Food for thought

Miscellaneous Topics
#1

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denouce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

~Herrhann Goering, Hitler’s Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWI

Sound familiar?

#2

It doesn’t work the same here. We said no, and they sent the army anyway! FFS.

Cas :slight_smile:

#3

that’s exactly what that quote describes

#4

Not quite… the British public, for example, were overwhelmingly against sending forces to Iraq and we weren’t fooled otherwise. But they sent the army anyway.

Cas :slight_smile:

#5

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along…”

isn’t that what you just said? The people oposed it, but the government did it anyway.

At any rate, I think it’s more important to note the similarity in the US. This is EXACTLY what Bush has done.

#6

I think its easy to criticize people who’s position we don’t have. I program and have been asked lots of times by clients - Isn’t it easy to do XXX.

Well, actually no, its not, if it were, then we’d all program. Isn’t it easy to run a country? Well, no actually its not. You are supposed to do what you think is right, not whats popular. I’d much rather have a leader do the wrong thing, for the right reasons, than the other way around. At least one you can trust, the other you can’t tell what motivates.

I feel like this about any leader. I am an American, who thinks what our country has been doing is mostly right. I say mostly.

I’ll keep mum from here. :-X

Dr. A>

#7

In my personal experience, many in the US were tenatively FOR the war in Iraq. Most expected that we’d actually get more countries behind us. Or at least tacit support. Then we found that there were actually no WMDs. Didn’t Bush emphatically declare that Saddam had all sorts of nasty things?

And worse, somehow the Bush administration managed to convince a portion of Americans that Saddam attacked us on 9/11! Of course he didn’t (I know that!).

Unfortunately, I think the OP is correct, at least for the US.

The silver lining is that at least OS X got a half decent flightsim update (http://www.graphsim.com/games-oif.html).

#8

well… I hardly ever voice my opinion, so don’t expect me to continue an argument, but…

Malokhan, you say “the people said no, but we sent the troops anyway.” I disagree, I believe a percentage of America said no, and another said yes. Obviously people of your opinion said no, but that doesn’t mean America as a whole did.

do I agree with the war? not entirely. but many of Democrats, not all, but many only point out one downfall about the war- the soldiers who have died and their families. Democrats (and the few Republicans who think the same thing) need to realize that you can’t have a war without losing life. Our soldiers took the pledge of fighting and dieing for our country, it’s not like they went into the service not knowing the dangers and responsibilities.

…but off that now, what would you have done with the war? Would you knowingly let a dictator do such terrible things to those people?

back to the original point, America did not say “no.” Only some of it did. But on the flip side America did not say “yes.” Only some of it did. So who is right and who is wrong? It seems mostly opinion, but my opinion is: if you know a dictator is hurting people, you should stop it.

I apologize for the emphasis on the soldiers, it just hits close to home for my family.

I’m not attacking you Malokhan, but your posts directly insult Bush. When you criticize anyone, you should always have at least one positive positive with the negatives, otherwise you’re jumping onto the hate wagon and you don’t really know what you stand for.

#9

Woogley, those words of mine you commented on were about the British, not the American.

@ dranonymous
You said you’d rather have a leader doing the wrong thing for the right reasons… What were his right reasons? First, it was all about 9-11, we were attacked! So he heads out his misdirected military campaign. He promises to get Bin Laden… and when our forces have him cornered in a gave, Bush allows control to be given to Afghani forces who were fighting AGAINST us not 2 weeks prior to the event.

Then, as soon as that screw up occured, all of a sudden it’s all about Saddam. Saddam has WMD’s! Except… the “intelligence” he got was HIGHLY disputed, but aparantly the controversial and flaky intelligence was good enough reason to send masses of troops over to invade Iraq, since he believes there are WMD’s.

Then, instead of listening to the advice of the WORLD and the UN, he cuts off the talks and irrationally throws us into a war he didn’t even have a plan to end. In the debates he said, “the talks weren’t working. They weren’t getting rid of Saddam,” to which Kerry replied, “the talks WERE working, but their purpose was to find and dispose of WMD’s, NOT get rid of Saddam.” The whole idea of ousting Saddam ONLY came up after Bush and his administration realized they had made a mistake and there were no weapons. Instead of being responsible for his mistake, he simply changed the reason: we have to FREE IRAQ!!

Except… our forces are guarding the oil refineries? What about the nuclear facilities whose contents could be sold to terrorists interested in creating WMD’s? Nahh… let’s defend the oil refineries. I won’t jump to conclusions about motives… but it sure isn’t reassuring to know that that’s where our defenses were stationed.

