What's your solution to terrorism?

[Kuchana]

Being the fact that terrorism itself is becoming more of a worldwide concern, what then is your solution to it?

Do you think the threat it holds will ever diminish? Is there a future beyond it?

[robotic]

i don't think terrorism will be easy to stop ;_; a lot of factors contribute to this, because the final barrier has broken. the basis of this, we seem to believe, is the amount of hate the arab/muslim world has for america or the west - at least, the majority of the people. terrorists don't necessarily have to be muslims, but they are generally people who are not content with the way the world is running (which at the time, the majority is muslims, possibly angered by outside-religion/american influences etc.) if it is possible to clear and patch-up the root of this cause (either withdraw troops/agree on a truce/stop attacks on palestinians/muslims/others by different religious sects and forces), it might bring us a little closer to exterminate it.

[SunWuKong]

the main concern of most terrorists is that they want the US and other Western powers to leave them the fuck alone and stop putting up embargoes against them. millions and millions of people in the Middle East have starved to death because of US embargoes. people don't exactly resort to suicidal terrorist tactics unless there are no other ways to get their points across. "evil" people are too selfish to sacrifice their lives for their causes. fundamentalist Islam is not the problem, US Middle East policy is the problem. fundamentalist Islam is just used by terrorist leaders to motivate people to act against unfair politics that the US applies to the Middle East.

[BaiginLong]

asking for a solution to terrorism is like asking for world peace
both are valid questions
and both are impossible to answer because of one main factor:
human nature and it's tendancy to hate
unless you want to perform a lobotomy on everyone in the world or some other drastic Draconian measure (which I highly doubt anyone will allow that), you can't "solve" this problem
you can only have temporary patches
sure we can make the truce and do whatnot
or huntdown terrorists as they come alone but it won't be permanent
nothing will
it's just a matter of working through it continuously and prudently

[robotic]

as people say of (nowadays), "when one osama bin laden is down, another one is born" - and it's all solely due to the events that are happening in the world today.

[SunWuKong]

as people say of (nowadays), "when one osama bin laden is down, another one is born" - and it's all solely due to the events that are happening in the world today.


exactly. some people just haven't figured it out. the problem doesn't lie in a tyrant government, it lies in the fact that people are resentful. the war in Iraq right now is just breeding future terrorist acts. terrorist acts are committed because they want the US to leave them alone, so what does the US government do? it sends troops over there. how does that make sense at all?

[Emperor_Mike]

All the answers provided here are excellent and ring true to the core of the issue. Terrorism is a malady that can never be eradicated so long as oppression and discontent continue to plague societies across the globe. As Robotic has already stated, severing the head of the snake will not necessarily mean the death of the creature. I believe that Terrorism is something akin to the mythical Hydra. Smite off a head and another grows in its place.

[Mr.Lum]

stop US imperialism. get out of the Middle East, and stop arming and proping up Israel.

[robotic]

i was hoping that the amount of protests would have an effect on bush's decision. i think he should take the advice and withdraw, because the war is a great threat to american soldiers, iraqi civilians and foreign journalists/activists etc. and although bush said that he had had good intentions, america can no longer stray peacefully about trying to 'rebuild iraq' since the threat is even more powerful than ever before.

[rasheedgonzales]

the main concern of most terrorists is that they want the US and other Western powers to leave them the fuck alone and stop putting up embargoes against them. millions and millions of people in the Middle East have starved to death because of US embargoes. people don't exactly resort to suicidal terrorist tactics unless there are no other ways to get their points across. "evil" people are too selfish to sacrifice their lives for their causes. fundamentalist Islam is not the problem, US Middle East policy is the problem. fundamentalist Islam is just used by terrorist leaders to motivate people to act against unfair politics that the US applies to the Middle East.
can't really add anything else to this... except to say that i agree. it's all about cause and effect.

[kitty]

i agree with radford. there is no 'cure' for terrorism, nor should there be. given no other choices, some groups will resort to terrorism for their messages to be heard -- and i don't know if i have a problem with that.

perhaps what would be most critical now is for people to stop and consider *why* terrorists resort to those means. a lot of americans are quick to paint terrorists as 'evil' 'fundamentalists'. even bush himself said last night that terrorists had been dealt a blow because the U.S. had brought freedom and reform to the middle east. well, i think that's a silly thing to say because the terrorists themselves also wanted freedom and reform, just a different kind of freedom and reform.

While terrorism shouldn't be justified, I think people need to recognize that terrorists have a political message and resort to terrorism when they feel otherwise powerless. I think we can do something to curb some terrorist violence by considering all viewpoints in a conflict, and not immediately taking a side. And definitely, the US needs to rethink its foreign policy, because a lot of terrorism and resentment is aimed at the US for unnecessarily meddling in foreign affairs.

[Banana]

I used to think that Osama Bin Laden also just wanted all foreign powers out of the Middle East. The more and more I hear his political and religious messages, the more I think his main objective is to not only remove foreign powers from Islam's influence but to also convert the world to Islam. He absolutely will not stop until the world's population is bowing towards Mecca.

He's basically an extremely militant evangelical Muslim.

Lately, his group's messages seems to more political than anything else and he's just hiding behind his perverted view of a religion.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

While terrorism shouldn't be justified, I think people need to recognize that terrorists have a political message and resort to terrorism when they feel otherwise powerless.
Oftentimes, when they were deprived of that power by the people of their own country at the ballot box because we hated their message. Y'all are only thinking from the US perspective --- if we stop bombing them, maybe they'll leave us alone. Sure, but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily stop their worldwide political program consisting of screwing with democratic societies everywhere.

The US isn't the only country that matters in the world. My country, Malaysia, rejected foreign-funded Islamic fundamentalists who were trying to use the political system to brings us back to the middle ages. I suppose we can now look forward to terrorism, and we'd owe them "recognition" of the "root causes" of their actions cuz we made them feel powerless?

[Banana]

I got the perfect solution to avoid terrorism. Just live in a cave.

[Bhodi_Li]

He's basically an extremely militant evangelical Muslim.

Lately, his group's messages seems to more political than anything else and he's just hiding behind his perverted view of a religion.Excellent point. It's more than just about economics and politcs. There is a fundamental cultural and religious difference in the two societies. I do not believe that they will ever live together in harmony. Christianity and Muslims have been fighting for centuries. Besides the same people that say Stop the US involvement will say Stop the human rights attrocities later on.

[kitty]

the people we consider terrorists now are people we funded a decade ago.

i think it's a complete fallacy to assume that one culture/religion is more likely to firebomb a cafe than another. not only brown people are terrorists, we have some pretty dangerous caucasoid terrorists living right here in the good 'ol US of A.

My point is merely that rather than nuking the terrorists, maybe the US could adapt its foreign aid policy to try and prevent the reasons that fuel the terrorist actions. And the only reason I concentrated on the US of A is because of the wording of the question -- the question wasn't 'What can Malaysia do to stop terrorists?'... it was 'What can we do to stop terrorists?'.

And I honestly believe that we could've been more diplomatic in the Middle East, and prevented a lot of the terrorist attacks today.

[Banana]

Not sure if this is offtopic, but I was watching a show about Saudi Arabia and it just annoys me how American or Western women keep stating that the country is oppressive towards women. They interviewed many Saudi women and they just said they were happy and honored to follow their own personal religion. They don't need to be determined on how good they are by wearing revealing clothing, makeup, etc.

This made me respect them alot more for not having to conform to another country or hemisphere's standards just because we think they should.

"You can get a car! A car!"

"But I'm perfectly happy with my bicycle."

"Car! You're nothing without a car!"

This doesn't make me believe that Saudi Arabia practices anything close to human rights but it just shows how we, as a nation, try to press our ideals onto others. Anyone that doesn't follow them is assbackwards. Have we figured out that maybe capitalism isn't the best for everyone?

[kitty]

Lately, his group's messages seems to more political than anything else and he's just hiding behind his perverted view of a religion.

His message has always been political. I don't really see how he's trying to convert people -- I always thought he was merely invoking the terms 'holy war'....

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Not sure if this is offtopic, but I was watching a show about Saudi Arabia and it just annoys me how American or Western women keep stating that the country is oppressive towards women. They interviewed many Saudi women and they just said they were happy and honored to follow their own personal religion. They don't need to be determined on how good they are by wearing revealing clothing, makeup, etc.

This made me respect them alot more for not having to conform to another country or hemisphere's standards just because we think they should.

"You can get a car! A car!"

"But I'm perfectly happy with my bicycle."

"Car! You're nothing without a car!"

This doesn't make me believe that Saudi Arabia practices anything close to human rights but it just shows how we, as a nation, try to press our ideals onto others. Anyone that doesn't follow them is assbackwards. Have we figured out that maybe capitalism isn't the best for everyone?

This is a controversial topic of debate for sure, and I think it is related to the "Is Christianity Incompatible with Feminism" argument. I've already presented my viewpoints on this issue many times over on YW, so I won't care to get into them again. Anyways, I still stand that the oppression of women in Christian countries has much more to do with the denying of equal opportunity to achieve "socially defined" levels of success rather than some of the Christian ideology upon which such a country was built in the first place. American values does not = Christian values, and this applies to many many other countries as well whose forefathers may sought to built their nation/states on their own beliefs (but who doesn't). In particular, the core of Christianity is as far from capitalist ideology as you can get.

[robotic]

there might always be a controvery, although!
every-day when i hear the news, i grow more depressed. you really wonder when they'll be an end to it, and there possibly won't be, until the world ends - that is.

[SunWuKong]

the people we consider terrorists now are people we funded a decade ago.

exactly. this in and of itself is evidence to support that the American agenda, and therefore its war propaganda, is politically motivated. the US helped bin Laden when he was fighting against the American boogeyman du jour back then, now he has become the boogeyman himself.

