Upcomming War In Iraq

Nemesis_Zero · January 2003

Please show me the treaty and how "every single term" of it has been broken. The United States governments haven't exactely followed an appeasement politic towards the Iraq. If every term had been broken, the newsstations of Bagdhad would broadcast in English nowadays.

Also, the Iraq didn't oppose the weapon inspection as is, it refused the additions to the treaty the US government tried to include in the new UN resolution. One of them was a small contingent of American soldiers as additional bodyguards for the inspectors.

You assume that 'a country' is against 'us'. I already stated why I consider such a remark to be impossibly true.
I don't stand up for 'the Iraq', I stand up for the victims of the possible war - no matter of what nationality, race, or believe.

A last word on those damn Nazi comparisons: It's really nothing but a cheap and easy way of telling people of other opinions to shut up. Clearly, <i>they</i> are doing just what Hitler did and you wouldn't support that, now <i>would you</i>?
We're living in the year 2003. Open your eyes and realize that Hitler is dead.

Dezmodium · January 2003

I didnt mean to sound like I was comparing Hitler to Bush. I think there are similarities. I just posted it as an interesting link, which it was..... now moving on.

As to MayIPostNow:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I can't blame you, you are civilians, after all.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Oh, Get off it. Just because you are in the military doesn't make you Mr. Intellectual. In fact, much to the contrary.

To Mercior:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>you don't join the army expecting not to kill somebody.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Thats funny. When the recruiters for the Army/Marines/AirForce/Navy came to my institutionalized learning facility, they said quite the opposite. I was in fact told that Joining the armed forces did not mean I was going to kill somebody. I have a feeling that I was lied to, which is why I didn't join. (Well, that and I value my intellect to be more than that of a "hired thug", which is what soldiers are)

Now for an intellectually stimulating source:

This is a peice of performance art done by Alex Grey and his wife Alysson Grey. It is a statement foreshadowing our fate as a race.

"Mr. and Mrs. X were on their way to dinner when they were surprised by a nuclear blast. With their faces and clothes scorched and bloody, they arrive in hell at a dinner table covered with money. A skeleton with a clock halo, already seated at the table, holds a
globe while an alarm bell rings madly in it's ribcage. Mr. and Mrs. X begin eating and burning the money and drinking blood. They seem oblivious to the sounds of air raid sirens, bomb blasts and alarms going on around them. Suddenly Mrs. X awakens, stands up and turns
back the clock. She turns off the alarm and vomits up the money, then leads Mr. X to do the same."

<img src='http://www.alexgrey.com/images/wstlnd1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>

Prior to the performance the audience received a program which included the following quote:

"Two paths lie before us, one leads to death, the other to life...
One day we will make our choice. Either we will sink into the final coma and end it all or, as I trust and believe, we will awaken to the truth of our peril, a truth as great as life itself, and, like a person who has swallowed lethal poison but shakes off his stupor at
the last moment and vomits the poison up to cleanse the earth of nucear weapons."

In a recent poll taken by Time 6 out of 10 Americans thought it would be OK to nuke Iraq.

<a href='http://www.alexgrey.com/tv/wstlnd-9mb.mov' target='_blank'>9 mb movie download</a>
<a href='http://www.alexgrey.com/tv/wstlnd-28mb.mov' target='_blank'>28 mb movie download</a>

<a href='http://www.alexgrey.com' target='_blank'>Alex Grey's website</a>

Sirus · January 2003

Please do not in any way relate Jesus in any way to anything else. However, if you want to say communist was modeled after a perfect society, which could happen if everyone was jesus then ok, but please dont make such connections.

If you'd like to take a biblical stance on this ok, but understand its heresy to call Jesus a communist.

Jesus in no way came in any politcal way, understand the bible, Jesus was a sacrifice because of adam's fall, and only through blood could anyone be seen as clean, and therefore allowed into Heaven.
Jesus preached of perfection, although no one could meet perfection, he preached of taking care of your neighbors and such.
Jesus died a perfect man, taking the sins of the world with him.(Jesus raised from the dead) Therefore, if you acknowledge Jesus as your saviour, your transgressions are wiped clean and allowed into heaven.

