The reason why I said, "I've attmpted", is because very long posts tend to burn my eyes. That isn't intended to be a joke either. I come in here to have intelligent discussions too. You have taken what I said in the first place and twisted it around.

At 5/5/03 03:01 PM, Dont_ask wrote: The reason why I said, "I've attmpted", is because very long posts tend to burn my eyes. That isn't intended to be a joke either. I come in here to have intelligent discussions too. You have taken what I said in the first place and twisted it around.

Come on, that's a pretty lame excuse. They tend to burn my eyes also, but why not simply take a break, or change to a seprate screen with something more pleasing?

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.

I AM CLINTON! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

*ahem* Just kidding.

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.

......You can't be serious. I wasn't trying to prove or deny relations between a lack of money and terrorism. What does terrorists being poor have to do with what I said? I was saying that the poor or "squatters" (as you nicely called them) in our country are less of a problem than having our people get killed or "ramming planes into our buildings." Get it?

Also, I wasn't putting a relationship between oil and suicide bombers either. I was responding to what you said about how "if we don't bomb other people, then we'll loose our control over trade." I said that we won't, because the issue doesn't have to do with trade alone, but with oil trade. Oil trade is not the only type of trade America does. So even if we lose one or two supplier, it won't affect the rest of the US's trade (understand now).
--------
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.

How many times have you been bombed? You can't be seriously implying that "sqatters" are worse than death? @_o'

OK! Everyone here, please tell me if you would A) Rather find some squatters in your yard some day, or B) Get bombed or killed in the WTC?

I also think that it's shameful of you to undermine the tragety of 9/11 by saying that something as stupid as "squatters" are "worse."
-----
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".

NOW what the heck are you talking about? I wasn't talking about making the poor rich with better sources of fuel. @_o' *sigh* You were implying some sort of weird connection between our control over the trade of other countries and the amount of poverty in our own. So, I assumed you were talking about the oil industry being affected and how that would affect "jobs" and your exagerated sense of the "trickle down" theory.

Different sources of fuel will open up more jobs for people, and even if the oil industry is affected, the rich oil tycoons will still be rich (though that doesn't affect much). Also, if we stop interfearing with other countries for oil or financial benefit, then we won't have to worry about another 9/11 happening. That was my point. And I also explained how limited the "trickle down" theory is. Frankly though, I don't believe in a strong connection to the oil trade and the ammount of poverty in our country at all.

Since when are we fighting poverty? And what does poverty have to do with this war? Since when did I even talk about that, either? So, we're fighting another country "because they're poor and not because they have oil?" Or, now suddenly, the war with Iraq is to help the poverty problem here in America? Where the heck did that come from? First tell me your connection to how this war is helping poverty in America, and then tell me (if this truly is your belief) why the administration hasn't talked about this as a reason to go to war at all.

......I never said how to make the poor smarter, because that wasn't what I was talking about either. I was talking about how the rich getting wealthier affects us. I'm not talking about intelligence at all. Also, for your information, poor people can still be smart.

Also, for your information, although Bush isn't the cause of bad public education, he has been ignoring the problem and has even taken away some of the funds that were supposed to go to bettering it. Where did I talk about Bush and schools anyway?

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.

"Trickle-down economics" does exist, but you've exaggerated it quite a bit. Also, the percentage a person is taxed doesn't have to do with the trickle down theary at all, however, since that money goes to the government and not us (but that's another story, and if you really want that money to affect us, then you wouldn't want to have so many expensive wars that take that tax money away from other more important sources, like education as you said ^_-).

"Trickle down" involves money earned and money spent and how that affects us, etc. Also, these people cause as much tax to us as they pay (again, look at the 1.1 billion tax dept given to the American people by the car companies that make SUVs).

Putting money into stocks helps businesses, but it doesn't affect jobs very much since these businesses are usually ones that are already profitable ones that cannot expand much anyway (it's rarely put into "new" businesses, which would create jobs). Basically, it's given to the businesses of other tycoons, such as Microsoft, etc. which doesn't produce many new jobs. In fact, this can kick out any "up and coming" businesses. So, so much for your idea of the "makes more jobs" theory.

Also, for your information, Bush has drastically lowered taxes for the "extremely rich" (I wonder why).
--------
Would we all have computers now if it werent for large scale investing the huge corporations (namely microsoft) by the extremely rich?