[Banana]

I think this would explain it.

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

[Martino]

exactly. this in and of itself is evidence to support that the American agenda, and therefore its war propaganda, is politically motivated. the US helped bin Laden when he was fighting against the American boogeyman du jour back then, now he has become the boogeyman himself.

I think the US needs to learn just one simple lesson - America is a part of the world, the world isn't part of America.

[>:^|]

perhaps what would be most critical now is for people to stop and consider *why* terrorists resort to those means.

Louis Farrakhan, speaking right after September 11, said that the question that we need to ask ourselves is why they hate us.

[sageb1]

My solution is unworkable but addresses the arms market:

tax bullets and munitions.

My original solution is that we do everything possible locally to promote and be proactive about non-violence and non-confrontation is practised in my professional life and my personal life.

[ShortNBitter]

Louis Farrakhan, speaking right after September 11, said that the question that we need to ask ourselves is why they hate us.

No matter what we do, there will always be a "bad guy." From Native Americans to Terrorists- people, not just Americans are always fighting somebody. They can be infighting or quit their infighting to destroy an external evil. But nonetheless, there will always be an enemy. So can I say will terrorism end? No. But I can say that the reason we fight is to preserve what peace we can muster as it is.

Also, why they hate us? Its culture. Its history. Its racism. All of these conflicts are things impossible to control. We can't undue the past, and we can't erase the memories, not to mention the regrets and feelings of resentment that have been felt all around. Virtually, its impossible to end it or even to stop the hate, unless we can learn to forget all of our past, but the problem is that that is alot more difficult than we give credit. Our past shapes our futures and we can't let that go.

So in the long run: we are doomed in a circle of terror so to speak.
But in the short run: we should try to do what we can to stop the hate- even if its just temporarily, we can still win a battle.

[kitty]

they don't hate america 'cuz americans have nice big cars... they hate america because of what america did in the middle east. it's not cultural -- it's 'cuz we think everyone's business is our business.

[nola]

I agree with SWK and KittyGirl, that is, we need to look at root causes, focus on prevention and simply do onto others the way we'd like others to do onto us. Simple wisdom and stuff we're taught in kindergarten.

[John0101]

I haven't read any of the posts above, but I will after I post.

1) United States conquers the world and just slaughters everybody that opposes them. Genocide, it will stop terrorism. (Terrorism against the United States, not United States terrorist actions against other countries).

2) Centralized power in a single government entity (no idea what form of government) that ensures equal alienable basic human rights to every soul in the world.

I used to think that Osama Bin Laden also just wanted all foreign powers out of the Middle East. The more and more I hear his political and religious messages, the more I think his main objective is to not only remove foreign powers from Islam's influence but to also convert the world to Islam. He absolutely will not stop until the world's population is bowing towards Mecca.

He's basically an extremely militant evangelical Muslim.

Lately, his group's messages seems to more political than anything else and he's just hiding behind his perverted view of a religion.

wow this reminds of the Crusades

[Ron]

I think people should concentrate on certain groups/radicals, not Muslims as a whole. For example, in Thailand, we get along usually well with Arab or South Asian Muslims, but we're having trouble dealing with the regional radical groups in the South, mostly the Malaysian Muslims. Usually, the real issue at hand is that the people are poor, and they want to find a cause, albeit a bad one.

[achtungbaby]

I think the US needs to learn just one simple lesson - America is a part of the world, the world isn't part of America.

And the even greater lesson -- that all of these are part of yellowworld. :biggrin:


Louis Farrakhan, speaking right after September 11, said that the question that we need to ask ourselves is why they hate us.

Farrakhan would also argue that they hate white Americans because after all, they were created in a laboratory by black people.

[Yeahman]

the real issue at hand is that the people are poor, and they want to find a cause, albeit a bad one.
Finally someone mentions it.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned socio-economic reform as a way of eliminating terrorism, earlier. But then again it's the liberal mentality that the victims of terrorism have to change, not the terrorists.

First to address some of the nonsense that was posted above...
Have we figured out that maybe capitalism isn't the best for everyone?
Capitalism works. Sure it's not perfect but with some finetuning it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives. OK I will examine all alternatives, but I challange anyone to make the case that another economic system is superior to capitalism in any country.

"the core of Christianity is as far from capitalist ideology as you can get.
Many would argue that there is no closer theology to capitalism than Calvanism. I don't subscribe to Weber's theory but in any case your statement is as far from supportable as you can get.

"wow this reminds of the Crusades
It should have reminded you of the direct opposite of the Crusades. There was nothing political about the Crusades and it was to reclaim the Holy Land not to take over the world or spread Christianity.

it just annoys me how American or Western women keep stating that the country is oppressive towards women. They interviewed many Saudi women and they just said they were happy and honored to follow their own personal religion.
I saw a very old black and white Miss America pagent where one of the contestants was asked if she thought women should be allowed to be president. Her response was something like "No because women are too emotional to make important decisions."

Obviously no Miss America pagent would say something like that today. My point is that just because women believe themselves to be inferior does not make it OK for the society to treat them as inferior or the government to legislate unequal treatment.


So how would I eliminate terrorism?
1. Force some fucking peace between Isreal and the Palestinians. I mean FORCE it. A 1-to-1 land swap so the borders will change to accomodate the Jewish settlements but equally favorable land would be given to the Palestinians in return. Release all the requested prisoners. Monetary compensation for the Palestinian refugees (fair value of the land taken). Make Jerusalem a UN controlled city. Keep the Israeli troops within their borders. Get the UN to keep the peace militarily. Return the Golan Heights and get the Arab nations to recognize Israel's right to exist. The thing with this plan is that it would probably pass in the UN if the US doesn't veto it. The US has the power (military and financial) to make this happen.

2. Get the UN involved in Iraq. Do not pull out! That's the stupidest thing you can do. I can't believe that there are actually people who want to do that.

3. Drill in Alaska and put pressue on the Saudis to reform. In fact put pressue on all the governments of the Middle East. They need true democracy, freedom of expression, and free trade. Fundamentalist propoganda cannot be stopped by stopping support of Israel or pulling out of Iraq. You have to give people an alternative. You have to give them hopes and dreams that don't involve fighting infidels. I'll admit it, Bush is right. We need to spread freedom and democracy. Of course I am totally opposed to his methods. But I see a lot of liberals throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ideological imperialism, when it is as fundamental as freedom and democracy, is a great thing. It's the arrogance and "ends justifies the means" tactic of this Administration that needs to go.

[sageb1]

JFK: ...Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"Money makes the world go around" - popular saying and also song lyric.

Please note that the affluence of the major players (Osama, Sadam, Milosevic) of the Afghan, Iraq and Yugoslavia wars of attrition where NATO troops were used for humanitarian reasons. It's taken for granted that the American leaders have money and power.

Kosovo had natural resource, but was also a strategic area. The breakup of Yugoslavia was planned to better manage the new leaders of Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Montenegro and Serbia.

It's hard to tell how they might manage Iraq and Afghanistan, since nationalizing each faction from tribals in South Iraq to Kurds in the north, and all the tribals in Afghanistan seem to have united against the infidels i.e. the good ol' boys of American life brought to you by corporations like Coke, Rebok and McDonalds.

In actual fact the corporations are looking for a cash cow in these new place. They're too poor to support a consumer economy.

The New Crusades: wars fought in the name of Western consumerism against opponents of trade, and all freedom fighters become terrorists.

[ShortNBitter]

Capitalism works. Sure it's not perfect but with some finetuning it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives. OK I will examine all alternatives, but I challange anyone to make the case that another economic system is superior to capitalism in any country.

Actually Capitalism is inherently a system of self destruction. Just to break even, the amount of resources used and progress made has to be doubled. Eventually all the resources will be gone and what then? The end of the Capitalist world. We'd go back to the stoneage...


So how would I eliminate terrorism?
1. Force some fucking peace between Isreal and the Palestinians. I mean FORCE it. A 1-to-1 land swap so the borders will change to accomodate the Jewish settlements but equally favorable land would be given to the Palestinians in return. Release all the requested prisoners. Monetary compensation for the Palestinian refugees (fair value of the land taken). Make Jerusalem a UN controlled city. Keep the Israeli troops within their borders. Get the UN to keep the peace militarily. Return the Golan Heights and get the Arab nations to recognize Israel's right to exist. The thing with this plan is that it would probably pass in the UN if the US doesn't veto it. The US has the power (military and financial) to make this happen.

I disagree, the last thing we need is more forced situations. Here we have several nations at war because they arent being represented. If we have this supreme judge who just happens to be America again, people will just write us off as dbags! As for the UN, they all are taking conservative positions. Its a Do-Nothing situation.


2. Get the UN involved in Iraq. Do not pull out! That's the stupidest thing you can do. I can't believe that there are actually people who want to do that.

I agree with you there. We are alreayd in there and leaving would really just f0ck us really bad. Integration of the UN into Iraq, might cool things off a little-- at least for America's morale and selfesteem.


3. Drill in Alaska and put pressue on the Saudis to reform. In fact put pressue on all the governments of the Middle East. They need true democracy, freedom of expression, and free trade. Fundamentalist propoganda cannot be stopped by stopping support of Israel or pulling out of Iraq. You have to give people an alternative. You have to give them hopes and dreams that don't involve fighting infidels. I'll admit it, Bush is right. We need to spread freedom and democracy. Of course I am totally opposed to his methods. But I see a lot of liberals throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ideological imperialism, when it is as fundamental as freedom and democracy, is a great thing. It's the arrogance and "ends justifies the means" tactic of this Administration that needs to go.

