bush's current speech

[Bandalero]

Whoa, hold up, when did I say anything about anarchy?

well who brought up democracy? democracy in its purest form doesn't work. pure democracy = mob rule. what the U.S. uses is a republic. as in there are more important people to me right now then some jerk off in the oval office. like my state representative and senator, state governor, US senators and representatives. your a student of anarchy, you seem to like it, so why not talk about it?

This could never happen. There is no possible way a company can become so big that it sells every possible product. It's unrealistic, because not only would this guy have to sell the product, he'd have to be making every product as well. Furthermore, in modern day society hundreds of things are invented daily. To say that he's going to be able to control daily inventions as well is unrealistic.

it's quite easy for a company to aquire another company that does something completely different. it happens daily. the company could for example monopolize the steel industry, and the real estate market as well. now if you've scrounged up enough daily income to actually buy some steel, buy machinery, and invent something, with no patent or copyright regulations, the mother company can easily dublicate the product invented and sell it cheeper because the inventor is actually buying it at retail valuve where as the mother company would just fabricate it out of what it has an abundance of...steel. if the inventor chooses to defy mother company, his house suddenly went up for sale...hmmm? sound familiar?

Who's going to buy this guys product if no one has money? That my friend is a depression. Also, as mentionned above, people can invent things, or provide their own services. The possibilities are endless.

its far worse then depression, because workers work for the same company and get paid slave wages, just enough to survive and enough to buy your needs at the mother company. instead of trying to advance yourself, your just toiling endlessly at a bleak future. what would have to happen is a revolt, that will more then likely create laws to prevent this from happening, then were back at where we are today.

[Joe Cooler]

Spoken like a true man who has been to war and back.

Yes, because I have to have killed before to justify (or not justify) the killing of innocent people.

No, but maybe you should try being shot at.

If going to war, you have to expect to be shot at. If going to war in a city, your soldiers have to be trained to control themselve to NOT KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Ok, before you say another word, go out and dig up all the information on what the exact circumstances were that the "10,000 innocents" were killed. Then formulate how it could have been prevented and where the troops went wrong. Also provide why they are innocent because that is just a subjective term. All I know, is that if there are bullets flying at me from one direction, I'm returning fire. Maybe you would stand there with your thumb up your ass, but don't expect extremely well trained soldiers to do the same.

Cluster Bombs? Aerial bombardments? Women and Children among the dead?

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=4103

More on Cluster Bombs. As you know bombs do not discriminate between innocent and militant.

http://www.peaceuk.co.uk/archive/module ... le&sid=576

Article on Media Control. Touches on Civillian Casualties. I'll point you to it.

"Ten sources talked about civilian casualties and possible human rights violations by coalition troops. Six of these were in one CBS Evening News segment (10/21/03) covering a Human Rights Watch report on abuses of civilians released that day. Despite Human Rights Watch's estimate that "U.S. soldiers killed 94 civilians between May 1 and September 30, 2003, in legally questionable circumstances," ABC and NBC did not find the report worth mentioning. The other four sources discussing civilian casualties and human rights issues appeared in another CBS Evening News piece (10/30/03), on U.S. and British civilians who were shot at by coalition soldiers."

http://www.fair.org/extra/0403/iraq-study.html

Come up with your own conclusions on what the US should be doing differently. You should be able to pick up a few

[nelison]

well who brought up democracy? democracy in its purest form doesn't work. pure democracy = mob rule. what the U.S. uses is a republic. as in there are more important people to me right now then some jerk off in the oval office. like my state representative and senator, state governor, US senators and representatives. your a student of anarchy, you seem to like it, so why not talk about it?