Bill Gates was already rich from other businesses. The other "rich" didn't do it "to help," they did it because they wanted a piece of the pie, too (Obviously. I mean, Gates didn't even really need "help" to launch a "silly" idea like the internet, now did he?).

Would we have the oil crisis we have now if it wasn't for the "extremely rich" putting a halt on fuel tecnology, would we have the 1.1 billion dollar tax dept if it wasn't for the "extremely rich?," Would we be behind in medicine and other advances if it wasn't for the "extremely rich'" buying out those rights to keep their businesses going?

Thank you "extremely rich."

I also explained the "trickle down" theory with the "2 million dollar pool" reference. And how the amount of "trickle down" money rarely spreads across the entire American population, and when it does, it spreads thinly. All in all, these individuals cause more dept to the American people than what they give to them.
--------
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*

......And this is a good thing? So, "if we don't let people cheat, then no one will want to make anything new anymore, because cheating's fun.".......I don't think I even need to respond to how stupid that sounds. "Business insentive" comes from how much money that business produces, not how much you get to cheat.

Also, how does your friend getting rid of his dept prove the Money=Power theory? Was your friend wealthy?
-----
And, all in all, everyone is right. Even if America did get extremely rich off of any war, that doesn't make the the human sacrifice needed for that right. Most right wing people at least say something like, "we're not doing it for money, we're doing it to help people out of the goodness of our hearts, or because Saddam is evil." But this is the first time I've heard someone say, "Yeah, we're doing it for money, but who cares? So what if people die, at least we're getting rich." That is pretty cold.

Hey, don't worry el_foka and the rest of you. lol. ^_-

I know when people respond to debates with "Oh, yeah, well it's all shit," or "Shut up," or "You're a bitch," etc. it can be pretty annoying. But it can never hurt you. lol.

It's like I always say:

Show me a man who resorts to simplistic cursing, insults, or denyal, and I'll show you a man who's run out of anything else good to say. ^_-

The second someone resorts to this, then you know you've already won. ^_-

To reiterate Money=Power. Power to save lives, power to destroy them. Power to fly to the moon, power to cure disease.

Now wait a minute. Are you the same person who said this?

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*

.....So basically, first you admitted that the wealthy companies "buy out" rights and such in advancements in engineering, which slows progress down simply too keep their products and such needed. And yet then you say that, "they aid progress" with the same logic.

Well, which is it?
-----
Here's the deal for those of you who may not understand what he was talking about at first:

Let's say that there is research being done on cures for the common cold. But the cold medicine companies and Kleenex companies don't want a cure for the cold, because that would put them out of business. So they buy the rights to the research to prevent a cure from being made (and as crazy as this sounds, something like that actually happened a while back----it was in the news, but unfortunately, it's too long ago for me to track down the article for you. Sorry. -_-).

Well, big companies do this all the time. So, they slow down advancements in medicine and technical engineering just to keep their business good. Understand?

So, I'll reiterate once again, big companies are not always a good thing when it comes to America's progress in the world. In fact, big companies probably spend more time "buying out rights" than by making advancements of their own. You can even tell, since FUNK, himself, gave a few examples of them inhibiting America's progress, but none to show them helping.
-------
Normally I don't target the individuals themselves who debate me, but if anyone can't tell by now in FUNK's speeches, he's a money hungry and power hungry individual with no care for anyone else (which he's even admitted @_o'), and even has a deluded sense of the proof behind his own theories. He's a bad example of even a right wing extremist. lol.

Also, it would help if you were to stop contradicting yourself, or going off the subject all the time (such as your sudden jump into American poverty and education, which this war has nothing to do with), and it would help if you were to explain the connections you seem to have between this war and some of your theories.

At 4/26/03 12:29 PM, Dont_ask wrote: I'm sick and tired of how our brave men and woman are being trated by foolish Iraqis. They want us out so badly, well I feel that we've overstayed our non-welcome and that we should leave. I hope that Sadamm isn't dead so that once he does resurface he'll eliminate hundreds of people like he used to, that'd teach them! I mean there's absolutely no appreciation for what we have done for them(forget about the oil issue).Imagine all of the dead would both coalition and Iraqis would have been in vain. We can never win because once we do leave and Sadaam goes back to killing(theoretically speaking), we'll then be blamed for abandoning them and not rebuilding the mess that we left from the numerous explosions, it makes me sick to my stomach!

