President Obama

[Invertago]

From a geopolitical perspective, Iraq and Iran stabilized each other like the US and Russia in the cold war. US gave Iran it's regional superpower status.

Interestingly enough, turns out Saddam didn't deny having WMD's because he wanted the Iranians to think he had them as a deterrent. He just didn't think the US would actually go get him. Guess he should have sent Bush that memo eh.

Agree with the war or not, it is hard to deny that Iran certainly benefited from it.

[Topspin]

Where to start?
1. The Americans don't give a shit about the plight of the Kurds and they would never go to war over it.

Isn't there a similar reason that sent them to Somalia?

2. WMD's were a fabrication. The UN inspectors repeatedly said the Iraqis had none. The intelligence other countries used was provided by the Americans who misrepresented and outright fabricated parts of it to sell the war.

Is that why the British continued using it after the American's discarded it? Developing their own sources as well?

3. The gulf region was stable. Iraq was still beaten. If they wanted to stabilize the region more they would have invaded Iran.

What were those no-fly zones for??? Why have their been UN troop there since the first war?

4. Iraq is between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Always has been.

Figure of speech mate.

Iran and Iraq are not friendly and there is no reason to expect they ever will.

Not even before the schism?

5. So profits are an acceptable reason to kill thousands of your own troops and hundreds of thousands of the enemy's men women and children?

I never said it was, but that is way bigger than Iraq. It's provided you with an airplane to fly and clothes to wear as well, so don't be too hypocritical. War is a means when all other means fail, from Jackals to EHM's. But that's another story all together.

6. It is my personal opinion that the second gulf war was very much connected to the first one. I think GWB wanted to go in and finish what he thought his Daddy should have.

And all of the American popular vote, as well as congress and the senate? Bill Clinton was impeached in the house and narrowly saved by the senate for lying about a blow job. But you're implying that GWB managed to hijack the armed forces of the united states for personal gains and got a second term for it? Again........Occam's razor.

As distastful as Saddam was, he was no threat to anybody.

I doubt Iran, The Kurds & those repressed by Saddam would agree with you.

I'm happy you're happy your friends died doing what they loved doing. To me that is not a very good silver lining for a war.

I don't really get what you are trying to say here but you sound like this guy......

[Rockie]

Who's he?

[Topspin]

Who's he?

Dylan Avery. A failed writer that history made lucky.

[Rockie]

Never heard of him, but I did quickly look him up and read some stuff on him. He sounds like a bit of a nut.

Tell me, how does knowledge that the whole world now shares about the illegitimacy of the Iraq war, and a desire to not see the youth of this world squandered without valid reason remind you of him?

[Hedley]

the youth of this world squandered

I know it considered rude to introduce facts into these
sorts of passionate discussions, but ...

More US Marines die on sportbikes, than in combat
these days. So, if you are truly worried about the
"youth", ban motorcycle riding.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/30/marine.motorcycles/

Factual moment over. Back to your regularly
scheduled, heated argument.

[Rockie]

Did you know it's daylight here where I live right now and dark in Bagdad? There's another fact for you.

[Topspin]

Never heard of him, but I did quickly look him up and read some stuff on him. He sounds like a bit of a nut.

Tell me, how does knowledge that the whole world now shares about the illegitimacy of the Iraq war, and a desire to not see the youth of this world squandered without valid reason remind you of him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation

How do you feel when people start armchair quarterbacking aviation incidents based on news reports & cadors? How is that any different than what you are doing right now?
Every single source of information you have ultimately comes from a persons perspective, however biased in each direction it may be. Dylan Avery collected a whole bunch of loosely connected information to form a story. (Albeit, to your credit your information collection seems far superior to his) But still, that is all you are doing. You are not viewing the entire thing, and even if you were, without standing there and viewing with your own eyes there is no way for you to know, as you say you do. You can't even apply the scientific method to what you are doing.

Connected piece of information;
Corporatocracy is a term I'm guessing you are familiar with. The preferred method of these people to make economic gains in another country is to use EHM's & Political Jackals as mentioned above. The methods being; EHM's will collect information on how to best exploit the populace & natural resources for profit, and the Jackal's attempting to sway popular opinion against whatever governing body is in place, to the end of uprising or assassination, at which point a preferred method of governance is installed.
Many of these people have come forward, writing books & such, and their is little doubt to their actions. On the other hand, members of the Bush administration have come forward with nothing but the stories that the media's reporting. Once again, Occam's razor.

[Rockie]

I think I'm getting a better feel for where you're coming from Topspin. I have heard and seen reports of Haliburton and all the other company's that have gained billions from not just this war, but others. While I think there may be truth to the theory that corporations are pulling the strings of government, I of course have no proof. Nor am I suggesting conspiracy theories.

