Iraq, again

[alamein]

not again :cry:

[TG Moses VI]

i wouldn’t, if i get paid no matter what i do. let me ask you this. if right now, your boss told you that you could leave right now and go home, and you would still get paid the same amount, what would you do?!!? would you still sit in your cubicle wishing you were at home w/ your wife and kids? or would you go home and do nothing and still get paid? this is the way i think of communism. if i get paid no matter how much work i do, then i definitely won’t work!! it doesn’t take an idiot to figure that out

That’s the problem right there, youi naturally assume that you get “paid.” Under communism, a self-organizing moneyless economy can exist. Marxist theory touches on the fact of markets that did not use money.

anyways -YES - I listened to EVERYTHING you guys say- and I value your input- although I don’t agree with much of it. russia was not stalanist, the revolution was under lenin- BUt I think I made my point.

Please, read Trotsky’s “A Revolution Betrayed” if you want to learn about the period of revolution before Stalin. It will change your outlook on communism and on the USSR.

what motivation would I have?

In capitalism you work in order to get ahead of others, in communism you work so all of mankind can move forward together. Which would you choose?

I’ll respond to TG now- when I got confused about you and tm I was responding to you and then your brother started responding to me, very confusing.

I agree. I say we get rid of TM then. :wink:

judging by most of the grammar and fancy words many of you use,

Germans who can speak even better English is always a bad thing. :roll:

“no way son, doesn’t make a difference anyway, i get paid the same”

Communism is the means so everybody has the equal chance to become a “astronaut.”

They may persue this valuable, beautiful ideal that is communism, however without the dictatorially laced corruption that accompanies it, or they could wallow in the slop that is the filth of the capitalistic pig-dogs in the west. Why, oh why, would a society in the 21st century give up this wonderful choice for something so arkane and undermining?

The problem is that most communist revolutions were produced in 3rd world countries in which Marx never fully predicted. Again, read “Revolution Betrayed” on this.

[Guest]

@alamein:

I would tend to agree with you about humanity- not being much different than animals- and would reply that in truth we try too hard to deny that we are little more than animals. … the more we try to make ourselves out to be more than that, the less we’ll understand about ourselves.

So you should be an opponent of cloning and genetic engineering then, right? 'cause in the long run it will elad to something like in that movie the name i just forgot… about the natural born guy wanting to be become an astronaut, the name of the movie was made up only by the letters of the DNA bases…

ask your grandparents how they felt about the red army as it approached germany. those people we not out to win a war- they wanted revenge. they killed everything they could, and raped and pilliaged what they wanted. germans that couldn’t flee to the west (and surrender to us) killed themselves rather than be subjected to the russians.

They were not out for revenge after the two german states were set up. We are talking of different times here.
And sure they raped and pillaged and were out for revenge. We drove them to that. You have to pay the price fopr what you do…. (sounds like one more of the lessosn the US has to learn: to accept its responsibility for its deeds)

two quick examples-

one- they talk about a town were the people actually went down to the river and drowned their children and themselves. one of the survivors painfully recalled all the bloated bodies. - how determined do you have to be to drown yourself?
and the second was how the german soldiers who were captured were briefly interrogated - then had their throats cut! and the guy doing this bragged about it!

To be determined ebough to drown yourself you need a good propaganda machine, plus some rumors….

Another story: My late latin teacher told a story from teh end of the war: He was actually happy that his village was taken by the russians (It was in the middle, close to were russians and americans met). He said that the Russians (probably they had had their revenge then and were “sated”) could understand the suffering of the people much more and did not use the bit of preserved food in glasses that the people had etc as urinals and worse as the american soldiers did.

guderian himself was “very fortunate” to be staying in a hostel near the us lines when the war ended.

Well, Paulus had a good reception by the russians after giving up in Stalingrad. Generals usually had a much better time that the average soldier.

WHY then when germany re-united in 88, was the east so screwed up. why the sudden rise in inflation and unemployment. and as I remember many in the west didn’t want to absorb the east’s debt. they feared that they were in such bad shape it would bankrupt the country.
NOW those in the east had no such qualms about the west. they packed everything they could into those cheap little cars and headed west baby.

