FEEEW! Sorry for the length. No one has to read it if they don't want to. ^_- I won't force ya.

I basically just put this information here so people can better understand the reality behind the "war on terror" image being thrown around on TV. I also put it here so people can better understand where anti-war individuals stand in their beliefs. ^_^

Thanks for your patience.

now its your turn, don't_ask:

prove your point

Ooops! I just realized that I accidentally double posted one of my posts. Sorry about that. The NG screen told me that it didn't go through the first time, so I hit "post it" again. @_o' Sorry.

At 5/1/03 05:30 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Ooops! I just realized that I accidentally double posted one of my posts. Sorry about that. The NG screen told me that it didn't go through the first time, so I hit "post it" again. @_o' Sorry.

Ninja, let me tell you. This is ANNOYING. What you should do is get a geocities account (http://www.geocities.com) and then upload the text to there, then provide a link. If you do not do that I may separate you from your legs with a chainsaw.

Why is it annoying to you if you aren't going to read it anyway? You just don't like how it looks?

At 5/1/03 06:51 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Why is it annoying to you if you aren't going to read it anyway? You just don't like how it looks?

no its all about how much there is... its just 4 really long posts... and im sure u could cram it into just one post...

that and u dont have to apologize for the double post...

At 5/1/03 06:51 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Why is it annoying to you if you aren't going to read it anyway? You just don't like how it looks?

I think the point is that you progress your own ideas too far before you allow anyone else to refute your original claims. I read some of your post, and I knew about a lot of that stuff already. Lets just remember that if america hadnt funded "terrorism" in earlier days, the USSR would never have fallen, and millions of people would still be locked in Soviet imperialism. It WAS and unscrupulous tactic, but it DID work, although our dogs have turned to bite the hand that fed them (mainly 'cause the gravy train quit coming).

OK, that's fine. ^_^

But that was then and this is now. The problem is that we funded the "terrorists" earlier when we actually felt our country was in danger. That I'm not really against.

However, now we fund terrorists for everything. Mainly for reasons that will benifit us financially (such as trade). That was the problem with the funding of the Taliban. Also, the Taliban didn't change their view of America due to the "gravy train" (though that was a part of it) but more because the US began giving Palestine a hard time.

I feel that the US shouldn't be funding our own terrorist for any reasons other than for our own safety. I mean, 3,000 deaths is not worth an oil pipeline through Afghanistan (which we didn't even wind up getting in the end).

Also, the funding of terrorists wasn't my main point. I was more concerned with this war and how it relates to the Iranian Conflict, etc. How do you feel about us giving weapons and Anthrax, etc to Saddam so he could weaken Iran for us just so we could continue dominating their oil trade?

Oh well. Thanks for the comments. Like I said, I'm trying to shorten my posts a bit from now on. ^_^

Thank you NoNameProphet, for backin my opinion up! First a Judgewhatever with a thousand and something posts comes outta nowhere and tries to pointlessly destroy a compliment and puts Ninja_Scientist arguments down with no FACTS backin him up (egocentrism maybe? Maybe the "big Judgewhatever diety" can't have another diety around?)... Then a brown noser (is it spelled like this?) comes around and tries to show how great Judgewhatever is and tells me that arguments should be backed up with facts (Big news!). I just gave Ninja_Scientist a straighforward compliment for her arguments FULL of facts and sources! And this is a POLITICS forum, dammit! Why shouldn't be posts long?? I mean... is reading 20 or more lines this hard?? Politics can't be neatly discussed with just a few lines at a time!

At 5/2/03 01:19 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
Also, the funding of terrorists wasn't my main point. I was more concerned with this war and how it relates to the Iranian Conflict, etc. How do you feel about us giving weapons and Anthrax, etc to Saddam so he could weaken Iran for us just so we could continue dominating their oil trade?

