View Full Version : War, What is it good for?
lulustu
06-08-2007, 10:09 PM
OKAY im home at night just watching tv, the news to be exact, and I kept hearing the high death toll of American troops in Iraq. Personally I support the president in some things, but in others I totally disagree, like the ongoing war in Iraq.
Do you think its a good thing that we're there or a not so good thing?
Anyways feel free to go a little off topic on what you think about any War in that matter.
Awakening
06-11-2007, 01:20 AM
War isn't always bad, and people need to understand that.
Obviously no one likes war - anything involving such death and violence is terrible. However, we can attempt to justify, excuse, or understand war.
Here is my personal view, and I am referring specifically to the war in Iraq:
Pros of the current war
The driving force behind it (war on terrorism) is indeed moral and righteous.
The message that foreign attacks upon our country will not go unpunished is a necessary one.
From a historical standpoint, the death toll of American troops is actually low.
Cons of the current war
Once again, people die as in any war.
The US presence in Iraq is stirring up resistance and ethnic tension.
The reputation of the US has been negatively affected by the war.
Trilobite
06-11-2007, 04:09 AM
As soon as innocent people start geting hurt/killed for someone else's feuds then war has no meaning for me except mass murder by an army/s. Sadly, that's virtually every war.
That's just my personal opinion.
I don't know much about war or why it goes on. I've had it explained to me and I still don't get it. But as far as I'm concerned, the killing of innocents is inexcuseable. I've had so many people disagree with me, but that's how I personally see it, and it probably won't change.
Tabbeh
06-18-2007, 03:40 PM
As soon as innocent people start geting hurt/killed for someone else's feuds then war has no meaning for me except mass murder by an army/s. Sadly, that's virtually every war.
That's just my personal opinion.
I don't know much about war or why it goes on. I've had it explained to me and I still don't get it. But as far as I'm concerned, the killing of innocents is inexcuseable. I've had so many people disagree with me, but that's how I personally see it, and it probably won't change.
The thing that really bugs me is that so many people seem blind to the plight of the Iraqi citizens. I mean when Vtech happened everyone was horrified, but stuff like that happens in Iraq EVERY SINGLE DAY. If it were in America people would care more, but since it's in another country we can just close our eyes and pretend it's not happening. Americans seem to be quite skilled at that:rolleyes:
electric_blue_kirby
06-18-2007, 06:04 PM
Voice 1:
Americans seem to be quite skilled at that
British people have bad teeth.
Hey, making ignorant stereotypes is easy!
Tabbeh
06-19-2007, 03:11 PM
Voice 1:
British people have bad teeth.
Hey, making ignorant stereotypes is easy!
Well, I meant everyone in the developed world. And please don't call me ignorant, I live in America.
Going to war is horrible because so many people are killed, but in circumstances like our's, we are left with no other choice. We need to be strong.
electric_blue_kirby
06-20-2007, 09:13 PM
Voice 1:
Well, I meant everyone in the developed world.
Wasn't easy to infer when it seemed a copy of the typical "Americans are ignorant sots" stereotype that manages to find its way into nearly any discussion on the Internet.
And please don't call me ignorant, I live in America.
At what point did living in a country exclude someone from being ignorant about the state of their own country men? Unless the America you live in is different from the one I do, you should know that arguement is flawed.
words
Whom is meant by "our"?
In my humble opinion, we should bomb the terrorists and get it over with. That would end the war.
As an American citizen I can say I'm damn sick and tired of America going to war over someone elses bullshit.
What we need is a president with balls. If we don't get that, this could be the war that starts WWIII.
If you don't agree with me, I don't give a crap. It's the USA and I have a right to my opinions. So I'm not debating this actually....
Voice 1: If you don't plan to debate, please don't post in a section clearly marked as "debate". Consider this a verbal warning.
Tabbeh
06-21-2007, 12:57 PM
Voice 1:
Wasn't easy to infer when it seemed a copy of the typical "Americans are ignorant sots" stereotype that manages to find its way into nearly any discussion on the Internet.
At what point did living in a country exclude someone from being ignorant about the state of their own country men? Unless the America you live in is different from the one I do, you should know that arguement is flawed.
*shrugs* okay, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to stereotype, I just get fed up sometimes with the whole "everyone-in Iraq-is-a-terrorist-and-we should-kill-them-all" thing.
