Thanks. It's really interesting to discuss with someone at the exact opposite of the 'acceptable' political spectrum.
Anyway, I've got to bridge the gap until 8 pm, so we'd better go on <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Oct. 18 2002,11:20--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Spooge @ Oct. 18 2002,11:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another misconception. The U.S. is not a true Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats one of the problems. We go around spitting the word democracy into the worlds face when we ourselves don't even follow our golden rule. The government needs a major overhall and put back into the hands of the people. Thats the only way America is going to actually improve drasticly.
Why aren't we a democracy? Every four years big wigs run around <i>begging</i> us to sway our electoral college members to vote for them and put them in office. If we don't like it, our constitution says we should destory it. If we feel things are out of hand, we have the right to rise up and dissolve the current government, take power back into our hands, and rebuild it any which way we like.
This is both good at bad. We live in a country where desicions can make or break us. The way we go is up to us.
If people would just realize this, it would do us well.
Back to war. The last major war that had public backing was Korea. When a country gets head-over-heels into a war effort, men go off to war, women work in factories, the government spends, and the economy is stimulated. After war, you begin to play off debts. Not to mention the technological advances that conflict produces.
Keep in mind this is all opinion and speculation. I've no real backing to make such claims...but hey, my opinion is a right, too, eh?
I'm usually against war. THere have been.. maybe... 3 that I've agreed with wholeheartedly, and would have gone off to fight ofr myself.
American Revolution. World War II. And now this thing to track down the ######## that puled off 9/11.
But I am leaning to supporting this one. Saddam needs to be taken out, this is true. But I don't think an all-out onslaught is the right answer... right away, anyway.
5-10-20 men go in one night, and Saddam and all of his generals have heart attacks, followed by airstrikes/cruise missiles to all of their missile assets.
Boom, out goes the madman, all his men, and his "crown jewels (chemical weapons)," as CNN called it.
That's my opinion. But then again, it's not my call. It's Bush's, and even though I don't agree with him, even though I think he's a flaming idiot, and even though we are on different sides of the two-party system, Like it or not, he is the president. He is the one that will be calling the shots for the next 2/6 years, and he's the one that will have to make this call.
Like it or not, people, he's in office, and he's your president.
With the exception of Nemisis, and all the other non- United States citizens.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
One of the most central aspects to this discussion is one that most people seem to have missed...
Saddam having weapons of mass destruction = Bad
Bush having weapons of mass destruction = Good
I'd challenge that. I'd also challenge the legitimacy of any country's right to invade another because it disagrees with their internal political state.
I'm not keen on Saddam Hussein gaining access to strategic weapons, but I find it hard to swallow that someone who has so assiduously insisted on remaining in power in country where he wasn't wanted by the majority feels legitimised in attacking another for the same reasons.
If the US were to be on the road to destroying their strategic weapons stockpile, I'd be more convinced. But they aren't.
To end a common myth: Wars do <i>not</i> help the economy.
If you take a look at it from an economists perspective, wars do exactely the opposite:
- The governments funds are bound into a specific area that will most likely not help complete its other duties. A war against the Iraq would cost about 3 billion $ a <i>day</i> - money that can't be invested into infrastructure, education, or any other thing that'll merit the economy on the whole. Also, it reduces the governments financial reserves, which means it's got less options in terms of tax reduction or simliar economy improving matters (Note: I'm not advocating tax reductions here, I'm merely using a common example.)
- Almost every other possible investion a government could do aims on aquiring new merits or keeping old merits up. If, for example, Bush decided to invest in a completely new carfleet for officials, this investment would not only be good for the autoindustry, it'd also give the government a lot of new, less gasoline requiring cars. Both ends of the deal would 'win'. In case of arms, the government literally blows money up. It 'helps' the weapon industry, yes, but it gets nothing that would help with everyday administration in return - you could say that the government automatically 'loses' in such a deal.
The only part of buisness that can be thankful for a war is the directely war related industry - the rest will have to face lower investions and thus won't be able to keep on growing that fast, or sometimes even at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--Radiocage+Oct. 18 2002,18:35--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Radiocage @ Oct. 18 2002,18:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->A good portion of that money isn't invested into those things anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm... I was making a general point. No war ever induced new growth into any participants economy.
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Oct. 18 2002,18:10--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct. 18 2002,18:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's my opinion. But then again, it's not my call. It's Bush's, and even though I don't agree with him, even though I think he's a flaming idiot, and even though we are on different sides of the two-party system, Like it or not, he is the president. He is the one that will be calling the shots for the next 2/6 years, and he's the one that will have to make this call.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, this call would go to Congess, unless we were attacked first, in which case the President may act on behalf of defense for 90 days before Congress has to make a decision.
-Ryan!
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure." -- Albert Einstein
<!--QuoteBegin--alius42+Oct. 18 2002,07:57--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (alius42 @ Oct. 18 2002,07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT: Nukes are extremely difficult to make, even if you have the uranium. Weapons grade uranium is also very hard to obtain, as well as intercontinental ballistic missles. Although russia has a ready supply hidden away in abandened military compounds.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The radioactive materials required to make a nuclear weapon are very easy to obtain, very, very, very difficult and expensive to purify to the point it can be used as a weapon. And it would be stupid to send a weapon you don't know works. Which would mean that it would be tested. It's unlikely Iraq would have the capabilities to make a nuclear weapon in the next decade, and we would have some warning when the country DOES have the capability.
