ATTN: JonnyBGood

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Quite a lot to the populace that america claimed it was protecting.

Especially since most of those casualties came after the war was declared over.

i wouldnt have tohught that anyone who supported the war in the first place would change their opinion because 500 people died. Unless one of them was someone they knew.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

why should we give the contracts to a bunch of french/canadian lamers...

Because apparently keeping the French sweet is a goal now. Also why are the US deciding who gets contracts to rebuild Iraq, as opposed to for example the interim Government which is run by ohwait now I get it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

i wouldnt have tohught that anyone who supported the war in the first place would change their opinion because 500 people died. Unless one of them was someone they knew.

Deaths to americans can be very unpopular, especially when the body count keeps on mounting.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

why should you be in control of who gets them in the first place?

US good me club dutchy

o wai

[Deepflow]

unpopular yes... in the way speed cameras are unpopular. Very few people are going to change their vote because of it.

[meaple]

Hey guys, whats going on ITT

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by G_frog

You will stay the course, but you will set that course. hence the sudden bringing forward of (hardly democratic) elections in Iraq.

That's hardly a valid criticism insofar as the strongest proponents of accelerating elections have been the international community and some Iraqis. It's not simply the US setting the course here.

[JonnyBGood]

This has been the best thread on the internet. For the record

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

First you all keep saying that it is against UN sanctions to attack another nation. That is wrong. No where in the UN does it say that. So your entire premis is wrong.

This sentence makes no sense at all and nobody has claimed it.

SO justifictaion for going to war.

I never said that WMD or Terrorist Ties was justification, although there have been some instances of both, but rather they were said justifications, with the real reason to get rid of an evil dicator who abuses his people. Saddam was a Cruel man. Cruel men should not be rulers. Because Saddam was a cruel man and a ruler, he should have been removed. Instant justification. If you think Iraq was better with Saddam, then you think Saddam was a good ruler (why else would you support keeping a killer in rule?) and thus a good person, which obviously he isnt

Why didn't your president say this? Why did the British prime minister barely scrape together the necessary political support when everyone was told he had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out china? Saddam was undoubtedly a cruel man but so are 99.99999 (actually make that 100 as I can't think of anyone who wasn't) rulers. George Bush is a cruel man. Because of his direct actions 8,000 (this was months ago so move this up) Iraqi civilians had died (edit:link). If it's instant justification there is obviously a reason why the other numerous cruel rulers haven't been removed, although it would pose a rather difficult paradox for george bush to remove himself from power I admit. Your final point is sheer fallacy. Iraq may be better off without saddam than with him, however, if your motivation is relieving the suffering of innocents, then it is not an either or choice.

The reason i cant explain why you are wrong, is because you havnt explained why you were RIGHT other than it was illegal to do so, which it clearly wasnt.

The point here to be made is not by the "anti-war" cohorts. War is an action which must be justified. We don't live in a state of perpetual war with isolated moments of peaceful boredom. The pro-war side had to provide their reasons. Sadly I think I could have come up with far better reasons than were offered by certain governments.

THe whole poin about THE US funding was pointless, but on both sids, do to the fact that the UN cannot indight the US because they didnt break the LAW.

This sentence does not make sense either and is largely irrelevant to me.

The middle east is a disaster beause of the dictators that have ruled. The underlying reasons: poverty, illeteracy, mal-nutrition, are all symptoms. Symptoms of a bad ruler, These systoms combine to form a cause of an angry society, ripe for problems.

Congratulations. You're now the smartest man who ever lived. I'll just go tell the thousands of historians, sociologists, philosophers, politicans and demographers wondering why the Middle East is such a hellhole, way to generalise I'm sure absolutely nobody there enjoys their life at all, to stop bothering because this chap just solved the riddle on the Planetarion GD forums. The Middle East isn't the best place to live in the world for a veritable myriad of reasons stemming back about 6000 years. I'm sure you've taken history for nineteen years but just go read a book about Middle Eastern history.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

We don't live in a state of perpetual war with isolated moments of peaceful boredom

Yeah, there isn't any peace.

[Deepflow]

peace sucks dood... lets have more wars. theyll be fun like the movies! And the best characters never die! that could be me. =D

[pablissimo]

Paging Rambo and the A-Team to 2004

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

peace sucks dood... lets have more wars. theyll be fun like the movies! And the best characters never die! that could be me. =D

You're the poster in the red suit

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

why should we give the contracts to a bunch of french/canadian lamers...