I dont think the oil trade was the "only" reason for arming Saddam. We had to create a balance of power between Saddam and Iran after we armed Iran in a money laundering scam (Iran-Contra) to fund the Sandanistas in south america, a threat much closer to home after the Cuban Missile crisis.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/refarticle.aspx?refid=761573296

I must admit, however, you do have me doing my research. You might want to consider joining the DAG; you are an excellent debator, if a little long winded.

I dont think the oil trade was the "only" reason for arming Saddam. We had to create a balance of power between Saddam and Iran after we armed Iran in a money laundering scam (Iran-Contra) to fund the Sandanistas in south america, a threat much closer to home after the Cuban Missile crisis.

Although our "Iran-Contra" scam was a big part in how Iran became strong, the reason we supported Iraq in the Iranian Conflict was not because Iran was a physical danger to us.

Because we supported them (at least partially because) they were becoming strong enough not to depend on the US as an oil customer (which is very bad for the US since we are very dependent on the oil of other countries). And, they may have only decided to trade with our "enemies" or other anti-American countries (not a very good thing for us @_o').

(Basically it's kinda similar to our fears before Vietnam and Korea. These countries turned Communist and we were afriand they would dump us off in trading and go support Russia, our biggest enemy at the time, which needless to say, wouldn't exactly be a good thing. Of course, this fear wouldn't have been so great without the "Domino Theory," but that's another story).

Anyway, Iran wasn't strong enough to really be a true threat to us physically. That's why we didn't have the reason to go and bomb them ourselves (well, we could have pulled a "Bush" and say that they have weapons that we gave them and that we should go bomb them for that...or something).
And again by taking action like this simply for financial reasons, we keep making more problems for our country.

Here's the main problem:

We support some terrorists to fight one government instead of doing it ourselves, these people hate us and then become strong enough through our actions to be a threat to our trade, so we support another country to go fight them for us again, this country also hates us, and now we supposedly feel threatened by them through our own actions again.

We support some terrorists to fight another government (the Taliban and the Zuraki Government) for us, they hate us, and then they get strong enough through our actions to attack us.

Like I said before, America is very infamous for handling situations in this manner (especially for reasons surrounding financial situations, such as trade, etc, which makes us so unpopular with France as of now). The problem with this, is that our actions don't only affect us, but other countries as well.

In a nutshell, that's why so many countries hate America (for anyone who is wondering). Now if we did it only when we felt we were in physical danger and not financial danger, then maybe we wouldn't be as hated, because countries (such as France for example) would find appropriate reason for such action and wouldn't judge us so harshly for those decisions.

All in all, we have to stop supporting terrorists to do our dirty work for us. Otherwise we're just going to have to keep supporting more terrorists to fight the other terrorists we supported previously and then later support different terrorists to fight the others when we're done with them. The attack on 9/11 should have shown our country that this obviously isn't working! Is this the only way we can fight our enemies? To create and finance more?

We just make more countries angry everytime we do it. Afterall, the Taliban actually became anti-American because, after we got them in power, we went and started screwing with Palestine.

I think we just plain need to stop making new mistakes just to try to "fix" our old ones. It doesn't work.

Another reason I'm mad at Bush is that he's just going after the "problems" we've caused only if they have oil involved. Our main problem right now is Korea. And yet he does absolutely nothing about it. Again, even though Clinton wasn't a great guy, at least he kept up on the Korean threat. When Bush came in, he completely dropped it. And he has remained SO inactive about it, that other countries are starting to get alarmed.

Well, Korea doesn't have oil. Go figure. I support Capitalism, but it's a sad day in American history when we actually hand our "throne" over to the businesses themselves. This is why presidents aren't allowed to take bribes, it affects their ability to run the country in a way that's best for America. Well Bush has gone behond "bribe" because his family owns these companies to begin with. And now just look what's happening. This is rediculous.

In the future, we need to learn from this and make sure that anyone who applies for presidency cannot own a major business that will be affected by presidential actions. It's just not good for our country.

Few! All in all, my main point is that we need to stop making these mistakes now and Bush isn't helping.

