Who to "Liberate" Next? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-14-2003, 02:21 PM   #31
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 234
Local Time: 07:58 PM
why is it unfortunate that most americans care about the economy the most? i know someone in the states who is very educated and qualified for a good job, but cant find one.
__________________

__________________
-death bear
Quano Abidji-Achibi is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 03:28 PM   #32
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Sharky:

To quote the Simpsons: "and because i reached all my goals in the first 4 years i didn't need a second term"

If the US is at war again in a few months media is under governent control, he could count on many patriots who would vote for him - maybe his chances would be far better for the next election campaign?

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 04:01 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 08:58 PM
I don't want to see another war like this....I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to bush on iraq...but not on syria or iran. That would be ludicrous.

I may in fact eat my words if iraq does in fact go on to spearhead reforms in that region but in truth...I dont' want to see syria or iran changed because I don't want to see further destabilization in the mid east


Finish up iraq, sign a non-aggression pact with N korea invest in africa, put some pressure on pakistan, sanctions even. Settle the israel palestine issue and in fact make sure that the US, isreal and the arab world is investing in palestine to make sure that all sides have a stake in peace.

And this is an idea I've been bouncing around. Why doesn't the US government sponsor muslim americans to go back and give talks to people in arab countries about what life is like here etc etc...build some cultural bridges.



As for "liberating" saudi that doesn't require anything all we have to do is pull Us troops out and that regime will change itself.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 04:01 PM   #34
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 10:58 PM
It may be Syria. US troops are too tired to attack Iran now for instance.
North Korea? Not in foreseeble future...
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 04:34 PM   #35
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Quano Abidji-Achibi
why is it unfortunate that most americans care about the economy the most? i know someone in the states who is very educated and qualified for a good job, but cant find one.
Unfortunate for Bush.

Remember that Johnson didn't run for a second term because the Vietnam issue would have been a disaster on the campaign trail. If we start attacking any and all Middle Eastern countries, its going to be similar to that. And Bush can either not run or run and get defeated. When the chips are down, Americans like quick wars we win. And they like their jobs. And if we don't win quickly or money isn't coming in or both, Bush is screwed.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 04:59 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Why not go for Qatar. They have no elections or a politic party. The minister of internal affairs did give shelter to the man who planed the twin tower attack and donated money to bin laden. This happend in 1996.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 05:17 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Anitram,

Are you saying you would have supported a US invasion to overthrow Saddam in 1988 but not in 2003? Lets not forget the context of what was going in 1988 as well, the Iran/Iraq war. Anyone attempting to overthrow Saddam would certainly have to deal with Iran as well back in 1988. Its easy in hindsite to look at an event 15 or 20 years ago and say this or that should have been done. The reason nothing was done in 1988 has to do with the war between Iran and Iraq. The west and most persian Gulf Countries had just spent 90 Billion dollars helping Iraq save itself from Iran after Saddam had unwisely started the war with Iran in 1980. This was done as to protect the region from Iran as much as it was done to protect Iraq from falling to Iran. What Saddam did was an evil crime in 1988, but more important considerations made it impossible to really do anything about it at the time.

Stalin was far worse a murder than Saddam, but you don't hear anyone suggest that we should not have sent Billions of dollars of aid to him in World War II. In again, we need to look at the broader context in which these events take place to clearly understand them.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 05:52 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 05:28 PM
now, the US may not have explicitly sold iraq weapons for the iraq/iran war, but they certainly did not discourage it!

what I find interesting is the kind of rhetoric we hear from rumsfield and co. now. It's exactly like what we heard before the iraq war.

Syria has WMD
Syria is training terrorists
They have a dictator
they even added a nice little ditty about Syria occupying Lebanon.

Of course, Isreal occupies a portion of lebanon as well but Rumsfield chooses to ignore that
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 06:08 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Israel withdrew from Lebanon. Isn't it about time Syria did too?

