World War III immenent?

[Shrek]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/bush.national.security/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/bush.national.security/index.html)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/20/mideast.compound/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/20/mideast.compound/index.html)



With the current U.S. policy on Iraq and the situation with Yasser Arafat right now, I have this really scary gut feeling that something terrible is going to happen very soon.

I saw on CNN tonight that the U.S. is preparing for a blitzkreig attack on Iraq within the next few days. Nations such as Russia, China, and France oppose an attack on Iraq. If the U.S. does attack Iraq, it could trigger a response from opposing nations, igniting a nuclear holocaust.

In the meantime, Yasser Arafat remains holed up in his Presidential Office with the Israeli army right outside demanding that 20 terrorists inside (wanted by Israel) come out and surrender. Just about 30 minutes ago, Israeli soldiers opened fire on this building and now the building Arafat is in has become structurally unstable, endangering him and others inside. If the building does collapse, and Yasser Arafat dies, it could result in a violent response from other Arab Nations, possibly igniting another World War.

Is it interesting to note that Revelations 18, 19 seems to follow this very very carefully. Will this be one of the last battles between good and evil? :rolleyes:

EDIT:
Originally posted by Shrek


Thank you, rice_web. I agree. The world is definitely ready for war. Tensions throughout the world, I think, are higher now than they have ever been, especially with the threat of terrorism. I believe terrorism will be the cause of WWIII.

And just because the situation is not the same as in the pre-World War I and II eras doesn't mean that it can't happen. It CAN. Anything can happen, so prepare yourselves for a possible Armageddon!

All it takes is one BIG mistake, people. Just one mistake by one nation during times of high tention could tick off enough nations to start a world war. For example, an assasination. This is exactly how World War I started. Imagine if Yasser Arafat were assinated by an unsuspecting Israeli. That would tick off a lot of Arab nations, possibly leading them to attack Israel with chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons. If that happens, the U.N. may retaliate against the offending nations. Boom! World War III.

[vniow]

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=146747

[vniow]

Originally posted by Shrek


Is it interesting to note that Revelations 18, 19 follows this very carefully. Will this be the final battle between good and evil? :rolleyes:

For those of you who don't read the Bible (myself included)

18:1 After these things, I saw another angel coming down out of the sky, having great authority. The earth was illuminated with his glory.

18:2 He cried with a mighty voice, saying, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, and she has become a habitation of demons, a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird!

18:3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of her impure passion, the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from the abundance of her luxury."

18:4 I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, that you have no participation in her sins, and that you don't receive of her plagues,

18:5 for her sins have reached to the sky, and God has remembered her iniquities.

18:6 Return to her just as she returned, and repay her double as she did, and according to her works. In the cup which she mixed, mix to her double.

18:7 However much she glorified herself, and grew wanton, so much give her of torment and mourning. For she says in her heart, 'I sit a queen, and am no widow, and will in no way see mourning.'

18:8 Therefore in one day her plagues will come: death, mourning, and famine; and she will be utterly burned with fire; for the Lord God who has judged her is strong.

18:9 The kings of the earth, who committed sexual immorality and lived wantonly with her, will weep and wail over her, when they look at the smoke of her burning,

18:10 standing far away for the fear of her torment, saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For your judgment has come in one hour.'

18:11 The merchants of the earth weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise any more;

18:12 merchandise of gold, silver, precious stones, pearls, fine linen, purple, silk, scarlet, all expensive wood, every vessel of ivory, every vessel made of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble;

18:13 and cinnamon, incense, perfume, frankincense, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wheat, sheep, horses, chariots, bodies, and people's souls.

18:14 The fruits which your soul lusted after have been lost to you, and all things that were dainty and sumptuous have perished from you, and you will find them no more at all.

18:15 The merchants of these things, who were made rich by her, will stand far away for the fear of her torment, weeping and mourning;

18:16 saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, she who was dressed in fine linen, purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls!

18:17 For in an hour such great riches are made desolate.' Every shipmaster, and everyone who sails anywhere, and mariners, and as many as gain their living by sea, stood far away,

18:18 and cried out as they looked at the smoke of her burning, saying, 'What is like the great city?'

18:19 They cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and mourning, saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, in which all who had their ships in the sea were made rich by reason of her great wealth!' For in one hour is she made desolate.

18:20 Rejoice over her, O heaven, you saints, apostles, and prophets; for God has judged your judgment on her."

18:21 A mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, "Thus with violence will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down, and will be found no more at all.

18:22 The voice of harpists, minstrels, flute players, and trumpeters will be heard no more at all in you. No craftsman, of whatever craft, will be found any more at all in you. The sound of a mill will be heard no more at all in you.

18:23 The light of a lamp will shine no more at all in you. The voice of the bridegroom and of the bride will be heard no more at all in you; for your merchants were the princes of the earth; for with your sorcery all the nations were deceived.

18:24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on the earth."





19:1 After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Hallelujah! Salvation, power, and glory belong to our God:

19:2 for true and righteous are his judgments. For he has judged the great prostitute, who corrupted the earth with her sexual immorality, and he has avenged the blood of his servants at her hand."

19:3 A second said, "Hallelujah! Her smoke goes up forever and ever."

19:4 The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sits on the throne, saying, "Amen! Hallelujah!"

19:5 A voice came forth from the throne, saying, "Give praise to our God, all you his servants, you who fear him, the small and the great!"

19:6 I heard something like the voice of a great multitude, and like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of mighty thunders, saying, "Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns!

19:7 Let us rejoice and be exceedingly glad, and let us give the glory to him. For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his wife has made herself ready."

19:8 It was given to her that she would array herself in bright, pure, fine linen: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

19:9 He said to me, "Write, 'Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.'" He said to me, "These are true words of God."

19:10 I fell down before his feet to worship him. He said to me, "Look! Don't do it! I am a fellow bondservant with you and with your brothers who hold the testimony of Jesus. Worship God, for the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy."

19:11 I saw the heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it is called Faithful and True. In righteousness he judges and makes war.

19:12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has names written and a name written which no one knows but he himself.

19:13 He is clothed in a garment sprinkled with blood. His name is called "The Word of God."

19:14 The armies which are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in white, pure, fine linen.

19:15 Out of his mouth proceeds a sharp, double-edged sword, that with it he should strike the nations. He will rule them with a rod of iron. He treads the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.

19:16 He has on his garment and on his thigh a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

19:17 I saw an angel standing in the sun. He cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the sky, "Come! Be gathered together to the great supper of God,

19:18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, and small and great."

19:19 I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him who sat on the horse, and against his army.

19:20 The beast was taken, and with him the false prophet who worked the signs in his sight, with which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.

19:21 The rest were killed with the sword of him who sat on the horse, the sword which came forth out of his mouth. All the birds were filled with their flesh.

[Tiauguinho]

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Very good Edvniow!

[Durandal7]

I really doubt if it will be WWIII. I see WWIII being more likely getting caused by the UN trying to limit various country's powers. I'm not saying it will be the US or anytime soon but the way things are going with the UN it is probable that they will ignite a war in the future by pushing American/European policies on Arab and Asian countries.

Flame away....

[vniow]

Originally posted by Tiauguinho
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Very good Edvniow!

What exactly do you mean? I just thought it interesting that Shrek compared WWIII to a few passages in the Bible.
It's not the only one that predicts the end of the world soon, the Mayan calander ends in 2012.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by edvniow



It's not the only one that predicts the end of the world soon, the Mayan calander ends in 2012.

That's just a pop culture myth. The mayans had divisions of years similar to centuries and millenia. One large division covered a huge amout of time (9000 years I think) Their calendar simply ended there because they saw no reason in extending it further. It would be like finding one of our 5-year calendars and declaring that we thought the world would end in 2007.

[Tiauguinho]

Edvniow,

I just laugh out loud once i saw the picture that you posted "Buckle up folks - This Thread is going to get ugly".
About the Bible... hmmmm, I respect it as I respect another book, but I think that it was funny when you said "For those of you who don't read the Bible (myself included)".

[vniow]

Okay, I just wasn't sure what you referring to.
Durandal7, thanx for the rebuttal. I've heard ********* from both sides and I'm still trying to figure it out.

[Macmaniac]

I think its very unlikely that WW3 will break out if the US invades Iraq. Russia, China, and France would DEFINANTLY not use nuclear weapons in response to an attack. They are not that hostile to the US, there is no way that they would go that far. The two worst things that could happen are one: Iraq uses chemical and Biological weapons against the US, prompting a nuclear attack by the US(Worst case secnario) or a more likely situation is that Iraq launches missiles with chemical and biological against Isreal and Isreal responds with a Nuclear attack(During the Gulf War Isreals Nukes were moved out of storage and onto launch pads) Thus igniting a huge conflict beteween the Arabs and Isreali's.

[NatronB]

Originally posted by edvniow


It's not the only one that predicts the end of the world soon, the Mayan calander ends in 2012.[/COLOR]

What do the Mayans know anyways?

And I loved the "good v. evil" comment. Believers of such rhetoric have a place in the Bush White House :)

I think most of us would agree that the looming conflict has far more to do with history, economics and (above all) politics than religion or 'evil.'

So hopefully, no WWIII.

With that said Saddam Hussein is a Machiavellian in the extreme. He knows conflict keeps him in power.

He's also a rat, and we all know how cornered rats act. When the walls are tumbling down he may just decide to write himself a chapter in the "History of Nutball Lunatics" and take a few hundred Israelites with him. The Israeli response is pretty obvious.

I don't have any answers, but I don't like a situation where war is the only solution. There are other ways to deal with rats.

As for you war-mongers out there, if you can give me a reason why we should attack Iraq now while we didn't attack Iran 3 years ago, I might be interested.

In the end, it's all very complicated.

"In any event wrapping yourself in the flag and burying your head in the sand is not an appropriate way to deal with an unwelcome philosophical challenge. It may not be evil, but it isn't very nice." -Michael Kinsley

[jefhatfield]

to be a world war 3, there needs to be more than one superpower, and those superpowers need to have major military capability, and those superpowers need to be at a diplomatic standstill and possibly be seeking a military solution

in this world right now, we only have one superpower and even though the situation in the middle east is far from perfect, it is not world war 3

usa allies, some of them oppose our actions abroad and so do some of our not so close acquaintances, but what would make them want to attack us...and with what resources?

the gulf war was a better argument for world war 3, and even then it would have been an extremely weak argument at that

but world peace, that is a different issue, and it is so obvious that we are not "there" yet

[Shrek]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
to be a world war 3, there needs to be more than one superpower. . .

Uh no, as anything can happen.

. . .but world peace, that is a different issue, and it is so obvious that we are not "there" yet

Keep on dreamin'. :rolleyes:

[BongHits]

Originally posted by NatronB


What do the Mayans know anyways?



considering are all knowing ancestorrs burned their libraries to the ground...we'll never know...altho im sure if we had learned from them our culture would be several thousand years more advanced (considering we're still learning from them...do we even know how they built their temples in such remote areas)

[BongHits]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
to be a world war 3, there needs to be more than one superpower, and those superpowers need to have major military capability, and those superpowers need to be at a diplomatic standstill and possibly be seeking a military solution

to say that we're a super power is somewhat rediculous if u ask me...
sure we can drop 50,000 tons of bombs on a country, because we have plenty of loot...but if we're fighting this war alone, we can't do it forever.

let's say for example we attack Iraq, and every nation but Britain condemns our actions. Next thing you know we're fighting the whole world and you'll be hard pressed to find enough Americans that believe in this war to actually fight it for you...

[spuncan]

1st a rebutle to NatronB/Everyone- hmm try to look at the bible as a big huge metaphor/history book. Many of the bibles stories especially those of creation and apocalypse can be though of as symbols and metaphors of something that actually did happen. (i.e. fruit of wisdom in the garden of eden, us begining to eat fat and large quantities of protein increasing our brain mass and overall intelligence (this is imo))
As 4 WW3 I think it could be possible that the middle east is a trigger 4 WW3 if every worst posible outcome occurs. But I think its more likely that it is part of a string of events that leads to some sort of war. Finally as for sadamm I think we will find no traces of WoMD becuase none exist or he hid em all and his rein will go on 4 a while until he dies or is over thrown.

[wwworry]

If we do invade Iraq isn't there a greater possibility that the people of Pakistan might get pissed off enough to move towards radical Islam? Pakistan does have working nukes and is not very stable.

So in stamping out one problem we create another. Wouldn't we be better off pushing for a Palestinian state which would relieve some of the anti-US vitriol, cost less and not so many innocent people would die.

The US could play this a bit smarter. War should be the last resort.

[krossfyter]

oh no.

[big]

this is my chance to throw in how we need to reorganize our cities into Garden cities huh?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by BongHits



let's say for example we attack Iraq, and every nation but Britain condemns our actions. Next thing you know we're fighting the whole world and you'll be hard pressed to find enough Americans that believe in this war to actually fight it for you...


the whole world will fight us over this?

the last two world wars involved superpowers with intent to take over the world by force...three axis powers vs several superpowers and some minor ones

how is this situation now similar to world war I or II?

