Topic awaiting preservation: Is the world going to hell?

Insider and I were having a discussion on politics in general earlier and we got on the topic of whether or not this world is going to hell. We both thought it'd be a good idea to create a new thread on the subject and see what some of the other inmates have to say. So heres your thread.

I feel things are getting better in the world daily. We're at an age where most of the planet enjoys civil rights and isn't held in servative. Democracy is beginning to reach all corners of the globe. The standards of living are increasing in most areas. Medical break throughs have helped people enjoy longer, more fulfilling lives. etc.

I'm curious how the rest of you feel about our present age of the world. Is there a time period you feel was better for everyone and why?

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

^ I am pretty much with you...

I don't think there was "better" time period.
But I do tend to think that we humans are destroying our nature alot.

Besided that, everything is great for me today. Of course it is unknow whats gonna happen tomorow...

I don't believe things are getting better in 2004, I feel as if they're getting worse. There's an anti-intellectual in the White House, widespread ignorance worldwide which is exacerbating East/West tensions, kids dying in the Middle East, a US administration with a seemingly pre-emptive war policy... And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Yeah, I think things are going to hell.

There are certainly other areas that are much better now than other times in history - healthcare, welfare, education, voting rights, etc.

In spite of my comments above, I'd rather live now than at any other time... I'd choose the future if I could but that wasn't an option was it?

Amerasu |

Amerasu, I suppose you could argue the future is a better time period although seeing we don't know whats going to happen in the future you'd be hard pressed to suggest why its better.

As for the other parts of your post, I think their all valid concerns but I don't believe they take away from the fact that we're moving in a positive direction. Although, Pres. Bush fooled much of the world into thinking Saddam Hussein possessed WMD but ultimately we toppled the government of an oppressive dictator. While I disagree with his tactics, the removal of Saddam Hussein is a good thing. It might even be the start of the democratization of the Middle East. Whether that is a good thing remains to be seen but if all goes to plan I believe Iraq will become the envy of the Middle East.

East-West tensions are virtually non-existent compared to what the once where. It wasn't too long ago that there were real fears of a nuclear attack. While terrorism in this world isn't likely to disappear its not the nuclear apacalypse that the Cold War *could* have been. In reality, aside from one notable attack, most terrorist attacks are relatively small bombings. While thats not comforting, thats kind of the way things have always been.

I hope more people get involved in this discussion. I think its an interesting one.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

Is it the end of the world as we know it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

4 Words
In
A
Hand
Basket.
or is that 3??

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

I just don't see anything positive about Bush or his Iraq "plans" Jestah. I think he's made a right mess of things and opened up a nasty ass can of worms that won't be going away anytime soon. I don't think democratization is at hand in Iraq and I really doubt we'll see it happen anytime soon. I hope the handover is successful and that the different peoples of Iraq come together with a united front but in all honesty, I think that's far too idealistic. I could expand on this more if you want but don't want to hijack your thread into an Iraq/USA debate.

By East/West I meant the Middle East/USA. I didn't mean Russia/USA and the cold war.... that's like so over Actually, the Middle East can be the new Russia and we can have an ideological war all over again. Instead of the Atheists vs the Christians, we can have Christianity vs. Islam. Oh wait... that already happened...

I'd rather live in the future for the space travel

Amerasu |

It is not going to hell. Though from within the modern world (or what we call the modern world ) that is hard to discern - we can compare our world now, to that what we know from the past. Fazit : Mostly, our standards of living have improved, Population has never been hgiher (so, as a species, we are doing prety well), technology is at a high point (and improving all the time), and we are learning to tame some of the last of the hostile environments that we know of (though that doesn't mean that they are the last ones).

As for a moral stance...I'm not sure on that one. To factually answer that goes beyond my capabilities...I tend to think that we have progressed as a race in all areas.

I believe the human race is moving towards something, sort of a macro-evolution of the species, but what that is, I can't say. I do firmly believe that the species will survive...though it does seem to like to test this belief sorely!

I won't get into Mr. Bush, or Iraq, in this thread.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Is the world going to hell? You mean we're not already there?

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | Keeper of the Juicy Bits

There are undoubtedly numerous things that can be pointed at in the world today as examples of negativity.

But it is still undeniable that the world - as a whole - is far better off in terms of human rights, living conditions, financial security, etc.
It is also undeniable , regardless how you feel about Bush and the current state of the war in Iraq, and other such things, that the probability of war, and the probability of a nation being invaded and conquered, its inhabitants murdered, raped, and enslaved, is almost non-existent in comparison with that probability at *any* time in the history of human civilization.

The Bush administration's outlook on war, as much as I might disagree with it, pales in comparison with countless political (or other wise designated) leaders throughout the past.

All in all, the world is better in countless ways than it has ever been.

Is it going to hell? It did that a long time ago...

Prosperity leads to apathy, apathy leads to decline, decline to renewed resolve and then you start all over again/repeat cycle. That's my view in a secularized nutshell.

Yes, I believe history is repeating itself. I thought I'd sit back and listen to what some people have to say, before I replied with my input.

I personally believe this world is going to hell, society that is. Maybe it's just America, maybe it's the whole world. I don't know. Technologically I think the world is hella-advancing, and that may be a problem because people think now that technology can solve a lot of their problems.

Money, people care too much about it, especially Americans. It's amazing what people will do for money, amazing. For example, look at TV. Reality shows. Infomercials. They are the downfall of society. All producers care about is the ratings on The Swan to five them a nice fat wad of cash in their pocket, it's sickening. And the lawsuits, my coors thread for example. People have no regards for sentiment anymore. They just want money, and they think if they have some kind of trouble, mental, physical, any kind of trouble, they can forget about it by suing enemies they make out of hate and agony.

All and all, I think people in general have less regards to think. I believe that the majority of the worlds population don't like to think, they prefer people to think for them, and this causes all kinds of claims and disputes. People don't stop to think about consiquences, or the future. It makes me sick.