At 4/30/03 05:01 PM, Jiperly wrote: The Taliban were created to remove the soveits from power, and they received cash from America during the cold war for doing so. heres some proof I found- the second link when i looked up "The History of the taliban"

http://www.expressnews.ualbert...es/ideas.cfm?p_ID=1517&s=a

No, I wasn't intimidated by Ninja Scientists post, I wsa serving a temporary ban(I asked for it), but anyway I have only one thing to say about our funding of the Taliban. We didn't directly fund terrorism but instaed we did it indirectly, and again our current Presiden George W Bush had nothing to do with it. Its almost like saying, "We can't arm soldiers because they might end up shooting us or each other", its not fair at all. As for their hatred for us goes, I think that it is purely motivated by religion.

a couple of points:

1 money is the life blood of a country. If the US loses its control on trade, we might as well get bombed, because the poor are a lot worse than foreign soldiers when it comes to full out destruction. Soldiers have a moral code but squatters do not.

2 All powerful families have ties to oil. Bush is president because his family is rich. OF COURSE he has ties to the oil industry. EVERY president does. Bush is NOT lining the pockets of just his friends, hes lining the pockets of the whole US.

3 Funding terrorism is not new. Have you ever heard of the 5th column? Its a military term for the last regiment in the perfect attack. Its part of the old roman "divide and conquer" strategy. How it works is to defeat a country, you must first destroy its solidarity (ie fund terrorist fringe groups). Then, you invade with the standard attack (1 column frontal, 1 column reserve, 1 column flank left, 1 column flank right, four columns total). The fifth column, in Iraq the Shi'ites and Kurds, are internal insurrectionists.

In conclusion, sadly, we HAVE to support insurrectionist groups in order to win ANY battle, not just those in the middle east. And trade IS a battle, which if we lose has the same consequences as any other. ALL wars are for money, no matter what they may seem on paper. Although I do agree that we should stay the hell out of the Israeli conflicts, mainly because it helps fuel our enemies insurrectionist groups.

We didn't directly fund terrorism but instaed we did it indirectly, and again our current Presiden George W Bush had nothing to do with it.

The US (especially Bush Sr.) sent millions of dollars and weapons to terrorists groups in Afghanistan directly. The purpose was to put in a power that was pro-American (and keep our trade going good). However, after we started screwing with Palenstine, we were faced with a very anti-American Taliban. Bush continued his father's plans by trying to negotiate with the same terrorists (again for purposes surrounding trade) even after 9/11. So "our" Bush didn't fund them earlier, but he was still trying to bargain with them (which would have given them more finances anyway) in continuation to his father's negotiations. So Bush didn't have anything to do with it then, but he sure had a lot to do with everything that happened afterwards. Again, look at Korea for example of his ignorance.

1 money is the life blood of a country. If the US loses its control on trade, we might as well get bombed, because the poor are a lot worse than foreign soldiers when it comes to full out destruction. Soldiers have a moral code but squatters do not.

I never heard of "the poor" ramming some planes into buildings. Now that was a good example of "moral code."

The people we supported weren't soldiers. The soldiers were loyal to the Zuraki Government. The people we supported were terrorists and extremests (who also hate America---not a good combination).

Also, the US will never "loose it's control" on trade. The issue is usually not trade alone, but oil trade particularly.

That's why 9/11 happened, it's why Osama got away, it's why the Iranian Contra happened, it's why the Iranian Conflict happened, that's why Saddam has Anthrax and other weapons of mass descruction, and that's why Korea is now becoming more of a threat.

It ALL has to do with oil trade. The problem is that the US is feverishly dependent on the oil of other countries. That's why we go to such pathetically desperate lengths (such as supporting our enemies) to get it. If you want US relations to get better some time soon, we NEED to start finding other sources of fuel.

Not controlling the trade of a few countries won't kill us....that is, as long as we stop depending on other countries just so our own can work right (I'm talking about oil again. *cough*).