Germany was reunited in 1990, the wall came down in 1989. The
“sudden rise in inflation and unemployment” did take some time, first it was a boost to the german economy, with all the savings of the eastern people being invested (Sounds like Keynes does work, although he is not hip at the moment). That decoupled germany from the rest of the world economy going down at that time, only to be captured later twice so to say…
The biggest problem was the chancelor who prefered not to see some of the obvious problems that would arise (which did bring the victroy in the election, as his opponent pointed out that it would become expensive and everyone would have to pay his share, just as it happened). So, the “many” that feared the east was to weak … were social democrats… commies, as you would say… while the right wing christian democrats (the ones who should “know” about economics) lead germany into the crisis that showed up later, but as a result of the reunification.

[Guest]

@alamein:

the reason I brought up terror attacks … was to argue that the soviets we not merely defending themselves. they wanted us to leave so they would have europe. WHY? …
my point was that… IF the soviets didn’t want war… why train and finance terrorists to aggitate anti american sentiment? we (to my knowledge didn’t do this). at least not in romainia, hungry, check, yugosl. ect.

No, you did that in your neighboring countries. Contras were not terrorists, but freedom fighters?
The Russians probably had more interest in europe as they are part of that continent. Just as the US are in the Americas, where they were extremely active with such things.

another example- the nation that has peace as it’s ultimate aim for war realizes the futility in building enough nuclear weapons to destroy thr world 100 times over- then we build missle defense systems. the country that wants war states that the anti missle system could provoke war, then works on counter measures for our defense system.

The country that wants peace wants the “balance of terror” to work. The one that wants war tries to shift the balance, regardless how.
Balance keeps peace, the ones who want to break the balance for domination brings war. (oversimplified, but my beliefs)

[Guest]

@StrongBad1988:

@TG:

Let me ask, would you not work in a communist society?

i wouldn’t, if i get paid no matter what i do.
… or would you go home and do nothing and still get paid? this is the way i think of communism.

You are a typical victim of US-american anti-commie-propaganda.
And probably you are contend with that….

[Guest]

@alamein:

russia was not stalanist, the revolution was under lenin-
…

TG already covered that by mentioneing Trotsky.

ask f_alk about the name of the cars they drove- trebbies or troglodytes something like that- they had the same make model and style for 20 years.

Trabant 601 …called “Trabbies”

i would like to know why somehow the eastern block slowed down so much in its development in the seventies… they were keeping up well enough up to then.

you go to your work like an automoton. it sounds pretty miserable to me. that’s all.

It sounds like you don’t believe the above to happen in a western society…. which happens, just ask the people in the cubicles.

I want goals, I want adventure, excitement… you know, all the things boys and girls grow up dreaming about. a chance for an even better life for my kid, where he has every oportunity to be anything from a rock star to a rocket scientist. no limits… that’s all.

Probably you are white…. correct?

and I also wanted one more responce to F_ALK:

the thing about the worker bees was just a frustrated attempt to show that I don’t hold rich people in contempt just because they are rich.

I don’t do that either.
I hold contempt against people:
who are rich without having done anything for it and not taking up the responsibilites that come up with being rich.
If anyone for example steals a patent and becomes rich with it, and gives a *hit about charity, then i would deny him any rights.

judging by most of the grammar and fancy words many of you use, :wink: I’d guess that most of you come from at least upper middle class families. don’t resent your parent’s struggles or hold them in contempt because there are impoverished people in the word. communism isn’t the answer- social programs that take away my money aren’t the answer either.

My parents are middle class, true. My girlfriends parents are not. I do not resent my or any parents struggle to give their children morce choices…
But: My parents could have afforded to send me to Uni, and they supported me. My girlfriends parents gave what they could to, but that would never have been enough for her to study… that’s were “social programs” work, and they work well. To be as blunt as you are: they are the answer, especially if the rich to not care about other than themselves.

if you feel something must be done for the good of all, use your resources to make it happen. this is america- you can be as rich or poor as you want.

I agree with the first, and appeal to anyone to do it, but still there are some who just can’t.
Second, there are people in the world who do not live in the US, who don’t want to live there…
This is Europe, you can be as rich or poor as you want.

and F_alk the queen bee is the most important bee, she organizes the hive, grows the hive, delegates roles for the various bee jobs (GUARDS< DRONES< ECT) she works- cleetus however was just a ficticious bee representation of my neighbor who soaks up disability for a supposed back injury. DOES ANYONE ELSE understand what I mean? the bee thing has now officially lost any hope of striking a cord.