Also, <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=8237" target="_blank">this link</a> I posted earlier is a good read. It's from a weapons inspector still watching Iraq. We know their missile capabilities, as well as their weapons capabilities. If we attack Iraq, Iraq has only one place to strike back to hit America (besides our troops, of course): Israel.
And then it hits the fan.
-Ryan!
"One of the most central aspects to this discussion is one that most people seem to have missed...
Saddam having weapons of mass destruction = Bad
Bush having weapons of mass destruction = Good
I'd challenge that. I'd also challenge the legitimacy of any country's right to invade another because it disagrees with their internal political state." -- Grendel
"The only part of buisness that can be thankful for a war is the directely war related industry - the rest will have to face lower investions and thus won't be able to keep on growing that fast, or sometimes even at all." -- Nemesis Zero
<!--QuoteBegin--Asraniel+Oct. 17 2002,08:42--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Asraniel @ Oct. 17 2002,08:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->excuse, but bush is just a stupid idiot that thinks that he can do everything he want... i hope next time you american people dont vote for him....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait, wait, wait, he is an idiot because he is attacking a leading terrorist country who poses a threat to the world? I'm sorry to inform you, but wouldn't you be pretty PO'ed at a group who has been trying to take down your country for years? Theoretically, if Iraq somehow took over the U.S. and gained all it's defenses and money, what do you think would happen? Major war probably, and since Iraq doesn't abide by the rules set up for war then that means they will use all the nuclear warfare they want. I don't see why Bush is referred to as an idiot and is being hated for throwing an offense against an enemy country, I'm actually glad it was impossible to get Clinton into office because he would just donate 1 billion dollars to Iraq and say, "We are terribly sorry for considering you to be an enemy.".
Now I'm starting to get a little worried.. I mean.. Israil is a small piece of land, inhbited by violent and mostly fanatical people, who believe (as do I, to some extent,) that the Lord in heaven watches over them, and will seriously mess up everyone in their way...
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Oct. 18 2002,22:13--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct. 18 2002,22:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now I'm starting to get a little worried.. I mean.. Israil is a small piece of land, inhbited by violent and mostly fanatical people, who believe (as do I, to some extent,) that the Lord in heaven watches over them, and will seriously mess up everyone in their way...
Well then.
Bundle up boys, it's gonna be a long winter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh come on for heavens sake. I cant think of 1 religion that does not believe in free will... If a mad man wants to kill him self with a bomb strapped to himself in the middle of an israeli street, it is free will. Miracles do happen, but... well... free will....
Also think of this: We let Iraq nuke Isreal, Middle-East conflict wars ended, we get our oil, iraq no longer has a nuke. Who isnt happy here? Isralis? No they are in heaven <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
P.S. I love to talk both relgion & polotics <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo--> Good place to be this topic <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo--> , but lets stop talking about internal american poltics in THIS thread.... start a new one.....
Comments
It's really interesting to discuss with someone at the exact opposite of the 'acceptable' political spectrum.
Anyway, I've got to bridge the gap until 8 pm, so we'd better go on <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
Thats one of the problems. We go around spitting the word democracy into the worlds face when we ourselves don't even follow our golden rule. The government needs a major overhall and put back into the hands of the people. Thats the only way America is going to actually improve drasticly.
Why aren't we a democracy? Every four years big wigs run around <i>begging</i> us to sway our electoral college members to vote for them and put them in office. If we don't like it, our constitution says we should destory it. If we feel things are out of hand, we have the right to rise up and dissolve the current government, take power back into our hands, and rebuild it any which way we like.
This is both good at bad. We live in a country where desicions can make or break us. The way we go is up to us.
If people would just realize this, it would do us well.
Back to war. The last major war that had public backing was Korea. When a country gets head-over-heels into a war effort, men go off to war, women work in factories, the government spends, and the economy is stimulated. After war, you begin to play off debts. Not to mention the technological advances that conflict produces.
Keep in mind this is all opinion and speculation. I've no real backing to make such claims...but hey, my opinion is a right, too, eh?
<!--EDIT|rob6264|Oct. 18 2002,09:56-->
I'm usually against war. THere have been.. maybe... 3 that I've agreed with wholeheartedly, and would have gone off to fight ofr myself.
American Revolution.
World War II.
And now this thing to track down the ######## that puled off 9/11.
But I am leaning to supporting this one. Saddam needs to be taken out, this is true. But I don't think an all-out onslaught is the right answer... right away, anyway.
5-10-20 men go in one night, and Saddam and all of his generals have heart attacks, followed by airstrikes/cruise missiles to all of their missile assets.
Boom, out goes the madman, all his men, and his "crown jewels (chemical weapons)," as CNN called it.
