war protesting taken to new extremes

Off Topic
61

This war does NOT make America safer, it is going to make America LESS safe. It is inspiring a whole new generation of terrorists. The US is not seen as “liberators” we are seen as “invaders”.

Yes, I agree that Saddam is a bad guy and Iraq would be better off with a different leader, but it is not America’s place to impose new leadership on a sovereign nation.

All of this talk about “fuck France” and “fuck Germany” is not very smart. America needs allies! The US cannot make it alone in the world. The “coalition of the willing” is tissue-paper. Tony Blair’s popularity is down the toilet and he won’t be around after the next election. This coalition is just the US and the UK, with a few token soldiers from Australia. The rest of the coalition offers “moral support”… big deal.

The US government is supposed to be a system of checks and balances. The scary thing is that system seems to be in the trash, as it appears that the president can now declare war on any country at his sole discretion. Combine that with the loss of freedoms and legalized spying on ctizens in the Patriot Act, and things look very grim for democracy and freedom right now.

62

restless, lumpy, squat, tharealest,
I have read each of your posts. I am puzzled by some things that you contend and would like to ask you a few questions.
restless, your post was quite long. My question to you is quite simple: Which country are you from? Please be honest. It would help me to understand your perspective. I would beg you to go to this web address: www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030327.asp. I think, if you have an open mind, it may alter some of your opinions. If you read it, please respond and we can discuss specifics. If you don’t read it, then that means you are afraid to discuss the issues. An argument or a conviction is only trully sound if it can withstand scrutiny.
To the others, I just have one question, did you vote for algore in 2000? Did any of you vote for George W. Bush? Again, I’m asking for nothing more than honesty. It will help understand your perspective as well. If you lie, then it means that you are ashamed of the vote you cast. I am looking forward to an honest discussion of the issues.
By the way, I proudly voted for George W. Bush and I read the article listed above.

63


ThaRealest: What do you know of what I cared about 8 years ago? He should have been out of power then, and long before then.


I am not saying that the peace protesters want him to stay, but he will not leave by peaceful means. He has a very strong military force protecting him. And very deep well sheltered bunkers. Do you actually think he will leave peacefully? Why should he? Would you in his position? The only way to get rid of him is through military action. The peace protesters just do not realize that no military action means he stays.


I would love it if he just gave himself up and showed up for a legal trial. Then again I would love to be handed 50 billion in cash, and I think that is more likely.


I would rather have Saddam assassinated then have an all out war. A lot less death would occur on both sides. The first strike we did was such a devastating effect that we were able to advance quickly with less military reaction then what would have occurred. They even failed to get the message out to blow up all their oil fields in time. (Where was Greenpeace during the gulf war anyway?)


There are around 50 nations involved in this action, but I only hear complaints about America. We did have approval from the UN initially. The big mistake the Bush administration made was to allow delays, and more resolutions. The last one, which was ditched, was just to get the nations to put their name up as to being with us or against us. This political game was a big mistake. We already had approval previously.


Off topic I noticed you mentioned the lowering of taxes on the insanely rich. Taxes only affect the poor and middle class. If a person has stocks which go up by 1 million in a year, if he does not sell, then he technically has no income from this gain. If he has a business and an increase in tax does hit him, he just considers it to another expense, and prices are raised accordingly, thereby passing on all costs. Given a smaller tax burden, there is only four things he could do with the money. Spend it. (This causes more money to flow through the economy, a benefit to all.) Invest it. (Which means more money for jobs, or more products which might mean another company might need more employees.) Destroy it. (Sorry, the rich didn’t get rich by burning their cash.) Or store it. (In a mattress? Also not a tactic of the rich.)


To paraphrase Mayilyn Vos Savant (who had the highest IQ according to Guinness) from her book The Power of Logical Thinking (1996), in 1986 the effective capital gains tax rate was increased from 20% to 28%. The year before it went into effect, the government collected $213 billion from capitol gains, but by 1991 it dropped to $108 billion. If you remember when it was dropped back down in the mid nineties it helped propel the deficit down. I remember listening to a person on the radio who bought $40,000 worth of Pepsi stock in the late seventies, but was at that time worth $8 million. He didn’t want to incur the big tax bite, and held it for a few years longer then he would have. After the reduction he sold it saving himself a ton in taxes, but the government got millions in taxes they would not otherwise have received.


It seems counterintuitive that an increase in taxes means less income from tax, and a reduction in taxes means more income from tax. But the logic people often use is similar to if a restaurant decided it wanted more profit, so doubled the price of their hamburgers. In this case you would understand that people would stop going to that restaurant. Well the more people are taxed, the more they avoid situations where they end up being taxed.