And on an ending note, I'd much more prefer "squatters" than "might as well being bombed."

Ironically, as long as we "control all trade" (as you put it), then you won't have to worry, cause we'll probably continue to be bombed. If we "don't control all trade," then we won't. And if we had better sources of fuel, then we wouldn' t have to worry about "squatters" either. But of course, as long as our administration is making cash off of it, that's probably not going to happen for a while now is it?

2 All powerful families have ties to oil. Bush is president because his family is rich. OF COURSE he has ties to the oil industry. EVERY president does. Bush is NOT lining the pockets of just his friends, hes lining the pockets of the whole US.

Here's a common misconception I hear surprisingly often. A bunch of rich guys getting richer does not make the rest of the US richer. The only way it could would be if they had the same spending rates that an average class citizen did. Unfortunately, they don't. It's hard to think of ways to spend millions of dollars every day. Most of that cash gets put away in a valt and never "loops it's way through the economy" as some people think.

Here's another question. It has been shown that through certain "loop holes," car companies that make SUVs spared themselves a 1.1 billion tax dept by giving the bill to the American tax payer.

Basically, instructed by the government, certain cars are supposed to pay a certain tax. The "loop hole" is that SUVs have yet to be classified as any type of car on "the list," so the car manifactuers don't have to pay any tax at all.

This "savings" doesn' t get "passed on" to the consumers. Instead, the CEO's decided to pocket the cash themselves. So, now every single tax paying American has to pay a 1.1 billion dollar tax dept just so some rich guys can get even richer. And this money is going to take a long time to circulate through our society.

In fact, it's unlikely that you will see any of it back. Even if one guy buys a 2 million dollar pool, how much do you think 2 million dollars is going to spread accross our massive population? And if you do happen to see a little of it, it will most likely not be as much as the enormous taxes you had to pay until this tax dept is paid off. How fast can you spend 1.1 billion dollars? Not very. Most of it, like I said, goes in a valt, and will probably given to their rich kids someday (who may also be our future presidents. lol.).

How do you feel about "the rich getting richer benefits us all" now?

3 Funding terrorism is not new. Have you ever heard of the 5th column? Its a military term for the last regiment in the perfect attack. Its part of the old roman "divide and conquer" strategy. How it works is to defeat a country, you must first destroy its solidarity (ie fund terrorist fringe groups). Then, you invade with the standard attack (1 column frontal, 1 column reserve, 1 column flank left, 1 column flank right, four columns total). The fifth column, in Iraq the Shi'ites and Kurds, are internal insurrectionists.

In conclusion, sadly, we HAVE to support insurrectionist groups in order to win ANY battle, not just those in the middle east. And trade IS a battle, which if we lose has the same consequences as any other. ALL wars are for money, no matter what they may seem on paper. Although I do agree that we should stay the hell out of the Israeli conflicts, mainly because it helps fuel our enemies insurrectionist groups.

The problem is not supporting terrorism itself, it's why we have been supporting terrorism and if it's needed or not. Do you think we really need terrorists to fight the Iraqi people for example? What about the Zuraki government? We could have easily taken it down ourselves.

But I digress. I believe that supporting terrorists can have it's benefits when our country is in true danger from another. However, I don't think that oil trade or any kind of trade is worth giving millions of dollars and weapons to terrorists, especially when they are our enemies.

Firstly, it's very pathetic for a country supposedly as "powerful" as ours to have to get on our knees and give money, weapons, and "gifts" to people who hate us just because, like an infant, we can't ween ourselves off the supplies and aid (especially oil) of other countries.

We're not the world's "police man." Not unless you're idea of a police man is an addict who gives weapons to convicts to fight other convicts for him just because he's dependent on the both of them to fulfill his pathetic addiction.

Giving that much money and weapons to terrorists who hate us is like giving a homicidal maniac a gun in exchange for gas money....and then having to live with him.

Is that really worth it? Is that in our best interests?

If you love America so much, why would you want to keep it weak like that?

