?

Thanks Smiler



Ahhh...I wouldn't worry about it. No biggie. It's just a usual side step reply one uses when confronted with facts that are inconvenient for their beliefs.


No liberal vs conservative thing here. Just the facts mam Wink


LOL... I like you w_z.. you bring a lot of humor to the forums!!!
quote:
Originally posted by hammbone:
From the looks of the replies to c.patterson's comment--this looks like a pro-liberal board. Isn't this newspaper owned by the NYT? How "fair and balanced" is that?



It's called a majority! Get used to it! Just by the fact that yours and c.patterson's posts are allowed and still on this thread is proof that these forums are somewhat fair and balanced! So far, anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 - If you continue to beleave that line of bull**** - I suggest you PROVIDE PROOF! Then give it to the pathetic bush administration, I am quite sure they could use it at the moment. bush&co. are a failure - time to wake up and smell the coffee.


Ditto, what you said
quote:
Originally posted by c.patterson:
Have you already forgotten 911? I would much rather fight the war on their soil then ours......or are you too unaware not to realize that we are indeed "in a war". How sad for you and all the other liberals in this country. May Bush and Chaney continue defending us. I am very proud of them.
join up! No other solution to the problem, if you can't join the military, donate to the war as much as you can.

9/11 has NOT ONE D*** THING TO DO WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ. THE WAR IN IRAQ IS NOT THE WAR ON TERROR, IT IS THE WAR OF AGGRESSION ON IRAQ.
quote:
Originally posted by hammbone:
From the looks of the replies to c.patterson's comment--this looks like a pro-liberal board. Isn't this newspaper owned by the NYT? How "fair and balanced" is that?
hambone, I resent that comment. I RESENT IT A LOT. I don't work for Times Daily or the NYT. I appreciate the fact that I have not been banned from this forum. VERY MUCH appreciate that, since Rush Limbaugh does not have a forum, and the one I know of that supports his position has not had a new comment in over a year.

THE COMMENT YOU MADE CONCERNING THE "NATURE" OF THIS FORUM IS AN INSULT TO THIS FORUM AND ITS MODERATORS.

You should be aware that what you are calling Liberal is a free and open exchange of opposiing viewpoints, collected in a single space by Times Daily. Your comment is an example of an effort to SILENCE your opposition. If you have an opinion, write it down and post it.

IF NOT, GO AWAY SONNY YOU BOTHER ME.
I am sort of new to this Forum also and when I first came on I was "confronted," Challenged" and "attacked" by a number of pro war, pro Bush conservatives. They happen not to be on at this time.

I think that we should refrain from personal attacks and insults, after all, this is not TV or right wing talk radio, we are actually trying to have a serious discussion of the issues, not a food fight.

C.paterson has a right to an opinion, even if they are wrong Smiler And we have a right to disagree. We all jumped in but the pro war people aren't on at this time.

I think many of us disagree with Bush and are tired of his using the "terrorism Card" to promote his wars. We are also tired of our patriotism being questioned because we disagree with Bush.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
I am sort of new to this Forum also and when I first came on I was "confronted," Challenged" and "attacked" by a number of pro war, pro Bush conservatives. They happen not to be on at this time.

I think that we should refrain from personal attacks and insults, after all, this is not TV or right wing talk radio, we are actually trying to have a serious discussion of the issues, not a food fight.

C.paterson has a right to an opinion, even if they are wrong Smiler And we have a right to disagree. We all jumped in but the pro war people aren't on at this time.

I think many of us disagree with Bush and are tired of his using the "terrorism Card" to promote his wars. We are also tired of our patriotism being questioned because we disagree with Bush.
Well put, and taken under consideration. I find myself shamed on occasion because I find an intellect behind some posts like hammbone's.
But, I'm unapologetic, The comment was not appropriate, it was insulting, and I am unwilling to allow insults to go unanswered. It is a combative position, and I know it is.

I decided, a few years ago, to take "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing," to heart.

So despite the approbation of other good people, I am MILITANT.

The fine line between assertion and aggression is easily crossed, and to the observer, I often cross it.