[Durandal7]

I don't see any relation to WWI or WWII here. Iraq will most likely end up as some sort of Tora Bora type operation on a larger scale. Palestine will trigger bickering in the Middle East but that's nothing new. No one will touch Isreal because of nuclear reprisal. If India and Pakistan went to nuclear war the entire world would back off and it would be done with.

[kiwi_the_iwik]

In response to the thread title - Don't be silly.

The world's been in far worse shape than this. Take for example the Bay of Pigs debacle, and the Cuban Missile crisis.

Although many of you weren't even born back then (me included...), the planet was teetering on the edge of the abyss. And it wouldn't have taken much to go over at all. Ask your parents about it - it was a nasty time.

I was a Cold War baby too (born in 1970) - and pretty much oblivious to our plight until I was 11, when my teacher read out a newspaper article about the probability of a Global Nuclear Conflict. We were stunned - even in little old New Zealand, it seemed we were not immune. Life suddenly got a lot more serious for us all.

But life goes on - and the powers-that-be are generally smarter and more sensible than you give them credit for. At least, that's what you hope when you elect them. Sometimes, however, they need a nudge in the right direction...

For the life of me, though, I can't see the reason for an allied strike against Iraq. The people are poor, downtrodden and demoralised. Only their united dislike for the countries that have implemented the crippling sanctions against them are keeping them bonded in solidarity.

Imagine being in their position - You have a mad leader, but you follow him anyway (and not by choice - you don't have any say in the matter). But you have a family you have to support, clothe, feed and supply medicine to - especially for your sick child, who more than likely will die without proper medication. Ironically, the medicine is readily available in other countries, and will cure your child easily. But because of sanctions, no one buys your nation's product (oil - a highly sought-after commodity), and vitally important necessities such as food and medicine are blocked from entering your country, which causes your people to suffer. To add insult to injury, precious grain silos containing valuable food stocks, and schools containing children are bombed by allied jets - as a so-called peace-keeping measure, or because of unreliable intelligence (take for example the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy!).

Now - YOU tell me...

If the United States, for example, were attacked by someone, because that country didn't like the administration running it, they would feel wronged by the country responsible, wouldn't they? (Especially if the attack killed or injured innocent people). Why, then, are the US doing exactly what they say they're fighting against?

Even though the United States is such a large country, with an amazing wealth behind it, I still can't understand why their government can somehow justify policing the world, and mould it in their image. Variation is a beautiful thing. Everybody is not the same.

And although I am a FIRM BELIEVER in freedom for ALL, I don't accept there is any benefit to changing someone's views with a fist. It will only generate animosity and create enemies.

There is a better way. There has to be.

I work for a news organisation, and they give me the opportunity to travel to Iraq to see first-hand the crippling devastation created by these inhuman sanctions put in place by the UN. In fact, when the air-raids commence on Baghdad, no doubt you'll be watching those images LIVE on television, and thinking: "There's actually a Western TV crew in there, filming that from the roof of a building..." - Well, that's the job I do. I'm a cameraman, and I see what really happens. I'm sick of seeing body parts strewn across the streets, children crying for their dead parents, and parents crying for dead children. As a parent, my perspective on life has changed dramatically. I look at my 2-year old son and hope for a peaceful future for him, but am troubled by the images of parents who have lost their children in conflict that I have seen over the years.

It's up to us to change the way our leaders think and act on the world stage. It shouldn't be about oil, or money, or power (even though it inevitably is), but it SHOULD be about FREEDOM. That's what we should be striving for - and not at the price of losing our identities or cultures.

[Choppaface]

well i guess terrorist is our new communist....

[3777]

There are about a million different things that can bring about an end to the world tomorrow........ an Asteroid, heck there's even a Volcanic Island off of the Cape Verde's, and if it erupts again it could collapse an entire side of the island into the Atlantic Ocean and create a 2000........ yes folks....... 2000 foot tidal wave that would wipe out everything east of the Mississippi........

so I will not worry about things........ and I definitely won't lose any sleep if we make Iraq our 51st State, because we need the oil (Heck especially someone like me, who drives Jeeps and other 4x4's:cool: ) ..........and Saddam Hussein is a worthless pile of horse manure anyway..... he gassed hundreds of women and children about 10 years ago just so he could try out his chemical weapons....... anyway, after we get rid of him maybe we could kick the UN out of New York........ :D

P.S. I do think that if we go in, Hussein will throw the kitchen sink at us, I just hope it doesn't include smallpox or something like that......

[Nipsy]

Iraq is not the trigger for WWIII. I also don't think that any Middle Eastern nation itself stands to start another World War.

We may piss some people off, but Iraq is a country that can be decimated in months by the U.S., and the U.S. alone.

The U.N. members who oppose such an action may be quite vocal, but frankly, in this day and age, the threat of a U.S. trade embargo will silence opposition from any first world country.

The reason that we're the only remaining superpower has nothing to do with our arsenal, and everything to do with our trade.

There was quite a bit of opposition to Desert Storm, which was also a grossly mismatched endeavor. Most governmental opposition went remarkably quiet with a few trade threats, and the small remainder was quickly forgotton.

The only countries, in my opinion, which have the power and inclination to start WWIII are India and Pakistan, which both have the capability to go nuclear, as well as strong current and historic ties to Western nations. The current climate has led to huge diplomatic
investments in both countries to avoid conflict, but who knows.

[iwantanewmac]

Originally posted by 3777
There are about a million different things that can bring about an end to the world tomorrow........ an Asteroid, heck there's even a Volcanic Island off of the Cape Verde's, and if it erupts again it could collapse an entire side of the island into the Atlantic Ocean and create a 2000........ yes folks....... 2000 foot tidal wave that would wipe out everything east of the Mississippi......

Like everything east of the missisippi is the whole world mmmmmm? :)

[3777]

Originally posted by iwantanewmac


Like everything east of the missisippi is the whole world mmmmmm? :)

My world pal!:cool:

[3777]

Originally posted by Macmaniac
I think its very unlikely that WW3 will break out if the US invades Iraq. Russia, China, and France would DEFINANTLY not use nuclear weapons in response to an attack. They are not that hostile to the US, there is no way that they would go that far. The two worst things that could happen are one: Iraq uses chemical and Biological weapons against the US, prompting a nuclear attack by the US(Worst case secnario) or a more likely situation is that Iraq launches missiles with chemical and biological against Isreal and Isreal responds with a Nuclear attack(During the Gulf War Isreals Nukes were moved out of storage and onto launch pads) Thus igniting a huge conflict beteween the Arabs and Isreali's.

Normally people ask this in response to my posts........ what the hell are you smoking:confused:

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by 3777
There are about a million different things that can bring about an end to the world tomorrow........ an Asteroid, heck there's even a Volcanic Island off of the Cape Verde's, and if it erupts again it could collapse an entire side of the island into the Atlantic Ocean and create a 2000........ yes folks....... 2000 foot tidal wave that would wipe out everything east of the Mississippi........




after movies deep impact and armageddon, i saw a science tv program depicting the potential damage of volcanos being worse than any asteroid from space

some volcanos can cause a worldwide winter which would wipe out the human race and is the other likely scenario that wiped out the dinosaurs

asteroids and their trajectory can be more easily predicted than a volcano so the loss of human life can be reduced from the outer space threat

but a volcano is still unpredictable and the biggest natural threat known to man

...but imagine the wave you can catch with a longboard:p

[rice_web]

World War III could easily come.

I actually have written several essays on the possibility of WWIII, and, freakishly, my predictions seem to be fairly accurate (granted, I wrote these essays over a year ago).

With the political situations in South America, the world should be ready to be rocked, with our without a massive world war. Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia could easily fall into civil war, and South American governments might collapse. It is definitely a scary time when the Argentine currency is worth nothing, and individual states' currencies have all the real power.

That aside, the world must also work with the Arab nations, either through war or compromise. As it stands, Iraq will likely have several allies in our Gulf War II, nations like Egypt, Iran, Libya, and maybe even Pakistan and Indonesia (Pakistan and Indonesia would likely fail to cooperate with Iraq).

To make the US's situation in the Middle East worse, world pressure against any attack would leave the US to deal these nations ourselves. Heck, Russia may even fund the Iraqis if a military conflict does occur (Russia recently laid down $40 billion in economic stimulus in Iraq, they don't want it to evaporate).

No matter what happens, the situation the world is currently facing will remain complex. I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds of millions are dead after every unfolds, but I wouldn't be surprised if everything was resolved within the next few months.

[3777]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


after movies deep impact and armageddon, i saw a science tv program depicting the potential damage of volcanos being worse than any asteroid from space

some volcanos can cause a worldwide winter which would wipe out the human race and is the other likely scenario that wiped out the dinosaurs

asteroids and their trajectory can be more easily predicted than a volcano so the loss of human life can be reduced from the outer space threat

but a volcano is still unpredictable and the biggest natural threat known to man

...but imagine the wave you can catch with a longboard:p

That reminds me...... the huge wave would be the result of the islands collapsing into the ocean, but there's also a "Supervolcano" (otherwise known as Yellowstone National Park) ..........and if that blows it would pretty much take care of anything West of the Mississippi!:D

[3777]

Originally posted by rice_web
World War III could easily come.

I actually have written several essays on the possibility of WWIII, and, freakishly, my predictions seem to be fairly accurate (granted, I wrote these essays over a year ago).

With the political situations in South America, the world should be ready to be rocked, with our without a massive world war. Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia could easily fall into civil war, and South American governments might collapse. It is definitely a scary time when the Argentine currency is worth nothing, and individual states' currencies have all the real power.

That aside, the world must also work with the Arab nations, either through war or compromise. As it stands, Iraq will likely have several allies in our Gulf War II, nations like Egypt, Iran, Libya, and maybe even Pakistan and Indonesia (Pakistan and Indonesia would likely fail to cooperate with Iraq).

To make the US's situation in the Middle East worse, world pressure against any attack would leave the US to deal these nations ourselves. Heck, Russia may even fund the Iraqis if a military conflict does occur (Russia recently laid down $40 billion in economic stimulus in Iraq, they don't want it to evaporate).

No matter what happens, the situation the world is currently facing will remain complex. I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds of millions are dead after every unfolds, but I wouldn't be surprised if everything was resolved within the next few months.


I've got a Jeep CJ7, I'm ready!!! WHOOOOOOHOOOOO!!!:cool:

[Shrek]

Originally posted by rice_web
World War III could easily come.

I actually have written several essays on the possibility of WWIII, and, freakishly, my predictions seem to be fairly accurate (granted, I wrote these essays over a year ago).

With the political situations in South America, the world should be ready to be rocked, with our without a massive world war. Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia could easily fall into civil war, and South American governments might collapse. It is definitely a scary time when the Argentine currency is worth nothing, and individual states' currencies have all the real power.

That aside, the world must also work with the Arab nations, either through war or compromise. As it stands, Iraq will likely have several allies in our Gulf War II, nations like Egypt, Iran, Libya, and maybe even Pakistan and Indonesia (Pakistan and Indonesia would likely fail to cooperate with Iraq).

To make the US's situation in the Middle East worse, world pressure against any attack would leave the US to deal these nations ourselves. Heck, Russia may even fund the Iraqis if a military conflict does occur (Russia recently laid down $40 billion in economic stimulus in Iraq, they don't want it to evaporate).

No matter what happens, the situation the world is currently facing will remain complex. I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds of millions are dead after every unfolds, but I wouldn't be surprised if everything was resolved within the next few months.

Thank you, rice_web. I agree. The world is definitely ready for war. Tensions throughout the world, I think, are higher now than they have ever been, especially with the threat of terrorism. I believe terrorism will be the cause of WWIII.

And just because the situation is not the same as in the pre-World War I and II eras doesn't mean that it can't happen. It CAN. Anything can happen, so prepare yourselves for a possible Armageddon!

[Durandal7]

I wonder how long until this turns into a Y2K-type craze and survival books on Nuclear Armegeddon start going on sale.

[rice_web]

I wonder how long until this turns into a Y2K-type craze and survival books on Nuclear Armegeddon start going on sale.

It already has. Have you heard all the crazy, "Well terrorists might find a way to strike at our air supply...," stories? People are afraid that our water, food, air, and property could all come under attack.

Well, no crap! Of course they could! But, 9/11 could be repeated without any difficulty, too! I could easily build a fertilizer bomb and take out any building in the world if I wanted, so what's holding back terrorists?

Eh, I hate that mindset. People are just too afraid right now.

[Shrek]

Originally posted by Shrek

All it takes is one BIG mistake, people. Just one mistake by one nation during times of high tention could tick off enough nations to start a world war. For example, an assasination. This is exactly how World War I started. Imagine if Yasser Arafat were assinated by an unsuspecting Israeli. That would tick off a lot of Arab nations, possibly leading them to attack Israel with chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons. If that happens, the U.N. may retaliate against the offending nations. Boom! World War III.