I admit there are some economic reasons for this war, but theres more too. Alaska drilling wont solve the problem, plus lots of environmentalists would oppose that. Even if we did, however, drill in Alaska, it still won't be enough for America. America will never be content with whatever number of sources they get~ its the Capitalist sytem and its always hungry.

It's too late to pull out of Israel now. If we pull out, after all the help we've given them since the end of WWII, Israelis will hate America and we will have Jewish terrorists then. Whatever the face, terrorism is terrorism.

America is being hypocritical in its quest for democracy and freedom. If you look at America you can see voices being squelched, people being imprisoned, and their rights violated. All of these things happen behind closed doors and the public hardly ever sees it. Not to mention the fact that we arent spreading democracy to the world. We are spreading dictatorships. Theres nothing democratic about the government we have installed in Iraq.

You're right, the ends don't justify the means, but the pattern has become so repetitive that Americans don't even care. They are too distracted by the media and tv and sports and all of those things that we don't do anything about it. There's too much resentment and hate in the world because of American foreign policy, and it's become so bad that I dont even see how we can fix any of it anymore.

[rasheedgonzales]

Not sure if this is offtopic, but I was watching a show about Saudi Arabia and it just annoys me how American or Western women keep stating that the country is oppressive towards women. They interviewed many Saudi women and they just said they were happy and honored to follow their own personal religion. They don't need to be determined on how good they are by wearing revealing clothing, makeup, etc.

This made me respect them alot more for not having to conform to another country or hemisphere's standards just because we think they should.

"You can get a car! A car!"

"But I'm perfectly happy with my bicycle."

"Car! You're nothing without a car!"

This doesn't make me believe that Saudi Arabia practices anything close to human rights but it just shows how we, as a nation, try to press our ideals onto others. Anyone that doesn't follow them is assbackwards. Have we figured out that maybe capitalism isn't the best for everyone?
this is probably one of the most annoying things i can think of from those of us in the west...

not everyone shares the same ideals or morals as america. nor does everyone share the same concept or even understanding of what freedom really is.

i was at a restaurant with a buddy the other night and they had bush’s speech blasting on the big screen tv at the back of the restaurant. it really disgusted me how bush kept referring to freedom and the need for them to make sure that the world is “free”. as a muslim, the way i see it... bush doesn’t have the slightest clue of what true freedom is. he wants this world to be free, then he should let other countries and peoples live their lives as they please and let them handle their own problems. the world needs to be free from america’s sticking its nose in other people’s business. america is not the world’s police.

(might post more after i read the rest of the posts...)

[Martino]

There can be only one solution to terrorism. We must build a giant robot.

[robotic]

and fill it with so much love that it will explode! not before it has spread the message, although. something human, yet inhuman at the same time - because it cannot stay as a presence, at a rapid, with a flow. it's only something a robot can carry.

[SunWuKong]

Actually Capitalism is inherently a system of self destruction. Just to break even, the amount of resources used and progress made has to be doubled. Eventually all the resources will be gone and what then? The end of the Capitalist world. We'd go back to the stoneage...n policy, and it's become so bad that I dont even see how we can fix any of it anymore.


i agree. the reason that the capitalistic societies are doing well right now is because they also have an abundance of socialist measures built in to their system. capitalism unchecked just means that the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer. it's the nature of the beast.

[Yeahman]

Actually Capitalism is inherently a system of self destruction. Just to break even, the amount of resources used and progress made has to be doubled. Eventually all the resources will be gone and what then? The end of the Capitalist world. We'd go back to the stoneage...
Scarce resources results in price increase or incentive to find alternative resources. Isn't capitalism beautiful?
There are problems in capitalism. I am not for a laissez-faire approach but capitalism with some safeguards including elements of socialism, is by the far the best system we have ever seen. Nobody is arguing for Cuba to get rid of their universal healthcare but communism has insured that everybody is more-or-less poor.

I disagree, the last thing we need is more forced situations. Here we have several nations at war because they arent being represented. If we have this supreme judge who just happens to be America again, people will just write us off as dbags! As for the UN, they all are taking conservative positions. Its a Do-Nothing situation.
Both the Israelis and Palestinians know that there can be no peace without US involvement. When the governments of both sides fail their people, they have no choice. They need a middleman.

I admit there are some economic reasons for this war, but theres more too. Alaska drilling wont solve the problem, plus lots of environmentalists would oppose that. Even if we did, however, drill in Alaska, it still won't be enough for America. America will never be content with whatever number of sources they get~ its the Capitalist sytem and its always hungry.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the enviromental and economic effects of drilling in Alaska. It was just a suggestion but that's besides the point. Yes, improvement is a fundamental characteristic of capitalism. It is to never be content. It's been the driving force behind the advancement of civilization. It's great isn't it?

It's too late to pull out of Israel now. If we pull out, after all the help we've given them since the end of WWII, Israelis will hate America and we will have Jewish terrorists then. Whatever the face, terrorism is terrorism.
I'd rather have Jewish terrorism than Muslim terrorism. Besides, what's just is just regardless of its popular support.

America is being hypocritical in its quest for democracy and freedom. If you look at America you can see voices being squelched, people being imprisoned, and their rights violated. All of these things happen behind closed doors and the public hardly ever sees it. Not to mention the fact that we arent spreading democracy to the world. We are spreading dictatorships. Theres nothing democratic about the government we have installed in Iraq.
The Patriot Act is nothing compared to what goes on in North Korea. A bit of difference in degree.
No nation can start off as a democracy without the proper infustructure. The UN concurs with the US that Iraq is not ready for elections.

So what you want is the US to stop denouncing human rights violations and for the US to promote instant democracy without regards to how disasterous it would be or for the US to stop promoting democracy altogether?

[SunWuKong]

Nobody is arguing for Cuba to get rid of their universal healthcare but communism has insured that everybody is more-or-less poor.

in the case of Cuba being poor, we have decades of US embargo to thank, not communism.

almost all communist countries that have ever existed had been very young, rose out of war-torn situations, and economically isolated by the US and other Western powers. it's not very surprising that they were all poor.

[ShortNBitter]

Scarce resources results in price increase or incentive to find alternative resources. Isn't capitalism beautiful?
There are problems in capitalism. I am not for a laissez-faire approach but capitalism with some safeguards including elements of socialism, is by the far the best system we have ever seen. Nobody is arguing for Cuba to get rid of their universal healthcare but communism has insured that everybody is more-or-less poor.

I agree, with the right tools Capitalism can be made to be a great system. But its come to the point where Democracy cannot function in an American Capitalistic society anymore. The rich stays with the rich and barely any poor people make it. It's almost become hierarchical (sp?) in that wealth passes down through generation. And all sorts of obstacles are thrown down a hill when the poor are trying to succeed. The idea of capitalism was that anybody could make it as long as they worked hard, but just like the SAT's the system has become perverted and curropted with money.

Both the Israelis and Palestinians know that there can be no peace without US involvement. When the governments of both sides fail their people, they have no choice. They need a middleman.

If the UN is the middleman then I can accept that, but America will never be a middleman. The American government is too greedy and capitalistic for them to take a neutral stand when it comes to peacetalks. They will look whever they can to get an advantage over everbody.


I don't pretend to be an expert on the enviromental and economic effects of drilling in Alaska. It was just a suggestion but that's besides the point. Yes, improvement is a fundamental characteristic of capitalism. It is to never be content. It's been the driving force behind the advancement of civilization. It's great isn't it?

But what happens when we run out of resources? It's great in the short term effect, but if we don't look to the future what will there be left? Nothing. It seems irresponsible to just say "oh let the next generation deal with it" when they are children and children's children when they can't even represent themselves. No offense, but you say, advancement... advancement to what? The destruction of the natural world and elimination of all resources?

I'd rather have Jewish terrorism than Muslim terrorism. Besides, what's just is just regardless of its popular support.

Uhhh... what? I thought teh idea of war on terrorism was to stop terrorism. A new kind wont help us in anyway, and we have supported Irsrael with weapons for several years. Our hypocrisy of giving weapons to an old ally only to fight them as a new enemy would be as blatantly stupid as the Vietnam War or Iraq in the first place. It's just a giant cycle, and Americans in general need to learn to stop it.


The Patriot Act is nothing compared to what goes on in North Korea. A bit of difference in degree.
No nation can start off as a democracy without the proper infustructure. The UN concurs with the US that Iraq is not ready for elections.

It's not just the patriot act. It's false statistics, covered up death, and not to mention the fact that as of now the President has lied to us. A fellow YW'r is in Iraq right now, how would you feel if he died for a damn lie? I admire his bravery but if its all in vain then I would be extremely angry, and I cannot imagine what his family would feel.

American is based on the principles of honesty and freedom of speech. I don't know enough about Korean history, but I know that the apparent freedom that is promised to ALL OF ITS CITIZENS needs to be upheld in America.

Have you heard of "free speech zones"? Protesters aren't allowed to be within like a certain distance from the president. They have designated zones for the protesters to be, so that way the President cant even see them and the media deosnt cover their protesting.

It just seems like our civil rights shouldnt be trampled because of our opinions. If you ignore your civil rights, they will go away. (<-- I saw that on a bumber sticker :smile: )

So what you want is the US to stop denouncing human rights violations and for the US to promote instant democracy without regards to how disasterous it would be or for the US to stop promoting democracy altogether?

I want America to stop being selfish and actually try to deal with the people- you know, like Democracy says. But as of now the situation has become so inflated that I have no idea how we can resolve this without tenfold of the amount of tensions and resentment that there already is. Frankly, its dire.