My thoughts for now.

Who is to say if the world is going to hell? I consider many things as a matter of perspective. I believe going to Iraq was right, many don't, matter of perspective. On the other hand, the situation scares me, and I would prefer not to have it going on, but change always comes at a cost. I'm sure we've all had our fill of Iraq related debate, so that is all I have to say about that.

I believe morals are sinking to all time lows, once again, matter of perspective. It all comes down to an individual's world view.

I look at the possible problems forming with N.Korea and think "Oh fuck, this is all we need." I just hope we don't piss China off.

I, much like Jason stated above, believe there are cycles to everything. IMO, we just happen to be living in one of the "dark times." So long as noone pushes the button anytime soon, we will get through it, the human instict for survival is strong...for the most part.

Hey, Folks!

Stop Watching TV

Good point Ruski. The media has the outstanding ability at painting things much darker than they really are primarily to get higher ratings/sales and other motives. There should be a news network focused on good news to bring a sense of balance. Or at least less spin and opinion, and more fact. I'm sure I am not alone when I say I am not sure what to believe anymore. There are always small differences in stories about the same thing, sometimes totally contradicting eachother, and sometimes outright falsehoods. The media seems to be taking the Citizen Kane route more and more in recent years. The masses are manipulated by the monority, and that just plain sucks.

As it stands, watching the news or listening to talk radio (whether liberal or conservative) too much can lead you to believe the future is hopeless. The liberals think the conservatives are destroying the country/world and vice versa, but the media is the key to this ongoing separation. In reality we are all not that different and it is only the extreme right/left minority (those unwilling to compromise) that are the problem.

I believe that if rational people were to discuss things in person instead of slinging mud all the time, we would go far. There needs to be more compromise in the world I think. Won't happen of course, we are primarily creatures of habit and routine who aren't very good at tolerating change but that is my idealistic view.

BTW, don't things always seem to appear worse during election years? All these polititians screaming about how horrible everything is doesn't do much for morale. All we can do as individuals is follow our own conscience and do what we believe is right while trying not to harm others in our own little parts of the world.

Ramasax



(Edited by Ramasax on 04-21-2004 14:16)

All of the negative things that people are posting about are things that ahve existed, and in most cases existed in a far worse way or to a far worse extent, than they do in the world now.

The predominate force is, of course, human nature - which will never go away.

Is the average "moral level" in the US lower than it was, say, 40 years ago? Maybe. But what about 75 years ago? Hmmm.....not really. What about 120 years ago? 200 years ago? 1,000 years ago?

Please point me to a time where things were on a better moral ground...I have yet to find one that can be said to be better.

It's important to realize that my statements do not in any way imply that humanity is in a great moral place now. SImply that it never has been....and in many ways is moreso now than it ever has been.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Please point me to a time where things were on a better moral ground...I have
yet to find one that can be said to be better.

---

It is worse because there are more people, which means there are more immoral actions taking place now than anytime in the past. We are becoming a more secular society, to some this is good, others bad. Once again, all a matter of perspective and individual world views. An example would be me saying that the murder of approximately 20 million fetuses since 1973 (Roe vs. Wade) is disgustingly immoral, those who have no problem with abortion will say that this is an increase in civil rights.

Drug consumption continues to rise, people can't seem to use their brains rather than their sexual organs to think, contributing to the spread of deadly diseases. When I was 10 (1986) you'd be lucky to hear of one murder locally every week, now there are at least a few a day. People sue for everything without taking into account other people and the effects their actions have on them. Divorce rates continually rise. Infidelity and lack of loyalty to partners is also a major problem. A very strong hardcore pornography market with fetishes ranging from scat to kids. Kids killing kids in schools. Priests molesting children. Mothers killing kids. Kids killing parents. Teenage pregnancy is an all time high. The family is weakening, more one parent families which means less guidance for our children in the most crucial years of their life. Institutions like NAMBLA are tolerated. Teen suicides have increased so much that it is now the leading cause of death to teens in the US. Overall, since 1960, there has been a 560% increase in violent crime in the US. Not a pretty state we are in. Sometimes I wonder if we aren't close to the breaking point, the end of a cycle.

I believe the secularism of the world is the leading contributor to this. We as a society have turned our back on God, and have since lost our Anchor. With our heritage and basis of society, Judeo/Christian values, out of the way, who's to stop anyone from doing anything. People look to government rather than God, contributing to the rapid increase in government over the past 60 years. blah blah. As if anyone cares what crazy Ramasax has to say.

(Edited by Ramasax on 04-21-2004 17:43)

Isn't the whole reason for us to have a History class is so we don't repeat it? Yeah, so where was Bush during his history class?
Anyways I think that the world was going to hell a while ago, but no one noticed or not many noticed it because it wasn't as bad as it is now.
DL-44, you do make a point about there was never a really good time period that the world didn't have something wrong. But I honestly would much rather see the world as it was say about 70 years ago. If you think about that would be what.. 1934 or so, back then you didnt have all these nuclear weapons and every other kind of weapon that could destroy the world in a few seconds or so. I mean yeah back then you still had wars, and no matter what you do there are always going to be wars. Humans aren't perfect and that is how we were created, and they never will be perfect. So you will always have conflict. But if you read about things back then, there were slave laws, and all kinds of discrimination against all different people. But did you ever read about things that are happening now, happening then? No not really.
We are never going to be a perfect world, but the way I see it is the farther we go with taking over this country and that country and whatnot we are just putting ourselves deeper and deeper into a hell hole.

BiGCaC

hehe, Ramsax

everything you mentioned is because you have a great source called internet and TV

before...it kinda didnt exist


news to whats going on in the world wasn't easy to come by....so..

I guess the only reason people are paranoid ot feel that way..is cuz we got information running 24/7 everywhere

quote:

---

An example would be me saying that the murder of approximately 20 million fetuses since 1973

---

Do you have any concept of how much wide spread murder has happened all throughout human history? To women, children, infants, the elderly, etc?
Do you realize that in most societies throughout history, parents were legally allowed to kill their own children, at their discretion - the age limit varied greatly in different areas/time periods, but the basic right was still there. Same with your wife in a great many societies.

