How about 60% of our budget going to entitlements?
EDIT: If you haven't noticed... our deposing of that dictator has caused a revolution of Democracy throughout the ENTIRE middle east. Surely you support Democracy, right?
Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and now people in Jordan, and Iran are also protesting for a Democratic government.
And you really think the middle east will be more stable now? Why don't you try a little tourism in Iraq? Ever heard of cost effective? Is it worth ruining our country to topple a tin horn dictator somewhere? There are many more when Iraq is finally over. You really think it's our job to finance the whole world's problems? BTW, those entitlements are not a direct drain on the budget. Last I recall, SS and others have a few bucks coming in to the treasury. And why change the subject from the cost of the wars to something totally unrelated to that?
[This message has been edited by weaselbeak (edited 02-15-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:24 AM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
"One of the problems we have in the military is we are in a lot of places around the world.... if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world, and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that." - G.W. Bush
"One of the problems we have in the military is we are in a lot of places around the world.... if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world, and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that." - G.W. Bush
You do realize this is before 9/11/01, correct? A declaration of war on US soil puts a little spin on foreign policy, and troop placement. A plane crashes on your house by a terrorist, would your opinion change?
Speaking as a Veteran, I'd serve under W. anytime.
------------------ 88 GT "The Stray" 4.9L 86 GT 2.8L 4 speed 07 Solstice GXP 2.0L turbo 08 GMC Sierra 3500 Duramax Dually. 05 Tahoe on 20's (Kid hauler)
quote
Originally posted by pontiackid86: i'm sure i could fly a plane no problem.
IP: Logged
10:42 AM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
And you really think the middle east will be more stable now? Why don't you try a little tourism in Iraq? Ever heard of cost effective? Is it worth ruining our country to topple a tin horn dictator somewhere? There are many more when Iraq is finally over. You really think it's our job to finance the whole world's problems? BTW, those entitlements are not a direct drain on the budget. Last I recall, SS and others have a few bucks coming in to the treasury. And why change the subject from the cost of the wars to something totally unrelated to that?
I suppose that depends if one believes that unalienable right to freedom applies first, foremost, and only to Americans. I do not. If we believe it holds true for ourselves, we MUST also believe it holds true for ALL men, and it is indeed our obligation and responsiblity as free men, to help those without liberty and freedom secure it, and those with it to keep from losing it, just as we have always done thru out our history. There is no higher or more just endeavor than this, and to say that we need to spend our resources at home just to maintain a certain standard of living is extremely selfish and self serving.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
IP: Logged
11:58 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22759 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
And you really think the middle east will be more stable now? Why don't you try a little tourism in Iraq? Ever heard of cost effective? Is it worth ruining our country to topple a tin horn dictator somewhere? There are many more when Iraq is finally over. You really think it's our job to finance the whole world's problems? BTW, those entitlements are not a direct drain on the budget. Last I recall, SS and others have a few bucks coming in to the treasury. And why change the subject from the cost of the wars to something totally unrelated to that?
I do actually... maybe not at first, but these countries have to go through this at one point or another. Are you saying that you DON'T support their fight for Democracy? Are you saying that you PREFER them to be under a dictatorship? I have family that's been to Iraq (green zone)... and for what it's worth, I've been to Egypt and other parts of North Africa. Iraq is a Democracy right now, in case you hadn't noticed. And what about the cost of the war? The cost of the war spans 10 years of fighting at this point. In 10 years of fighting it's only cost 1.4 trillion dollars, and yet you seem to focus exclusively on that, and ignore the other 13 trillion in national debt... 4 of it which we've accrued in just 2 years. So... what of the 1.4 trillion dollars we've over the past 10 years?
quote
Originally posted by ryan.hess:
Actually ON topic...
"One of the problems we have in the military is we are in a lot of places around the world.... if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world, and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that." - G.W. Bush
I tend to agree with him. That said, we were attacked, and the Afghanistan war was and is completely justified. It does frustrate me somewhat to know that we still have eighty thousand troops in Europe...
