Do No Evil – This horror world novel created by the US still goes on and with all the problems in the world that could be solved with some investment, the world's richest nation stills spend loads of funds in this useless war. Those funds could be used for example: to stop the famine in some poor countries, fight some outbreaks of diseases around the world or r
LOL
You people can't even get the numbers to agree. Some say 3 trillion and this obviously biased person says 525 billion. Then there is the rewriting of history that libs love to do. This person didn't go into that but responses like "engineer" made are just too ridiculous.
Everybody in the Senate and House as well as the western governments ALL said Hussein had WMD. But libs say Bush lied. Then people like "engineer" say the hate filled garbage in the post made above. No proof but since it is the evil Republicans it must be true. This kind of thought process is sickening.
Lets just walk away and give victory to Al Queada and make Osama bin Laden's prophecy about this come true. "The US does not have the stomach for fighting. They will win because the US is a paper tiger."
This war continues for as long as McCain said he will keep it going, then all we will be able to afford to fight with, will be "paper".
How about going out and actually finding Osama Bin Laden. Why has that objective taken last place in the que of important things to acomplish?
Actually, the chief inspector for the UN, Mr Hans Blix said that there wasn't any indications that Iraq possesed WMD's. He was overruled by information that later turned out to be highly suspect. After invading Iraq, no massive piles of WMD's were found, just a few antique chemical mortar shells.
Getting the numbers to agree. With the secrecy that this administration has buried itself in, the numbers they release varies constantly. The one thing that should worry every tax payer in this country however, is whether or not we can afford to continue this war, especially since our economy is turning from manufacturing to service oriented economy. Service, as low pay for a large number of people.
My 2 cents worth.....
IF the UN was actually remotely capable of doing the job it was originally created to do, there'd be NO NEED for the US and it's allies to act as the world's "policeman".....
Trouble is, the UN is (and has been, for far to long) a completely corrupt, nepotic waste of space....
Try fixing the UN first, then allow them to replace the US and allies as the worlds cop......
Imagine if we would have spent that money on teaching peace, sending teachers and doctors and providing the mideast with basic housing, medical care, and most of all, basic education. satellite tv in every community would have gone a long way to explain to people how important peace is and how we all have to work for it on a constant basis.
the internet could have been vital for the development.
instead we have taught the people of the Mideast that munitions and soldiers are the only answer, and now a generation of children have learned hate, despair, intolerance and violence is the only means you can use to solve your problems. Iraq is now a 3rd world country with unreliable electricity, no clean water, little health care. Older people remember the old Iraq when they had jobs, housing, universities, electric and good homes.
korangirl that is some beautiful wishful thinking.
Whether we sent soldiers or books either way we would have been met with armed resistance. The radical muslims view our western culture as a direct threat to them. Us trying to spread our influence peacefully is seen by them as an act of aggression.
Koreangirl
"Imagine if we would have spent that money on teaching peace, sending teachers and doctors and providing the mideast with basic housing, medical care, and most of all, basic education. satellite tv in every community would have gone a long way to explain to people how important peace is and how we all have to work for it on a constant basis."
Sending teachers doctors, medical care is AKA "western influence" is one of the main things driving the extremist Jihad
Afghanistan is basically the same if you read the blogs from people actually living there. Women and children have been hardest hit, and many women have been forced into prostitution to make money as most are now widows.
The cost of the war is most men die and most women live in poverty. The children learn nothing but violence.
Does this solve anything?
I think not.
For a great book on peace, try the Korana of Mother Goddess, available at LuLu dot com or on ebay (cheapest).
My peace and blessings go out to the world today
FTA: "This horror world novel created by the US still goes on and with all the problems in the world that could be solved with some investment, the world's richest nation stills spend loads of funds in this useless war."
Poorly written sentence in the first. Untrue in the second place. Money does not answer idealogy and that is the issue in Iraq and the Muslims who would kill USA. Also poverty will continue to exist because of the nature of man. Some will always cater to their appetites rather than work and be diligent. No amount of welfare funds of any kind will ever eliminate poverty. Communism has demonstrated that socialism which seeks to remove poverty produces greater poverty impoverishing the whole nation not merely a proportion of the society.
Untrue why? If we spent the amount of money going to the war on solving some problems you don't think there would be some maner of success?