The "rhetoric" are simply facts. But Syria is in a different class from Saddam's Iraq in terms of prior behavior. Saddam has invaded and attacked 4 counties over the past 20 years. Syria has not invaded any countries in the past 20 years but does continue to keep some troops in Lebanon.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 06:13 PM   #40
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 03:58 PM
What it will come down to is the economy, just like with his father. Dubya was riding on a post-Iraq war stock market explosion, and, for a little bit there, it looked possible. However, with the "liberation" of Baghdad, reality settled back in--corporate America is still in terrible shape. With a president who only knows one phrase when dealing with our economy--"tax cut"--we're going to go nowhere. That will be his downfall.

Ormus
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 06:20 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 02:58 PM
STING, I did not say that you should have invaded Iraq in 1988. I am not sure what would have been the best course of action at that time, and as you say, speculating now is pointless since hindsight is 20/20.

What I am saying is that it is hypocritical of people like Rumsfeld to be crying crocodile tears over thousands of gassed Kurds when in fact nothing was done before. To me, that is using these people's terrible tragedy in order to promote his own adventure, and I find that repugnant. Instead of saying "We should have helped out the Kurds in some way when Saddam was killing them en masse, but we let our own interests prevent that, so we are sorry, and we're doing it now" he is beating this dead horse over and over again like it's suddenly a tragedy and an outrage that thousands perished. Sorry, but it's not right, and sounds awfully emotionally manipulative to me. That is what I am saying.

He's only concerned with those people because he needs their deaths to partially validate his war now. That's just sick.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-14-2003, 06:22 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Ormus,

What do you think Bush should do to the US economy if he wants to have the best chance of winning in 2004. Don't say "improve the economy". I want to hear your silver bullet solution that does not involve tax cuts.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 06:28 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Anitrim,

The fact is, their deaths do help to validate the war and also to inform those who never even heard of the Iran/Iraq war. The main reason for the war though remains Saddam's refusal to comply with 17 UN resolutions passed during and after the 1991 war and his violations of the ceacefire agreement of the 1991 war. Saddam's past behavior and WMD when put together are to threatening to leave unchecked which is why he was required to disarm after the first Gulf War. This past war is really a completion of the first one. It was thought 12 years ago that Saddam would comply and or be out of power within a few years.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 08:11 PM   #44
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 03:58 PM
The only way our economy is going to get going again is to stimulate consumer spending. "Tax cuts" are the easy solution, but it isn't adequate enough. The general public already pays fewer taxes, and any more tax cuts are going to barely make a dent. People with any substantial refunds have been using it for debt repayment mostly.

What we're seeing is the end-game of Reagan's deregulatory policy that allowed for substantial wage cuts in blue-collar society. Like them or not (call them lazy, uneducated, and undeserving all you want), they are still the majority of society and their spending is going to make the largest impact on economic recovery. The only way we're going to get any substantial recovery is through re-regulation. The repeal of the windfall profits tax is what has gotten us in this mess. That tax, only levied on businesses with excessive profits, forced business to both reinvest in itself--meaning businesses could better weather recessions, due to less reliance on stock investment and debt--and to pay its labor handsomely to avoid paying the tax. In turn, with a well-paid labor force, they were able to drive the economy.

In the short run, all Reagan's deregulatory policy ensured was short-term fast growth, but you can never have your cake and eat it too. As it stands, we are heading towards 1990s Japan, as their growth has been hampered for a decade now, due to corporate energy being placed on paying down their accumulated debt. Reagan wished to emulate Japan, and he got his wish. We're now paying the consequences.

"Ta-da"

Ormus
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 04-14-2003, 11:56 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 05:28 PM
shhh...don't tell Bush about lybia...hopefully they can keep low under the radar until bush gets out of office

++ Suspected of WMD + Terrorist Activity
+ Fundamentalist dictator
+ Horrible human rights record
+ American hating country
+ a pretty small army
+ Memmories of fun times during the 70s that can be brought back through videotapes!!!

all the necessary ingredients to be invaded
__________________

__________________
Basstrap is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com