1) They're not yours unless you're annexing Iraq. If you are the rest of the world would like to be informed at your convenience.
2) Because they might do a good job? Because your beloved free market doesn't just apply when you want it to? Because what the Iraqi people want matters eight hundred zillion gabillion (real number for serious) times more than your dick waving contest with every other nation that thinks you're acting like a bunch of spoilt children on a power trip.


Y'KNOW?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The Middle East isn't the best place to live in the world for a veritable myriad of reasons stemming back about 6000 years.

The Fertile Crescent was actually a pretty decent place to live up until 2500 years ago.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Leshy

The Fertile Crescent was actually a pretty decent place to live up until 2500 years ago.

I was going to make a 'fertile crescent' joke here but if you'll just imagine I said something lewd then I can move on.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Leshy

The Fertile Crescent was actually a pretty decent place to live up until 2500 years ago.

Yes but the reason south-western Greece is a shithole of scrub and wasteland now is because of Greek agricultural methods starting 3000 years ago. Claiming you can trace the causes of problems back a certain time doesn't mean the problems necessarily existed then.

[meaple]

I think someone watches too much fox news

[JonnyBGood]

He went offline just before I posted. I demand someone go and wake him so he can reply.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

I was going to make a 'fertile crescent' joke here but if you'll just imagine I said something lewd then I can move on.

I actually imagined that before you posted, so I got you covered on that one.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yes but the reason south-western Greece is a shithole of scrub and wasteland now is because of Greek agricultural methods starting 3000 years ago.

3700. And I don't think the current reasons why living in the Middle East is problematic are due to early agriculture (although I'd have to check on how much soil in the region has been salinized), but stem from the notion that it has been the traditional seperation line between the West and the East, and as such has been invaded by foreign powers either as a border-territory, or because of the notion that it was somehow Holy Land (the latter of which continues to this very day).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Leshy

I actually imagined that before you posted, so I got you covered on that one.
3700.

Thanks. I'm sure that'll prove utterly useful in a discussion of pedantry as an art-form.

And I don't think the current reasons why living in the Middle East is problematic are due to early agriculture (although I'd have to check on how much soil in the region has been salinized), but stem from the notion that it has been the traditional seperation line between the West and the East, and as such has been invaded by foreign powers either as a border-territory, or because of the notion that it was somehow Holy Land (the latter of which continues to this very day).

I actually find it physically impossible to read this post. For the record I was insinuating that the class divide due to agriculture and the development of cities had something to do with it (which probably started 5736 years ago but **** you heh).

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

we were right because its NOT a good thing to attack random countries for your own personal gain.

I hardly think Afghanistan and Iraq were picked at random. Do you?

And whose personal gain? These wars are costing the American taxpayers billions. I'm certainly not making any money on this.

Yes, probably, the people in iraq and afghanistan will live better than they did under saddam. But it will take a while.

As criticisms go, that was pretty weak.

in the meantime, you are destabilising the whole world with your foreign policy.

And your evidence of that would be...?

Not since the UN was created has there been such a rift between europe and america.

Oooo, a rift. The horror.

America and western Europe have been drifting apart since the end of the cold war. Without the threat of the Soviet Union they are now freer to criticize each other. Nothing wrong with that, in my view.

Not just by the politicians, but in the mind of the man on the street. Also, you are perpetuating the control and hegemony of corporations over the world, this is also clearly not a good thing. As i have already explained. I have also explained why the corporations are becoming more powerful.

Not seeing this one.

+the disturbing lack of separation between church and state in your country and the continuing shortening of that separation are another reason for the rest of the world to not want the US to have more power.

I don't see the separation shortening myself.

But if you don't want the US to have more power, fair enough. What are you going to do about it?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

But if you don't want the US to have more power, fair enough. What are you going to do about it?

I suggested crashing a plane into the Empire State Building. Apparently according to the patent office I can't sue Ossama Bin Laden. ****ing wankers.



PS One imagines he was referring to the various companies and individuals at high-levels in the US economy and government who stand to make large sums of money off certain activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.