A significant number of other countries support terrorism too, but it's through corruption in their own government, rather than through direct policy by the administration. So that's not exactly fair to put it so matter-of-fact as that.
I mean, that's like saying... 1% of 9/11 victims were escaped convicts. Ok, maybe they were, but what about it?
I suppose that depends if one believes that unalienable right to freedom applies first, foremost, and only to Americans. I do not. If we believe it holds true for ourselves, we MUST also believe it holds true for ALL men, and it is indeed our obligation and responsiblity as free men, to help those without liberty and freedom secure it, and those with it to keep from losing it, just as we have always done thru out our history. There is no higher or more just endeavor than this, and to say that we need to spend our resources at home just to maintain a certain standard of living is extremely selfish and self serving.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Maryjane, I agree completely with your interpretation regarding unalienable rights. I do however pose the question, "Why does our Government pick and choose where they decide to exercise the fight for these rights." Horrible atrocities occur at that the hands of corrupt governments all over the world. At the time our countries political machine rallied the Countries support for the War in Iraq, the world was watching problems unfold in Korea. Shortly after we went to Iraq, we stood clear of the unrest that was happening in Darfur. There are others, but no need to ramble on.
I believe it is all driven by economics. Not government economics, but private industry. Is Korea a pain in the ass? Of course, but what gain is there in reigning in that dictatorship? Not to mention the fact that it would piss off the Chinese. Places like Darfur have no "economic value" whatsoever. Why would we want to clean up that mess?
The original poster brings up the topic regarding the "Cost of War" not being all that "conservative". But there is something to gain for someone isn't there? Lot's of oil in Iraq. Modern cities with infrastructure that all need to be rebuilt. Cost of war to the government is good business for the private sector in this case. I think we ignore the little guys because there is no profit in it.
Maryjane, don't feel that my post is directed to argue with you. I just wanted to throw some more questions into the discussion.
IP: Logged
12:54 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
it would be pretty tough to claim any sort of "stability" in the middle east. yes, I am sure everyone can agree it is NOT the same middle east it was 10 years ago - but - is it better now or worse? I actually think better. while I endlessly disagree with the wars - I cannot deny I am happy with the conclusion of Saddam. Tho, I at times wonder if it took a maniac like him to keep Iraq under control. Someone recently mentioned something about Egypt - that they've been under a dictator so long, they dont know what to do with democracy. that describes Iraq pretty good too, dont it? and - in the end - we need to remember one thing: this IS the cradle of civilization. They've gone thru it all. They have got endlessly more history to look back upon than we do with our flash-in-the-pan 200 years. now - the sucky part - it seems their education system doesnt allow for much of that history to be known.....but, thats is the same everywhere. anyways - they have learned to live within their means. something most other regions have not. most certianly not the US. our history is full of expansion. ever growing. just recently having reached the limits. but, back to topic - you would be hard pressed to find the true costs of these wars. the numbers above are a fine bottom line start, but do not include many things.
IP: Logged
01:09 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43225 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
This thread is about whether or not a particular war is justified, or possibly whether or not it had a useful outcome, the latter can not be known until the end, or until it stops and we see what then happens. IMO
Regarding who is and isn't a terrorist, I suppose you ahve to define terrorist first, then decide if the term is even accurate to describe the thing you are talking about. I guess the question is who is a terrorist to who?
"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies"
A "terrorist" who terrorizes another country other than thier own needs to be reigned in by the country they are in/from, if this does not happen then the one they are terrorizing, or even regned in by another country or group of countries who does not want to see the terrorism spread further. IMO
That said, in their eyes one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Right and wrong again disappear in the mess.
I suppose that depends if one believes that unalienable right to freedom applies first, foremost, and only to Americans. I do not. If we believe it holds true for ourselves, we MUST also believe it holds true for ALL men, and it is indeed our obligation and responsiblity as free men, to help those without liberty and freedom secure it, and those with it to keep from losing it, just as we have always done thru out our history. There is no higher or more just endeavor than this, and to say that we need to spend our resources at home just to maintain a certain standard of living is extremely selfish and self serving.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Very noble indeed, how does one pick and choose for whom though?