I think we need to understand the muslim world, other than just pull out traits to support our views. There are lots that we are ignorant about.
Poverty will continue to exist regardless. Why don't you visit some places and see for yourself. There are several countries in europe where true poverty is for all intents non existent. Visit Tibet, and se their kind of world. They aren't wealthy, but you will not see poverty eighter.
As far as socialism, the US practices socialism directed at the continued accumulation of wealth. All the corporate bailout of the last few years is ample proof of that. Socialism doesn't have to be directed only toward the masses. As to leaving a nation impoverished, I'm sure some people overseas could prove you wrong. In the end NO system is perfect, but some work better for the greater good of all citizens.
There is no rule that says poverty has to continue in the world. In fact, there are many countries in Europe that provide basic medical care, education and housing without turning their own country communistic where the govt is supposed to provide a job for everyone and wages are set by the government, and the flow of goods into society are strictly controlled to one lowest common denominator.
There are good examples already in the world. What we are supposed to be doing is spreading these good examples around the world. We aren't supposed to be limiting human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. We aren't supposed to be sending bombs, munitions and guns all over the place to foment war. That is clearly a complete waste of precious resources to blow up your own money.
The democrats/libs in the US tried eliminating the poor for the past several decades, 10's of trillions of $ were dumped into hundreds of programs and all it accomplished was the creation of an entitlement mentality that inflicted millions and continues to this day. The US and other countries thru the UN have also tried this in plenty of third-world countries. With rare exception all that aid was confiscated by the ruling powers in those countries and their people starved anyways. There is indeed a rule that says poverty has to continue, its called greed and stupidity. As to those other countries you mention, they are failing in what you point to as success. Their medical care is substandard unless you have the $ or know someone to get immediate care and their slums are growing, true their education certainly is better but that is simply because they teach their youth to value education where here in the US they are taught to scorn it.
FTA: "Those funds could be used for example: to stop the famine in some poor countries, fight some outbreaks of diseases around the world or reduce the amount of damage that the US deals to the environment through economic activity."
Faulty thinking!! The USA has done more than any other industrialized country to reduce the "impact on the environment". Growing economies in other countries are a threat to the environment. "Economic activity" means "JOBS" or salaries and food for workers. Shall we stop all productive activity and live as those in third world nations? I have seen how the rest of the world lives. Few Americans would wish to live that way for any reason!!!
Cont.
Cont
The "environmentalists" I know want to "give up a little" (to feel they have done their part and feel good about it) but real "sacrifice" they could never take. Riding a bicycle to work is a "preference" not a real answer. "Let others pay" is their ultimate motto.
As to riding a bicycle not being a real answer.
Wrong. It actually is a very viable alternativ, along with mass transportation. Look at NYC, where better than half of the inhabitants do not own a vehicle, but rely on mass transportation.
We in the US have been spoiled by the cheap availability of fuel and automobiles. It's not in our blood, so to speak, to use mass transportation, or, bicycles. Time is coming when we may have to learn to adapt to these methods. Move closer to work, and take a bike. Its in many cases faster, more economical, and think of the built in exercise you get. Go travel east or west out of the country, and you will find millions of people relying on bicycles as their mean mode of transportation. It does actually work.
Faulty?? Compare the percent of GDP of several countries, and I bet that many will match, if not surpass the investment the US has made to reduce environmental impact. In total dollars it's true, but then how much larger is our economy compared to any other?
Growing economies are a threat. Not necessarily. Greed is the driving force of polution. The technology is there to grow, as you mention, jobs and industry with minimal harm to the environment.
Shall we stop all productive activity? We are moving in that direction. With the incresing loss of manufacturing jobs, these are being replaced with fewer service jobs that more often than not pay way less than manufacturing used to do. Like it or not, for the average Joe, life is slowly receding to the level of life found in other countries. And yes, few of us wish to live like that, reason we are having such heated contest for the WH.
The US should make arrangements to decrease their emissions because they are a first world country!
Also, the US should set the example because it's the nation that most has contributed to global warming!
Wrong on both counts! China and India dump more pollution into the environment just from their charcoal production and use alone. They have no regulations and have no intent to do anything to reduce where as the US has regulations on top of regulations and all people like you can do is say is "not good enough" while the rest of the world literally ******es in their own bath water.