[diorio]

I haven't been following the news in the past few days, but I didn't realize it was getting this bad. I saw something about Yasser Arafat in the paper but I didn't read the article. Hopefully WW3 doesn't occur, but eventually it probably will unless the people in the Middle East can stop killing each other and reach a compromise.

[rice_web]

Why does everyone always assume that the problem is rooted with the Middle East alone? We have the Middle East, South America, post-Cold War Soviet Union nations, Eastern Europe, and much of Africa in an unstable enviornment. If revolutions begin in even one place, the entire world might be chanting, "Revolution!" in unison.

The thugs in the Middle East like Saddam must be dealt with, but they are only a portion of the problem, the portion with oil.

[job]

Originally posted by jefhatfield

in this world right now, we only have one superpower


I beg to differ....

China sees itself as the next USSR. Currently, with the largest (numerically speaking) army in the world, as well as a cache of nuclear weapons and ICBMs developed from the old Soviet technology, I see China as a possible superpower that may contend with the United States in the future.

[job]

Originally posted by rice_web
Why does everyone always assume that the problem is rooted with the Middle East alone? We have the Middle East, South America, post-Cold War Soviet Union nations, Eastern Europe, and much of Africa in an unstable enviornment. If revolutions begin in even one place, the entire world might be chanting, "Revolution!" in unison.

The thugs in the Middle East like Saddam must be dealt with, but they are only a portion of the problem, the portion with oil.

You also have India and Pakistan.

I seriously doubt that anything would hold them back from going nuclear in a time of war.

They would wipe themselves off the map and the resulting fallout would affect the world for generations to come.

Then again, it has not happened yet, and hopefully it never will..

[diorio]

Originally posted by rice_web
Why does everyone always assume that the problem is rooted with the Middle East alone? We have the Middle East, South America, post-Cold War Soviet Union nations, Eastern Europe, and much of Africa in an unstable enviornment. If revolutions begin in even one place, the entire world might be chanting, "Revolution!" in unison.

The thugs in the Middle East like Saddam must be dealt with, but they are only a portion of the problem, the portion with oil.

Well the middle east has been in some kind of struggle for longer than any of the countries you mentioned. The middle east is the one that makes the news, and the one where the most people have died. The others you mentioned are valid, but aren't as violatle as the middle east. Of course there is always going to be more than one place to finger as dangerous, you left out China, Cuba, and North Korea as places of possible danger. But of all the countries you mentioned and I added, the collective countries of the Middle East are more dangerous, and the most problematic.

[Durandal7]

It goes to figure that our attention is rooted in the Middle East because they have actually attacked us. We will focus on them for a while unless one of the aforementioned countries attacks us, in which case we will focus on them.

[diorio]

Originally posted by Durandal7
It goes to figure that our attention is rooted in the Middle East because they have actually attacked us. We will focus on them for a while unless one of the aforementioned countries attacks us, in which case we will focus on them.

That is a excellent point. I hadn't thought of it, but that is probably the main reason we focus our attention in the Middle East.

[job]

Originally posted by diorio


That is a excellent point. I hadn't thought of it, but that is probably the main reason we focus our attention in the Middle East.

However, we also have to remember that the Middle East has always been in some state of turmoil and/or conflict.

The region has been unstable since recorded history.

It's worse than the Balkans or the Kashmir issue.

It is the flashpoint.

[Durandal7]

I doubt if peace in the Middle East is possible. Let's remember that Clinton appeared to be successful in acheiveing peace but then in the middle of the conference Isreal and Palestine started to riot and triggered a war that is still going on.

[job]

I agree.

I see no possible way for there to be a true peace in the region.

All it takes is one suicide/murderer bomber and the whole thing starts all over again.

[diorio]

Until both sides realize that peace is not possible through violence, there will never be peace. I'm not even sure if either side even wants peace now. Every time a cease fire agreement comes into effect, some suicide bomber blows himself up in a crowded establishment in the name of Allah. Then the israelis get pissed off, and kill some palestinian civilians. It will be a never ending cycle until both sides realize, there is no peace with violence.

[kiwi_the_iwik]

Originally posted by diorio
...I hadn't thought of it, but that is probably the main reason we focus our attention in the Middle East.

I don't think so. The principle reasons here are:

1 - Oil, and

2 - Muscle Flexing on the part of the US.


Let's cover point 1 - Oil.

It's a very well-known fact that the Iraqis were supported by the Reagan Administration (and then the Bush Administration) during the Iran-Iraq War - a conflict that scarred two nations, and killed millions on each side. The US's agenda was to extinguish the threat of the "Evil Ayotolla", and assist the "puppet" Saddam Hussein to gain the upper hand in the region. If this could be done, then the US would have found a cheap and plentiful source of oil in the Middle East - and the Saudis would not be able to monopolise the market, thus dropping prices to bargain-basement level.

The problem Saddam had was that he was in a land-locked country - and needed an avenue to the Persian Gulf to supply prospective clients with his valuable oil stocks. Off-the-record, the US Ambassador told the Iraqi leader (after consultation with her government) that the US would not stand in the way of Iraq if it was decided to push into Kuwait, and thus create the necessary pathway to the Gulf - if it was done with the minimum of force. It was agreed upon, and the deed was done.

Not content with just Kuwait, Saddam decided to set his sights on bigger fish - as he was spurred on with the ease and speed of the invasion. So, Iraq mobilised on the border of Saudi Arabia. The US, realising what they had done, obviously had to clean up the mess they had created, and thus entered the Gulf War...

The rest, as they say, is history.

The US Ambassador to Iraq was sent home in disgrace - having been used as a scapegoat in the whole affair (The US Government - "...it was an error in judgement on her part.")

It transpired that the US could contain things without too much difficulty. Lucky for them. So it stands to reason that now in times of an economic downturn, and dwindling fossil-fuel supplies, the US is once more targeting Iraq, under the cover of "maintaining world peace". But hey - control the supply of oil, you can control the destiny of the world. Oh - what power!

This leads on to point 2 - Muscle Flexing on the part of the US.

Let's face it - America has the tools, and it has the talent. With one of the strongest economies in the world, and one of the largest and powerful military forces on earth, they are virtually undefeatable. So what do they have to gain from attacking a demoralised country like Iraq? Saddam wins either way - he becomes a martyr for the Islamic cause if killed, or a thorn in the Infidel's side if he survives - standing up to give two fingers in defiance of the mighty US.

The US, on the other hand, believes they have to show that they are doing something in the fight against terrorism - and what better way than to attack their old adversary in Iraq (and one they can beat...). Funny - I don't see them queuing up to take a shot at North Korea or China...

[As a sidenote, it sort of reminds me of a video game - with the player controlling the US. Level 1 - Afghanistan. Level 2 - Iraq. Level 3 - Somalia? Bosnia? Pakistan? Hmmm - still don't see China or North Korea in there...]

Basically, in their eyes, it's a war the US can win, with limited casualties. It gives their people (a false) confidence that the world is a safer place to live in, and that Dubya is fighting (and winning) the Worldwide War Against Terrorism (Hmmph - maybe it should be called the "Total War Against Terrorism" - or T.W.A.T. for short... :)). It also enforces the general consensus that one should not mess with the US.

Wrong. All that will be done will be to create a greater contempt for the US from the Arabs for interfering, and causing more innocent people to suffer.

War will NOT change people's views - political, religious or otherwise. If you're in the schoolyard and someone came over and bopped you in the nose because you didn't conform to their way of thinking, I'm sure you'd be plenty annoyed. Don't think that the Arabs won't be, too - for having their country decimated, and their families destroyed. Sanctions, for that matter, won't cut it either. Proper diplomatic protocol suggests talking and listening works.

Maybe that should be the new approach.

[Chisholm]

On a personal level, I feel ashamed as an American to have such a tyrant like George Dubya' leading our country. He is ignorant. He is a puppet with a faceless controller. He's bucking for reelection. And I can assure you he doesn't use a Mac!

Please, those of you from outside the USA don't think ALL Americans can be represented by George. Not all of us are war mongers.

And bravo! Kiwi!!!

[Gus]

You are over-simplifying this situation, I think. Of course this was about oil first. That issue is not a question.

To the person who was horrified by what our terrible sanctions are doing to Iraq-
Yes, the sanctions are harsh, and they were intended to be. If they want the sanctions lifted, all that has to be done is for SH to comply with the UN sanctions. He has NEVER fully complied with the terms of the Gulf War Resolution. That aside, Iraq has been receiving money and medical supplies in exchange for oil from the US and all of the UN countries since the end of the Gulf War. If the leaders of Iraq are not properly distributing or hording these supplies, how are we to be held responsible?

Are you also forgetting that Saddam Hussein attempted genocide in 1990 with the slaughter of the Kurdish people? He completely wiped them out because he didn't like them in his country, and he needed a test for his weapons.

Did we use the help of Iraq in the fighting with Iran? Of course we did, but Iraq was ASKING for the help also. We did not just go in and say "Hey, were're taking over now." We were going to the aid of another country that just so happened could help us out with a problem also. And don't think for one minute that the US had any reservations about the fact that Saddam could not be trusted. We knew he was dirty, but we knew we could control him. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Anyway, I do agree we should go into Iraq. They have not complied with the terms of the last war, even though they have been warned and asked and pleaded with , etc. for the last 10 years. Saddam openly makes statements about attacking the US and encourages, even demands that other Arab Nations rise up against us; not because of oppression, but because he has a grand notion the it will be him who will lead these nations when it is all done. He is a megolamaniacal person who had his own relatives assisnated when he thought they might not agree with him.

I'm done. I'm tired of typing.


Gus

[3777]

Originally posted by Chisholm
On a personal level, I feel ashamed as an American to have such a tyrant like George Dubya' leading our country. He is ignorant. He is a puppet with a faceless controller. He's bucking for reelection. And I can assure you he doesn't use a Mac!

Please, those of you from outside the USA don't think ALL Americans can be represented by George. Not all of us are war mongers.

And bravo! Kiwi!!!


Please, those of you outside of our country, realize that most Americans are not represented by the commie pinko above:rolleyes: Actually, many of us were thoroughly embarrassed by the actions of our scum of the Earth former President, Bill Clinton, and we're quite proud of the way George Bush handled post 9/11. We're also quite eager and ready, after 8 years of a non existent foreign policy, to start kicking a$$ and taking names........ so you people in France better watch yourselves, because we don't like you any more then you like us!:D

[e-coli]

most seminaries have ceased to teach the book of revelations for exactly this reason. it's a self-fulfilling prophecy of death and destruction. It's the very reason (and passages similar to it in other religions) that we are all hell-bent on destroying each other. If you're into Biblical religion, that's fine. but it seems to me that the book of revelations does considerably more harm to the welfare of society than it does good.

As for the rest of this post...if you want my opinion, you can ask.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Durandal7


That's just a pop culture myth. The mayans had divisions of years similar to centuries and millenia. One large division covered a huge amout of time (9000 years I think) Their calendar simply ended there because they saw no reason in extending it further. It would be like finding one of our 5-year calendars and declaring that we thought the world would end in 2007.

From what I've read and seen the writings that have been deciphered near Mayan calendars declare the end of the calendar as the end of time itself.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by 3777


That reminds me...... the huge wave would be the result of the islands collapsing into the ocean, but there's also a "Supervolcano" (otherwise known as Yellowstone National Park) ..........and if that blows it would pretty much take care of anything West of the Mississippi!:D

You're right about Yellowstone but most of it's damage will be east due to prevailing winds. The ash fall out would be devastating and the effect west of it would be minor comparitively.

[3777]

Originally posted by MacBandit


You're right about Yellowstone but most of it's damage will be east due to prevailing winds. The ash fall out would be devastating and the effect west of it would be minor comparitively.

Great so between the Supervolcano and the 2000 foot tidal wave, those of us living on the East Coast are really $crewed!!!:D

[Ovi]

1

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by MacBandit


From what I've read and seen the writings that have been deciphered near Mayan calendars declare the end of the calendar as the end of time itself.

Many archaeologists have come to the conclusion that it is the end of an era on their calendar. Others feel that it is what they believe to be the end of time. Others say that we will die in 2012. Mayan myths say that the world goes through phases and that humanity will die with the end of the next phase. It's really a pointless debate and it will be a moot point in 2013.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by 3777



Please, those of you outside of our country, realize that most Americans are not represented by the commie pinko above:rolleyes: D

i believe we need to stop sadaam hussein, big time!

but the usa has done things that have made me feel embarassed like vietnam, support so thoroughly of ferdinand marcos and manuel noriega, people who we basically needed to help oust later on

and oh yeah, sadaam...what were we thinking?

but still, however sadaam got his toys, we need to stop him because he aids terrorists and is the only leader agrressive towards the outside world that can really do damage with one of the largest militaries in the world

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by 3777



Actually, many of us were thoroughly embarrassed by the actions of our scum of the Earth former President, Bill Clinton, and we're quite proud of the way George Bush handled post 9/11. D

president clinton was not a great husband and was a womanizer and still may be, but he was a great us president and presided on the best days our economy has ever seen

president bush definitely brought our country together in a very admirable way after september 11 and proved to many that he has leadership ability

[3777]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


president clinton was not a great husband and was a womanizer and still may be, but he was a great us president and presided on the best days our economy has ever seen

president bush definitely brought our country together in a very admirable way after september 11 and proved to many that he has leadership ability

Gee........maybe our economy was stong because for the first time in decades we had a Republican congress and we passed a balanced budget amendment.......:confused: Great Presidents don't get up in front of a camera, look at "the American people" ......and proceed to lie through their teeth....... sorry.....

