PDA

View Full Version : What would you call civil war?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


feck
11-26-2006, 01:25 PM
With the ongoing battle in iraq, and the internal population killing each other, why is it that the worlds media still denies that its collapsing into civil war out there?

What is your definition of civil war(click this link to go to wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war) ?

SeiserL
11-26-2006, 02:21 PM
With the ongoing battle in iraq, and the internal population killing each other, why is it that the worlds media still denies that its collapsing into civil war out there?

1. What do you mean "cal lapsing into"? It would appear the country, and region, has a long history of civil wars.

2. "Civil War" is an oxymoron. No war is civil.

Neil Mick
11-26-2006, 02:58 PM
why is it that the worlds media still denies that its collapsing into civil war out there?

Not quite sure what you mean, Darren. I think that the world media is pretty succinct in calling the Iraq disaster a civil war.

Can you cite some sources, tho? I could well be wrong (it HAS happened before) :crazy:

skinnymonkey
11-28-2006, 08:39 AM
It seems that only recently has the media decided to go ahead and call it a civil war. Most of the time up until now, they have just been asking the question "Is Iraq in civil war?" so they don't have the appearance of making a judgement call. The White House still refuses to call this a civil war (as recently as this morning, they called it an Al-Qaida plot).

Here is a link explaining how NBC news recently made the decision to just call it a civil war
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/nbc/nbc_news_labels_iraq_a_civil_war_48149.asp

I agree with Lynn tho... no war is civil.

Jeff D.
P.S. Has anyone re-read Animal Farm lately? It's kind of weird to read in light of how things have been going in the American Govt. lately. Snowball (Al-Qaida) did it! Just my opinion tho.

Mark Freeman
11-28-2006, 12:25 PM
P.S. Has anyone re-read Animal Farm lately? It's kind of weird to read in light of how things have been going in the American Govt. lately. Snowball (Al-Qaida) did it! Just my opinion tho.

you may think differently if you had two more legs ;)

deepsoup
11-28-2006, 02:15 PM
The White House still refuses to call this a civil war (as recently as this morning, they called it an Al-Qaida plot).
Oh well, at least thats a bit more realistic than calling it "mission accomplished (http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/vstory.bush.banner.afp.jpg)". :dead:

skinnymonkey
11-29-2006, 07:11 AM
you may think differently if you had two more legs

Four legs good... two legs better!! (after the pigs revision of the seven commandments)
;)

Mike Sigman
11-29-2006, 08:55 AM
Why would you Brits care about what the US government does? The Brits and Europeans have allowed 2 world wars to start because they thought they were more brilliant than anyone else. Let's discuss how the Brits and the EU solved the Bosnia crisis by themselves. That was just a "civil war".... why should anyone have gotten involved? Try bashing your own countries before you start throwing too many stones. Funny I never see that.

Frankly, I get a little tired of the constant US bashing by the people who can't even protect themselves and yet who want the US to protect them in case all their socialist theory goes wrong, like it is right now, on every front.

Mike

Thomas Campbell
11-29-2006, 10:59 AM
"You Brits" . . . last time I counted there were sixty million Britons, expressing a wide variety of opinions, and over 7,000 of them in the current conflagration in Iraq, engaged in Basra and elsewhere, serving their government and allied with the U.S. effort.

It's a little simplistic to condemn an entire nation based on one citizen's opinion. And I'm not sure how the U.S. invasion of Iraq "protected" Britain.

Nevertheless, it was good to see Bush trying to move ahead with al-Maliki in their meeting in Amman this week. Whether you call it civil war or sectarian bloodbath feted by a murderous insurgency, the violence in Iraq has reached a tipping point.

Mike Sigman
11-29-2006, 11:03 AM
"You Brits" . . . last time I counted there were sixty million Britons, That's great, but that's not the Brits posting on this thread, is it?

Mike

Neil Mick
11-30-2006, 01:37 AM
I agree with Lynn tho... no war is civil.

Agreed.

Speaking of new terms, I recall a bit George Carlin did about how new words and phrases get longer, the more that time passes (e.g., "shell shock" (blunt, to the point) become "post traumatic stress disorder")

NOW, we aren't even calling them "hungry" anymore...

U.S. Stops Describing Americans as "Hungry"
In news from Washington, the Bush administration has stopped using the words "hunger" or "hungry" when describing the millions of Americans who can't afford to eat. Instead of suffering from hunger, the Agriculture Department now says these people are experiencing "very low food security." The USDA estimates that 12 percent of Americans or 35 million people could not put food on the table at least part of last year.

Ah, the US gov't...an organization just filled with the milk of human compassion...or maybe it will be called "optimal emotional responses of human co-adaptability," someday... :rolleyes:

Jeff D.
P.S. Has anyone re-read Animal Farm lately? It's kind of weird to read in light of how things have been going in the American Govt. lately. Snowball (Al-Qaida) did it! Just my opinion tho.

I suppose that that would make Bush "Napoleon..."

James Davis
11-30-2006, 09:48 AM
I suppose that that would make Bush "Napoleon..."

Didn't he put somebody in the glue factory truck right after the elections? ;)

Remember folks, regardless of who's in control, it's hard to build a windmill when the sheep keep pissing in the water. :D

What's the best way to make communism work?

With killer dogs. :p

Thomas Campbell
11-30-2006, 10:22 AM
Not sure about the connection between sheep and building windmills, Mr. Davis . . . :p but I do like your signature phrase. I might put Halliburton in with Congress, there.

Mark Freeman
11-30-2006, 11:16 AM
Remember folks, regardless of who's in control, it's hard to build a windmill when the sheep keep pissing in the water. :D



Is this some obscure Floridian saying James, I'm confused :confused: :D

regards,

Mark

Neil Mick
11-30-2006, 11:44 AM
What's the best way to make communism work?

With killer dogs. :p

Hey, it seems to (not) do the job at Gitmo (and Baghram, and Abu Ghraib, et al)....why not with Marx...? :freaky:

James Davis
11-30-2006, 03:47 PM
Is this some obscure Floridian saying James, I'm confused :confused: :D

regards,

Mark
Nope. Orwellian. :p

Mark Freeman
11-30-2006, 05:06 PM
Nope. Orwellian. :p

whoops, that put me in my place, it's time I read the book again :blush:

James Davis
12-01-2006, 09:54 AM
whoops, that put me in my place
Sorry, Mark. I forgot I was wearing iron shoes. ;)
, it's time I read the book again :blush:


I like that book quite a bit. :)

Don_Modesto
12-01-2006, 11:41 AM
P.S. Has anyone re-read Animal Farm lately? It's kind of weird to read in light of how things have been going in the American Govt. lately. Snowball (Al-Qaida) did it! Just my opinion tho.Not lately. But wasn't Snowball one of the original pigs? So wouldn't Powell be more the Snowball figure, the dissenter?

skinnymonkey
12-01-2006, 02:32 PM
Would Snowball be Powell...Well... not necessarily... if you consider that the support for the Taliban and some of the Al Qaida leaders were originally backed by the US. Same would go for Saddam, I guess.

This is one of my favorite vids. It's Rumsfeld in the 80s (a few months after Saddam committed the killing of the kurds in the north, I think) visiting with Saddam to show our American solidarity with him and his regime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8

And before it comes up... yes, I know that Animal farm was written as a warning against communism, but after re-reading it, I was surprised at how many things seemed to fit into our current situation with our govt. here in the USA.

Neil Mick
12-02-2006, 02:18 PM
But, back to the topic at hand...

With the ongoing battle in iraq

I was reading this article by Robert Fisk that puts it succinctly: Bush is in major denial about Iraq. With everyone from Kofi Annan to NBC to Colin Powell calling it a civil war (oh, sorry...Annan "hedged" his bets by calling it "almost a civil war") and even the US Marines throwing in the towel on success in Western Iraq...

Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701287.html)

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

"From the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized."

...it is becoming obvious that, start to finish, the war and extended occupation was (is) the worst thing we could have done, to ensure lasting peace in the world.

Like Hitler and Brezhnev, Bush is in denial (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15788.htm)

History's "deniers" are many - and all subject to the same folly: faced with overwhelming evidence of catastrophe, they take refuge in fantasy, dismissing evidence of collapse as a symptom of some short-term setback, clinging to the idea that as long as their generals promise victory - or because they have themselves so often promised victory - that fate will be kind. George W Bush - or Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara for that matter - need not feel alone. The Middle East has produced these fantasists by the bucketful over past decades.

In 1967, Egyptian president Gamel Abdul Nasser insisted his country was winning the Six Day War hours after the Israelis had destroyed the entire Egyptian air force on the ground. President Carter was extolling the Shah's Iran as "an island of stability in the region" only days before Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution brought down his regime. President Leonid Brezhnev declared a Soviet victory in Afghanistan when Russian troops were being driven from their fire bases in Nangahar and Kandahar provinces by Osama bin Laden and his fighters.

And was it not Saddam Hussein who promised the "mother of all battles" for Kuwait before the great Iraqi retreat in 1991? And was it not Saddam again who predicted a US defeat in the sands of Iraq in 2003? Saddam's loyal acolyte, Mohamed el-Sahaf, would fantasise about the number of American soldiers who would die in the desert; George W Bush let it be known that he sometimes slipped out of White House staff meetings to watch Sahaf's preposterous performance and laugh at the fantasies of Iraq's minister of information.

So who is laughing at Bush now? Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, almost as loyal a retainer to Bush as Sahaf was to Saddam, receives the same false praise from the American president that Nasser and Brezhnev once lavished upon their generals. "I appreciate the courage you show during these difficult times as you lead your country," Bush tells Maliki. "He's the right guy for Iraq," he tells us. And the Iraqi Prime Minister who hides in the US-fortified "Green Zone" - was ever a crusader fortress so aptly named? - announces that "there is no problem". Power must be more quickly transferred to Maliki, we were informed yesterday. Why? Because that will save Iraq? Or because this will allow America to claim, as it did when it decided to allow the South Vietnamese army to fight on its own against Hanoi, that Washington is not to blame for the debacle that follows? "One of his frustrations with me is that he believes that we've been slow about giving him the tools necessary to protect the Iraqi people." Or so Bush says. "He doesn't have the capacity to respond. So we want to accelerate that capacity." But how can Maliki have any "capacity" at all when he rules only a few square miles of central Baghdad and a clutch of rotting ex-Baathist palaces?

And yet, we continue to wade deeper into the mess we made, mostly because one man cannot see what is plainly obvious to the rest of the world (OK...TWO men, counting Blair. But, the latest suggests that he's not so gung-ho either, of late.

Nope, we made the mess: and our presence there makes it worse. The Saudi Arabians recently stated that they will intercede in Iraq, should the US withdraw--EVEN IF it sparks off a regional conflict.

It's like watching a man slowly sink into a bog after he stepped onto a plank, with the idiotic idea that he could walk on it to build a bridge to the other side. As he sinks up to his armpits (and rising): he keeps telling the rest of us (hanging on, for dear life) that it's all good...we've "made (yet another) 'turning point';" when all the while many ppl (coming up on a million, all told) have died, believing his nonsense even as the bog swallows them up.

About the only truthful statement uttered in Amman yesterday was Bush's remark that "there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq [but] this business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all." Indeed, it has not. There can be no graceful exit from Iraq, only a terrifying, bloody collapse of military power. The withdrawal of Shia ministers from Maliki's cabinet mirror the withdrawal of Shia ministers from another American-supported administration in Beirut - where the Lebanese fear an equally appalling conflict over which Washington has, in reality, no military or political control.

Bush even appeared oblivious of the current sectarian map of Iraq. "The Prime Minister made clear that splitting his country into parts, as some have suggested, is not what the Iraqi people want, and that any partition of Iraq would only lead to an increase in sectarian violence," he said. "I agree." But Iraq is already "split into parts". The fracture of Iraq is virtually complete, its chasms sucking in corpses at the rate of up to a thousand a day.

Even Hitler must chuckle at this bloodbath, he who claimed in April 1945 that Germany would still win the Second World War, boasting that his enemy, Roosevelt, had died - much as Bush boasted of Zarqawi's killing - while demanding to know when General Wenck's mythical army would rescue the people of Berlin. How many "Wencks" are going to be summoned from the 82nd Airborne or the Marine Corps to save Bush from Iraq in the coming weeks? No, Bush is not Hitler. Like Blair, he once thought he was Winston Churchill, a man who never - ever - lied to his people about Britain's defeats in war. But fantasy knows no bounds.

Leaving Iraq will cause a bloodbath. Staying in Iraq increase the sectarian violence (read: multiple blood baths), destabilize the region and (it appears) strengthen the regional power of Iran.

Is there really a choice? Not if you care about human rights, IMO. But, if we did that, we wouldn't have been there in the first place.

Mike Sigman
12-02-2006, 02:32 PM
What I can't understand is why we would ever want to get involved in a civil war. For instance, take Kosovo. The Serbs versus the Muslims was purely a civil war. Nobody attacked or represented a threat to the US from that area, so we actually just invaded them. The UN did not give the OK to attack Kosovo. We STILL are not out of that quagmire... just the same as we're not out of the quagmire of Korea, which was purely a "civil war", in the classical sense, as was Vietnam, and so on.

But I guess is depends on whose Ox you're trying to gore. It's pretty plain that Neil only wants to gore the ox that is the US ... no one else. It's funny how even wild bird offspring can be taught not to crap in their nest, but humans can't be taught to do the same. ;)

Mike

Neil Mick
12-02-2006, 04:44 PM
...(ignored)...

Who knows what thoughts and utterances go on behind the "Ignored" Curtain?

Only the "Stalker" knows...:crazy:

skinnymonkey
12-02-2006, 07:07 PM
It's funny how even wild bird offspring can be taught not to crap in their nest, but humans can't be taught to do the same.

Well, some people would say that it is actually the Bush Admin who is crapping in the nest. If you subscribe to that line of thinking, it seems perfectly reasonable for us "baby birds" to squawk a bit about it.

;)

I actually agree with what went down in Afghanistan, but this Iraq thing is a mess. If we really wanted to "light the fire of democracy" in the middle east, why didn't we just do it well in Afghanistan? Also... look at Iran, which is a (kind of) democracy. That doesn't seem to work in our favor, so does democracy in the middle east help us or hurt us?

The honest truth is that war doesn't typically solve problems. Sure... it does solve them occasionally (slavery, WWII, - heck... I'll even agree that the Gulf War almost solved a problem.- etc) but it generally causes more problems (at least in the modern world) than it solves. I'm not going to say that war never solves problems, but it usually doesn't.