PS- thanks to all who gave me karma ^_^

[Yeahman]

in the case of Cuba being poor, we have decades of US embargo to thank, not communism.

almost all communist countries that have ever existed had been very young, rose out of war-torn situations, and economically isolated by the US and other Western powers. it's not very surprising that they were all poor.
Would China be better off practicing pure communism?

Capitalism creates wealth with an efficiency and speed that no other economic system could match. I can't see how anyone could argue against that but I'm willing to learn.

I agree, with the right tools Capitalism can be made to be a great system. But its come to the point where Democracy cannot function in an American Capitalistic society anymore. The rich stays with the rich and barely any poor people make it. It's almost become hierarchical (sp?) in that wealth passes down through generation. And all sorts of obstacles are thrown down a hill when the poor are trying to succeed. The idea of capitalism was that anybody could make it as long as they worked hard, but just like the SAT's the system has become perverted and curropted with money.
What sort of obstacles are there for poor people to succeed? We need to work on our educational system and work to reduce crime in inner-cities but what other specifics were you refering to?

If the UN is the middleman then I can accept that, but America will never be a middleman. The American government is too greedy and capitalistic for them to take a neutral stand when it comes to peacetalks. They will look whever they can to get an advantage over everbody.
What financial incentive does the US have in Israel? The US HAS been a middle-man in the peace talks. Oslo was almost sucessful and it wasn't the US that messed it up but the US that made peace possible.
You have a really harsh view of the world's most generous nation. What do we get out of sending food aid to North Korea or money for AIDS prevention in Africa or medical aid to Iran? If we're that greedy shouldn't we be keeping that money?

But what happens when we run out of resources? It's great in the short term effect, but if we don't look to the future what will there be left? Nothing. It seems irresponsible to just say "oh let the next generation deal with it" when they are children and children's children when they can't even represent themselves. No offense, but you say, advancement... advancement to what? The destruction of the natural world and elimination of all resources?
You missed my point. Capitalism is great at preserving resources. At the very core of capitalism is interaction between the supply and demand of scare resources. If supply is low and demand is high, prices go up and demand decreases. Or they have to find alternatives which is another great benefit of capitalism; innovation.

Uhhh... what? I thought teh idea of war on terrorism was to stop terrorism. A new kind wont help us in anyway, and we have supported Irsrael with weapons for several years. Our hypocrisy of giving weapons to an old ally only to fight them as a new enemy would be as blatantly stupid as the Vietnam War or Iraq in the first place. It's just a giant cycle, and Americans in general need to learn to stop it.
Stop it by doing nothing?

It's not just the patriot act. It's false statistics, covered up death, and not to mention the fact that as of now the President has lied to us. A fellow YW'r is in Iraq right now, how would you feel if he died for a damn lie? I admire his bravery but if its all in vain then I would be extremely angry, and I cannot imagine what his family would feel.

American is based on the principles of honesty and freedom of speech. I don't know enough about Korean history, but I know that the apparent freedom that is promised to ALL OF ITS CITIZENS needs to be upheld in America.

Have you heard of "free speech zones"? Protesters aren't allowed to be within like a certain distance from the president. They have designated zones for the protesters to be, so that way the President cant even see them and the media deosnt cover their protesting.

It just seems like our civil rights shouldnt be trampled because of our opinions. If you ignore your civil rights, they will go away. (<-- I saw that on a bumber sticker :smile: )
That's all nice but that still doesn't address the FACT that there are nations out there who are a lot worse off. Fight for freedom in the US. Go ahead. But that doesn't negate the need for more freedom and democracy around the world.
I mean if John Gotti stopped the genocide in Rwanda would you have said "What a hypocrite! He has no right to stop murders!"?

I want America to stop being selfish and actually try to deal with the people- you know, like Democracy says. But as of now the situation has become so inflated that I have no idea how we can resolve this without tenfold of the amount of tensions and resentment that there already is. Frankly, its dire.
We here all know the problems. But few people are willing to offer solutions other than doing nothing.

[SunWuKong]

Would China be better off practicing pure communism?


of course not. but that's like asking if the US would be better off practicing pure capitalism.

while under communism, you won't have many millionaires, i'm willing to bet that a society also won't have nearly as many people living in poverty as a capitalistic society. there're also other things like wealth gap, gender equality, labour rights, etc etc. none of those things are a concern in a pure capitalistic society.

anyway i'm only pointing out that it's erroneous to say that communism naturally makes a country poor, when the reason that communist countries have been poor is because they had been targetted by capitalistic and better established societies for economic sanctions.

[BaiginLong]

ok time to jump back into this
Would China be better off practicing pure communism?

Capitalism creates wealth with an efficiency and speed that no other economic system could match. I can't see how anyone could argue against that but I'm willing to learn.there is no such thing as pure capitalism
quit preaching it when you don't have a pure example to call upon
the best you can do is vouch for certain elements

What sort of obstacles are there for poor people to succeed? We need to work on our educational system and work to reduce crime in inner-cities but what other specifics were you refering to?it takes money to make money at many times
having a car to get to work in the first place can be a difficulty for those who have no credit

What financial incentive does the US have in Israel? The US HAS been a middle-man in the peace talks. Oslo was almost sucessful and it wasn't the US that messed it up but the US that made peace possible.there was no financial incentive but there was an obligation from the second World War that the US had to upholdwhich was made because of the Holocaust and the fact that we ignored it for too long

You have a really harsh view of the world's most generous nation. What do we get out of sending food aid to North Korea or money for AIDS prevention in Africa or medical aid to Iran? If we're that greedy shouldn't we be keeping that money?The incentive is that it keeps the world from turning on us and making the UN decide that we're abusing our power
of course we're already doing that to some degree because of the stupid things we're doing at the moment

You missed my point. Capitalism is great at preserving resources. At the very core of capitalism is interaction between the supply and demand of scare resources. If supply is low and demand is high, prices go up and demand decreases. Or they have to find alternatives which is another great benefit of capitalism; innovation.you forget the other thing that capitalism is based on: every man for himself
it is supposed to balance out supply and demand by adjusting prices correct?
what if the suppliers refuse to budge and decide to keep their margin of profit (which mind you happens quite often) then they simply increase supply
increasing supply taxes upon natural resources
quit using the ideal of capitalism and focus on the reality of what it is

Stop it by doing nothing?you can't stop it
you can only reduce it's frequency and dull it's effects
I've said that in my first post


That's all nice but that still doesn't address the FACT that there are nations out there who are a lot worse off. Fight for freedom in the US. Go ahead. But that doesn't negate the need for more freedom and democracy around the world.
I mean if John Gotti stopped the genocide in Rwanda would you have said "What a hypocrite! He has no right to stop murders!"?if he did something to that effect that did NOT have a negative aftershock then we couldn't criticize that action
but take a look at the U.S.'s actions
what our nation does has lingering and domino effects
and many time they are very negative
you can say all this crap about freedom but can we really define freedom for everyone in every nation
we have no right to prance around fighting for freedom not only because we are being hypocritical (though it is a LARGE part of the reason) but mainly because we are human
and who are we as humans to judge and decide for others who did not ask for our intervention

We here all know the problems. But few people are willing to offer solutions other than doing nothing.haha there are always hypothetical solutions but they are often infeasible
i can give one but unless I know all the factors I can't be certain whether or not it will work given the current condition of the world
and frankly even if I did know all the factors there is always the unexpected
and no one here can see the future

[Shogun Empress]

There can be only one solution to terrorism. We must build a giant robot.
Like the Sentinels from X-Men?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

they don't hate america 'cuz americans have nice big cars... they hate america because of what america did in the middle east. it's not cultural -- it's 'cuz we think everyone's business is our business.
So why do the terrorists hate everyone else?

Look, I'm utterly unsympathetic towards the US Middle East policy, come from a moderate Muslim country, and plan to retire back there because I appreciate the society. But it gets old really fast listening to people making US-centric excuses for why Islamofascist terrorists want to blow people up. Did Bali recently invade Iraq? Did Sudanese Christians defile Mecca? Did the Malaysian army rape and slaughter Muslim women? Were profits from karaoke bars in Kuala Terengganu funnelled to the Israeli army and used to kill Palestinian children?

[Banana]

Or the Manhunters from Justice League?

[ShortNBitter]

ok time to jump back into this
there is no such thing as pure capitalism
quit preaching it when you don't have a pure example to call upon
the best you can do is vouch for certain elements
w00t! Baiginlong to the rescue! gangbang time 4 u, ye110man! haha.

Its true. Pure Communism and pure Capitalism as of now probably do not exist. In America alone we have so much welfare programs its almost a gigantic parasite on America according to the Capitalist system. The best would b some sort of in the middle policy which allows for slack in order to adjust to any situation.



it takes money to make money at many times
having a car to get to work in the first place can be a difficulty for those who have no credit

I agree. Liek I said, SATs are based more on money and test prep nowadays than anything. Colleges don't always offer financial aid. Car house Education all cost money. Hell, having a job costs money. Besides, If your parents don't have a nice house, you probably don't live near a good school, if you don't go to a good school, you probably won't get into a good college, bad education = bad job, bad job = bad house. Its a giant cycle which perpetuates into infinite.


What financial incentive does the US have in Israel? The US HAS been a middle-man in the peace talks. Oslo was almost sucessful and it wasn't the US that messed it up but the US that made peace possible.
You have a really harsh view of the world's most generous nation. What do we get out of sending food aid to North Korea or money for AIDS prevention in Africa or medical aid to Iran? If we're that greedy shouldn't we be keeping that money?


Oh my god. It's the same reason we got into the Congo, Korea, Vietnam, Europe, Africa Japan for gods sakes! Location! Its based on the idea of containment. We want as many footholds in the Middle East as we can get so that if any of them start acting up about our dirt cheap oil, we can squelch the issue immediately. Its based on the military principles of getting an advantage in terrain. America has so many army bases around the world, they can distribute their weapons to all of thme and just blow up any sucker there is.