Anyway, though, this only makes our situation worse. For oil, we support terrorists who hate us, then we have to support more terrorists who hate us to fight the old ones, then we have to fund more terrorists to fight the others. Do you understand what I'm saying? So, we keep getting more and more enemies and we keep making them stronger and stronger until our country is surrounded by those who hate us and by those who now have the ability to attack us. And for what? Oil? Trade? Do you really think it's worth it?

Face facts. The attack on 9/11 should have proved that this isn't working. We need to start fighting our own battles and become more independent. We need to find other sources of fuel. We must stop using "trade" as a reason to pathetically put ourselves in the line of fire, and make people hate us and capable of acting on their hate. It's just not worth it.

Thanks for your support, Mjollnir and all. ^_^ I really appreciate it.

At 5/3/03 08:39 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: 1 money is the life blood of a country. If the US loses its control on trade, we might as well get bombed, because the poor are a lot worse than foreign soldiers when it comes to full out destruction. Soldiers have a moral code but squatters do not.

I never heard of "the poor" ramming some planes into buildings. Now that was a good example of "moral code."
Also, the US will never "loose it's control" on trade. The issue is usually not trade alone, but oil trade particularly.

The suicide bombers ARE poor. They kill themselves so the rich beneficiaries of these terrorist buy ins will take care of their families. They do it for money and respect that they cannot earn any other way. None of that has anything to do with oil, only money.

And on an ending note, I'd much more prefer "squatters" than "might as well being bombed."

how many squatters do you know? There are some places in downtown Memphis Id like you show you if you dont know any.

Ironically, as long as we "control all trade" (as you put it), then you won't have to worry, cause we'll probably continue to be bombed. If we "don't control all trade," then we won't. And if we had better sources of fuel, then we wouldn' t have to worry about "squatters" either. But of course, as long as our administration is making cash off of it, that's probably not going to happen for a while now is it?

how will better sources of fuel make the poor rich? Were fighting poverty here, not fighting for oil. Poor people are more highly motivated that the rich because they have more to gain. You keep saying that all were doing is making the rich richer, but you never say how to make the poor smarter and more capable. Its an age old problem with only one solution: public education. And that's state level corruption destroying that, not "bush".

2 All powerful families have ties to oil. Bush is president because his family is rich. OF COURSE he has ties to the oil industry. EVERY president does. Bush is NOT lining the pockets of just his friends, hes lining the pockets of the whole US.

Here's a common misconception I hear surprisingly often. A bunch of rich guys getting richer does not make the rest of the US richer. The only way it could would be if they had the same spending rates that an average class citizen did. Unfortunately, they don't. It's hard to think of ways to spend millions of dollars every day. Most of that cash gets put away in a valt and never "loops it's way through the economy" as some people think.

Actually its called "trickle-down economics". And all these extremely rich people pay up to 50% of all their income in taxes under US law. Most of that cash they keep goes into stocks which support business growth, although yes, it does make the rich richer. It also creates new jobs for the poor and middle class though.

Would we all have computers now if it werent for large scale investing the huge corporations (namely microsoft) by the extremely rich?

Here's another question. It has been shown that through certain "loop holes," car companies that make SUVs spared themselves a 1.1 billion tax dept by giving the bill to the American tax payer.

SUV's? Come on now, SUV's are only the tip of the iceberg. We all now that a good enough accountant can do just about anything he wants. A friend of mine with 10 g's of credit card debt used a "loophole" to have it all declared illegal and disbursed. The point Im trying to make is this. Money=Power. With enough money you can do whatever you want. Until you cant take the advantages out of being rich, it will stay that way. And when you take those advantages away, then noone even wants to create new things anymore, which is MUCH worse.

PS: did you know that the auto industry BUYS OUT efficient clean car designs because they make more money on gas-guzzlers? *shoots himself in foot*

At 5/3/03 08:41 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: The problem is not supporting terrorism itself, it's why we have been supporting terrorism and if it's needed or not. Do you think we really need terrorists to fight the Iraqi people for example? What about the Zuraki government? We could have easily taken it down ourselves.