If you look at most "pre-emptive" wars (or police actions, or whatever you want to call them)... they have almost uniformly failed.

Just some food for thought on who is really pooping in the nest.

Jeff D.

Mike Sigman
12-02-2006, 07:25 PM
Well, some people would say that it is actually the Bush Admin who is crapping in the nest. If you subscribe to that line of thinking, it seems perfectly reasonable for us "baby birds" to squawk a bit about it. Except, the "baby birds" didn't squawk a bit when Clinton did all those things in Bosnia, did they? In other words, the standards for squawking turn out to be no more than simple partisan politics dressed up as overly-righteous moral outrage. It's called "hypocrisy", in reality. The fact that the Mullahs are gleefully celebrating that the Dem's won the majority of the elections this time says it all. They know who is best able to sink the US.

Regards,

Mike

Thomas Campbell
12-02-2006, 10:02 PM
Thanks for providing the link to the Robert Fisk article, Neil. I hadn't seen that before. Definitely food for thought . . .

skinnymonkey
12-03-2006, 11:16 AM
Except, the "baby birds" didn't squawk a bit when Clinton did all those things in Bosnia, did they? In other words, the standards for squawking turn out to be no more than simple partisan politics dressed up as overly-righteous moral outrage. It's called "hypocrisy", in reality.

Well... remember that the hypocrisy knife cuts both ways. The birds who are now trumpeting the war in Iraq (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc) are the same ones who were squawking when Clinton moved into Bosnia and don't forget Somalia.

You are right then. It is overly-righteous moral outrage. But it is coming from both sides. Maybe we should have all learned from the failures in Bosnia and Somalia about nation building.

This is an interesting link that illustrates what I mean.
http://www.proudlib.squarespace.com/republican-quotes-on-clinton-/
Check out the quote by Hannity:
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

But when people say that exact thing to him, he becomes very self-righteous and indignant. It's like all of the people who are pissed at Clinton because he allowed missile technology to get leaked to the Chinese, but aren't pissed about the Bush Admin running wargames with them!

Let's agree that war typically doesn't solve these issues. I'll agree that the Clinton Admin failed in it's police actions if you agree that Bush is failing in the war in Iraq. Or are you one of those "partisan" birds who can't admit when your side is wrong?

Again, this is just my opinion, but I've heard this same argument many times and people aren't willing to look at both sides of the hypocrisy argument by looking back at what the Hannity's of the world were saying before and what they are saying now.

Jeff D.

Mike Sigman
12-03-2006, 11:22 AM
Well... remember that the hypocrisy knife cuts both ways. The birds who are now trumpeting the war in Iraq (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc) are the same ones who were squawking when Clinton moved into Bosnia and don't forget Somalia.
Yeah, but I can't stand Hannity or Limbaugh, so you're probably using the wrong example.

The point is that there was NOTHING compared to 9/11 that could be used to justify the Bosnian attack. Nothing. Right or wrong, there was enough intelligence after the 9/11 attack that all the intelligence services in the world *plus* the majority of the US congress agreed that attacking Iraq was justified. Not that I want to argue the merits of Iraq... I'm just saying that your comparison of the Iraq attack, considering the potential of Saddam giving weapons to terrorists, isn't even remotely like the "let's attack Bosnia because the Europeans didn't handle the problem when they should have and now they want the US to do the dirty-work for them".

Regards,

Mike

skinnymonkey
12-03-2006, 12:40 PM
Well... Hannity and Limbaugh weren't the only people who were following that line of thinking, but either way...

I agree that there was nothing like 9/11 that would justify Bosnia.

However, you must remember that Bush and Rumsfeld have both on multiple occasions said that Iraq had NO connection to 9/11. That's why I said that I support the action in Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

Also... Iran and N. Korea are by far more dangerous and more likely to give weapons to terrorists than Saddam. He was notoriously suspicious of jihadis - he was a true dictator, not an islamic idealogue.

It was actually Saudi Arabian and UAE connections that (mostly) financed the 9/11 attacks. And they didn't really need weapons to attack us, did they?

Also... you said: "let's attack Bosnia because the Europeans didn't handle the problem when they should have and now they want the US to do the dirty-work for them".

But one could argue that Iraq is in a terrible state right now, because AMERICA didn't "handle the problem when they should have". Like in the first Gulf War. As a matter of fact, it was Dick Cheney (then secretary of defense) who said "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question. "And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

read the whole story here
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

The point that I keep coming back to is that war is messy and not very good at solving problems in general.

I think it is our duty as Americans to honestly question what our government is doing in our name.

Jeff D.

Mark Freeman
12-03-2006, 12:50 PM
I think it is our duty as Americans to honestly question what our government is doing in our name.

How un-patriotic of you Jeff ;)

joking aside, it is the duty of 'all' citizens to hold their own governments to account. The only leader worth having is one that can be replaced ;)

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
12-03-2006, 01:05 PM
Well... Hannity and Limbaugh weren't the only people who were following that line of thinking, but either way...

I agree that there was nothing like 9/11 that would justify Bosnia.

However, you must remember that Bush and Rumsfeld have both on multiple occasions said that Iraq had NO connection to 9/11. Remember it? Heck, I'd like to see a quote. As far as I remember, there is no proven connection, but nobody, including Hillary Clinton, is dumb enough to make a dismissal of the possibility since one of the 1993 WTC bombers pretty obviously had ties to Iraq. It's sort of like Hillary avoids saying "there were never any WMD's in Iraq" for the simple reason that the final 2 reports refused to rule out the possibility that WMD's may have been shipped out by the Russian spec-ops who ran in there just before the bombing, etc. My point being that a lot of the popular rabble-rousing remarks are actually about things that have been neither proved or disproved, in reality, so if we stick to what we know happened, a lot of these things are simply judgement calls with few things actually proven. Notice how that arbitrary remark of mine is quite different from Neil Mick's use of unproven "facts" to bolster most of his arguments. Also... Iran and N. Korea are by far more dangerous and more likely to give weapons to terrorists than Saddam. He was notoriously suspicious of jihadis - he was a true dictator, not an islamic idealogue. I don't know who's more dangerous, but the topic was "civil wars" and why we shouldn't be in them. My point was that it's a bogus argument that is apparently simply another one of convenience, given the Bosnia situation which the "anti-war" crowd didn't utter a peep about. The Bosnia/Kosovo war was simply a "Civil War", in the clearest terms. In other words, people who are now virulently "anti-war" are probably being hypocritical, for the most part. But one could argue that Iraq is in a terrible state right now, because AMERICA didn't "handle the problem when they should have". Pooh. America and the West's main problem is that they no longer try to actually completely handle a problem. They worry too much about the "hearts and minds" stuff and the enemy and the press play that part up so big that all efforts get stymied. We should remember that in the past few enemies have given up until they were confronted with the probability of total catastrophe. If we wiped Tikrit, Damascus, and Tehran off the map I think you'd find that all Arabs would be our friends and peace would endure... until they could re-arm themselves; the Muslim problem is not going to go away without extreme violence (you know.... the sort of stuff like they do to us). We should do it sooner, rather than later. ;)

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman
12-03-2006, 01:10 PM
joking aside, it is the duty of 'all' citizens to hold their own governments to account. That's actually the excuse most traitors use, also. How do you tell the difference?

One of the classic statements I heard by a liberal Senator was that he knew the enemy played off his words in order to harm more American soldiers, but his right to loudly dissent was more important than soldiers' lives. This is what happens to generations of soft westerners who never learned the lessons of war that that the earlier generations knew... everything is academic, including death. Only when a bunch of "decadents" get their own families killed do they suddenly begin to perk up and think about reality. Other peoples' deaths don't affect them.

Mike

skinnymonkey
12-03-2006, 01:25 PM
Good points Mike. This was initially a discussion about civil war and it got off track.

I actually agree with you, that part of the problem is that we (USA) don't "finish" as strong as we start.

Here are some links to the Bush 9/11-Iraq denial quotes.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=21&num=3067&printer=1

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm

Anyway... thanks for the discussion. I appreciate differing viewpoints.

Take care,

Jeff D.

Amir Krause
12-04-2006, 04:44 AM
having read the discussion so far, and finding I agree with lots of partial things you are saying.

I still have a problem with some conclusions:
1) Not to interfere in "civil wars", should that hold for genocides too ?
One thing that disturbs me is the lack of attention and involvment of the "west" in Africa in the last decade. Not stopping such acts. As a jew, it disturbs me to see the Holucaust was not a sufficient lesson for the democracies to intervene (and yes, my Govt. is in the list of wrong doers in this regard).
2) All here seem to disregard the larger interests of countries
It seems to me Govt. tend to decide based on their preception of the "larger interest picture". This may include control of assets such as oil (lets not be naive, otherwise nobody would have bothered to free Iraq), and many other considerations (weakening another rival may be considered a good thing for a particular country).
I think this issue is the most speculative and most likely for errors, yet, it remains very significant in determining policies.


Amir

Mark Freeman
12-04-2006, 05:54 AM
If we wiped Tikrit, Damascus, and Tehran off the map I think you'd find that all Arabs would be our friends and peace would endure... until they could re-arm themselves; the Muslim problem is not going to go away without extreme violence (you know.... the sort of stuff like they do to us). We should do it sooner, rather than later. ;)



When I suggested in an earlier post that- "Why don't you just nuke the whole region and be done with it Mike", I was being ironic, I didn't realise that you really do think that mass anihilation is the best way towards peace.

Show's how wrong I can be :(

regards

Mark

Mike Sigman
12-04-2006, 07:12 AM
When I suggested in an earlier post that- "Why don't you just nuke the whole region and be done with it Mike", I was being ironic, I didn't realise that you really do think that mass anihilation is the best way towards peace.How about if we do a slow, diplomatic approach which doesn't really work and lots of people die in the interim, including your friends and family? Because that's exactly what the slow diplomatic approach has done, for decades, it's just that no one in *your* family is daily at risk. It's nice to think about a lot of theoretical peace ideals, but look where decades of that approach have left us. Muslims don't want peace, Mark. They ultimately want everything you've got, but... just like prior to WWII... you want to pretend it's just not so.

Mike

skinnymonkey
12-04-2006, 07:14 AM
I know what you mean Amir. The old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" still seems to hold a lot of weight, but history has showed us differently.

We backed Saddam, because he was the enemy of our enemy (Iran). We backed the Taliban, because they were the enemy of our enemy (Russia). Neither of those worked out very well for us in the long run.

I also know what you are saying about genocide. We haven't gotten involved in Darfur for instance, though that area clearly needs more help than almost any area in the world.

The problem is that I'm not sure what the appropriate measure would be in that region. Same with Somalia. Seems to me that if we had a true international force (like the Gulf War or WWII) then we might be able to make a change. Without that, I think we will just do too little and further decrease our (USA) status in the world.

In one respect, I do agree with Mike that we (USA or International forces) don't go far enough to take control. Putting in a few troops just seems to make things worse (Iraq is a perfect example of this).

However, I have to vigorously disagree with Mike about the Nuke idea. I do think it's not very realistic to propose that wiping Tikrit, Damascus, and Tehran off the face of the map would actually solve any problem. It would just create new, different and worse problems.

And (correct me if I'm wrong)... it wasn't the genocide of the jews that motivated the US to get involved in WWII, it was the German war machine moving into other countries and the declaration of war against the US. Again... I'm not sure about that, but I think that is the case.

Personally, I'd rather see us in Darfur than in Iraq.

Jeff D.

Mark Freeman
12-04-2006, 07:37 AM
How about if we do a slow, diplomatic approach which doesn't really work and lots of people die in the interim, including your friends and family? Because that's exactly what the slow diplomatic approach has done, for decades, it's just that no one in *your* family is daily at risk. It's nice to think about a lot of theoretical peace ideals, but look where decades of that approach have left us. Muslims don't want peace, Mark. They ultimately want everything you've got, but... just like prior to WWII... you want to pretend it's just not so.

Mike

Your sarcasm is further off than my irony ;)

1) I wasn't alive before WWII why keep bring it up?

2) "Muslims don't want peace, Mark" a generalised piece of advise that I'll take notice of the day that it becomes true.

3) "They ultimately want everything you've got" - do they? will they accept my debts along with the little I have?

4) If someone puts my family at risk I'll defend them to the death, I may prefer peace to war but that wouln't stop me from killing someone if it was to save my own.

Mike's solution to the 'problem' - wipe out everyone who falls into the following categories: Muslims, democrats, liberals, peace activists, anti war folk, euro socialists, arabs, the wrong sort of tai-chi folk, aikido people that haven't got 'it' yet and any other people who claim to have an answer that hasn't been 'Sigmanised' ( a frightening word if ever I saw one ). Those remaining ( in a sparsely populated world ) could happily live together until they fell out over something, and when that inevitable happened, they could employ the well proven strategy of further anihilation. Maybe Mike would be the last one left, typing away to a non existent audience :rolleyes:

"The pen is mightier than the sword" Edward George Bulwer Lytton (1803-1873), just another Brit with his head up his arse eh Mike?

regards

Mark

Mark Freeman
12-04-2006, 07:42 AM
And (correct me if I'm wrong)... it wasn't the genocide of the jews that motivated the US to get involved in WWII, it was the German war machine moving into other countries and the declaration of war against the US. Again... I'm not sure about that, but I think that is the case.

.

I thought that Pearl Harbour had something to do with it ? but I like you am willing to be corrected, Mike is our resident expert, he will put us all in the picture ;)

regards,

Mark

skinnymonkey
12-04-2006, 08:05 AM
Hey Mark... My understanding is that we were basically fighting two wars at that time. We declared war on the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Then Germany and Italy announced that they were at war with us. We then responded by declaring war on them.

Here is a quick timeline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm

But it wasn't the genocide of the Jewish people that motivated the USA. My understanding is that many of the GIs weren't prepared at all for what they saw in the concentration camps.

Also... did anyone else notice that we've been involved in Iraq longer than we were involved in WWII?
http://www.elpasotimes.com/spanish/ci_4725960

Jeff D.

Mark Freeman
12-04-2006, 08:48 AM
Hey Mark... My understanding is that we were basically fighting two wars at that time. We declared war on the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Then Germany and Italy announced that they were at war with us. We then responded by declaring war on them.

Here is a quick timeline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm

But it wasn't the genocide of the Jewish people that motivated the USA. My understanding is that many of the GIs weren't prepared at all for what they saw in the concentration camps.

Also... did anyone else notice that we've been involved in Iraq longer than we were involved in WWII?
http://www.elpasotimes.com/spanish/ci_4725960

Jeff D.