I am only going by what is proven as fact and applying my own experience and thoughts to it as a former member of the military. The fact that the Iraq war was sold by a pack of lies is not in dispute. The fact that Iraq was not a threat to the United States is not in dispute. The fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 is not in dispute.

I was initially a supporter of the war based on the false intelligence force fed the world by Bush. I also believed Bush when he linked Iraq to Al Qaeda, and by extension 9/11. All of which has been proven false. Not a mistake...a deliberate con job.

But now that the lie has been exposed I think about people in uniform who have no choice but to fight this war believing that their political leadership would not send them into harms way unless it was absolutely necessary. This wasn't necessary. As a former military person who lived by the same rules Nark lives by now, I am disgusted by the whole affair and think that the people who forced this war belong in prison.

Lives are not to be used in such a cavalier fashion. Thousands of people have had their lives snuffed out or destroyed and for what? What gave the United States the moral right to invade and occupy Iraq killing thousands and thousands of its men, women and children? What right do they have to conduct a war on a nation that posed no threat to them or any of their allies? What right do they have to lie to their own people and send them off to die under false pretences?

This isn't an academic exercise or a computer game. Countless people have been maimed and killed in a horribly violent fashion. I take that very seriously, and I am not inclined to give the liars who sold this war the benefit of the doubt.

[2R]

As Kipling wrote "If any should ask why we died ,Tell them becauase out fathers lied"

Not much changes in war in a hundred years .The toys may get better but the deaths are still bitter ,
One of the saddest days of the year Nov 11 is coming up .It is the days when hardened battle torn men weep openly for their lost comrades .Forever young


"Lest we forget "another quote from a Kipling poem

[Topspin]

I think I'm getting a better feel for where you're coming from Topspin. I have heard and seen reports of Haliburton and all the other company's that have gained billions from not just this war, but others. While I think there may be truth to the theory that corporations are pulling the strings of government, I of course have no proof. Nor am I suggesting conspiracy theories.

I am only going by what is proven as fact and applying my own experience and thoughts to it as a former member of the military. The fact that the Iraq war was sold by a pack of lies is not in dispute. The fact that Iraq was not a threat to the United States is not in dispute. The fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 is not in dispute.

I was initially a supporter of the war based on the false intelligence force fed the world by Bush. I also believed Bush when he linked Iraq to Al Qaeda, and by extension 9/11. All of which has been proven false. Not a mistake...a deliberate con job.

But now that the lie has been exposed I think about people in uniform who have no choice but to fight this war believing that their political leadership would not send them into harms way unless it was absolutely necessary. This wasn't necessary. As a former military person who lived by the same rules Nark lives by now, I am disgusted by the whole affair and think that the people who forced this war belong in prison.

Lives are not to be used in such a cavalier fashion. Thousands of people have had their lives snuffed out or destroyed and for what? What gave the United States the moral right to invade and occupy Iraq killing thousands and thousands of its men, women and children? What right do they have to conduct a war on a nation that posed no threat to them or any of their allies? What right do they have to lie to their own people and send them off to die under false pretences?

This isn't an academic exercise or a computer game. Countless people have been maimed and killed in a horribly violent fashion. I take that very seriously, and I am not inclined to give the liars who sold this war the benefit of the doubt.

Agree with most of that. I've read enough stories from former bush cabinet members stating unanimously, that the WMD intelligence was used in good faith. They stuck with longer than they should in hopes that something would turn up, which was a mistake. I believe that. What grounds do any of these people have to defend him?
I suppose I should have used a little bit more clarity on this.
Of course I didn't support the original invasion, and you don't even need stories on that. Anybody should, on moral grounds alone. There are very few legitimate reasons to invade another country.
That being said I think the current war is a completely different entity than the invasion. Given the current status quo, if they packed up and walked away what would we be left with? Iraq, another Afghanistan for another UN resolution. More troops from abroad going in to clean it up. America made a mess, they should clean it up. To what end they take that, I think is the debate. How many more lives will be lost from simply walking away though, both locals & soldiers?

[BoostedNihilist]

Rich people buy stuff from us poor workers.
Rich people don't buy stuff, there are no more workers. Pretty simple.
Now, the used-to-be middle class, are now lower class, and the upper middle are now the rich. Repeat cycle.

Capitalism works

Yeah, working real good for you guys down there.

I do notice in your model of capitalism the middle class is abolished and there are only two classes, rich and poor... sounds about right

but in reality that's not actually how your system works at all

Poor workers buy stuff from rich people
rich people hire poor people to make more stuff for poor people to buy
rich people make more money and keep more money to be more rich
poor people spend money buying goods from rich people to have more goods and get more poor
rich people get richer
poor people get poorer
This is why consumer (read poor people) confidence is so important.

Your system is a mix of capitalism (read rich people)
and consumerism (read poor people)

Capitalism only works for you if you are rich enough to exploit the poor people.