I try, very hard, to react in kind, without being excessive. But I am not going to stop reacting.
To get back to the topic.

quote:
Originally posted by Teggere:
The best way to support you're friends and relatives in Iraq is to bring them home. Now if you want to support Bush, Cheney, and other republican war mongers. join up. get yourself one of those cute Nazi helmets, and some boots made in China, and have at it.
I am in total agreement with the sentiment expressed,

Another way is to provide justification, not mere rationalization, for the invasion of Iraq. Justification does not include 1) revenge, 2) domination, 3) religious crusade.
Justification does include, 1) defense of life and property in the USA, 2) prevention of genocide and mass murder anywhere, 3) assuring the free movement of goods from region to region.

Now, tell me how the aggression against Iraq has any justification!
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
c.patterson:

Have you already forgotten 911? I would much rather fight the war on their soil then ours......or are you too unaware not to realize that we are indeed "in a war". How sad for you and all the other liberals in this country. May Bush and Cheney continue defending us. I am very proud of them.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Iraq did not attack us and there were WMD. There were no "terrorist" in Iraq until we invaded. Since our occupation al Qaeda has grown but they are only a small part of the resistance. At the start the Sunni resistance wanted no part of al Qaeda and even had minor skirmishes with them but since the war has intensified and a civil war has broken out they are moving closer to them.

If we withdraw support for al Qaeda will dry up.

The war has only made it worse and hatred for the US and west has grown around the world. The London and Madrid bombings were both in retaliation for the war.

Al Qeada is really a small group that wants to drive the west from the region. They were decimated after the war in Afghanistan and the capture, mainly by Pakistan, of a number of their leaders. But since the war have now regrouped with new recruits.

Bush and Cheney are only after the oil.



I agree pogo 100%!
c.patterson you are correct in that this is a very liberal forum. Timesdaily is also a very liberal newspaper. I still support Bush and the war. Iraq funded and sponsered terrorism plain and simple. 6 months after 9/11 when Bush told the country we would go after anyone who supported terrorism, 90 % of the country was behind him. The war in Iraq is winnable.

You know, America after 9/11 was similar to Virginia Tech after the shootings. Try whispering in someone's ear that you have a gun and then walk across Va Tech's campus today. Then when the police confront you, play games with them and see what they do to you. Now, 5 years from now when police shoot a college kid screwing around with a fake gun on campus, they will be grilled. Civil rights violations, Excessive force and so on.

Lord have mercy if the liberls are wrong. Maybe they are right. Maybe we can just pull out of Iraq. Of course those people over there have hated us forever and they will continue to hate us no matter what.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
c.patterson you are correct in that this is a very liberal forum. Timesdaily is also a very liberal newspaper. I still support Bush and the war. Iraq funded and sponsered terrorism plain and simple. 6 months after 9/11 when Bush told the country we would go after anyone who supported terrorism, 90 % of the country was behind him. The war in Iraq is winnable.

You know, America after 9/11 was similar to Virginia Tech after the shootings. Try whispering in someone's ear that you have a gun and then walk across Va Tech's campus today. Then when the police confront you, play games with them and see what they do to you. Now, 5 years from now when police shoot a college kid screwing around with a fake gun on campus, they will be grilled. Civil rights violations, Excessive force and so on.

Lord have mercy if the liberls are wrong. Maybe they are right. Maybe we can just pull out of Iraq. Of course those people over there have hated us forever and they will continue to hate us no matter what.
When you personally hate someone, USA1, do you know why you hate them? When an Iraqi Hates America do you think he has NO REASON TO HATE AMERICA. Do you just generally hate people without some cause?
YOUR STANCE ON THIS ISSUE IS IRRATIONAL, INSANE, DELUSIONAL, AND JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Edekit,

They hate us when a democrat is president, they hate us under a republican president. They hate us when we talk with deplomacy, they hate us when we bomb them. They hate our freedom. They hate our secular non Muslim government. They hate the overwhelming number of christians in this country. However, they also hate a country that has the ability to turn their entire country into a big sheet of glass.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