And I think the America I live in MAY be a little different from yours, because I live in an area where many, many people are pro-war. This is not to say that there aren't any people who are against the war, but most are pro.
Well, I haven't really paid much attention to the war on Iraq or anything else for that matter because of the simple fact: what's the point of it? What good is it? Many soldiers are dieing on a daily basis and we can't do anything about it. Why are they dieing for? To protect and save our country, correct? But why are we still at war? Gas prices are high, and are going to rise a lot over the next few years and etc... But doesn't Iraq have Oil ridges and such?
Why can't the United States take their oil and such and bring it on over here? Iraq isn't the only one suffering from the war, the United States is too. Why are we at war? When we're at war with ourself. Take every hood in America for an example, many people in the hood are dieing everyday, and the government doesn't pay attention to it at all..
Sure, they'll send a cop or two to see what's going on, but once the person is dead, what's going to happen after that?
electric_blue_kirby
07-02-2007, 12:09 AM
Voice 1:
Well, I haven't really paid much attention to the war on Iraq
And your post shows it.
Firstly, are you suggesting that after invading a country, we should then raid its natural resources? You can make a "to the victor goes the spoils" arguement, but that type of action will just serve to engender further international illwill towards the United States. Pilaging and plundering have fallen out of favor, along with war profiteering.
We went to war with Iraq, supposedly, over "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that would be used to attack us. A threat that, if it were legitimate, would mean far more than fighting in the "hoods". However, as was readily apparent before military operations began, these charges proved to be heavily unfounded. However, we remain there due to a "finish what you started" policy, according to the White House.
And if you really can't see why the government is far more invested in the war effort in Iraq than in "hood" related issues, you can't have a very firm grip on domestic politics.
Sorry if some parts of this post seem incoherent. I'm experiencing what I believe to be the effects of bad fish.
You're absolutely right EBK. So basically the war on Iraq is over the "weapons of Mass Destruction"? When do you think the war will end if this is the case? I'm sure there's more reasons besides just that, correct? But doesn't the United States have the right to take their natural resources if they're winning the war, or not?
online.education
07-05-2007, 02:20 AM
It's always an excuse for bankers to drive the government heavily in debt (at least in modern times). The government has the best collection system, i.e., taxation, so they can't help lending so much money to the government.
electric_blue_kirby
07-05-2007, 05:44 AM
Voice 1:
words
The banks helped engender wars such as the Civil War (to crush Lincoln's greenbacks, in that instance), but it seems a bit of a stretch that all wars are, in whole, an effort by the bankers.
words
The war was started over that idea. Now it continues under a "We have to finish what we started." policy. Considering that permanent military bases have already been built in Iraq (as was planned in the first place), a withdrawl isn't something you should expect too soon.
The amount of hostility an act like that would engender, particulary with the "No war for oil" phrase that gets tossed around, makes the question of "rights" in the matter irrelevant. It would be an incredibly foolish move for the US to make. Although you already see the war profiteering happening there and in Afghanistan.
online.education
07-05-2007, 08:49 AM
The banks helped engender wars such as the Civil War (to crush Lincoln's greenbacks, in that instance), but it seems a bit of a stretch that all wars are, in whole, an effort by the bankers.
Well, when US starts a war, the Federal Reserve essentially backs it financially. FR is not a public institution, but it's a private institution owned by private citizens. So, is it really stretch to say that all wars (started by US) are essentially started so that a selected number of bankers can collect a bunch of money through taxation in the end?
electric_blue_kirby
07-05-2007, 08:51 AM
Voice 1:
That they can be a beneficiary is not a stretch. That they are the primary motive, however, is.
online.education
07-05-2007, 09:00 AM
Voice 1:
That they can be a beneficiary is not a stretch. That they are the primary motive, however, is.
Oh, come on now. They know that they can make a bunch of money. It's guaranteed. 100%. Why wouldn't they advocate that? Why wouldn't they lobby <cough> bribe </cough> the congress?
electric_blue_kirby
07-05-2007, 09:07 AM
Voice 1:
Do you truly think a representative of the Federal Reserve met with members of the Bush Administration and asked if they'd start a war with Iraq for profit? Truly?