Oh and whether or not you agreed with Vietnam isn't a problem, my father was a helicopter pilot in both Vietnam and the Gulf War, he has no problem with people who refused the draft, protested the war, but did it inside the United States and faced the consequences of their decisions .........but to take off to Oxford like a little weasel, and then to have the gaul to think you have any right whatsoever to be commander in chief is truely disgusting.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by 3777


Gee........maybe our economy was stong because for the first time in decades we had a Republican congress and we passed a balanced budget amendment.......:confused: Great Presidents don't get up in front of a camera, look at "the American people" ......and proceed to lie through their teeth....... sorry.....

Oh and whether or not you agreed with Vietnam isn't a problem, my father was a helicopter pilot in both Vietnam and the Gulf War, he has no problem with people who refused the draft, protested the war, but did it inside the United States and faced the consequences of their decisions .........but to take off to Oxford like a little weasel, and then to have the gaul to think you have any right whatsoever to be commander in chief is truely disgusting.

we voted for him, twice...and overwhelmingly so

[Ovi]

1

[G5orbust]

Originally posted by BongHits

to say that we're a super power is somewhat rediculous if u ask me...
sure we can drop 50,000 tons of bombs on a country, because we have plenty of loot...but if we're fighting this war alone, we can't do it forever.

let's say for example we attack Iraq, and every nation but Britain condemns our actions. Next thing you know we're fighting the whole world and you'll be hard pressed to find enough Americans that believe in this war to actually fight it for you...

Damn if that happens, all of macrumors will be split. US and UK people vs everyone else, even canada, the US's friend forever, even when we tried to conquer it.

[Gelfin]

Originally posted by Durandal7


Many archaeologists have come to the conclusion that it is the end of an era on their calendar. Others feel that it is what they believe to be the end of time. Others say that we will die in 2012. Mayan myths say that the world goes through phases and that humanity will die with the end of the next phase. It's really a pointless debate and it will be a moot point in 2013.

On the other hand, scientists have confirmed evidence that a culture, scientifically advanced beyond any previously discovered on the earth, relied on a calendar system which indicates time will end in early 2038. Many of their scholars predict great catastrophe associated with this date.

(bonus points for anybody who knows what I'm refering to here)

[diorio]

Originally posted by Chisholm
On a personal level, I feel ashamed as an American to have such a tyrant like George Dubya' leading our country. He is ignorant. He is a puppet with a faceless controller. He's bucking for reelection. And I can assure you he doesn't use a Mac!

Please, those of you from outside the USA don't think ALL Americans can be represented by George. Not all of us are war mongers.

And bravo! Kiwi!!!

Well if you're so ashamed of being an American, why don't you move to some other country? If George W Bush is doing so bad, then why haven't we kicked him out of office? Personally I think he is just acting in the interest of the United States. In the paper today was an article about how Iraq isn't going to let U.N inspectors into certain areas. Why should we believe that they don't have anything there? You sound like one of those people that always hate Republicans no matter what they do. If I recall, the president prior to George W Bush was one of the worst moral presidents in the history of the U.S. He may have done some good things for the economy, but he is probably remember more for the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress. I suggest before you slam our president, you think of what you are saying. Perhaps George W Bush isn't the ignorant one but you are. And while Iraq is developing chemical and biological weapons, George W Bush will be trying to stop them while you and those who think like you will be holding hands and singing Kumbya.

[3777]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


we voted for him, twice...and overwhelmingly so


He won re-election overwhelmingly, he had only a minority of the vote in the 92 election, and he managed to destroy the Democratic stranglehold on congress thanks to his arrogance and his loudmouth wife's socialist medical insurance proposal....two years later in the 94 mid term elections....... but yes he was a two term President......it was a different world then, one in which most people had their head entirely up their @$$, I doubt he would have a chance today......especially given his abysmal conduct both in his 2nd term, and since leaving office. But at least you don't like Saddam!:D

[3777]

And regardless of anyone's feeling about Bush, I thank god every day that we had men like Powell and Rumsfeld in place......as opposed to Clinton's boys........ after the attacks on September 11th...... that's for sure!

[diorio]

Yeah, we'd probably still be deciding what to do about it.

[idkew]

Originally posted by 3777
so you people in France better watch yourselves, because we don't like you any more then you like us!:D

hehe, don't forget that the french people can not win a war for their lives. how many times have they had to be bailed out by us? too many. get a couple ford fiestas and some .22 caliber pistols, roll into paris, and you've most likely won.

[idkew]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


president clinton... was a great us president and presided on the best days our economy has ever seen


clinton had little to do with the economic conditions during his tenure. ever heard of allan greenspan? yeah, he is the one to give credit to.

but, if you want to give clinton credit for the economy, what do you have to say about the downturn when he was leaving? the current economic conditions were already happening before bush took office. clinton left them with bush. the republican run economic upturn could only last so long with someone like clinton in office.

(bring it on- i like to argue.)

[Ovi]

1

[Shrek]

Threadjacked

[vniow]

Well, this is sure interesting, not too long ago we had a thread called 'George Bush as President scares me' and now it seems like everybody's on his side, What the hell happened? :confused:

[whfsdude]

I would be more inclined to kill a bunch of posers, half the usa. Is it just me or is it time for some house cleaning?


Posers **** up the world for all of us. We are going to die because Mr. Joe Poser wants to be cool in his giant SUV driving on the frickin' highway.


If I ran the USA I wouldn't be a little selfish ****. We tell countrys what to do but we never listen to them. Let's anal rape bush with a ****ing shotgun.

[Ovi]

22

[vniow]

Originally posted by Ovi



The liberals are sleeping in today.:D


Ahh, that could explain it. I just noticed that the people who posted in the other thread aren't posting here. Nice to see both sides to things like this, since liberals bullmilk just as much as conservatives. :p

[Chisholm]

Originally posted by diorio


Well if you're so ashamed of being an American, why don't you move to some other country?

If you actually read what I put forth, "I feel ashamed AS an American." There is a big difference. And you seem, for some reason, to think I support Iraq. Or think that I thought everything Clinton did was OK.

It seems that you think if I don't agree with you on one thing, we'll never have any common opinions. My friend, this is the attitude that makes civilized discussions and diplomacy so difficult. Grow up and listen before you babble like a child and condemn others.

I read two pages on this topic before I chose to post. My comments were in response to what I felt was a well put post from someone outside of America. It seems that there are a lot of Americans that are not willing to listen to what other people in the world think. Are you one of them?

There is one regular macrumors poster that uses the following signiture: "I'm from Texas what country are you from?" As a native of Texas I found this to be quite funny. I think George sees it as a reality. Remember the bumper sticks that read "Don't mess with Texas?" That was an anti litter campaign for crist sake.

Dude, take a pill.

cheers,
John

[Rajj]

Originally posted by edvniow
Well, this is sure interesting, not too long ago we had a thread called 'George Bush as President scares me' and now it seems like everybody's on his side, What the hell happened? :confused:

Well I am not on his side; Bush is a puppet, and it is pretty conspicuous that he is the pinnacle of ineptitude when it comes to controlling a republic. Because he is too stupid to rehearse the speeches that he doesn’t even writes!! The speechwriters need to tone it down to a 7th grade level, or 6th grade to be safe!!;) :p

[jefhatfield]

some republicans consider even the smallest criticism of bush as a full endorsement for hussein

democrats don't like sadaam any more than republicans do...sadaam hussein is a madman and he needs to be stopped

[idkew]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
some republicans consider even the smallest criticism of bush as a full endorsement for hussein

while some may a take a comment that far, i think they are the minority, and not the majority, by far.

one thing that does bother me though- a LOT of the democrats i know condemned bush from day one and are blind to any good he does. they amazingly have 20/60+ vision when it comes to his mistakes.

no party is perfect.

as for me- i think bush was the lesser of two evils.

and please all- do not forget bush is not a dictator, and i seriously doubt his little bill (to attack iraq) he is pushing for will make it through a democratic congress.


.........
one thing- i am surprised about is the large amount of liberal opinions i see here at MR. i would have thought that, demographically, more expensive computer purchasers would be more likely to be a conservative. of coarse MR is not an unbiased sampling.... just an interesting observation.

[shadowfax0]

if Apple doesn't come out with the G5 by the time the world ends, I'm gonna be REALLY PISSED OFF!

[Shrek]

LOL shadow! :D :D :D

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by idkew





.........
one thing- i am surprised about is the large amount of liberal opinions i see here at MR. i would have thought that, demographically, more expensive computer purchasers would be more likely to be a conservative. of coarse MR is not an unbiased sampling.... just an interesting observation.

the demographic is offset by two possible things:

1) mac users think different or are rebels to the norm and thus more likely to be liberal

2) one of the biggest portions of the mac market are educators and the group has traditionally been liberal

but the bigger income group which is more likely to purchase a mac does benefit more from conservative financial policies

overall, though, after two years here, i see a diverse group of macrumors members with every demographic represented

if only one type of person bought a mac, then we would have even a smaller portion of the market share...thank god we all love macs and that this little machine could serve us so well

[Ovi]

i22

[kiwi_the_iwik]

This is all absolutely fascinating, you know, from my perspective - a New Zealander living in London. In my life, I've lived in 3 different countries, and visited many others - including some in the Middle East, and the United States.

It still strikes me as odd the amazing arrogance associated with some (and obviously not ALL) American people when dealing with other cultures. I'm sure it's a spinoff from the McCarthy Communist witchhunts all those decades ago, or it may have even stemmed from the slave-trades in the mid-1700's, and the Civil War in the mid-1800's. Or, to put it more succinctly: If they're different, then persecute them.

Look at American film culture for example - Friendly alien lands on Earth (usually somewhere in Mainland USA!) to learn from and communicate with inhabitants; said alien hunted down by Air Force Colonel, so nasty scientific experiments can be carried out on it; alien leaves (after narrowly averting capture), dissolusioned with humankind's inhumanity (The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Man Who Fell To Earth, Starman, ET... The list goes on... and on...). It sort of says a lot for the nation's attitude, and there's a word for it - Zenophobia. The fact that there's only approximately 12% of the US population with a passport says that a staggering 88% believe that there's nothing out there to experience that you can't get on the mainland. All that does is create a nation of narrow-mindedness, and a big, fat superiority complex.

I was STUNNED once, when in the US - covering a scientific story for Australian TV - I met a Physics professor from Stanford University. After saying "Hello", he replied: "You talk funny - where are you from?"

"New Zealand", I replied.

"What State is that in?" Duh.

I'm envious the way the people of the United States are so patriotic - it's really something that many other countries can learn from. But there's a line you can cross between patriotism and arrogance. And many have stepped over the line. The President and his advisors, to name but a few...

To invade Iraq would be a mistake. To BOMB Iraq, and harass it's people, would be a mistake. In fact, to take it upon a nation's shoulders to police the world and force other countries to conform to their way of thinking is a mistake. All it will do is to generate more ill-feelings toward the US from the Arab nations. You have to make an attempt to communicate, and to not use "Stormtrooper" tactics - otherwise NO-ONE will listen. Jimmy Carter did so much for the stability to the region - through diplomacy. Bill Clinton wanted to be remembered as a fair and just President by use of the negotiating table. Unfortunately, there was too much animosity between the warring factions he was trying to unite in peace to make any headway in the time he had left (Israel/Palestine - a nightmare situation, and a mammoth task in any case). At any rate, during Mr. Clinton's tenure, many of his policies couldn't be implemented - as they were blocked by a Republican-run Senate. It was ironic that many of those policies would have given the American people a better life. But Newt Gingrich and his fellow party members voted against these policies to belittle the Democrats, and to convince the nation that the Republcans would be a better choice.

I can't help but think that the world would be such a better place if there were more people in the world like Dr. Martin Luther King. Amazing that he came as a product of racial hatred (a form of zenophobia), and fell victim to a racially motivated assassination.

Maybe one day, we'll wake up to a friendlier and happier world. That's all I want - for me, my wife, and my son. Unfortunately, the grim reality is that humankind is inherantly a barbaric race, and there are always going to be Muppets out there ready to accelerate the process of our extinction in the name of democracy (or their vision of it - loosely translated as "power").

[diorio]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by idkew
[B]


one thing that does bother me though- a LOT of the democrats i know condemned bush from day one and are blind to any good he does. they amazingly have 20/60+ vision when it comes to his mistakes.