I'm not a student of anarchy. I've never claimed to be. I've been reading about it, but i'm too left wing for it. I think that pieces of it can make our society stronger, but I don't think it alone could work. I just think that there is far too much money wasted by govt spending, and too many people are getting a cut of my hard earned dollar. I'm all for universal health care, and social assistance for people who lose their jobs, etc. But I think far too much money is being spent on unneeded people within the actual govt structure.

it's quite easy for a company to aquire another company that does something completely different. it happens daily. the company could for example monopolize the steel industry, and the real estate market as well. now if you've scrounged up enough daily income to actually buy some steel, buy machinery, and invent something, with no patent or copyright regulations, the mother company can easily dublicate the product invented and sell it cheeper because the inventor is actually buying it at retail valuve where as the mother company would just fabricate it out of what it has an abundance of...steel. if the inventor chooses to defy mother company, his house suddenly went up for sale...hmmm? sound familiar?

Then invent something that has nothing to do with steel. There is no way one company can own every resource. Or if you want, seel yourself as a commodity. You can be a maid, a mechanic, a landscaper, anything.

its far worse then depression, because workers work for the same company and get paid slave wages, just enough to survive and enough to buy your needs at the mother company. instead of trying to advance yourself, your just toiling endlessly at a bleak future. what would have to happen is a revolt, that will more then likely create laws to prevent this from happening, then were back at where we are today.

This isn't much different then now. Minimum wage is actually below a living wage, so it doesn't matter. Right now companies don't have to pay a living wage because they know that some other sucker will pay their employees well, and those employees will shop from your store. It's pretty simple.

[Bandalero]

http://www.fair.org/extra/0403/iraq-study.html

Come up with your own conclusions on what the US should be doing differently. You should be able to pick up a few

ok...

Two of the victims, woman and small child, were brought in simultaneously. Both had been shot in the neck by what witnesses said was a US sniper. Medical personnel expected neither to survive the injuries.

those witnesses don't say what they were doing, and don't give any reason why they could have been shot. this little piece of the article is a plead for attention and sorrow. if they would have said, she was getting bread at a local store and she got shot there, then i would question it, but there's no detail as to what she was doing. for all i know she was carrying a gun.

On Saturday, US Marine battalion commander Lieutenant Colonel Brennan Byrne put the number of Iraqi deaths during the week's fighting at around just 60 combatants, according to the Associated Press. A day later, however, Byrne said 95 percent of the more than 600 Iraqis his and two other battalions had killed were male fighters of military age and remarked that Marines are trained to be "precise" in combat. Byrne added, "The fact that there are 600 [Iraqi dead] goes back to the fact that the Marines are very good at what they do."

Rafie Al-Issawi, head of the Fallujah hospital, said most of the dead and wounded seen at area medical facilities were women and children. The Associated Press reported Al-Issawi refused to give specific numbers, saying he didn't want to imply that all of the men of military age who have been killed or wounded have been fighters.

i see, so we have a military guy giving numbers, but not a doctor. he's just claiming that most of them are women and children. toward the end of the Iraq Iran war, 12 year olds were fighting for Iran, so technically yes, children died, but they were combatants. which makes me wonder, how many of those women and children are actually combatants? or human shields for that matter?

According to an AP tally of official US military reports, resistance forces have so far killed 62 US soldiers and Marines throughout Iraq in the past week, the majority of them in the Fallujah area. Witnesses here say American casualty figures are being underestimated by US officials, that far more Americans have died than their commanders are admitting.

hmmm, i see. so if were dropping like flies, then that alone is cause for use of heavy machinery. (bombs, drones, exploding humvees, ect.)

Locals widely expect the fight for Fallujah will continue indefinitely. Resistance fighters seem determined not to relent. Ehab (last name withheld), an embattled, Kalashnikov-toting guerilla who spoke readily with reporters, summed up the mood of the local resistance when he said, "They will never take Fallujah until they have killed every Iraqi here."