You missed my point. Capitalism is great at preserving resources. At the very core of capitalism is interaction between the supply and demand of scare resources. If supply is low and demand is high, prices go up and demand decreases. Or they have to find alternatives which is another great benefit of capitalism; innovation.
[quote=BaiginLong]
you forget the other thing that capitalism is based on: every man for himself
it is supposed to balance out supply and demand by adjusting prices correct?
what if the suppliers refuse to budge and decide to keep their margin of profit (which mind you happens quite often) then they simply increase supply
increasing supply taxes upon natural resources
quit using the ideal of capitalism and focus on the reality of what it is

I totally agree with Baigin. Throughout American History, especially after the Civil War, America has continuously supportd the destruction of work unions, labor strikes, and civil rights movements which set thme back several years if not forever. Not only that, but many Americans know nothing about these events and think that America is just peachy. Not only that, but American NATIONAL GUARD was called on protesters who were trying to prevent the change in "status quo."

I know you say that supply and demand plays a part in it, but after a time the supply will diminish and we will be left with nothing. THAT is why capitalism will eventuall engulf itself. I don't understand how you can praise a system which is working to its own destruction.

Stop it by doing nothing?
Something must bedone but America has been doing the same old tricks, and it seemthat people are adapting considering thye are calling this "Bush's Vietnam"-- which just happens to be undefeated as a nation ^_^ (ViEt PRide NigGA! lol :biggrin: )



That's all nice but that still doesn't address the FACT that there are nations out there who are a lot worse off. Fight for freedom in the US. Go ahead. But that doesn't negate the need for more freedom and democracy around the world.
I mean if John Gotti stopped the genocide in Rwanda would you have said "What a hypocrite! He has no right to stop murders!"?

First off, people die all the time in Africa Korea and American government has done nothing to stop the death. I think you are a bit nievete by only seeing the moral propaganda America feeds to us. I admit there is some morality involved, but America would never boost their defecit even more than it alreayd is JUST FOR MORALITY. American patterns just dictate it wont.

And I don;t think its right that America go out and colonize nations imperialistically under the banner of spreading "freedom and equality for all" when thye themselves don't support it. It's hypocritical, and if the American government truly was spreading it, they would try not to be the evil that they deplore.


We here all know the problems. But few people are willing to offer solutions other than doing nothing.
My solution would be another revolution, for the people, by the people. We should take back the curropted and perverted America run by the puppet strings of the rich white men in order to create what America was supposed to be about. A MORE PERFECT UNION. It certainly seems radical, but frankly thats all I can see to revive America itself.

As for Iraq, the US should give literally like 90 poercet of all decisions to the U.N. Stay involved, but this is now a national affair and it should be delt with by the U.N.

The only problem with a grand scale revolution is that AMERICANS ARE LAZY. They are too busy and intoxicated by watching TV and the lives of celebrities. Ok i have to go to 2nd period now, but i basically said what I wanted to say but w/o my really cool conclusion.

[Bhodi_Li]

Like the Sentinels from X-Men?ooooo how bad would that be!!!! A terrorist seeking robot!!! Only one problem.... what if the terrorists steal one and reprogram it to seek out imperialists?

[Yeahman]

Its true. Pure Communism and pure Capitalism as of now probably do not exist. In America alone we have so much welfare programs its almost a gigantic parasite on America according to the Capitalist system. The best would b some sort of in the middle policy which allows for slack in order to adjust to any situation.
I never said anything about pure capitalism! Hell I said that we need safeguards including elements of socialism! Quit making shit up.

I agree. Liek I said, SATs are based more on money and test prep nowadays than anything. Colleges don't always offer financial aid. Car house Education all cost money. Hell, having a job costs money. Besides, If your parents don't have a nice house, you probably don't live near a good school, if you don't go to a good school, you probably won't get into a good college, bad education = bad job, bad job = bad house. Its a giant cycle which perpetuates into infinite.
Again, I already address education! I explicitly asked for examples other than education!
Every human deserves a house. A car? I know plenty of people making 6 figures without a car. Besides it's not like you get a free car in any other economic system.

Oh my god. It's the same reason we got into the Congo, Korea, Vietnam, Europe, Africa Japan for gods sakes! Location! Its based on the idea of containment. We want as many footholds in the Middle East as we can get so that if any of them start acting up about our dirt cheap oil, we can squelch the issue immediately. Its based on the military principles of getting an advantage in terrain. America has so many army bases around the world, they can distribute their weapons to all of thme and just blow up any sucker there is.
That is some conspiracy theory. We send aid to Africa and Iran and North Korea to gain military advantage even though no military is being sent.

I totally agree with Baigin. Throughout American History, especially after the Civil War, America has continuously supportd the destruction of work unions, labor strikes, and civil rights movements which set thme back several years if not forever. Not only that, but many Americans know nothing about these events and think that America is just peachy. Not only that, but American NATIONAL GUARD was called on protesters who were trying to prevent the change in "status quo."

I know you say that supply and demand plays a part in it, but after a time the supply will diminish and we will be left with nothing. THAT is why capitalism will eventuall engulf itself. I don't understand how you can praise a system which is working to its own destruction.
OK I don't think you know how supply and demand works. Pick up any old economics book.

First off, people die all the time in Africa Korea and American government has done nothing to stop the death. I think you are a bit nievete by only seeing the moral propaganda America feeds to us. I admit there is some morality involved, but America would never boost their defecit even more than it alreayd is JUST FOR MORALITY. American patterns just dictate it wont.
So sending money to help prevent AIDS in Africa despite our deficit is really because...?
I think you are very naivete for only seeing the immoral propoganda that the media feeds us. The media by their very nature does not report what goes right. Usually people realize that though a lot of things go wrong which the media reports, a hell of a lot more things go right which the media has no interest in reporting. Unfortuately many people aren't capable of filtering the news in that manner.

And I don;t think its right that America go out and colonize nations imperialistically under the banner of spreading "freedom and equality for all" when thye themselves don't support it. It's hypocritical, and if the American government truly was spreading it, they would try not to be the evil that they deplore.
I don't think colonizing other nations is right either. When was the last time we did that? Hawaii?
And who doesn't want freedom and democracy?

My solution would be another revolution, for the people, by the people. We should take back the curropted and perverted America run by the puppet strings of the rich white men in order to create what America was supposed to be about. A MORE PERFECT UNION. It certainly seems radical, but frankly thats all I can see to revive America itself.

As for Iraq, the US should give literally like 90 poercet of all decisions to the U.N. Stay involved, but this is now a national affair and it should be delt with by the U.N.

The only problem with a grand scale revolution is that AMERICANS ARE LAZY. They are too busy and intoxicated by watching TV and the lives of celebrities. Ok i have to go to 2nd period now, but i basically said what I wanted to say but w/o my really cool conclusion.
Thank Mr. Castro.
So to create peace and stability all over the world we have to revive America? What the hell is wrong with you people?

[deez nuts]

So why do the terrorists hate everyone else?

Look, I'm utterly unsympathetic towards the US Middle East policy, come from a moderate Muslim country, and plan to retire back there because I appreciate the society. But it gets old really fast listening to people making US-centric excuses for why Islamofascist terrorists want to blow people up. Did Bali recently invade Iraq? Did Sudanese Christians defile Mecca? Did the Malaysian army rape and slaughter Muslim women? Were profits from karaoke bars in Kuala Terengganu funnelled to the Israeli army and used to kill Palestinian children?


couldn't have said it better myself.

[BaiginLong]

w00t! Baiginlong to the rescue! gangbang time 4 u, ye110man! haha.

Its true. Pure Communism and pure Capitalism as of now probably do not exist. In America alone we have so much welfare programs its almost a gigantic parasite on America according to the Capitalist system. The best would b some sort of in the middle policy which allows for slack in order to adjust to any situation.
I never said anything about pure capitalism! Hell I said that we need safeguards including elements of socialism! Quit making shit up.This is true for both sides HOWEVER yell0man
the statement I addressed was very revealing about your ideals
and I quote: Would China be better off practicing pure communism?

Capitalism creates wealth with an efficiency and speed that no other economic system could match. I can't see how anyone could argue against that but I'm willing to learnyou were clearly creating a driect contrast between pure communism and pure capitalism

I agree. Liek I said, SATs are based more on money and test prep nowadays than anything. Colleges don't always offer financial aid. Car house Education all cost money. Hell, having a job costs money. Besides, If your parents don't have a nice house, you probably don't live near a good school, if you don't go to a good school, you probably won't get into a good college, bad education = bad job, bad job = bad house. Its a giant cycle which perpetuates into infinite.Again, I already address education! I explicitly asked for examples other than education!
Every human deserves a house. A car? I know plenty of people making 6 figures without a car. Besides it's not like you get a free car in any other economic system.ye110man you sound like someone who ain't never been poor
I spent the first 4 years of my life in the back of my father's carry out in a black ghetto in Chicago the next 4-5 in a spanish barrio and the next 3-4 in Chicago's Chinatown
the poor stay poor in many cases
you want me to go into detail?
FINE
when you are poor
you have to worry about food (which basically keeps you alive), clothes (which keep you warm and depending on how you look at times it can make or break a job interview), a car (which you may or may not have and fankly if you don't have you are pretty much barred from many good job oppurtunities), house (a given), education (books and supplies), ETC.