In colonial America (in Connecticut anyway, in the 1600's), a parent could bring their child to the court and have them legally put to death for disobedience...

quote:

---

Drug consumption continues to rise

---

In relation to what? 50 years ago in the US? how about the 70's? Remember those? What about the 20's?? What about places all over the world that have been racked with rampant drug addiction of various kinds at various times???

quote:

---

use their brains rather than their sexual organs to think, contributing to the spread of deadly disease

---

?

Don't even know what to say about this one....this is a recent problem with morality....?

quote:

---

When I was 10 (1986) you'd be lucky to hear of one murder locally every week, now there are at least a few a day

---

Well, that depends a graet deal on what "locally" is. I would also have to assume it has a graet deal to do with how aware you are of such things now as opposed to when you were 10...

quote:

---

Priests molesting children. Mothers killing kids. Kids killing parents. Teenage pregnancy is an all time high.

---

Priests molesting children is certainly nothing new. Most of the cases that we see now are things that happened over the last 50 years and are not today's problems (and there's no way you could convice me that such things haven't happened for a *very* long time....). Today we are facing such facts and doing something about it as opposed to covering it up like was done for so long.

Mothers killing kids - see above. Kids killing parents? Nothing new....read a few history books
Teenage pregnancy at an all time high? Nonsense. It has been (and in some places continues to be) the norm in most societies. We just have a bigger aversion to teenage pregnancy today than in the past. Higher in the US today than 50 years ago in the US? I don't know the numbers, but I would guess yes.

quote:

---

I believe the secularism of the world is the leading contributor to this. We as a society have turned our back on God

---

Looking at the centuries of violence and devestation that adherence to religion has caused in the world, I can't help but chuckle at that...

Human rights, on a whole, are in a *far* better state than they have ever been in history - period.
The checks and balances of global politics are far more prevalent than they have ever been - period.

Bigcac - my points to Ram should more than sufficiently address yours as well...

And remember - just because you didn't read about something happening at a particular time, doesn't mean it didn't. One of the benefits of society today is that it is less tolerant of the types of crimes against people that used to be ignored or covered up.

(Edited by DL-44 on 04-21-2004 20:15)

BigCac: Wahh wahh wahh, Bush this, Bush that. Shut the fuck up already.

(Edited by Ramasax on 04-21-2004 20:22)

I agree with everything DL said..

and I have a bit to add....

women during ancient rome used to give birth very early...usually 16...some times earlier such as 14....
and condicitons were pretty harsh as well...alot of them died early, sometimes sround the time they gave birth.

now days at least they don't die...

I believe that things are better now for more people than at any other time in the history of human kind. I believe we are quite likely on the cusp of a golden age for mankind, materially speaking. Better health, more prosperity, more democracy, more of most good stuff.

I also believe that this is not a permanent trend and that we will have many periods of time in the ages to come before the Final Day where we will fall back into complete darkness and have to crawl back out again. For instance, I think it is entirely possible there were advanced times prior to our current history where mankind was far more developed than we know. This could have even occurred on another planet for all we know. I'm not sure how cyclic things are but I certainly don't think we have a permanent trend up or down for all time. All we have now can easily be lost just as Rome fell, so can much of what we take for granted today.

Emps, that link is simply fascinating to read. I find it extremely amusing to read how the premillenialist Xian is perceived by the author of that article. I am very familiar with the mindset of the Xians mentioned and there are some seriously huge problems with what was written in that article, interesting as it was.

[edit] namely this:

quote:

---

The true believers are now seeking to bring all this about.

---

It is considered blasphemous to engage in "inducing" the return of Christ. An extreme minority subscribes to this.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 04-21-2004 21:52)

Bugs:

quote:

---

It is considered blasphemous to engage in "inducing" the return of Christ. An extreme minority subscribes to this.

---

Which I'm sure has always been the case with an religion - what is worrying that members of this minority are in positions of power apparently doing their level best to bring about the end of the world.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

No no no. The minority were the ones caught in Israel trying to blow things up. The ones in the White House are not in agreement with this inane idea of forcing Christ to return.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Very true, InI. We have the choice. But let's not forget our history either. Before the beginning of WWI many thought that peace had finally become the norm for humanity. Wasn't "Peace in our time" what was said? Then the 20th century brought us the worst mass murder we had ever seen as a species thanks to Hitler, Stalin, Mau and a few others. So it would not surprise me that many will see improvements while we have yet to experience some of our greatest, worst, atrocities concieved by our wicked minds. I am waiting for the nuke to go off in a metropolitan district for instance. San Diego perhaps? You mentioned prophecies, perhaps jms will get that one right. Anyway, it's late and I had a crappy day. I wish you all a very good night.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Major change never happens without major upheaval.

I don't think we're "going to hell" per se - but we are in a difficult place right now. A lot of the future hinges on the decisions of our political leaders of today, and if they are in their hearts, upright and honest men and women, we may see the light of day through what we now think is a disaster...

Of course, that does leave us wondering whether or not our political leaders are in their hearts honest and upright...

out of chaos comes order...

IMO, President Bush is most certainly honest and upright as far as politicians are concerned. Whether his policies will result in a better world for our children will be decided by history. I happen to agree with what Jestah said above:

quote:

---

...the removal of Saddam Hussein is a good thing. It might even be the start of the democratization of the Middle East. Whether that is a good thing remains to be seen but if all goes to plan I believe Iraq will become the envy of the Middle East.

---

The plan Bush is implementing is to make this a better world for everyone and not just his cronies as I hear so often here.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Even Republicans are starting to question Bush's honesty Bugimus, but like I said in many other threads I don't believe you'd ever really question this administration in their handling of events since Bush's inauguration. It's the hope of many that the invasion into Iraq will bring a better life for Iraqis but as it stands right now, the only improvements have gone to Bush's cronies.