Hey maryjane not to say freedom is just for americans but. . . . something given has no value. If we fight for them they will not respect the freedoms. Much like today many americans do not respect the freedoms they have been given by great men before them.
------------------
ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
12.3 is faster than a 13.2
IP: Logged
02:15 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22759 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Nope, I'm not at all kidding. Whether it was intentional or not, the fall of Saddam has created a domino affect that has caused numerous arab nations to revolt against their leaders and seek democracy.
You're angry at this because you don't think Bush deserves the credit... whatever it is, that's not my point.
I don't care if Bush gets credit for it or not... it makes no difference to me. I'm not married to the guy, I don't sleep better at night if Newf has a better opinion of Bush. I also don't care if it was even a thought in Bush's mind when they went in there (I'm thinking it wasn't), but the FACT of the matter is that since this happened, we've had over 6 arab countries become Democratic now (or at least in the process). Where as before, the last major regime change was during the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Nope, I'm not at all kidding. Whether it was intentional or not, the fall of Saddam has created a domino affect that has caused numerous arab nations to revolt against their leaders and seek democracy.
You're angry at this because you don't think Bush deserves the credit... whatever it is, that's not my point.
I don't care if Bush gets credit for it or not... it makes no difference to me. I'm not married to the guy, I don't sleep better at night if Newf has a better opinion of Bush. I also don't care if it was even a thought in Bush's mind when they went in there (I'm thinking it wasn't), but the FACT of the matter is that since this happened, we've had over 6 arab countries become Democratic now (or at least in the process). Where as before, the last major regime change was during the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
You are assuming things about me again. I actually supported the war in Iraq at first and have often defended Bush when talking to others however to say that 6?? arab countries have become democratic because of the war in Iraq is quite a stretch. You honestly think what happened in Tunesia had to do with Bush? I don't buy it.
Maryjane, I agree completely with your interpretation regarding unalienable rights. I do however pose the question, "Why does our Government pick and choose where they decide to exercise the fight for these rights." Horrible atrocities occur at that the hands of corrupt governments all over the world. At the time our countries political machine rallied the Countries support for the War in Iraq, the world was watching problems unfold in Korea. Shortly after we went to Iraq, we stood clear of the unrest that was happening in Darfur. There are others, but no need to ramble on.
I believe it is all driven by economics. Not government economics, but private industry. Is Korea a pain in the ass? Of course, but what gain is there in reigning in that dictatorship? Not to mention the fact that it would piss off the Chinese. Places like Darfur have no "economic value" whatsoever. Why would we want to clean up that mess?
The original poster brings up the topic regarding the "Cost of War" not being all that "conservative". But there is something to gain for someone isn't there? Lot's of oil in Iraq. Modern cities with infrastructure that all need to be rebuilt. Cost of war to the government is good business for the private sector in this case. I think we ignore the little guys because there is no profit in it.
Maryjane, don't feel that my post is directed to argue with you. I just wanted to throw some more questions into the discussion.
You may well be correct, just as the op says that it is so important that we spend more here than in foreign combat endeavors--iow--everything is economics, but it always has been thru out history. Why did it take us so long to intervene in Saraevo? Why did we sit idly by while 10x thousands persihed in Rawanda? Some of it is economics--and some of it--sad to say--is race. (A predoninantly white US military killing Hutu and/or Tutsi? That wouldn't go over well anywhere) Darfur, Sudan, even Tibet should each have our attention just as much as our own liberty does. Even our most poor, have it better than 90% of the people in those places, and places just like them all over the world, but here in America, we are far more interested in whether or not we can easily afford the house payment on what would amount to a tyrant's mansion in most places. I understand that, on a personal level, but I'm not much on spending money keeping up the status of people who already have much much more than most people in the world, especially when those less fortunate don't even have the right to cast a ballot in an honest election, to travel about freely, or to be able to speak their mind outside the 4 walls of thier mud hut. Helping those unfortunates, is money well spent, and if it requires spending/spilling some of our blood, well, we would spill it for our own liberty in a heartbeat. ALL Men...