Hi Jeff,

thanks for the links, interesting.

I don't think anyone could have been prepared for what they saw in the concentration camps ( incidently the Brits seem to have the dubious honour of having invented this type of camp in the Boer war :( )

We could be involved in the Afghanistan conflict for 'many' years to come, the Taliban are a tenacious lot and will not roll over and give in without a great deal of resistance. :(

The Iraq debacle is an open sore that will not be resolved in the short term. :(

I still feel ( at risk of being branded a traitor ) that it is our duty to hold our own governments to account for the actions carried out in our name.

As one comedian I heard the other day said, all wars seems to be followed by an outbreak of peace, and all peace seems to be followed by an outbreak of war! :crazy:

regards,

Mark

Amir Krause
12-04-2006, 09:39 AM
And (correct me if I'm wrong)... it wasn't the genocide of the jews that motivated the US to get involved in WWII, it was the German war machine moving into other countries and the declaration of war against the US. Again... I'm not sure about that, but I think that is the case.

No, the US did not join the was because of the Holukust. In fact, they could nothave cared less. It has been proven by history researches the high command did know of the genocide. Yet, decided it does not conern it and did nothing to slow it down. Bombers did not stop any of the anhilation centers, and they were only occupied when the ground forces arrived there. Increasing the demise.

The reason I raised this issue is because today, in Africa, we are all guilty of the same crime - doing nothing to stop Genocide.
When I was a child and heard my grandparents (who were there), talk about it, I could not precieve the idea of people letting such a thing continue. Yet today, I see the eyes of the world going to so many conflicts, but Rarely to the those involving Genocide.


I also know what you are saying about genocide. We haven't gotten involved in Darfur for instance, though that area clearly needs more help than almost any area in the world.

The problem is that I'm not sure what the appropriate measure would be in that region. Same with Somalia. Seems to me that if we had a true international force (like the Gulf War or WWII) then we might be able to make a change. Without that, I think we will just do too little and further decrease our (USA) status in the world.


With all due respect for the very bad situation in Iraq, or around my own country. Neither of these conflicts is as close to orgenized Genocide as the things going on in Drfur and the things which have already happened in Africa. Yet, the media keeps the attention on the first two areas, and a few more, but hardly ever does anyone pay attention to the more urgent matter of stopping such horrors.

Don't ask me how to do this. I am only a citizen in country most of the world automaticly votes against. And our own parlament members rarely listen to us due to a problematic govrement system. But something must be done !!!


I know what you mean Amir. The old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" still seems to hold a lot of weight, but history has showed us differently.

We backed Saddam, because he was the enemy of our enemy (Iran). We backed the Taliban, because they were the enemy of our enemy (Russia). Neither of those worked out very well for us in the long run.


As I said, the leaders often look at the large picture, but miss :-(
Trying to act in a wise manner is very difficult, in fact, it might be almost ipossible for a democracy, when support and willingness should be gathered from the public before commiting any action, often at the cost of serecy and effectivness.
As someone once said, democracy is the least rse Gov. system...


Amir

Neil Mick
12-04-2006, 03:07 PM
Well... remember that the hypocrisy knife cuts both ways. The birds who are now trumpeting the war in Iraq (Hannity, Limbaugh, etc) are the same ones who were squawking when Clinton moved into Bosnia and don't forget Somalia.

It is also important to note that there WERE protests during Clinton's term (to the contrary of what Conservatives claim).


However, you must remember that Bush and Rumsfeld have both on multiple occasions said that Iraq had NO connection to 9/11.

They had to. Bush made references to BOTH Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence, 233x before we went to war. His Admin made SO many references to 9/11 and Iraq that there is STILL a large portion of the American public that thinks that Hussein had a hand in 9/11.

I encountered this mistake several times in debating, online.

That's why I said that I support the action in Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

Well, that makes one of us... :hypno:

Look at all the "wonderful" achievements we've accomplished in Afghanistan. The Taliban...still there; opium production up to 90%; stability for about 2 square blocks in the middle of Kabul; and...OBL still at large, the main reason we invaded, in the first place.

Talk about mission "not accomplished..." :rolleyes:

Also... Iran and N. Korea are by far more dangerous and more likely to give weapons to terrorists than Saddam.

IMO, NK and Iran aren't dangerous, at all...not in the way you mean.

Let's take a look at the record:

1. Compare how many times has Iran bombed or invaded another country, with Israel. Now, which of these 2 countries has nuclear weapons? Which country maintains a record on UN violations?

2. Let's face it: no one wants Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But, all the objective observers state that Iran is YEARS away from getting a bomb. I believe that they've managed to enrich uranium to about 3%.

To make a nuclear bomb, they need to enrich up to 85%, or better.

3. If we REALLY were all concerned about Iran getting a bomb, we wouldn't have handed all that technology over to India. India and Iran are on good terms; and it makes no sense to give tech to an enemy's ally, who will likely trade that tech in the years to come. But, then again: Bush's foreign policy is hardly what I'd call "sensible..." :crazy:

4. NK has done nothing wrong, in attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon. They are not signataries of the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and they've been announcing their intentions to gain one, for years.

5. Pakistan's nuclear rockstar, A.Q. Khan, has made a big effort in fulfilling the nuclear wishlists of NK, Libya, and others. Yet, all that happened to him when he was found out was a light slap on the wrist with a house arrest. Let's face it: either we ("we," being the US gov't) really don't care WHO gets a bomb, or we are after NK for other reasons, besides concern for peace.

6. NK has long been asking for 1-on-1 talks with the US. Officially, we are still at war, with NK...been that way for over 50 years. This constant state of war has served to isolate NK from the world community. Isolating any community or gov't tends to foster a "bunker" attitude over a long period of time (you can see this in examples from Jim Jones, to the Iraqi Sanctions).

There ARE real dangers to world peace, out there (Pakistan, the US, the missile stockpiles in Russia); but we apparently seem unconcerned in addressing these issues. We'd much rather support illegal Israeli invasions and ignore genocides in Africa, than face our problems directly.

The point that I keep coming back to is that war is messy and not very good at solving problems in general.

I think it is our duty as Americans to honestly question what our government is doing in our name.

Jeff D.

True enough.

we are all guilty of the same crime - doing nothing to stop Genocide.

With all due respect for the very bad situation in Iraq, or around my own country. Neither of these conflicts is as close to orgenized Genocide as the things going on in Drfur and the things which have already happened in Africa.

Yes, but the MidEast is completely destabilized by the illegal occupation of Palestine.

With Darfur, there are more people dying, but the solutions are different.

The problems of Iraq will begin to resolve when we pull out. Nothing can go forward until then. Michael Moore (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=202) recently made some good points:

Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.

** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.

There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.

The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.

So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn’t much you can do ‘til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys


Yet, the media keeps the attention on the first two areas, and a few more, but hardly ever does anyone pay attention to the more urgent matter of stopping such horrors.

The situation in Darfur is different. The solution requires a political response; not a military one. China and other nations are loathe to criticize Sudan for fear of losing their valuable trade. What needs to happen is for the UN and corporations to put the same pressure on Sudan as was put upon S. Africa, in the '80's.

Mike Sigman
12-04-2006, 10:22 PM
It is also important to note that there WERE protests during Clinton's term (to the contrary of what Conservatives claim).This is what I mean about Neil's basic dishonesty. He knows full well that there were comparatively almost NO protests, but he can't bring himself to simply talk the truth.

I'd like to ask Neil, looking at his posts, if he's a member of a socialist organization. His posts are strikingly similar in anti-American tone and content to the World Socialists and other socialist organizations. So similar that it appears that Neil is actually not being totally clear in what he actually belives in, the overthrow of the United States.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Thomas Campbell
12-04-2006, 11:46 PM
[snip]
I'd like to ask Neil, looking at his posts, if he's a member of a socialist organization. His posts are strikingly similar in anti-American tone and content to the World Socialists and other socialist organizations. So similar that it appears that Neil is actually not being totally clear in what he actually belives in, the overthrow of the United States.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Equating "socialism" (whatever that means) with advocating overthrow of the United States is an error.

More power to Mr. Mick if he's a "member of a socialist organization" (shades of Joe McCarthy). Are you "a member of a conservative organization"? More power to you. It's a free country.

Amir Krause
12-05-2006, 02:01 AM
I'd like to ask Neil, looking at his posts, if he's a member of a socialist organization. His posts are strikingly similar in anti-American tone and content to the World Socialists and other socialist organizations. So similar that it appears that Neil is actually not being totally clear in what he actually belives in, the overthrow of the United States.


Whats so wrong with a "socialist organization" ??? :confused:

Most people I know believe a society should find balance between Capitallizem and Socialisem. Voluntary socialist organizations actually sounds like a positive thing to me, most of the time. They can become over-powerfull sometimes (we have some such problems here), but in a fully capitalist society, the rich are much more powerfull towards the poor then those organizations are towards society.

Amir

Mark Freeman
12-05-2006, 05:03 AM
Please add 'Socialists' to the list of groups that need to be wiped out of Mike's world (post # 38) I had only listed euro socialists, I hadn't realised that the picture was much wider ;)

Mark Freeman
12-05-2006, 05:27 AM
Whats so wrong with a "socialist organization" ??? :confused:

Most people I know believe a society should find balance between Capitallizem and Socialisem. Voluntary socialist organizations actually sounds like a positive thing to me, most of the time. They can become over-powerfull sometimes (we have some such problems here), but in a fully capitalist society, the rich are much more powerfull towards the poor then those organizations are towards society.

Amir

Hi Amir,

Pure capitalism a la Regan/Thatcher where the market will regulate itself, has proven to be erroneous. The Enron's of the world prove this point. Greedy men with their snouts in the trough with no morals or care for the people who put and keep them there. Increasing their already overstuffed accounts for the sake of themselves and nothing else.

Then again pure socialism is hardly an ideal model for the future either, too inflexible, and open to as much corruption.

I agree that there needs to be a fine balance between the two. Countries like Sweden and Denmark seem to have pretty good working models. They are by no means perfect and it's unlikely that you could transfer their systems lock stock and barrel to any other country. But it is good to know they exist and that there are people living in countries that value greater 'equality' over pure profit.

My own country is supposedly the 4th richest nation on earth, but when I see the steadily increasing inequality I am not impressed by our government ( which was socialist but is now conservative while keeping the 'Labour' name )

There are millions of people without adequate access to decent healthcare in the US where capitalism is king, customers may have more choice in this system, but they had better not need a hip replacement if they can't afford one. :(

We are drifting away from "civil - war" but maybe this is the true nature of "civil" war, a battle for an ideology ( economic / philosophical etc ) that values humanity over all else.

We live in interesting times...

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
12-05-2006, 07:05 AM
Pure capitalism a la Regan/Thatcher where the market will regulate itself, has proven to be erroneous. It's interesting to watch some of the Dem's over here promising "tax cuts to boost the economy" while at the same saying "Reaganomics didn't work". Heh. The Wall Street Journal did a nice piece on why so many liberal slogans and assertions are unashamedly wrong.... the bulk of the liberal base are the poorest educated and incorrect sayings are the way they're whipped into frenzy.

Mike

Mike Sigman
12-05-2006, 07:07 AM
Equating "socialism" (whatever that means) with advocating overthrow of the United States is an error.
Not that I know of. The overthrow of capitalist governments is a stated part of the credo of socialism, unless you went to a different school than I did. Maybe you should tune into some of the actual speeches at some of the "anti-war" rallies. Socialists are always there giving "overthrow America" speeches... something the press (including the BBC) try not to report.

Mike Sigman

Thomas Campbell
12-05-2006, 10:37 AM
I confer with political scientists on a professional basis. Whether defined technically or as commonly used in popular discourse, "socialism" does not require the overthrow of the United States. Used as a clumsy and McCarthyesque attempt at slander on Internet forums, equating all "socialism" with advocacy of overthrow of the United States just shows sloppy thinking conflating well-worn Marxist-Leninist-Maoist rhetoric with all "socialism."

"Socialism" advocates common ownership of the means of economic production and distribution. The nature of that ownership and the degree of involvement of the state in directing the economy varies. In this country, Social Security and unemployment insurance have been derided as "socialist." But the point is that "socialism" is a very broad label that includes a wide range of political preferences and convictions. The common theme relates to the nature of who owns the means of production and distribution, not overthrowing the U.S. (whatever that means). Just because some extreme socialists--in the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist wavelengths of the socialist spectrum--may advocate overthrowing the U.S. does not mean all, or even most, socialists do. Some conservatives advocate and in fact have carried out seditious acts against the U.S. government. Does that mean all conservatives, or even most, advocate overthrowing the U.S.?

Mike Sigman
12-05-2006, 10:54 AM
I confer with political scientists on a professional basis. So? Does that make you an expert? My wife is a surgeon, as you went out of the way to discuss on a public forum, but that doesn't make me qualified as an expert on arthroplasty. Whether defined technically or as commonly used in popular discourse, "socialism" does not require the overthrow of the United States. Used as a clumsy and McCarthyesque attempt at slander on Internet forums, equating all "socialism" with advocacy of overthrow of the United States just shows sloppy thinking conflating well-worn Marxist-Leninist-Maoist rhetoric with all "socialism."

"Socialism" advocates common ownership of the means of economic production and distribution. The nature of that ownership and the degree of involvement of the state in directing the economy varies. [QUOTE] Basically you're trying to now define "socialism" to be what you want it to be. Regardless, unless the capitalist tenets of the US are "overthrown", there will be no real socialism.

But more to the point I was making, Neil Mick's rhetoric is very closely attuned to that of the common anti-American socialist groups like http://www.wsws.org [QUOTE]Some conservatives advocate and in fact have carried out seditious acts against the U.S. government. Does that mean all conservatives, or even most, advocate overthrowing the U.S.? That was as childish a piece of non-reasoning as I've seen in a while.

Mike Sigman

Thomas Campbell
12-05-2006, 11:22 AM
So? Does that make you an expert? My wife is a surgeon, as you went out of the way to discuss on a public forum, but that doesn't make me qualified as an expert on arthroplasty. [QUOTE] Whether defined technically or as commonly used in popular discourse, "socialism" does not require the overthrow of the United States. Used as a clumsy and McCarthyesque attempt at slander on Internet forums, equating all "socialism" with advocacy of overthrow of the United States just shows sloppy thinking conflating well-worn Marxist-Leninist-Maoist rhetoric with all "socialism."