Anyways, back on topic.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>While it is formally true tat the Congress has the last word, I blame Bush for bringing a war on the debate schedules.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You can't blame just Bush, If you want to point the blame at anyone its going to be more than one person.
I can't say I actually know who the people involved with this is. But the media is also VERY important in propagating war. There's a lot of people involved and I couldn't say everyone, just please dont blame bush entirely. Just because he's bringing up war doesn't mean he's not wise for doing so either, no one knows of the outcome yet.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I feel that I don't have the space to properly answer to this remark.
I do believe that there are worse applicants for the job of the 'world police', but to be honest, I don't believe that the position can be filled by any state.
A police force has to be independent in so far that it doesn't have personal involvment in the affairs it's got to solve - that's why a womans husband will never lead the research on her murder.
As a country with its own economical, political, social, and religious interests, the US can never be uninvolved. Even if Bush started out with completely just reasons, and I highly have to doubt that, sooner or later, he'd have to take an interest in the Iraqs oil, if he didn't, he wouldn't pay attention to the US economys needs. By this, however, he stops being a neutral force and starts acting in his own interests, and thus can't really fill the position of a 'policeman' anymore</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Very true in some parts. I wasn't justifying the US being the world's policman. They have been very critical in some situations in bringing peace, and are also the strongest world power, and for the most part, uses it to protect people rather than like some powerful warlord.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>O BOY! Now comes the "God likes me more". I love it when people have to revert to this kind of argument. Hi-frikkin-larious. God knows they have more honor huh? Wait a minute, I seem to remeber god saying something about that somewhere...O YEAH! "THOU SHALT NOT KILL"! Am I getting through on that end? And even if god is taken out of the equation, how does a military man have more honor than me? The average infantryman is no longer in any risk, and kills his enemies from afar! We don't fight our battles anymore. We get the locals to do all the grunt work, and we help out with a few well-placed missile strikes. War is no longer the self-sacrifice business. Its now the business of pressing a button. How is that honorable?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

"God knows" is used as a figure of speech in this. Just like saying, "God knows where he is". Etc.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Nobody in here doubts that Saddam is the bad boy. What we ask is whether Bush is the good guy.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

As an American, I have NO DOUBT in my mind that Bush is a good guy. It may be different for citizens of other countries. If you are to believe anything i say believe me that he is a good guy. I do not question his faith either, although his stand on the death penalty. Even on news programs he has started sharing about how God has changed him so much. (The Reporter was questioning him on the death penalty at the time, and was not questioning him about his past or such). George Bush is an honest man.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>During World War 2, some people in Germany stood up against that war, because they believed it to be wrong. I know that I wouldn't have been one of them - because I know that the believes I would've been brought up with would've forced me to believe in just what you believe: That there is a greater whole that's your country, your people, and that standing up against this greater whole in times of utter despair is nothing short of betrayal.
I wasn't brought up with that believe. I was brought up with the believe that unless you can be absolutely, 100%, doubtlessly sure you are right, and face it, none of us can say that of himself, you should accept differing opinions, as long as they don't aim to harm you or others directely. If you stand up against a war, you're following one of the oldest and proudest traditions the United States call their own - freedom of speech.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm emphasizing on people critisizing good men who gave their lives. I do not at any time equate Hitler with all his soldiers, they were good men also. I say to support the president because he was elected, unlike dictators. I honestly don't care about the politics involved, I only care about the sacrifices made by those who fought. One person explained about how is father made so many sacrifices, he is an honorable man, those who critisize him sacrifice should be ashamed of themselves.
Soldiers are giving the most anyone can give, their lives, don't dishonor them for that it ludicrous.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Then ask yourself whether you are the right ones to bring democracy to the world. The matter of fact is, and you can't change anything about it, that roughly 52% of the voters decided for Gore, and that there were some very fishy things happening on election night (I'm thinking of blacks being openly harassed on their way to the voting booth). Democratically, he won. That doesn't mean I believe he'd have been the right president - in my opinion, Gore is a hypercapitalist jerk.