I understand what you want to say…
To tell you my points:
(1)Why does everybody think that the head is more important than the hands, or the digesting system, or whatever part.
The best manager can’t work without workers (or workers using machines, or programmers controlling robots etc.). The best manager can’t live without customers who can afford the product.
(2) I do not believe that ourt current economic system is stable to the end, unless someone shows me that there is no case of more-than-exponential growth. Unfortunately, all economic theories so far assuem that to simplify enough so they can work with it. But (as a friend who studied with me and now does her PhD in an economics related thing told me) there are problems with the models. “Old indsutries”, like farming, are covered well, but it seems there is more-than-exponential growth in newer industries.
And if you have a look at game theory: Over-exponential growth inevitably leads to monopolism (say Micro$oft), which cannot be broken except by massive catastrophies. Therefore, this neo-liberalism that is emerging everywhere for me is the worst thing to do. (next to that they totally neglect the people, but only think of their shareholders (which are of course not the rich ones, but you and me cough))

[StrongBad1988]

f_alk why do you always post like 5 posts in a row instead of making it one or two posts?

[Guest]

Because i reply to different posts…. and sometimes i cut them together…
plus: how else can i get my count up without falling back to massively posting one-liners ;) :)

[DeviantScripter]

In capitalism you work in order to get ahead of others, in communism you work so all of mankind can move forward together. Which would you choose?

Do you actually think people care about moving “mankind” foward together? Of course not; they’re only concerned with themselves and what they can get. It’s human nature.

[Guest]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Do you actually think people care about moving “mankind” foward together? Of course not; they’re only concerned with themselves and what they can get. It’s human nature.

Some do care about mankind. People tend not be concerned only with themselves: they are concerned about their families…. some about their friends as well, some about their tribe, village, city… some about their people… and some about mankind as a whole.
If you are not, you are anti-social, something that doesn’t fit to the humans being social animals. Therefore, why don’t you go and leave the rest of us, who care about all of us, alone and stick to those who don’t… and have fun in bashing each others heads in.
It is human nature to care for more than themselves only, and with our capabilities comes bigger responsibilities (just as someone richer has more responsibilites)…

[Guest]

@Deviant:Scripter:

In capitalism you work in order to get ahead of others, in communism you work so all of mankind can move forward together. Which would you choose?

Do you actually think people care about moving “mankind” foward together? Of course not; they’re only concerned with themselves and what they can get. It’s human nature.

When the Iron curtain came down, the countries behind it were no farther ahead than when it went up. They were pretty much in the same economic state as they post WW2. Than does not sound like mankind moving forward to me.
Communism breeds one to a total lack of motavation and innovation, with out which, evolution suffers.

In a perfect world, which its never going to be, Communism would be fine.
However, humans, by nature, are selfish.
Nearly everything you do is, in a sense, selfish.
Even when you do things for other people, giving present, time, money whatever is done because it makes you feel good. Which is, again, selfish.

[Mr Ghoul]

The above was me.

“economic state as they post WW2.”
This should read “as they were”

[Guest]

They were ahead compared to “end-of-the-war”, and quite a bit. Remember: the Russians were the first to land a probe on the Moon and the Venus. But somehow they got stuck (overall) in the mid-70s… one idea i could think of is the armament race, which started short after…

[Guest]

@F_alk:

They were ahead compared to “end-of-the-war”, and quite a bit. Remember: the Russians were the first to land a probe on the Moon and the Venus. But somehow they got stuck (overall) in the mid-70s… one idea i could think of is the armament race, which started short after…

I agree, Russia was ahead.
I am no expert here.
However, they were many other counties, besides Russia, in the Soviet Union, which were way behind the capitalistic nations. Again, not much better of then pre WW2.

[Mr Ghoul]

Fuck, thats me again.

[alamein]

F_alk I’ll grant you the meddling with the contra’s. I was focusing on europe. And not to be pro american- or pro capitalist, but I think we have a right to directly invovle ourselves in the affairs of other countries. most countries recieve aid from either the USA or Russia in some way, be it money or food or natural resources, why not demand that they at least be agreeable. to me it’s like asking someone to take off their shoes at the door to your house. now I don’t consider russia an enemy, and they have simulair polocies. we are the most needed nations- especially the usa. if our economy was to cataclysmically explode we would have complete anarchy in the word. -I’ll respond for you - unimaginably inflated sense of self importance- yep that’s me. :D

this kind of leads me to an interseting thing I heard on the radio today. mandella said that we were basically terrorists and that we don’t care about humanity- and what was that crack about that if koffie anon was white we’d listen to the un? PLEASE-

the tactics we tried against Iraq (the economic embargo) was the same tactics that helped free mandella’s people. but the white south africans yielded to the economic pressure to change (even though it meant a power shift) while I still argue that sadam used osomma to give us a black eye for trying to force him out of power.
and it doesn’t matter what color the un is, if they were all britts we still wouldn’t listen until they started making sense. which in my terms means agreeing with me.

