Finally the reason for the war on Iraq

[Whaleboy]

"We reamed their county in barely a month, and we've destroyed their heavy weapons. We own the ****ing place. What's to rebel with, for or against?"

The fact that Americans are in charge and have power over an Arab land? One must understand the culture before one attempts to rule it. The Arabs tolerated Saddam, but will not tolerate the Americans, because Saddam was a fellow Arab. May suck as a reason to us, but it makes it no less valid to them.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't think it is 'white and black' to say that Social Democrats are basically socialist. Social Democracy was created as a strand of socialism. To say otherwise is ignoring fact.

We see it differently here; social democracy does not mean socialist, but center with social concerns. You could call it center left.

[Whaleboy]

"Welcome to the world of irrational people"

That meant to mean that I'm irrational? If so, begone!

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Doesn't it strike you as slightly odd, that the one that they chose to counter was the leader of a country with large oil reserves?

It isn't like those ones in Africa can be considered Middle East... and the one that can (Egypt) is fairly moderate and on good terms with Israel. And like Syria would have been an easier choice?

-Yes, but why was it necessary to topple a dictator in the Middle East? Why not Africa? Unless toppling a dictator wasn't the real motive.

We see it differently here; social democracy does not mean socialist, but center with social concerns. You could call it center left.

Right, despite the inflamatory language I may chose to use at times, my real political standing is somewhere slightly left of centre in a European sense, well to the right of communist parties.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but why was it necessary to topple a dictator in the Middle East?

Um... Does 9/11 ring ANY bells?!

But to equate Social Democrats to hardline Soviet Stalinists is just plain stupid.

I didn't. Soviet Stalinists, as everyone knows, are called communist .

Is forcibly removing dictators wise or justifiable, with simply the justification we use for having better systems? Our justification, our system, is entirely subjective in this context, we have no right to go around forcing it on others, who have equally valid subjectives. God how many times have I used that phrase!!!

Yeah, you've used the phrase a lot. Sorry, but we ain't buying. Our system IS better. Subjectively speaking or not, we have a better way. Democracy is preferable to Dictatorship. Having people be equal under the law is preferable to not having it.

While it may be 'equally valid' because it is subjective, we, and most people out there, think that our system is better... and we want to spread that to those that don't have our system (who have lesser systems).

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... Does 9/11 ring ANY bells?!

oh please, don't feed us this garbage... prove Saddam had something to do with 9-11 and I might bite

I didn't. Soviet Stalinists, as everyone knows, are called communist .

in this case, I was referring to unnamed others who often make no such distinction

[Zero]

Frankly I dont give a **** for freedom in middle east.

I dont daydream about some bull**** about equality for all man when I all I care about is how much Im paying for social securities on my next paycheck.

Im leaning toward the arguement said by lefties that the war was for some motivation to gain something (oil, political whatever) and I agree. therefor I support the ****ing war.

case closed. No need to go into whole philosophical stuff that can never be conclusive.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Zero
Frankly I dont give a **** for freedom in middle east.

If only Bush were this honest.

I dont daydream about some bull**** about equality for all man when I all I care about is how much Im paying for social securities on my next paycheck.

ah! a cynical realist

Im leaning toward the arguement said by lefties that the war was for some motivation to gain something (oil, political whatever) and I agree. therefor I support the ****ing war.

ah! a cynical realist!

[Victor Galis]

Um... Does 9/11 ring ANY bells?!

-I fail to see any relevancy.

Having people be equal under the law is preferable to not having it.

-Having a law is prefferable to not having one though.

[Q Classic]

ah, zero, how old are you?

i'm still in college. chances are, as things stand, all the money i make that goes to social security... well, hell, i'll never see a return on it.

pisses me off, too. i've half a mind to try and avoid paying that tax, but i can't.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Sava
If only Bush were this honest.
ah! a cynical realist
ah! a cynical realist!

yeah I know Im a selfish d!ckhead, but at least I dont pretend to be something else.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
ah, zero, how old are you?

i'm still in college. chances are, as things stand, all the money i make that goes to social security... well, hell, i'll never see a return on it.

pisses me off, too. i've half a mind to try and avoid paying that tax, but i can't.

In college. doing part time job at the gap right now. SS taken out of my check right now is insignificant, but as you said, its gonna be bull**** when I graduate.

[Sava]

nice Zero you sound a lot like myself!

Q Cubed: While I agree with Social Security in principle, I agree with you in practice. Our Republican leaders are definitely going to pass the bill on to us.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Our Republican leaders are definitely going to pass the bill on to us.

Yes, because Democrats would never do that .... and they'll find a way to fix it before the boomers destroy it to... yeah right.

[Victor Galis]

The fix to Social Security ills is to increase the retirement age. Soc. Sec. worked because there were many more workers than retired people at the time. The average life expectancy was 65. Now...