You may well be correct, just as the op says that it is so important that we spend more here than in foreign combat endeavors--iow--everything is economics, but it always has been thru out history. Why did it take us so long to intervene in Saraevo? Why did we sit idly by while 10x thousands persihed in Rawanda? Some of it is economics--and some of it--sad to say--is race. (A predoninantly white US military killing Hutu and/or Tutsi? That wouldn't go over well anywhere) Darfur, Sudan, even Tibet should each have our attention just as much as our own liberty does. Even our most poor, have it better than 90% of the people in those places, and places just like them all over the world, but here in America, we are far more interested in whether or not we can easily afford the house payment on what would amount to a tyrant's mansion in most places. I understand that, on a personal level, but I'm not much on spending money keeping up the status of people who already have much much more than most people in the world, especially when those less fortunate don't even have the right to cast a ballot in an honest election, to travel about freely, or to be able to speak their mind outside the 4 walls of thier mud hut. Helping those unfortunates, is money well spent, and if it requires spending/spilling some of our blood, well, we would spill it for our own liberty in a heartbeat. ALL Men...
Best post I have seen in a while, Don. Good stuff.
IP: Logged
02:40 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22759 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
You are assuming things about me again. I actually supported the war in Iraq at first and have often defended Bush when talking to others however to say that 6?? arab countries have become democratic because of the war in Iraq is quite a stretch. You honestly think what happened in Tunesia had to do with Bush? I don't buy it.
No, what happened in Tunesia, had to do with a Democracy forming in Iraq. If you want to give credit to Bush, by all means, but I don't know if for a fact that was really his intention. Maybe it was, I don't know.
It's not just Tunesia, but there are major protests in Iran now as well. Lebanon, Jordan/Gaza, etc... all are Democratic now.
These countries may seem isolated, but they do have global communications. The recent protests in Iran are directly related to the result that occured in Egypt.
I mean, we can argue whether or not any of these countries will actually end up as functional democracies... but.. that's for another post...
There are those who are saying that it's co-incidental, but they don't have anything else to apply it to.
Maybe it makes some people mad at the prospect that "American Ideals" are creating democracy in the middle east, but it's more correct that democracy created America, and now are also creating democracy in the middle east through indirect intervention.
UPDATE: The protesters in Bahrain have now taken over the main square as of this morning. They're one of the countries also pushing for Democracy. I know that there are protests in Abu-Dhabi as well. I sure hope this doesn't upset the Formula-1 race in Bahrain or Abu-Dhabi this coming season...
It's not just Tunesia, but there are major protests in Iran now as well. Lebanon, Jordan/Gaza, etc... all are Democratic now.
Ummm OK??
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Maybe it makes some people mad at the prospect that "American Ideals" are creating democracy in the middle east, but it's more correct that democracy created America, and now are also creating democracy in the middle east through indirect intervention.
Democracy isn't an American invention and to try and take some kind of credit for what's happening in Egypt, Tunesia and the like is misplaced and self serving IMO.
Some people here can't seem to get their opinions to line up, they hate Muslims one day and the next say we should fight for their equality while seeming to forget their own history and actions. Got to love revisionist history I suppose.
You may well be correct, just as the op says that it is so important that we spend more here than in foreign combat endeavors--iow--everything is economics, but it always has been thru out history. Why did it take us so long to intervene in Saraevo? Why did we sit idly by while 10x thousands persihed in Rawanda? Some of it is economics--and some of it--sad to say--is race. (A predoninantly white US military killing Hutu and/or Tutsi? That wouldn't go over well anywhere) Darfur, Sudan, even Tibet should each have our attention just as much as our own liberty does. Even our most poor, have it better than 90% of the people in those places, and places just like them all over the world, but here in America, we are far more interested in whether or not we can easily afford the house payment on what would amount to a tyrant's mansion in most places. I understand that, on a personal level, but I'm not much on spending money keeping up the status of people who already have much much more than most people in the world, especially when those less fortunate don't even have the right to cast a ballot in an honest election, to travel about freely, or to be able to speak their mind outside the 4 walls of thier mud hut. Helping those unfortunates, is money well spent, and if it requires spending/spilling some of our blood, well, we would spill it for our own liberty in a heartbeat. ALL Men...