Other then that, I don't believe this is cyclical. I believe we're in a continous state of improving life on the planet. We occationally have setbacks and soforth but in general I believe every generation enjoys a better life then the previous. I think history proves the same.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

You can't have it both ways, Jestah. You will be nothing less than a moral hypocrite if you think you can praise the downfall of a tyrant after the fact while condemning any attempt to do so prior.

About Bush's honesty, I specifically said "as far as politicians are concerned" because they all lie. It is part of the job to do that. Just ask Hillary the next time you have dinner with her if you need any clarification on this concept


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

A moral hypocrite Bugimus? Unlike you, whos reasons for support of this war flip-flop according to whatever the new sound-byte coming out of the Bush Administration is, I've been very consistent: While I believe Saddam Hussein being taken from power is a good thing, the Administration shouldn't have lied to the American people to accomplish it. Theres absolutely nothing hypocritcal about that.

Unfortunately, lying about WMD and connections to terrorism isn't "part of the job". It's just something Bush does.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

I just thought I'd point this out in relation to the rest of the thread.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

And how many species have gone extinct throughout the history of the world????

What does that article mean in the big picture...?

Doodley-squat.


=)

If you ask me, the real way in which humanity has screwed itself is in its manipulation of virii - we are ensuring our own devestation by the scientific experiments that accelerate and multiply the mutations of virii in the attempt to save ourselves from them.

But of course, they'd have gotten us in the end anyway

quote:

---

Unfortunately, lying about WMD and connections to terrorism isn't "part of the job". It's just something Bush does.

---

First off, the "lying" is heresay. That is something you Liberals love to toss around with no basis of fact. Sound like a bunch of little John Kerry/Ted Kennedy wannabees. I guess Bush conspired with British Prime minister Tony Blair, and both British and American intelligence agencies, and God only knows who else to fabricate reasons for invading Iraq. Yet somewhere along the lines in this huge conspiracy they forgot to plant the evidence. I mean, if the whole WMD thing was a fabication, wouldn't it have been wise to put some anthrax somewhere in Baghdad? Please back these so called lies up with some fact, because all I have seen, and anyone with some rationality and experience in the world would not call them lies, but simply a man misinformed by his intelligence community. Of course all this means nothing to Liberals, because they like to have something to whine about. You are like the kids in the back seat of a car on a long trip. "Are we there yet? Wahhh!"

Don't forget, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and had used them in the past. He also left us with no reason to believe he didn't have them. His silence and games on the matter coupled with his history was good enough evidence for anyone with a somewhat logical head on their shoulders.

In 1991 he agreed not only to give up his WMDs, but to provide proof that he had done so. What did he do instead, he lied for over a decade, and even kicked UN inspectors out in 1998. We KNOW he had developed the weapons, we know he had intentions to use them. Men like this don't develope the weapons to save them for a rainy day, he developed them to use them, as his record shows. I have no doubt that had he developed nukes, he would certainly use them without a second though. Why do you people believe him to be rational? What is the problem?

I always wondered what would happen when conspiracy theory went mainstream. Now I know. You have people running around spouting off about this sinister president with grand schemes to take over the world. Rubbish with no basis of fact whatsoever. Makes me sick to my stomach that the american people would rather question our elected president (I'd be glad to debate that as well) than a tyrannical dictator.

As your hero, Bill Clinton said in 1998:

"We gave Saddam a chance, not a licence. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of US power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only allow Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his WMDs; we will also have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination of the region."

Well, for once I agree with the jackass.

In the end, why are WMDs or lack therof even an issue when compared to freeing a population enslaved to tyranny? Why is it easier to blame the president of the US than look at Saddam and see a person not fit to rule? And most importantly, why do you believe Kerry is a better choice for our national defense (please note that this is the MAIN function of government) than Bush is? Please use facts, not heresay and rhetoric. I am very curious. I mean, I have watched many of these speeches he has been giving across the country, even heard him live last week when he came to Pitt (luring ignorant college kids in with the likes of Bon Jovi and Blink182 and preaching free education for all) and all I hear him do is talk shit. Bush this, Bush that. I'll give you free health care. I'll give everyone free access to the colleges. Free waffles for everyone. Who is paying for all this crap that many of us don't fucking want in the first place?

What are his plans, and how are they so much better than Bush? He is a flip flop, who says whatever he needs to say at any given time to sway the minds of voters. That is what happens to democracy when people want want want from their government and are not willing to do thing for themselves.

Your friend,

Ramasax

Ramasax,

quote:

---

but simply a man misinformed by his intelligence community.

---

Ummm...no. The Bush Administration didn't want to hear what the intelligence community was telling them...and so, through the "filters" that then get implemented (you obviously have no clue how this all works...I used to work in the intel biz) so that "only" information suggesting what the Administration wants to hear would get through. That's a very bad policy, IMHO.

quote:

---

Don't forget, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and had used them in the past.

---

Hmmm...in the war against Iran, yes...the incident after that, is not concrete...for that matter, many nations around the world have used Weapons of Mass destruction...I don't see America marching into those countries...do you?

quote:

---

He also left us with no reason to believe he didn't have them. His silence and games on the matter coupled with his history was good enough evidence for anyone with a somewhat logical head on their shoulders.

---

So did Isreal. And North Korea. And Iran. And a number of other countries (Pakastan and India come to mind, as well...). And when you are sending American troops to their deaths, you need to have a better reason than "His silence and games on the matter coupled with his history was good enough evidence for anyone with a somewhat logical head on their shoulders." Obviously you have never been in a War. Obviously, you have never witnessed the killing of your buddies. Otherwise, you wouldn't be spouting off such garbage like that.

quote:

---

Makes me sick to my stomach that the american people would rather question our elected president (I'd be glad to debate that as well) than a tyrannical dictator.