[Topspin]

Yeah, working real good for you guys down there.

I do notice in your model of capitalism the middle class is abolished and there are only two classes, rich and poor... sounds about right

but in reality that's not actually how your system works at all

Poor workers buy stuff from rich people
rich people hire poor people to make more stuff for poor people to buy
rich people make more money and keep more money to be more rich
poor people spend money buying goods from rich people to have more goods and get more poor
rich people get richer
poor people get poorer
This is why consumer (read poor people) confidence is so important.

Your system is a mix of capitalism (read rich people)
and consumerism (read poor people)

Capitalism only works for you if you are rich enough to exploit the poor people.

The nature of the current problems stem from debt, not capitalism. And people only have to be poor if they don't want to do anything. Anyone is capable of achieving anything, the richest man in America is a self made man. I think Canada's socialized capitalism is much better, find a groove between the too.
Capitalism, it ain't perfect, but until something better is found......it works.
Socialism doesn't work because too many people abuse the system. Just look at things like EI, WCB, Welfare & such. The abuse is horrendous. Were it not for those contributing and not taking, these programs they would never stand. Socialist principals work, state ownership does not.

[Invertago]

Nicely put Topspin.

There is a happy medium, I think the US is about to swing from far right capitalism with Bush to far left socialism with Obama. After 4-8 years they might swing back again out of frustration, but hopefully they'll end up somewhere between the extremes and find a setup that takes the best of both ideologies.

[BoostedNihilist]

The nature of the current problems stem from debt, not capitalism. And people only have to be poor if they don't want to do anything. Anyone is capable of achieving anything, the richest man in America is a self made man. I think Canada's socialized capitalism is much better, find a groove between the too.
Capitalism, it ain't perfect, but until something better is found......it works.
Socialism doesn't work because too many people abuse the system. Just look at things like EI, WCB, Welfare & such. The abuse is horrendous. Were it not for those contributing and not taking, these programs they would never stand. Socialist principals work, state ownership does not.

I think I will call this utopian capitalism.

Why is it possible that capitalism could work on paper but not in practice?

Your premise is based on capiltalism in a vacuum where peole don't game the system and the system is free of corruption. The same faults you find with socialism are prevalent within the capiltalsit system you champion.

I have a question for you. How do people who cannot afford to repay a debt get a loan? They have to get the loan from people who have the money.

I guess you could go without buying or doing anything but that puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the capitalist system.

There are a few components to being successful in a capitalist society which you have failed to address.

First of all you have failed to take into account the social network... I am speaking of the old addage 'it's not what you know but who' Eg. a man can make the best cereal on the planet, but won't make a dime if he can't sell it in safeway, or to POST

Second of all you have failed to take into account the relationship between your material status and the social network.. in other words, how do you find a job if you have no way of finding out about it.

Third, the playing field is not level due to the wealth that is passed through family over generations. This is a marxist principle but those who are born with the proverbial silver spoon.

The problem with pure capitalism, which is essentially the model we are talking about, has been outlined by marx as the conflict by the employee and the employer in that their goals are the same, to earn money, but only one has control of the distrobution of the profit. Human nature being what it is those who have control invariably end up taking advantage of that control and we end up in the situation we have now, rich people, poor people and a missing middle class.

The capitalist model as it exists now is dying from the same disease that killed communism.

[Topspin]

Why is it possible that capitalism could work on paper but not in practice?

It worked quite well until debt was invented.

Your premise is based on capiltalism in a vacuum where peole don't game the system and the system is free of corruption. The same faults you find with socialism are prevalent within the capiltalsit system you champion.

No it doesn't, because those that don't wish to pursue greater ends, end up at McJob. And they pay for themselves, the state doesn't have to pay. Of course their should always be a net under them but.....

I have a question for you. How do people who cannot afford to repay a debt get a loan? They have to get the loan from people who have the money.

Bankruptcy. But again, capitalism and debt are not exclusively connected.

I guess you could go without buying or doing anything but that puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the capitalist system.

Not really, most of the crap thrown at us these days is wholly unnecessary for survival.

There are a few components to being successful in a capitalist society which you have failed to address.
First of all you have failed to take into account the social network... I am speaking of the old addage 'it's not what you know but who' Eg. a man can make the best cereal on the planet, but won't make a dime if he can't sell it in safeway, or to POST

If you have a market, you will find a seller. Please provide examples of otherwise.

Second of all you have failed to take into account the relationship between your material status and the social network.. in other words, how do you find a job if you have no way of finding out about it.

I don't really see the correlation, but I'll bite. You work, to make connections along the way.

Third, the playing field is not level due to the wealth that is passed through family over generations. This is a marxist principle but those who are born with the proverbial silver spoon.

I agree with you on this, inheritance is a bad thing.