The whole Bush being intelligent/stupid discussion is pointless.
Smart, dumb, he's the guy at the red switch.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The thing is democracy doesn't work too well. I dont really believe in democracy, mainly because the majority of normal joe blow dont know that much, and shouldnt be responsible for everything because that would be disasterous. Honestly, people are stupid, and elected officials are about as good as i think we can get. And im talking about non-corrupt officials, there's is very little worse things than a corrupt leader, because of the power he holds and the peoples lives he influences.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And this cabinet you speak of, they are a non-partisan body freely elected by the general populus, and would therefore have no reason to do what he said, right? NO! Bush appointed them, they work for him. They do what he wants them to.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

[sarcasm] ok ok your right, Bush is here to destroy the world and bring misery! He doesn't elect the most comptent people because he knows everything![/sarcasm]
Sorry, that's the only way i could prove my point, not intended as a flame. You surely have a twisted idea of these people if you think theyre all puppets. A common misconception with anarchists, most people live a majority of their lives living for politics, i dont think they do that to be a puppet, they do it so they can be respected and work in a career that's extremely important.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well that's a might pretty lookin speach, but it don't work. Apparently at this point our friend here has forgoton about a little thing called "Governments" which are run by "politics" and politics is meant to concern these little thing called "states", which are contained inside "boundaries". Am i ringing any bells?
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I cannot understand your point at all.

Otherwise then that, im tired of making points that go no where , because people would rather believe the "its all a big conspiracy". It's impossible to argue logic.

AllUrHiveRblong2us · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As an American, I have NO DOUBT in my mind that Bush is a good guy. It may be different for citizens of other countries. If you are to believe anything i say believe me that he is a good guy. I do not question his faith either, although his stand on the death penalty. Even on news programs he has started sharing about how God has changed him so much. (The Reporter was questioning him on the death penalty at the time, and was not questioning him about his past or such). George Bush is an honest man.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
So, lemme get this straight. Just because you're an American, you automiatically believe that the man who was "elected" by the American people(as I've said, the election was fixed, and I've yet to hear ANY argument, good or bad, to proove otherwise) is "honest"? The "It may be different for people in other countries" is especially interesting. By your logic, you cannot judge Saddam simply because you don't live in his country(please rember he was "elected", just liek Bush), but yet you do. Kinda contradictiry, ain't it?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Soldiers are giving the most anyone can give, their lives, don't dishonor them for that it ludicrous.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
So did all those terrorists(I've yet to see one American walk into one of Saddam's cabinet meeting with a bomb strapped to his chest), yet we hate them. Weird.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And im talking about non-corrupt officials, there's is very little worse things than a corrupt leader, because of the power he holds and the peoples lives he influences. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Hate to break it to you, but Bush is corrupt, just like nearly every single member of the Republican or Democratic(hahaha) party has been for a very very very long while. Ever heard of these things called "campaign contributions"? It's the money that these politicians get from corporations to run their campaigns, and people who don't have campaign money don't win. This means that they are all tools of corporate America. Of The Capitalists, because that's where they get their money, and of capitalism because that is the system that allows these people to remain rich. And who do you think GW or Gore(yes Gore is just as bad) would listen to The Corporations that allowed them to be elected and live in splendor at the same time, or the Average voter, who was tricked into voting by these Capitalists anyway? Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>[sarcasm] ok ok your right, Bush is here to destroy the world and bring misery! He doesn't elect the most comptent people because he knows everything![/sarcasm]
Sorry, that's the only way i could prove my point, not intended as a flame. You surely have a twisted idea of these people if you think theyre all puppets. A common misconception with anarchists, most people live a majority of their lives living for politics, i dont think they do that to be a puppet, they do it so they can be respected and work in a career that's extremely important.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Don't you get it? The post you were responding to there was meant to prove that, even though he technically wasn't giving every order, the people giving the orders were hired by him(and why does anyone hire someone they know will disobey the will of the boss), and are payed by him to make war. Therefore, they make war for him. Simple as that. They may not do it to be puppets, but they sure as hell act like it.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I cannot understand your point at all.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
My point is that although in teh post this was responding to, you make it seem as if the US is the only country in teh world, the rest of the world(or at least the middle east) is an ungovorned wasteland, and it is perfectly fine for us to walk into another couintry's territory, and say "Do this because I said so". Contrary to polular belief, there are other countries over there, and they enjoy(or should) the same rights to not being messed with as we do. Just because you say so(and just because they are having some internal strife that has never affected us) does not give the US the right to waltz in (backed up by smart bombs and daisy cutters) and inforce our will on them.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Otherwise then that, im tired of making points that go no where , because people would rather believe the "its all a big conspiracy". It's impossible to argue logic. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Logic? LOGIC!!! I'm sorry, but an elaboration on the worlds "|_|5 0(/\)}{0|2 411 07|-|3|25 5|_|}{0|2" is not logic!