On a personal level I can't argue with you sentiments and would say that I would hope more people were in agreement.
I would submit however the history of military action would show that these ideals matter very little in terms of action taken.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-15-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:38 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
just cherry picking corrolations there is no way to argue either way. thats what makes it fun. it is always worth discussing remember how the birth of the USA created a wave of revolutions around the world? well, maybe just in europe - but - whatever. it is fun & uplifting for the US to take credit. be it true or not - dont matter. whether it was influance or inspiration or coincidence - the results are what should be enjoyed & revelled in. the truth is - it was all up to those involved - and none of us were. not one. in fact, it cought US intelligence by complete suprise. just woke up one day and there it was - happening. Its kinda tough to link these with Iraq in any way except they are in the middle east. and, if Iraq was the catalyst - wouldn't this have happened many years ago. more like when the saddam statue was pulled down? closer to the "mission accomplished" timeframe? but - again - no way to actually pin it down either way, all you do is beleive it - or not. one certainly cant completely dismiss the idea. after all - it was a mass of people - each one had their own mind. to try and speak for each & every one is just silly. Tho - I have my doubts Iraq was on their minds.
IP: Logged
03:46 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22759 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Democracy isn't an American invention and to try and take some kind of credit for what's happening in Egypt, Tunesia and the like is misplaced and self serving IMO.
That is what I JUST said...
quote
Originally posted by newf:
Some people here can't seem to get their opinions to line up, they hate Muslims one day and the next say we should fight for their equality while seeming to forget their own history and actions. Got to love revisionist history I suppose.
What are you talking about? Either you are assuming that me or the rest of the Americans on here hate Muslims, or you are suggesting that all Muslims are fundamentalists? Or you're very poor at elaborating what you say, which leads you to constantly have to say "I didn't say that, you're making assumptions."
So correct me here.
Because I think it's pretty well understood that the world hates fundamentalist Islam, but that we support democracy and believe that the way to eliminating fundamentalism is through democratic influence.
What are you talking about? Either you are assuming that me or the rest of the Americans on here hate Muslims, or you are suggesting that all Muslims are fundamentalists? Or you're very poor at elaborating what you say, which leads you to constantly have to say "I didn't say that, you're making assumptions."
So correct me here.
Because I think it's pretty well understood that the world hates fundamentalist Islam, but that we support democracy and believe that the way to eliminating fundamentalism is through democratic influence.
Pretty well understood that the world hates? Ummm sure. Honestly I would hope the world doesn't hate much but if you are talking about terrorism I would say that I hate it, can't speak for the world though. Democracy is correct in my mind but is it inherently good? Maybe if carried out perfectly but I don't pretend to speak for what someone else might choose or believe. I don't eat dog meat but who the hell am I to tell someone that does that they're wrong while I eat my steak?
I never said that you hate Muslims I said that SOME on here and others I hear seem to hate and claim Muslims are evil one day while now wanting to take credit for freeing them. You seem to be thinking that everything I have said relates to only you but it doesn't.
Maybe your post on the Bahrain F1 race shows where your interest in the currrent developments in the Middle East lie.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-15-2011).]
just cherry picking corrolations there is no way to argue either way. thats what makes it fun. it is always worth discussing remember how the birth of the USA created a wave of revolutions around the world? well, maybe just in europe - but - whatever. it is fun & uplifting for the US to take credit. be it true or not - dont matter. whether it was influance or inspiration or coincidence - the results are what should be enjoyed & revelled in. the truth is - it was all up to those involved - and none of us were. not one. in fact, it cought US intelligence by complete suprise. just woke up one day and there it was - happening. Its kinda tough to link these with Iraq in any way except they are in the middle east. and, if Iraq was the catalyst - wouldn't this have happened many years ago. more like when the saddam statue was pulled down? closer to the "mission accomplished" timeframe? but - again - no way to actually pin it down either way, all you do is beleive it - or not. one certainly cant completely dismiss the idea. after all - it was a mass of people - each one had their own mind. to try and speak for each & every one is just silly. Tho - I have my doubts Iraq was on their minds.