The Federal Reserve came in under shady, underhanded means. It wouldn't be the first time that banking families made money off of a war (The Rothschild incident involving Napoleon's defeat, for instance). But to presume that they, above any other plausible reason, are the almost certain cause of the war is naught but taking speculation out of proportion.
Could the Federal Reserve have had a hand in helping the war come to fruition? Possibly. But manufactured the war? Come now.
online.education
07-05-2007, 09:20 AM
The Federal Reserve came in under shady, underhanded means. It wouldn't be the first time that banking families made money off of a war (The Rothschild incident involving Napoleon's defeat, for instance). But to presume that they, above any other plausible reason, are the almost certain cause of the war is naught but taking speculation out of proportion.
Ok, the Rothschild didn't go to Napoleon and said "Hey, let's start a war" or "Waterloo is going to be the battle field." But there were enough people who wanted to start wars, one of who happened to be Napoleon.
Could the Federal Reserve have had a hand in helping the war come to fruition? Possibly. But manufactured the war? Come now.
And unfortunately there are enough Napoleons today, that is, enough people who want to start wars (I'm not really criticizing Napoleon by the way). And ... one (or a group of people) who get bankers' support executes his plan. Given that, isn't it fair to say that bankers are decision makers in the end? Also isn't it fair to say that they can start a way any day?
Also do bankers just lend money? No, they tell you how to spend the money. They become a part of making the final plan.
I don't know how to use the edit button! Why don't I take a moment to learn how, and remove this message?
Also, when the two posts are on seperate pages of the thread, it seems they become slightly harder to merge!
electric_blue_kirby
07-05-2007, 09:37 AM
Voice 1:
The bankers support both sides in a war, with the understanding that the victor will also pay off the debts of the conquered. The bankers don't really care who wins, just whatever maximizes their profits.
The defense industry also has a large profit motive to want a war. Companies like Haliburton profit. A lot of people can find ways to profit off of a war. Therefore, I'm curious why you singled out the bankers as the sole instigators using the same reasoning.
EDIT:
Of course, the bankers adjust their funding according to how the outcome of the war looks (giving the losing side just enough to think they still have a chance).
I could talk for days on this topic but I'll make it as short as I can....
As for the war on terror...there is none....not any REAL terror that is...The only thing we should be fearing is the US government taking ALL our rights away and giving us tons of new laws, for our "protection".
Here are a few things from the newest version of the Patriot Act...
SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states that law enforcement does not even have to tell the press who they have arrested and they never have to release the names.
SECTION 301 and 306 (Terrorist Identification Database) set up a national database of “suspected terrorists” and radically expand the database to include anyone associated with suspected terrorist groups and anyone involved in crimes or having supported any group designated as “terrorist.” These sections also set up a national DNA database for anyone on probation or who has been on probation for any crime, and orders State governments to collect the DNA for the Federal government.
SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.
SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as foreign powers and again strip them of all rights under the “enemy combatant” designation.
SECTION 102 states clearly that any information gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal, can be considered to be clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. This makes news gathering illegal.
SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.
SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
SECTION 126 grants the government the right to mine the entire spectrum of public and private sector information from bank records to educational and medical records. This is the enacting law to allow ECHELON and the Total Information Awareness Network to totally break down any and all walls of privacy.
The government states that they must look at everything to “determine” if individuals or groups might have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now see, you are guilty until proven innocent.
SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover coroners’ and medical examiners’ operations whenever they see fit. See how this is like Bill Clinton’s special medical examiner he had in Arkansas that ruled that people had committed suicide when their arms and legs had been cut off.
SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take over the proceedings. It also disallows individuals or organizations to even try to quash a Federal subpoena. So now defending yourself will be a terrorist action.
SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistleblower protection for Federal agents.
SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their activities with toxic biological, chemical or radiological materials.
And much more....
If you would like to read where I got that from go here : http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm
Voice 1:
Wasn't easy to infer when it seemed a copy of the typical "Americans are ignorant sots" stereotype that manages to find its way into nearly any discussion on the Internet.
At what point did living in a country exclude someone from being ignorant about the state of their own country men? Unless the America you live in is different from the one I do, you should know that arguement is flawed.
Whom is meant by "our"?
but in circumstances like our's
circumstances like our's= circumstances like America's
Herb, I think everyone will agree that American's rights are slowly going down the drain.
Great post!
electric_blue_kirby
07-07-2007, 12:37 PM
Voice 1:
words
At what point did we have "no choice" but to go to war with Iraq?