That being said I don’t think a family of four should pay any tax on their first $50,000 at least. (Hope we didn’t stretch this into another discussion.) A few changes in the tax code, and a little more control over the government budget, you would be shocked at how this economy would boom.


Back to the topic of war, an improved and more democratic Iraq, would mean a more stabilized Mid-East. Which means less war, and less of the blame game that is played in that region. But unfortunately many children are still brainwashed from birth in that region to hate Americans and America. And it is this indoctrination into hate that is the real problem. It is unfortunate that people will use a religion to manipulate and control people like this.

64 
Squat and friends inc.

USA needs allies - hence the UK, Australia, Spain, Portugal, Poland allinaces.

We need strong alliances, not just any alliance with a bunch of cheese eating dorks. Bottom line - we DONT need France, Germany, or Russia. Like it or not, well do what needs to be done without their support any day.

For those saying there is no support for Bush, and our cause - Fuck you.
Support for Bush and War on Iraq is at the highest - 70% of Americans.
For those who say Bush is dumb and stupid - Yeah I guess I see the point most of you make, when most of you never finished college, soome dropped out of highschool, and most of the celebrities yakking around have the same intelligence as a 15 yr old highschool kid who doesn nothing other than rant about his favorite band and listen to music.

 Get a grip on Reality.

 It strikes me how bluntly stupid some people are. 


 Restless, Squat, Say, realest - I'd like to see you take your goddamn finger off our cake.
65

ThaRealest & the Sackless

Why did I say all that stuff? Because it shows that I’m not some dilettante who just got his liberal arts degree and now thinks he knows how best to run the world. No offense intended, but from most of your posts, that is the impression I got.

Taxes. I’m for a flat tax or a national sales tax and the elimination of income taxes. Why should people who make more money be penalized by having to pay more taxes? Why should some people (like my own sister unfortunately) get a free ride from the government while I bust ass?

And I don’t buy any of this “disadvantaged” BS. Nobody handed me anything except the freedom that comes with being an American, everything else I earned. If you can find a country in this world where it is easier to go from rags to riches then please send all your “disadvantaged” whiner friends over there. Your mother allegedly raised the five of you or whatever on free foodstamps. (Rolls eyes).

My first question is why the fuck would anyone have five fucking kids if they could not afford to feed them? One might be an accident, two maybe, but five? That is my big problem with welfare. Fyi, my sister has five kids and she’s on welfare. Why the hell does she have 5 kids? Because she gets a bigger check from the government than if she had four kids.

In my book she deserves nothing from the government. So anyway, if you traveled to a third world country you would see that people there do not expect to live on government handouts. They are scratching out a living as best they can. They are not sitting in subsidized apartments watching cable TV and enjoying free Internet connections – they are digging through the garbage for their food. Their kids are out gathering sticks for firewood not shooting each other and trashing their free government housing until it looks like it was hit with a cruise missile. In my experience the third world (or even Mexico) does not have this abominable “entitlement” mentality common to our country. They don’t get free food, they do not get free medical care, and for damn sure they do not have cable TV and subsidized Internet connections.

If you came from such a disadvantaged background then either you a) overcame it (the way it should be) or b) Tax dollars and subsidized loans hauled your “disadvantaged” ass out of the morass. Obviously not everyone has the motivation to climb out of the morass, but please do not delude yourself that throwing more of my money through welfare and broken social programs is the answer. And yes, BTW, I have donated tens of thousands of dollars to charities of my choosing. Charities that teach people to fish instead of just handing them fish.

66

United States=Good Guys,

First, congratulations and thank you for being able to make your points in a civilized manner. At this point it is important for me to see an american that can respect a different opinion, otherwise I’m at risk of becoming anti american people instead of being anti-american foreign policy.

To answer your question let me first reply to Kali1

"Restless, I’m sure our military has pulled whatever sad assed country you come from out of the fire, sometimes in the last century? How much less does your coutry have to spend on defense because we provide protection for you. You keep on believing Iraqs propaganda while our people fight to keep your country free. See any Americans Killing POW’s? Why don’t you hide while we take care of this, fucking whiner. "

When Portugal, my country was under a fascist regime untill around 30 years ago the USA didn’t ever came to help, and thank God for that one. All the opposition the USA ever gave our dictator was derived from the concern that Salazar would end up causing the ocupation of Angola and Mo?ambique by the URSS. We took care of Salazar ourselves and guess what, there wasn’t a single gun shot and no one was killed. The people and the army just ordered the guy to leave power.