---

You are way out of line here, Mister. I am a Gulf War Vet...don't you tell me about loyalty. First of all, I haven't heard anyone saying that Saddam was squeeky clean (or were you referring to some other dictator?) Second, we live in a Democracy...remember? It is allowed to question..."makes me sick to my stomach"...hooboy.

quote:

---

Why do you people believe him to be rational? What is the problem?

---

You really don't know much about Saddam Hussein, do you?

quote:

---

In the end, why are WMDs or lack therof even an issue when compared to freeing a population enslaved to tyranny?

---

You really are pretty narrow-minded, aren't you? When a country gives a reason, to invade and attack another country, it first sets a presidence. Yep, that's right. Remember, Japan still gets hounded for how they did Pearl harbor, and the Germans for Poland...now the US? Second, lying that blatantly to get the support of the American People...pretty twisted and sick. Third, we should have been doing some other countries first! Get Bin Laden...that has to be No. 1 on the list...North Korea needs to be finally put to rest...and what about Iran? Now they are close (if they don't have it already) to producing a nuclear weapon. 4th...do I need to continue? Freeing a population to tyranny...sounds nice. In theory. How does it look in reality?

Instead, off into Iraq...yes, let's free them...

quote:

---

And most importantly, why do you believe Kerry is a better choice for our national defense (please note that this is the MAIN function of government) than Bush is?

---

Since when is the main function of the government Defense??? I thought it was to govern...and in our case (the US), in the name of the People! Second, let's view the matter a bit - Bush war and military experience...ummm...well...he skipped out on the vietnam war, because of "Daddy". Kerry didn't. I admire and respect someone who puts it on the line. Kerry did. Bush didn't.

Just a couple of questions...do you really think, before you go and open your mouth? I think it was Mark Twain who said "better to keep your mouth shut, and let people think that you are a complete idiot, than opening it, and removing all doubt."

And do your really think, before you form your opinion? I can see that some areas of your post do seem to have required thinking...but other, major areas, show a complete lack of forethought.

(Edited by WebShaman on 04-23-2004 01:57)

WS, are you saying that if we had attacked North Korea, Iran, or some other country of your choice first and THEN attacked Iraq, you wouldn't be so upset? Or are you saying Iraq should have been left alone indefinitely?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 04-23-2004 03:47)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

And how many species have gone extinct throughout the history of the world????

What does that article mean in the big picture...?

Doodley-squat.=)

---

It may mean quite a lot - as I've said we are currenty in the sixth great extinctions of species on the earth - the others (like the famous one at the end of the Cretaceous and the larger one in the Permian) have been through natural (if rare and catastrophic) events - the terrible thing at the moment is that this is all so avoidable. Its negligence bordering on the criminal.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

(Edited by Emperor on 04-23-2004 04:02)

Bugs

quote:

---

WS, are you saying that if we had attacked North Korea, Iran, or some other country of your choice first and THEN attacked Iraq, you wouldn't be so upset?

---

I would have supported it more, yes. Especially NK, because that war hasn't ended...it is just a cease fire arrangement. Iran is a problem, a growing one...and I think every day brings them closer to a nuclear weapon (I don't think they have one yet...but who knows? They are obviously trying to build one, if one has been keeping track). And if the real reason(s) had been named for Iraq (liberate the Iraqi's), followed by a real plan (not the botched Rumsfeld disaster) in the war, and for the aftermath, yes. I have no clue, as to why Mr. Bush thought he had to mislead the American Public, and the world, and thereby making us into laughingstocks, in the best sense, and bloodthirsty invaders, in the worst.
Anyway you turn it, it stinks of mis-management, miscalculation, and downright manipulation for no apparent reason. Would the American People have supported a Liberation of Iraq? I don't know. I do know, that if they had known, that the situation would have turned out like it is now ahead of time, they wouldn't have supported it. I now see talk of "forgiving" certain Baaathists, and allowing them to return to governmental duty, and other posts...why??!! I thought theliberation of iraq included liberation from the Baath party?

Let's be candid - I supported Afghanistan, primarily because of Al-Qaida. I found it then (and find it even more, now) very strange, that somehow the "liberation" there, suddenly turned from a Bin Laden hunt, into a liberation...and then almost got dropped totally, to go into...Iraq??!! Why Iraq, when Bin Laden is still out there, and his terror organisation is still functioning?

Uhhh...what the..?? That surprised me, quite frankly. Why didn't we persue Bin Laden, the man responsible for the Twin Towers no longer standing? Oh sure, I hear lots of "well, we still are!" I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it anymore. With the amount of money and resources poured into Iraq, I think the chances that we would have had Bin Laden by now is very, very high. Certainly much higher, than they are now. And maybe a few hundred Spaniards would still be alive...

No, going into Iraq ahead of other, more prominent (and dangerous) threats makes absolutely no sense to me at all. None, whatsoever, especially not at the price we have paid, and will continue paying.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 04-23-2004 04:56)

I second Emperor. The human race in general ( at least the influent companies/governments ) have more respect for their profits than the safety of the planet. And those who still refuse to see the global warming should have a look at its effect like : the shrink of the seashores in the poles, the reducing duration and distance of the migration of the birds, the species we used to find below the tropics that are now above them too.

Just to throw my 0.02? in, I'd say the world is not going to heaven. Of course in general the things seems slightly better, but there's so much we can do to speed up that increase and reduce the inequalities. Our standards have increased faster than the awareness that we can truly change the things. We already did, and we can do it again to counter our mistakes ... at the cost of some [edit] short term [/edit] profits. I hope the world will not go to hell.



(Edited by poi on 04-23-2004 08:31)

When I consider exstinctions of species I can't help ask why don't those of you who are upset about losing species allow nature to run its course? You know I don't subscribe to us allowing nature to run its course because that will cause too much pain and suffering for mankind. But if humanity kills itself off and several species with it, isn't that the natural process at work? Why oppose it? I have always assumed that the materialists here believe that man is not above nature but completely a part of it.

