[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

[alex]

On Sat, 2003-12-20 at 16:26, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, none wrote:

> 
> Remember that the military is really just a method of putting public funds
> into the hands of the wealthy. 

Whoa! Slow down there! Who is it that pays all the taxes that support
all the entitlement programs that we have here in the U.S.? Seems to me
that theres one hell of a lot of taxes paid by the wealthy. Just
remember Jeme, 96.03% of all taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage
earners. I'm sorry, but I think everyone should pay their fair share.
And on the same note, if you don't pay taxes then you shouldn't get
money back more than what your owed. Gee, isn't that taking from the
worker to give to the sponge?

>  The primary purpose of government spending
> is to prop up an economic system that is unsustainable without state
> support.
>  
Hm, the primary purpose of Gov't spending seems to be the propping up of
unsustainable programs that cause an increase of the national debt year
after year. Welfare, Medicare, Social Insecurity, I mean Security, are a
drain on the taxpayers of this country. Why doesn't the U.S. Gov't get
back to the things that is is supposed to be doing(National Defense,
Interstate Commerce, etc) and get it's nose out of the peoples business.
And that goes for all forms of Gov't, right down to the oppressive
socialistic leaders that we have here in PXD.

> 
> > > And if you don't have an international court of justice, you have war.
> > > There must be a civil place to resolve grievances outside a particular
> > > nation's bias.
> >
> > War will always be.
> 
> So long as there are people like you, yes.  We're working on changing that
> by teaching civility.  It's a long process.

No, so long as there are people like you who will allow evil people to
do as they wish because "We don't want to hurt anyones feelings". I'd
rather do the right thing for the right reason than the wrong thing for
the sake of political correctness.
> 
> > Bureaucracy and multilateralism neither obsolete war nor do they provide
> > an affective means to wage war.
> 
> Arguing in court before a consensually assigned panel is a much better
> alternative than blowing each others brains out and destroying the land.
> 
> However, it doesn't ensure the victory of the largest army, so the U.S. is
> opposed to it as a matter of policy.
> 
> > If you wage war you fight to win, or you don't fight at all.
> 
> I'll take the latter.
> 
Guess that means you're a loser then? I'm sorry, but it's just that your
elitist attitude is showing and is becoming such a boor.
Again, I'd rather fight for what is right than live in a world were
people like Saddam are allowed to run free.


> There was no declaration of war.  It was a criminal violation of UN
> Charter.

Congress gave President Bush the power to act in the way that he sees
fit to combat TERRORISM(remember the Twin Towers Jeme?) in all it's
forms across the globe and to prevent another attack on our and, by
extension, eventually anyone else's soil. I think that is a noble task.
But think back. What did His Holiness Clinton do to really fight
anything?


> 
> > In all your angst over Bush have you ever given him the benefit of the
> > doubt considering that he's the only president chosen by the court
> > because of a tie?
> 
Elitist never give the benefit of the doubt because they are always
right!


> > The hallmarks of representative government include freedom of religion,
> > tolerance, and a government focused on improving social welfare.
> 
> No, the hallmarks of a representative government are representing the
> people of the governed region.  If those people are single-mindedly
> intolerant, then the government will be so.  If those people believe that
> improving social welfare is best done by suppressing the people and giving
> all the public money to private interests, then that is what the
> government will do.

Or as with our gov't that believes in taking my money and giving it to
those who are quite capable of fending for themselves but sponge off
people who work because they are too lazy to go get a job and support
themselves. I didn't elect anyone to do that.
> 
> But it is not our job to make sure the rest of the world has governments
> that are of the style we like.

I think Iraq will have a form of gov't that will be ratified by the
Iraqi people. The U.S. may help but in the end it will be done by Iraq.
> 

> 
> > He abused the oil for food program.
> 
> Look at that program, for God's sake, and tell me that this isn't all
> about taking control of the nation's natural resources.

Better that the Iraqi people are able to gather the wealth from oil in
their country than only the brutal dictator running the show.
> 
> "We'll let you starve, unless you give us oil!"

Russia, France and Germany seemed to see the oil for food program as a
way to make large sums of money for themselves. I wonder how much the
leaders and higher ups from those countries(and the U.N. for that
matter) made off of that "humanitarian" program.
> 
> > Any nation that does not seek to improve the social welfare of it's own
> > people does not deserve to be recognized.
> 
> Recall that pre-1991, Iraq had the highest standard of living and the
> highest quality of life in the Persian Gulf region.

Hm.... maybe pre-Iraq-Iran war. Saddam spent every dime he could get his
hands on to fight that war. Thats when the standard of living went down.
By 1991, the standard of living in Iraq had already sunk to levels lower
than what you would see there today(if you'd open your eyes and read
papers other than the New York Times and their clones).
> 
> ALL of the destruction in that nation has happened because of aggression
> and embargo and blockade led by the United States.

Uh, no. Most of the destruction in Iraq is because Saddam refused to
follow the mandates set forth by the U.N.


> > We killed two of his sons who were known as torturers.
> 
> Suspected torturers.  They were not tried and were never offered the
> chance to bring evidence in their own defense.  This is a gross violation
> of what we consider to be fundamental rights.

Well, they did die fighting capture. Of course if I knew that I would be
put to death by the very people whom I had tortured then making a last
stand wouldn't seem like such a bad idea.
> 

> You're just looking for reasons to believe the people of Iraq are not
> trying to protect themselves from foreign occupation.  There is no
> evidence of that.  It's all propaganda.

Again, you really need to read a wider selection of news sources.
> 

> 
> > Sometimes you need a big corporation to get the job done.
> 
> And what is "the job" and WHY does it need to "get done"?

Getting the infrastructure of Iraq up and running as quickly as possible
is the job. Who else can you name to get it done? Maybe we should put
the U.N. in charge and then it can be like Afghanistan. I would argue
that the people there are in fact no better off now than when we ran the
Taliban out. WOW! Let's have the U.N. run the world!!!!!!
> 

> Do you know WHY they were starving?  There was an embargo led by the
> United States that ruined their economy.  There was regular U.S. bombings
> of their infrastructure that prevented any internal development.

Passed by the member nations of the U.N. <yawn>

> This is classic brainwashing.  The soldiers become the saviors and the
> people forget that the soldiers are the reason they were suffering in the
> first place.

They know why they were hurting. Saddam.


> > Saddham sympathizers don't want Iraqi civilians to have running water,
> > sewer, and electricity.
> 
> Yeah, because they want the people to know WHO made their lives hell.
> That makes sense.

Once again, the correct answer is .....Saddam.
> 
> The people should be rebuilding it themselves so they don't come to praise
> their oppressors out of misguided gratitude.

And give the chance for another highly oppressive regime to take
control? Let's get it done as quickly as possible.
> 

So much more drivel it's impossible to answer it all.


-- 
alex <alexlinux at qwest.net>