Fuck you, are you insane? What medicine are you on?
Do you think it is weird that the Iraqi people treat your 'brave' men and woman 'foolish'? YOU KILLED POSSIBLE OVER 1 MILLION CIVILIAN IRAQIS!!! FOR GODS SAKE!!! Well, its possible that you killed even more, now that US announced they will not show the deathcount.... WAKE UP!!! Bush deserves a fucking bullet in his ugly white face. Not the people of Iraq.
And dont come with that 'you love Saddam' crap. I hate Saddam. I wish him dead. If you could move into Iraq with a sniper team and kill off Saddam and his co-workers, I would be happy. You drop thousands of bombs instead. On the people. Fuck you. Fuck you.

At 5/5/03 06:53 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
"Trickle-down economics" does exist, but you've exaggerated it quite a bit. Also, the percentage a person is taxed doesn't have to do with the trickle down theary at all, however, since that money goes to the government and not us (but that's another story, and if you really want that money to affect us, then you wouldn't want to have so many expensive wars that take that tax money away from other more important sources, like education as you said ^_-).

I also said that education is funded mainly locally and not federally. The war is a federal expense, not a state or city expense. Therefore the war doesnt really affect local funds for education. Also, are you saying people in the military dont recieve education such as pilots licenses? The military existed before colleges did, and is one of the greatest sources of education for the poor the US has.

"Trickle down" involves money earned and money spent and how that affects us, etc. Also, these people cause as much tax to us as they pay (again, look at the 1.1 billion tax dept given to the American people by the car companies that make SUVs).

Putting money into stocks helps businesses, but it doesn't affect jobs very much since these businesses are usually ones that are already profitable ones that cannot expand much anyway (it's rarely put into "new" businesses, which would create jobs). Basically, it's given to the businesses of other tycoons, such as Microsoft, etc. which doesn't produce many new jobs. In fact, this can kick out any "up and coming" businesses. So, so much for your idea of the "makes more jobs" theory.

so when an existing business expands due to increased corporate funding through stocks, they dont hire more people? Please dont claim to have discredited my ideas before you give me a chance for a rebuttal. ; )

Also, for your information, Bush has drastically lowered taxes for the "extremely rich" (I wonder why).

so they can invest in businesses so in turn those businesses can hire more people and create more goods cheaper?

Bill Gates was already rich from other businesses. The other "rich" didn't do it "to help," they did it because they wanted a piece of the pie, too (Obviously. I mean, Gates didn't even really need "help" to launch a "silly" idea like the internet, now did he?).

the system runs on greed, but thats not necessarily a bad thing as you seem to assume.

Also, how does your friend getting rid of his dept prove the Money=Power theory? Was your friend wealthy?

he paid 2,000.00 to a lawyer. Did I forget to mention that? You see how that works now?

-----

But this is the first time I've heard someone say, "Yeah, we're doing it for money, but who cares? So what if people die, at least we're getting rich." That is pretty cold.

the world is a cold dark place. You did notice the "DAG" logo in my sig, right? I hope that makes my stance a little clearer to you.

At 5/6/03 01:30 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
Now wait a minute. Are you the same person who said this?

again, note DAG.

.....So basically, first you admitted that the wealthy companies "buy out" rights and such in advancements in engineering, which slows progress down simply too keep their products and such needed. And yet then you say that, "they aid progress" with the same logic.

Well, which is it?

Both. Nothing is simple. Companies progress technology when it profits them, and stifle it for the same reason. I maintain a hardcore anticopyright stance, but I thought that would be a little off topic to mention.

So, I'll reiterate once again, big companies are not always a good thing when it comes to America's progress in the world. In fact, big companies probably spend more time "buying out rights" than by making advancements of their own. You can even tell, since FUNK, himself, gave a few examples of them inhibiting America's progress, but none to show them helping.

Au contrair, I did mention the invention of the computer. May I also add the jet engine, the color television, the cd, dvd, PS2.... I dont know all of them, but the list is pretty long.

-------
Normally I don't target the individuals themselves who debate me, but if anyone can't tell by now in FUNK's speeches, he's a money hungry and power hungry individual with no care for anyone else (which he's even admitted @_o'), and even has a deluded sense of the proof behind his own theories. He's a bad example of even a right wing extremist. lol.