Personally, I would prefer humanity to pull together and work toward the good of *all* life with humankind given precedent of course. IOW, if it comes down to saving a little girl versus a beached whale, the little girl must be given precedence.

But I believe nature is terribly flawed and cruel so I would like to see us use our abilities and intellectual superiority to enhance our lives using technology and any other means at our disposal.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

religion and ideas get in a way...conflict of interests...

I was always taught that the primary role of government is to protect its' citizens from harm. Guess that was wrong. Hell, I am always wrong here, but that is no surprise considering the predominant Liberal thinking on this forum. WS: everything you say about Bush is yet again meaningless rhetoric to me. You say there was manipulation of intelligence, yet where is the proof? I am sorry I do not go for the garbage conspiracy theory and speculation that is so prevalent in today's elite media.

As far as me being sick to my stomach, yes I most certainly am. Sure, you have the right to question. Question all you want, but when questioning turns to fabrication and conjecture people make themselves just as bad as those they are protesting. I might also add that I have a right to be sick to my stomach, and to express this disgust. Disgust at everything good the US has done for the world, and how quick people are to turn on our nation. Disgust at the ignorance of a large portion of the population being led around like sheep, so quick to jump on the bandwagon. Disgust at the media, namely Viacom, who owns pretty much everything, and their one-sided promotion of John Kerry. Disgust at all the diplomatc masturbation and at people who are more concerned with the satus quo than changing the world for the better. Believe what you want to, just remember that turning your back on problems does not make them go away. The only mistake made was not going in to finish the job back in 91.

Yet again, I am called narrow minded because I do not subscribe to Liberal beliefs that the Iraq war was a fabrication. How am I any more narrow minded than the rest of you who do? This is a double-standard.

As far as John "Flip-Flop" Kerry is concerned, I believe him to be one of the most phony polititians I have ever been witness to. He talks and talks and talks, yet says absolutely nothing. Bush may not be the greatest president ever, but you know what, he has proven to be a man of his word. He does what he says and says what he means, regardless of how that affects his popularity. John Kerry says what he has to at any given time. So long as he gets elected. He is plastic to me. I don't give a damn at his 3 months served in Vietnam, especially when he came home to berate his fellow soldiers basically perpetuating the baby killer myth. He should have been sent up on treason along with his buddy Hanoi Jane Fonda for marching around under the flag of the enemy.

I'm done here. I see no sense in responding to attacks on my person yet again. I grow tired of being the bad guy for believeing that going to Iraq was the RIGHT and JUST thing to do.

No more group discussion for me, it always seems to come to this and I grow tired of it. There is no sense to it, and it goes against why I come here in the first place. If anyone wants to chat with me one person to another I'd be happy to.

Ram, I don't think you should pull out of here. I agree with a great deal of your views on politics. I've taken plenty of heat for my views but I recognize that is inevitable when discussing such sensitive issues. I personally believe our bantering here makes us all stronger and helps us grow. It's a good place to "test" your views much like we test our sites in Site Reviews. We let it all hang out and let people criticize.

I think it is important to know why you post here. If it is to be agreed with the majority of the time, then that is not a very good reason. My reason is as stated above, to grow by exposing myself and my most inner held beliefs to others. Besides, you never know when something you say can and will make a difference in someone's life. We have a good deal of lurkers here, I imagine, and there's no telling how many agree with either side.

There are also plenty others here who agree with the war on terror but they just don't post in this section that often. Don't think you're the only one carrying this banner. A while back, Jestah, WS, myself and a few others really had some intense "discussions" over Iraq and much of what we have to say has kind of already been aired. There was a point when I was ready to take off after a few heated exchanges with WS. But we talked privately about it and I think we came to an agreement to disagree.

In short, please don't go. By all means, take a breather, but I for one would very much like to see you stay here and continue to mix it up. For what it's worth.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

And if the real reason(s) had been named for Iraq (liberate the Iraqi's), followed by a real plan (not the botched Rumsfeld disaster) in the war, and for the aftermath, yes

---

I agree totally.

I don't understand why that is so important. Especially to you DL and WS who know (or at least I think you know) how the world really works. I honestly am not quite sure I understand your points on this. What President ever states every reason for taking military action in his public speeches? I knew what Bush had in mind from reading sources of news that analyzed the situation more in depth. I knew WMD wasn't the only reason we went in there, you all did too. Why does his public rhetoric change the real issue of whether we should have gone in or not?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

What President ever states every reason for taking military action in his public speeches?

---

I have to say I find that a little shocking...

Accepting that politicians are deceitful is one thing.

Accepting that in some cases they have to be is in that vein.

Saying that it's ok for a leader to completely mislead the people, do a total, blatant bait+switch and then pass it all off as if it's not what he did....

Well...that's something altogether different.

It's important that the real reasons for invading Iraq (assuming, of course, that we actually *have* some real reason hidden in here....) were declared *before* we actually did it for a multitdude of reasons.

Top on that list, IMO, is that this was done in such a way as to totally use the emotional effect of 9/11 as a tool to focus people on the middle east in *general* as the target of our aggression, and of course the ignorance of much of the nation carried it where Bush needed it to go.

It took the anger at terrorism, and focused it instead on the Bush family's un finished businessin Iraq. It took resources that should be used in fighting terrorism and used them to depose a leader that is unrelated.

How can that possibly not be an important issue?????

Shocking? I'm shocked that you find that shocking in all honesty. I assume that is what presidents do as a matter of course regardless of party affiliation. I didn't say it was "ok", I just said that is our system and that is how it is done. I don't like it, but I don't think there is a viable alternative to politics short of blood letting in the streets.

[edit] Upon reflection... I am saying it's "ok" because I think it is as good as it gets unless you can guarantee everyone plays by a higher standard of ethics. But I seriously doubt that will happen.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 04-23-2004 22:00)

I'm having trouble seeing how you can possibly equate the general lies that are always propagated by politicians with lies on this grand scale.....I mean....lying about getting a blow-job is one thing.