They hate us when a democrat is president, they hate us under a republican president. They hate us when we talk with deplomacy, they hate us when we bomb them. They hate our freedom. They hate our secular non Muslim government. They hate the overwhelming number of christians in this country. However, they also hate a country that has the ability to turn their entire country into a big sheet of glass.
USA 1,
The more I read what you have to say the more aware I am of my inability to communicate with you. You use the word Socialism to mean a form of tyranny and oppression. That is not correct. If you mean tyranny and/or oppression use those words. If you mean Dictatorship, use that word. When I say socialism, I mean socialism, not tyranny, when I say fascism, I mean fascism not tyranny.
My problem with conversing with you is I have to translate what you say into English. In the process I cannot exactly match your meaning, so it becomes nearly impossible to respond to you in a manner that you can comprehend. For one thing, when I use a word, I know the meaning of the word. When you read what I post in the future please keep a good dictionary handy. I am getting tired of responding to your gibberish.
quote:

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized

Mussolini, the man best known as a fascist leader said it would better be called corporatism.
quote:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


This is another case, but in this instance you are just brainwashed. There are over a million Muslims in the United States. There are over a billion, 500 million Muslims on Earth. THEY ACTUALLY OUTNUMBER CHRISTIANS.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

They hate us when a democrat is president, they hate us under a republican president. They hate us when we talk with deplomacy, they hate us when we bomb them. They hate our freedom. They hate our secular non Muslim government. They hate the overwhelming number of christians in this country. However, they also hate a country that has the ability to turn their entire country into a big sheet of glass.



"They hate our freedom."


AAARRRRGGGHHHHH! This quote just drives me CRAZY!! NOBODY HATES US FOR OUR FREEDOM!


"they hate us when we bomb them."

Now this we can agree on!


You tell'em Ed! Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by w_z:
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

They hate us when a democrat is president, they hate us under a republican president. They hate us when we talk with deplomacy, they hate us when we bomb them. They hate our freedom. They hate our secular non Muslim government. They hate the overwhelming number of christians in this country. However, they also hate a country that has the ability to turn their entire country into a big sheet of glass.



"They hate our freedom."


AAARRRRGGGHHHHH! This quote just drives me CRAZY!! NOBODY HATES US FOR OUR FREEDOM!


"they hate us when we bomb them."

Now this we can agree on!


You tell'em Ed! Smiler


That term "they hate us for our freedom" was coined by Idiot, and his worshipers use it to justify whatever they want to do in Iraq.
Ed does an excellent job "tellin em"
Al Qaeda does hate our freedoms but they are really a small group of religious extremists, they number in the thousands among over a billion Muslims world wide.

The majority of Muslim people want freedoms also. Many are repressed by governments that use Islam to carryout their repression. Many of these governments are supported by the US.

Al Qeada's main goal is to drive Western domination from the region. In this goal they have been recruiting more as the US continues to carry out it's war in Iraq. The west has dominated and carved up the region, for the oil, since WW1.

Israelis stepped up ethnic cleansing and stealing land has also inflamed the region, which the US supports.

The only people I see here that "hate our freedoms" are Bush and the right wing who are busy telling us we have "too much freedom" and are carryout an assault on our constitution, telling us we will have to "give up our freedoms."

It is the liberals who are defending our freedoms and the constitution. Bush's wars are over oil under the guise of the "War on Terror."
Edekit,

I see it as you are the one who is brainwashed.
You are an extreme left wing activist. Your mission on this planet is to spread your "gospel". Well, i dont buy into your BS.
We have already had a conversation on socialism.
You distorted the word...but thats ok for you to do.

Speaking of gospel....Just a curious question...ED are you an atheist?
This is another case, but in this instance you are just brainwashed. There are over a million Muslims in the United States. There are over a billion, 500 million Muslims on Earth. THEY ACTUALLY OUTNUMBER CHRISTIANS.[/QUOTE]



Christianity is the majority faith in this country. I said this country, stop taking my comments out of text.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
Al Qaeda does hate our freedoms but they are really a small group of religious extremists, they number in the thousands among over a billion Muslims world wide.

The majority of Muslim people want freedoms also. Many are repressed by governments that use Islam to carryout their repression. Many of these governments are supported by the US.

Al Qeada's main goal is to drive Western domination from the region. In this goal they have been recruiting more as the US continues to carry out it's war in Iraq. The west has dominated and carved up the region, for the oil, since WW1.