Have you forgotten why we’ve gone to war yet? What were those “right reasons” again? Oh yeah, we were attacked in 9-11. Now Bush is saying, “we were attacked, we had to go to war, that’s why we’re in Iraq!” Except… Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. Not a single thing. Bin Laden admitted to being the cause… but since Bush screwed up and gave him away (not to mention he flew Bin Laden’s family out of the US just a few days after 9-11 even when all the airports were shut down), now we have a new reason to fight fight fight!

Is that enough reason to not support the war? I hope so.

As for what I would have done differently… well… I wouldn’t have to be too smart to maybe consider the opinion of the rest of the world, maybe even listen to the UN. Isn’t the UN kind of like the “mother” of the world justice system? When you want to beat up Billy because he looks stupid, and mom says, “don’t you dare,” don’t you second guess beating up Billy? It’s not a hard concept, but Bush was tired of negotiating while his public opinion rating was plummetting for other stupid things he was doing at home like being the first president in 72 years to lose jobs (1.8 million at that), or putting the country into BY FAR the largest deficit in the history of the US. Yeah I can see why he might have wanted to take attention away from his mistakes, but I wouldn’t call those “right reasons.”

But that’s enough of domestic screwups, that’s a whole
'nother demon that Bush has created. If you doubt the validity of anything I’ve said, I encourage you to find out for yourself what’s REALLY going on.

I have higher hopes for Kerry however. At any rate, I think Bush has had 4 years to take his “chance,” and since I’ve had so much to say of his mistakes, you can bet I think he doesn’t deserve a second. It’s time we give someone else a try. I don’t think America is bad or all leaders are dirt, I just think Bush isn’t smart enough to think for himself, and easily accepts the ideas other people give him.

By the way, that reminds me, I know for a while he hadn’t vetoed any Bill that came to him, which is a bit fat “no no” not just for any president, but especially for a Republican. Has he vetoed anything since then? I haven’t kept up with that portion of his work…

Anyway, I think that’s enough both on topic and off topic. Feel free to argue back :wink:

EDIT: Oh yeah, and not to say things weren’t bad in Iraq before we invaded, but the fact that we’ve killed more Iraqi civilians than we lost here in America during 9-11 says that maybe we’re not doing much better.

#10

Malohkan: I have to agree with you. But you have to give us some credit. At least we didn’t fly WMDs in and claim they were there all along (cynical people I work with were wondering if that would happen during the early part of the war).

Was removing Saddam a good thing? Yes. A good reason to go to war? No. Are we safer because terrorists are flocking to Iraq? Unfortunately, no. IFAICT, tt’s fueling more exteremism. And because they’re fighting in Iraq they won’t try to get us here? That’s just not logical. It only takes a few (or one) to strike. Remember Oklahoma? Two guys, a truck, and some fertilizer did that. I suspect that not all terrorists have moved to Iraq, and if a couple get by the border (not really a problem from the north or south), they could do the same.

It’s something you can’t fight effectilvely with military force. Sadly, Bush either doesn’t want to admit this publicly due to the election, or just doesn’t believe it (or has been beguiled by those around him into believing it).

This sounds partisan I know, but I have only voted Democratic once in the last 12 years. This time, there’s no question. When the captain shows obvious errors in judgement, it’s time to relieve him. I’m hoping the majority of americans will come to the same conclusion before 11/2.

If you live in the US, be sure to vote!

#11

  1. This thread is flame bait and should be closed.

  2. Until then…

[quote] At any rate, I think it’s more important to note the similarity in the US. This is EXACTLY what Bush has done.
[/quote]
Bush had way more than 50% approval before and after sending troops into Iraq.

The administration made the case that Saddam very likely had wmd, may have had ties to terrorists, and moreover was a very unpleasant person. They never said the former two were 100% certain. They may have alluded to it but if you believed then I have bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Only fools or regular viewers of MTV Carson Daily Total Request Live thought that any of the latter was justification. The rank and file, blue collar, middle class American (me and the guys I served with for example) believed Saddam was an evil sob who needed to die. Now he has a hangman’s noose waiting for him, good riddance.

Its easy to second guess after the fact. The truth, imo, is that the Euros (France, Germany, and Russia) were making billions from the corrupt UN “food for oil” program. They opposed the war out of pure self interest.

edit;

[quote]Are we safer because terrorists are flocking to Iraq? Unfortunately, no.
[/quote]
Who are you to make that assesment? If you haven’t noticed coalition forces have been pounding these terrorist every week for the past month in Fallujah. If terrorists are going into Iraq thats good for us, because they are becoming concentrated in one location which make it easy for us to kill them. Review what happend to Maqatada al Saddi’s militia recently.