Lying about sending our military to war and invading another nation....wow - that's a big fucking lie.

I'm almost speechless at how you can seem to equate the mundane lie with the grand lie....the lie that saves face vs the lie that costs hundreds of lives....

Oh yes, I can see why that would be confusing. You must know that I don't accept that it was one big f*cking lie told to do something completely unrelated to the war on terror. I think that Bush is guilty of telling the "getting a blow-job" level of lie when it comes to this war.

I don't think he believed we wouldn't find WMD once we went in. Our intelligence services... heck the world's intelligence services thought they were there, or at the very least unaccounted for. I believe Bush used the WMD aspect to spur on public support. I believe THAT is one of the lies or spinning of the situation he is guilty of.

Most of the other reasons for going into Iraq were and are good ones. I do not expect you to agree with them and I think that is perfectly fine. But there are a list of reasons that I consider very compelling and the main reason I was glad to see us invade.

I totally disagree that he used 9/11 "...to focus people on the middle east in *general* as the target of our aggression". Bush has gone out of his way to state that Islam is not the problem. How many times has he called Islam a religion of peace? How many times has he reminded our citizens to not blame our Muslim citizens but to blame the terrorists who in his eyes have perverted a perfectly fine religion to their own agenda?

No, attacking Iraq is a gamble in the sense that it fits into the war on terror NOT divert attention from it. We have not been attacked since 9/11 which has completely caught me off-guard. I believe that our actions in Afghanistan *and* Iraq have taken the war to the source of the problem. This is a typically American response. We are taking the fight to them and diverting their efforts on the homeland.

What choice do the Islamists have? They certainly can't allow their bases of operation to fall to moderate governments aligned with the US or worse yet a true seed of democracy bordering Saudi Arabia and Iran two of the biggest sources of their brand of Islam. They know that much is at stake in Iraq for them. Regardless of whether you think there were direct ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq, one thing is clear, they are there now and they are doing their level best to shake our resolve.

So I don't think you can say that attacking Iraq doesn't play into the larger GWOT. If Jestah is right, and for once I hope he is, democracy in Iraq will pose a serious threat to the existing oppressive regimes in the Arab world.

To sum up a bit, I don't accept the magnitude of lie you believe Bush told to get us into this war and that is why I'm not as upset about it as you are. If I accepted your version of what happened then I must admit, I would NOT be ok with it. It would be too much. I hope that clears things up a little bit.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

No, attacking Iraq is a gamble in the sense that it fits into the war on terror NOT divert attention from it. We have not been attacked since 9/11 which has completely caught me off-guard. I believe that our actions in Afghanistan *and* Iraq have taken the war to the source of the problem. This is a typically American response. We are taking the fight to them and diverting their efforts on the homeland.

---

A good point Bugs...one I have not really considered. However, it remains to be seen if this point holds true. You are of course assuming, that the plan to install democracy in Iraq succeeds...and at this point, I don't think that allowing Baathists to return to former positions is anywhere near accomplishing this. That is akin (but not exactly the same) as allowing the former Nazi's to return to their former positions in post-war Germany. If America does not succeed in Iraq, the political ramifications will be enormous far, far out-stripping those of Vietnam.

Also, if that is truly the point (to keep Al Qaida away from our borders), then why not directly persue them? We were in Afghanistan...why not continue there? We could have used Afghanistan like you suggest Iraq is being used, at far less cost. And in case of Afghanistan, curiously, Mr. Bush and his Administration didn't have to lie for the reasons we went in there. We had the sympathy and support of much of the world, at that point...we held all the cards...why throw that away in Iraq at the time?

Also, Al Qaida still exits...hopefully, they are exactly as you say, concentrating on other areas...I personally think that they know what they are doing...they take the war to where it hurts us most (I thought that was obvious to you by now!). Another bomb in the US will just rile up the people...but preventing America from succeeding in Iraq will be a huge blow. You see, the diversion works both ways...keeping America tied up in Iraq, prevents America from soley concentrating on Al Qaida elsewhere. And time is not on our side. That is namely the nature of terrorism.

quote:

---

To sum up a bit, I don't accept the magnitude of lie you believe Bush told to get us into this war and that is why I'm not as upset about it as you are. If I accepted your version of what happened then I must admit, I would NOT be ok with it. It would be too much. I hope that clears things up a little bit.

---

This surprises me, frankly. I agree whole-heartedly with DL on this issue. There is a huge difference, between lying to the people about the reasons behind, say, going to the Moon, and sending Americans to their deaths in a foriegn land. I think you don't accept the magnitude of the lie, becasue it hasn't yet become apparent. Mr. bush and his Administration are doing eerything they can to "tone down" the magnitude...but it will come out, eventually...these things always do.

To Ramasax - I'm tired of hearing the word "Liberal" thrown my way. I am quite frankly, not a liberal. I have worked in Intel...I'll give you a little crash course in how intel gets processed...so that you can make a reasoned decision on what you have said (and then you can understand, why I said what I said). The intel gets gathered (this is obvious, isn't it?). There are different ways of gathering intel...humint, sigint, etc...can you imagine the size of the raw data that gets gathered, every day? Every hour? Every minute? Keep in mind this goes on all over the world, all the time! Do you really think that the President has time to sift through all that raw data? Do you, Ram? Do you think that any Agency does? Well, they don't. To give timely reports and information, there is not enough time, to sift all that information per hand! Filters get implemented, to cut down on the size of the raw data processed...now, who do you think decides what filters get put in place? You don't know, do you? So I will tell you...it gets decided by the particular Agency gathering the data, ultimately based on the instructions from the President and his Administration!

I'm going to describe to you, just exactly what "filters" are, in this case - either actual programs, put into computers, to screen data - or instructions to the people responsible for filtering data, or instructions to people deciding what is to be monitored.