United States=Good Guys,

I read the link you posted and I’m sorry ta say that I heard all that before and to me, most is propaganda. My main issue is not any kind of sympathy for Saddam, but instead the hypocritical stand the USA took when they broke the article 51 of the UN chapter posted below (that the USA signed) and thus broke the international laws by attacking one country for having done the same.

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

The USA is not acting in self defense as it has failed to present any real evidence that Iraq does pose any risk to international peace. And please don’t even mention that insulting performance by MR Oil-in Power that tried to fool the world with cute satelite pictures with little red and white circles around them. The burden of proof lies on who makes the accusations.

In a quick reference to these war myths:

Number one:

Already proven to be false. Much as the Iraquis hate Sadamm the Arab pride and the hate for the USA is now surpassing the dissatisfaction. Now, I know you people don’t have acssess to both sides of the story like we do in Europe, but this war, besides killing innocent plople is only making Sadamm stronger.

Number two:

Sure, and??

Number three:

Oil??

Number four:

See list above. It’s a shame that the USA couldn’t use the receipts of the material sold to Iraq as evidence.

Number five

Not steal, just make sure a good chunk of it comes their way.

Number six:

Funny in how many of these “murderous situations” the USA is directly involved.

Number seven:

A lie. The USA was right there behind him and the USRR behind Iran.

Number eight:

Irrelevant. I’m not discussing war strategy here.

Number nine:

Oil will pay for the expenses. This is an irrelevant issue.

Number ten:

Again, no one said the Iraquis were satisfied with Sadamm. The man is a bastard. The UN nations did cause a considerable amount of suffering on everyone BUT Sadamm and "Saddam’s thugs ".

About the zionist remark, I found this cute list on another forum of UN resolutions condemning Iraq, folloed by one of the ones condemening Israel actions:

UN RESOLUTIONS CONDEMING IRAQ

Resolution 660 - (August 2, 1990) condemns Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and calls for unconditional withdrawal.
Resolution 661 - (August 6, 1990) Imposes economic sanctions on Iraq.
Resolution 678 - (September 29, 1990) Demands compliance with resolution 660
Resolution 686 - (March 2, 1991) Demands Iraq’s compliance with 12 previous resolutions condemning it’s invasion of Kuwait (Resolution 660 and 11 others that slightly amend or amplify 660 -it appears the UN doesn’t count them as separate resolutions)
Resolution 687 - (April 3, 1991) Cease-fire and mandate of UNSCOM
Resolution 688 - (April 5, 1991) Condemns Iraqi attacks on Kurds and Shiites
Resolution 699 - (June 17, 1991) Iraq liable for costs associated with UNSCOM
Resolution 707 - (August 15, 1991) Iraq’s compliance, inspection flights, Iraq’s disclosures
Resolution 1060 - (June 12, 1996) Condemnation of Iraq’s refusal to grant inspection access
Resolution 1115 - (June 21, 1997) Condemnation of Iraq’s refusal to grant inspections and interviews
Resolution 1134 - (October 23, 1997) Condemnation of Iraq’s behavior, further sanctions threatened
Resolution 1137 - (November 12, 1997) Condemnation of Iraq’s behavior, imposition of travel ban
Resolution 1154 - (March 2, 1998) Endorsement of the MOU on access to Presidential sites
Resolution 1194 - (September 9, 1998) Condemnation of Iraq’s decision to stop all UNSCOM work
Resolution 1205 - (November 5, 1998) Condemnation of Iraq’s decision to halt monitoring
Resolution 1441 - (November 7, 2002) Demands disarmament and inspections

UN RESOLUTIONS CONDEMING ISRAEL

  1. Resolution 106: “… ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”

  2. Resolution 111: “…‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”

  3. Resolution 127: “…‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”

  4. Resolution 162: “…‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”

  5. Resolution 171: “…determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”

  6. Resolution 228: “…‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”

  7. Resolution 237: “…‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”

  8. Resolution 248: “… ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”

  9. Resolution 250: “… ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”

  10. Resolution 251: “… ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250”

  11. Resolution 252: “…‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”

  12. Resolution 256: “… ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation”"

  13. Resolution 259: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”

  14. Resolution 262: “…‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”

  15. Resolution 265: “… ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”

  16. Resolution 267: “…‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”

  17. Resolution 270: “…‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”

  18. Resolution 271: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”

  19. Resolution 279: “…‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”

  20. Resolution 280: “…‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”

  21. Resolution 285: “…‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”

  22. Resolution 298: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”

  23. Resolution 313: “…‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”

  24. Resolution 316: “…‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”

  25. Resolution 317: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”

  26. Resolution 332: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”

  27. Resolution 337: “…‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”

  28. Resolution 347: “…‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”

  29. Resolution 425: “…‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”

  30. Resolution 427: "…‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon’

  31. Resolution 444: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”

  32. Resolution 446: “…‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”

  33. Resolution 450: “…‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”

  34. Resolution 452: “…‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”

  35. Resolution 465: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”

  36. Resolution 467: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”

  37. Resolution 468: “…‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”

  38. Resolution 469: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians” 39. Resolution 471: “… ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”