Israelis stepped up ethnic cleansing and stealing land has also inflamed the region, which the US supports.

The only people I see here that "hate our freedoms" are Bush and the right wing who are busy telling us we have "too much freedom" and are carryout an assault on our constitution, telling us we will have to "give up our freedoms."

It is the liberals who are defending our freedoms and the constitution. Bush's wars are over oil under the guise of the "War on Terror."


You are exactly right Pogo.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

I see it as you are the one who is brainwashed.
You are an extreme left wing activist. Your mission on this planet is to spread your "gospel". Well, i dont buy into your BS.
We have already had a conversation on socialism.
You distorted the word...but thats ok for you to do.

Speaking of gospel....Just a curious question...ED are you an atheist? YES, and it is one of the reasons I have not been brainwashed
first, I am not an extreme left wing activist. though I am an activist and I am militant, I am not an extremist.

One, I have been exposed to brainwashing, and "cured" of the effects. So I am a convert, and I do have the "passion of the convert." I was an extremist, a long time ago, but I have matured.
USA 1 I know myself very well, and I don't need you to be trying to explain me to me.
quote:
This is another case, but in this instance you are just brainwashed. There are over a million Muslims in the United States. There are over a billion, 500 million Muslims on Earth. THEY ACTUALLY OUTNUMBER CHRISTIANS.



Christianity is the majority faith in this country. I said this country, stop taking my comments out of text.
I think you meant context, not text. If you read the response, you should have comprehended that I agreed with your statement that the US is majority Christian. I added to that statement that over 20% (less than a majority) of the world's population is Muslim, and about 20% of the world is Christian. COMBINED, CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS AND JEWS, MAKE UP ABOUT 40% of the world's population. Each of those three religions is attempting to dominate the entire world. That my friend, is the source of the conflict.

Let us consider a hypothetical. Five men see a woman drowning. Each man believes that if he saves the woman she will become his life mate. Two of the men begin fighting to prevent the other from saving the woman. A third man cannot swim, gives up and walks away. Another is distracted from the drowning woman by the fight, and begins cheering on the man he knows, hoping the man he does not know will be defeated. The last man, grabs a couple of life preservers and goes into the water. He saves the woman, and the winner of the fight decides to take the woman away from him. He is tired from the fight, the rescuer is tired from the rescue. They commence fighting over the woman. THE MAN WHO CHEERED ON THE LOOSER OF THE FIRST FIGHT, AND THE WOMAN WALK AWAY ARM IN ARM.

So, we have the Christians fighting the Muslims, The Third world cannot run in this horse race they don't have a horse. The Russians are helping the Muslims. The Chinese are just watching the fight.

So, when the dust settles, and we, or the Muslims are fighting the Russians, the Chinese are going to walk away with the oil. And the third world still doesn't have a horse. Or a woman.I do love parables.
Last edited by Karl Leuba
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Edekit,

They hate us when a democrat is president, they hate us under a republican president. They hate us when we talk with deplomacy, they hate us when we bomb them. They hate our freedom. They hate our secular non Muslim government. They hate the overwhelming number of christians in this country. However, they also hate a country that has the ability to turn their entire country into a big sheet of glass.



I think they probably hate us MORE under the Republican administration since they are the ones who tore their country apart, MADE the have a democracy that they never asked for, and will not leave when they are sending EVERY message in the book to MAKE us go...

And, for the most part, they have ALWAYS hated us, no matter what, just more now.

But, they always left us alone, Saddam was at one time a business partner of a VERY illustrious Family in the USA... when he sold out his part, his country changed... BIG TIME...
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Your parable would have been alot better if you had of included Israel somewhere.

Militant are you? HMMMM
I suppose that's correct, Israel is in the mix, sort of our big toe, stuck into the middle east to be either a foothold or something to be stepped on so we have an excuse for being angry.
Edit begins here
Yes, Militant. "All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Yes, I am militant, as opposed to apathetic.

USA 1, you are also militant, you militate for principals. I too militate for principals. The conflict is that I militate For individual liberty, and while I am sure you disagree on this, you militate for oppression of the individual in favor of the power elite. I don't think you even know that most of what you support is destructive to your individual liberty, but you believe it is beneficial to your security. Free men are never secure in their liberty. They are dependent on the others in society for respect of their liberty.