Luckily for us, the government and history care little what the uniformed, naive vocal, minority have to say on message boards.

edit 2;

[quote] It’s something you can’t fight effectilvely with military force.
[/quote]
You really haven’t been paying attention have you? The administration has been saying all along, and Kerry has agreed, that the best way to fight terrorism is to eliminate it at the root. The way to do this is to encourage democratic governments in the middle east.

The main gripe bin Laden has always had with the US is our support of the oppressive, corrupt monarch of his homeland, Suadi Arabia. The Saudi’s oppress the hell out of their people. Did you notice the terrorists attacks in Suadi Arabia last month? I didn’t think so.

#12

Getting OT now :slight_smile:

I think the difference I was trying to pick up on in the OP was that the public can be brought round by politicians into wanting war by one means or another. But in this rare case it failed. A nation didn’t go to war; the government went to war. And oh boy are they paying for it now :smiley:

Cas :slight_smile:

#13

And hey - seriously: won’t it be great when the oil runs out? Suddenly all those forward-thinking clever countries in Northern Europe with all their renewable energy supplies and smart insulation technologies etc. etc. are going to rule the roost next century. And Southern Europe and North Africa might actually become energy exporters as they start trapping the vast amount of spare sunlight they’ve got.

To anyone here feeling guilty about owning an SUV: cane the bugger! The quicker all the petrol runs out the better.

Cas :slight_smile:

#14

[quote]To anyone here feeling guilty about owning an SUV: cane the bugger! The quicker all the petrol runs out the better.
[/quote]

#15

Well feeding the world is pretty depenent on fertilizers which in turn uses oil as an key component. So I think running out of oil won’t be that great an experience for the current civilization…

#16

[quote] what would you have done with the war? Would you knowingly let a dictator do such terrible things to those people?
[/quote]
Well, we still continue letting dictators do terrible things to people. Saddam is not the only one, you know.
I don’t think any nation ever went to war to save innocent people and the Iraqi people were certainly not on Bush’s mind when he went to war.
Nations go to war because of fear, not because of heroism. The fact that Iraq has been relieved from their cruel dictator was just a side effect of the war which has been used as a vehicle for the media to win hearts.

[quote]To anyone here feeling guilty about owning an SUV: cane the bugger! The quicker all the petrol runs out the better.
[/quote]
;D

#17

The only thing plants need to grow is sunlight (edit: duh, and water and soil of course. Actually water’s a bigger problem than most people realise too. Especially us Brits :P). Fertilizers is a massive marketing scam. Seriously! Read a bit of New Scientist. Fertilizers are simply unnecessary. New, intelligent and efficient farming practises are what’s needed.

And things that really need motors are going to have to switch to electricity/rapeseed/alchohol motors.

There’s no real point in even arguing about it. The oil will run out, period. And there will be, sometime in the early half of this century, a fecking big war over it, after which things will calm down when everyone realises it was just a red herring. Fancy fighting a war over something that everyone knew was going to run out anyway instead of spending the money and effort getting alternatives in place? But that’s humans for you.

Cas :slight_smile:

#18

[quote]Bush had way more than 50% approval before and after sending troops into Iraq.
[/quote]
That’s kinda part of the point of the initial quote I posted… whether you like it or not, the quote is a real quote, and sadly, as hard as it is to admit, that fact there is proving its point. The people that didn’t give their approval are the ones that went to alternative news sources and found out what was going on for themselves rather than looking at the pretty pro-war 3D animations played on mainstream public media. I know 3D art, and wow, I was impressed with the high quality gun-hole effects in text supporting the war. I was totally flooded with propoganda every time I turned on the tv just prior to the war. It’s a no brainer to see why people went for it with all the hype it was given, regardless of the fact the reasons for it turned out to be so very wrong.

STUPID WINDOWS I KNOW I HAVE LOW DISK SPACE ON DRIVE D, QUIT POPPING UP AND TELLING ME EVERY 2 MINUTES!

I think he was using the US State Department’s result that was given to Bush that said we have many many more terrorists now than we did before the war. If you saw Farenheit 9-11 (no I’m not going to claim it was a factual documentary, don’t say I am), you’ll have seen footage from Iraq of a civilian in tears because of the slaughtering of her family that the US was responsible for. I believe that these “new terrorists” are spawning right out of the civilian masses because we keep killing them and Iraq didn’t provoke us. Not only did we capture Saddam, we also faught war with the country itself during the day, and bombed them all throughout the nights. They even admitted that on FOX. My jaw dropped when I heard it and realized we were terrorizing the Iraqi people, but it’s completely true. Now, as a result, we have many more terrorists now than ever before. Argue how you will, but I’m using the US State Department’s report as my backing.