"Socialism" advocates common ownership of the means of economic production and distribution. The nature of that ownership and the degree of involvement of the state in directing the economy varies. [QUOTE] Basically you're trying to now define "socialism" to be what you want it to be. Regardless, unless the capitalist tenets of the US are "overthrown", there will be no real socialism.

But more to the point I was making, Neil Mick's rhetoric is very closely attuned to that of the common anti-American socialist groups like http://www.wsws.org That was as childish a piece of non-reasoning as I've seen in a while.

Mike Sigman

Not sure why you're quoting yourself up above, Mike (putting your text in the same italics and quote box as mine).

I didn't say I was an expert. I said I confer with political scientists, whose analysis I would give more weight than yours with respect to accurate definition of political terminology. If I had a knee injury and needed arthroplasty, I'd consider your statement about your wife to be a reference, not a statement that you are an expert on orthopedic surgery. Clearly I wouldn't ask you for an arthroplasty. More childish reasoning and ill-tempered posturing on your part.

And where you say, "(u)nless the capitalist tenets of the U.S. are overthrown, there will be no real socialism," you're both defining the U.S. as you want to (fundamentally capitalist, which it's not, it's a fundamentally mixed economy) and "real" socialism as you want to.

But I'm done with this tangent. I expect you'll have more to say; you can't help yourself. ;)

Mike Sigman
12-05-2006, 11:31 AM
But I'm done with this tangent. I expect you'll have more to say; you can't help yourself. ;)I've said it before and I'll say it again... you're basically a childish hit-and-run artist who doesn't see any fault in himself. I've watched your personal-attack BS on Empty Flower and your petty personal comments on this forum. You're not what you think you are or you wouldn't be mired in trivial public comments about Mike Sigman's real or imagined shortcomings. Get a life or come see me personally if you continue to have a problem that requires personal commentary.


Mike Sigman

Taliesin
12-05-2006, 11:41 AM
Just popped in to see Mike back to his old tricks. I loved his line about something being

"as childish a piece of non-reasoning as I've seen in a while."

Still whilst the debate about whether Socialism would require the overthrow of the current US constitution.

Well that would be a very difficult argument to make.

Unlike the arguement that Capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts. (Which is an easy arguement to make)

Thomas Campbell
12-05-2006, 12:06 PM
[snip] You're not what you think you are or you wouldn't be mired in trivial public comments about Mike Sigman's real or imagined shortcomings. Get a life or come see me personally if you continue to have a problem that requires personal commentary.


Mike Sigman

hi Mike,

I know who I am, thanks. I'm not the one mired in Mike Sigman. Take a look in the mirror.

best to you, sir.

Hogan
12-05-2006, 02:14 PM
Just popped in to see Mike back to his old tricks. I loved his line about something being

"as childish a piece of non-reasoning as I've seen in a while."

Still whilst the debate about whether Socialism would require the overthrow of the current US constitution.

Well that would be a very difficult argument to make.

Unlike the arguement that Capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts. (Which is an easy arguement to make)

Everyone knows that socialism is but a stepping stone to communism...

You're all commie pinkos.

James Davis
12-05-2006, 04:22 PM
Everyone knows that socialism is but a stepping stone to communism...

You're all commie pinkos.
Whoa. :drool:

Thomas Campbell
12-05-2006, 08:59 PM
Actually I'm more of a Libertarian, and I don't particularly care for pink. :cool:

hapkidoike
12-05-2006, 09:04 PM
Everyone knows that socialism is but a stepping stone to communism...

You're all commie pinkos.

I'm a commie pinko, you got a problem with that comrade. . .(waiting for an answer in a dark alley with a hammer and sickle).

Neil Mick
12-06-2006, 01:34 AM
I'd like to ask Neil, looking at his posts, if he's a member of a socialist organization. His posts are strikingly similar in anti-American tone and content to the World Socialists and other socialist organizations. So similar that it appears that Neil is actually not being totally clear in what he actually belives in, the overthrow of the United States.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

You might like to ask...but, until I get some agreement to cut out the personal attacks...

you von't get an answer! (*twirling mustache*) :hypno:



More power to Mr. Mick if he's a "member of a socialist organization" (shades of Joe McCarthy). Are you "a member of a conservative organization"? More power to you. It's a free country.

OK, I admit it. You caught me. I'm a member of the Secret Club of Aikidoists who'd Like Our Tax Dollars to Be Spent on Peaceful Efforts, Instead of a Bloated, Corporate Military Machine That Delights in Tormenting The Arab World (S.C.A.L.O.B.P.E.I.B.C.M.D.T.A.W., for short). :D
Please...before they haul me off for indefinite stays at Gitmo, can I call my family. first? :freaky:

Whats so wrong with a "socialist organization" ??? :confused:

Ya got me. Some ppl equate it with a dirty word.

In this country, it was a Socialist organization (the WWW) that brought about the idea of unions. Demands of the Socialists in the '30's brought about reforms in retirement, social security, overtime pay and maternity leave...we'd have none of these things if it weren't for Socialists.

And, we thanked them for it, with a nice, healthy dose of McCarthy. :(

I'm a commie pinko, you got a problem with that comrade. . .(waiting for an answer in a dark alley with a hammer and sickle).

No, wait! I'm the Commie Pinko! Me, me! ;)

This is what I mean about Neil's basic dishonesty. He knows full well that there were comparatively almost NO protests, but he can't bring himself to simply talk the truth.

I saved this one for last.

I shake my head in amazement at some of the weird things you believe to be true, Mike. But, I understand your ignorance (no insult intended) on the matter. The mainstream media did a fine job of blocking out the protests of the '90's. They were small, true,,,but I went to at least 2, and I know an Aikido police officer on AJ who will verify that there were protests in DC (he works on crowd control. By request, his name is private. PM me if interested)

...and then there was

(*drum roll*)

"The Battle for Seattle" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Seattle) :eek: :cool:

Protest activity surrounding the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999, which was to be the launch of a new millennial round of trade negotiations, occurred on November 30, 1999, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) convened in Seattle, Washington, USA. The negotiations were quickly overshadowed by massive and controversial street protests outside the hotels and the Seattle Convention Center, in what became the coming-out of the anti-globalization movement in the United States. The scale of the demonstrations—even the lowest estimates put the crowd at over 40,000—dwarfed any previous demonstration in the United States against a world meeting of any of the organizations generally associated with economic globalization (such as the WTO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or the World Bank). The events are sometimes referred to as the Battle of Seattle.

So please...suggesting that there were no protests in the Clinton-era is just wrong. The largest protest in recent history, before Iraq, occurred in 1999, a direct result of Clinton's economic and foreign policy.

You Conservatives...you keep spoutin' the same lie over and over, and pretty soon, you start believing your own PR :rolleyes: :freaky:

Taliesin
12-06-2006, 09:44 AM
So now we are onto Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Plutocracy, and Democracy,

In fact - going by the original Marxist definition Democracy is an essential ingredient in any genuine communist State. (The fact that some states call themselves communist doesn't make them so - doesn't ensure that they match the definition - in fact no state that has described itself as Comminist ever was)

Socialism - is yes a promotion of left of centre ideals

Capitalism - another Marxist Term for a systment where a small minority control the powers of production

Which ties in with Plutocracy - Government by the richest

Anarchy = 'without leader' Democracy = 'By the people equally' Therefore Democracy is not only a Communist Ideal but a form of Anarchy.

And remember guys - In Politics the Right are usually Wrong!!

Mark Freeman
12-06-2006, 09:48 AM
OK, I admit it. You caught me. I'm a member of the Secret Club of Aikidoists who'd Like Our Tax Dollars to Be Spent on Peaceful Efforts, Instead of a Bloated, Corporate Military Machine That Delights in Tormenting The Arab World (S.C.A.L.O.B.P.E.I.B.C.M.D.T.A.W., for short). :D
Please...before they haul me off for indefinite stays at Gitmo, can I call my family. first? :freaky:


No! Neil, you are a traitor and a danger to the free world, put those orange overalls on ...... evileyes

Mike Sigman
12-06-2006, 09:52 AM
You might like to ask...but, until I get some agreement to cut out the personal attacks... Pretty much what I thought. No answer.
The mainstream media did a fine job of blocking out the protests of the '90's. They were small, true,,,but I went to at least 2, [[snip]]So please...suggesting that there were no protests in the Clinton-era is just wrong. In other words, there were comparatively almost NO anti-war protests about Bosnia/Kosovo, but Neil simply can't bring himself to admit the simple truth. He'd tell a lie even when the truth would do him good. And no.... "protests in the Clinton era" are not the same thing as anti-war protests against the Bosnia/Kosovo war. The fact is that, as Tom Hayden pointed out, the "anti-war Left" are essentially Democrats/liberals who play partisan politics. Neil wants to avoid admitting that the evidence supports this completely, so he begins bullshitting.

Mike

Mike Sigman
12-06-2006, 09:59 AM
And remember guys - In Politics the Right are usually Wrong!! Tell it to Churchill, who repeatedly warned the Left before World War II. Tell it to the approximately 50 million people who died, largely due to the British and French "Left" and their control on the government and presses until too late.

The real problem with WWII was that at the end of it, all the Leftists who were responsible for the war that could have been so easily prevented never stepped up and admitted it was them. They pretended that they had been victims of the horrors, too. And now the Left is back doing exactly the same arrogant, haughty, elitist BS they did that led to WWII. Frankly, I think the best thing to do is to wait, as everyone did in WWII, until the carnage starts again. Luckily, the most likely attack in the US will be a large metro city, all of which are controlled by and contain large numbers of the Left. So probably the best stratagem is to sit by and placidly watch a leftist city die, much in the same way the Leftists like Neil placidly shrug off the deaths of American soldiers. :rolleyes:

Regards,

Mike

skinnymonkey
12-06-2006, 10:07 AM
True Mike... there may not have been large scale protests, but there aren't large scale "protests" per se for the Iraq war either.

There is a generally high opposition to the war, but still not a lot of protesting. Also, you have to remember that Kosovo/Bosnia did not last NEARLY as long as Iraq. I would guess that if Clinton had spent $300 billion and 3+ years and years over service agreements of our servicemen and women, there would have been a lot more grumbling.

Jeff D.

Thomas Campbell
12-06-2006, 10:16 AM
Just to clarify, the "Battle of Seattle" that Neil offered as an example of protest during the Clinton era was motivated by concerns about the effects of economic "globalization" and lowering of trade barriers under the auspices of the WTO . . . not by the war in Bosnia.

My recollection is that, nationally, the protests during the Clinton administration against the conflict in the Balkans were quite small in comparison with the anti-war protests against the Bush II administration and the conflict in Iraq. I think Mike is correct on that point. Police reports on demonstration activity bear this out.

Mike Sigman
12-06-2006, 10:25 AM
True Mike... there may not have been large scale protests, but there aren't large scale "protests" per se for the Iraq war either. Oh, pooh. Look at the daily comments, the "stars" visiting Saddam, the calling of the president "Traitor", "Liar", etc., by Dem's, etc. None of that happened when Clinton did Europe's work for them in Kosovo. There were some complaints, which stopped almost completely once the troops were committed (unlike the liberals "even if it costs soldiers lives we must protest").... but there is no comparison about the protest amount. None. Also, you have to remember that Kosovo/Bosnia did not last NEARLY as long as Iraq.We're still there. And it's purely a civil war. That was my point.

Regards,

Mike

Hogan
12-06-2006, 10:59 AM
T...Also, you have to remember that Kosovo/Bosnia did not last NEARLY as long as Iraq. ...

Aren't there troops still there? You know, the ones that were only supposed to be the for a yr?

Hogan
12-06-2006, 11:20 AM
Just a reminder at what is at stake in this current struggle against fanatical muslims:

Hey you moral relativists here - defend this practice... pretty please...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234817,00.html

MOGADISHU, Somalia — Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.

Shops, tea houses and other public places in Bulo Burto, about 124 miles northeast of the capital, Mogadishu, should be closed during prayer time and no one should be on the streets, said Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, the chairman of the town's Islamic court. His court is part of a network backed by armed militiamen that has taken control of much of southern Somalia in recent months, bringing a strict interpretation of Islam that is alien to many Somalis.

Those who do not follow the prayer edict after three days have elapsed, "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law," Rage told The Associated Press by phone. "As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do."....

Neil Mick
12-06-2006, 12:00 PM
Just to clarify, the "Battle of Seattle" that Neil offered as an example of protest during the Clinton era was motivated by concerns about the effects of economic "globalization" and lowering of trade barriers under the auspices of the WTO . . . not by the war in Bosnia.

Correct.

My recollection is that, nationally, the protests during the Clinton administration against the conflict in the Balkans were quite small in comparison with the anti-war protests against the Bush II administration and the conflict in Iraq. I think Mike is correct on that point. Police reports on demonstration activity bear this out.

No, that's not what Mike said (and, what Conservatives often claim).

He said:

This is what I mean about Neil's basic dishonesty. He knows full well that there were comparatively almost NO protests, but he can't bring himself to simply talk the truth.

to counter my claim that

It is also important to note that there WERE protests during Clinton's term (to the contrary of what Conservatives claim).

"Quite small" does not = "Comparatively almost none," no matter how hard Mikey tries to squirm.

Sorry, but there WERE protests during the Clinton-era...yes, they were smaller (Clinton was not as polarizing a force, as was Bush), but he was accusing me of lying about something I personally witnessed, and now he's (no doubt, behind the ignore-curtain) trying to prevaricate, as he usually does when faced with the facts.

Face it, Mike: the world is large, complicated, and much more detailed, than your simplistic worldviews that you spout out, here.

Next!

P.S. Still awaiting that agreement to use etiquette when posting (as per the forum rules, here), Mike. My PM Inbox awaits....

Mike Sigman
12-06-2006, 12:09 PM
"Quite small" does not = "Comparatively almost none," no matter how hard Mikey tries to squirm.
That's completely dishonest if you look at the paragraphs I wrote, Neil. Why on earth would I have included in a discussion about "anti war protests" the idea of "all the protests during Clinton's presidency"???? You get so busy trying to make a point, the you lose sight of how silly your basic dishonesty makes you look.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
12-06-2006, 12:16 PM
No! Neil, you are a traitor and a danger to the free world, put those orange overalls on ...... evileyes

Darn it...can you at least wait till February, to come and get me? Kangeiko is in late January, and I'd hate to miss it. :freaky:

skinnymonkey
12-06-2006, 12:44 PM
We're still there. And it's purely a civil war. That was my point.