PPS I read today that the US has military forces in 120 of the 190 UN member states which seemed a rather phenomenal statistic. It was either in one of chomsky's recent books or this. Seemed a rather alarming statistic.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Thanks. I'm sure that'll prove utterly useful in a discussion of pedantry as an art-form.

You're welcome. Discarding the Myceneans like that

I actually find it physically impossible to read this post. For the record I was insinuating that the class divide due to agriculture and the development of cities had something to do with it (which probably started 5736 years ago but **** you heh).

Considering it's almost 4AM CET, it may have been a little unclear.

I do not believe the problems in the Middle East come from a divide between city and hinterland, as the very same setup has been used in virtually all European cultures over the course of history. As such, I doubt ancient urbanization is a valid reason for why the Middle-East is a problematic region today. Since the fall of the Neo-Babylonian empire, the region has not had any indigenous major power, and as such has been the scene of battle between western and eastern civilizations (Romans vs. Persians), being little more than either a buffer zone or one major piece of hinterland. As such, social and technological developments are bound to stay behind in such areas (which is visible today on a smaller scale in parts of Italy and Greece as well).

The fact that in Christianity and Judaism the territory was marked as Holy Land has led to a continued conflict between foreign powers over the course of history (the Crusades, and now the Israeli-Palestinean conflict) has of course not aided in this matter.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Leshy

You're welcome. Discarding the Myceneans like that

I don't think they cared that much after the flood dude.

I do not believe the problems in the Middle East come from a divide between city and hinterland, as the very same setup has been used in virtually all European cultures over the course of history. As such, I doubt ancient urbanization is a valid reason for why the Middle-East is a problematic region today. Since the fall of the Neo-Babylonian empire, the region has not had any major power, and as such has been the scene of battle between western and eastern civilizations (Romans vs. Persians), being little more than either a buffer zone or one major piece of hinterland. As such, social and technological developments are bound to stay behind in such areas (which is visible today on a smaller scale in parts of Italy and Greece as well).

I wasn't claiming it was the sole or even primary reason. The root of the problems can be traced back that far though. Bit silly to say it hasn't had a major power though. For about a thousand years it was controlled by <insert various Muslim dynasties>. I'd post a reply but I mostly agree and don't care that much due to the fact it's 3:10am and you've gone to bed.

[Qdeathstar]

i dont think so m8

[Qdeathstar]

This sentence makes no sense at all and nobody has claimed it.

Yes they have, you need to read better

Why didn't your president say this?

Because you idiots dont support thinks just because they are a good think to do, as is obvious in this thread. You need special guidance

Saddam was undoubtedly a cruel man but so are 99.99999 (actually make that 100 as I can't think of anyone who wasn't) rulers. George Bush is a cruel man. Because of his direct actions 8,000 (this was months ago so move this up) Iraqi civilians had died (edit:link). If it's instant justification there is obviously a reason why the other numerous cruel rulers haven't been removed

Bush isnt a cruel Man. You speak of 6000 Iraqi Civilian deaths. Well, id like to challange you on that statisitc. Because How many of them were soldiers and how many of them were terrorist, or how many of them failed to follow directions given to them in Arabic. Bush inst a cruel man. A cruel man is a person who does cruel things to people on purpose. If it is an honest accident, there person isnt cruel, it was just an accident... thats why you dont get charged with reckless driving everytime you get into an accident


Im not the smartest man, nor do i claim to be.. what im sayign is the reasons i gave are clearly recent reasons for the disgruntled nature of the midddle east

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I suggested crashing a plane into the Empire State Building. Apparently according to the patent office I can't sue Ossama Bin Laden. ****ing wankers.

It's been done. :/

PS One imagines he was referring to the various companies and individuals at high-levels in the US economy and government who stand to make large sums of money off certain activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Would that be a Trilateral Commission/illuminati type thing?

PPS I read today that the US has military forces in 120 of the 190 UN member states which seemed a rather phenomenal statistic. It was either in one of chomsky's recent books or this. Seemed a rather alarming statistic.

Actually, it's closer to 130 countries--according to the link I posted here.

But the really alarming part is that in all but a handful of cases we are there by invitation. :eek:

Nobody loves a cop but everyone wants protection. :/

[Qdeathstar]

i cant belive the there are actually people in PA who are really smart.. the discussions about mycenian history.. and stuff really are interesting to read (aside from our political beliefs.)