That's my opinion. But then again, it's not my call. It's Bush's, and even though I don't agree with him, even though I think he's a flaming idiot, and even though we are on different sides of the two-party system, Like it or not, he is the president. He is the one that will be calling the shots for the next 2/6 years, and he's the one that will have to make this call.
Like it or not, people, he's in office, and he's your president.
With the exception of Nemisis, and all the other non- United States citizens.
Saddam having weapons of mass destruction = Bad
Bush having weapons of mass destruction = Good
I'd challenge that. I'd also challenge the legitimacy of any country's right to invade another because it disagrees with their internal political state.
I'm not keen on Saddam Hussein gaining access to strategic weapons, but I find it hard to swallow that someone who has so assiduously insisted on remaining in power in country where he wasn't wanted by the majority feels legitimised in attacking another for the same reasons.
If the US were to be on the road to destroying their strategic weapons stockpile, I'd be more convinced. But they aren't.
If you take a look at it from an economists perspective, wars do exactely the opposite:
- The governments funds are bound into a specific area that will most likely not help complete its other duties.
A war against the Iraq would cost about 3 billion $ a <i>day</i> - money that can't be invested into infrastructure, education, or any other thing that'll merit the economy on the whole. Also, it reduces the governments financial reserves, which means it's got less options in terms of tax reduction or simliar economy improving matters (Note: I'm not advocating tax reductions here, I'm merely using a common example.)
- Almost every other possible investion a government could do aims on aquiring new merits or keeping old merits up.
If, for example, Bush decided to invest in a completely new carfleet for officials, this investment would not only be good for the autoindustry, it'd also give the government a lot of new, less gasoline requiring cars. Both ends of the deal would 'win'.
In case of arms, the government literally blows money up. It 'helps' the weapon industry, yes, but it gets nothing that would help with everyday administration in return - you could say that the government automatically 'loses' in such a deal.
The only part of buisness that can be thankful for a war is the directely war related industry - the rest will have to face lower investions and thus won't be able to keep on growing that fast, or sometimes even at all.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 18 2002,18:32-->
Anyway, do you really think Bush is deciding jack #### in his office? He's a poster boy.
Erm... I was making a general point.
No war ever induced new growth into any participants economy.
Actually, this call would go to Congess, unless we were attacked first, in which case the President may act on behalf of defense for 90 days before Congress has to make a decision.
-Ryan!
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
-- Albert Einstein
The radioactive materials required to make a nuclear weapon are very easy to obtain, very, very, very difficult and expensive to purify to the point it can be used as a weapon. And it would be stupid to send a weapon you don't know works. Which would mean that it would be tested. It's unlikely Iraq would have the capabilities to make a nuclear weapon in the next decade, and we would have some warning when the country DOES have the capability.
Also, <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=8237" target="_blank">this link</a> I posted earlier is a good read. It's from a weapons inspector still watching Iraq. We know their missile capabilities, as well as their weapons capabilities. If we attack Iraq, Iraq has only one place to strike back to hit America (besides our troops, of course): Israel.
And then it hits the fan.
-Ryan!
"One of the most central aspects to this discussion is one that most people seem to have missed...
Saddam having weapons of mass destruction = Bad
Bush having weapons of mass destruction = Good
I'd challenge that. I'd also challenge the legitimacy of any country's right to invade another because it disagrees with their internal political state."
-- Grendel
"The only part of buisness that can be thankful for a war is the directely war related industry - the rest will have to face lower investions and thus won't be able to keep on growing that fast, or sometimes even at all."
-- Nemesis Zero
Wait, wait, wait, he is an idiot because he is attacking a leading terrorist country who poses a threat to the world? I'm sorry to inform you, but wouldn't you be pretty PO'ed at a group who has been trying to take down your country for years? Theoretically, if Iraq somehow took over the U.S. and gained all it's defenses and money, what do you think would happen? Major war probably, and since Iraq doesn't abide by the rules set up for war then that means they will use all the nuclear warfare they want. I don't see why Bush is referred to as an idiot and is being hated for throwing an offense against an enemy country, I'm actually glad it was impossible to get Clinton into office because he would just donate 1 billion dollars to Iraq and say, "We are terribly sorry for considering you to be an enemy.".
Now I'm starting to get a little worried.. I mean.. Israil is a small piece of land, inhbited by violent and mostly fanatical people, who believe (as do I, to some extent,) that the Lord in heaven watches over them, and will seriously mess up everyone in their way...
Well then.
Bundle up boys, it's gonna be a long winter.
Well then.
Bundle up boys, it's gonna be a long winter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh come on for heavens sake. I cant think of 1 religion that does not believe in free will... If a mad man wants to kill him self with a bomb strapped to himself in the middle of an israeli street, it is free will. Miracles do happen, but... well... free will....
Also think of this: We let Iraq nuke Isreal, Middle-East conflict wars ended, we get our oil, iraq no longer has a nuke. Who isnt happy here? Isralis? No they are in heaven <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
P.S. I love to talk both relgion & polotics <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo--> Good place to be this topic <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo--> , but lets stop talking about internal american poltics in THIS thread.... start a new one.....