Id like to say Im anti-partisan, thank you. And what ever happened to "insults dont belong in debate"?

Also, it would help if you were to stop contradicting yourself, or going off the subject all the time (such as your sudden jump into American poverty and education, which this war has nothing to do with), and it would help if you were to explain the connections you seem to have between this war and some of your theories.

Hey, I like to keep things honest. If there are two facts that are true, but seem to contradict each other, I post both of them in hopes someone can clarify the matter. And by the way, if America is extremely rich, whether that money is gained through war or not, then we can afford better education for ourselves, right?

At 5/5/03 02:33 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: 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

That has to be the sadest thing i've ever read- you are seriously comfortable with the thought of Millions in poverty in order to keep you not only in power, but unbelieveibly rich compared to these people.....

If I were to give you a gun, and siad if you shoot a five year old Seryian girl in the head, you would be successful, you would be comfortable with your decision to kill her? And if i were to give you a machine gun and tell you if you kill 100 Lybians, your bisness with be successful, you would be comfortable with your decision? If i were to place you in front of a button, and tell you if you will hit it, i will launch a nuke at Baghdad, and 4 million people will either die instantly or very, very slowly and painfully, and tell you that if this happens, your country will be successful, you would hit the button?

What you don't seem to understand is that these numbers or not statstics. They are people- people with hopes, dreams, and futures that you drag through the mud by killing and forcing poverty for your own gain, not theirs. These people are suffering for your nations profit, and you seem quite comfortable and willing to let that happen, so long as you can live your life in complete luxery compared to what they have.

How about i give you an alterate veiw- You have been trained by Bin Laden- your friends, family, nieghbours, children, they are all suffering so the West can live comfortable lives. Bin Laden goes to you and says " you kill Americans, you will profit. You sucide bomb Iserals, your family will profit, and if you hijack a plane and fly it into a building, your nation will profit."

And please tell me this- how is that any different?

At 5/6/03 11:55 AM, Jiperly wrote:

what about the other part of my statement where I said that they dont HAVE to be poor, but only lack education? I made that statement on the basis that the choice was black/white kill/starve. My point was that this is not the only option. Iraq, also, is not a "poor" country. They have in abundance one of the worlds most in demand resources. But they choose to use the money from those resources to fund wars instead of to raise the quality of life in Iraq. We dont oppress them because they are poor, we oppress them because they are violent. Ignorance breeds violence and poverty. Education is the only solution to those problems. Or you can just dismiss me as an evil murderer if the complexity of my argument bothers you.

I also said that education is funded mainly locally and not federally. The war is a federal expense, not a state or city expense. Therefore the war doesnt really affect local funds for education. Also, are you saying people in the military dont recieve education such as pilots licenses? The military existed before colleges did, and is one of the greatest sources of education for the poor the US has.

Once again, why are you talking about American education? I didn't even mention it in any of my posts. This war has nothing to do with American education.

I'd appreciate it if you would actually respond to some of my points about the war and stop going off the topic like this.

If you want to talk about education, then just make a seperate topic.

Putting money into stocks helps businesses, but it doesn't affect jobs very much since these businesses are usually ones that are already profitable ones that cannot expand much anyway (it's rarely put into "new" businesses, which would create jobs). Basically, it's given to the businesses of other tycoons, such as Microsoft, etc. which doesn't produce many new jobs. In fact, this can kick out any "up and coming" businesses. So, so much for your idea of the "makes more jobs" theory.

So when an existing business expands due to increased corporate funding through stocks, they dont hire more people? Please dont claim to have discredited my ideas before you give me a chance for a rebuttal. ; )

Let me repeat myself, "Putting money into stocks helps businesses, but it doesn't affect jobs very much since these businesses are usually ones that are already profitable ones that CANNOT EXPAND MUCH ANYWAY (it's rarely put into "new" businesses, which would create jobs)."

Uh, you're "rebuttal" is just a question that I already answered. Most businesses the money goes into can't expand anyway because they are already at the top of the business world (such as Microsoft, GM, etc). So, they don't create many new jobs. In edition, I said that these businesses often kick out up and coming businesses whose expanding WOULD create new jobs. So, it actually damages the job market in some cases.