[Qdeathstar]

/me passes tactitus a beer and a flag ;-)


Thank god for you Tactitus :-) (no sarcasm)

sometimes you have to make in clear when your being sarcastic and when your not ..becuase of the way it comes out typed . but i mean it :-)

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I hardly think Afghanistan and Iraq were picked at random. Do you?

And whose personal gain? These wars are costing the American taxpayers billions. I'm certainly not making any money on this.
As criticisms go, that was pretty weak.
And your evidence of that would be...?
Oooo, a rift. The horror.

America and western Europe have been drifting apart since the end of the cold war. Without the threat of the Soviet Union they are now freer to criticize each other. Nothing wrong with that, in my view.
Not seeing this one.
I don't see the separation shortening myself.

But if you don't want the US to have more power, fair enough. What are you going to do about it?

i go off to have a w*nk and come back to this!!! what is the world coming to?

tacticus, of course they werent picked at random, i was being flippant. And rightly so.

why on earth would you make any money unless you were personally connected to the corporations who are benefiting? don't use yourself as an example when its irrelevant.

i wasnt critiscising, it was in fact the only point i partially agreed with him upon. And i said that. Not everything i type is a critiscism. We can hug and dance too

the rift is actually a worry. The trade wars between europe and america have become larger and more important. The politics of europe and america are becoming further apart. Even religiously there are differences, the US is far more religious than the bulk of europe. Why is all this a good thing? the last thing anyone wants is europe and america getting less friendly by the month, just think the destruction that could be unleashed if they actually went for war. Possibly the US will invade a friend of an important euro country and a flashpoint will occur. Where do you think the rest of europe will place their allegiances. Im not saying it will happen, but even raising the risk of a war between europe and america is clearly a "bad thing".

maybe you would have seen it if you had read mine and others previous posts in this thread. Or read some slightly more liberal news reports and comments. Or do you think its a good thing? either way... peh.

the separation is getting smaller because the Govt is sponsoring more and more faith based products and so fewer non faith based ones. i saw it on the telly! If you have any evidence against that though id like to see it. Religion is a useful thing to have when you invade "infidels".

and i personally am not gonna do a damn thing about the US having more power. Nor can i. i dont see how its relevant to this conversation. If you want to wave your **** about on these forums by making a last sentence like that however. You may.

**** this, im going to bed.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

/me passes tactitus a beer and a flag ;-)

/me accepts beer; declines flag.

Don't be too quick to count me on your side.

[Qdeathstar]

no.. but atleast your being honest about things

and that deserves a beer.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

why on earth would you make any money unless you were personally connected to the corporations who are benefiting? don't use yourself as an example when its irrelevant.

Corporations are owned and run by individuals. So I ask again, whose personal gain?

Also, explain how these individuals were able to manipulate public opinion into a broad-based support for the war simply for their own personal gain while leaving the average taxpayer to foot the bill. [though if you're going to play the stock 'ha ha fox news americans r dumb ha ha' card don't bother--it's insulting and not convincing. If you want to play the Trilateral Commission/illuminati card that would be slightly less insulting, but even less convincing (if that's possible)]

the rift is actually a worry. The trade wars between europe and america have become larger and more important. The politics of europe and america are becoming further apart. Even religiously there are differences, the US is far more religious than the bulk of europe. Why is all this a good thing? the last thing anyone wants is europe and america getting less friendly by the month, just think the destruction that could be unleashed if they actually went for war. Possibly the US will invade a friend of an important euro country and a flashpoint will occur. Where do you think the rest of europe will place their allegiances. Im not saying it will happen, but even raising the risk of a war between europe and america is clearly a "bad thing".

Who's talking about war between Europe and America? I think your imagination has slipped it's leash. I think our common interests can survive some disagreements from time to time.

the separation is getting smaller because the Govt is sponsoring more and more faith based products and so fewer non faith based ones. i saw it on the telly! If you have any evidence against that though id like to see it.

Hm... a negative difficult to prove it is...

And I have no idea what a 'faith based product' is. Is that like Indulgences?

Religion is a useful thing to have when you invade "infidels".