  39. Resolution 476: “… ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’”

  40. Resolution 478: “…‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’”

  41. Resolution 484: “…‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors”

  42. Resolution 487: “…‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”

  43. Resolution 497: “…‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith”

  44. Resolution 498: “…‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”

  45. Resolution 501: “…‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”

  46. Resolution 509: “…‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”

  47. Resolution 515: “…‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”

  48. Resolution 517: “…‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”

  49. Resolution 518: “…‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”

  50. Resolution 520: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”

  51. Resolution 573: "…‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters

  52. Resolution 587: “…‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”

  53. Resolution 592: “…‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops” 55. Resolution 605: "…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians

  54. Resolution 607: "…‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention

  55. Resolution 608: “…‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”

  56. Resolution 636: "…‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians

  57. Resolution 641: "…‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians

  58. Resolution 672: "…‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount

  59. Resolution 673: "…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations

  60. Resolution 681: "…‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians

  61. Resolution 694: "…‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return

  62. Resolution 726: "…‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians

  63. Resolution 799: "…‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

  64. …condemned Israel’s attack against Southern against southern Lebanon and Syria…"

  65. …affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections…"

  66. …condemned Israel’s air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians…"

  67. …called for self-determination of Palestinian people…"

  68. …deplored Israel’s altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations…"

  69. …affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people…"

  70. …endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people…"

  71. …demanded Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights…"

  72. …condemned Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations…"

  73. …condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem…"

  74. …urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon…"

  75. …urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut…"

  76. …urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon…"

  77. …condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace…"

  78. …deplores Israel’s brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal…"

  79. …condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli ‘Iron Fist’ policy of repression…"

  80. …denounced Israel’s violation of human rights in the occupied territories…"

  81. …deplored Israel’s violence in southern Lebanon…"

  82. …deplored Israel’s activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites…"

  83. …condemned Israel’s hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane…"

  84. …deplored Israel’s attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon…"

  85. …called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations…"

  86. …urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel’s shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices…"

  87. …condemned Israel’s… incursion into Lebanon…"

  88. …deplored Israel’s… commando raids on Lebanon…"

  89. …deplored Israel’s repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians…"

  90. …deplored Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians…"

  91. …demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s crackdown on the Palestinian intifada…"

  92. …called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands…"-

So the USA clearly apllies a double standart here.

One last remark about this comment by The Mage:

“This country is so powerful at this point that if we wanted to take over the world, I think we could.”

A perfect example of the American arrogance that made most feel the way they do about the USA. Maybe if there was anything left after the holocaust resulting from the nuclear war between the USA, China and possibly Russia after an USA attempt for world domination, it would all be left to spiders and other insects that would survive such thing.

The rest of of the pro war name callers, I’m not wasting my time (which is not much) with your posts as you’ve convinced me they’re not worth reading.

For the record, I am not anti american people. I am anti american foreign policy, anti bush administration, anti the fascist mentality that leads some of you to classify anyone that disagrees with your views as a terrorist. I am against the concept that bombing and klling innocent people, even one person, is “humanitarian aid”, in the words of the poster that used my post to discredit me in the board I call home. :slight_smile:

67

Restless, you’re so quick with the facts about American foreign policy let’s look at the shinning star of European foreign policy, your country, Portugal. For without Portugal where would this world be?

Following its heyday as a world power during the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal lost much of its wealth and status with the destruction of Lisbon in a 1755 earthquake, occupation during the Napoleonic Wars, and the independence in 1822 of Brazil as a colony. A 1910 revolution deposed the monarchy; for most of the next six decades repressive governments ran the country. In 1974, a left-wing military coup installed broad democratic reforms. The following year Portugal granted independence to all of its African colonies.