I stand corrected (kinda). We do still have troops in Bosnia - about 250.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-02-eu-bosnia_x.htm?csp=36

We also only put 20,000 troops there (out of 60,000) to start with. I realize that 20,000 is still a really large number, but it is nothing like the 140,000+ that we have in Iraq! By 2002 (as far as I can tell) we were down to around 1,800.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/03/01/bosnia-troops.htm

Even you have to admit that it's not nearly the same scale as what we've seen in Iraq.

Jeff D.

Mike Sigman
12-06-2006, 12:58 PM
Even you have to admit that it's not nearly the same scale as what we've seen in Iraq.Even you have to admit that Bosnia/Kosovo represented nothing of the sort of threat that Saddam did to the US. Saddam was actively providing training and weapons to terrorist organizations, it turns out in recently translated documents and documents found during the invasion.

But like I said right after 9/11... one large attack on the US, like the WTC debacle, will not be enough to really wake up the generally sleepy and soft US. This is very reminiscent of WWII where all the signs that Japan was getting ready to do us in were shrugged off by the people... only after Pearl Harbor did the US liberals suddenly drop their theories and realize it was serious. Same will be true this time. It will take the loss of a large US city before you find a bunch of liberals starting to point the fingers at everyone but themselves about how it was allowed to happen... and screeching for "action!". It's like when I lived in Haight-Ashbury in 1967... everyone hated the "Pigs", but when their house was broken into, they were screaming for action and protection.

I think Churchill made that very famous speech in about 1947 where he pointed out that World War II could have been avoided, all the signs were there, Hitler actually said what he was going to do... but until the shit hit the fan, all the liberals and the press poo-pooed the idea and pressured for inaction. So I'm simply realistically waiting for the destruction of a major US city. Hopefully, it'll be one like San Francisco or New York. What's your pick? ;)

Regards,

Mike

Neil Mick
12-06-2006, 02:11 PM
Even you have to admit that it's not nearly the same scale as what we've seen in Iraq.

Jeff D.

Mike, admit a mistake? Alert the media! :eek:

No, it's nowhere NEAR the same scale, or the same drain on the US economy, military, and resources.

Politically, it's not even within the same scale.

Clinton's biggest nightmare? Say those same 6 syllables with me, together.... "Mon..ic...aah..." aw, you know the rest. In the end, it was nothing more than the Repub's, blowing smoke.

And, those same Republican leaders that were decrying the Kosovo invasion (and the impropriety of Clinton's handling (ahem) of his interns), wringing their hands over the losses American mom's will have for their sons (almost an exact quote), were the fiercest warhawks for going into Iraq.

But, Bush's folly, the thing that has his Admin flunkies leaving in droves and turning the Cabinet into a literal revolving door? The war in which the largest amount of private contractors in the history of the US, is employed; where billions of dollars of taxpayer money and human lives are sinking into a black hole, taking longer to complete, than WW2?

Of course...The Iraqi invasion.

So, to compare the popular protests of the two events is nonsense. As you pointed out, Jeff: there isn't even a military comparison (in terms of drain on resources) btw the two.

skinnymonkey
12-06-2006, 02:35 PM
Even you have to admit that Bosnia/Kosovo represented nothing of the sort of threat that Saddam did to the US.
Yes. I do admit that point. You are correct there. but the loss and cost there is not proportionate to the cost or loss in Iraq.
only after Pearl Harbor did the US liberals suddenly drop their theories and realize it was serious.
See, this is the kind of thing that bothers me. It wasn't only liberals who didn't want to get tangled up in things. There were plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who felt that way. This "all or nothing" type of speech is what is driving a wedge between us Americans. I will concede some of your points. Saddam was dangerous. I agree with that. I disagree with how we handled Iraq, but I'll agree that he was a menace.

In my opinion, 9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor. More people died, more civilians, more property damage, etc. So it would follow that it requires a big response. I will agree with that. However, your claim that Saddam was actively providing training and weapons to terrorist organizations is really NOT proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yes, there were training camps in Iraq. But... there are terrorist training camps in the USA... does that mean that Bush is a terrorist? No. In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the worst of the worst. They hack off hands... stone women to death... openly support terrorists and terrorist madrasas but they get a free pass.

Maybe it will take the loss of a major city for people to realize the gravity of the situation. The problem is that we don't have a single country that is declaring war on us. This is a very different kind of fight. It's one we don't have a lot of experience winning. But it's easier to just revert to the old thinking than to come up with a real solution.

Hopefully, it'll be one like San Francisco or New York. What's your pick?
I don't know... maybe Durango? LOL. I'm only KIDDING!

Thanks for the debate. Believe it or not, I do appreciate your viewpoint.

Jeff D.

Neil Mick
12-06-2006, 03:19 PM
Saddam was dangerous. I agree with that.

That makes one of us. I don't.

Yes, there were training camps in Iraq.

In territory that was out of Hussein's control, at the time. Please: there is no evidence to show that Hussein was training terrorists, that he had wmd's, or that he was involved in 911. Any suggestion to the contrary (sans further evidence) is just the desperate grasping of a bunch of people who were fooled by Bush's lies, and hanging on to anything to justify their previous, mistaken beliefs.

Just face it, Mike, John, Jaime, et al...you were wrong. Now, just let go and move on, like the rest of us.

We were wrong to give weapons and money to Hussein in the '80's; we were wrong to bomb the Iraqi infrastucture in '91; we were wrong to bomb and starve them throughout the '90's; we were wrong to invade and bomb in '03 (based on lies); and we are wrong to continue an unwanted, illegal occupation.

Mike Sigman
12-06-2006, 03:39 PM
In territory that was out of Hussein's control, at the time. Please: there is no evidence to show that Hussein was training terrorists, that he had wmd's, or that he was involved in 911. Any suggestion to the contrary (sans further evidence) is just the desperate grasping of a bunch of people who were fooled by Bush's lies, Gee, so the training camp south of Baghdad with the commercial-jet fuselage was not part of a training camp? WTF? Speaking of lies. I don't know of any report saying definitively that Saddam did not have WMD's. All we know is that they could not find any. That's "evidence" of one sort. Several high-level sources in Iraqi military have said the WMD's were transferred to Syria. That's also "evidence". In other words, the matter is not resolved. No one I know of has said that Saddam actively participated in 9/11. We do know that he supported the 1993 bombings, though, so it's not just an arbitrary linkage.

The main thing here is that Neil is so well-known for skewing the facts (has anyone ever heard him say anything positive about the US or that somethings "has not been really determined" if it's negative about the US?), that nothing he says is believable.

Still no answer about whether Neil is a member of a socialist organization.

Mike

hapkidoike
12-06-2006, 05:22 PM
The main thing here is that Neil is so well-known for skewing the facts (has anyone ever heard him say anything positive about the US or that somethings "has not been really determined" if it's negative about the US?), that nothing he says is believable.

Still no answer about whether Neil is a member of a socialist organization.

Mike

The argument that Neil is 'squewing the facts' based on the observation that he does not praise the United States is a horrible argument for obvious reasons. If I make the arguemnt that so-and-so is obvously lying because he never says anything nice about me, maybe it is because I am not a nice person, and there are no nice things to be said about me. I am not saying I believe it is the case that the US does not deserve anything good to be said about it but I can see it being a possible explination for his comments.

Also what does skewing facts, a persons argument, or the price of beans in China have to do with weather or not Neil is a member of a socalist, communist, fascist, conservative, racist, sexist, homosexual, or zoroastrian organization. This is merely a tactic used to move attention away from the argument itself and into the person making the argument. The argument stands on its own legs, regardless if Hitler or Ghandi makes it. That is to say, the argumnet is not dependant on the man who creates it, but dependant on itslef.

Mike Sigman
12-06-2006, 05:28 PM
Ah... a moral relativist. The kind of guy who thinks that Hitler, even though he was a socialist, was simply expressing his opinion, which is as good as anyone else's opinion.

Mike

hapkidoike
12-06-2006, 05:42 PM
Ah... a moral relativist. The kind of guy who thinks that Hitler, even though he was a socialist, was simply expressing his opinion, which is as good as anyone else's opinion.

Mike
Dude, get off it. I am no moral relativist. What I said was that the ARGUMENT itself stood on its own mertis. That is to say that if Hitler makes the argument:
A is greater than B
B is greatr than C
Therefore A is greater than C
and you want to argue against it, you have to argue against the argument itslef, not on your belief (which I would agree with) that he is a sadistic, schitzo, nutjob, who needed to be put away before he was able to cause the damage that he did. It may be true that he was all those things, but they have no bearing on the argument

And just so I am not misunderstood, I am no kind of moral relativist. I didnt buy it at Universtiy (when I probably should have) and I sure dont buy it now. I take offence to you carging me as such. But if you maintain that this is the case, that I am indeed a moral relativist I will hear your argument, but I think it stands to reason that you will lose, given that you dont know me or anything about my belif system.

Mike Sigman
12-06-2006, 05:46 PM
Dude! You are so articulate!!! How can anyone argue with your logic???

Neil Mick
12-06-2006, 11:53 PM
Also what does skewing facts, a persons argument, or the price of beans in China have to do with weather or not Neil is a member of a socalist, communist, fascist, conservative, racist, sexist, homosexual, or zoroastrian organization.

That is to say, the argumnet is not dependant on the man who creates it, but dependant on itslef.

Oh, stop, Isaac. Mike's right...I MUST be a member of a secret organization. I state lies about the US; and so it's obvious that I'm getting secret orders, straight from Iran (or, Syria, or, the Flat-Earther's, or...).

After all, everbody KNOWS that lying is PROOF POSITIVE of belonging to a socialist organization that hates the US. And, Mike has every right to wave his finger at me, because, as we all know: Republicans NEVER lie.

But, even when they do (about Iraq, 911 and wmd's, about Katrina, about global warming, about his military record, torturing and kidnapping ppl, spying on the American public, about their lucrative ties to corporations, influence peddling and on and on)...even then: we should not criticize them.

Know why? Because criticizing our leaders gives comfort to the enemy. It's just unpatriotic.

Why, you'd think some people need a flowchart to know which way the wind blows. ;)

http://i.gleeson.us/gb/0511/bush-lied-flow-chart.gif

Still no answer about whether Neil is a member of a socialist organization.

Still no acknowledgment from you that you can carry on a debate without personal remarks. My PM box awaits.

Hogan
12-07-2006, 08:00 AM
...Still no answer about whether Neil is a member of a socialist organization.

Mike

You'll never get an answer. On another thread, I gave him a list of wars the US has been involved in, parred them down to what people consider "good" (meaning good results) or "necessary" wars, like WWII, or the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War, etc.... I then asked him if he would ever have or will ever fight or die for freedom, or the US, etc...

After trying to deflect the question numerous times, he finally admitted that he COULD have seen himself involved with the "protests" of the Revolutionary War! Ahahahah...

Mark Freeman
12-07-2006, 11:46 AM
Oh, stop, Isaac. Mike's right...I MUST be a member of a secret organization. I state lies about the US; and so it's obvious that I'm getting secret orders, straight from Iran (or, Syria, or, the Flat-Earther's, or...)..

Neil, you are lying again arent you? :hypno:

Neil Mick
12-07-2006, 11:53 AM
Neil, you are lying again arent you? :hypno:

Darn it...you caught me. I lied. Can't help it: I'm an unrepentent liar. I lie about everything.

In fact, I'm lying about lying, even now. :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

James Davis
12-07-2006, 12:02 PM
Darn it...you caught me. I lied. Can't help it: I'm an unrepentent liar. I lie about everything.

In fact, I'm lying about lying, even now. :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:
:uch: My head hurts.

Mark Freeman
12-07-2006, 12:10 PM
Darn it...you caught me. I lied. Can't help it: I'm an unrepentent liar. I lie about everything.

In fact, I'm lying about lying, even now. :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

I don't believe you, I think you are lying :crazy:

Neil Mick
12-08-2006, 01:21 PM
I don't believe you, I think you are lying :crazy:

Hmm...you aren't interested in becoming a member of S.C.A.L.O.B.P.E.I.B.C.M.D.T.A.W., are you? We could use a person who can argue these complexities online, without getting a headache. ;)

But, back to the topic...

Our Glorious Leaders met yesterday and distanced Themselves from the Iraq Study Group proposal. And, true to form, My Imperious President took some time out to open His mouth and spout out a few precious chestnuts that won't seem to unlodge from his brain (no matter how many times the facts rain down on it):

And as I said in my opening statement, I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists. And when you throw into the mix radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is

Which, according to a recent CIA report, is not currently existant...nor is there evidence that that they're trying to get one...

-- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives --

such as...say, certain superpowers,,,

historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking.

Historians will look back, scratch their heads, and wonder if Bush read any newspapers or learned any lessons from Vietnam...as he was ducking out of reporting for duty, in the '60's.

And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It's in our interests.

Read: It's in the interests of the Oiligarchs.

And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us, and September the 11th

(someone on his script-team should tell him that the Pavlovian trick of hitting the 9/11 button is starting to wear out, in its effectiveness)

should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in a part of the world. And what happens is people can die here at home

Instead of dying for my cause, overseas, acting as a good soldier, in a country where the people there don't want you and wish you would leave.

JAMJTX
12-08-2006, 01:48 PM
With the ongoing battle in iraq, and the internal population killing each other, why is it that the worlds media still denies that its collapsing into civil war out there?

What is your definition of civil war(click this link to go to wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war) ?

It is not purely a civil war because of the number of combatants coming in from outside of the country. Sure there is some violence between factions wihthin the Iraqi population. But with funding from foreign countries to support foreign fighters, it's a real stretch to call it a a civil war. It seems those who insist on calling it a civil war are largely in denial of what is really going on.

Mark Freeman
12-08-2006, 03:50 PM
Hmm...you aren't interested in becoming a member of S.C.A.L.O.B.P.E.I.B.C.M.D.T.A.W., are you? We could use a person who can argue these complexities online, without getting a headache. ;)

I'll pass on the membership offer on the grounds that I don't want to belong to an organisation that would have me as a member, and I have got a headache :freaky:

On a more serious note:

The BBC's Chief political correspondant Nick Robinson asks Bush and Blair questions that we would like to hear answered:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_rm_fs.stm?nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&news=1&nol_storyid=6218946

They give give answers to his questions, but are we any clearer about what is actually going to happen?? One is more eloquant than the other, but neither makes me feel any more confident in their ability to deliver. :(

regards

Mark

Neil Mick
12-08-2006, 05:38 PM
It is not purely a civil war because of the number of combatants coming in from outside of the country. Sure there is some violence between factions wihthin the Iraqi population. But with funding from foreign countries to support foreign fighters, it's a real stretch to call it a a civil war.