F_ALK - I agree that capitalism does have some drawbacks if left unchecked. obviously monoplies can be bad- and a workplace without labor laws is bad. but I want the bare minimum (in regulation).

social programs in general are bad. and not only are the unnecessary they are inefficient. Both my sets of grandparents are poor (less than $10,000/yr) - one side works for money (part time) the other side is fed by the gov. my fathers family are all working poor- who probably could not survive without government handouts, while my mother’s side are all on welfare (of one form or another). my dad didn’t want to live like that- so he joined the army and took us away to germany. my own family was poor until I was in high school. but the poor performance of the german currency helped to get us by (not a shot at you F_alk),
my dad had no education past high school- but he now makes a hundred grand a year. I myself had only one year of college- I own my own home and do quite well enough for myself- although not nearly like my dad- both of my younger brothers are college boys- although one wasted his degree.
and we rose from poverty without one drop of government assistance. Yeah I’m white- but that’s not the reason. I excell - despite the ODDS being stacked against me because of two things- first- because I will not accept failure, and secondly because here I was given an opportunity and I seized it.
I feel very badly for poor children- children are the only true good in this world- however I have total and utter contempt for poor starving adults. EXCEPTION- poor nations where poverty is the norm.

[Yanny]

Reasons to attack Iraq, according to you guys:

1. Human rights abuses. Iraq is a totalitarian, facist country. Not a fun place to live to say the least.

2. The never proven Iraq-Al Quaeda collaboration theory.

3. Weapons of Mass Destruction, Not abiding by treaty to disarm.

Human Rights Abusers:

1. Saudi Arabia
2. Pakistan
3. Libya
4. North Korea
5. China
6. Sierra Leon
7. Somalia
8. Sudan
9. Israel

Countries proven to collaborate with Al-Quaeda and similar groups

1. Saudi Arabia
2. Pakistan
3. Sudan
4. Indonesia (certain members of their Government only)
5. Iran

Rogue Nations with weapons of mass destruction and/or developing them and/or refusal to abide by Security council resolutions.

1. Israel
2. Pakistan
3. Iran
4. North Korea
5. Libya
6. Syria

Iraq, by no means, tops any of those lists. But lets look at some of the countries.

Pakistan - Nuclear weapons. Extremely Oppresive Government. Failing to help hunt down Osama and Al Quaeda.

Iran - Working on Nuclear Weapons. Sponsors Al Quaeda and has a history of terrorism against the US. Oppressive Government, with tens of millions of people wanting a Democracy, but need help.

North Korea - Most oppresive Government on the planet. Has prohibited Nuclear Weapons. Has means of delivering the Nuclear Weapons. International arms supplier. Sociopath leader. Threw out weapons inspector. Using US money intended for energy aid to fund Nuke program.

Saudi Arabia - Extreme supporter of terrorism. Most oppresive Government in the Middle East.

Iraq - Very oppressive Government. No links to Al Quaeda. Kicked out Inspectors 5 years ago. Has a handful of Bio and Chemical weapons. Violated 14 UN resolutions.

Israel - Democracy which only applies to half the population. Kills innocents on live TV. Uses US weapons. Refuses to live up to promises to UN and US. Has broken scores of UN resolutions, including treaties signed by Israel itself.

Now, heres why we aren’t focuses on those other countries.

Israel - Too much public sympathy. We give them over 3,000,000 dollars in weapons each year.

Saudi Arabia - We already get oil from them. Bush has oil interests in Saudi Arabia.

Iran - No real finicial gain for the US. Bush is unwilling to see the huge democratic, western friendly movement going on.

North Korea/Pakistan - Too much of a fight for Bush. Not easy targets. No real economic gain.

So, what sets Iraq apart from all those countries listed above?

[DeviantScripter]

You want to know what makes Iraq stand out from those other countries? Well, first of all, nothing from which you said makes Iraq any less of a threat; the longer we wait, it’s only going to get worse.

But anyways, here goes:
1.) Iraq has violated 16 UN resolutions aimed at preventing him from destabilizing the region. (I’d be skeptical of any of those countries listed above that have violated as many UN mandates as Iraq has.)
2.) He openly admits to funding terrorist organizations and supports any attacks against Israel. (These come directly from Saddam Hussein; I’m not pulling this from thin air.)
3.) They still hold captured POW’s from the Gulf War, which were ordered to be returned; which the cease-fire agreement was contingent upon.

Those are just a couple of the main reasons I support the war. Furthermore, I do believe that the only way that we are ever going to know that Saddam is completely disarmed is to go into Iraq using military force. Any rational thinking person has to know that it’s near-impossible for 100 inspectors to scour that country and expect to find something as small as a beaker. In fact, it’s illogical. Yanny, if you want to know what the inspectors point of view on this entire situation is, go read Hans Blix’s report to the UN. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html )

Now that we’ve argued this back any forth; Yanny, why do you not want to go to war? If we do not take the hard-line with Saddam, every other irrational country out there will know that they can get away with the same crap that Saddam is pulling. We need to make an example out of someone, so why not do it with a guy that nobody likes in the first place (and that has given us good reason to)?

[StrongBad1988]

those are some great reasons, i entirely agree. i don’t know a whole lot about the enitre Iraq issue, but i do know that they still have POW’s from the gulf war, and i know that they haven’t shown us any evidence that they have gotten rid of the chemical/biological weapons that they DID have when the gassed the Kurds in '91. and who knows? saddam might have even developed nuclear weapons by now. in times of doubt… Lower taxes and go to war!!! :P

[Yanny]

? Well, first of all, nothing from which you said makes Iraq any less of a threat; the longer we wait, it’s only going to get worse.

The longer we wait for every single country I listed there, the more Americans which will be killed.

1.) Iraq has violated 16 UN resolutions aimed at preventing him from destabilizing the region. (I’d be skeptical of any of those countries listed above that have violated as many UN mandates as Iraq has.)

And you think attacking Iraq will stabilize the region? Without Iraq theres a huge power void to fill.

2.) He openly admits to funding terrorist organizations and supports any attacks against Israel. (These come directly from Saddam Hussein; I’m not pulling this from thin air.)

a) For all I’m concerned, Israel can defend itself. We probably would not be in this terrorist mess if it wasn’t for them.

b) Terrorism vs Israel is not terrorism vs Americans. Under your logic, we should help the Russians go in and destroy Chechnya.

3.) They still hold captured POW’s from the Gulf War, which were ordered to be returned; which the cease-fire agreement was contingent upon.

I’m assuming your refering to the 1 Gulf War pilot who was shot down and never found. He was offically declared MIA in the 90s, and just last year Bush decided to change that rating to POW without any proof backing him up. Another one of his lies unless he can back it up.

Those are just a couple of the main reasons I support the war. Furthermore, I do believe that the only way that we are ever going to know that Saddam is completely disarmed is to go into Iraq using military force. Any rational thinking person has to know that it’s near-impossible for 100 inspectors to scour that country and expect to find something as small as a beaker. In fact, it’s illogical. Yanny, if you want to know what the inspectors point of view on this entire situation is, go read Hans Blix’s report to the UN.

As I’ve said countless times, I could care less if he disarms or not. He’s already down to 2% of his arsenal, not enough to do much of anything against us, more likely used to fend off any potential invaders. We can successfully contain Iraq, as we have done countless other times in history to other countries.

Now that we’ve argued this back any forth; Yanny, why do you not want to go to war? If we do not take the hard-line with Saddam, every other irrational country out there will know that they can get away with the same crap that Saddam is pulling. We need to make an example out of someone, so why not do it with a guy that nobody likes in the first place (and that has given us good reason to)?

Here are my three main points (since you also supplied three)

1. Iraq is not a threat. It is not in Iraq’s best interest to attack us. Saddam may be a murderer, but he is also rational. He doesn’t want to die, so he won’t do anything. There has never been any verifiable evidence that Iraq supported any terrorism outside of Israel.

2. Our efforts must be placed elsewhere before Al Quaeda regroups, which they are doing now. They are comfortably resting inside Saudi Arabia right now, planning another attack. I would not be opposed to an attack on Saudi Arabia, provided a proper Last chance was given to them.

3. An attack on Iraq would not bring about a true democracy. Iraq would just become a puppet of the US, it’s oil sold to Bush’s oil friends. The Iraqi people need to decide for themselves their fate, like the Iranians are doing now. I would not have any problems with supporting Democratic groups inside Iraq.