Oh my god. It's the same reason we got into the Congo, Korea, Vietnam, Europe, Africa Japan for gods sakes! Location! Its based on the idea of containment. We want as many footholds in the Middle East as we can get so that if any of them start acting up about our dirt cheap oil, we can squelch the issue immediately. Its based on the military principles of getting an advantage in terrain. America has so many army bases around the world, they can distribute their weapons to all of thme and just blow up any sucker there is.That is some conspiracy theory. We send aid to Africa and Iran and North Korea to gain military advantage even though no military is being sent.both of you could be right in this case but it's all just speculation as to why they do this
oh and at least a few military personel are sent to protect those aid organizations at times
and ye110man you didn't address my answer about Israel

I totally agree with Baigin. Throughout American History, especially after the Civil War, America has continuously supportd the destruction of work unions, labor strikes, and civil rights movements which set thme back several years if not forever. Not only that, but many Americans know nothing about these events and think that America is just peachy. Not only that, but American NATIONAL GUARD was called on protesters who were trying to prevent the change in "status quo."

I know you say that supply and demand plays a part in it, but after a time the supply will diminish and we will be left with nothing. THAT is why capitalism will eventuall engulf itself. I don't understand how you can praise a system which is working to its own destruction.
OK I don't think you know how supply and demand works. Pick up any old economics book.again you're referring to the cut and dry concept of economy and capitalism in a book
ideally capitalism would work as sdescribed in the book but it doesn't cover all
ummm SNB you made a mistake
supply isn't dimishing though natural resources are
which essentially is the problem here
ye110man please address my previous argument if you have a counter
and don't tell me I don't know my economics
I do
I took the macroecomonics AP exam back in senior year of high school and fell asleep for an hour during it
I still managed a 5 (top score)

Something must bedone but America has been doing the same old tricks, and it seemthat people are adapting considering thye are calling this "Bush's Vietnam"-- which just happens to be undefeated as a nation ^_^ (ViEt PRide NigGA! lol :biggrin: ):rolleyes:

First off, people die all the time in Africa Korea and American government has done nothing to stop the death. I think you are a bit nievete by only seeing the moral propaganda America feeds to us. I admit there is some morality involved, but America would never boost their defecit even more than it alreayd is JUST FOR MORALITY. American patterns just dictate it wont.So sending money to help prevent AIDS in Africa despite our deficit is really because...?
I think you are very naivete for only seeing the immoral propoganda that the media feeds us. The media by their very nature does not report what goes right. Usually people realize that though a lot of things go wrong which the media reports, a hell of a lot more things go right which the media has no interest in reporting. Unfortuately many people aren't capable of filtering the news in that manner.AIDS effects the entire world thus the US has a vested interest in the health of its citizens
also this is an isolated situation involving no use of military force
are you saying that every action the US takes overseas is a humanitarian effort
and that we should not be judged?

And I don;t think its right that America go out and colonize nations imperialistically under the banner of spreading "freedom and equality for all" when thye themselves don't support it. It's hypocritical, and if the American government truly was spreading it, they would try not to be the evil that they deplore.I don't think colonizing other nations is right either. When was the last time we did that? Hawaii?
And who doesn't want freedom and democracy?freedom is relative and democracy is not always the govermental system of choice
you're sounding like the entire world should be a part of America
the question is whether or not the believe in our definition of democracy

My solution would be another revolution, for the people, by the people. We should take back the curropted and perverted America run by the puppet strings of the rich white men in order to create what America was supposed to be about. A MORE PERFECT UNION. It certainly seems radical, but frankly thats all I can see to revive America itself.

As for Iraq, the US should give literally like 90 poercet of all decisions to the U.N. Stay involved, but this is now a national affair and it should be delt with by the U.N.

The only problem with a grand scale revolution is that AMERICANS ARE LAZY. They are too busy and intoxicated by watching TV and the lives of celebrities. Ok i have to go to 2nd period now, but i basically said what I wanted to say but w/o my really cool conclusion.Thank Mr. Castro.
So to create peace and stability all over the world we have to revive America? What the hell is wrong with you people?dude SNB
ye110man is right here
that is VERY extremist
it would seriously destablize the world

[kitty]

So why do the terrorists hate everyone else?


Do they? Define 'everyone else'? It seems to me that the terrorists we have heard of are pissed at anyone butting their nose in the middle east situation and helping their enemies, skewing the battle in the enemy's favour.

I would be pissed too if me and my neighbour were arguing over something and colin powell and the entire Texas Nat'l Guard showed up for no apparent reason and started lobbing grenades at my house when they had (ostensibly) nothing to do with the situation in the first place.

OBVIOUSLY an oversimplification and full of fallacies of what is actually going on, but I'm talking about perception and just gut resentment.

And again, I'm using a US-centric P.O.V. because of the way the question is stated.


Look, I'm utterly unsympathetic towards the US Middle East policy, come from a moderate Muslim country, and plan to retire back there because I appreciate the society. But it gets old really fast listening to people making US-centric excuses for why Islamofascist terrorists want to blow people up. Did Bali recently invade Iraq? Did Sudanese Christians defile Mecca? Did the Malaysian army rape and slaughter Muslim women? Were profits from karaoke bars in Kuala Terengganu funnelled to the Israeli army and used to kill Palestinian children?

And I'm tired of hearing that all the 'brown' cultures are inherently terrorists and morally degraded and it's become white America's war to wipe them out.

edit: here's where the confusion is. *I* am talking about the terrorists that America is obsessed with. You are not. I'm a strong advocate that terrorism is a global phenomenon and not limited to those who are currently against America in the middle east. But this thread has thus far been focussing on the middle Eastern terrorists, so that is the context under which my earlier post was made.

[Adaon]

w00t! Baiginlong to the rescue! gangbang time 4 u, ye110man! haha. Dude, show some respect for someone else's differing point of views. If his facts are shaky to you, show it to him. It's not a mudslinging contest or anything. Sheesh.

Its true. Pure Communism and pure Capitalism as of now probably do not exist. In America alone we have so much welfare programs its almost a gigantic parasite on America according to the Capitalist system. The best would b some sort of in the middle policy which allows for slack in order to adjust to any situation.
And the search for such a middle way policy has been going on in American government since the New Deal (as far as my memory goes, I'm too brain dead from class to think back further, I'll try to dig up more later). Still there's nothing that's close, so in the mean time, if something's working, let it work until something feasible comes up.



I agree. Liek I said, SATs are based more on money and test prep nowadays than anything. Colleges don't always offer financial aid. Car house Education all cost money. Hell, having a job costs money. Besides, If your parents don't have a nice house, you probably don't live near a good school, if you don't go to a good school, you probably won't get into a good college, bad education = bad job, bad job = bad house. Its a giant cycle which perpetuates into infinite.
Man, i'm glad you didn't inspire any of the american inventors from american history. they'd be pretty down to learn that they couldn't get rich. Esp Andrew Carnegie and a few others that currently slip my mind. No one said that EVERYONE would be able to go and climb the ladder and get shitloads of cash. But the possibility of getting the shitloads of cash to improve yourself is there.



Oh my god. It's the same reason we got into the Congo, Korea, Vietnam, Europe, Africa Japan for gods sakes! Location! Its based on the idea of containment.
yeah, I agree, that was american fear of the red. idiots.

We want as many footholds in the Middle East as we can get so that if any of them start acting up about our dirt cheap oil, we can squelch the issue immediately. Its based on the military principles of getting an advantage in terrain. America has so many army bases around the world, they can distribute their weapons to all of thme and just blow up any sucker there is.
basically, tactically, having a base nearby to where your fighting helps a lot. I guess havin' a tactical advantage in case of military conflict is really bad.


I totally agree with Baigin. Throughout American History, especially after the Civil War, America has continuously supportd the destruction of work unions, labor strikes, and civil rights movements which set thme back several years if not forever.
I can't and won't speak about the civil rights movement as per, i'm friggen brain dead, and there are more people here who can eloquently put it into words better than I, but you should re-read some of your late 19th century and early 20th century american history, when the labor unions began. The American government didn't just break up unions and labor strikes. Those that were recorded (and that I remember) that were broken up were done so due to the fact that the American economy at the time was heavily dependent on the industries that had strikes.

I gotta split, but I'll respond more a bit later.

[John0101]

First to address some of the nonsense that was posted above...

Capitalism works. Sure it's not perfect but with some finetuning it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives. OK I will examine all alternatives, but I challange anyone to make the case that another economic system is superior to capitalism in any country.

It should have reminded you of the direct opposite of the Crusades. There was nothing political about the Crusades and it was to reclaim the Holy Land not to take over the world or spread Christianity.
go.

First of all people's opinions are not "nonsense".

Theres a whole lot of smart people in my economics department, people holding Ph.Ds from MIT, Duke, Harvard etc. who can argue whether capitalism is the best system for all. Economics is the study of people's usage of resources under scarity. So, IMO any model in which you simplify human behavior is doomed to be biased and questionable. The only certainity in human behavior is uncertainity. How do we really define what mode of production is better then the other and is the best? You can't and if you do, your baised.

I learned in the 6th grade that the Crusades was about reclaiming Holy Land (without much explaination). Then this semester I learned that the purpose of the crusades was about expanding the feudal mode of production. Other people would say it was about the unity of Europe and to expand the power of the Church. Ironically the Crusades leads to the creation of mercentilism in which Europe pratically did take over the world. If the Crusades were such a complex issue was it really just about taking back the Holy Land?

[kitty]

I'm fairly certain that the Crusades had something to do with the spread of Christianity. What with calling them heathens and all that.

[Shogun Empress]

I'm fairly certain that the Crusades had something to do with the spread of Christianity. What with calling them heathens and all that.
I once read a book that told the story of both King Richard and Saladin last year. In this book, King Richard the Lion Heart, killed over 600 muslims in battle and also slept with the King of France several times until the French guy sold him out. Whenever Saladin captured a respected and honorable Christian warrior of the Crusades, he would try to persuade them that if they renounced their Catholic faith for Islam, he would let them go. King Richard died from a battlewound that was inflicted upon him by the hands of his own subject. What trips me out is that he gave the kid who shot him with the crossbow some money. Was it a bag of a 100 silver coins? I forgot. This is the same King Richard that Prince John is scared shitless of in the tale of Robin Hood.

