Killing People For Our Freedom

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Konekokaze, Nov 12, 2006.

  1. ferret

    ferret Well-Known Member

    Age:
    33
    Posts:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    Mmmm hmmm.

    As for this "puppet for the ruling class" mess, unless you mean the government, of which he is the head of, I don't know of any "ruling class" and if there was one, I'd be one of the "ruled class."
     
  2. Darkmage

    Darkmage Senior Member

    Posts:
    715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Location:
    Texas, U.S.
    Okay.... here we go...

    [rant]

    I notice a big argument against really ANY war the U.S. takes part in involving other countries is "Why go fight for freedom when we already have it?" Well, the answer to that is preserving said freedoms. True, we could just secure our own borders better and leave the rest of the world to degenerate into its own chaotic form, but what would happen?

    Are you really so convinced that terrorists would simply just STOP attacking the U.S., redoubling their efforts of getting through our security and generally spreading discord just because WE went and decided to stop attacking another country? No. Most of the quarrels we have with hostile groups are purely religious, and that drives said groups to attack us whether or not we remain safe behind our borders.

    Also, I'm a trainee news reporter for my county, and I recently did an interview of about half a dozen people regarding their opinions about our current war being waged in Iraq. The most common response was Mr. Bush just had a purely personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, and that we should be focusing more efforts on capturing Osama Bin Laden rather than securing Iraq.

    I, for one, agree. The war is costing our country approximately $100,000 per MINUTE. Wow, I wonder where our nation debt is going. :blink:

    Anyways, just a little rant. If you haven't noticed, I'm kind of 50/50 between conservative and liberalistic.

    [/rant]
     
  3. Lennox

    Lennox Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,035
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Puppet for the ruling class means rich ------s. Who get massive tax-cuts and the poor people have to high percentage of taxes.

    Its a retarted plan, because the intent is for the rich to save money and buy more stuff. But since they already have everything they want, then just invest their money into stocks, and like bank type stuff, and it doesnt work like its supposed to.
     
  4. ferret

    ferret Well-Known Member

    Age:
    33
    Posts:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    Funny ----, because according to you kids, I'm part of the ruling class and I'm getting massive-ass tax breaks because I tend to support some of his actions. Once you get past the fact that I'm neither rich nor am recieving tax breaks on a large scale, I guess that argument makes sense, now, doesn't it?

    So we just pissed away six million dollars in the past hour? That's a whole lot of bullets we just bought if that's what you're saying. The current budget is $59 billion/year for Iraq, which, when the math is done, means that there's about $100,000/minute out there. However, that's not the case; the money is there, but that does not mean it is being spent like that. What you just quoted is a common scare tactic. It probably would look pretty in a newspaper headline, however.

    As for Osama: I'd personally like to see the ------'s head on a plate. I do think we should focus more on him than running around after the Iraqis. Unfortunately, the government didn't forsee how big of a mess that Iraq would turn in to and as such expected to be able to cripple the government, let the Iraqis choose their own, secure the nation, and leave.

    Reality, however, is different and hindsight, however, is 20/20. If you had asked the question in March of 2003, I'll guarantee you that those opinions would be more supportive. The American people don't have the stomach for what happens when the ---- hits the fan.

    Good points on the whole "let's hide behind our borders and stay out of the world's problems" viewpoint, as well.

    However, back to Lennox:
    So, just because someone with money gets a tax break because he or she donates to a certain charity, something like Make-A-Wish (I get a bit of a break for donating as well, and I sure as hell don't have the money to play with the stock market or buy five or six cars), and recieves a tax break for it means that the government is favoring the rich?

    Do you even understand what the government gives tax breaks for? If not, we're going to give you a lesson on them: you get them for things like donating to charities, growing a certain crop (farmers will get tax breaks for growing, say, soy beans instead of corn - it's called subsidizing), and even buying a hybrid car. It's a way to reward people for doing things for the common good, really.

    But please, enlighten us on how it should be run? Should a person who makes five times the amount of money I currently do be made to pay five times the taxes I do? Where's the equality in that, Lennox? Isn't that what you're preaching here, equality? Should we just sit here and discriminate against a person because he or she makes a lot of money? Can we elaborate as to what you're advocating, Lennox?
     
  5. ChiefNX

    ChiefNX Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Perhaps this post is too old to cite, but it seems that this thread is moving off topic.
    Do you think perhaps you could clarify that? I can neither see that any of Rumsfeld's stated goals for invasion should be upheld given the poor intelligence they were based on, nor that any military action in Iraq has quelled a significant threat to the freedom of western society.

    However, as concerns the freedom of the peoples of the Middle Eastern nations and specifically Iraqi citizens, the issue is a little more complex. Iraq has been liberated from despotic rule at the cost of social stability within the country and the resultant civil war.