I guess. But to be honest I haven't noticed many people referring to the Iraqis or Afghanis as infidels. Of course, as an atheist, I'm an infidel; so perhaps they were just being discreet while preparing to invade my house.

and i personally am not gonna do a damn thing about the US having more power. Nor can i. i dont see how its relevant to this conversation. If you want to wave your **** about on these forums by making a last sentence like that however. You may.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you personally. I should have been clearer: What are you (Europe, the world, etc) going to do about it?

[Qdeathstar]

amen for that...

[pablissimo]

I lost the will to live about page three which is quite a feat considering I was feeling particularly chirpy last night.

[Qdeathstar]

whats trolling? im thinking its bad...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Yes they have, you need to read better

I'm not reading 3 pages of drivel. And if they claimed that they're wrong.

Because you idiots dont support thinks just because they are a good think to do, as is obvious in this thread. You need special guidance

What a democracy you must live in. Unilaterally deciding what's good and bad and then lying to the oublic in order to get support. Must be wonderful.

Bush isnt a cruel Man. You speak of 6000 Iraqi Civilian deaths. Well, id like to challange you on that statisitc. Because How many of them were soldiers and how many of them were terrorist, or how many of them failed to follow directions given to them in Arabic. Bush inst a cruel man. A cruel man is a person who does cruel things to people on purpose. If it is an honest accident, there person isnt cruel, it was just an accident... thats why you dont get charged with reckless driving everytime you get into an accident

Well if you followed that link I gave you you'd see that of those 8-10,000 deaths none of them were soldiers or terrorists. They are either people killed by the americans or by terrorists after the American "victory". And Bush is a cruel man. He (and the US of A) invaded other countries, he knew innocents would die yet he went ahead with his plans. Those deaths are directly due to actions he took. He may have professed noble intentions, but so has every tyrant in history. And if you believe US presidents are never intentionally cruel I'd advise you to read up on the history of US intervention in Central America.

Im not the smartest man, nor do i claim to be.. what im sayign is the reasons i gave are clearly recent reasons for the disgruntled nature of the midddle east

It's not really a solid reason though. There doesn't just "happen" to be more bad people in one part of the world.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you personally. I should have been clearer: What are you (Europe, the world, etc) going to do about it?

Every time you say this a giant troll alert goes off above my computer. What exactly do you hope to accomplish by using this line? Illustrating the fact that while the US runs around killing people the rest of us are waving our dicks in the wind? I think we already know that to be fair.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

That's hardly a valid criticism insofar as the strongest proponents of accelerating elections have been the international community and some Iraqis. It's not simply the US setting the course here.

The US is setting the course as things stand, even if it is taking into account international views and arguments (which is happening more, but not to a satisfactory extent imo). I believe the general view that the US should hold full, free and fair elections as soon as possible; and that not enough has been done to make such elections possible. The proposed caucuses system will not fully enfanchise the population, and may even allow the US to maintain excessive control and influence in some regions.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

I believe the general view that the US should hold full, free and fair elections as soon as possible

Are we talking about Iraq or not?

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Corporations are owned and run by individuals. So I ask again, whose personal gain?

Also, explain how these individuals were able to manipulate public opinion into a broad-based support for the war simply for their own personal gain while leaving the average taxpayer to foot the bill. [though if you're going to play the stock 'ha ha fox news americans r dumb ha ha' card don't bother--it's insulting and not convincing. If you want to play the Trilateral Commission/illuminati card that would be slightly less insulting, but even less convincing (if that's possible)]
Who's talking about war between Europe and America? I think your imagination has slipped it's leash. I think our common interests can survive some disagreements from time to time.
Hm... a negative difficult to prove it is...

And I have no idea what a 'faith based product' is. Is that like Indulgences?
I guess. But to be honest I haven't noticed many people referring to the Iraqis or Afghanis as infidels. Of course, as an atheist, I'm an infidel; so perhaps they were just being discreet while preparing to invade my house.
Sorry, I wasn't referring to you personally. I should have been clearer: What are you (Europe, the world, etc) going to do about it?

the benefit of those in charge and high up in those corporations and those in politics with links to such organisations who are placed to influence foreign and homr polivy in their favour. Which, as i think i have said twaice now, has already been said by myself and others IN THIS THREAD! Its not the illuminati, these people are in the open largely, its just for some reason, people dont take notice because they believe all of the OTHER reasons that the govt gives for things, ignoring the massive campaign donations and the boards on which high up politicians sit. And the obvious advantages gained by these corporations (just recently i can think of corporate tax cuts and the selective giving out of very profitable contracts in afghanistan and iraq. If you want to dispute any of those facts, im sure myself or someone else will be more than happy to get evidence to bakc it up.