From 1961 to 1974 Portugal engaged in colonial wars in Africa. The bloodiest and most protracted wars against colonialism in Africa were fought against the Portuguese. Portugal lost the tiny remnants of its Indian empire—Goa, Daman, and Diu—to Indian military occupation in 1961, the year an insurrection broke out in Angola. For the next 13 years, Salazar, who died in 1970, and his successor, Marcello Caetano, fought independence movements amid growing world criticism. Leftists in the armed forces, weary of a losing battle, launched a successful revolution on April 25, 1974. After the 1974 revolution, the new military junta gave up its territories, beginning with Portuguese Guinea in Sept. 1974, which became the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. The decolonization of the Cape Verde Islands and Mozambique was effected in July 1975. Angola achieved independence later that same year, thus ending a colonial involvement in that continent that had begun in 1415. Full-scale, internationalized civil war, however, followed Portugal’s departure from Angola, and Indonesia forcibly annexed independent East Timor. Also in that year, the government nationalized banking, transport, heavy industries, and the media. Portugal continued to experience social, economic, and political upheavals for the next decade. When American men and women were fighting Nazi Germany and freeing Europe from destruction. . .Portugal decided to sit the war out as a neutral. Apparently your people have difficulty distinguishing good from evil. You did a fairly good job repressing the people of Africa, until your military got it ass kicked out of the continent. Here’s a quote from our Secretary of State concerning the USA’s colonialism:

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush. He answered by saying, “Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.” Portugal’s fights for freedom, oh, sorry stupid question Portugal only likes to colonize.

But surely your country contributes more now that you’re free and democratic, let’s compare and contrast:

Portuguese military expenditures: $1.286 billion (FY99/00)
USA Military expenditures: $276.7 billion

Portuguese economic aid doner: $271 million (1995) (1995)
USA economic aid doner: $6.9 billion

Portuguese Population: 10,084,245 (July 2002 est.)
USA Population: 280,562,489 (July 2002 est.)

I guess you guys aren’t pulling your weight, possibly due to: " Portugal’s. . . poor educational system, in particular, has been an obstacle to greater productivity and growth." Why would you support a war on terror, your little country would never be a target. Be like your ancestors remain neutral, don’t take a stand against evil. . . you make me sick. Once again we will attempt to make the world a safer place, keep hiding.

68

Warhorse: I didn’t intend to imply that my mother was a single mother with 5 kids feeding us entirely on food stamps. I grew up with two brothers, my mother and father. When my parents moved into Oakland it was a vastly different place from what it is now or when I was born for that matter. I won’t go into the history of the city of Oakland, Ca here, but I’m sure some educated people here understand what happened. It is extremely hard to find jobs in that area to support a family on, and in the time between being laid off and find new work, my family did receive welfare and it helped a lot. Now, my family lives extremely comfortably, as do i, and none of us have any problem paying our income taxes as a price for the oppurtunities and liberties we are afforded in this great country.

To your point about being “disadvantaged” being “BS.” You say you worked for everything you’ve gotten. Did you graduate from middle school? Did you graduate from high school? If you answered yes to either of these questions, than you indeed have gotten something invaluable that a lot of people in this country don’t get. Have you ever lived in a place where the local high school has 5 textbooks for a class of 35, and where class is cancelled sporadically throughout the week because teachers cannot be found to teach them? I assume you did not, and hence you can have the luxury of believing that this is fiction, and that everyone has had the same oppurtunities as you and really you just worked harder than them. That’s a nice fantasy, but unfortunately reality is much harsher for these people. Do you understand that a student with a 4.0 from these high schools will have half the chance of getting into the same college as a student at a high school with a 3.0 at a high school in a city the first student can’t afford to live? What child has done anything to deserve the inability to get an adequate high school education? I’m tired of people that have never gone through this trying to claim it doesn’t exist. My point about the US government not utilizing money responsibly was not to imply more money should go towards welfare. I feel the exact same way as you about people that abuse welfare. Everyone does, so you trying to change my argument to be that I want more welfare is a red herring. Nice try. No one that I know wants a handout. This is another red herring. Stop simplifying the situation to be that anyone that is disadvantaged must want a handout, so thus they don’t deserve it…“problem solved!” People want an educational system that they can send their children to in good confidence, and a local economy that has enough employment at a realistic wage for maintaining a family. A tenth of the money we are spending on this war could more than revitalize the educational system in an entire city.

69

The Mage: you are correct in that I have no idea what you wanted 8 years ago. I apologize for resorting to that device. I think you understand my intent to express the irony in that argument that the protestors are “appeasing” Saddam. That is complete fiction. I agree with you, Saddam will probably never be removed without force, but I believe it should still be tried. I know many people here believe we tried hard enough; I would’ve liked to see more peaceful effort. I still don’t understand why we didn’t let the inspectors finish their work. Here’s the outcome I envision: the inspectors presenting their final report showing that Saddam still has not provided complete documentation, and us going to war. What’s the difference then you ask? Well then many of the nations that oppose us would have no options but to support us. What many of us overlook is that many of the nations that oppose us don’t necessarily oppose military action, just military action at that point. We sent professionals in to do a job. Why not wait for them to come back to us and say “they didn’t disarm” and then go in? We just seemed to “gung-ho” about it.