[kitty]

... sorry, i must've missed the point of that post? are you trying to say that the crusades didn't have anything to do w/ the spread of christianity?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

... sorry, i must've missed the point of that post? are you trying to say that the crusades didn't have anything to do w/ the spread of christianity?

I think it's pretty much engraved fact regarding the link between the crusades and the abuse of christian doctrine in order to justify self-serving acts of violence and horror. Not much room for argument here.

[kitty]

agreed. i'm sure there were political reasons too, but one can't deny the christianity-abusing motivations.

it's like the multi-faceted reasons we're in iraq -- we can't just say it's one thing or another, because the fact is that many reasons led to the decision to fight that battle.

[Shogun Empress]

... sorry, i must've missed the point of that post?
It's okay. I just thought that if I posted some of what I remembered from the book, it would interest anyone who read it, into picking up a book and reading about the Crusades. It was an interesting period in history. When you mentioned the Crusades, I felt that deep down in my bones the War on Terrorism was a continuation of that War and of a war that began eons before that... If it was 2000 years ago, how would the flow of this conversation go? Do you wonder?

[kitty]

It's okay. I just thought that if I posted some of what I remembered from the book, it would interest anyone who read it, into picking up a book and reading about the Crusades. It was an interesting period in history. When you mentioned the Crusades, I felt that deep down in my bones the War on Terrorism was a continuation of that War and of a war that began eons before that... If it was 2000 years ago, how would the flow of this conversation go? Do you wonder?

we probably wouldn't be having this conversation because there wouldn't be any computers or the internet.

besides which, it doesn't sound like that book is very factual. you might consider posting some sort of biographical information if you want to convince someone to try and read it.

[Shogun Empress]

besides which, it doesn't sound like that book is very factual. you might consider posting some sort of biographical information if you want to convince someone to try and read it.
*sighs*

*does google search for The Crusades*

Results 1 - 10 of about 443,000

Oh hell no.

I can't remember the name of the book!

I just remember the first couple words of the title. It was The Lion and the... :confused:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Do you wonder?

I wonder what your point is, haha, that's what I wonder

[kitty]

*sighs*

*does google search for The Crusades*

Results 1 - 10 of about 443,000

Oh hell no.

I can't remember the name of the book!

I just remember the first couple words of the title. It was The Lion and the... :confused:

well, sweetie, it was merely a suggestion because if it's impossible for you to find the book without a title or author, having read it, it would be impossible for anyone to take you up on that suggestion and read it for themselves.

just trying to help out.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

*sighs*

*does google search for The Crusades*

Results 1 - 10 of about 443,000

Oh hell no.

I can't remember the name of the book!

I just remember the first couple words of the title. It was The Lion and the... :confused:

The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe?

[kitty]

The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe?

dammit! I was gonna post that! you beat me to it!

[Shogun Empress]

The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe?
:mad:

[Kuchana]

*sighs*

*does google search for The Crusades*

Results 1 - 10 of about 443,000

Oh hell no.

I can't remember the name of the book!

I just remember the first couple words of the title. It was The Lion and the... :confused:

The Lion In Winter?? That was a movie with Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn in it but I don't know if there was a book as well.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

dammit! I was gonna post that! you beat me to it!

Just getting you back for beating me to the "a penis??" response to "I'm blessed with assets that most women don't have". haha

[Martino]

Like the Sentinels from X-Men?

Can we afford more than one giant robot?

[Shogun Empress]

The Lion In Winter?? That was a movie with Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn in it but I don't know if there was a book as well.WTH? No. A lot of books bore me. The fact that I took the time to read it all because it kept my attention, means that it was a very good book (even though I didn't care for how long the author spent describing King Richard's wierd sexual escapades).

Can we afford more than one giant robot?
Metal Gear is under DARPA so it doesn't count since DARPA officially doesn't exist :smile:

[kitty]

The Lion In Winter?? That was a movie with Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn in it but I don't know if there was a book as well.

was it about the crusades and king richard killing 600 heathen moors in one fell swoop?

Just getting you back for beating me to the "a penis??" response to "I'm blessed with assets that most women don't have". haha

ohh... then we're even :)

Was it?

Warriors of God : Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385495625/qid=1082148328/sr=8-11/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i11_xgl14/002-3459879-7634433?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

or

Lionhearts: Richard 1, Saladin, and the Era of the Third Crusade (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802713548/ref=pd_sim_books_3/002-3459879-7634433?v=glance&s=books)

[VV o n g B a]

here's a solution that is fantasy but is still an interesting idea... and if anyone's played deus ex: invisible war, it will be familiar.

capitalism is the best model we have for running efficient economies. the problem is that this doesn't mean that it's fair simply b/c ppl are born w/ different mental capacities and different economic backgrounds. if u're born w/ a 70 IQ in africa, chances are u won't be getting far in the world. even if u have a 150 IQ, chances are that u won't get as rich as a guy w/ 150 IQ born in the US to a billionaire father.

democracy is the best model we have for running stable governments. the problem is that democracies can't represent the true wants of a society b/c politicians can't communicate their thoughts to everyone as clearly as they have them in their own minds and voters can't make truly informed decisions because they lack the mental capacity or the patience to sit through and interpret boring political speeches. and even if communication was perfect, voting only happens at period intervals on the order of years. if a new issue arises and voters want to have a say in it, they won't really get a chance for several years.

the solution is nonconsentual worldwide biomodification to extreme levels. if everyone on earth suddenly were gifted with the same intellectual ability and educational background as everyone else, AND if they could then instantly convey their wishes to a centralized governing entity, which then took the aggregate opinions of INFORMED ppl and the degree to which they support one measure or another, then war would become a thing of the past.

the reason for any war is either over economics or politics/religion but often both. if ppl were suddenly gifted with the same intellectual ability and education, everyone would be capable of making a living. if they were all able to vote on an issue and have instantaneous results so that another vote could be made the next second w/o disrupting their daily life, political efficiency would rise. and if laws were agreed upon by a majority of the population that harming other ppl thru violence was bad, then the governing entity would be capable of picking out imminent threats to society and dispense with them.

[SunWuKong]

i have a better solution: masturbation.

that's right. if everybody masturbates at least twice a day, the world will be a more peaceful place.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

i have a better solution: masturbation.

that's right. if everybody masturbates at least twice a day, the world will be a more peaceful place.

This idea is flawed. I'm sure nowadays more than ever, the vast majority of guys do more than their fair share of mongoose petting, yet this world is only getting more violent...or is this just another case of me assuming that all guys have the same lifestyle as I do >_<

[Martino]

This idea is flawed. I'm sure nowadays more than ever, the vast majority of guys do more than their fair share of mongoose petting, yet this world is only getting more violent...or is this just another case of me assuming that all guys have the same lifestyle as I do >_<

If everyone started slapping the salami at EXACTLY the same time, wouldn't it cause a big earthquake ... ?

[color=redI can't remember the name of the book!

I just remember the first couple words of the title. It was The Lion and the... :confused: [/color]

... the Witch and the Wardrobe?

That would be about as accurate as the traditional view of what the original Crusades were all about ....

[Yeahman]

This is true for both sides HOWEVER yell0man
the statement I addressed was very revealing about your ideals
and I quote: you were clearly creating a driect contrast between pure communism and pure capitalism
Actually it was clearly a contrast between pure communism and impure communism.

ye110man you sound like someone who ain't never been poor
I spent the first 4 years of my life in the back of my father's carry out in a black ghetto in Chicago the next 4-5 in a spanish barrio and the next 3-4 in Chicago's Chinatown
the poor stay poor in many cases
you want me to go into detail?
FINE
when you are poor
you have to worry about food (which basically keeps you alive), clothes (which keep you warm and depending on how you look at times it can make or break a job interview), a car (which you may or may not have and fankly if you don't have you are pretty much barred from many good job oppurtunities), house (a given), education (books and supplies), ETC.
That's nice. I lived in the ghettos of Chicago too for 8 years. 4 of us in a 1 bedroom then 6 of us in a 2 bedroom. We got most of our stuff from the Salvation Army. After we moved to NYC things got a LOT better and today, we have 3 houses including the one I'm in right now valued at about $1 mil.
So yes people can make it.
But WTF does this have to do with anything?! Like I said twice already, we need safeguards. Everybody deserves food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare.

both of you could be right in this case but it's all just speculation as to why they do this
oh and at least a few military personel are sent to protect those aid organizations at times
and ye110man you didn't address my answer about Israel
Because there was no disagreement.

again you're referring to the cut and dry concept of economy and capitalism in a book
ideally capitalism would work as sdescribed in the book but it doesn't cover all
ummm SNB you made a mistake
supply isn't dimishing though natural resources are
which essentially is the problem here
ye110man please address my previous argument if you have a counter
and don't tell me I don't know my economics
I do
I took the macroecomonics AP exam back in senior year of high school and fell asleep for an hour during it
I still managed a 5 (top score)
Dude you really like show off don't you?
Let me give you a refresher.
Say many years from now the world is very low on oil. Because demand outstripes supply, prices rise. So oil is at $100/barrel. At that price point there is less demand. There is conservation of resources. Not only that but it causes innovation to charge full speed and we see cars that get more mpg's and alternative energy sources.

That's how capitalism works.