For its part, the Coalition Provisional Authority maintains that "Operation Iron Resolve" is a "methodical" campaign to route out select bad seeds in the Fallujah community. However, citing massive civilian casualties, many Iraqis believe the annihilation Ehab claimed a willingness to face is more likely what the US military has in store for Fallujah.

if this guy's preference is what all fighters in this area prefer also, then ok, the US should be allowed to do so. what's sad here is that Ehab wants everyone in the city to die. guys like Ehab don't have the balls to actually evacuate the civilians into safe parts of Iraq. they'd rather that everyone, including people who don't give a damn about his cause die in this event. if Ehab were to walk up to a soilder unarmed, and request that the civilians who have nothing to do with this fight be escorted out of the city, it would be allowed. not a singe godamn one of them wants the civilians gone. that's their defense, that's their battle cry to recruit others to fight with them. it's not what the US should be doing differently, its what Ehab and the other assholes should be doing differently.

[Neil]

My prediction... if Bush wins the election (which he will because voters are ignorant...) the US will be in Iraq for the next 4 years. Why? because Bush is a "war president."

4 Years!? I think that's putting the U.S.'s occupancy rather lightly if Bush remains in office. I see where you're coming from because if Bush is reelected, we'll be there through his next term........but I also cannot see the President in 2008 immediately pulling our troops out.

Maybe.....but I'm thinking longggg shot.

[nelison]

Oh I agree Neil. I'm just saying that its a guarentee that they'll still be there at least Bush's full term.

[Bandalero]

Then invent something that has nothing to do with steel. There is no way one company can own every resource. Or if you want, seel yourself as a commodity. You can be a maid, a mechanic, a landscaper, anything.

but you do see how a single resource can be monopolized. one company can claim steel, another plastic and others claim other resources. with no controls, they can do what they please, so that they can be equally effective.

This isn't much different then now. Minimum wage is actually below a living wage, so it doesn't matter. Right now companies don't have to pay a living wage because they know that some other sucker will pay their employees well, and those employees will shop from your store. It's pretty simple.

if living wage is a state/city law, then all companies have to pay that living wage in that state/city. otherwise they will not be allowed to do business there.

[Neil]

Oh I agree Neil. I'm just saying that its a guarentee that they'll still be there at least Bush's full term.

Hypothetically, what do you see happening if Kerry beats Bush?

[nelison]

but you do see how a single resource can be monopolized. one company can claim steel, another plastic and others claim other resources. with no controls, they can do what they please, so that they can be equally effective.

I don't think one company could ever control one resource. I don't think it's possible to own all the steel in world.

if living wage is a state/city law, then all companies have to pay that living wage in that state/city. otherwise they will not be allowed to do business there.

I think you missed my point... I said that currently minimum wage laws are in effect. These aren't even close to actual living wages. If anything things woiuld be better without a minimum wage. Companies would have to base their wages on the market rather than a wage set by a govt.

[hpdfk]

I'm backing out of this thread. You can't make friends with politics. bye.

[Joe Cooler]

It's true.

[Bandalero]

I'm backing out of this thread. You can't make friends with politics. bye.

actually i don't have friends that debate about politics. but thank got for J-Neli, corey, doug, and chris. they're good friends that i can debate about politics with.

you can';t get too animated about this type of stuff. just throw it out there and let them counter, or vice versa. you learn stuff about yourselves and others in the process.

[Starseed3333]

I met one of my best friends in college talking about politics

Perfect projection- Kerry wins. HE obviously can't fix all the crazy shit thats done, because we are far down in this hole. However, he can reinstate a foreign policy of COOPERATION. He can work to fix this Iraq hell. He can improve this healthcare system a wee bit. He can stop the loss of white coller jobs to oveseas and increase employment.
Then.......since people are short sighted, they will still be mad things aren't perfect. Enter, John McCain. He will run on the republican ticket. He's a RINO, we all can deal with him. He can continue the trend that Kerry started, then we will get an amazing dem in, and the world will be well.