So, based on the above, I think you can begin to see, that I don't believe in any "conspiracy" junk...I have actual experience. I don't think that Mr. Bush and his Administration was mislead - quite the contrary. I know, that they were well informed! That they ignored this information, and installed other filters, shows that the fault does not lie with the Intelligence community...it did, what it was told to do. It ultimately lies, with those who issued the orders for the filters...Mr. Bush and his Administration.

So wake up. Stop trying to find excuses, and accept the truth. Or are you suggesting there was a conspiracy, to mislead Mr. Bush and his Administration by the Intelligence community?

(Edited by WebShaman on 04-24-2004 03:33)

(Edited by WebShaman on 04-24-2004 03:38)

I tried to avoid that thread because it turned out ( again ) in a Bush & Iraq discussion. But I just want to emphasize what WebShaman said about intelligence services. Why the hell, ( almost ) only the American intelligence services talked about WMD while those of all the other countries stated Sadam Hussein no longer had the capability to build some WMD ?

Now, as the topic of this thread is NOT Bush & Iraq, I suggest that another thread is created to stop polluting this one. ... More than 50 post and we still don't know if the world is goind to hell

This just supports my opinion on the Intelligence angle

quote:

---

Colin Powell believed, according to Woodward, that for Vice-President Cheney, the secretary of defence under Bush senior, Iraq was a "fever" and that he misread and exaggerated intelligence about the Iraqi threat and alleged terrorist ties. "Powell thought that Cheney took intelligence and converted uncertainty and ambiguity into fact. It was about the worst charge that Powell could make about the vice-president. But there it was. - Globe and Mail.com By THOMAS S. AXWORTHY"

---

From here :

Globe and Mail.com

poi

quote:

---

More than 50 post and we still don't know if the world is goind to hell.

---

I think we addressed this pretty well so far.

But now that you've contributed to the diverted topic I just have to respond

quote:

---

only the American intelligence services talked about WMD

---

Not the case! British, Israeli, and even the UN inspectors supported this, to varying degrees of course. Hans Blix was quite clear that Iraq had NOT accounted for materials that were known to exist after the 91 war. You simply cannot give a tyrant like Hussein the benefit of the doubt in matters like that.

WS, I completely agree that the success of the strategic approach Bush has taken in this GWOT remains to be seen. I've said that from day one. However, I have also said from September 11, 2001 that we have seen the beginning of the end of terrorism. If we continue on this path, we will drastically reduce this method of trying to gets one's way in the world for many generations. We have embarked on an attempt to transform the Arab world and how it governs itself. I believe that the Islam of Bin Laden *is* a perversion of Islam. It doesn't have to be that way but if we allow it to grow and corrupt more and more young people in that part of the world, we will all be at increased risk.

Turkey is an example of an Islamic country that has forced secularism onto its citizens. One of its former dictators outlawed burkas. A heavy handed approach was used in that instance but Turkey does have many more moderate Muslim ideaologies than say, many parts of Saudi Arabia.

About Woodward and Dick, we have to be very careful since this is an election year. There is a huge incentive to cast the Bush administration in a bad light so we need to keep that in mind until after the election. I'm not saying that everything Woodward is talking about is wrong, but his interviews apparently don't sound a lot like what you will read in his book. I believe he is under serious pressure to spin his findings into a more critical view of Bush than the book actually says. Remember that the White House web page actually had his book as suggested reading. That is because several of the accounts therein verify some of what they've been saying all along.

Sorry for diverting us even further, poi.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I just came across this:

quote:

---

Sound Familiar?

In 1998, President Clinton called Iraq - "a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists," a claim similar to those made by President Bush before going to war with Iraq.

Senator Hillary Clinton now says that "the consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." Senator Clinton told CNN's Larry King that the difference is, - "in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it."

---

[edit] I'm curious, poi, do you see the Clinton administration similarly when it comes to this issue of WMD? I ask that because I know you are from another country and may not be influenced the same kind of domestic squabbles we have over here about Bush versus Clinton.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 04-24-2004 11:01)

Bugimus: Honestly, I "care" about politic since little time, 2-3 years. I'm born in 1978 so before the last Presidential election in France I didn't really felt concerned. Thus it's really hard for me to have an opinion about the Clinton administration. And I can't make one based on 2 phrases.

I see. That makes perfect sense. I started "caring" about the elections in 1984 when I voted for Mondale/Ferraro instead of Reagan/Bush. That was back when I considered Republicans to be minions of the Devil.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I voted for Reagan...I was in the Military at the time, and the pay raise did me good. At the time, I was very young, and idealistic...

I really believed in America, back then. These days, I'm more careful, where I put my belief.

Oh, and back in the Clinton days, Saddam did have WMD - nerve gas. It got mostly destroyed, by the UN team sent there.

But you know that Bugs.

WS, please take a look at this article: Myth or Reality?
Will Iraq work? That?s up to us.

I think it provides some very good answers to a lot of what has been brought up in this thread like:

Myth #1: America turned off its allies. (you're big on this one)
Myth #3: Lies got us into this war. (not the I've got my hummer type)
Myth #4: Profit-making led to this war. (Jestah this is for you)

and...

What then is the truth of this so-often-caricatured war?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I read it...I'll get around to answering it. In some areas, the auther goes into detail...in others, he very smoothly skips over any evidence and facts adeptly, avoiding the issue - like the WMD issue "Oh, that was from Clinton, now onwards"...ummm...no.

The article is heavily weighted in only one direction. As such, it is not what I would call very reliable as a whole. Some truth, mixed with a lot of opinion.

I'd like to say that after reading this thread, my opinion has changed. While there are a lot of negative things going on in the world today, there is a sufficient amount of adversly extraordinary things. The world really is a better place than it has been in the past.

(WS, man, you're never on Q and I need to speak to ya, what's your email?)

It's in my profile, InSiDeR..."rawn_phoenix@[no spam]web.de" Pleas remove quotes and the bars with no spam.

I'm afraid it's not =(. But thankyou.

That must have been a preGrail thing


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Wow, you are right, Bugs...sorry about that, InSiDeR...now it has been corrected *sheepish grin*

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page