I have entered a debate with you. It is incumbent on me to clarify any issue I present that you question. It is also incumbent on me, in the exercise of free speech, to listen to your argument.

I am obligated to respond to your comment, "Your parable would have been alot (sic) better if you had of included Israel somewhere."
I recognize that obligation, and that is why I posted the reply to it. I then began a new response, and rather than posting another comment on the thread, decided to edit this one to define "militant" to clarify my meaning. Militant carries implications, one, "belligerent" may well apply in your assessment of me. But, had I intended that meaning, I would have used that word.

quote:
From a study guide: http://www.uni.edu/earth/EECP/mid/mod5_la.html Debate Etiquette

* Introductions should precede the debate
* Each speech should contain an opening analysis which relates to the statements made by the preceding speaker. It is important to make references to what your opponent has said.
* The debater should not offer emotional appeals. H/she should concentrate on the evidence.
* The debater should never falsify, create or distort evidence.
* The debater should never publicly disagree with the decision of the judge or the audience. Winners need to be congratulated by the opposition.
* Debaters address their remarks to the judge or audience, not to the opposing side. It is important to give the audience eye contact.
* Debaters should avoid swaying, shuffling, and pacing.

During the process of debating, it is important to know at a glance what has been presented, attacked, and successfully defended. An Audience Debate Flow Sheet (Appendix C) offers the debater a note system with which to keep track of information presented during the debate.

When the students are ready for the debate, have them sit at two separate tables in the front of the room. The Affirmative side sits on the audience's left. In order to keep the student audience involved, the audience will be required to take notes on the debate. These notes will also be used to create games in Activity 2 of this module. Before beginning inform students of some typical "Debator's Lingo" which they might want to use.
The guide is instructions to Students preparing for a specific debate on "Games Energy Plays" It is presented to explain why I think it is important to clarify as well as present counter or proponent argument.
Last edited by Karl Leuba
EdEKit:

Let us consider a hypothetical. Five men see a woman drowning. Each man believes that if he saves the woman she will become his life mate. Two of the men begin fighting to prevent the other from saving the woman. A third man cannot swim, gives up and walks away. Another is distracted from the drowning woman by the fight, and begins cheering on the man he knows, hoping the man he does not know will be defeated. The last man, grabs a couple of life preservers and goes into the water. He saves the woman, and the winner of the fight decides to take the woman away from him. He is tired from the fight, the rescuer is tired from the rescue. They commence fighting over the woman. THE MAN WHO CHEERED ON THE LOOSER OF THE FIRST FIGHT, AND THE WOMAN WALK AWAY ARM IN ARM.

So, we have the Christians fighting the Muslims, The Third world cannot run in this horse race they don't have a horse. The Russians are helping the Muslims. The Chinese are just watching the fight.

So, when the dust settles, and we, or the Muslims are fighting the Russians, the Chinese are going to walk away with the oil.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

The scenario I have been reading is the US will bankrupt itself on this war while China and India continue to develop their economies. They will be the new economic superpowers and we will be bankrupted with no industries to fall back on.

If the wars continue and escalate like what is being planned there will no doubt be another serious attack on US soil, maybe even more, that will also be an economic burden for us.

The government will probably take away our rights and become extremely authoritarian. Our wages, like under all authoritarian governments will be suppressed and the quality of lives will deteriorate.

Who knows what could happen.

This war is a mistake and only profits corporations and the military industrial complex. Even if we win the war we will lose our country
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
EdEKit:

Let us consider a hypothetical. Five men see a woman drowning. Each man believes that if he saves the woman she will become his life mate. Two of the men begin fighting to prevent the other from saving the woman. A third man cannot swim, gives up and walks away. Another is distracted from the drowning woman by the fight, and begins cheering on the man he knows, hoping the man he does not know will be defeated. The last man, grabs a couple of life preservers and goes into the water. He saves the woman, and the winner of the fight decides to take the woman away from him. He is tired from the fight, the rescuer is tired from the rescue. They commence fighting over the woman. THE MAN WHO CHEERED ON THE LOOSER OF THE FIRST FIGHT, AND THE WOMAN WALK AWAY ARM IN ARM.