I know that Bush isn't a perfect president, but when people blindly attack him and blame him for every one of Americas problems without giving him credit for the good, it bothers me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but look at the other side before you blindly attack someone.

[job]

Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
Jimmy Carter did so much for the stability to the region - through diplomacy.

And yet it was during his term that the Iranian hostage situation erupted. :rolleyes: :p

Maybe one day, we'll wake up to a friendlier and happier world.

There will always be conflict as long as there are differing opinions. Conflict and strife are an inescapable part of humanity.

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by Ovi


Actually in 92' he won with the minority vote. Most voted for BUSH and Perot.

Ovi

and i suppose you think that the "minority" really shouldn't have a say?

IMHO, there's no such thing as a minority vote-- all votes are equal, right?

He had more votes and he won. Now if he were up against dubya, dubya would have just called in a favor to the florida favor bank....

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by whfsdude
I would be more inclined to kill a bunch of posers, half the usa. Is it just me or is it time for some house cleaning?


Posers **** up the world for all of us. We are going to die because Mr. Joe Poser wants to be cool in his giant SUV driving on the frickin' highway.


If I ran the USA I wouldn't be a little selfish ****. We tell countrys what to do but we never listen to them. Let's anal rape bush with a ****ing shotgun.

nicely put! man. SUVs are really a bane on society. I hate the d*** things. Adbusters had a nice campaign-- putting stickers on SUVs that said "i'm changing the environment. ask me how"

Brilliant I say.

I've seen more SUVs in accidents because people tend to think they're invicible teenagers than anything else. and god forbid wintertime-- SO fun to zip by in my jetta while SUVs are stuck in the snow becuase mama and papa yuppie think 4WD = knowing how to drive in the winter.

Down the SUVs and their gas hogging. Get a car that runs on energy, push your car makers to produce them, buy them, and eradicate the need to have ANY presence in the middle east.

And we can get rid of esso polution corporation as well. :D

Start treating the planet with respect and watch how much better the world becomes. Look at those pretty trees-------what? you don't know what a TREE is?

[job]

Originally posted by Moxiemike

and i suppose you think that the "minority" really shouldn't have a say?


Sure, the minority needs a say and representation too, but remember, democracy is the rule of the majority... :D :p ;)

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by hitman


Sure, the minority needs a say and representation too, but remember, democracy is the rule of the majority... :D :p ;)

Right. But we're talking about a majority rule of the entire population.

And that includes minorities.... right?

[job]

Originally posted by Moxiemike


nicely put! man. SUVs are really a bane on society. I hate the d*** things. Adbusters had a nice campaign-- putting stickers on SUVs that said "i'm changing the environment. ask me how"

Be glad you don't live in the Woodlands..

Every second car is a huge ****ing SUV (i.e. Excursion) or truck.

Damn soccer moms..

Who the hell needs an Excursion to pick up their kids and groceries..?

[big]

well..post away about it...as soon as I can, I will trade in my truck for Ford's Hybrid SUV...45-50 mpg city. That's damn good!

Less on the interstate, but hey...I actually use my jeep & truck. Went out witht he canoe on top last weekend, up 45 degree angles to visit inlaws in the "back country" etc etc...but I do it all in a I-6 hich gets 25 mpg itself.

so does my truck...I hate to have such big vehicles, though my wagoneer is not as large as some of those other wagons...& gets used all the time for real stuff!

[job]

Originally posted by Moxiemike


Right. But we're talking about a majority rule of the entire population.

And that includes minorities.... right?

Naturally.

But I think the original "minority" post was talking about the smaller number of popular votes recieved...not equal representation. :)

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by hitman


Be glad you don't live in the Woodlands..

Every second car is a huge ****ing SUV (i.e. Excursion) or truck.

Damn soccer moms..

Who the hell needs an Excursion to pick up their kids and groceries..?

No shizzle! I ran into a woman, about 5-2 who couldn't get her kid out of the backseat of her Lincoln Navigator Apartment Complex. She almost dropped the kid.

I queried her as to why she needed such a huge vehicle. Her answer? So she could protect her kids.

if protection is almost dropping baby jane on her head on a concrete parking lot, then well, i'll run the risk of my kids (when i have them) driving with me in my volvo or saab or otherwise smartly designed, safe, european car.

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by hitman


Naturally.

But I think the original "minority" post was talking about the smaller number of popular votes recieved...not equal representation. :)

Ive read (and argued) with Ovi before. He probably meant that clinton had the support of thoses "negroes and spicks and immigrint wasteoids"

meaning that he had huge support from the minorities. For once, the minority vote casted a majority. Which rocks in my opinion. '92 made me proud to be an american (albeit only 16...wishing i could have particpated).

2000-today has made me considered revoking my citizenship and moving to Southern Italy....

America has become a circus, and its looks like, as with Rome in ancient times, the American Empire may be falling....

Example? Shroeder was elected in Germany thanks in part to anti-american sentiment pushing him over the edge. And i don't necessarily disagree with his positions.

[job]

Yeah, thats another thing.

I've noticed that the majority of extremely *large* SUV drivers are smaller women. Not trying to be sexist or anything, but I know several who have a difficult time seeing over the steering wheel...

I even saw a lady run over a kid in her Escalade, because she was too busy chatting on her cell phone.. The kid's head hit the concrete; blood everywhere. Someone had already stopped to help and the police actually saw it happen too, so we kept driving.

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by big
well..post away about it...as soon as I can, I will trade in my truck for Ford's Hybrid SUV...45-50 mpg city. That's damn good!

Less on the interstate, but hey...I actually use my jeep & truck. Went out witht he canoe on top last weekend, up 45 degree angles to visit inlaws in the "back country" etc etc...but I do it all in a I-6 hich gets 25 mpg itself.

so does my truck...I hate to have such big vehicles, though my wagoneer is not as large as some of those other wagons...& gets used all the time for real stuff!

At least you're using your trucks for what they were intended-- rugged vehicles to help you get to places you can't normally go.

however, i have seen jettas and even geo metros at the grocery store, the shopping mall and soccer practice.

Henceforth, SUV = overkill. But then again, these are the people who think they need a 2.4 ghz pentium to surf the net. Saps. Gotta love the middle class/upper middle ignorance.

:D

[job]

Originally posted by Moxiemike

Example? Shroeder was elected in Germany thanks in part to anti-american sentiment pushing him over the edge. And i don't necessarily disagree with his positions.

Some critics think that the only reason he is so anti-war is because of his coalition with the Green party who are naturally anti-war.

Without the support of the Green's I doubt he would have been able to be reelected

[mischief]

First: the prerequisite conditions for a world war aren't present

Second: Any similarity between current events and predictive texts is purely a). Coincidence, b). Due to the texts being designed specifically as catch-alls and c). a result of selective editing of current events. The world has been in a constant state of War/pestilence, etc. for ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY. Only recent advances in technology have made international events locally and universally visible.

Third: History is NOT pre-ordained. Any predictions made in the past were, if anything reliant on the probabilities present at the time. As history has moved on those probabilities have shifted. Relax, we change history's path with every kind act. All such predictions are WARNINGS of what COULD happen if we don't take responsibility for our own ************.;)

[job]

Originally posted by Moxiemike

Henceforth, SUV = overkill. But then again, these are the people who think they need a 2.4 ghz pentium to surf the net. Saps. Gotta love the middle class/upper middle ignorance.


Well, the more we/they spend, the better the economy will be right?

Right? Anyone...? :D :D ;)

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by hitman
Yeah, thats another thing.

I've noticed that the majority of extremely *large* SUV drivers are smaller women. Not trying to be sexist or anything, but I know several who have a difficult time seeing over the steering wheel...

I even saw a lady run over a kid in her Escalade, because she was too busy chatting on her cell phone.. The kid's head hit the concrete; blood everywhere. Someone had already stopped to help and the police actually saw it happen too, so we kept driving.

jesus christ almighty we need to outlaw those damn things ASAP. And i dunno if i';m talking cell phones or SUVs. Maybe both.

there should certainly be a few things put in place to dissuade purchases on SUVs, such as a tax each year for extreme fuel consumption, maybe a specialized license that had to be renewed every year. i mean, they REALLY ought to treat them like trucks. Maybe you should have to take classes to get one...and pay out the ass for that too.

It would piss off people who have a legitimate reason to get one, and maybe they'd start kicking some yuppie ass. :D

It's overkill.

i assume the kid you speak of got killed???

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by hitman


Well, the more we/they spend, the better the economy will be right?

Right? Anyone...? :D :D ;)

haha. well, wouldn't you rather thelemmings buy macs and vws?? Or hell, even MIni coopers... (what a hot lil' car)

And doing something decent for the planet?? keepin their mac for a few years, reducing the amount of non-biodegradeable tech waste and dfriving a fuel efficient car, cutting down in pollution and the need to be so reliant on countries like iraq, thus negating the need to risk the lives of our kids??? :D

if we didn't rely on Iraq and the middle east for oil, we could conceivably just pretend they didn't exist. And 911 would still just be the emergy number and a model of a german car.

[idkew]

Originally posted by Moxiemike


if we didn't rely on Iraq and the middle east for oil, we could conceivably just pretend they didn't exist.

remember japan prior to 1944? isolationism is not the way to go. that could only lead to more ethnocentrism, and eventually a campaign to take over the world. we have seen it all too many times.

now- don't get me wrong, i don't want a war. i don't necessarily like the policing roll the US plays, but this is a small world and we can not have people like saddam running any part of it, oil or no oil.

I wish we would pass a law giving lots of money to research on alternative energy sources. also to somehow force people to commute in a prius, not an expidition by giving tax breaks, which would account for the money needed to pay for the alternative energy research. oil power needs to go the way of coal power. (yes, there are still some coal power plants... but there are fewer now)

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by idkew


remember japan prior to 1944? isolationism is not the way to go. that could only lead to more ethnocentrism, and eventually a campaign to take over the world. we have seen it all too many times.

now- don't get me wrong, i don't want a war. i don't necessarily like the policing roll the US plays, but this is a small world and we can not have people like saddam running any part of it, oil or no oil.

I wish we would pass a law giving lots of money to research on alternative energy sources. also to somehow force people to commute in a prius, not an expidition by giving tax breaks, which would account for the money needed to pay for the alternative energy research. oil power needs to go the way of coal power. (yes, there are still some coal power plants... but there are fewer now)

Well, until we start practicing at least some form of isolationism, somehow, we'll still *need* big bank military budgets, and we'll get those through cutting funds for environmental research (bushie HATES environmental research, wonder why?) and *gasp* education.... you know??

Where are we ranked educationally? near the bottom. The prior post about a PHYSICS PROFESSOR thinking New Zealand was a state... WTF????

We need to funnel cash to education, give teachers and students better resources, give teachers better salaries, etc.

And cut defense spending by at least 50%. We could CERTAINLY afford it.

We need to take our noses out of foreign situations that don't directly involve us (somalia anyone??? Vietnam????) and start investing in our future-- our children and their educations.

We really need someone like Nader or a Green guy or gal to shake **** up.

[diorio]

Originally posted by Chisholm


If you actually read what I put forth, "I feel ashamed AS an American." There is a big difference. And you seem, for some reason, to think I support Iraq. Or think that I thought everything Clinton did was OK.

It seems that you think if I don't agree with you on one thing, we'll never have any common opinions. My friend, this is the attitude that makes civilized discussions and diplomacy so difficult. Grow up and listen before you babble like a child and condemn others.

I read two pages on this topic before I chose to post. My comments were in response to what I felt was a well put post from someone outside of America. It seems that there are a lot of Americans that are not willing to listen to what other people in the world think. Are you one of them?

There is one regular macrumors poster that uses the following signiture: "I'm from Texas what country are you from?" As a native of Texas I found this to be quite funny. I think George sees it as a reality. Remember the bumper sticks that read "Don't mess with Texas?" That was an anti litter campaign for crist sake.

Dude, take a pill.

cheers,
John

First of all, don't tell me to grow up. You're the one who babbled like a child about how you are ashamed as an American, and how you pretty much hate George Bush and think he should be kicked out of office. If you think I am not willing to listen, you're wrong. I just don't like people who totally rip apart someone without recognizing the good they do. I know Bush isn't perfect, however he is not ignorant and actually is doing an okay job in the eyes of most Americans. Just think of other peoples opinions before you write something that is going to obviously be controversial.::rolleyes:

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by diorio
I know Bush isn't perfect, however he is not ignorant and actually is doing an okay job in the eyes of most Americans. Just think of other peoples opinions before you write something that is going to obviously be controversial.::rolleyes:

If i remember correctly, back in 1998-1999 there were a bunch of republicans crying to get clinton out of office, despite the HUGE amounts of good that man did.

And for far less crimes! getting dome in the oval office! Hardly stacks up to the war crimes bush is gonna commit by attacking iraq for "no apparent reason."

he should be impeached based off of his "we'll attack without UN support" rhetoric.

And to finalize, YES, Bush is ignorant. He's a jingoist, tyrannical, puppet. Who can't speak the damn language properly. He's an embarrassment to us all.