MayIPostNow · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Dezmodium Posted on Jan 10 2003, 08:52 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt mean to sound like I was comparing Hitler to Bush. I think there are similarities. I just posted it as an interesting link, which it was..... now moving on.

As to MayIPostNow:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I can't blame you, you are civilians, after all.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh, Get off it. Just because you are in the military doesn't make you Mr. Intellectual. In fact, much to the contrary.

To Mercior:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
you don't join the army expecting not to kill somebody.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Thats funny. When the recruiters for the Army/Marines/AirForce/Navy came to my institutionalized learning facility, they said quite the opposite. I was in fact told that Joining the armed forces did not mean I was going to kill somebody. I have a feeling that I was lied to, which is why I didn't join. (Well, that and I value my intellect to be more than that of a "hired thug", which is what soldiers are)

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

It seems you have a genuine dislike for servicemembers. I don't mind you attacking my intelligence, but I find it leaves a rather filthy aftertaste in my mind when you compare us to thugs. Thugs simply think of themselves, and any gain they can get. That is your way, sir, the civil way. We fight and die for others, whether it is a fruitless or worthless endevor is a decision to be made on an individual basis.

Many people enter the military for pay, but quickly realize that it's not worth the effort. These honorless few rarely make it far before returning to a more civilized world.

Do you have to kill when you are a soldier? Simply put, no. There is such a thing as a Conscientious Objector. Many will question the ethics of such people, (would you kill to save your friends?) but in the end, it's their choice. A CO is not allowed to serve in any combat arms field, and therefore usually serve as medics, cooks, secretaries, and in other support fields.

I challenge you to find out what these people are really all about before condemning them in your intellectual hell.

<span style='color:blue'>(Edited to correct the quotecode that apparently bugged up.)</span>

Zergling · January 2003

so i wrote a long response to all the stuff that people have been writing and then when i posted it the forums were down, and got a nasty SQL error. i lost it forever <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='mad.gif'>

The gist went somethign like this....

MayIPostNow?'s characterization of the USArmy is a bastardization of Marxism. It is more like a autocratic distopia with no women <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='sad.gif'>

Gargamel said that jesus was a communist; which also neglects the advancements of scientific socialism. He was a utopian socialist, (reference Engels, Socialsim: Utopian and Scientific). Also religion is the opium of the masses, and is used as a tool of oppression. It plays off of real suffering that people feel, and allows them to ignore reality.

AllUrHiveRBelong2Us wrote about "Bourgeoisie Soclialism" which i used as a jumpoint to talk about fascism and stateism as a reaction to the russian revolution of 1918. The New Deal is a great example of a reactionary policy that's purpose is to create class peace at home. Just to clarify, Marx never spoke of this as a progressive system and I don't think he spoke of it at all.

Which lead me to my point about Bush or Hussein beign characterized as fascist or a Hitler. The major point being the misuse of formal logic (ex. "Hussien is an anti semite and so was Hitler") and the general disorientation that many people feel without a dialectical understanding of society (which leads to blind conservatism or paranoid anti-authoritarian politics).