Agreed, I can't say what the reasons for the revolution are or are not but my opinion would be that it has little to do with the regime change in Iraq.
I like what you said here
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian:
whether it was influance or inspiration or coincidence - the results are what should be enjoyed & revelled in. the truth is - it was all up to those involved - and none of us were. not one. .
IP: Logged
04:05 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22759 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Pretty well understood that the world hates? Ummm sure. Honestly I would hope the world doesn't hate much but if you are talking about terrorism I would say that I hate it, can't speak for the world though. Democracy is correct in my mind but isn't inherently good? Maybe if carried out perfectly but I don't pretend to speak for what someone else might choose or believe. I don't eat dog meat but who the hell am I to tell someone that does that they're wrong while I eat my steak?
I never said that you hate Muslims I said that SOME on here and others I hear seem to hate and claim Muslims are evil one day while now wanting to take credit for freeing them. You seem to be thinking that everything I have said relates to only you but it doesn't.
Maybe your post on the Bahrain F1 race shows where your interest in the currrent developments in the Middle East lie.
It's pretty well understood that unless you say "Not speaking specifically about you", when you reply directly to an individual, you are speaking to them. It's not my ego, it's your poor communication style. I think this has been an issue before, not trying to be a jerk here, but this seems to be a reoccuring theme that I often see with you and several others. I don't really have this problem with other people on here. Maybe it's a different dialect, and I know posts can be mis-construed.
Case-in-point, my Formula-1 comment. That was meant to uplift the conversation. I would think you know me well enough at this point to know that I am not so shallow as to put off a revolution so that I can enjoy a 3 hour Formula-1 race one morning in June/July.
As far as the rest goes... yeah... Democracy is the only way. The people not living under Democracy either don't realize yet what they are missing, or they know it and are repressed. I've travelled all around the world, both to communist countries, and everything in between. I can say with most assurance that pretty much everyone wants democracy.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: It's pretty well understood that unless you say "Not speaking specifically about you", when you reply directly to an individual, you are speaking to them. It's not my ego, it's your poor communication style. I think this has been an issue before, not trying to be a jerk here, but this seems to be a reoccuring theme that I often see with you and several others. I don't really have this problem with other people on here. Maybe it's a different dialect, and I know posts can be mis-construed.
Case-in-point, my Formula-1 comment. That was meant to uplift the conversation. I would think you know me well enough at this point to know that I am not so shallow as to put off a revolution so that I can enjoy a 3 hour Formula-1 race one morning in June/July.
As far as the rest goes... yeah... Democracy is the only way. The people not living under Democracy either don't realize yet what they are missing, or they know it and are repressed. I've travelled all around the world, both to communist countries, and everything in between. I can say with most assurance that pretty much everyone wants democracy.
82-T/A, I don't know you at all.
And why I would have to say "Not speaking specifically about you" when I stated "SOME" in a different paragraph is beyond me but from now on anytime I respond to you I will specifically mention your name. Feel free to show examples where this has been an ongoing problem with others though.
Yeah, your case in point is awesome, they have things called emoticons for showing things like inflection on here, some even like to put a "LOL" or "haha" to ensure people know that one is making light of something. About as funny as your White Liberal joke BTW.
As to your last paragraph that's your opinion, it's like saying everyone wants to be Christian.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-15-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:18 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22759 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
As to your last paragraph that's your opinion, it's like saying everyone wants to be Christian.
Ok, so not only do you have poor communication skills, but are also completely clueless to the rest of the world around you.