Sorry to break it to you, Jim: but the idea that there are a significant number of foreign insurgents is a myth, according to sources within the Pentagon.

Among Insurgents in Iraq, Few Foreigners Are Found (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html)

The relative importance of the foreign component of Iraq's two-year-old insurgency, estimated at between 4 and 10 percent of all guerrillas, has been a matter of growing debate in military and intelligence circles, U.S. and Iraqi officials and American commanders said. Top U.S. military officials here have long emphasized the influence of groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, an insurgent network led by a Jordanian, Abu Musab Zarqawi. But analysts say the focus on foreign elements is also an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency in the eyes of Iraqis, by portraying it as terrorism foisted on the country by outsiders.

"Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.

"It makes the government's counterinsurgency efforts seem more legitimate, and it links what's going on in Iraq to the war on terrorism," he continued. "When people go out into battle, they often characterize enemies in the most negative way possible. Obviously there are all kinds of interacting political prejudices they can bring out by blaming outsiders."

"The foreign fighters' attacks tend to be more spectacular, but local nationals, the Saddamists, the Iraqi rejectionists, are much more problematic," said Maj. Gen. Joseph J. Taluto, commander of the Army's 42nd Infantry Division. His unit, which lost 59 soldiers during its tour here, was based in the northern city of Tikrit, Hussein's home town, before transferring the region to the 101st Airborne Division this month.

Al Qaeda in Iraq maintains a presence in the region, he said, "but they're not having much of an impact. Their message is not resonating."

In Washington, a senior State Department official called foreign fighters "an important element to the insurgency," but added that "it would be a mistake to imagine that this isn't a largely Iraqi-based operation with critical support from foreign elements."

Cordesman said the relative influence of foreign and Iraqi elements of the insurgency is difficult to measure because accurate numbers are hard to come by. In a report published in September, he and a co-author said they believed that 4 to 10 percent of the roughly 30,000 insurgents in Iraq are foreigners, many of them adherents of a radical branch of Islam known as Salafism.

And, for more about insurgents: I thought that this was interesting:

Insurgent Groups in Iraq (http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq1005/3.htm)

According to senior Kurdish intelligence and security officials interviewed by Human Rights Watch, the groups are often organized in small cells with one leader, known as the emir (prince), who orders operations. The groups' over-all leaders sometimes learn only later about an attack after the fact. New groups form and dissolve with regularity, establishing new structures and alliances. And some groups change their name to give the impression that more groups exist.19 One English-language article on the insurgency and mass media concluded that the confusing names "may reveal a tactic designed to give the impression that the Islamist elements are more numerous than the other factions."20

Similarly, it is not possible to determine accurately the number of insurgents in Iraq. On November 13, 2003, head of U.S. Central Command Gen. John Abizaid said the number of "actively armed" people operating against U.S. and coalition forces did not exceed 5,000 people.21 Eleven months later, American officials said the "hard-core resistance" numbered between 8,000 and 12,000 people, and this number grew to more than 20,000 with active sympathizers and covert accomplices.22 In January 2005, head of Iraqi intelligence Major General Muhammad `Abdullah al-Shahwani claimed "the resistance is bigger than the U.S. military in Iraq." He put the number at 200,000, but that included sympathizers as well as active fighters.23

The number of foreign insurgents in Iraq is also impossible to obtain, with men coming and going on a regular basis through Iraq's porous border, mostly with Syria.24 According to a May 2005 estimate by the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., Iraq had 1,000 foreign fighters (as part of an insurgency with 16,000 members).25 In spring 2005, a coalition official in Baghdad told the press that fewer than 5 percent of the killed or captured insurgents have been non-Iraqi.26 More recently, Gen. Abizaid said the number of foreign fighters was going up: "I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago," he told the U.S. Congress on June 23, although the overall strength of the insurgency was "about the same."27

Lastly, criminal elements play an important role. The absence of law and order, particularly in Baghdad and other cities, has created a fertile environment for criminal gangs, some of which use Islamist or political cover to mask their illegal intent. A large percentage of abductions, for example, appear to be committed by criminal gangs looking for ransom cash.28 Their targets are sometimes foreigners, but the majority of victims are wealthy Iraqis or those who work with foreign organizations or companies. According to a study by the Iraqi Ministry of Health concluded in April 2005, criminal gangs have abducted between 160 and 300 Iraqi doctors since April 2003, and killed more than twenty-five. Nearly 1,000 doctors have fled the country, with an average of thirty more following each month.29

According to some reports, insurgent groups exploit Iraq's poverty and high unemployment rates by paying Iraqis to stage attacks.30 Detonating an improvised explosive device pays up to $200, one U.S. security expert said, and killing an American pays up to $1,000.31 In some cases, criminal groups have reportedly sold kidnap victims to insurgent groups.

It seems those who insist on calling it a civil war are largely in denial of what is really going on.

You might think that...IF, we had a clear idea of what's going on, over there. But since everyone from the laggerdly mainstream media to Kofi Annan are all calling it that, I humbly suggest that the ones in denial, are those who think that it isn't.

Neil Mick
12-08-2006, 05:43 PM
And speaking of leaders in denial...

On a more serious note:

The BBC's Chief political correspondant Nick Robinson asks Bush and Blair questions that we would like to hear answered:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_rm_fs.stm?nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&news=1&nol_storyid=6218946

Amir Krause
12-10-2006, 07:57 AM
Aren't the two quotes about foreign insurgents contra dictionary ??
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11363&page=4

One claims they are not important at all, the other implies they stand behind many more acts as finance and initiation letting criminals do the dirty work for them. So, which is it, are they significant or not?

Neither stance is conclusive about this being a civil war. "Foreign volunteers" existed in many civil wars in the past. It stops being an internal civil - war once outside armies invade (then again, the US invasion was the start of the situation and US did not withdraw yet).

Amir

Neil Mick
12-10-2006, 09:57 AM
Aren't the two quotes about foreign insurgents contra dictionary ??
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11363&page=4

Lol...contra'"dictionary?" :)

One claims they are not important at all, the other implies they stand behind many more acts as finance and initiation letting criminals do the dirty work for them. So, which is it, are they significant or not?

Yes, you're right...but, since Rummy has been claiming that this is a foreign insurgency war since about 2 weeks into the Occupation, I tend to go with the opposite of what the habitual liar tells me.

Also, even if foreign insurgents are behind some of the acts, the sheer numbers speak for themselves.

But, you have a point when you say that

Neither stance is conclusive about this being a civil war. "Foreign volunteers" existed in many civil wars in the past
It stops being an internal civil - war once outside armies invade (then again, the US invasion was the start of the situation and US did not withdraw yet).

Amir

IMO, this is more an insurgency against the US Occupation, than it is a civil war. But, other sources suggest that there are four wars going on in Iraq right now...so, maybe it's both, and all these things, combined.

Amir Krause
12-11-2006, 12:44 AM
Lol...contra'"dictionary?" :)

:) look what happens when I try to trust the speller :D



Yes, you're right...but, since Rummy has been claiming that this is a foreign insurgency war since about 2 weeks into the Occupation, I tend to go with the opposite of what the habitual liar tells me.

You brought this quate ...



IMO, this is more an insurgency against the US Occupation, than it is a civil war. But, other sources suggest that there are four wars going on in Iraq right now...so, maybe it's both, and all these things, combined.
Actually, from my point of view, this is mostly a fight for control over Iraq as a country, with 3-4 fractions fighting, each with it's own interest:
* The Shiite who are the majority and wish to control all of Iraq.
* The Sunni who had control and wish
* The Kurds who wish to have their own country, but are willing to settle for some sort of stable and strong autonomy.

The USA forces are not the favorites of either group, since:
* The USA and Iran are at opposing hands, and Iran is Shiite leader. Further, the USA has often presented its own resentment and distrust to the Shiite and the USA does not wish them to have too strong a control fearing they will join forces with Iran.
* The USA invasion threw Saddam who gave Sunni people high places in his own regime. The Sunni know that in a democracy they will be a minority and can see minorities often loose status even in a democracy (this is true even for the US, and much more in the middle-east).
* The Kurds don’t have much against the USA. But they sure remember your reluctance to assist them after the first Golf-war, letting Saddam butcher them after they supported the coalition. Further, the USA support of Turkey who suppresses them and the reluctance to divide Iraq and let them have their own independent country, also affect here. On the other hand, they do know they need the USA as a smaller minority.

Once you add the above elements to the ongoing deep feelings and processes in the Middle-East:
* Increasing population in a geometrical rate, which introduces a lot of poverty as nations double their populations in 30 years and less. As opposed to what some believe, despite the oil only few minor Arab nations are truly rich.
* The masses are able to see the West reaches through TV and such. Thus they feel oppressed as they should have the same things.
* A pride of being the most developed culture and righteous, and now being considered “third world”. This is a normal human feeling, and the pride had significant basis only a couple of hundred years ago.
* A strict religion and traditional society faced all of a sudden with the different rules of the “modern west”.
* Borders determined by the European colonialists and drawn with thick pens over old maps typically with disregard to any real features of geography or ethnical groups (this affects Africa too).

The deep issues above drives people towards extremities (religious and others) and should never be ignored when looking at any of the “cross cultural” conflicts in the middle-east. They do not substitute the local reasons for the conflicts (In Iraq, Israel, Lebanon …) but they do exist and increase all the flames .

Amir

Neil Mick
12-11-2006, 03:59 PM
:) look what happens when I try to trust the speller :D

lol

Actually, from my point of view, this is mostly a fight for control over Iraq as a country, with 3-4 fractions fighting, each with it's own interest:
* The Shiite who are the majority and wish to control all of Iraq.
* The Sunni who had control and wish
* The Kurds who wish to have their own country, but are willing to settle for some sort of stable and strong autonomy.

Perhaps all of these things are true, as well. IMO, everything that is happening in Iraq has to take the US Occupation, into account.

When we finally get out, everything is going to change.


* The Kurds don't have much against the USA. But they sure remember your reluctance to assist them after the first Golf-war, letting Saddam butcher them after they supported the coalition. Further, the USA support of Turkey who suppresses them and the reluctance to divide Iraq and let them have their own independent country, also affect here. On the other hand, they do know they need the USA as a smaller minority.

Actually, I thought that the Kurds are our strongest allies, in the region.

* The masses are able to see the West reaches through TV and such. Thus they feel oppressed as they should have the same things.

You should also consider the one-way viewing-lens of the media. Here in the US (and, in Israel, as well), we have a filtered and selective process of media distribution. It's why we went to war for the wrong reasons: it's why we'll bomb Iran....all for the misperceptions spun out by the media.

* A pride of being the most developed culture and righteous, and now being considered "third world". This is a normal human feeling, and the pride had significant basis only a couple of hundred years ago.
* A strict religion and traditional society faced all of a sudden with the different rules of the "modern west".

Yes, all true, perhaps: but you forget to mention the classist and economic aspects.

* Borders determined by the European colonialists and drawn with thick pens over old maps typically with disregard to any real features of geography or ethnical groups (this affects Africa too).

Yes, foreign, expansionist interference has dogged that region for hundreds of years. The very reason for its existance was to serve as an outpost for British oil interests.

The deep issues above drives people towards extremities (religious and others) and should never be ignored when looking at any of the "cross cultural" conflicts in the middle-east. They do not substitute the local reasons for the conflicts (In Iraq, Israel, Lebanon …) but they do exist and increase all the flames .

Amir

And, don't forget the tribal frictions that fuel this insurgency, as well. Good points!

Amir Krause
12-12-2006, 01:21 AM
... forget ...

It's not a matter of forgetting, it is a matter of context and time. A full description of whole the conflicts and reasons for them would require a whole library, not a single message in a forum. Most of the topics I touched are worthy of at least one book just by themselves.

If you wish for other examples, we did not even start to mention the topic of water, nor oil. Both topics are supposedly "geographical facts" but are in fact essential to understanding the region politics and historic processes.
I recently heard a short lecture (a half hour radio program) from a geopolitical-professor about the population growth in the region and its effect, he tied it up to most of the political controversial points. He gave similar lectures about water and oil.

And finally, I only mentioned long term major internal processes. The outside influence of foreign powers and interests (such as the US invasion or US support of Saudi regime, or Soviet / Chinese interests in the Golf region ....). Each of these can justify several PhD thesis on its own.


In the end, you get to an impossibly complex region, created and varied daily by the combination of all the above factors. Anyone who tries to pin-point everything to a single point, is simply misleading you due to his own interests. Its as absurd when one thinks of the US invasion to Iraq as the main and most important source, as thinking only of Islam extremism or of Israel existence / occupation of territories, or control over oil, none of these issues exists in a vacuum, they all exist within the very complex weave of the region. A solution to each of these problem is worthy, but should realize such a solution will be limited to the one problem solved and may even complicate some other aspects of the knot, due to some implication coming back to hunt you from the long history of the region or some other party interest.



You should also consider the one-way viewing-lens of the media. Here in the US (and, in Israel, as well), we have a filtered and selective process of media distribution. ....all for the misperceptions spun out by the media.

If you think the media in the west is filtered and selective. Can you imagine what happens in a totalitarian patriarchal society, in which the regime wishes to funnel the people away from its malfunction and deliberately turns it towards other focuses? And the society is often happy to oblige the pointing and blame the other rather then self (Well known phenomena in the west too).
As someone once said: "democracy is not the best sort of regime, it's only that, the other regimes are worse."
The same could be held true towards media in the west, you still get way more plural and objective overview of the other side then most people in the Middle-East get. And the western society is much less recruited towards national and religious beliefs compared to the middle-east (perhaps this is the point to remind you most of the nations here were only declared in the last 60 years and had to be liberated from European colonist occupation).
The media situation is slowly improving, and thus improving the openess of the public opinions to other views, but this process is very slow.
And to get back to the point I referred to in the previous post: the masses seeing the "western way of life", its not the news I was talking about, rather the series and movies. How much poverty do you see in those? What is the common standard of leaving compared to the standard in Egypt?
Can you be surprised the masses feel you are stealing from them, once you have meat and eggs every day? And a private car per person? And you can change your cloths every day ...
While they sometimes hunger for a day and get meat once a week? And have to hung on the outside of the bus to get to work? And millions still do not even have a roof to their head?
(I know there is a lot of poverty in the US too, but the levels of it you see in the entertainment media would seem like riches to millions in the rest of the world)

the classist and economic aspects.
Not sure what you meant by this.