But I digress. I believe that supporting terrorists can have it's benefits when our country is in true danger from another. However, I don't think that oil trade or any kind of trade is worth giving millions of dollars and weapons to terrorists, especially when they are our enemies.

to be honest, its all about diplomacy. These terrorists act like charities, not paramilitary groups. Instead of supporting terrorism, funding these groups looks like foreign aid.

Firstly, it's very pathetic for a country supposedly as "powerful" as ours to have to get on our knees and give money, weapons, and "gifts" to people who hate us just because, like an infant, we can't ween ourselves off the supplies and aid (especially oil) of other countries.

Ach, what are a few million dollars to us? Diplomacy is all about "gifts".

We're not the world's "police man." Not unless you're idea of a police man is an addict who gives weapons to convicts to fight other convicts for him just because he's dependent on the both of them to fulfill his pathetic addiction.

If were not the world's policeman, who else is powerful enough to do it? You see, all these other countries rely on the US to insure international justice, but they wont get their own hands dirty with it. So we do all of the work, get half the credit, and all of the blame. I dont claim that all our "police actions" are justified, but I do claim that noone else has the power to police the world as efficiently as we can.

Anyway, though, this only makes our situation worse. For oil, we support terrorists who hate us, then we have to support more terrorists who hate us to fight the old ones, then we have to fund more terrorists to fight the others. Do you understand what I'm saying? So, we keep getting more and more enemies and we keep making them stronger and stronger until our country is surrounded by those who hate us and by those who now have the ability to attack us. And for what? Oil? Trade? Do you really think it's worth it?

youre missing a point, and that point is this. Part of what we do is create a "balance of power". The idea is that, while our enemies hate us, they hate each other MORE. they spend most of their time bickering amoung themselves, and not fighting us.

Face facts. The attack on 9/11 should have proved that this isn't working. We need to start fighting our own battles and become more independent. We need to find other sources of fuel. We must stop using "trade" as a reason to pathetically put ourselves in the line of fire, and make people hate us and capable of acting on their hate. It's just not worth it.

Hey, if we fight our own battles, then the violence is traced back to us. I agree 911 should never have happened, but funding terrorism is the only way that we can maintain a balance of power amoung our enemies, without making an even greater amount of hate for ourselves. Its a razors edge to walk for us, with plunder on one side and corruption on the other, but noone ever said being a super-power was easy.

money is the life blood of a country. If the US loses its control on trade, we might as well get bombed
-Funk

wait a sec- so you're saying that its okey for American to bomb other nations (literaly) for ecconmic gain, to protect americans from being "bombed" in the global trade?

how can you be so inhuman? Are you seriously putting a price on human life?

Before I respond to FUNKbrs, can someone please tell me his connection to our war with Iraq and the poverty of our own country? And what the the income of terrorists has to do with it? And intelligence and schooling of the poor in our country has to do with it? And making the poor rich, and, and fighting poverty, and public school systems, and rich people being taxed, etc?

I'm sorry, but you seem to be very confused by my responses, so maybe I didn't understand you the first time.

Are you a former member of the Clinton administration or something Ninja Scientist? You seem to have a lot of info on everything. I am riddled by your long posts.

At 5/4/03 09:54 PM, Jiperly wrote: money is the life blood of a country. If the US loses its control on trade, we might as well get bombed
-Funk

wait a sec- so you're saying that its okey for American to bomb other nations (literaly) for ecconmic gain, to protect americans from being "bombed" in the global trade?

how can you be so inhuman? Are you seriously putting a price on human life?

If you havent noticed yet, there IS a price on human life, but it is determined in the currency of other human lives. Every cancer ridden child we save through millions of dollars of research means thousands of other 3rd world chilren starving to death every day. Should we cure cancer, or feed starving children? Thats where who has the money comes in. The $ value on human life enters the picture at this point. Different countries have different values for their citizens, but it all comes down to money.