    Regime change in Iraq was certainly a noble goal, but an ill-considered one - especially so, given the dubious legality of the unprovoked invasion without UN resolution. In addition, I am given to wonder why the United States' insist that liberation of the Iraqi people and humanitarian aid were primary goals whilst steadfastly refusing to intervene in many important global conflicts, for instance, current genocide in Darfur.
     
  6. ferret

    ferret Well-Known Member

    Age:
    33
    Posts:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    So because we didn't find the nukes doesn't mean that there weren't WMDs? Tell you what, look up reports on chemical weapons that were found in Iraq. Under UN charter and the US government's definition, those are WMDs and they were found. Other than that,

    - Tyrant was removed
    - Iraqis were secured
    - Terrorist groups such as Ansar al-Islam were removed
    - Iraqis were given a freely-elected government

    And if you think the Middle East was stable before Saddam was removed, please do me a favor and look at Saddam's actions over the past twenty years. He didn't need to be at our door with a gun (Hitler wasn't, either). He was a threat to the region, namely his neighbors. He was a threat to the region's economy, with numerous threats to close down the Persian Gulf. He had a history of starting wars of agression (Iran, Kuwait). He had a history of supporting terrorist groups (Ansar al-Islam).

    As for Darfur, the same can be said for the UN. They allowed that particular genocide to go on right along with the other ones that have happened in Africa over the past thirty years; not a finger was raised.

    P.S. Nations don't need the UN to pass a resolution for them to act. The UN charter says nothing about it; it's something called independance. But please, since the UN is so ever-present, why didn't it, oh, say, stop the US? You're doing something bad, so here's a sheet of paper (just like they've done for everyone else the past ten or so years)?
     
  7. .Rage.

    .Rage. Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,604
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Location:
    California
    of course we are already
    but he saying you like your freedoms right?
    do you want to keep the freedoms you have then shutup
    i would be offended also you little kids dont understand
     
  8. Machiavelli X

    Machiavelli X Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
     
  9. Poo

    Poo Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    732
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    wait what?
    if slaves were free in the north, then all the slaves were southern....
    wtf? and what does this have to do with the topic? i dont get it :wacko:
     
  10. Machiavelli X

    Machiavelli X Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    lol Poo I get what your saying. If the northern slaves was already freed than wouldnt it be only plausible to free all of the slaves in the south.
     
  11. ferret

    ferret Well-Known Member

    Age:
    33
    Posts:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    It can be inferred.

    When are you going to get out of, say, the middle ages and realize what this concept called a "democracy" is? Corporations don't run it. I run it. My neighbor runs it. My friends run it. The people in the nest state over run it. The American People run it.

    Campaigns: corporations may support a candidate, as that is their right as private citizens to do so. I could dump all the money I have into the next presidential campaign if I wanted to, just as a corporation may do the same. They, just like me, may support or disagree with whomever they want. It's not corruption, it's supporting who you want to be the next president or the governer or the congressman or the senator.

    That doesn't mean they run it, it means that they've contributed to that person's campaign based on they, the candidate's beliefs, being aligned with what the contributers believe. And if the candidate gets elected and starts doing stuff that those who support him or her don't like, those people will probably not vote for him or support him. It's not corruption, it's how an elected government works. What would you prefer, a monarchy? A government that does whatever the hell it wants, completely disregarding the people? Try to get a better understanding of what "freedom," "democracy," and "government of the People" mean before spouting off rhetoric.
     
  12. ChiefNX

    ChiefNX Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    I hardly think that 500 pre-Gulf war chemical munitions constitutes a significant reason for invasion. The weapons found in Iraq were a long way off the exaggerations made by the coalition governments in order to force a response from the American and British people. The bottom line is that no evidence was found that Iraq had continued its weapons programme after the Gulf War. (Check the Iraq Survey Group report). Given that, the claim that Iraq could launch a co-ordinated WMD attack on an American target seems more than a little far fetched.

    Of course I agree that the Middle East was far from stable prior to the Iraq war, indeed many members of the Bush administration harboured the grandiose belief that the invasion would somehow catalyse democracy in the Middle East - a domino effect. But the instability has continued and worsened as a result of the war and most importantly, the Iraqis "secured" by the invasion have had to endure a three year period of ongoing civil war resulting in the creation of 2 million refugees and a large civilian death toll. In light of this, I'm just not sure just how comforted the average Iraqi citizen is that they now have a freely elected government, but that's just my nosy western speculation and before you pick up on this, yes I realise that I am in no position whatsoever to empathise with "the average Iraqi citizen". [Official estimates of the death toll seem to range from around nought to infinity, so I won't be quoting any figures].

    As regards Ansar-al-islam, I'm not sure quite how much effect the war in Iraq has had on their operations, since most members escaped into Iran following the invasion and were not arrested. I wouldn't be suprised if most (if not all) of them are now part of other terrorist organisations.