Quote from Alex Jones
Truly, the only shocking part of this post is that somebody else actually knows who Alex Jones is.
The erosion of liberties by the Patriot Act is well publicized. It's most of the other things which Alex Jones covers that aren't. (Surveillance blimps; sound weapons used in Iraq being used on ordinary civilians; secret, unmarked police photographing protesters; "1st Amendment Zones"; Bohemian Grove. And all but one of those were just from his coverage of the RNC. Also, did he cover RFID chips?)
Although his views on 9/11 (which he seems to work into most of his documentaries) do make him a bit of a controversial figure.
Herb, I think everyone will agree that American's rights are slowly going down the drain.
Great post!
Thanks!!
Voice 1:
Truly, the only shocking part of this post is that somebody else actually knows who Alex Jones is.
The erosion of liberties by the Patriot Act is well publicized. It's most of the other things which Alex Jones covers that aren't. (Surveillance blimps; sound weapons used in Iraq being used on ordinary civilians; secret, unmarked police photographing protesters; "1st Amendment Zones"; Bohemian Grove. And all but one of those were just from his coverage of the RNC. Also, did he cover RFID chips?)
Although his views on 9/11 (which he seems to work into most of his documentaries) do make him a bit of a controversial figure.
Alex is a fairly well known guy, he has been informing the American people since the early 90's and does one hell of a job!!!
I listen to his radio show almost everyday....just love how committed he is to the rights of the people.
His coverage of the unpublicized things are excellent!! Yes he did do a bit on his show about the RFID Chips. I believe he even talked to a guy on the phone that willingly got one of the RFID Chips or something like it.
His views on 9/11 are a bit much to take in at first and can easily been seen as "crazy talk" but if you do some research and look at the documents he talks about it all starts to make sense....it is all part of a bigger plan for globalization and one world government.
online.education
07-10-2007, 11:56 PM
His views on 9/11 are a bit much to take in at first and can easily been seen as "crazy talk" but if you do some research and look at the documents he talks about it all starts to make sense....it is all part of a bigger plan for globalization and one world government.
Makes a lot of sense actually, and once you allow yourself to apply common sense like
"Government (any government) represents some kind of power structure and it is usually a violent one."
"(Military) Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
it's not that difficult to see what's been taking place. Too many people can't get out of the mindset that 'their' government is somehow good, it's a given condition and it'll never change.
electric_blue_kirby
07-11-2007, 03:51 AM
Voice 1:
Alex is a fairly well known guy
Really? This is the first time I've ever actually experienced somebody else knowing who he is.
9/11
Yes, but (in part) as Online.education pointed out, 9/11 is an emotionally charged issue, so any assertion that it may have been the government that "burned the Reichstag" is met with hostility as "insensitive politicization" of the event, and causes Alex Jones to be ignored by that crowd as being a crackpot "tin-hat" conspiracy theorist.
You can see it in some of his documentaries: Never mind that we can see false-flag operations from Cuba to the first Gulf War, those people just insult him and ignore what he says. They seem to find the idea that a government would commit an act of aggression against its own people for selfish gain as an absurd impossibility.
And who's going to listen about mercury in inoculations or Bohemian Grove from him then? Those already sound absurd enough without that stigma attached to his name.
And of course, there will always be those who just don't care. It's kind of like Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. There's the Inner Party who knows and is behind what is going on and has the power in society, the Outer Party who knows but really has no power to stop it, and the Proles whom could have the power to stop it, but don't care and won't act on it. And, really, it's like Chuck Palahniuk said. "Big brother isn't watching you; he's singing and dancing." I'm pretty sure Alex Jones touched on that as well.
online.education
07-11-2007, 05:42 AM
Really? This is the first time I've ever actually experienced somebody else knowing who he is.
Mike Ruppert, Daryl Bradford Smith (http://www.iamthewitness.com/), Eric Hufschmid (http://www.erichufschmid.net/), etc. They're not celebrities, but they are not totally unknown, either.
electric_blue_kirby
07-11-2007, 09:48 AM
Voice 1:
I meant in the sense of average citizens. It has been my experience that people have not recognized his name at all should I have mentioned him.
I know there are people who know who he is, but the concept that he is well known outside of the circles you've cited people from is a new one to me.