i did say in my post that i didnt think it was actually going to happen. But do you seriously think that animosity over the atlantic is a good thing? the peoples of both "blocs" are becoming more and more hostile to one another, and the US is even making it more difficult for foreigners to come into their country. There is less trading going on, and trade wars are starting, these arent going to help anyone. If europe and america become weaker because of each other, we could easily end up with china being the most powerful country in the world within a few decades. I personally wouldnt want that, if you do, then thats your business.

i meant project, not product, it was about 4:30am. And it shouldnt be so difficult to prove, i thought the US govt was very open about its political documents and allocation of funds?

[Chef!]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Id say that the United states has plunty of pateince. We only acted after giving Saddam the option of getting the F out and after finding that France wouldnt support any resolution at all. The united states will also stay the course.. and so im sure it will be a success.

People dont agree with what the US does... so the US does it anyway, very democratic and fair.
Nuff said

(PS: Someone else has prolly already made this point but i cant be bothered to read on cos a certain someone is pissin me off with his "the US rules the world and can do what it likes" views)

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

the benefit of those in charge and high up in those corporations and those in politics with links to such organisations who are placed to influence foreign and homr polivy in their favour. Which, as i think i have said twaice now, has already been said by myself and others IN THIS THREAD!

All you've said is that there are some unspecified people in high places who've benefited. That's not very specific.

Its not the illuminati, these people are in the open largely, its just for some reason, people dont take notice because they believe all of the OTHER reasons that the govt gives for things, ignoring the massive campaign donations and the boards on which high up politicians sit.

"For some reason" is the part I don't get (and the part which needs explaining).

And the obvious advantages gained by these corporations (just recently i can think of corporate tax cuts and the selective giving out of very profitable contracts in afghanistan and iraq. If you want to dispute any of those facts, im sure myself or someone else will be more than happy to get evidence to bakc it up.

I'm sorry, I don't see any facts there. Just accusations and innuendo.

And the contracts thing is overplayed. In the context of the hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending on the wars, a few billion-dollar contracts are chump change (and that's just the size of the contracts--the profits after expenses, even with their absurd overcharges--are far less). To suggest that these people can control US public opinion and force hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent, just so they can pocket a few millions is giving them far more power than intelligence. It's a bit like saying 'they've taken over Fort Knox! See, they're stealing the phones!'

i did say in my post that i didnt think it was actually going to happen. But do you seriously think that animosity over the atlantic is a good thing?

Disagreements are natural and healthy. I don't like groupthink.

the peoples of both "blocs" are becoming more and more hostile to one another, and the US is even making it more difficult for foreigners to come into their country.

Given that the 9/11 terrorists pretty much walked in the front door, I'd say some reform of visas and customs was long overdue.

There is less trading going on, and trade wars are starting, these arent going to help anyone.

Actually, US foreign trade is up. There is some talk of trade wars, but it's just talk. I don't expect much to come of it because the benefits of trade are so great.

If europe and america become weaker because of each other, we could easily end up with china being the most powerful country in the world within a few decades. I personally wouldnt want that, if you do, then thats your business.

We must join together lest the yellow menace destroys us all?

i meant project, not product, it was about 4:30am. And it shouldnt be so difficult to prove, i thought the US govt was very open about its political documents and allocation of funds?

Yes, the US government probably generates a document for each of the trillions of dollars it spends. I wouldn't know where to begin in trying to prove or disprove such a claim. In general, however, the US government seems as reluctant as ever of funding religious groups or projects. For example, private religious schools have for decades been trying to get state and federal money, but with little success.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't think they cared that much after the flood dude.

There was no flood The only notable disaster around the time was the eruption of the volcano Thera, but that happened in 1648 BC, about 250 years before the Mycenean palaces started to crumble down. Literally. Earthquakes throughout the region have been suggested as one of the causes, but that is very unlikely considering a very large number of civilizations, both in the Aegean as well in the Ancient Near East went into decline or disappeared altogether around that time.

I wasn't claiming it was the sole or even primary reason. The root of the problems can be traced back that far though.