Saddam being assassinated and the subsequent fail of his regime with his death being the only casualty is a tempting prospect. But it is my understanding that doing so would be a violation of international law, and thus I cannot agree with my country pursuing that course in good conscience.

(The tax thing does seem like it’s being stretched into another issue: sigh::slight_smile: Your explanation of what could be called “trickle-down economics” does make intuitive sense, but in practice it generally does not work as advertised. To avoid turning this completely into another issue, I’ll just suggest you read up on this philosophy and it’s many faults (I’ll do the same). One thing I will note is that your argument that an increase in income tax will cause the wealthy business owner to raise costs is not true. His personal income has nothing to do with how he runs his business. For example, if Larry Ellison (CEO of Oracle) were to somehow lose half his personal income (gambling? who knows) he could not simply raise the prices of oracle software to make up for his own personal loses, because that company is in fact owned by thousands of shareholders. His prices and production are also determined by global demand for his goods, so by giving him a personal tax cut you have given him no more incentive to lose money by increasing production on products that are not in demand. I believe you are referring to corporate taxes, which most companies circumvent anyways. The case where is does work in the way you described is the small business owner. Imagine a local store owner, his prices directly correlate to his personal finances so your argument holds, but this is exactly the person I’m suggesting the tax cuts should be targeted towards. Forget about giving Larry Ellison a tax cut, and give the small business owner a tax cut. I’ll leave on the note that nearly every prominent economist has stated this plan is a mistake, even the GOP agreed the initial plan was outlandish, and the administration’s own economic advisers were forced to resign over their unwillingness to go along with such an ill-advised plan.

70

P.S. All this great discussion on war and politics at www.testosterone.net. Could someone plese reply to my post on double-dosing 4-AD-EC in the training and nutrition forum? LOL

71 
   Restless - you make me embarrassed of being Portuguese.

   Let's straighten your story out.
   
   We had a dictator. You know why? Because when his term was over, nobody wanted to tell him he no longer was the Prime minister. It took our fathers 2 fuckin years before they told him his term was over 2 years ago!!!! 

   Of course it was easy getting rid of him. He had a stupid accident where he fell off his chair, which debilitated him.

   Big deal. Ill bet if we had to fight the guy with bullets and bloodshed, the guy would still be in power. Some fucking pride there.


   Now Kali... Are you a fucking portuguese?


   Let me fucking repeat that: ARE - YOU - PORTUGUESE.

   Do you know squat about history? Really, do you?

   Then you'd know the Portuguese educational system is far better than the US's. Sad but true. 

   And as for fighting for our country, Portugal has fought more wars than the US has. There'S  a reason why Portugal is 900 years old.

   You should also know Portugal was one of the most active conquering and discovering countries in the world.
72

restless,
I am glad that you read the websites that I indicated. However, I am saddened by your hypocrisy and outright falsehoods.
You say you are not “anti-American.” That is a lie and you know it. Please refer to your first post. I read it and you “generalize” all Americans. Read it. You don’t make the distinction between our government and us. In one sense, you are absolutley correct. We are a Democracy and you shouldn’t make a distinction between our people and our government. In contrast to you, we don’t have to stage bloody coups to change our governments. If we are dissatisified, we vote a change in government.
I am saddened that you dismiss facts as “propaganda.” That means you are so Anti-American that you cannot accept any fact that exonerates us. It is a fact that we were WAY DOWN THE LIST OF ARMS SUPPLIERS TO hussein. This is not open to interpretation. It is a simple fact. Therefore, you are wrong. Plain and simple. You manipulate the facts to suit your Anti-American theory. That is despicable.
Kali1, showed quite clearly that you have ABSOLUTLEY NO HIGH GROUND TO STAND ON. You fling all these accusations. Even going as far as naming nations who we have bombed. My God, look at your history of brutual death and colonization. Your country gave no pretence of improving lives or fostering democracy. It was conquest pure and simple. Therefore, it would be a good idea to join in a worthy cause now and again. It might help to remove some of the shame and disgust that students of history feel about Portugal. I verifed Kali1’s information. Your neutrality in World War II is disgusting. You should be ashamed.
In the final analysis, I hope (but by no means expect) that you will be man enough to admit that you are completely wrong about iraq. There will be a time, in the not too distant future, when iraqi scientists, soldiers, and civilians will prove without a doubt that saddam’s regime was hell bent on the destruction of civilization. I look forward to watching france, germany, and russia squirm when these people are able to speak freely. However, in view of your previous posts, I expect you to make some kind of comment like, “The Americans brainwashed them,” or “This is just propaganda.”