Makes a lot of sense actually, and once you allow yourself to apply common sense like
"Government (any government) represents some kind of power structure and it is usually a violent one."
"(Military) Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
it's not that difficult to see what's been taking place. Too many people can't get out of the mindset that 'their' government is somehow good, it's a given condition and it'll never change.
You got it!! Too much power in government is NEVER a good thing!
Check this out Bush is getting even more power over us!!
CLICK ME!! (http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/070807Power.htm) Read it all including the attached articles at the end!!
electric_blue_kirby
And who's going to listen about mercury in inoculations or Bohemian Grove from him then? Those already sound absurd enough without that stigma attached to his name.
I know. People look at me like I have just escaped from a nut house when I mention anything on the mercury in shots and Bohemian Grove. It is sad to think there are people, and lots of them, thar don't care about what happens to our country...in the last 50 years I think it has really been going down hill quick...more and more 'programs' started to 'keep us safe' when it is all the 'programs' that started it!
Patrick
08-11-2007, 10:01 PM
If it were in America people would care more, but since it's in another country we can just close our eyes and pretend it's not happening. Americans seem to be quite skilled at that:rolleyes:
I don't see how America is any different than any other contry. I don't see how you can only mention its America when its everyone.
As for the war, you can't completely blame it on the government. When it comes down to it, we all have to blame each other. The american people do choose their representatives, and if we really wanted the war to end this minute it would. Congressmen have to listen to the people, or they won't be voted in again.
When the war started it had some ridiculously high approval rate. Not until a year or 2 did it start declining. Who voted bush back into office for his second term? We have to take responsibility too.
The american people do choose their representatives, and if we really wanted the war to end this minute it would. Congressmen have to listen to the people, or they won't be voted in again.
When the war started it had some ridiculously high approval rate. Not until a year or 2 did it start declining. Who voted bush back into office for his second term? We have to take responsibility too.
Guess you don't know about the election fraud?? Bush was NOT voted back by the people he never should have been here from the beginning. The electronic voting machines were easy to tamper with. There was a HBO special about it.
Hacking Democracy article (http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/synopsis.html)
Hacking Democracy Web site (http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/)
The Movie on YouTube
Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1960147185026589601)
Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1335994309755176959)
Part 3 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 4 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 5 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 6 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 7 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 8 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 9 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Patrick
08-12-2007, 03:50 PM
I'm quite aware of the fraud. That wouldn't have happened if we didn't vote smarter though. If one state mattered that much, it was obviously a very tight race. The fraud could never have happened unless it was so tight.
Haywire
08-12-2007, 06:03 PM
I decided not to read the whole thread, and to post out of spite. I personally am disgusted by war, war is the reason we have so many problems today. For example, if there was no existance of war, or weapons, there would be no crime, murder, rape, etc. I find war being needed, as BULLSHIT! Fighting for Peace and Freedom... BULL! We would live peacefully and free, if there was no war! Being drafted, is that freedom? Being attacked, or attacking others, is that freedom?
What I have noticed with the current war, it started with the attacks on the trade towers, with Osama Bin Laden. That lasted about a month or two, and they moved over to Iraq. They take out saddam, and find him in a hole, but they can't find osama? It's like they dont even care about what happened on 9/11, it comes to show, that there is some controversy and that the US was probably behind it.
Freedom is something you should not need to fight, and kill for. Freedom is a right, and people should understand that. We are not fighting for our rights, we are fighting so that we look tough, so that in the long-run, we run the world. A lot of the wars the U.S. has fought in, the U.S. seems to have taken over the foreign countries... That is not right. We have our own countries to run, and the U.S. should have no say over how they are run.. No wonder we have terrorists!
Wars are terrible, they are not worth fighting. I say, why go to war, when you can just talk things through. Why go to war, against another country, because of how it is run, instead of working on how your own country is run! People in third-world countries are supported by the U.S. and Canada, but do you see the U.S. helping the starving people in it's own country? Housing costs are sky-rocketing, aswell as the amount of homeless people. People are starving to death every day on the streets, and nothing is being done to help them. Yet we pay money, to help people in other countries!! WHAT THE FRIGG SERIOUSLY!