Amir

Neil Mick
12-12-2006, 11:26 AM
In the end, you get to an impossibly complex region, created and varied daily by the combination of all the above factors. Anyone who tries to pin-point everything to a single point, is simply misleading you due to his own interests.

yes, but...

Its as absurd when one thinks of the US invasion to Iraq as the main and most important source, as thinking only of Islam extremism or of Israel existence / occupation of territories, or control over oil, none of these issues exists in a vacuum, they all exist within the very complex weave of the region.

Yes, agreed. It is an impossibly complex region. You didn't even mention the cultural factors, to further complicate the issues.

But, there ARE huge problems that, if they were solved, would go a long way to stabilizing the region (nothing, of course, is a "cureall").

Resolving the two Occupations, and peacefullly resolving disagreements of Israel's borders would bring us all a lot closer to peace, IMO. Are they permanent solutions? Obviously not.

A solution to each of these problem is worthy, but should realize such a solution will be limited to the one problem solved and may even complicate some other aspects of the knot, due to some implication coming back to hunt you from the long history of the region or some other party interest.

Yes, well: as I said, it's not a cureall, but it's a good start.

If you think the media in the west is filtered and selective. Can you imagine what happens in a totalitarian patriarchal society, in which the regime wishes to funnel the people away from its malfunction and deliberately turns it towards other focuses? And the society is often happy to oblige the pointing and blame the other rather then self (Well known phenomena in the west too).
As someone once said: "democracy is not the best sort of regime, it's only that, the other regimes are worse."

I assume that you are talking about the Arab media. This might all be true, but the sheer number and diversity of opinions within the Arab media is staggering.

I can (and often do) tune in to Mosaic, (http://www.linktv.org/programming/programDescription.php4?code=mosaic) on LinkTV, to hear some of the latest in the Arab news. Believe me, it is not the monolithic, patriarchial institution you make it out to be.

The same could be held true towards media in the west, you still get way more plural and objective overview of the other side then most people in the Middle-East get.

Sorry, but this is simply untrue. It might have been true in the '80's, but by the '90's: corporate mainstream media started putting the screws to anything but "happyface" journalism.

It's why we went into Iraq, in 2003. Happyface journalism brought a
parade of the military onto the airwaves, with almost no voices to the contrary (of invading), even as we were turning out record numbers to march against it, all over the world.

Corporate mergers have gutted the American press. Long-time editors with years of experience are quitting in droves, when the order to cut the pressroom are coming down from the top.

This is not a measure of our "free" society: it's more a measure of corporate acquisition run amok, as the supine gov't lets it all happen.


And to get back to the point I referred to in the previous post: the masses seeing the "western way of life", its not the news I was talking about, rather the series and movies. How much poverty do you see in those? What is the common standard of leaving compared to the standard in Egypt?

Ever since the '30's, Hollywood has always shown a view of life that's overly rosy. India does it too, with "Bollywood" productions.

The amount of wealth shown in movies is no indicator of wealth in reality.

But sure, I'll go along with you that the SoL is higher in the US, than in Egypt: and it shows in their films.

Can you be surprised the masses feel you are stealing from them, once you have meat and eggs every day? And a private car per person? And you can change your cloths every day ...
While they sometimes hunger for a day and get meat once a week? And have to hung on the outside of the bus to get to work? And millions still do not even have a roof to their head?
(I know there is a lot of poverty in the US too, but the levels of it you see in the entertainment media would seem like riches to millions in the rest of the world)

The world over loves our movies (more's the pity...). It is safe to say that Hollywood controls most of the movie industry, and and sets the tone, throughout the world. Does this mean that the poor in the world are jealous of our riches?

I suppose that some are: but I imagine that the poor are a lot more angry at their fatcat leaders, getting all the gravy while their ppl starve.

* A strict religion and traditional society faced all of a sudden with the different rules of the "modern west".

Yes, all true, perhaps: but you forget to mention the classist and economic aspects.

Not sure what you meant by this.

I meant that those strict, limited societies with little to no resources are the way they are, often due to Western acquisition and interference.

Iran, a narrow, sectarian society? Not back in the '50s, when they elected Mossadek, as Prime Minister. But, that was before we sent in Kermit Roosevelt and brought the Shah to power.

And, don't even get me STARTED on Afghanistan. Sure, it wasn't a paradise before the US and USSR started their little games: but we can thank them for the rise of the Taliban, and the all the good training that OBL received, from the CIA.

Fundamentalist Arab cultures did not all emerge in a vaccuum. Often, they are what sprouts up, when the Western powers are finished with their little "operations." And, ultimately, their "games" have an economic aspect..i.e., drain the nation of resources, impose a leader "favorable" to US interests, and forget about the possible consequences of this leader, upon the fate of the nation.

In the West, we have a terribly selective, short-term memory, exacerbated by an almost pathological need to get what we want, "right now," and to ignore the possible consequences.

Luc X Saroufim
12-12-2006, 03:14 PM
It's interesting to watch some of the Dem's over here promising "tax cuts to boost the economy" while at the same saying "Reaganomics didn't work".

i think all Mark Freeman was saying is that pure capitalism doesn't work. which is true. otherwise, the US wouldn't have public schools, free highways, etc.. not everything should be a business.

i can't think of a more capitalistic economy than our own (US), and we still provide plenty of government services.



Heh. The Wall Street Journal did a nice piece on why so many liberal slogans and assertions are unashamedly wrong.... the bulk of the liberal base are the poorest educated and incorrect sayings are the way they're whipped into frenzy.

i think you would spontaneously combust within a 50km radius of Sweden.

Mike Sigman
12-12-2006, 06:54 PM
i think you would spontaneously combust within a 50km radius of Sweden.Actually, I was in Sweden earlier this year, Luc. Take a look at the fluctuations in their economy, etc., over the last 30 years, if you get a chance.

Also, take a look at their problems in respect to Muslim immigrants, crime, Sharia law, etc. Many people think Sweden will be the first country to be taken over by Muslims, within the EU.

Regards,

Mike

Luc X Saroufim
12-13-2006, 09:45 AM
Also, take a look at their problems in respect to Muslim immigrants, crime, Sharia law, etc. Many people think Sweden will be the first country to be taken over by Muslims, within the EU.



we're going through the same thing with the illegals: people complain about increased crime and how they're congesting our jail cells, how they're messing up our economy, and how they're taking us over.

at the same time, i don't see this country crumbling any time soon.

Taliesin
12-13-2006, 10:03 AM
Mike

Fluctuations in Swedens economy over the last 30 years - Do you remember the term 'Reganomics'

Mike Sigman
12-14-2006, 12:26 PM
That's what's known as a "non-sequitur", David. Reaganomics aka "Trickle Down Economics" is now one of those embarrassing subjects that liberals in the US don't want to discuss too much. It worked. Now even the Dem's talk about how they will do "tax cuts", since it was so successful.... they just say they'll do the tax-cuts for the poor, which is a joke since the poor pay almost none of the taxes anyway. I think, IIRC, that our "richest" 5 percent of the population pay more than 96% of the taxes now. It's approaching pure socialism. When you give the poor people equal votes, they vote themselves other peoples' money... this has been true throughout history. In fact, this whole scenario was predicted decades ago that the increasing taxes and stripping of wealth from the wealthy would precede the collapse of the country. Next thing you know, the US will be a third-world country like most of Europe.

You need to research a little bit deeper. ;)

Mike

Mark Freeman
12-14-2006, 06:22 PM
. When you give the poor people equal votes, they vote themselves other peoples' money...

Are voting rights 'given' to people poor or otherwise? whatever next, women? :rolleyes:

Next thing you know, the US will be a third-world country like most of Europe.

God forbid that the US would want healthcare free at the point of delivery, a diverse multicultural creative and dynamic lifestyle and superior cheeses. That would be completely undesirable wouldn't it. Believe it or not some of us paupers over here are not hankering for the dubious first world advantages you have over there :p

We will all be sharing 1 chicken leg per family, wishing that we could have a big mac this festive season :yuck:

:p

Mark

Mike Sigman
12-14-2006, 06:38 PM
Are voting rights 'given' to people poor or otherwise? whatever next, women? :rolleyes: Sure they're given. We try to force Muslim countries, for instance, to give voting rights to women just as we "gave" them to women and to poor non-land-owners. Are you really so ill-informed? Oh wait... can it be you think that civilization is built on "rights" that we all start out with? That's a little naive, given how close Britain came to losing its "right" to exist in WWII, don't you think?

Actually, I think this taking of hard-earned and paid-for-by-blood benefits of civilization as "rights" is the hallmark of the pampered generation. What they "feel" is the "right thing to do" is treated as a factual argument. It's not, Mark. You're too soft. ;)
God forbid that the US would want healthcare free at the point of delivery, Ever wondered why so many people from other countries, countries with "free" healthcare, come to the US for treatment? Think about it. a diverse multicultural creative and dynamic lifestyle and superior cheeses. Well, I'll give you the cheeses... our Stilton isn't too good. ;) However, you might want to look at some of the commentary that came out of Davos and at the economies of Europe. Besides, for the most part, the EU has freeloaded on the US for military defense for more than 50 years. We pay most of the costs to protect you. I'd like to see us out of there and see how you deal with the Russians, etc., by yourselves. If the last two World Wars are any indicator, you're going to find out pretty quickly how thin your veneer of "rights" is. You couldn't afford your social-welfare states if you had to really defend yourselves, could you? ;)

Best.

Mike

Mashu
12-14-2006, 08:01 PM
When you give the poor people equal votes, they vote themselves other peoples' money... this has been true throughout history.

Will you be quoting directly from Mein Kampf in the future? ;)

Mike Sigman
12-14-2006, 08:11 PM
Will you be quoting directly from Mein Kampf in the future? ;)Should we pretend that constant competition is not the natural way of Man? The rich would take everything.... but the poor would take everything if they had the chance. And so on. It is this competition and struggle for survival strategies that makes us what we are and got us this far.

The interesting thing is to listen to people who want to stop all the struggle and have peace.... in other words, stop evolution because they're at the peak of it, somehow. Problem is, the rest of humanity still struggles and will roll right over you when you stop competing. Nice thought, though... but a product of the veneer of soft civilization. ;)

Cady Goldfield
12-14-2006, 08:30 PM
Evolution doesn't peak, it's Tao. ;) Competition is part of the "prime directive" of all living organisms: to replicate and continue oneself as long as there are the resources with which to do so. When it comes to humans, we are driven to replicate not only our DNA, but our memes as well. The memes, which include (but are not limited to) religion, political ideology and culture, provide us with the rationale our Reasoning Brains need to justify blasting our conspecifics into oblivion and stealing their women. Basically, though, we're just doing what langurs, ants, mistletoe and other living organisms are doing -- vying for resources with which to replicate.

Not very romantic, but what the hey. It's a living.

Mashu
12-14-2006, 08:41 PM
Competition has made us what we are today but at the same time if such struggles were not tempered with a longer view of things then they eventually lead to ruin. History shows that you can only ride high at the expense of others for so long. The sheeple aren't marching through the streets under red banners demanding all power to the soviets and looking for aristocrats to disembowel these days. They just want everyone to be a citizen which entails having some concern for the community or nation at large as opposed to a consumer who is only interested in themself and sees others as either an opportunity or an annoyance. A wise competitor helps his opponent up after the play is won.

Mike Sigman
12-14-2006, 08:54 PM
A wise competitor helps his opponent up after the play is won.Now we're down to judgement calls about who is "wise"? ;)

hapkidoike
12-14-2006, 09:25 PM
Should we pretend that constant competition is not the natural way of Man?
It may be a part of our existance Mike, and it may indeed be an important part, but to claim that 'constant competition' is the 'natural way' of man seems to be a bit of an over simplificaton of human dynamics and motivations. And what exactly do you mean by "natural way"? It seems a bit unclear.
The rich would take everything.... but the poor would take everything if they had the chance. And so on. It is this competition and struggle for survival strategies that makes us what we are and got us this far.

I dont buy the argument that the poor would take everything if they had the chance. Present some evidence and I may concede the point.

Mark Freeman
12-15-2006, 03:06 AM
Actually, I think this taking of hard-earned and paid-for-by-blood benefits of civilization as "rights" is the hallmark of the pampered generation. What they "feel" is the "right thing to do" is treated as a factual argument. It's not, Mark. You're too soft. ;)


Mike, you're too hard, slightly to the right of Attila the Hun and a europhobe, :p

regards,

Mark

skinnymonkey
12-15-2006, 07:43 AM
our "richest" 5 percent of the population pay more than 96% of the taxes now.

That is totally inaccurate! Here is the link the article that you are probably thinking of. It is the TOP 50%!!! Not 5%.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

What a shock... linked from Rush Limbaugh.

This is something that is brought up often, but people don't really think through...

"the wealthiest 1% of U.S. households owned 38.1% of total marketable wealth in 1998--as much wealth as that owned by the bottom 94% of U.S. households combined."

It turns out that the top 10% of US citizens own about 80% of the wealth in the US... so what's fair now?

Did you know that 96% of stocks in the US are owned by the top 10%? I hate this whining "only the rich pay taxes" crap. It's a total load and anyone who is willing to really look at the data can see that.

Please try doing at least a little bit of fact checking before posting.

Jeff D.

skinnymonkey
12-15-2006, 07:52 AM
Here is another little lie that is spread on that limbaugh link...

Limbaugh quotes that: "(The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.)" which is so blatantly false that it is RIDICULOUS!!! Check out this link...

http://www.intellisearchnow.com/pwrpub_view.scml?ppa=6iiqx`ZeilprqsWUnj}GL}bfeiZm

It states that 400 of the wealthiest Americans now own the top 1% of the national wealth. What is the starting income figure for that top 1%? Is it $293,000 plus... as stated by Rush? NO! The STARTING income for that top 1% was $86.8 MILLION!

Jeff D.

Mike Sigman
12-15-2006, 07:58 AM
I dont buy the argument that the poor would take everything if they had the chance. Present some evidence and I may concede the point.Go park your car unlocked in New York. ;)

I forget the exact wording I once read, but it was in an anthropology class where we were discussing primate behavior. The idea was to leave various piles of things around ape sites and around primitive villages. Everything that was useable ultimately disappeared from the piles. "Useable" is the operative word (including bright baubles, shiny bits of tinfoil, etc.). People, whether rich or poor, will take everything they can. It's normal survival behavior. If you somehow think that Man doesn't do normal survival stuff, territoriality stuff, breeding behaviour, etc., and that there is some sort of "noble purpose" that will override those impulses, I'd like to hear it.