I said that these businesses can't expand much and then you asked me, "so when they expand, they don't produce more jobs?" @_o'

Also, what does any of this have to do with American relations and war? lol.

Now wait a minute. Are you the same person who said this?

again, note DAG.

....What does DAG have to do with you contradicting yourself?
--------
So basically, first you admitted that the wealthy companies "buy out" rights and such in advancements in engineering, which slows progress down simply too keep their products and such needed. And yet then you say that, "they aid progress" with the same logic.

Well, which is it?

Both. Nothing is simple. Companies progress technology when it profits them, and stifle it for the same reason. I maintain a hardcore anticopyright stance, but I thought that would be a little off topic to mention.

......So, they do both more than the other? Which do they do more? It can't be "both."

So, they develope medicine and advancements and then take those exact ones away? Even when businesses do make advancements, they are freuquently bought out by other businesses.

And if you truly believed that they do "both" (make advancements and then take advancements away), then America wouldn't be advancing at all, now would it? So, how do these businesses become "good for America" then?
------------
So, I'll reiterate once again, big companies are not always a good thing when it comes to America's progress in the world. In fact, big companies probably spend more time "buying out rights" than by making advancements of their own. You can even tell, since FUNK, himself, gave a few examples of them inhibiting America's progress, but none to show them helping.

Au contrair, I did mention the invention of the computer. May I also add the jet engine, the color television, the cd, dvd, PS2.... I dont know all of them, but the list is pretty long.

Um.....Firstly, a "big company" didn't just invent the computer. The company became big after the invention. Also, you call the PS2 an "advancement in America's placement in the world?" That's just a marketing ploy. I'm talking about how businesses help actual advancements in American techonology or medicine, not video games or movies (and for your information, the PS2 was invented in Japan. lol.).

Well, I can see where you're priorities lie. lol.
---------------
Normally I don't target the individuals themselves who debate me, but if anyone can't tell by now in FUNK's speeches, he's a money hungry and power hungry individual with no care for anyone else (which he's even admitted @_o'), and even has a deluded sense of the proof behind his own theories. He's a bad example of even a right wing extremist. lol.

Id like to say Im anti-partisan, thank you. And what ever happened to "insults dont belong in debate"?

Please reread the "normally..." part. lol. Also, I was pretty much repeating what you said about your own self (in less flattering terms, of course. lol).
----------
Also, it would help if you were to stop contradicting yourself, or going off the subject all the time (such as your sudden jump into American poverty and education, which this war has nothing to do with), and it would help if you were to explain the connections you seem to have between this war and some of your theories.

Hey, I like to keep things honest. If there are two facts that are true, but seem to contradict each other, I post both of them in hopes someone can clarify the matter. And by the way, if America is extremely rich, whether that money is gained through war or not, then we can afford better education for ourselves, right?

Honesty has nothing to do with going off the topic (or contradiction).

Facts can't be facts if they directly contradict one another. Most of what you told me is just opinion.

Right. So, we don't need to go to war. I'm glad you agree with me on something.

However, once again, this is "honestly" off the topic.

And you still haven't answered any of my questions!

Well a lot of what you say seems to be based on your opinion and there is no proof that backs up everything that you say.

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.

Um, we created some of these terrorist groups simply for the purpose of them terrorising other groups for our own financial benefit. How does this look like a charity group?

The Taliban was one example of this, actually.
--------------------
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".

You didn't anwer me again. Giving the gifts and the amount of gifts we give is obviously not the issue. The issue is why we have to do it to countries who hate us. If we even gave a "gift" of a million dollars (which is nothing to us), why should we even have to give that to a country who hates us (especially when we could use that money for, say, education----which I only say because that seems to be so important to you)? Just because we're "addicted" to oil. That was my point. What about America's dependency on oil and how it keeps screwing us over?

Also, though a few million isn't much to us, I'm sure it's quite a lot to the terrorist groups, so much so that one group (the Taliban) was able to use it to fund an attack on America.
--------------------
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.

OK. Is it just me, or does he keep asking questions that I've already answered?

I said, we're not the world's "police man," because of these reasons, and then the first words out of your mouth are, "who else is powerful enough to do it." Did you even read that sentence?

All the other countries rely on the US to insure international justice, but they won't get their own hands dirty with it.

Firstly, who else is going to laugh histarically at this? Insure international justice? You need to just keep reading your "Captin America" comics.