By the way, who ever said it was Iraq that harbored the terrorists? I thought it was Afghanistan and Al Queda? Oh yeah, forgot about that little part when you saw all the pretty 3D animations saying “go blow up Iraq for oil! I mean FREEDOM!” with all it’s nice sound effects that made you wish you had their team for the game you were designing (I know I did).

I like to think that our democracy cares what the people think especially when they’re not naive and can base what they say on fact. I base all my knowledge on fact because I’ve read the reports (and yes I also read the Patriot Act, talk about scary stuff), and now, from all I’ve learned, I am zealously opposed to what has happened and is happening and know that I have to do my duty as a citizen and vote against Bush to restore integrity (and full sentences) to the White House. Honestly, I imagine having my kids in the future learning about this in school, and if I have to tell them I didn’t take it upon myself to learn what was going on, and I just said, “oh I didn’t really know, I thought what they told me on TV was ok and just voted for Bush” and it turns out my ignorance put me in the boat with those that fall under the topic-starting quote, I would be horribly embarrassed. Refusing to be put in that place, I have taken it upon myself to learn the truth in any way I can, and now you see me voicing my opinion wherever I can to ensure others do the same to learn for themselves.

[quote]You really haven’t been paying attention have you? The administration has been saying all along, and Kerry has agreed, that the best way to fight terrorism is to eliminate it at the root. The way to do this is to encourage democratic governments in the middle east.
[/quote]
The established root of “terrorism” is definitely more Al Queda than Iraq. All we’re doing in Iraq is becoming more and more hated, and that’s why we have so many more terrorists today than before. We’re not encouraging democracy when we’re killing all the people we’re wanting to have a voice in it. You know what’s happening with Al Queda now? No, you don’t, because no one’s on their backs anymore, we’re all focused in Iraq for reasons I previously explained. Now you see you’ve forgotten that altogether, which is exactly what the propoganda was designed to do. What we have working in Afghanistan compared to what we SHOULD have “fighting at the root” is an embarrassment. Our poor soldiers are now scattered without a plan, and the fault is on our president. He’s misused our forces, and my best hope for them is for a new president to come in and direct them in an intelligent manner so that our American deaths will be for more than whatever Bush’s motives are.

#19

Yes offcourse there are alternatives. But there’s reasons to why we have the current oil dependency, it contains much energy, it is easy to handle and this far it has been cheap to extract for example.

[quote] And things that really need motors are going to have to switch to electricity/rapeseed/alchohol motors.
[/quote]
I read an article a couple of months ago that stated that 50% of USA would have to covered with rapeseedfields to repleace pertrol in cars.

[quote]New, intelligent and efficient farming practises are what’s needed.
[/quote]
Sure, but will they be able to provied as cheap food with the same small work force as today?

My point is that replacements to oil will be more expensive, thus limiting the economic growth. And the economic growth is already to slow for our democratic/market economic civilization (the debt of most countries is growing day by day). But hey, all civilizations (except maybe folks like inuits and amazon indians) has collapsed sooner or later so why should ours be any different?

#20

[quote]The only thing plants need to grow is sunlight (edit: duh, and water and soil of course. Actually water’s a bigger problem than most people realise too. Especially us Brits ). Fertilizers is a massive marketing scam. Seriously! Read a bit of New Scientist. Fertilizers are simply unnecessary. New, intelligent and efficient farming practises are what’s needed.

And things that really need motors are going to have to switch to electricity/rapeseed/alchohol motors.

There’s no real point in even arguing about it. The oil will run out, period. And there will be, sometime in the early half of this century, a fecking big war over it, after which things will calm down when everyone realises it was just a red herring. Fancy fighting a war over something that everyone knew was going to run out anyway instead of spending the money and effort getting alternatives in place? But that’s humans for you.

Cas
[/quote]
Right on!

I recently came to hear that I live exactly at the spot with the worst air pollution in the world, yet our government decided to effectively ban out the cleanest car fuel in the country (which incidently fuels my car) with insane taxes. And their motivation was the environment… ???
I fully agree with Cas’ points and making a change mostly requires a mind shift. I think it’s mostly fear of change that’s holding us back.

But to get even more offtopic :wink: I don’t believe in motoring on electricity. Most electricity is generated with combustion anyway, storing electricity is a very wasteful process and batteries contain shitloads of dangerous toxics.
Yes, you can plant windmills and sun collectors everywhere, but that might just be enough to light our houses. I think we need something more powerful than that.