AIDS effects the entire world thus the US has a vested interest in the health of its citizens
also this is an isolated situation involving no use of military force
are you saying that every action the US takes overseas is a humanitarian effort
and that we should not be judged?
No. But the US does a LOT of humanitarian work. It isn't "isolated." I gave a couple of other examples. Liberals just don't like the idea that the US does good too.

freedom is relative and democracy is not always the govermental system of choice
you're sounding like the entire world should be a part of America
the question is whether or not the believe in our definition of democracy
Giving a voice to the people. That's the democracy I'm talking about.
Freedom is not relative.

First of all people's opinions are not "nonsense".
They are if they're just falsities.

Theres a whole lot of smart people in my economics department, people holding Ph.Ds from MIT, Duke, Harvard etc. who can argue whether capitalism is the best system for all. Economics is the study of people's usage of resources under scarity. So, IMO any model in which you simplify human behavior is doomed to be biased and questionable. The only certainity in human behavior is uncertainity. How do we really define what mode of production is better then the other and is the best? You can't and if you do, your baised.
I don't see what your school's economic's department has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Did you mean that you were going to invite them to this forum?
You CAN evaluate the effectiveness of economic policies. It's not an exact science but it doesn't have to be for the answer to be evident.

I learned in the 6th grade that the Crusades was about reclaiming Holy Land (without much explaination). Then this semester I learned that the purpose of the crusades was about expanding the feudal mode of production. Other people would say it was about the unity of Europe and to expand the power of the Church. Ironically the Crusades leads to the creation of mercentilism in which Europe pratically did take over the world. If the Crusades were such a complex issue was it really just about taking back the Holy Land?
Can you provide sources for the "expanding the feudal mode of production"? I'd like to read more about that.
Mercantilism may have grown out of the Crusades but that has nothing to do with the intent of the Crusades which was to reclaim the Holy Land.

[ShortNBitter]

I never said anything about pure capitalism! Hell I said that we need safeguards including elements of socialism! Quit making shit up.
Aiya! Sorry yellow, I didn't mean to be rude. I won't make anymore personal remarks I'm sorry :frown: edit: and if i do im sorry it was inadvertant

Again, I already address education! I explicitly asked for examples other than education!
Every human deserves a house. A car? I know plenty of people making 6 figures without a car. Besides it's not like you get a free car in any other economic system.

I'm sorry for being repetitive, but Education is a huge factor in today's American society. And for great reason because look at all the areas that branched off from it, including Baigin's very good points.

Some other ones however can be that Doctors cost alot of money. Hell, being in a hospital costs alot of money. Dentists cost alot of money. Lawyers cost alot of money. All of these things, yes can be overcome, but people with money can easily afford these expenses. Alot of upper and middle class America take them for granted, but for some poor families, it isnt even an option.

(Sorri I have to go back to education... the AP Chem book at my school costs 150 dollars... I personally think thats alot)

That is some conspiracy theory. We send aid to Africa and Iran and North Korea to gain military advantage even though no military is being sent.

Noooo I don't mean now. I meant in the past. During the Korean war, Americans sent troops over. Vietnam war, Americans sent troops over. Congo, I don't remember what happened, but American government supported two coups in the COngo.

It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but they are conspiracies. Iran-Contra Affair was probably one of the most outrageous events of American history, but a large majority of people don't even know waht it is. Or the national security plan of REX-84. Even fewer people know about those camps, and the saddest thing is that the American government is still keeping it quiet.

Whether you like it or not, America still has colonies.

OK I don't think you know how supply and demand works. Pick up any old economics book.

I will just drop this since you are probably right, I don't know what I am talkin about.

So sending money to help prevent AIDS in Africa despite our deficit is really because...?
I think you are very naivete for only seeing the immoral propoganda that the media feeds us. The media by their very nature does not report what goes right. Usually people realize that though a lot of things go wrong which the media reports, a hell of a lot more things go right which the media has no interest in reporting. Unfortuately many people aren't capable of filtering the news in that manner.




I don't think colonizing other nations is right either. When was the last time we did that? Hawaii?
And who doesn't want freedom and democracy?
ok well since you mentioned Hawaii ill start there. Hawaii had in the first place been under a sphere of influence, but at least they were still self ruled by Queen Lilokilani (sp?). But that wasn't enough. American business interest leaded to the invasion with military to annex Hawaii. Lilokilani backed down because she didn't want her people hurt.

But after that lets not forget that America supported Panama against Colombia. Yes I guess that could be called for freedom and democracy, but it was also in order to build the Panama Canal. WHICH America did use for huge profits, similar to a colony.

Also, America helped to overthrow Jose Santos Zelaya in Nicaragua who was a freedom fighter against the British colonists. He also started revolutions in neighboring countries and tried to reestablish the Central American Federation. Of course, the U.S. sent military to retake it under Anglo Saxon control. Later on the US Occupied Nicaragua too.

America had Cuba as a colony.(1903) Haiti (1915) too.

Not only in Latin America, but Asia too. America forced Japan to open to the West. America pushed the Open Door Policy which opened China. It also colonized many small islands in the Pacific Ocean. All were used as forms of colonies to some degree.

Uhhh ok well Post World War Two... After America defeated Nazi Germany they occupied Western Germany for ten years. Location!!!!! Berlin Airlift, etc etc etc.

Don't forget the occupation of Japan. I know this might not exactly be colonization, but as far as Reconstruction goes, thats basically taking over all politics. These occupations also helped to fuel the Cold War.

American military intervened in Vietnam, Grenada, and Iraq.

And even after that, America assassinated the Shah of Iran. They overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala. Salvadore Allende in Chile. And even more recently, Afghanistan and the Taliban and Saddam Huissen in Iraq.

They might not be exactly colonies like you may be thinking of... but they are used in very similar ways. Don't forget, alot of the leaders America went against were Nationalists- aka freedom fighters themselves, and America supported many vicious dictators.

Thank Mr. Castro.
So to create peace and stability all over the world we have to revive America? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Lol "Castro." uhhh well I think that change should start at home before we can go out and try to save the world. There are plenty of terrorist organizations in America. Terrorist organizations like the KKK, gangs, those people who murder abortion doctors, the really religious right which use violence to get their way are all still in America today and the FBI has done very little to stop it. I'm sorry to sound so extremist radicalist anarchistic and I hope I did not offend you.

ye110man you sound like someone who ain't never been poor
I spent the first 4 years of my life in the back of my father's carry out in a black ghetto in Chicago the next 4-5 in a spanish barrio and the next 3-4 in Chicago's Chinatown
the poor stay poor in many cases
you want me to go into detail?
FINE
when you are poor
you have to worry about food (which basically keeps you alive), clothes (which keep you warm and depending on how you look at times it can make or break a job interview), a car (which you may or may not have and fankly if you don't have you are pretty much barred from many good job oppurtunities), house (a given), education (books and supplies), ETC.

I couldnt have said it better Baigin. props.


again you're referring to the cut and dry concept of economy and capitalism in a book
ideally capitalism would work as sdescribed in the book but it doesn't cover all
ummm SNB you made a mistake
supply isn't dimishing though natural resources are
which essentially is the problem here
ye110man please address my previous argument if you have a counter
and don't tell me I don't know my economics
I do
I took the macroecomonics AP exam back in senior year of high school and fell asleep for an hour during it
I still managed a 5 (top score)

Ya I'm sorri. You guys win in that department.

AIDS effects the entire world thus the US has a vested interest in the health of its citizens
also this is an isolated situation involving no use of military force
are you saying that every action the US takes overseas is a humanitarian effort
and that we should not be judged?

Good point- I never thought about that.

freedom is relative and democracy is not always the govermental system of choice
you're sounding like the entire world should be a part of America
the question is whether or not the believe in our definition of democracy

I'm not sure if that was to me, but I guess you are right I am being very America-centric. I'm really not sure how the entire world can get along with so many people, maybe it is impossible :confused:

dude SNB
ye110man is right here
that is VERY extremist
it would seriously destablize the world

Err I don't understand/ Is ye110man a neo conservative or something? Sorry. Yeah you are right, it would destabalize the world. I was just trying to show how bad its become, when something as ludicrious as that is the only solution I can think of...

Dude, show some respect for someone else's differing point of views. If his facts are shaky to you, show it to him. It's not a mudslinging contest or anything. Sheesh.

sorry again :frown: Im responding to these in chronological order so this thread is gonna be so torn up lol.


And the search for such a middle way policy has been going on in American government since the New Deal (as far as my memory goes, I'm too brain dead from class to think back further, I'll try to dig up more later). Still there's nothing that's close, so in the mean time, if something's working, let it work until something feasible comes up.




Man, i'm glad you didn't inspire any of the american inventors from american history. they'd be pretty down to learn that they couldn't get rich. Esp Andrew Carnegie and a few others that currently slip my mind. No one said that EVERYONE would be able to go and climb the ladder and get shitloads of cash. But the possibility of getting the shitloads of cash to improve yourself is there.

What I am saying is that sometime along the Capitalist system- to be hoenst I'd probably say the start of big business-- people were being exploited.


yeah, I agree, that was american fear of the red. idiots.

Fear of the Reds. Fear of the Terrorists. Fear of the Blacks. Yellow Peril. What is the difference???? Nothing. Tactical Advantage is Tactical Advantage.


basically, tactically, having a base nearby to where your fighting helps a lot. I guess havin' a tactical advantage in case of military conflict is really bad.

How would you like it if the American military took over the schools, the streets, the church, and basically all institutions we all go to. Would you be pissed off? I certainly hope so, but now imagine it is a foreign army. And why are they herE? "Just in case you get attacked." We would have already basically been invaded....


I can't and won't speak about the civil rights movement as per, i'm friggen brain dead, and there are more people here who can eloquently put it into words better than I, but you should re-read some of your late 19th centu