So, we have the Christians fighting the Muslims, The Third world cannot run in this horse race they don't have a horse. The Russians are helping the Muslims. The Chinese are just watching the fight.

So, when the dust settles, and we, or the Muslims are fighting the Russians, the Chinese are going to walk away with the oil.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

The scenario I have been reading is the US will bankrupt itself on this war while China and India continue to develop their economies. They will be the new economic superpowers and we will be bankrupted with no industries to fall back on.

If the wars continue and escalate like what is being planned there will no doubt be another serious attack on US soil, maybe even more, that will also be an economic burden for us.

The government will probably take away our rights and become extremely authoritarian. Our wages, like under all authoritarian governments will be suppressed and the quality of lives will deteriorate.

Who knows what could happen.

This war is a mistake and only profits corporations and the military industrial complex. Even if we win the war we will lose our country
Pogo, I think we both see this the same way. Im my parable China and India are the spectators. China is rapidly lending us money, about two trillion dollars if I have the data correct. We are bleeding ourselves buying Chinese made goods.
There are historical examples, The Spanish experience after its gold discoveries in the new world is similar to what the USA is doing right now. Spain exported its wealth to the rest of Europe in exchange for manufactured goods, that they did not need to produce themselves because they were wealthy. The long term effect was an impoverished Spain, and a productive and wealthy Europe.
The USA is, at present, exporting wealth, faster than we are generating wealth, which is what a trade deficit amounts to.
We are, "de facto" exporting our productive capacity so that we don't even have the ability to dress ourselves without imported clothing. The financial beneficiaries are the stockholders in corporations.
We are "de facto" importing labor to do the jobs that cannot be exported, and we find distasteful.
These are the two big economic issues in the US. Trade Deficits, and Illegal Immigration. Both are of great benefit to a very small portion of our population. And, conservatism supports, militantly, continuation of the status quo.

I believe this despite the rhetoric and ineffective proposals for resolving both issues.

THAT IS WHY I AM A LIBERAL.
Pogo,

I agree to the fact that our "industrial might" is fading everyday, but thats a different topic.
Of course the democrats would blame it on corporate america and conservatives would blame it on Unions. I blame it on both.

As i have said before, i believe the war we are in is a winnable war.

It's ironic that China along with most middle eastern countries depend on the U.S. economy and our enourmous consumer appetite.

If the U.S. went bankrupt many other countries would too.
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Pogo,

I agree to the fact that our "industrial might" is fading everyday, but thats a different topic.
Of course the democrats would blame it on corporate america and conservatives would blame it on Unions. I blame it on both.

As i have said before, i believe the war we are in is a winnable war.

It's ironic that China along with most middle eastern countries depend on the U.S. economy and our enourmous consumer appetite.

If the U.S. went bankrupt many other countries would too.
Democrats blame it on Corporate America because is it Corporate America that is the cause. China is NOT dependent on foreign markets for survival, it is dependent on foreign markets for prosperity.
We are in a winnable war. It is not moral or ethical, or justifiable, but it is winnable. It is possible to rob a liquor store. It is also wrong, and punishable. We are doing the moral equivalent of robbing a crude oil store.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by USA1:
Pogo,

I agree to the fact that our "industrial might" is fading everyday, but thats a different topic.
Of course the democrats would blame it on corporate america and conservatives would blame it on Unions. I blame it on both.

As i have said before, i believe the war we are in is a winnable war.

It's ironic that China along with most middle eastern countries depend on the U.S. economy and our enourmous consumer appetite.

If the U.S. went bankrupt many other countries would too.
Democrats blame it on Corporate America because is it Corporate America that is the cause. China is NOT dependent on foreign markets for survival, it is dependent on foreign markets for prosperity.
We are in a winnable war. It is not moral or ethical, or justifiable, but it is winnable. It is possible to rob a liquor store. It is also wrong, and punishable. We are doing the moral equivalent of robbing a crude oil store.



China can't even feed their own people.

Your theory of the U.S. being at war over oil is also wrong.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×