Finally I responded to Nemesis Zero, (i recommend you read Trotsky <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'> )

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I have not yet read Trotzki, but would have to disagree with the notion that the October Revolution was a proletarian revolution in the classical sense - it was clearly staged by Lenin and the Bolschewiki, and thus not a spontaneous rising of the working class as Marx would've expected it.
I know that Lenin intruduced the concept of 'professional revolutionaries' but have to say that this bears the seed of the bureaucratic downfall in it.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Three points:
1. The Vanguard Party. The spontaneous rising of the working class was not envisioned by Marx and is categorically a principle of Anarchism. Marx understood that due to the proletariat's position as wage-slaves, they will not develop anything higher than "trade union conciousness" without the active intervention of communists. This leads fundamentally to the need for the vanguard party to educate the masses and lead them in the class struggle.
2. Spontinainty (sp?). A dialectician would never accept anything as spontaneous. There is a material basis for any phenomenon. As for the Russian Revolution, worker, soldier, and peasant councils <b>did</b> form quite 'spontaneously' when the Bolsheviks gave the call. it was truly a proletarian revolution in every sense and was not some artificial construction by politicians or something.
3.Professional Revolutionaries. have you ever tried to make revolution? (j/k) It's friggin hard man! <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tounge.gif'> I certainly want the most advanced elements of the party to work full-time for my emancipation and don't mind paying for it either! I went on to explain the true nature of Stalinism, its origins and its betrayals.

So I made some spelling errors this time, and flamed the thread above, but I have made the post <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Nemesis_Zero · January 2003

Always copy your stuff before you hit the 'Add Reply' button <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>

<b>Zergling</b>:

Firstly, I hope you don't miss your small 'smiley' post. It somehow seemed a little Off-Topic to me <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Gargamel said that jesus was a communist; which also neglects the advancements of scientific socialism. He was a utopian socialist, (reference Engels, Socialsim: Utopian and Scientific). Also religion is the opium of the masses, and is used as a tool of oppression. It plays off of real suffering that people feel, and allows them to ignore reality.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

It's a common misconception to call Jesus 'religious' - He did not intend to create a new religion. He was on the contrary in so far revolutionary that He challenged the believes of his time and preached forgiveness instead of revenge.

Rudi Dutschke, an important figure in the student revolts of '68 and dedicated communist, called Him "the biggest revolutionary of all time". While I can't fully agree with that, I'm willing to admit that the kind of life he and his worshippers led was in a sense socialistic. There was for example no private property amongst them.

The remark about 'opium for the masses' is one of the most often used misquotes of all time. While Marx was himself a convinced atheist following Feuerbach, he did not mean to damn the idea of spiritual belief. Instead, he critizised the 'institutionalized' religion, such as the catholic system of spiritual authorities.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1. The Vanguard Party. The spontaneous rising of the working class was not envisioned by Marx and is categorically a principle of Anarchism. Marx understood that due to the proletariat's position as wage-slaves, they will not develop anything higher than "trade union conciousness" without the active intervention of communists. This leads fundamentally to the need for the vanguard party to educate the masses and lead them in the class struggle.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I've got to check my facts here, but I'm 95% positive this was Lenins theory. Both trade unionism and Marx' theories were developed at roughly the same time - a theoretical comment about another socialisitic teaching that was still not 'finished' somehow seems unlikely to me, whereas I'm sure Lenin used the expression.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>2. Spontinainty (sp?). A dialectician would never accept anything as spontaneous. There is a material basis for any phenomenon. As for the Russian Revolution, worker, soldier, and peasant councils didform quite 'spontaneously' when the Bolsheviks gave the call. it was truly a proletarian revolution in every sense and was not some artificial construction by politicians or something. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I apologize for the use of the word 'spontaneous', it doesn't hit the core of the topic.
Anyway, I'm doing my history exam on this topic in a few months, so I'm quite familiar with the happenings during the revolution, and you're apparently mixing some timedates up:
The Soviets were formed during and after the February Revolution, which was a true uprising of the masses in the marxian sense - big parts of the population participated, it was in so far 'spontaneous' that there had not been direct preperations - instead, it started out as strike and gained momentum.
After the February Revolution, two governments were created, one being representative democratic, the other the Soviets. In the first time, most Soviets weren't dominated by the Bolschewiki, but the Menschewiki, the less radical communists.
Only later the Bolschewiki had grown more popular, and Lenin staged a coup d'?tat by storming the democrats armies headquater and the Winter Palace. The October Revolution was <i>no</i> general uprising. Oh, and it happened in November <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>3.Professional Revolutionaries. have you ever tried to make revolution? (j/k) It's friggin hard man! I certainly want the most advanced elements of the party to work full-time for my emancipation and don't mind paying for it either! I went on to explain the true nature of Stalinism, its origins and its betrayals.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't doubt that a revolution would need an organization (personally, I'm still believing that a democratic system works just fine, but later more on that), but giving that 'elite' of the revolution so much power - organization <i>is</i> power - is, to say the least, dangerous, especially since this power can't be controlled at that point of the revolution.
In a way, this concentration of power on a relatively small and uncontrolled group only made Stalin possible.