    Under international law, the only justifications for use of military force set by the UN charter are when the decision is made by the UN Security Council, or as an act of collective or individual self-defence. If the Iraq war cannot be justified under the grounds that the self-defence was pre-emptive (that's very shaky ground) then it was unlawful to invade. In fact Kofi Anan was quoted to say: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." (source) As for why the UN did not try to stop the US, that could have something to do with America being the most powerful permanent member of the UN security council. (While I'm being cynical, I can't help noticing some disturbing parallels between the current failiures of the UN (Darfur included) and those of the League of Nations in the 20s and 30s...)
     
  13. ferret

    ferret Well-Known Member

    Age:
    33
    Posts:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    No, Lincoln kept the slaves in the North under slavery because he wanted to keep slave-holding states like Maryland in the Union. It wasn't until 1865 that slavery was abolished.
     
  14. Lennox

    Lennox Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,035
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Make sense. Are you loaded or not?
    Your not getting tax breaks for donating to charities? Where do you come up with this stuff? Rich people get tax breaks because of the republican theory that rich people will buy more ---- if you let them save more money. They clearly dont buy anymore since they can have everything they want, no problems. It doesnt work like it should.

    Im not talking about tax breaks on that stuff. Your government also gives tax breaks just to extremely rich people for no reason. Yes if they're making 5 times as much, then pay 5 times as much in taxes. Perfect equality. If that poor guy has to pay 30% in taxes, you should have to pay 30% in taxes too. Thats perfect equality. Not that bull---- about ok so poor people will give us more money so they can be poorer, and rich people can pay like 15% so they can be even richer.

    Im not discriminating against rich people, im making them be treated the same as the rest of us.
     
  15. ferret

    ferret Well-Known Member

    Age:
    33
    Posts:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    Yes, and didn’t that same UN call for Saddam not only to cease production but to get rid of the weapons themselves? Is it “OK, you can keep them, but just don’t make any more” when danger is involved? Where did the integrity go?

    He’d broken Security Council resolutions before, though none called for military force. And though only small amounts were found, they were a threat to stability in the region. Think about it: a few chemical warheads attached to SCUD missiles could easily take down any city in the region, provided that the targets were hit. An airburst of that kind of stuff could easily knock down even a city as large as New York City and while Saddam himself didn’t have the capability to deliver them to the United States, he could have funneled them to groups like Ansar al-Islam, whom he gave a large amount of chemical-biological equipment (protective suits, vaccines for nerve agents, etc.), who could. It’s called fighting through a proxy, something Iran does with Hezbollah and groups like the Qud today. It was also something that Congress was told and Congress, along with around 70% of America, supported at the time.

    Though Ansar al-Islam was scattered, it ceased to exist as an organization. Its base of operations, equipment, facilities, and things like Saddam’s chemical equipment were stripped from it. Documents were captured, arrests were made. Though a small victory, it’s a victory nonetheless.

    9/11 marked a change in the US foreign policy. No longer would the US stand by and wait to be attacked. No longer would the US allow groups to sit and plot against it for years on end, watching the statements made on CNN and seeing the evidence right before their eyes, only to stand back in shock when something happened as past administrations have done. And when it all boils down, the US gives its loyalty to itself and itself alone, not to other nations’ or groups’ or organizations’ feelings and beliefs. That’s how the US’s policy has been since 1776, regardless of whether it was enforced or not.

    Though the US is a member of the UN, its loyalty and duty is to the American People alone, not the UN. If the US feels that its interests are threatened, it will act with whatever force deemed necessary. If the US broke international law and the UN charter, why didn’t it act? A simple vote of the General Assembly can remove a nation’s seat in the UN. Doesn’t this mean that the UN has shunned its duty? This group has become such an impotent organization over the years, regardless of its intent. If the UN doesn’t want to step up and act, it defies its charter, in essence becoming just another body of hypocrites, no different from the recent gathering of Holocaust deniers or the Brussels conference of 1876.

    Where is the legitimacy in that? If the US truly broke the law, the UN just showed the entire world that it’s OK to defy international law. Where did the fairness, equality, and equal voice that the charter calls for go?

    And through all this, it’s good to see valid issues brought up instead of “he just invaded for oil lol” and the like.


    Merged Post:


    And if the rich do the same stuff, should they not get tax breaks? I get them with my relatively meager income, so why shouldn't they if they do the same kind of stuff? It's not a collective thing, it's an individual thing. They don't get them just because of the wealth that they hold, regardless of whatever illusions you have.

    That's the whole idea of "freedom" coming in again. People can do whatever they want with their money, regardless of their income. If they want to buy food, let them. If they want to buy a TV, let them. And if they want to keep their money, so long as they do it lawfully, let them. Every single tax payer is eligible for tax breaks if he or she does what is required to get them. And if they have less money but still do something like contribute to a certain charity, they'll still get the breaks.

    It's quite easy to blame others for problems (The Republicans do this, the Rich do that...). Don't pretend that Democrats haven't done the same. However, 9 times out of 10, they're not responsible. And unless you're claiming that Democrats have never given a tax break or the like, don't single out Republicans. It's the same ----, just a different viewpoint.
     

Share This Page