73

How is everybody doing? We having fun yet?


Restless: Thanks for taking a piece of a statement I made and using it to twist my meaning. It was a statement of what we do not do, not a statement of what we should. What we could do is not always what we should.


I have found that the America could learn a lot about arrogance from other countries. I hear nothing but “Fat Lazy Stupid Americans” from other elitist countries. The only reason these statements are made is because of jealousy. Other countries think they are superior, and Americans are inferior, and don’t deserve what we have. But these countries don’t realize that with such a diverse population, we embody all races. Most Americans have multiple nationalities in their background. And when more nationalities come here, we learn from each other. We can’t be inferior to you because we are you.


Our biggest problem is that too many of us don’t respect what we have, and what we have achieved. I realize that I am standing on my parents shoulders, and they on theirs. But too many have either an I don’t care attitude, or a grass is greener attitude.


As far as bombing innocent people, we are doing the best to avoid them, yet Iraq is using people for human shields, and killing them just to blame the Americans. And does anybody realize that we have actually been bombing them repeatedly for violations, and repeated attacks on our military for the past 12 years? Just getting it over with is more humane then another 12 years of bombing just to keep control of this madman.


I read the website, and it was completely true. If the truth is called propaganda, then your mind is closed. Any discussion falls flat if all information that does not support your position is propaganda.


Realest: Welfare is one of the most screwed up institutions in America. If it was designed a little differently, it could help more people for less money. Right now it too often punishes people for trying to improve themselves. And many who look at the idea of working for what they get for free anyway as stupid. It should be designed to help people not only get off welfare, but to succeed in life.


People too often complain about how tough things are, but in the mid 1800’s there was a black individual (I cannot remember his name) who was making over $100,000 a year while slavery was still going on. Now if that wasn’t having odds stacked against you, I don’t know what is. (What would that be in today’s money?)


You are right that the government does not utilize money properly. I just don’t see why so many people use that as an excuse to give the government more.


Inspections were not working. The inspectors were told where to look, and ignored the information. And with certain reports leaving out information like chemical carrying remote control planes. I am not sure if we could trust anything from them. Although they did find a precursor to mustard gas. Which can only be used to make mustard gas.


Saddam was doing the exact same thing he has done before. Argue against inspectors, then let them in, then at the last minute give up unimportant weapons, and then stall more, and when the time is right, kick the inspectors out. Then start all over again. We had a deadline which we nicely moved repeatedly. How many times were we going to let the inspectors say “Let’s just have another swipe at it”?


Do you remember Saddam tried to assassinate a former president of the US? Any other country would have considered this an act of war. We are again supposed to follow rules that he does not. But our bombing his building, and him being in it does not qualify under that law. Sending in a gunman to pick him off does. One of those war law technicalities.


Trickle down economics did work, does work, and even politically biased economists have reluctantly agreed. I personally believe it should also be “trickle up.” And as far as me reading up, I am a compulsive reader, and was on a fast track to a financial planning field years ago until I took a hard look at my life and decided that was not what I wanted to spend my life doing.


Now if Larry Ellison (or Buba Blueballs) were to lose half his income because of gambling, then there is little he could do. But with taxes, it goes across the board, and if everyone in his position is affected the same, then all will raise their prices. Ok I just combined corporate and personal income tax in my previous statement, (and knew at the time I was doing it, just didn’t want to make my comments take up a novel.) You are right that many companies avoid taxes through loopholes, and methods of doing business. But only the big companies hire the real experts. The smaller companies cannot afford such advice. And the same thing happens with the rich. A wealthy person is willing to pay an expert thousands to save tens of thousands, but a middle class person is not willing to pay thousands to save hundreds. The wealthy are wealthy because they know their way around the system.


Too much tax has to come from somewhere. And while the talk of tax the rich sounds great to may people (because they aren?t rich) there are not actually as many rich people as people would think. Too often people don’t realize that somebody who had a real high income today might just be in the statistics because of a one-time windfall. And may never be there again. Also there is a distorted picture of what rich people are. There are people who are worth millions who never earned more then $50,000 in a year from employment, or their business, while there are people who make $250,000 a year living paycheck to paycheck.