Let me put it like this.... if you go to Iraq and don't protect yourself, you're going to lose everything you have and maybe your life, too.
It's why I quit going to third-world countries so much.... it's simply not safe in too many cases.

MIke

Mike Sigman
12-15-2006, 08:01 AM
Here's a breakdown on the taxes:

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

Mike Sigman
12-15-2006, 08:06 AM
Here is another little lie that is spread on that limbaugh link... Er... I'm not a Limbaugh fan (I've only heard him once on the radio, years ago, and I cut it off within 2 minutes once I realized what a "dittohead" was), but based on what you wrote, he told the truth, literally. Yet you just called him a liar.

Now I don't listen to Limbaugh, simply because I'm not a "talk radio" kind of guy and because I think he will bias whatever "news" he presents to me. But NPR will bias the news, too and they're supposed to be unbiased. The New York Times is a bona fide news outlet, yet they're so biased and have been caught in so many untruths that even their ombudsman admitted it in a column. Let's bash the media... but let's not look like chumps by only basing the part of the media we don't like. ;)

Mike

skinnymonkey
12-15-2006, 08:19 AM
but based on what you wrote, he told the truth, literally. Yet you just called him a liar.

No... actually, if you look at the article I quoted, you will see that Rush states that the top 1% of wage earners make $293,000 plus. This insinuates that the starting salary of the top 1% is $293,000. Even a quick look at your link shows that the starting salary for the top wage earners (of course this is only projected and it's from 1999) shows this as $719,000.

So, yes... I think that is a lie.

Jeff D.

skinnymonkey
12-15-2006, 08:21 AM
Mike... are you at least willing to concede that you were wrong and that the top 5% do not pay 96% of taxes?

Jeff D.

Mike Sigman
12-15-2006, 08:45 AM
Mike... are you at least willing to concede that you were wrong and that the top 5% do not pay 96% of taxes?.Tell you what... I'll concede (if that's your purpose in this diversion) as soon as you address the real point.... which is that the rich are paying an inordinate amount of the taxes in this country. Do you understand that at a certain level, enterprise is stifled and progress slows and then the poor really suffer because the jobs go away? That's why you don't want to tax too much, like they do in Europe. If you look at the stagnant economies of Europe, you can see exactly what happens.

You *want* tax laws that allow people to jump into entrepreneurial businesses (so many of them fail, remember) and make LOTS of money. If LOTS of money isn't the reward, they won't want to do it; if they don't do it, jobs go down and the poor get poorer. Get it?

Regards,

Mike

skinnymonkey
12-15-2006, 08:56 AM
OK... I do agree that the rich pay more of the total taxes than the poor (which is kind of a given). I will agree that you don't want to overtax the people who can make investments that create jobs and grow economies. I agree that we don't want the poor to suffer when jobs go away.

I disagree that the rich are paying an "inordinate" amount of the tax burden. I happen to think it's fair that the people who own about 80% of the wealth should pay closer to 80% of the taxes (I agree that you must have different tax structures for long term investments, etc that are merely "paper" wealth... not actual income). People still got rich during the Clinton era when the weatlhy were paying more taxes... and our country wasn't in nearly as much debt.

So I guess we can agree on a few things, but disagree on some others.

Thanks,

Jeff D.

Mike Sigman
12-15-2006, 09:15 AM
I happen to think it's fair that the people who own about 80% of the wealth should pay closer to 80% of the taxes (I agree that you must have different tax structures for long term investments, etc that are merely "paper" wealth... not actual income). People still got rich during the Clinton era when the weatlhy were paying more taxes... and our country wasn't in nearly as much debt. Well, I'm glad you put a figure on the taxes... most libs in government won't do it for the simple reason that any good economist will tell you that 80% tax on income is stifling. Even 72% (the last high figure I heard discussed by an economics forum) is too high. Basically you, as a rhetorical poor person, are saying how much someone else's money should be spent. When you go out to eat with a group of friends, do you insist that the wealthiest people there pay the bill? It's the same thing.

The correct liberal talking point is to say "the rich should pay their fair share", but then avoid putting in an exact figure because you know you're essentially espousing socialism and you don't want people to point that out to you.

Look at the EU. Commentaries at Davos point out that Europe is sliding toward a third-world position because they have taxed everyone so much that they've stifled growth and they've compensated with welfare, etc. They can't even afford to defend themselves with armies, in reality. Is this the way you think the US should go? What do you think happens if we devote our resources to more re-distribute-the-wealth causes?

You want to tax people so much that it will not be productive for them to make but a certain amount of money and everything after that will go to re-distribution through social welfare "entitlements". Any smart person will simply quit being productive after a certain level. This actually happened in Sweden when many shops simply closed early because if they worked any more that day, it was all going to the taxes. So they stopped. The economy stagnated and began to slide backward until they implemented a few emergency measures to bring them back to stasis.

It's nice to talk about re-distributing the wealth, but that's not how the human animal works... he needs incentives to compete, not handouts.

FWIW

Mike

skinnymonkey
12-15-2006, 09:28 AM
Mike... I didn't say that the "rich" should have an 80% TAX on their income. I said that I think that it would be more fair if they paid closer to 80% of the total tax collected by the government... do you see the difference?

Sigh... you are mixing up the information.

Anyway... I do agree that people need incentives to compete and progress, but please read carefully before making a response where you misquote me.

Jeff D.

Taliesin
12-15-2006, 09:43 AM
Mike - i do love the Reganomics was a sucess line.

I take it your argumetn would be if you broke my legs and - after they healed they were strong breaking my legs was a good thing. (The argument that recovering from a policy, does not mean it is a sucess it means you recovered from it).

skinnymonkey
12-15-2006, 09:45 AM
For example Mike... take a look at this article.

Bush paid about 28% of his income for 2003
Cheney (who made SIGNIFICANTLY more money) paid less than 20%.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/14/bush_cheney_benefit_from_federal_tax_cuts/

Jeff D.

Hogan
12-15-2006, 09:49 AM
Two answers to this tax question/issue:

One - if we would just collect the taxes that are owed, we might even have a surplus:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=137247,00.html

Two - FLAT TAX!!

James Davis
12-15-2006, 09:51 AM
Hi John. :D Fairtax.org ;)

Have a nice day, all. :D

Mike Sigman
12-15-2006, 10:12 AM
Mike - i do love the Reganomics was a sucess line.

I take it your argumetn would be if you broke my legs and - after they healed they were strong breaking my legs was a good thing. (The argument that recovering from a policy, does not mean it is a sucess it means you recovered from it).According to a study from the Cato Institute, "Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years." (source)

According to Louis Johnston and Samuel Williamson, Laffer and Reagan were vindicated by the results of the Reagan tax cuts. Real per capita GDP increased at an annual rate of 2.6% from 1981 to 1989, after languishing at a 1.6% rate during the Carter years of 1977 to 1981.[1]

The actual point I was making was that the shocking idea of tax-cuts and "trickle down economics" actually worked. G.W. Bush did the same thing and despite the very public outcries from the Dem's (who won't touch the subject in interviews, nowadays, because they were simply wrong).... the economic recession and crisis caused by the 9/11 attacks were recovered in amazingly short time. It works.

Reagan's full effect record is difficult to judge because extra-factors entered into the equation, mainly that the Democrats (they controlled the Congress) promised that they would *cut* spending and as usual they just spent more.... much more.... thereby clouding the results of Reaganomics.

Mike

Mike Sigman
12-15-2006, 10:13 AM
For example Mike... take a look at this article.

Bush paid about 28% of his income for 2003
Cheney (who made SIGNIFICANTLY more money) paid less than 20%.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/14/bush_cheney_benefit_from_federal_tax_cuts/

Jeff D.Er.... is this a joke? Do you understand anything about our tax system or are you really this superficial. You understand that you can offset income losses, etc., on your income, don't you, so that the numbers you just gave are meaningless?

Mike

James Davis
12-15-2006, 10:25 AM
Reagan's full effect record is difficult to judge because extra-factors entered into the equation, mainly that the Democrats (they controlled the Congress) promised that they would *cut* spending and as usual they just spent more.... much more.... thereby clouding the results of Reaganomics.

Mike
If any politician ever says anything about there being a "cut" in the budget, they are lying to you. These budgets might be going up by 3% instead of maybe 5%. They use words like "slash" and "cut" to describe budgets that are increasing. They're just not increasing as fast as these politicians might like. ;)

Hogan
12-15-2006, 10:30 AM
Hi John. :D Fairtax.org ;)

Have a nice day, all. :D

http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/3602666.html

My plan is better than your plan!

Cady Goldfield
12-15-2006, 10:49 AM
When you're rich, even the taxes you gotta pay won't deprive you of your ability to live comfortably. For the middle-middle, lower-middle and poor classes, though, proportional taxes can impede access to even the most basic needs for living -- adequate (or better) food, shelter and heat, clothing, education, medical care and affect their ability to survive.

But that aside, here's how the poor and all those middle-class schleppers can get rich, and all can be well in the universe (not that it ever was!). ;)
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/3/wolff-e.html

dbotari
12-15-2006, 11:51 AM
I disagree that the rich are paying an "inordinate" amount of the tax burden. I happen to think it's fair that the people who own about 80% of the wealth should pay closer to 80% of the taxes (I agree that you must have different tax structures for long term investments, etc that are merely "paper" wealth... not actual income). .


Yes, don't forget to separate "income" from "wealth". The two are different and in your country taxed in very different ways. So to equate what someone pays in taxes on income as fair because they are "wealthy" (is have lots of assets) is not quite a fair comparison.

skinnymonkey
12-15-2006, 12:12 PM
Do you understand anything about our tax system or are you really this superficial. You understand that you can offset income losses, etc., on your income, don't you,

sigh... yes Mike... I understand the what you are saying. But your point would seem to say that it's possible that Cheney made even MORE money than was cited in the article. Here is a perfect example of how these things can be moved around and distorted!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5343060

Dick Cheney was eligible for a $1.9 million tax refund!

Before we get all snippy... I do understand that there is a difference between wealth and income... I do understand that the taxes cited in the Boston article are only federal taxes and not their total tax burden. But I still think it illustrates the fact that the upper echelon DON'T pay that much more in taxes than us proportionately.

I also agree with Cady

When you're rich, even the taxes you gotta pay won't deprive you of your ability to live comfortably. For the middle-middle, lower-middle and poor classes, though, proportional taxes can impede access to even the most basic needs for living -- adequate (or better) food, shelter and heat, clothing, education, medical care and affect their ability to survive.

Very well put Cady.

Thanks,

Jeff D.

Mike Sigman
12-15-2006, 12:19 PM
sigh... yes Mike... I understand the what you are saying. But your point would seem to say that it's possible that Cheney made even MORE money than was cited in the article. Here is a perfect example of how these things can be moved around and distorted!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5343060

Dick Cheney was eligible for a $1.9 million tax refund!So? He paid too much in quarterly taxes AND he got no interest on the money while it was in the government's hands. PLUS, you don't seem to want to mention that he gave a large amount of money to charity.

What you want to do is moan about how much money he made by his own efforts and figure some way to get it from him, right?

Incidentally, NPR is about as biased as Rush Limbaugh. Remember when there was all that trouble about Public Radio donors' names being given to the DNC because it's a fact that most liberals love and listen to NPR? Don't use Rush as a source. Don't use NPR as a source.

Mike

Mike

skinnymonkey
12-15-2006, 12:30 PM
I give up... You think that NPR is as biased as Rush Limbaugh?!? You and I just must live in different worlds my friend. Luckily this is America and we can both exist here.

I don't want to "moan" about how much money he made. The point is that he isn't paying this HUGE indordinate tax burden!

Obviously, you and I are just on totally different wavelengths... No matter what I point out, you'll never see from my perspective... and obviously I can't agree with your assertions either. So... I'm going back to work. I at least hope that someone reading this thread got some entertainment or learned a little something or challenged their thinking.

Thanks and farewell Mike.

Jeff D.

Neil Mick
12-15-2006, 12:39 PM
I at least hope that someone reading this thread got some entertainment or learned a little something or challenged their thinking.

Mostly the former...I especially get a big laugh when the more rational and diplomatic sorts here try to deal with Mikey's "Rush Dobbs-Hannity-baugh" style of debate...which mostly turns out to be some variant of "this-world-is-flat,-because-I-said-so."

Sort of like watching an episode of "Survivor" (now, let's see what happens when we force-feed our contestant, a bevy of angry BEES! Won't THAT be fun??") ;) :freaky:

Mike Sigman
12-15-2006, 12:59 PM
I give up... You think that NPR is as biased as Rush Limbaugh?!? You and I just must live in different worlds my friend. Yet I'll bet if I said the same thing to a Far Righter, he'd react the same way, because NPR has certainly been caught in a number of misrepresentations and it's the darling of the Left. And I'm sure you and I live in different worlds... in my world I dislike the Far Right and the Far Left... in your world you dislike anything that is not Far Left. ;) Luckily this is America and we can both exist here.

I don't want to "moan" about how much money he made. The point is that he isn't paying this HUGE indordinate tax burden!

Obviously, you and I are just on totally different wavelengths... No matter what I point out, you'll never see from my perspective... and obviously I can't agree with your assertions either. So... I'm going back to work. I at least hope that someone reading this thread got some entertainment or learned a little something or challenged their thinking.

Thanks and farewell Mike.

Jeff D.Don't take it seriously. I don't. ;)

James Davis
12-15-2006, 03:03 PM
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/3602666.html

My plan is better than your plan!


Nuh-uuhhh. :cool:

Mike Sigman
12-18-2006, 09:35 AM
James, if you want to see what a dupe you've been (because of what the MSM reports) about taxes, try this column in today's WSJ:

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009398

James Davis
12-18-2006, 11:28 AM
James, if you want to see what a dupe you've been (because of what the MSM reports) about taxes, try this column in today's WSJ:

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009398
How, exactly, does this make me a dupe?

Hogan
12-18-2006, 01:08 PM
How, exactly, does this make me a dupe?


You're a commie pinko.
;)

James Davis
12-18-2006, 03:42 PM
You're a commie pinko.
;)
Put down the big brush, John. You're painting some places that you shouldn't. ;)

hapkidoike
12-19-2006, 06:50 PM
I really dont see what the problem with being a pinko commie is, you no good imperalist pigdogs. (Still waiting in the alley with the hammer and sickle).

Hogan
12-20-2006, 07:40 AM
...no good imperalist pigdogs.....

I like that.