That's a bit like saying that all problems of humanity today can be traced back that far, as that's where civilization started. Although there is one point in which I can imagine agriculture to play a part, which I didn't think of last night/this morning.

The scarcity of ferticle acres in the region has lead to a palace-based redistribution economy. The famers bring their goods to the palace, the palace redistribute it among the population. In regions where there are more fairly reliable sources of food (hunting, fishing, gathering) or the climate is suitable for more intensive farming (eg. well over 250mm rain a year and less sand), the palace will have a less important role as people are not totally dependent upon it. In the Near East, however, people have always been dependent on the palace in order to remain alive, and the king has always been viewed as a deity; both of which may have declined developments in the political system, leading to continued despotic governments today.

[Qdeathstar]

Ok, well i found out what a troll is. And no, im not a troll. those are what i feel is right, just and it appears that you are the ones trolling.

You cant claim the war was immoral. Letting Saddam stay in power and destroy his people. Thats immorral.

I dont think the US is best at everything, and i never said that. Your making false assumptions. I think that europe is fine with the Medical science things they are doing, Stem cells and the like. But your foriegn policy is non existant. You'd rather sit back, let the whole world become a shit-basket, and then ask the United States to bail you out. thats what happend in world war Two (although, before you jump on me by saying there were :ther:: reason, i know, but we did infact bail you out). If it wasnt for us you'd be a part of the german empire.. with nazi's and everything (lol).

So, the next time you want to flame a nations foreign policy because you are a softy, just think about all we (the united States, and its allies) have done for you. If you deny that the United States has helped you in the past, you are not very affluent in history, and a suggest you open a book.

In closing, Im right your wrong. And thats all i have to say. Im not going to back it up, because from a objective view, taking in both sides, and looking at the long term, both in the future and in the past, this is the only way to fix the middle east. To put Democracy in the middle east, and some good old USA (which stresses liberty and excess,) into the middle east. You cant be fighting war if your busy eating now can you. You cant be mad at the people who made you become wealthy and nurtured can you? No. And being that the United States well economicly control all the contries it liberates, we will have the power to contol how powerful they become. IE isreal. (although there, i think we are taking the wrong approach).

If you are bitching that the United States is become to powerful, and that makes it a bad country, you have no idea what a succesful country is.

My definition of a succesful county

Prosperous
Jobs for 93% of the seeking population
World Power
Would Class Military
Educated
Alliances that work to its benifits
Money
Persuasive power through Purse stings
World Wide Influence
Economy that the rest of the world relies upon
happiness for its citizens
equal opportunity
civil rights TO ITS CITIZENS
Courage to do what is right.

Now id say that the US has about 95% of that... while the europe averages around 83% China 50% and russia a dissapointing 39%..

Thats about all i have to say in regards to this thread... flame each other now.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I think my sides have split. I'm going to have to clean the floor again.

[Qdeathstar]

Well if you followed that link I gave you you'd see that of those 8-10,000 deaths none of them were soldiers or terrorists. They are either people killed by the americans or by terrorists after the American "victory". And Bush is a cruel man. He (and the US of A) invaded other countries, he knew innocents would die yet he went ahead with his plans. Those deaths are directly due to actions he took. He may have professed noble intentions, but so has every tyrant in history. And if you believe US presidents are never intentionally cruel I'd advise you to read up on the history of US intervention in Central America.

OMG. He new innocents would die, but also knew that attacking saddam would liberate the Iraqis (which he did do). And that somehow makes him a cruel man. You my friend are a genious. Iraqis killed my Terrorists cannot be blaimed on the United States. They are psycos.. Thats like blaming the Jews for the 9/11 attacks.. ::rolls eyes::

I said that President BUSH wasnt a cruel man. There have been times in the bast where presidents, and our leaders have been cruel (ie japanese-american prison-camps) So no, i dont think that all US presidents/leaders were not cruel, and likewise i never said that.

Heres a tip for you. Stick to what ive actually said.

[Qdeathstar]

Although you know that if you leave a thread it's as good as admitting you're wrong?

no.. im just getting a head ache reading all this BS.

[Nondescript Human]

Oh dear. Does have a point about not letting the riff-raff vote, though.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Oh dear. Does have a point about not letting the riff-raff vote, though.

Back to the Athenian demokratia, I say!