The thing people don’t understand (even too many economists) is that taking money out of an economy hurts that economy. Too often I hear people saying that increasing taxes will improve an economy. But I have yet to hear a real explanation as to how reducing a populations spending and investing money improves an economy. The best thing to do is try to bet the brakes out of the way of the economy, and let everyone’s income move up to the point that most people are wealthy. Then a small tax on everyone will produce tremendous tax windfalls for the government.


P.S. Just got some 4-AD-EC to use the next two week to help with my diet. Woo-hoo. I will only use one dose daily though.

74

Allright, first, this is my last post in this thread, or any other “political” thread here at T-mag.

As a side note, that last list that starts again from one of the UN resolutions are the ones against Israel vetoed by the USA.

The Mage,

You just proved you can read a history book. Congratulations, I’m impressed. Now, I never stated my country didn’t do it’s share of shit. It did and still does, namelly allowing the USA to use the Azores base for this war. This government doesn’t get any support from me, I make my judgements based on my moral code and uncondicional support for any action a government or the army might take is a completely alien concept to me. I am no patriot. I didn’t and don’t support those actions you and I mentioned so I deny responsability for them. You on the other hand give uncondicional support to this war, so I assume you give total support to the marine that slaughtered five “towel head” children below the age of 5 yesterday. Do you? Do you all? What moral do you have to criticise any terrorist acts when you do such things?

Diesel wrote:

"We had a dictator. You know why? Because when his term was over, nobody wanted to tell him he no longer was the Prime minister. It took our fathers 2 fuckin years before they told him his term was over 2 years ago!!! "

This must be a typo. This happened in 1974. I’m not wasting any more latin on you.

United States=Good Guys,

I saw no evidence in the web site you presented, I just saw the opinions of an American writer regurgitating the information planted in his head by the media propaganda machine. Just because it’s on some site doesn’t mean it’s truth. I at least get my info from the UN or from history books. And the rest comes from the most feared weapon by people like Bush, which is the hability to think. The mistakes of my nation make you feel better. Good, but at least I recognise them. You don’t. For you, the death of 4 children below the age of five by bullets payed by your taxes is probably a small price to pay for whatever you believe this war is for. I find this unnaceptable. I fail to see a difference between you and the Islamic fundamentalists that you think you are out to get.
Of all the acusations made against me you spoke the only true one, I have been guilty of some gross generalizations. I know around one third of the US population is (or was) against this war. I apologize to them. That’s it. Have a nice day, if the deads of these innocent men, children and women don’t trouble you conciousness at all. :slight_smile:

75

378×504 90.3 KB

seems to fit well…

76

Restless, you wrote:

“You on the other hand give uncondicional support to this war, so I assume you give total support to the marine that slaughtered five “towel head” children below the age of 5 yesterday. Do you? Do you all? What moral do you have to criticise any terrorist acts when you do such things?”

That was uncalled for as were some ohers’ comments about Canada or Portugal.

The fact is that almost all Americans would have liked to have seen this conflict resolved without war. Rightfully or wrongfully, we are now at war and it is our duty to support our troops, some of whom probably don’t even know why they are there. This conflict could be resolved without further bloodshed but Saddam will not allow that to happen. He revels in every coalition death the same as he does when an Iraqi civilian is killed accidentally as, in his mind, it further supports his anti democratic posture. However, to say that we support the killing of “towel head” children below the age of 5 is going way too far. As Americans we abhor it and the soldiers that took that prescribed action when the van refused to follow orders will require counselling for many years. I know because I am sure that I killed innocents in Vietnam and it eats away at me every day. However, I never did anything purposely that I regret doing. Perceived life or death decisions are made instantaneously and cannot be reversed. I hope you are never put in a position like those soldiers were. However, if you were and the outcome were similar, I certainly would not call you a terrorist.

77


Two more brilliant protestors

78 
  RESTLESS.

  You're an idiot.

  Read what I said again.

  Go on. READ it.

  The context implies 2 years prior to Salazar being overthrown. Not 2 years ago you imbecil. Just goes to show I just might be wrong about the portuguese school system.
79

Diesel23, Kind of pisses you off when someone desparages your conntry, doesn’t it. To YOU I apologize, I was just trying to get a rise out of restless. . .I’m no Portugal hater!! Just wanted to point out no country is perfect. Got the thing about education off of a CIA analysis of Portugal and thru it in as a dagger. As best as I can tell the history is accurate but so what, no judgment from me. I just put that shit together cause I was pissed and felt like taking a piece of restless’ holier than thou ass.

80

To those folks who say that questioning the wisdom of the war is “unpatriotic” and that the most important thing now is to all rally together when we are involved in a military conflict, please read this:

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf