|
|
Post by Naptaq on Aug 31, 2008 11:11:08 GMT -5
well, nap, oil is obviously a prize in this war...but i think it's alot more complicated than that. there are hundreds of defense contractors throughout the world that make trillions of dollars from the american war machine. the top ten defense contractors made almost 200 billion in 2007 alone. the war in iraq, only one of the global conflicts we're pouring money into, is estimated to cost us at least 3 trillion dollars. the US economy is foundering. we can't afford this military spending. by declaring the 'war on terrorism', bush opened the nation's pocket book and accelerated defense spending. in my opinion, a gullible public makes this sort of thing possible. living in a 'free society' doesn't mean you're free to ignore what your public officials are up to. that's what i feel is going on, and that's what i feel has got to stop. even if you don't believe war is immoral as i do, surely you believe in government accountability. You forget that in 2003 everybody was talking about WMDs being in Iraq. But there weren't any. They still helped dismantle Hussein's regime. No small feat. Something you don't see on the anti-war websites (this video is rather short): www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkrNeh_t8Y4The cost of fighting terrosim has been great indeed and I'll be glad when the day comes when Iraq can take care of itself and the US troops can move out. It's immoral to idly sit by and do nothing to prevent millions of people get killed. That's why USA dropped atomic bombs in World War 2. |
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Aug 31, 2008 16:56:27 GMT -5
Hmmm why exactly are we over there in Iraq?
Nobody seems to really know at this point.
At first it was WMD but they didn't find any.
The US has always been friendly with brutal dictators if it was financially advantageous.
So what is different about this?
We go over there and stir up a big bunch of shit and destroy their country ahhh but alas! it now needs to be rebuilt! And who should do that? Ah light bulb Bushie and Co! Fancy that! How lucrative for them!
I also think a tiny part had to do with him proving to daddy he wasn't a bumbling flake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Aug 31, 2008 18:38:54 GMT -5
Hmmm why exactly are we over there in Iraq? Nobody seems to really know at this point. Terrorism. Better fight them there then wait for them to come to USA and blow up buldings. Well USA was friendly with Hussein.. I don't know how much money had a role there, but you might be on to something. They made some poor decisions. Ahh the old blame-it-on-America-game. Oh right, I guess they were really happy under Hussein.. not! Protecting the world is 'stirring up shit' according to some... We should just let them devolop nukes and hope for the best. We should just assume that we're dealing with rational people and just talk to them. In WW2 there was endless talking. To no avail. Hilter even signed a peace treaty. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Aug 31, 2008 19:54:34 GMT -5
Hmmm why exactly are we over there in Iraq? Nobody seems to really know at this point. At first it was WMD but they didn't find any. The US has always been friendly with brutal dictators if it was financially advantageous. So what is different about this? We go over there and stir up a big bunch of shit and destroy their country ahhh but alas! it now needs to be rebuilt! And who should do that? Ah light bulb Bushie and Co! Fancy that! How lucrative for them! I also think a tiny part had to do with him proving to daddy he wasn't a bumbling flake. good observations. |
|
|
|
Post by Astroruss on Aug 31, 2008 20:25:24 GMT -5
Back to the election.  I think Obama will probably win by a slight majority, but the pro-McCain forces will be strong enough to block his plans. Even with the anti-war Obama in office the war will not end in my opinion. Obama wants to spend some serious money in his term and he'll need some very strong Congressional support to do so.  Which leads back to my point. For most of my life I've been raised in a a very strong conservative, pro-Republican environment for the most part. Then, at school and at work for the last ten or so years, I've heard nothing but pro-Democrat views and liberal ones too. Many of which contradict each other greatly. I'm not bashing any of these people or their viewpoints, but I must admit I'm confused and surprised. Some of the most vocal opposition against the Bush administration has seemed to come from conservative Democrat voters and their representatives in my environment. Yet now those very same voices are speaking against Obama and his 'secret tyranical agendas'. I don't think he's the Anti-Christ, but many people here seem to think he will be.  Most of the white people I work around and live with don't trust Obama, and even many of the black people I know well don't trust him either. It's all been very confusing and contradictory to me. I have to admit I don't know what's going to happen. But I do think Obama will be a kind of new FDR, the influential kind of politician that will garner a lot of love and hate, and radically change the political structure of our country.  Some of the most conservative Democrat voting whites I know are leaning Republican because of Obama. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Aug 31, 2008 20:27:46 GMT -5
Hmmm why exactly are we over there in Iraq? Nobody seems to really know at this point. Terrorism. Better fight them there then wait for them to come to USA and blow up buldings. Well USA was friendly with Hussein.. I don't know how much money had a role there, but you might be on to something. They made some poor decisions. Ahh the old blame-it-on-America-game. Oh right, I guess they were really happy under Hussein.. not! Protecting the world is 'stirring up shit' according to some... We should just let them devolop nukes and hope for the best. We should just assume that we're dealing with rational people and just talk to them. In WW2 there was endless talking. To no avail. Hilter even signed a peace treaty. the point is, what are we doing to prevent war? all the while we've been steadily increasing military spending into the stratosphere, we've been steadily decreasing spending on diplomacy. it doesn't make sense to say nothing else but a war will do the trick if there's never been a serious, sincere effort to use diplomacy. once again the dollars tell the story. the US budgeted approximately $798,921,000 on Diplomatic Relations worldwide in FY2008. we budgeted approximately $583,283,000,000 for military spending for the same period. i'd like to try flipping those numbers. maybe if we weren't spending 99% more money to kill and control people than we do to talk to them, we could help make the world a more peaceful place. dontcha think? just seems like common sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Aug 31, 2008 20:56:49 GMT -5
Back to the election. I think Obama will probably win by a slight majority, but the pro-McCain forces will be strong enough to block his plans. Even with the anti-war Obama in office the war will not end in my opinion. Obama wants to spend some serious money in his term and he'll need some very strong Congressional support to do so. Which leads back to my point. For most of my life I've been raised in a a very strong conservative, pro-Republican environment for the most part. Then, at school and at work for the last ten or so years, I've heard nothing but pro-Democrat views and liberal ones too. Many of which contradict each other greatly. I'm not bashing any of these people or their viewpoints, but I must admit I'm confused and surprised. Some of the most vocal opposition against the Bush administration has seemed to come from conservative Democrat voters and their representatives in my environment. Yet now those very same voices are speaking against Obama and his 'secret tyranical agendas'. I don't think he's the Anti-Christ, but many people here seem to think he will be. Most of the white people I work around and live with don't trust Obama, and even many of the black people I know well don't trust him either. It's all been very confusing and contradictory to me. I have to admit I don't know what's going to happen. But I do think Obama will be a kind of new FDR, the influential kind of politician that will garner a lot of love and hate, and radically change the political structure of our country. Some of the most conservative Democrat voting whites I know are leaning Republican because of Obama. i think that was predictable. i also think mccain actually has a shot at winning now because of his choice of running mate. i don't care much for her politics, but when he put a cute, sexy alaskan gal on his ticket, his public stock shot through the roof. (we have a way of doing that. ) obama can't hardly get on the news now cuz this pistol packin' mama is all the buzz. and we all know one thing for sure...sexy sells. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 1, 2008 4:27:06 GMT -5
i'd like to try flipping those numbers. maybe if we weren't spending 99% more money to kill and control people than we do to talk to them, we could help make the world a more peaceful place. dontcha think? just seems like common sense to me. This is the fundamental disagreement we have. I don't think these people are rational. I guess Jihad ("Holy" war) means nothing to a lot of people, even after 9-11. If Obama gets elected he'll talk to them. We'll see.. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 1, 2008 4:42:55 GMT -5
i also think mccain actually has a shot at winning now because of his choice of running mate. i don't care much for her politics, but when he put a cute, sexy alaskan gal on his ticket, his public stock shot through the roof. (we have a way of doing that. ) obama can't hardly get on the news now cuz this pistol packin' mama is all the buzz. and we all know one thing for sure...sexy sells. It's a combination of looks, policies and her story I think. If it was just the looks that was creating all the buzz then Paris Hilton could run. I know a lot of conservatives are excited about her because she's a true conservative. Looks have very little to do with that. Democrats and Republicans now flock to her YouTube videos.. Democrats to bash her and expose her supposed inexperience (like Obama's any better), and Republicans to praise her. The views on YouTube videos with her in them have skyrocketed. The internet is an amazing thing ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 1, 2008 10:39:37 GMT -5
i'd like to try flipping those numbers. maybe if we weren't spending 99% more money to kill and control people than we do to talk to them, we could help make the world a more peaceful place. dontcha think? just seems like common sense to me. This is the fundamental disagreement we have. I don't think these people are rational. I guess Jihad ("Holy" war) means nothing to a lot of people, even after 9-11. If Obama gets elected he'll talk to them. We'll see.. the usa has just as many wingnuts as any other country, but we don't expect to get bombed, invaded and taken over by some other country's army for it. what if, say china, decides to start employing the same kind of logic where we're concerned and performing preemptive strikes against us to get at our nutjobs? it's not as though there isn't tons of china-bashing going on in this country all the time, which our government does nothing to stop. say a couple of right-wing extremists go over to china and blow something up. do you think that would justify china coming over here to kick our asses? |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 1, 2008 13:30:00 GMT -5
the usa has just as many wingnuts as any other country, but we don't expect to get bombed, invaded and taken over by some other country's army for it. It's not the US government policy to support terrorism. In Iraq's case it was. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 1, 2008 14:03:25 GMT -5
the usa has just as many wingnuts as any other country, but we don't expect to get bombed, invaded and taken over by some other country's army for it. It's not the US government policy to support terrorism. In Iraq's case it was. i'm sure that is all a matter of perspective. because we live in a free speech society, we tolerate loud, vocal, public displays of anti-chinese sentiment. we do nothing to suppress it. we do not jail people for publicly criticizing or even threatening china. from the perspective of the chinese this could be interpreted as harboring and supporting dangerous terrorists who are a threat to china. if a few nuts succeeded at blowing something up in china, we could very well find ourselves in the position of being accused of the same thing iraq and afghanistan were accused of. that is why diplomacy is so important. keeping the line of communications open with other countries, even if we don't believe in everything they do, is vitally important to international peace. we need to invest the same amount of resources and effort into peacemaking that we presently do in warmaking to convince me that we are really trying to avoid war. in my opinion, this country opts for war as often as it does because it's profitable...not to us peons of course...we just lose our prosperity and our lives. but there are those that profit, and they are calling the shots, and it's naive to think otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 1, 2008 15:02:13 GMT -5
It's not the US government policy to support terrorism. In Iraq's case it was. i'm sure that is all a matter of perspective. because we live in a free speech society, we tolerate loud, vocal, public displays of anti-chinese sentiment. we do nothing to suppress it. we do not jail people for publicly criticizing or even threatening china. from the perspective of the chinese this could be interpreted as harboring and supporting dangerous terrorists who are a threat to china. if a few nuts succeeded at blowing something up in china, we could very well find ourselves in the position of being accused of the same thing iraq and afghanistan were accused of. that is why diplomacy is so important. keeping the line of communications open with other countries, even if we don't believe in everything they do, is vitally important to international peace. we need to invest the same amount of resources and effort into peacemaking that we presently do in warmaking to convince me that we are really trying to avoid war. in my opinion, this country opts for war as often as it does because it's profitable...not to us peons of course...we just lose our prosperity and our lives. but there are those that profit, and they are calling the shots, and it's naive to think otherwise. Those protesters will not go to China and blow themselfs up. Those protesters, aside from potentially disrupting the streets they are pretty harmless. Again, it's not US policy to support terrorism, or in this example terrorism towards China and China is well aware of that. If an attack against China were to happen USA would be the first to condemn it and hunt down the people responsible. War is the last resort. The Bush administration does a lot of diplomacy. Well if you consider military equipment, gas and military men & women salaries then yeah - somebody gets a paycheck. But to suggest that the US government goes to war because of profit is.. well I'm not even gonna say. |