Um, this just in. America doesn't just go around "helping people," and "fighting evil." In fact, we never get involved unless our own self interest is at stake. And usually that interest is financially. Our interest has never been "justice." Do you consider the contaminated water incident in Iraq to be "insuring international justice," and if so, please tell me what the half a million kids who died did to deserve that. And you're right, the rest of the world didn' t want to "get their hands dirty with that" by helping us.

Now, if you will ever actually respond to any of my points, what about this one: If we are so big on "international justice," then what about the Koream threat and how we're not doing anything about it because Korea doesn't have oil?

ALSO, in case no one else here knows, China is actually much stronger then us "physically"......I think you need to lower your standards of the US.

The US has only 3% of the world's poplulation (amazing), but Asians make up over 50% (more amazing). Plus China has nukes, weapons of mass destruction, and biological weapons. Honestly, there is a very good chance that we wouldn't win a war with China.

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.

Once again, you didn't respond to what I said. OK, I'll explain it again. America supports terrorists who hate us, then to stop them later, we have to support more terrorists who hate us. Then we have two groups of terrorists who hate us. Please tell me how supporting terrorists who hate us, makes them suddenly fight with other countries?

The problem is that it does just the opposite of what you tried to explain. Have you ever heard of the "common enemy" theory? Well, by making all these groups hate us, we unite them by giving them a "common enemy.' That's why the Taliban was made up of people from all over the middle east. Get it?

My point is that by doing this we make more and more groups angry at us (and not one another) and we give more and more of these anti-American groups the ability to attack us. Let's look at the Taliban again for an example. We screwed with the Zuraki government, then they hate us (not other countries), so we made the Taliban to fight them, then we drop them to go screw with Palestine, then the Taliban hates us (again, not other countries). So once again, please explain to me how making countries hate us, creates a "balance of power" and makes them "fight among themselves." I'm pretty sure that the attack on 9/11 is a pretty good example that they weren't.

In the Iranian Contra, we screwed with the Sandanistas, then they hate us, then we supported Iran to fight them for us, then Iran hates us, then we supported Iraq to fight them, then we support Iran to fight Iraq (and poison to death a half a million of their children), then Iraq hates us.

So now, terrorist groups from both both Iran and Iraq wouldn't see anything wrong with joining forces to fight the "common enemy" that screwed them both over, now would they? Explain to me how that is good for America.

So now, we have two countries who hate us more than they hate one another and who now have the ability to attack us. Now, if you truly believe that supporting terrorists could easily solve this, then why do you support this war where our own flesh and blood is dying? Wouldn't you think that us attacking them might damage your "making them hate eachother more" theory, and not want us to do it?

Also, a balance of power is having America tipping the scales? That's not a balance. *sigh* Once again we don't do it to cause them to just "fight among themselves," we do it because we get something out of it (such as in the Iranian Conflict), usually financially. And this only gives them a common enemy to hate together.

------------------------------

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.

Hold up! So you're saying that 'if we fight our own needlessly violent battles, then everyone will know that we're doing it (god forbid). So we have to use terrorist to cover up that we're the ones who are being the jerks? What the heck is that logic? We shouldn't be making needless violence to begin with.

And as for your "balance of power" theory, I already explained that earlier.

And as for "supporting terrorism is the only way we won't make a greater amout of hate for ourselves," well, it didn't happen with the Taliban did it? (at least I'm pretty sure that they hated us, but who knows), it didn't work with Iran, it didn't work with Iraq, it didn't work with Palestine, and it didn' t work with Korea. No, in fact all these countries hate us more than they ever have (many of them hate us now more than they hate their old enemies). If we didn't go screw with them, then they would just hate one another, and we would be left out of it. So you're theories fall apart at that point.

Well a lot of what you say seems to be based on your opinion and there is no proof that backs up everything that you say.

Well, I take it you haven't visited any of the links that I put it any of my posts then, have you?

Nor have you attempted to hunt down any of the magazine or newspaper articles I listed either, have you?

If you want me to list them all again, I'd be happy to do it. ^_^

Also, FUNK, somewhere in one of your posts, you said how "death and desctruction happen anyway. We just make sure that it's not us who are dying."

Well, death and desctruction don't just "happen anyway."