I personally dont give a flying duck about other countries, other than my own. We are running our own country, not everyone else's. Another thing I noticed, "God Bless America, and NOBODY ELSE!". Now, that is disrespectful. It's as if America is stating that they are better than everyone else, and that everyone else does not deserve respect. A lot of wars are started for that very reason, some other country doesn't like how they are being disrespected, and how the U.S. treats them, or their own people, and the U.S. fights back, trying to be the "Good Guy".
People are going to war in Iraq, and other countries, against their own free will. It's as if they are obligated to do so, I do not see why. Just because you were born in a country, doesn't mean you have to die for it, you should have say. The U.S. Fights other countries because their leaders are tirants, and force them against their own will... Look at the United States, what are they doing? Lets see..
Forcing people to go to war, and die, against their own free will. Allowing their people to live on the streets, and die of starvation, because they dont have the money, and cannot afford the help. Placing people in prisons, and maming them because of their religion, because they are not american. Seriously, what is wrong?
The United States is a terrible country, it is run by wars, death, terrorism, etc. The US doesn't like terrorism, yet it goes and bombs another country, because that country consists of "Terrorists". What are "Terrorists"? Those who go by their beleifs, and fight for their rights? Those who take action, so that they can survive, or be seen? Those who kill, because they are protecting their family, or their country? Those who destory, due to their religion? Look at the united states... The united states is one, giant terrorist group. Seriously though, think about it. Don't go off the bat and say "LIES", or "The US is innocent", because it is not.
I personally, in my beleifs, beleive that the United States is behind ninety-nine percent of all terrorist attacks. The world trade center for example, the people who died on the planes. What about that plane which landed, with all the people who were "Supposidly" on them? The United States blamed Pakistan, and Osama Bin Laden, yet they got side-tracked, and took out Saddam instead. Saddam chose how he would run his country, just like the US decided to run theirs. We have no choice in that. I say boo the United States, boo George Bush, and boo to War. For all I car, George Bush can get killed, but I don't see him at war?
What are your opinions on this.
online.education
08-22-2007, 12:13 AM
Guess you don't know about the election fraud?? Bush was NOT voted back by the people he never should have been here from the beginning. The electronic voting machines were easy to tamper with. There was a HBO special about it.
Hacking Democracy article (http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/synopsis.html)
Hacking Democracy Web site (http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/)
The Movie on YouTube
Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1960147185026589601)
Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1335994309755176959)
Part 3 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 4 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 5 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 6 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 7 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 8 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
Part 9 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7561101369014966704)
There is also a pretty well written article:
Was the 2004 Election Stolen? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen)
I don't discuss 2000 election by the way, since what happened was obviously fraud.
That being said, studying these two elections closely tells you that a huge number voters, not quite, not close to the half of all, did vote for George W. Bush.
anihi1ator
08-22-2007, 02:06 AM
Yeah, I think we should abando our bottom-rung capitalist mentality and embrace the wisdom of Mao, Marx, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot and Musselini. Those guys knew how to run an efficient violence-free government.
electric_blue_kirby
08-24-2007, 02:45 AM
Voice 1:
.
A statement that manages to be sarcastic whilst entirely missing the point? Now it's truly an Internet debate.
xAnonymousx
08-25-2007, 10:47 AM
Nothing.
That's why my mom's voting for Buraq Oboma(sP?), and she hates george bush.
online.education
08-27-2007, 12:44 AM
Yeah, I think we should abandon our bottom-rung capitalist mentality and embrace the wisdom of Mao, Marx, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot and Mussolini. Those guys knew how to run an efficient violence-free government.
A statement that manages to be sarcastic whilst entirely missing the point? Now it's truly an Internet debate.
And this is a humorous and insightful statement ...
Freedom is something you should not need to fight, and kill for. Freedom is a right, and people should understand that. We are not fighting for our rights, we are fighting so that we look tough, so that in the long-run, we run the world. A lot of the wars the U.S. has fought in, the U.S. seems to have taken over the foreign countries... That is not right. We have our own countries to run, and the U.S. should have no say over how they are run.. No wonder we have terrorists!
Well, you're also forgetting that Iraq didn't really have a good government system to begin win. We're powerful, we're a nation, so why can't we try to help other nation's people as well, to protect their country - and hopefully establish a better government for them?
Sure, their country is currently at war with ours, but in the end something good may come out of it, but right now, I really don't see what's good. Our soldiers are dying over there, and they really need to come home.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.