Seriously. He represents democracy about as well as Stalin. There was a foreign news report (maybe from france... or canada) that referred to bush as the new hitler.

[diorio]

Originally posted by Moxiemike


If i remember correctly, back in 1998-1999 there were a bunch of republicans crying to get clinton out of office, despite the HUGE amounts of good that man did.

And for far less crimes! getting dome in the oval office! Hardly stacks up to the war crimes bush is gonna commit by attacking iraq for "no apparent reason."

he should be impeached based off of his "we'll attack without UN support" rhetoric.

And to finalize, YES, Bush is ignorant. He's a jingoist, tyrannical, puppet. Who can't speak the damn language properly. He's an embarrassment to us all.

Seriously. He represents democracy about as well as Stalin. There was a foreign news report (maybe from france... or canada) that referred to bush as the new hitler.


Yeah, here we go again with the child like babble.

This is what political threads always turn into. First, I believe Clinton did do good things for the economy, but it was during the end of his last term that the economy began to fall into what it is now. Bush hasn't done anything half as bad as Clinton. Clinton banged some fat ho in the oval office, lied about it under oath, and still was able to stay in office. The reason Bush is proposing to fight Iraq is so they don't commit war crimes on us. Please don't babble on about how how Bush is ignorant and such, because he somehow beat several other candidates including the man who "invented" the internet. Who gives a s*** what the damn French say, he's the leader of our country and while we may not agree with every policy he has, we should still support him.:

[diorio]

Oh, and by the way, all you Bush haters may as well get used to it, because he's with us for at least two years.:p

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by diorio



Yeah, here we go again with the child like babble.

This is what political threads always turn into. First, I believe Clinton did do good things for the economy, but it was during the end of his last term that the economy began to fall into what it is now. Bush hasn't done anything half as bad as Clinton. Clinton banged some fat ho in the oval office, lied about it under oath, and still was able to stay in office. The reason Bush is proposing to fight Iraq is so they don't commit war crimes on us. Please don't babble on about how how Bush is ignorant and such, because he somehow beat several other candidates including the man who "invented" the internet. Who gives a s*** what the damn French say, he's the leader of our country and while we may not agree with every policy he has, we should still support him.:

I can support anyone with such self-0serving ideologies as bush. He just wants to do this to avenge his father's reputation.

[diorio]

How is attacking Iraq going to avenge his fathers reputation?

[barkmonster]

It was on the news today that some official or other (sorry the news was on in the background while I was concentrating on something) is positive that Iraq will have nuclear capability in less than 90 days, already have long range missles they could use to attack neighbouring countries and that weapons inspections are too little too late and we have to attack now to prevent Iraq from using any of them.

Like I said, I heard this in the background on my TV, it could just be the words of some TV pundit but either way it's like the media are already behind a possible strike on Iraq. Another way of looking at it is this has something to do with the british government justifying whatever action we take against Iraq before it kicks off over there. They don't want a load of crusties turning up in London waiving banners and crying about it, why not say he's got nukes ?

Personally speaking I don't know why the UN didn't do a proper job of Iraq in the early 90's instead of poisoning our own troops or bombing our own allies but I believe that Tony Blair and George Bush arn't crazy in some way and if going it alone against Iraq is what has to be done then it's obviously the right thing to do.

I also think oil has a lot to do with it, topple the Iraqi government and have a sane, reasonable president in charge and they're people won't be used as human sheilds, the world will have one less threat, any trade sanctions on the country could be removed and we'll all get cheaper fuel prices (maybe).

If we didn't rely on oil we could leave Iraq to rot but that wouldn't be fair on the people of Iraq who can't help being born in a country ruled by such a moron and need to be able to live freely like the rest of the civilised world do.

Although I was only young, if I remember rightly, the last time things kicked off in Iraq, George Bush senior was president, we had that geek that looked like a retired insurance salesman as PM and there was just as much talk of a Nuclear threat to neighbouring nations of Iraq as there is today.

[diorio]

Originally posted by barkmonster
It was on the news today that some official or other (sorry the news was on in the background while I was concentrating on something) is positive that Iraq will have nuclear capability in less than 90 days, already have long range missles they could use to attack neighbouring countries and that weapons inspections are too little too late and we have to attack now to prevent Iraq from using any of them.


I believe that's enough incentive to attack Iraq.

[Ovi]

11

[vniow]

Originally posted by diorio


I believe that's enough incentive to attack Iraq.


Like I said, I heard this in the background on my TV, it could just be the words of some TV pundit but either way it's like the media are already behind a possible strike on Iraq. Another way of looking at it is this has something to do with the british government justifying whatever action we take against Iraq before it kicks off over there. They don't want a load of crusties turning up in London waiving banners and crying about it, why not say he's got nukes ?

Maybe not, read the second paragraph.

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by Ovi


Moxiemike,

I was referring to the number of actual votes not group of people. Still bitter about Florida I see. Get over it.

Ovi

Not bitter, just stating the facts. bush bought the election.

plain and simple

[sturm375]

1. The book of Revelations was not cannonized until 300-400 years after the rest of the Bible. The reason: It is a pure metaphore, and never intended to be taken literally. The Church feared that people reading it might take it literally, what do you know, we did?

2. Dems & Repubs all the same with very little difference.

Dems pretend to care about quality of life, and attept to make things "feel" better. Plus they use scare tactics to get you to vote: "Look out, those SUVs are killers (enviroment, running over people, etc...)

Repubs Pretend to care about giving people money back on the pretense that with enough money, you'll all be happier. They wind up giving most to the rich, and big corporations. Plus they also use scare tactics: Look out, our neighbors are out to get us: China, Russia, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, etc....

Which is why I believe in Liberatirians policy. The smallest possible governemt, with little to no influence (rights or money) on the people.

3. National Security. A very popular topic of recent. In any other country, I'd agree with Bush's policy, where keeping the Government intact is the primary concern. However we live in America, a Nation of the People, for the People, and by the People. National Security's primary focus should be to maintain our individual rights, not protect the government. When the government ignores the 4th, 5th, and 6th admendments, because it is "National Security" they are (BUSH) violating the Constitution.

4. Removing Bush from office. I firmly believe that Bush has directly violated the Constitution, and thus broken his oath of office. I believe he should be Impeached (read investigated), and if found guilty of denying the rights of the people, should be removed from office. Regardless of whatever military operation is in place. This will not hinder that operations at all. Also, if anybody wants to call me a traiter, go right ahead, that is your 1st Amendment right to free speech. I celebrate this ability, and dialog. Some do not.

[Ovi]

22

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by Ovi


What makes his country so cool, is that even dumb comments like this will always be tolertated and actually be considered intelligent. Young liberals like you and older University Proffesors should pray every day and thank the good Lord we Repubicans will take care of terrorism, while you complain about our leaders and methods.:cool:

What makes this country so cool is the respect we have for our college profes..... oops! we dont!

let's restate that: what makes this country so LAME is that we spend more on military to fight other countries battles than we do to educate our children, and pay those who do it.

The only people the republicans want to take care of is themselves, followed closely by big nasty corporate businesses who fund them.

[mischief]

Frankly I feel it's all a game of "Good-cop/ Bad-cop" set up by the same oligarchy. Unlike 90% of the other democratic nations out there the USA only has 2 viable parties so there's almost ZERO difference: there doesn't have to be.

It only depends on what U want money spent on: Rebs generally spend money on business tax cuts and millitary buildup, Dems generally spend money on roads and schools. If you want a bigger millitary or if you work for a millitary contractor vote Republican. If you're a school teacher or have an ethnic axe to grind vote Democratic. If you want more choices move to Canada.;) :D :rolleyes:

[rice_web]

To sum everything up.....

(1) A world war is not likely

(2) Some people like Bush, others (like me) loathe the guy

(3) Some babbling about Florida, George W, and George Sr and the 1992 elections.

(4) Even more babbling about a reason to attack Iraq. The point is, Saddam Hussein should be removed from power anyway, his previous crimes permit his removal. Why do we need nukes as an excuse?

(5) People on this board are now bitter towards each other

That should just about do it.

[kiwi_the_iwik]

Nicely put, rice. That's everything in a nutshell.

It just goes to prove that old addage regarding politicians is on the money:

"You can't please all of the people all of the time."

(And that Billy Connolly one: "The actual desire to be a politician should ban you for life for ever being one - don't vote, it encourages them.")

Anyway - if the World does end tomorrow, at the very least, we all go out using the best manufactured computers on the planet...

;)

[Ovi]

22

[mischief]

Originally posted by Ovi
Overall I do find expressing my view highly entertaining, because I know that the opposite views belong to those who get frustrated quickly and either a) live in Santa Cruz b) live in England or c) would like to live in Italy.

:D

How do you rate me as an opposite view? I'm a natural-born dual-citizen of the US and Canada, I have NO party offiliation and I make no illusions about this country being no-fault or even approaching perfect. On the contrary: I feel that questioning and challenging the established oligarchy is my duty as a Patriot and a citizen... Oh, wait that's the difference...:rolleyes:

[Durandal7]

What bothers me more then huge SUVs is when you see a guy in a giant loud diesel pickup for no good reason. The dumbass who lives across the street is in no condition to be doing any work that would require that truck and it is always perfectly clean so it's obvious he doesn't do anything with it.

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by Durandal7
What bothers me more then huge SUVs is when you see a guy in a giant loud diesel pickup for no good reason. The dumbass who lives across the street is in no condition to be doing any work that would require that truck and it is always perfectly clean so it's obvious he doesn't do anything with it.

that and kids with honda civics with tailpipes that could double as cannons....

[Chisholm]

Originally posted by Durandal7
What bothers me more then huge SUVs is when you see a guy in a giant loud diesel pickup for no good reason. The dumbass who lives across the street is in no condition to be doing any work that would require that truck and it is always perfectly clean so it's obvious he doesn't do anything with it.

You should see it around here! They make the Mercedes SUV 16 miles from my house. My poor little VW Golf can't see around those big guys.

cheers!

[Judo]

Originally posted by Ovi


What makes his country so cool, is that even dumb comments like this will always be tolertated and actually be considered intelligent. Young liberals like you and older University Proffesors should pray every day and thank the good Lord we Repubicans will take care of terrorism, while you complain about our leaders and methods.:cool:

Why do you consider that comment dumb? Succinct and true from what I've read about the last U.S election, but not dumb. It's like you have this mentality that if someone has these left wing liberal views, they are in direct conflict with your (Republican?) views and it's your job to tell these people how wrong and stupid they are.

How have the Republicans taken care of terrorists? Isn't it coming to light that the U.S presidency had plenty of prior warning that there would be an attack on Sept 11 involving planes?

It shouldn't be about Republican this, Democrat that, you should be looking towards who's running things at the moment and whether or not they are doing what should be done. In theory any kind of government should work, what it comes down to is it's humanity and compassion, honesty, lack of greed and to not be extreme, all of which I cannot see in the current U.S presidency apart from being borderline extreme.

It is a fact that George did not win the last U.S election he was basically appointed by the Supreme Court. An explaination from Eugene Scalia (a lawyer with the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher- the very law firm representing Bush before the Supreme Court) who was sitting at the court that decided to halt the recount when it was (Gore down 66 votes and catching) "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election"
Basically meaning that if we let all the votes to be counted and Gore wins, well, that will impair Bush's ability to govern once we install him as "President."
That's just the start of how dodgy the last election was.
I got that quote from the book Stupid White Men by Micheal Moore, a book definatly worth reading, if just for the first chapter.

[Ovi]

22

[big]

>Well, the more we/they spend, the better the economy will be right?

unless your economy is based on loans (ie credit cards) then you set yourself up again like in 1929...

people, when you use a loan or credit, you are devaluing your own money...

[Durandal7]

These threads crack me up. No matter what the original subject they always turn into people bitching about Gore's pregnant chads, Clinton's sex life and Bush's oil.

[mischief]

There's a certain amount of embarassment involved. George H. W. Bush was head of the CIA at the time that the US trained the mujahadin in how to be terrorists in the first place. Without a Bush strategy in the middle east we may never have been in this position at all.

I'm not sure quite what U mean by "Liberal methods". A liberal, when speaking in the common pollitical parlance is simply someone who feels that Tax money should be spent on social programs, not contractors. I'm not quite sure how one can count librally? Perhaps you mean "Libral" in the sense of a Republican Zealot which is akin to saying "Pinko". I suppose you also believe that Socialism is a dangerous, big-brotherish way to run a country eh? Surprise! This is the ONLY stable, fully developped "Democratic" country NOT practicing Liberal, Socialist government. So I suppose you'll say next that, of course all those other countries are just being fooled by Evil Marxists.....

In the strictest sense of Law several things are simultaniously true:

1. It is outside the power of the Supreme Court's mandate to decide the result of an election.

2. There was extensive voting Fraud in Florida perpetrated by a Governor's ofice that was, at best under a conflict of interest in being the critical count; at worst, actively sabotaging voting in Black Democratic districts.