Democracy IS the best form of government right now, that's why everyone wants to go to it. When something better comes around, we'll probably move to that too. Democracy has nothing to do with religion, and the analogy doesn't make any sense at all.
You really have no concept... I hate to be a jerk here, but I think you're so liberal that you blindly accept the fact that there might be the possibility that there are those who enjoy living under a communist rule, or a monarchy. Yeah, those in the aristocracy. No one wants to live in communism. This is WIDELY accepted. It is for that reason why they put walls up to prevent people from escaping it. Have you ever even travelled to another country? There are probably the same number of people who enjoy living in a fully communist country as those whom enjoy having their limbs cut off.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok, so not only do you have poor communication skills, but are also completely clueless to the rest of the world around you.
Democracy IS the best form of government right now, that's why everyone wants to go to it. When something better comes around, we'll probably move to that too. Democracy has nothing to do with religion, and the analogy doesn't make any sense at all.
You really have no concept... I hate to be a jerk here, but I think you're so liberal that you blindly accept the fact that there might be the possibility that there are those who enjoy living under a communist rule, or a monarchy. Yeah, those in the aristocracy. No one wants to live in communism. This is WIDELY accepted. It is for that reason why they put walls up to prevent people from escaping it. Have you ever even travelled to another country? There are probably the same number of people who enjoy living in a fully communist country as those whom enjoy having their limbs cut off.
just as fully capitilistitic is impossible - fully communist is also not possible
the phrase "living under communist rule" is highly misleading. was Egypt a communist nation? nope. it was - and will likely remain capitalist. yes - dictatorship & capitalist. that is what was revolted against. so - which do you think drove the people to this? the capatalist who stole all the nations wealth? or the dictator? or both?
Egypt is a wealthy nation - yet - these people were dirt poor - a sure sign of capitalism.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok, so not only do you have poor communication skills, but are also completely clueless to the rest of the world around you.
Democracy IS the best form of government right now, that's why everyone wants to go to it. When something better comes around, we'll probably move to that too. Democracy has nothing to do with religion, and the analogy doesn't make any sense at all.
You really have no concept... I hate to be a jerk here, but I think you're so liberal that you blindly accept the fact that there might be the possibility that there are those who enjoy living under a communist rule, or a monarchy. Yeah, those in the aristocracy. No one wants to live in communism. This is WIDELY accepted. It is for that reason why they put walls up to prevent people from escaping it. Have you ever even travelled to another country? There are probably the same number of people who enjoy living in a fully communist country as those whom enjoy having their limbs cut off.
I feel sorry for you, I really do...
82-T/A you are indeed being a jerk, your first sentence is insulting and unwarrented but further shows your tolerance for others opinions. Thankfully I really don't care what you think of me from your assumptions and please don't feel sorry for anyone who has a different point of view than your own.
Democracy? I would say that it is the best system but to claim that all the world wants the same system is laughable. Examples: IS the U.S. version of democracy the ideal or is it Britains or Swedens etc...? I hear claims that the U.S. is under socialist rule now so is that what Egypt wants?
I suspect Egyptians want more freedom as a people but I don't pretend to know what is in peoples hearts. It's not long ago that I saw people claim that most Muslims wanted Sharia law.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-15-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:42 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22759 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
82-T/A you are indeed being a jerk, your first sentence is insulting and unwarrented but further shows your tolerance for others opinions. Thankfully I really don't care what you think of me from your assumptions and please don't feel sorry for anyone who has a different point of view than your own.
Democracy? I would say that it is the best system but to claim that all the world wants the same system is laughable. Examples: IS the U.S. version of democracy the ideal or is it Britains or Swedens etc...? I hear claims that the U.S. is under socialist rule now so is that what Egypt wants?
I suspect Egyptians want more freedom as a people but I don't pretend to know what is in peoples hearts. It's not long ago that I saw people claim that most Muslims wanted Sharia law.