The problem with pure capitalism, which is essentially the model we are talking about, has been outlined by marx as the conflict by the employee and the employer in that their goals are the same, to earn money, but only one has control of the distrobution of the profit. Human nature being what it is those who have control invariably end up taking advantage of that control and we end up in the situation we have now, rich people, poor people and a missing middle class.

You are talking about pure capitalism, I am talking about a capitalist/socialist mix.

The capitalist model as it exists now is dying from the same disease that killed communism.

It's suffering from a cancer called a failed financial system. Two different entities.

[BoostedNihilist]

It worked quite well until debt was invented.

If that is what you think you need to go back to school. Capitalism is founded on debt and loans. If you take out a loan by defintion you are in debt. Where do you think the original capitalists got money.. for that matter, where did the money come from? Someone had to initally produce that resource of which cash is represantive. Therefore, in order to have cash there must have at one point in time been a loan. I.E. Guy mines gold, uses cash to represent gold.. if you have no gold, you have no cash.. but cash existed within society, so.. how do you buy a hoe from a blacksmith to till a field to make corn to trade for gold? Simple you get a loan...

No it doesn't, because those that don't wish to pursue greater ends, end up at McJob. And they pay for themselves, the state doesn't have to pay. Of course their should always be a net under them but.....

Where I am sure this does happen it doesn't account for those who have a superior idea, yet no socioeconomic engine to drive the production... I will give examples soon.

BoostedNihilist wrote:
I have a question for you. How do people who cannot afford to repay a debt get a loan? They have to get the loan from people who have the money.


Bankruptcy. But again, capitalism and debt are not exclusively connected.

I think you just missed the point on this one..

BoostedNihilist wrote:
I guess you could go without buying or doing anything but that puts you at a distinct disadvantage in the capitalist system.


Not really, most of the crap thrown at us these days is wholly unnecessary for survival.

Perhaps, but again you are thinking in a vacuum. All things being equal, how do you get to work when the work areas tend to be centralized and surrounded by the residential areas where people live.. sometimes at quite a distance. It is not practical in todays society (which is what we are talking about) to live right next to where you work. Lets face it, we're not pastoralists any more so it is reasonable to expect that you would in the very least need to provide yourself transportation to and from your residence to your workplace.. which is reasonable however when transportation costs money and you have zero the funds have to come from somewhere.

So while perhaps we are a materialistic society a child would be at a significant disadvantage should they not have access to say the internet or a computer as examples. I know you will come back with your 'mix of socialism' perspective with the example of those computers found in schools, but often students, such as those who are bussed, have limited access to these socially provided units due the the confines of the socially provided transportation. So if the parents aren't able to provide access to technology at home those students are at a disadvantage when compared to students who have access to such things. So, there are certain investments you need to make in order to position yourself for success in the future. Again, not a big deal but these things cost money and when you have zero, this could be a problem... with zero money for transportation to go to your centralized job how do you then position yourself to obtain money without getting a loan? It's an impossible circle. At one point you will need a loan if you want to be successful unless you are lucky enough to have rich parents.

If you have a market, you will find a seller. Please provide examples of otherwise.

Again you've missed the point. I will illustrate my question with an example.. ever heard of a tucker? Probably not. A car years ahead of its time, more advanced than any of the other offerings of the day... Was even being produced, yet was crushed by the big three... This is one obvious example but there are many others.

I don't really see the correlation, but I'll bite. You work, to make connections along the way.

We are talking about the relationship between your material status and your social network and you can't see the correlation? How many audi guys do you see hanging out with lada guys?

BoostedNihilist wrote:
The capitalist model as it exists now is dying from the same disease that killed communism.


It's suffering from a cancer called a failed financial system. Two different entities.

Again, utopian capitalism where nobody bears any responsibility for the demise of the system. You can't have a ruling upper class who controls the money and blame the collapse of the system on the poor people they lent the money to. That's trickle down economics. Going back to my cereal example. You might have the best cereal on the face of the earth. But in order to sell it en masse you have to break through the established marketing schemes. Safeway only has so many shelves for cereal and all those spots are already gone to the major manufacturers. Now, your cereal might not work with the expected revenue flow of the dominant producers (think too expensive to produce and maintain their margin), therefore two thing could happen. They could buy your recipe and simply not produce it or they could just ignore you... How you gonna sell your cereal? Push a cart down the street? Yeah, there might be a market for that kind of thing, but I don't call 1 random sale a market, I call that luck.

Let's face it. YEs, in Canada we have a more centered approach to the political economy, but our system is so small our relative impact is almost nil. The model that controls the majority of the wealth, and therefore has the dominant impact on the world economy is a pure capitalist model, the model of the USA.

[Topspin]

Topspin, Your view of capitalism is extremely naive and miopic.

Your own logic is full of holes and contradictions.

Please point them out.