3. Neither side acted particularly honorably in an election that proved that the existing system can be easily fixed.

4. Neither party presented a particularly strong or convincing candidate, forcing to the forefront the gaping hole in the electoral college system that was then exploited by both sides.

5. Congress did not exercise it's right to vote on a stymied election or do what any other honorable governing body would: Either dump Florida entirely or re-cast the ENTIRE Florida ballot.


Now for Saddam Hussein and World War.
Saddam Hussein is a dangerous sociopath. He IS capable and crazy enough to sell if not use Chemical Weapons. BUT: He's also crazy enough to use his own civillians as cover. This means that a strict millitary play would kill WAY TOO MANY BYSTANDERS.

The International Community no longer has a structure of interlocking treaties like those that made WW1 happen, nor do they have brand new social and economic conditions evolving in a depressed world economy as they did in WW2, nor is there a Clear and Present Danger of international Nuclear Holocaust as there was in the Cold War. Therefore: NO WW3.

[jefhatfield]

the war on terrorism is not a full scale world war II style war based on overwhelming the enemy by carpet bombing him into oblivion

it is a secret covert war with the cia, fbi, nsa, dea, and delta force as the point of the sword

we can't stop individual terrorists hiding in our american cities with b-52s and nukes

it is a spy war and it will thus take many years...and like the president said, the american public will not hear of many of our failures or triumphs since the last thing we want to do is to spell out our strategy line by line on cnn

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


The electoral college system work just fine. We never complained when Clinton did not get the majority vote in 92'.

[/B][/QUOTE]

the system is broken but under the system which still stands, until we change it, clinton won in 92 an 96, and bush won in 2000

the existing law in florida did allow for a recount of any contested votes, but the supreme court stopped the process and basically picked the winner

it is their vested right to do that...that is why gore stopped right there when the supreme court spoke

we don't vote for the president...the delegates do

and when there is a contested process in a state going on legally, the supreme court has the power to stop it at any time and declare the winner...it's the system and democrats and republicans alike support it and probably never thought it would come down to this

now florida has a new system of voting due to the 2000 race and they will not want to be called "corrupt" or "inept" again

under the current system, imperfect and all, george w bush won the election

the supreme court did not uphold an existing florida law if that is what you are implying, they exercised their vested right to stop the florida state process and overrule with their federal powers

remember, the supreme court is extremely powerful and on hair splitting elections, they hold the goods

if you have any doubt about this, PM macrain who is a federal lawyer

[job]

Originally posted by Ovi
Gore Lost.


Bingo.

There is no doubt about that.

How can you even trust a guy that nullifies military votes coming in from overseas, just because they have the "wrong" postage. :rolleyes:

Gore Lieberman? More like Sore Loserman... :D

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


Well said. You sound like a Republican.:D

i am a democrat who is a small business owner, who worked for a cia contractor as a clerk, and worked as an intern for the department of defense as a computer person

where i live, was a large army fort, fort ord, which was shut down, but nearby is the defense language institue, fleet numerical, and the naval postgraduate school and i have friends in all of them

where i got my BA, golden gate university, is where most of california's air force officers, including their current chief of staff general jumper, got their degree(s)

i was offered a free master's degree from naval postgraduate school if i would work for uncle sam again...this time as an intern for the nsa...i chose to keep my businesses and plan get my MS thru my own funds

so i am not the traditional liberal...but i am still a democrat just the same

i see myself kind of like billy graham, a believer in jesus who, after weighing the pros and cons of both parties, still sides, barely, with the democrats

i didn't agree with every move clinton/gore made in the 90s, but i still see their legacy as one of the great legacies of american politics

at the same time, being fairly well read on politics, i will admit that the nixon administration was also one of the great legacies of american politics

it was nixon's rapport with china which split the iron curtain and set the stage for the end of communism and their threat to america...look around, is china really an isolationist communist country anymore...they are our trading partners and enmeshed in capitalism...we won the cold war, hands down

[sturm375]

To all those who support military force being used in Iraq:


I hope you all know that in order to come to some semblance of a peaceful resolution to the Iraq problem, we can't just "blow them off the face of the earth". We must first use the military to take full control of Iraq. Then we have to do some (God forbid) nation building. We must provide all remaining Iraqi citizens the ability to choose there next government, then live with that decision. If they choose another despot, that will threaten the peace, we will have no choice but to invade again.


This process will, and should take many years, and many lives. A simple assassination of Saddam, will not cut it. That will just anger the people, and they will put into place another fanatic, who will, to appease their people, attempt to attack the US. This is why assassination is both wrong, and doesn't work.

I am all for action on Iraq, as long as it is not half-@ssed. If we invade, then pull out, I will know it was just a political ploy by the Republican Hawks.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by hitman


Bingo.

There is no doubt about that.

How can you even trust a guy that nullifies military votes coming in from overseas, just because they have the "wrong" postage. :rolleyes:

Gore Lieberman? More like Sore Loserman... :D

they were sore and treated the whole thing badly, and i voted for gore!

the system sucks but the dems should have addressed it beforehand since the florida voting system was designed and approved by the dems in the first place

a look back at florida politics will show that there were close calls in the past, all resulting in favor of the democrats since florida is the dems last stronghold, barely, in the south these days

but if the many cubans who are anti-castro who have not achieved us citizenship yet were to get natualized, then florida would be republican because i have never heard of an anti-castro cuban who was a democrat;) :p :)

they are the strongest republican demographic in the united states with hundreds of thousands of them, maybe more than a million, who vote solidly republican because the gop is harder on castro, who they hate with a vengeance

btw...castro is not a nice guy:p

[macmax]

why don't we send the inspectors in again?
because the economy is down the drain and that would not give us any benefits.
i am not being cinical,but boy , let's ******* em up and then charge them for the next 14 years or so.It seems this is the way that an american president who doesn't even know anything thinks.

let's go out there and shoot humans, who cares at this stage? well, i do, if bush wants a war, give him a playstation or a nintendo system.
i am ashamed of the way this has been handled
i am against war, not this one , but them all.
bush, stop talking about peace, you are the one igniting this thing,why didn't we let the frenchies fry saddam's a** 10 years ago?
they where only 25 miles away from him and they had nothing in beetwen them and saddam.
it is only about economics
please send the inspectors in again

[job]

Originally posted by macmax
why don't we send the inspectors in again?
please send the inspectors in again

They are not effective. Period. They are able to dismantle a fair share of weapons, however, they cannot find everything.

They do not work, just like the economic embargos that are still in place.

These economic sanctions do nothing but affect the common iraqi citizen. Do you actually think that economic sanctions are of any worry to Saddam?

[job]

Hey Ovi check your pms. ;)

[job]

Originally posted by jefhatfield

btw...castro is not a nice guy:p

Heh, yeah.

No kidding. ;) :)

Did you hear that he is going to release files he has on the Cuban Missile Crisis?

He already released his documents on the Bay of Pigs fiasco...

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


I am very familiar with the area. I vacation up there at least three times a year. I love to play golf at Poppy Hills and the course in Santa Cruz. I have two rounds planned for ThanksGiving.

Being a small business owner is great. I would not trade it for the world.;)

hey, you are a local then...even if your are a ...gasp, gasp, republican:eek: :D ;)

being self employed is what david packard told me to do when he used to come into ace hardware when i was a salesman there

he would say, to me and to anybody within earshot, "don't work for anybody else in this lifetime....be self employed...i started my business from my garage"

to me he became known as david "i started from a garage" packard...just another customer at ace hardware but among many who were older and said the same thing to everybody...be self employed

the money is better, but even if the money is not there yet or ever, you have the freedom and that is priceless...a million dollars cash could not buy me out of my two businesses

while in stupid mba school, the only real lesson i learned was, "hey, if your are going to get the basic tools to run a business, then have your own...stupid is as stupid does if one goes to school for six years and studies business and every aspect and then ends up going to work for someone else"

america was built on small business owners, not farmers, not republicans, not democrats, not men, not women...but small business owners first...period...i guess that shows how strongly i feel about that subject

hewlett packard and apple were both once small businesses run from garages...dell from a dorm room...and kinko's from a vw bus:D

[Ovi]

11

[mcrain]

Quick takes:

Ovi - you are 100% wrong about the Florida Supreme Court. So are you Jef Hatfield. The US Supreme Court does not (actually, did not) have jurisidiction over a purely state law question being decided by the highest state court. That being said, the US Supreme Court said it did, thus it does now. Once it created this new precedent, by overturning the state court's decision on state law, it created the outcome in florida.

As for Republican's working for small business, that too is a little questionable. If you said big businesses such as Enron, Exxon, Etc... I might believe you, but when the Republicans cut and cut and cut medicare/medicaid, SS, and other health benefits thus raising the cost of providing group health care, not to mention the effect it has on workers comp insurance, I have to think they're allegience lies with the deeper pockets.

Oh, you seem like you're pretty much a zealot on the Republican side. Name the argument. Anytime, anyplace.

[Ovi]

11

[Ovi]

11

[Kethoticus]

I'm not prophecy scholar, but I do not believe that even if there was a world war (which I see as the Middle East vs. the US), it would not be Armageddon. Armageddon's a war that will truly end all wars in this age (i.e., before Jesus returns to set up His millenial kingdom on earth). It will be carried out and led by the Beast, or Antichrist, which by all accounts, does not seem to be on the scene yet.

But I'll say this much. If there IS a global conflict that throws the world into shambles, I wouldn't be shocked to see the first of the 4 horsemen: the one to whom the world gives a crown of authority. Some speculate that this is the AntiChrist coming as a peacemaker to take advantage of the world's confusion to launch himself into power (kinda like Hitler took advantage of the broken morale of pre-Nazi Germany). But some will rebel against his authority, and that would trigger the remaining 3 horsemen of war, plague and death. Eventually, the world would see the beast rise from what appeared (or what actually would be) a fatal wound, worship him as God, etc.

My personal take on this though (and I claim no special insight) is that we're just going through a bad time, globally speaking. It will settle down, eventually, then get bad again, then settle down again, etc.

As for war with Iraq, I'd prefer to see a Delta Force contingent remove him from power, but no matter how we do it, history has taught us what happens when we appease a maniac. For the life of me I can not see the rationale in NOT taking him out.

We might kill some innocents. And that sucks. It's not fair or right. But if this guy smuggles a nuke into the US and blackmails our country with the potential devastation of, say, Atlanta, what are we all going to be saying then? That we SHOULD have removed Saddam when we had the chance? 20/20 hindsight. The administration is damned no matter what it does. Quite frankly, I'm all for taking out this psycho, preferably with subversion, but I'll accept a war if this is the method the gov't decides upon. It has many bad trade-offs, but I see no Saddam-removal as potentially far, far worse.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Ovi


The Supreme Court overturns state court decisions all the time before and prior to Florida. Where have you been?

The issue should be how can Republicans who favor states rights allow the Federal Gov. to supress states rights? I am not a legal scholar but I will take a stab at it.

The Florida Election even though it dealt with local laws and State Supreme Court issues, became a federal issue because it was a federal election. My rights and my vote would be affected based on the decision of the Florida Court.

ovi

Ok, I am a legal scholor, and yes, the US Supreme Court overturns state courts whenever the state court enters a ruling that is against federal law. The US Supreme Court however does NOT have jurisdiction to overturn a state supreme court just because it disagrees with it. There has to be a federal basis for it.

The Repubs have argued that the basis for the US Supreme Court stepping in was that it was a federal election, but that is a smokescreen. The actual legal issue being decided was the Florida state election laws dealing with election challenges. There was no federal law that preempted florida from having its own rules and regulations.

I'm not saying the US Sup Ct. didn't do the right thing, or that Gore won or anything like that, just that there was never any precedent before for the US Sup. Ct.'s actions in the 2000 elections.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Kethoticus
I'm not prophecy scholar, but I do not believe that even if there was a world war (which I see as the Middle East vs. the US), it would not be Armageddon. Armageddon's a war that will truly end all wars in this age (i.e., before Jesus returns to set up His millenial kingdom on earth). It will be carried out and led by the Beast, or Antichrist, which by all accounts, does not seem to be on the scene yet.

But I'll say this much. If there IS a global conflict that throws the world into shambles, I wouldn't be shocked to see the first of the 4 horsemen: the one to whom the world gives a crown of authority. Some speculate that this is the AntiChrist coming as a peacemaker to take advantage of the world's confusion to launch himself into power (kinda like Hitler took advantage of the broken morale of pre-Nazi Germany). But some will rebel against his authority, and that would trigger the remaining 3 horsemen of war, plague and death. Eventually, the world would see the beast rise from what appeared (or what actually would be) a fatal wound, worship him as God, etc.


I have one word for you.

Fiction.

[mischief]

Originally posted by mcrain


I have one word for you.

Fiction.