To reiterate Money=Power. Power to save lives, power to destroy them. Power to fly to the moon, power to cure disease. Who has the money determines how this power will be used, and as long as the US has the money, we determine of the fate of the world. We save our cancer ridden children at the expense of someone else having their children die. Either way, children die. Money is how we make sure the children that die are not ours.

At 5/5/03 10:06 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Ninja is just intelligent, unlike a lot of the people he debates against

He? i don't think shes a he......

At 5/5/03 10:13 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: To reiterate Money=Power. Power to save lives, power to destroy them. Power to fly to the moon, power to cure disease.

But who would benifit from Americans getting rich? is it the poor nations that became bombed because they wouldn't trade with the US, or the Americans who are getting rich off the lives of others- this isn't like disease- this is human beings killing other human beings for money. This isn't like a plague we just can't stop. This is a plague we MUST stop.

And while your at it, go to one of these suffering nations and tell them why they get to suffer- for the better good of global ecconmy. I doubt they would agree with you, and if the roles were reversed, i doubt you would agree to suffer for the global ecconmy either.

At 5/5/03 10:06 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

"I am riddled by your long posts" just makes it seem as if your too lazy to read.

Well maybe that's because a lot of what is contained in those long posts is just plain shit!

At 5/5/03 02:12 PM, Dont_ask wrote:

At 5/5/03 10:06 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

"I am riddled by your long posts" just makes it seem as if your too lazy to read.

Well maybe that's because a lot of what is contained in those long posts is just plain shit!

The only way to know without being a streotypical asshole, would to read them.

At 5/5/03 12:08 PM, Jiperly wrote:

At 5/5/03 10:13 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: To reiterate Money=Power. Power to save lives, power to destroy them. Power to fly to the moon, power to cure disease.

But who would benifit from Americans getting rich? is it the poor nations that became bombed because they wouldn't trade with the US, or the Americans who are getting rich off the lives of others- this isn't like disease- this is human beings killing other human beings for money. This isn't like a plague we just can't stop. This is a plague we MUST stop.

And while your at it, go to one of these suffering nations and tell them why they get to suffer- for the better good of global ecconmy. I doubt they would agree with you, and if the roles were reversed, i doubt you would agree to suffer for the global ecconmy either.

Noone HAS to suffer, but in order for us all to benefit, we must all work together. If these countries would focus on education instead of fighting the US, they could be rich too. Money is not a limited resource, because as long as people have the capacity to create new sources of power, there will be new sources of valuable currency. They suffer because they do not understand that war is not and end, but a means. Noone wants a war, they are too wasteful of resources. We fight for money, but money is not earned by fighting. America is rich because of our many great inventions, not because of our military strength.
I am an American, so I want America to be rich. I dont want other countries to be poor, or to suffer, but if given the choice between their poverty and mine, I would choose their poverty. They try to emulate our armies instead of our industry, and that is why they stay poor, and we stay rich. Look at Japan. They have no resources, overcrowded cities and have suffered a devastating defeat in WWII. Why are they so prosperous? Because they understood the need for industry and efficiency and now they are economic giants. Other countries could learn from their example.

At 5/5/03 02:14 PM, el_foka wrote: The only way to know without being a streotypical asshole, would to read them.

Shutup! I've attempted to read some of the posts.I'm not saying that everything within those posts are shit but a lot of it is.

At 5/5/03 02:39 PM, Dont_ask wrote:

Shutup! I've attempted to read some of the posts.I'm not saying that everything within those posts are shit but a lot of it is.

You've attempted? What kind of lame halfassed attitude is that. I'm afraid that if you're going to make a well informed decision, you're going to have to read the whole thing. It's easy to type, what a crappy article, or such, but arguements such as that really belong in General, with everyone else who wishes to ignore that which doesn't pertain to themselves.

Shut up? Indeed.