Don't worry. If Hillary doesn't win the Democratic nomination, Bush will bring the Iraq tragedy to an end soon by attacking Iran to stop them from interfering in Iraq.
If Hillary squeezes out Obama, Bush will just wait and let her take the blame, because the Neocons own her and she will attack Iran for him (his handlers).
Not a member? Sign-up today!
TGrass3001
funnypla
asolious
adamhowe1980
dexlovex2
LaraKroft
garier
css2web
nopatacious
DiffeeOnline
whodey08
Shadowolf
ind06
ETproductions
Radiofreeeuropa
tonks21
alamala
jovial
Helixbuilder
daducha
TheRealizer
satansatan
koranagirl
Gransater
jomarjarmo
capnews
kibasilasa
panzerv
TechnologyExpert
BJTJ
GHOSTWHOWALKS
factoring2117
sleepingbeauty2
crespi
Dicax_Maximus
Shannonyork
bubba2
dandt1612
hurr1
dadesider
engineer
neharocks
Will1313
triizine
Varadinum
rdy2rck
lawrencee
permanentrich
Iris-Iris
Spadecaller
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
28)
Vote
I'm sure that George W Bush would simply say something like: You've gotta spend money to make money. Unfortunately, he's spending our money! Personally, I am sick to death of hearing about the "price of freedom" especially since I see no freedom in Iraq. Why should we being paying the price in U.S. troops lives for the freedom of a people who won't stand up for themselves, and a government who insists on having a babysitter (the U.S.)?
How about the price of avoiding a massive world war? If you think that a major war is not a likely consequence of the U.S. leaving Iraq (or of not having been there in the first place), you are living in LaLa land.
Massive World War ???????
How in blazers do you arrive at that conclusion? Surely you aren't suggesting they are saving all their heavy duty armaments to throw at us after we leave.
Please explain to me why, if they have the capability to mount a MASSIVE WORLD WAR, they are holding back, and not just throwing everything they got at us right now, especially since we are wining.
La la la da ti la, la la la da ti da and so on ..........
Oh, and please, don't come back at me with the usual name calling and other empty platitudes. If you are serious, answer the questions, and we'll talk.
Iranians moving on Southern Iraq oil fields, followed by the Turks moving on the Northern fields under the guise of preventing an independent Kurdistan WOULD take us, at the very least, to the brink of a massive war. Given that the Iraqi WMD ruse was maintained as carefully and elaborately as it was (for the expressed purpose of preventing an Iranian move), I am not whistling Dixie on this one.
Once the Iranians had shown Saddam as having no punch, the Kurds would have made a move to independence. Turkey would have countered.
If we had left the status quo, by now we would have been at the very least supporting and re-arming Saddam to maintain the balance of power in the region. Would that have been preferable? Or would you rather have waited for an incontrovertible provocation, as we did in WWII, to commit troops and armaments to sorting it out?
Jim
Even with all the weapons the US and other nations have exported into the M.E., I can't concur that a regional war equates to a massive world war. The possibility is there, no doubt, but its far fetched. There are other hot spots throughout the world that have the same capability, but chances are remote. Also, there are today other far more efficient and cheaper methods to achieve equal if not larger impact, available to "rougue" M.E. states.
The original intent was to go after OBL, and that I cheered. Somehow the ball was droped, and we ended up with a "blixt crieg" that was ill thought over. History should have tought us a lesson, but ignorance, real or ignored, brought about the current mess, where we can't move forward or backwards. Major among the failures of the war, was not understanding the mindset, and social tribal norms of the people of the country we invaded. End sum is that the world is mired in economic chaos, and the average Joe is suffering.
The reason for the vastly heightened probability of massive war emanating from the ME is that far more of the world is dependent on the major export of the ME than it was 10, 15 or 25 years ago. If ME oil supplies are disrupted for even a matter of weeks, the internal political pressures stemming from real economic chaos (not the imagined "chaos" that so many are oohing and ahhing about now) in every importing nation will be so great that the drums of war to secure supplies WILL EMERGE. Of that I have not the slightest doubt. The average Joe may be "suffering" on a basis relative to the last quarter century. However, he is not "suffering" in any way like he has historically... and certainly not like how he would in a major war.