Agreed: http://www.maryforrest.com/mythology/


And thanx for the backup.:D

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ovi


I am not a legal scholar but I will take a stab at it.


ovi

he he

ovi, macrain is the federal lawyer i told you about...he corrected both you and me ;)

while you do tuxedos and i do landscaping and computers, federal tax law is macrain's bag for the irs:D

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by jefhatfield

while you do tuxedos and i do landscaping and computers, federal tax law is macrain's bag for the irs:D
My bag is full of clothing.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Durandal7

My bag is full of clothing.

time for laundry then???...and same goes for endinov...he better wash 'dem panties...ok...just kidding;) :eek: :)

[vniow]

Originally posted by Durandal7

My bag is full of clothing.

So's mine, but not any you'd like to wear. ;)

[vniow]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


time for laundry then???...and same goes for endinov...he better wash 'dem panties...ok...just kidding;) :eek: :)

Why you wanna borrow some Julianna? :p

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by edvniow


Why you wanna borrow some Julianna? :p

you know i had this roomate in college that used to steal my underwear and replace it with his old used underwear...really!!!

i was so shocked i didn't say anything...what could i say and how could i prove it?...it was way too strange if you ask me:p

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


you know i had this roomate in college that used to steal my underwear and replace it with his old used underwear...really!!!

i was so shocked i didn't say anything...what could i say and how could i prove it?...it was way too strange if you ask me:p

Sounds like a fetsih if you ask me....

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Durandal7


Sounds like a fetsih if you ask me....

kind of like the mac users and their macs:p

"oh, how do i get fingerprints off of my screen or nicks off of my tibook"...when they should be more interested in the fact that inside the case lies a real piece of technology that is too much computer for most people ever to use to its fullest

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
"oh, how do i get fingerprints off of my screen or nicks off of my tibook"...when they should be more interested in the fact that inside the case lies a real piece of technology that is too much computer for most people ever to use to its fullest
Or that in all their fretting over the case they have inadvertantly killed the power supply and overheated the Hard Drive.

[Chisholm]

Originally posted by Durandal7


Sounds like a fetsih if you ask me....

A fetish for clean underware? um, well it could be worse...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Chisholm


A fetish for clean underware? um, well it could be worse...

the fetish was putting the old underwear in my drawer and not getting/getting caught

i never figured it out...i just ignored it

it's kind of like some of the crazies i see on telegraph avenue near uc berkeley...some people go by the beat of a different drummer and the city is very tolerant of that so people flock there...and in santa cruz, too (in california)

oh, and venice beach near los angeles is very different, too and was portrayed, in a way, in romeo and juliet with leonardo dicaprio and claire danes but the set was located in mexico somewhere

[wake up Jobs!!!]

I personally think world war three will commence sometime early next year. I am personally scared, for my life, but not realy, more for my freedom. I, being a American of Lebense desent (the country is Lebanon, most people dont know were that is)and I am proud of my haritage, but I think we need to go into the countrys like lebanon, saudi arabia, iraq, iran and the various other arab countrys, and show them whos boss. Some people have said " why do you want to attack the country that your ancestors came from" because I do not support terror from anyone, reguardless of what country thier from.I am more proud of being a american than middle eastern , even though I have been called sand ****** and everything else you can think of to call a middle eastern. I hope this shows that not all arabs are against war in the middle east. also I dont thik this matters, but no I am not muslim, but this does not matter there is nothing wrong with muslims and I have many muslim friends. people are starting to get predidus against muslims. we ALL need to stop this.


-GaBe-O

[jefhatfield]

prejudice against anybody is wrong and does not belong in the usa

i hope hate crimes will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

it's probably one of the things the terrorists wanted to do to america by making its citizens turn against each other

if we do that, then we have already lost the war:(

[Kethoticus]

I have one word for you.

Fiction.

You are entitled to your opinion. But only time will tell for sure. But many prophecies HAVE come true. Prophecies regarding Jesus' first arrival, His life, His death, etc., Israel's re-establishment as a nation after its people being scattered throughout the world, etc.

But I do understand your humanistic/rationalistic approach. I once believed as you did (and no, I'm not being condescending or patronizing). I just understand why you believe the way you do (well, at least I believe I do).


As for those saying that we have no right to attack poor defenseless Iraq for absolutely no reason, I must concur. The problem is, we DO have reason. This man is a modern-day Hitler (Saddam, not Bush. If Bush we're a Hitler, we'd all be either in concentration camps or saluting him in front of a giant swastika). People saying that we're just going in because we want to bend people to our way of thinking or changing their religion or because we want to bully poor little Iraq around just to maintain the fear/respect of the world, in my opinion, do not have a full grasp of the facts.

Imagine if we had listened to the pacificists in 1941? We'd all either be dead, in labs, or speaking German. There is nothing worse than saying "we should have". If Saddam, a year from now, starts to wave his nuclear fist at Israel or another country we're allied with, or, God forbid, he should pass off a nuclear weapon to US-bound terrorists, we'll hear everyone criticize this Bush administration with "Why didn't you move in when you had the chance?" The Dems would have a field day.

Please, if you believe this war is unjust, state why. I'd be interested to hear. If I'm wrong for believing the way I do about this, I'd like to know that.

[Ovi]

11

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Ovi
In light of this I still prefer to be in a US hospital versus any other place in the world.:)

So how many hospitals outside the US do you know?

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Kethoticus
As for those saying that we have no right to attack poor defenseless Iraq for absolutely no reason, I must concur. The problem is, we DO have reason. This man is a modern-day Hitler (Saddam, not Bush. If Bush we're a Hitler, we'd all be either in concentration camps or saluting him in front of a giant swastika). People saying that we're just going in because we want to bend people to our way of thinking or changing their religion or because we want to bully poor little Iraq around just to maintain the fear/respect of the world, in my opinion, do not have a full grasp of the facts.

Be careful with statements like that. What are the facts? Are you sure that you are the person that holds the entire truth? How can you claim to have an unbiased view on the situation?

I find it pretty strange, that the US government is totally overreacting to the fact, that the german government is against military action in Iraq. Bush even refused to congratulate Schröder for his re-election, a first time thing in the history of the allied countries since WWII. They are pouting like a little kid that got it's teddy-bear taken away by it's little brother under the eyes of their mom. So that means the US way or no way! What kind of relationship is it, when the other side is not allowed to have a different point of view that can be discussed. But Bush and his staff don't want to discuss. Instead they treat an ally almost as bad as one of those terror regimes. So far about the current diplomacy of the US administration... Rumsfeld was pointing out several times at the NATO meeting yesterday that the relationship between the US and Germany is poisoned and was ignoring the german defense minister on purpose to avoid a personal talk.

Is this Kindergarten or world policy?

So I am not that sure if the US doesn't want to bend the way of thinking of other people. They maybe don't act like Nazi-Germany, but like the roman empire... arrogant and full of themselves.

Imagine if we had listened to the pacificists in 1941? We'd all either be dead, in labs, or speaking German.

I think you shouldn't simplify history that way. Fact is that the climate in Germany that made it possible for Hitler to take power was also caused by the US. I don't want to get too much into details, but the worst thing the US could have done after WWI was to pull out of Europe, leaving a vacuum, with Germany having to pay crazy amounts of reparations. The reason why the US became such an econimcal power back then was the from war totally weakend Europe, not at least causing a lot of scientists and other skilled people emmigrating to North America. As a result the economy in the US was overheating and leading to that well known crash of the stock markets, which made Europe tumble as well, being dependent to the US economy in those times of rebuilding their own economy. Germany was in a lose/lose situation back then. And one should never foregt that Hitler was never elected by the majority of the people, he got only 30% of the votes and got to power through coalitions. But he was a tricky bastard and got rid of the parliament as a thread to him.

And as a German I can tell you, that talking Geramn isn't that bad! ;)

But seriously... most historians say that Germany would have lost the war anyway, it would just have taken a little bit longer. The more serious problem to the US was the USSR with Stalin in power. When they realized that maybe the rest of europe (an important trade partner) would also become communistic under the control of the soviet-union, they got wet feet and joined the war to prevent that. Also a reason was, that trading with Europe was important and after Hitler took over France and the whole continent was involved in the war, the US economy was starting to tumble. For the US it was "nice coincedence" that they started war with Japan, that way they were provoking Germany to declare war to the US, since they were allies of Japan.

Just try to see always both sides...

There is nothing worse than saying "we should have".

Actually "we shouldn't have" isn't any better, especially when the loss of human lifes is involved. That exactly is the reason, why it is not so obvious what would be the right decision to do. A war always should be the last option, especially when a country like the US claims to be a moral reference for the rest of the world.

I was surprised when I saw the list of wars and military conflicts the US were involved in since they exist the other day. More than 200 conflicts, with or without declaration of war... And I also rememeber George W. Bush saying: "We are a peaceful country..." I wonder what he was talking about actually...

If Saddam, a year from now, starts to wave his nuclear fist at Israel or another country we're allied with, or, God forbid, he should pass off a nuclear weapon to US-bound terrorists, we'll hear everyone criticize this Bush administration with "Why didn't you move in when you had the chance?" The Dems would have a field day.

As I said before, military action always should be the last option! So, are we already at that point? Bush wants us to believe that, but I didn't see any evidence so far. Something has to be done, of course... but is this the way?

Please, if you believe this war is unjust, state why. I'd be interested to hear. If I'm wrong for believing the way I do about this, I'd like to know that.

Isn't every war unjust? Especially, when it is "preventive"? How do you measure the thread of a hostile country? That exactly is the reason, why the UN charta only allows military action in self-defense.

groovebuster

[mischief]

1 more point about WW2 and "All of us speaking German". The rhetoric at the time in Germany was that America was of a similar mind about the world and Hitler had no interest in the Americas. He wanted to be Caesar. There was, in fact a rather vocal pro-Nazi contingent here in the US that was a strong force in encouraging isolationism. Not to mention the substantial money that flowed from Ford and Chrysler into the coffers of the Nazis.

The overall point is simply: DO NOT BELIEVE ALL YOU SEE ON TV. The single most frightening statement in this whole thread so far has been " Wake up and watch more TV". I suggest that if you haven't gone out to the BBC world site that you do so and learn something from what someone other than CNN and Fox have to say.

The issue is simple but the solution is not. Saddam Hussein is insane and dangerous. Everyone agrees on that. The problem is that there are so many Zealots-in-waiting out there that the situation would likely be WORSE if we just bombed Iraq flatter than it already is. There are a lot of very un-wealthy islamic peasants out there in the exact position the average German was in in 1929 psychologically. They are poor, desperate and searching for someone to blame and something to do. Most are educated solely from the Koran because the counties they live in are Despotic.

Saddam Hussein has become a Hero to these people because (in their eyes) he fought the US and won.Keep in mind that in the context of those more brutal cultures that if you survive you are victorious, particularly if you still have your country. This is also due to the fact that it is all spread word-of-mouth so very few of them have any idea about the gas attacks on Kurds being fact or fiction. They just look at who they like better: Kurds(a rival tribe) and the West or a folk hero from one of their own peoples.

The only solution that adresses the bigger problem of stemming the tide of Zealot-making is to persuade wealthy Islamic people living in the west to make positive change happen in the countries they accredit their ancestry to and to do it themselves as more selfish and dangerous people have taken over much of the aid structure that was traditionally used.

Saddam Hussein needs to have a fatal accident so he can't be a Martyr. Iraqi R&D spaces need to be levelled. Baghdad needs to be left as intact as possible. This is very much similar to the situation of Japan at the end of WW2. Iraq is set up to defend to the last 8 year old boy with a sharp stick and made so afraid of Hussein that they most likely will.

In many respects this is a lose-lose situation because we must weigh the short-term danger of potential WMD in Iraq versus potential DECADES of new terrorist Zealots that a war would cause.

[mcrain]

Hmmmm....

If Bush were in office instead of Kennedy, what do you think the outcome of the Cuban missile crisis would have been? My guess... war.

If Bush was the president one or two after Kennedy, do you think he would have pressed for war against Cuba (regardless of intelligence information) because he didn't like Castro and Castro was insane? My guess... yes.

If Bush has solid evidence to support war, fine, let's go to war. If not, and he's just guessing because he thinks their bad, then we have a duty to question that decision.

This is the first time I can think of where the US is trying to initiate war against a country (not occupying the US - i.e. Britain) where the other country wasn't already involved in some sort of conflict.

[mischief]

Originally posted by mcrain
Hmmmm....

If Bush were in office instead of Kennedy, what do you think the outcome of the Cuban missile crisis would have been? My guess... war.

If Bush was the president one or two after Kennedy, do you think he would have pressed for war against Cuba (regardless of intelligence information) because he didn't like Castro and Castro was insane? My guess... yes.

If Bush has solid evidence to support war, fine, let's go to war. If not, and he's just guessing because he thinks their bad, then we have a duty to question that decision.

This is the first time I can think of where the US is trying to initiate war against a country (not occupying the US - i.e. Britain) where the other country wasn't already involved in some sort of conflict.

Good points. There were 3 instances I can think of:

A 150 year war against the Native American Nations.

The Navy was deployed to intimidate Columbia into giving us Panama.

The US attacked Panama just shy of the date that the US's lease was up.