Jesus dude... I said "democracy" not US Constitution. I said "democracy." Everyone wants democracy... you never see people revolt because they WANT to live under a dictatorship. You see revolutions because people want a democracy. Why do you keep bringing up the United States?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Jesus dude... I said "democracy" not US Constitution. I said "democracy." Everyone wants democracy... you never see people revolt because they WANT to live under a dictatorship. You see revolutions because people want a democracy. Why do you keep bringing up the United States?
82-T/A, yes you said Democracy but you also said...
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
It's not just Tunesia, but there are major protests in Iran now as well. Lebanon, Jordan/Gaza, etc... all are Democratic
Are you confused about what a Democracy is? Or are you stating that the protests are democratic in some way? Maybe you mean the protestors want democracy?
I bring up the U.S. version of democracy 1. because you live there and 2. to point out that there are many different definitions for democracy so to say that everyone wants it is simplistic and really depends on your defintion. For example... Egypt had elections and probably claimed they were democratic but that doesn't mean they were. Also was the U.S. (or any other nation) democratic when women or black people didn't have the right to vote? What version of democracy is ideal?
Maybe it would be more correct to say that the people of the Middle East want more personal freedoms part of which includes free and democratic elections.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
You see revolutions because people want a democracy.
Really? Might want to look through a few history books.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-15-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:17 PM
KidO Member
Posts: 1019 From: The Pacific Northwest Registered: Dec 2003
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Jesus dude... I said "democracy" not US Constitution. I said "democracy." Everyone wants democracy... you never see people revolt because they WANT to live under a dictatorship. You see revolutions because people want a democracy. Why do you keep bringing up the United States?
People revolt because they want something different than they currently have. I think you are wrong in suggesting that everyone wants democracy. If a new dictator comes along to a poor nation and suggests that his leadership would bring wealth to that nation, the people will rally behind him. The same is true for democracy. A government of any kind that is unaceptable to the majority of its people will fail. When people are being led to believe that new leadership will bring them something better, they will revolt. The outcome may not always be for the best for everyone. I am sure that you can find plenty of people in Iraq, for example, that were much happier before the U.S. came along and changed the leadership.
IP: Logged
06:32 PM
KidO Member
Posts: 1019 From: The Pacific Northwest Registered: Dec 2003
You may well be correct, just as the op says that it is so important that we spend more here than in foreign combat endeavors--iow--everything is economics, but it always has been thru out history. Why did it take us so long to intervene in Saraevo? Why did we sit idly by while 10x thousands persihed in Rawanda? Some of it is economics--and some of it--sad to say--is race. (A predoninantly white US military killing Hutu and/or Tutsi? That wouldn't go over well anywhere) Darfur, Sudan, even Tibet should each have our attention just as much as our own liberty does. Even our most poor, have it better than 90% of the people in those places, and places just like them all over the world, but here in America, we are far more interested in whether or not we can easily afford the house payment on what would amount to a tyrant's mansion in most places. I understand that, on a personal level, but I'm not much on spending money keeping up the status of people who already have much much more than most people in the world, especially when those less fortunate don't even have the right to cast a ballot in an honest election, to travel about freely, or to be able to speak their mind outside the 4 walls of thier mud hut. Helping those unfortunates, is money well spent, and if it requires spending/spilling some of our blood, well, we would spill it for our own liberty in a heartbeat. ALL Men...
Well said. There are many places in the world that would benefit with our help. It is sad that we ignore some of them because it won't benefit us. It is understandable though. War is expensive, and without a way to "profit" from it, our nation would go broke supporting it. We can't afford to be the world's police force for free.
You can't blame the rest of the world for wanting what we have. It took a long time for us to get where we are, and I hope we can continue to hold our place at number one!
I think Facebook has more to do with what is happening in Egypt than anything.. watched an interview last night, and one of the ppl there said it was the suppression of facebook and other media to hide what they did to victims of their state sponsored violence. Not sure W had anything to do with this domino in particular falling.
I used to think facebook was lame, but when it holds corrupt governements accountable as a witness to the rest of the world community, thats pretty cool.