|
|
|
Post by Astroruss on Sept 1, 2008 20:59:07 GMT -5
i'm sure that is all a matter of perspective. because we live in a free speech society, we tolerate loud, vocal, public displays of anti-chinese sentiment. we do nothing to suppress it. we do not jail people for publicly criticizing or even threatening china. from the perspective of the chinese this could be interpreted as harboring and supporting dangerous terrorists who are a threat to china. if a few nuts succeeded at blowing something up in china, we could very well find ourselves in the position of being accused of the same thing iraq and afghanistan were accused of. that is why diplomacy is so important. keeping the line of communications open with other countries, even if we don't believe in everything they do, is vitally important to international peace. we need to invest the same amount of resources and effort into peacemaking that we presently do in warmaking to convince me that we are really trying to avoid war. in my opinion, this country opts for war as often as it does because it's profitable...not to us peons of course...we just lose our prosperity and our lives. but there are those that profit, and they are calling the shots, and it's naive to think otherwise. Those protesters will not go to China and blow themselfs up. Those protesters, aside from potentially disrupting the streets they are pretty harmless. Again, it's not US policy to support terrorism, or in this example terrorism towards China and China is well aware of that. If an attack against China were to happen USA would be the first to condemn it and hunt down the people responsible. War is the last resort. The Bush administration does a lot of diplomacy. Well if you consider military equipment, gas and military men & women salaries then yeah - somebody gets a paycheck. But to suggest that the US government goes to war because of profit is.. well I'm not even gonna say. If China does try to nuke the US or any other country for that matter, they will have a life expectancy of about five minutes. There are plenty of countries around them that fear and resent the super power of China, with plenty of missiles ready to fire. The Chinese aren't stupid; they know this, and probably will not start any shit. The US doesn't go to war because of profit, but this does not mean that many groups won't benefit from the war either. I was not against Bush invading Iraq, overwhelming Hussein, and liberating the country. But I do think he chose very poor timing to do it. At the very least, he should have allowed a UN approved weapons' inspection to be done first. I just hope that whoever wins the election in November will move to be a stabilizing power to the chaos, and not stir up more. |
|
|
|
Post by Astroruss on Sept 1, 2008 21:01:36 GMT -5
Back to the election. I think Obama will probably win by a slight majority, but the pro-McCain forces will be strong enough to block his plans. Even with the anti-war Obama in office the war will not end in my opinion. Obama wants to spend some serious money in his term and he'll need some very strong Congressional support to do so. Which leads back to my point. For most of my life I've been raised in a a very strong conservative, pro-Republican environment for the most part. Then, at school and at work for the last ten or so years, I've heard nothing but pro-Democrat views and liberal ones too. Many of which contradict each other greatly. I'm not bashing any of these people or their viewpoints, but I must admit I'm confused and surprised. Some of the most vocal opposition against the Bush administration has seemed to come from conservative Democrat voters and their representatives in my environment. Yet now those very same voices are speaking against Obama and his 'secret tyranical agendas'. I don't think he's the Anti-Christ, but many people here seem to think he will be. Most of the white people I work around and live with don't trust Obama, and even many of the black people I know well don't trust him either. It's all been very confusing and contradictory to me. I have to admit I don't know what's going to happen. But I do think Obama will be a kind of new FDR, the influential kind of politician that will garner a lot of love and hate, and radically change the political structure of our country. Some of the most conservative Democrat voting whites I know are leaning Republican because of Obama. i think that was predictable. i also think mccain actually has a shot at winning now because of his choice of running mate. i don't care much for her politics, but when he put a cute, sexy alaskan gal on his ticket, his public stock shot through the roof. (we have a way of doing that. ) obama can't hardly get on the news now cuz this pistol packin' mama is all the buzz. and we all know one thing for sure...sexy sells. Hey, who knows? Maybe this Alaskan politician is really Sweetpea in disguise? ;D Wouldn't surprise me at all.  |
|