Yeah, its sad that we need to plan 16 years in advance to fix the mess Bush got us into. Its sad that we need to elect Bush Lite to get us out of it. As Brandon Boyd so eloquently stated, ""I usually vote Green- I voted for Nader last time. But the important thing is getting homey out of there." Brandon Boyd

No matter what Kerry does, it can't be as bad as what Bush does every day.

[nelison]

Oh I agree Neil. I'm just saying that its a guarentee that they'll still be there at least Bush's full term.

Hypothetically, what do you see happening if Kerry beats Bush?

Well it's hard to say cause Kerry will be put in quite the jam. Here's what I think should happen.

First, if the US actually does go through with handing over power, then Kerry should pull out a large portion of the troops. If the new Iraqi government thinks they need some help with policing the streets then thats fine, keep some guys there as police, but they shouldn't be there very long. This scenario is probably not going to happen because I think the new Iraqi govt will just be America's puppet anyways.

Secondly, let Iraq figure itself out. Civil Wars happen, and I think solutions can be found by the Iraqi's, whether it means it's split up provincially by religion, or whatever. Let the Iraqi people decide what it is they want, rather than what the US govt wants, cause I think it's obvious to see that this so called "liberation of the Iraqi People" is just a sham to open up the Iraqi market to US business.

I would personally like the see certain people go on trial about this war. I remember posting in a thread a few months back after doing some research and it looked as though the US had commited up to 8 crimes against the Geneva Convention. These people should be held accountable.

I would hate to be in Kerry's position because its a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.



And Reno's right, you gotta not take everything to heart in here. This is more educational than anything. I don't think anyone here is trying to instill their political views on someone. Everyone's just debating. Someone throws something out, and everyone counter's it, and makes that person look like an idiot, and then they counter that by making us look like idiots. I think we've all learned to accept that.

I know that just from the politics forum on this board, my writing skills and arguing skills have increased 10 fold. People here are very smart, and they find holes in arguments really easy, and although it may sound like they're attacking you, you probably get more out of it. At least I know I have. [/quote]

[hpdfk]

ok, you convinced me back in.

Though this will never happen, I feel that if Kerry wins he should do what neil said, but replace the american troops altogether with UN troops. As said before, I seriously doubt this will ever come to happen, but after what we did, every single Iraqi intensly hates us, and as long as there are any troops left in Iraq there will be unrest to drive them out. This is the best theoretical solution I can think of at the top of my head.

As for the breaking of the Geneva convention, you do the crime, you do the time. Of course, no one in the US will probably ever be tried, because, well, we're the US. The guatemalan dictator in the '80s that killed thousands of mayans has still not been tried because arresting him would cause too much unrest (he actually ran in the last election, but fortunately lost). Imagine what would happen if the world tried to arrest bush.

[nelison]

I don't think UN troops are the answer though. Why should all these countries have to send troops in to clean up America's mess? We were against the war in the first place, so we shouldn't have to fix things afterwards. This is America's war. Not the UN's.

The real reason Bushg wants UN involvement is that the costs of this war are steadily rising. Something along the lines of 120 billion dollars has been spent by the US govt on this war, and I think they know they won't be able to handle the cost of it alone. They can easily afford the war, but eventually the citizens of the US will catch on when they realize all that money could have been spent on their kid's education.

[Joe Cooler]

My only concern is that if US troops stay then there will continue to be unrest. However if they leave are not replaced by the UN, then militants will quickly take control of the country again. While no country should have to clean up the US mess, if they dont then all the blood shed would be for nothing.

[hpdfk]

That's how I feel. The UN is supposed to keep the world from unrest. The US came and messed things up. The US should put it back together, but the UN should also give a hand since that is its purpose.

[nelison]

I don't thinkt the country will be left to militants. This is one of the first times both major Iraqi religions are fighting together against the same cause. I think we're assuming that the Iraqi people are children who don't know better.

[Joe Cooler]

Just to clarify, the Sunni and the Shiites (spelling?) are part of the same religion. (Islam.) They just have different beliefs on how to follow islam. You may of already known this though but just making sure .