The contaminated water incident is a good example of this. We killed 500,000 children. These kids wouldn't have just "died anyway." We took action which killed them purposefully.

I will admit that it is interesting how you claim to be a member of DAG, and yet you try to use logic like this to clear your consence and the consences of all Americans of such "devilish" crimes against humanity.

1 you(ninja_scientist) assume I consider killing people Ive never met who hate me because Im rich to be "wrong" (morality is ALWAYS debatable)

2 You claim that greed is also wrong. (again, morality, which is debatable)

3 You claim that the DAG pretends to be right. (we claim to be purposefully WRONG)

I would like to say that the first part of DAG is Devil's Advocate. The entire point of my side of the debate was to make you defend your views. You have done so successfully. The only weak points in your argument are listed above. Just because I dont agree with your personal morals is enough to completely change the way I view the world. I am pro-war mainly because war is the traditional accepted way of doing international business. People will always defend tradition, even when it makes no sense. Wars are ugly, violent, and bloody, but they are effective if done properly. The same cannot be said for diplomacy.

1 you(ninja_scientist) assume I consider killing people Ive never met who hate me because Im rich to be "wrong" (morality is ALWAYS debatable)

2 You claim that greed is also wrong. (again, morality, which is debatable)

3 You claim that the DAG pretends to be right. (we claim to be purposefully WRONG)

I would like to say that the first part of DAG is Devil's Advocate. The entire point of my side of the debate was to make you defend your views. You have done so successfully. The only weak points in your argument are listed above. Just because I dont agree with your personal morals is enough to completely change the way I view the world. I am pro-war mainly because war is the traditional accepted way of doing international business. People will always defend tradition, even when it makes no sense. Wars are ugly, violent, and bloody, but they are effective if done properly. The same cannot be said for diplomacy.

Although there is some morality in my arguments, most of my argument wasn't based on that.

It was whether or not this war is worth what it will give to us (as far as US relations go), it was about fighting the "Saddam is evil and we need to fight him because of it" argument with proof that the US has done worse (which would falter that theory), it was about fighting the "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that's why we have to fight them" argument with proof the the US has given them most of those weapons (which would falter that theory as well), and MOSTLY to prove that the US screwing with other countries is bad for us in the long run (with proof of some of the results of that).

And I'll admit, I do value human life over the dollar. So you can call that "morality" in my arguments.

Don't mind him, he's a DAG.

;]

At 5/6/03 05:31 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Well, I take it you haven't visited any of the links that I put it any of my posts then, have you?

Yes I have viewed the links that you have posted, but there really havent' been many of them. The post/link ratio is somewhat uneven.

At 5/7/03 09:59 AM, DontAsk wrote:

At 5/6/03 05:31 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Well, I take it you haven't visited any of the links that I put it any of my posts then, have you?

Yes I have viewed the links that you have posted, but there really havent' been many of them. The post/link ratio is somewhat uneven.

lol. You should check out my first posts, under "War on Iraq, Review." It's over 15 pages long of just information I've gathered on the war and there are dozens of sources.

Unfortunately, needless to say, not many people could finish it.
-----------------
I'm not sure what that DAG guy was doing. He was saying things like, "Oh yeah, well this war will give the US money, which could go to things like schools and stuff. ARE YOU AGAINST SCHOOLS?!!" I'm like, "......uh, no."

Then he criticized me for having "morality" in my arguments, because "morality is always depatable." And then he goes into another topic and complains that some racist blacks beat him up and that "that was wrong." So, I guess the "morality is always debatable" theory doesn't apply to when something actually happens to him.

Also, "morality" is something that we do have to consider in the US's actions, because while it may not be "debatable" to us, we have to remember that all countries have their own sense of morality, and this can affect how our actions are viewed by them, which is important to US-World relations (Like, the water contamination incident where all those kids died. Even if we don't think this matters, we have to first think how other countries would view this----though the stupid UN did let the US go ahead with it @_o').

But I'm not too worried. After all, by using the same logic, you can say that a "lack of morality" is debatable as well, for who's to say what's right? Valuing the dollar over human life may seem right to one person, but not to another, and he can't prove it's right either. All in all, I guess it just comes down to how many people agree with you in the long run.
--------------

Well folks, I have some "real world" work that I've been putting off for way too long. *sigh* So, I'll have to catch you all again in about 6 days.

See ya all then! ^_^