<b>Sirus</b>:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you'd like to take a biblical stance on this ok, but understand its heresy to call Jesus a communist.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I understand that we're entering <i>very</i> difficult terrain here, and will thus make it short:
In my opion, it's almost impossible to commit heresy.
We are all just using our own interpretaion of the Bible or another holy book. Even the Bible is in a way only an interpretation of Jesus' deeds - it was written by humans, and I honestly doubt any human to be able to fully comprehend the divinity of Jesus.
Therefore, I can only try to interpret the sources I have about Jesus after my best understanding and respect that everyone else tries the same. If one discovers for her-/himself that Jesus lived in communism, it's their interpretation. We'll find out eventually.

Back into the daily politics.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You can't blame just Bush, If you want to point the blame at anyone its going to be more than one person.
I can't say I actually know who the people involved with this is. But the media is also VERY important in propagating war. There's a lot of people involved and I couldn't say everyone, just please dont blame bush entirely.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Now we're starting to simply push the blame from one to the other until nobody is at fault. In the end, you've got to admit that G.W.Bush is the mightiest supporter this war has - and by that, he partly <i>is</i> to blame.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Just because he's bringing up war doesn't mean he's not wise for doing so either, no one knows of the outcome yet.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Being a pacifist, I honestly doubt that there <i>is</i> a wise reason for going to war.
No matter what I'm told by Bush or Blair, I can't recognize any aggressive act by the Iraqs government (and nor can our governors, because then, they'd have less trouble starting this war), and thus, it'd be an attack, which I can't accept.
Maybe you'll tell me that it's not as simple as that, but in the core, it is. People are going to die for no justificable reason. I'm not going to applaud to that.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They have been very critical in some situations in bringing peace, and are also the strongest world power, and for the most part, uses it to protect people rather than like some powerful warlord. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Which situations do you mean? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'd just like to know the examples you take for successful peace enforcement.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As an American, I have NO DOUBT in my mind that Bush is a good guy. It may be different for citizens of other countries. If you are to believe anything i say believe me that he is a good guy. I do not question his faith either, although his stand on the death penalty. Even on news programs he has started sharing about how God has changed him so much. (The Reporter was questioning him on the death penalty at the time, and was not questioning him about his past or such). George Bush is an honest man.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I was of course using rethoric here, but nonetheless, I can't say that Bush appears to be 'good' or 'honest' to me.
I'd like to use a quote of Bush from the 4.8.02 on the golfing ground of Kennebunkport (Maine) at the end of an official speech there. I'm retranslating it from German, so please excuse it being a little rough:

"I ask all countries to do everything in their might to stop those terrorist murderers." Without of pausing, he grabbed his racquet and said "OK. And now watch my swing."

You will now tell me that this is a single faux-pas, and you're probably right with it, but it shows one thing: The man is capable of quickly switching between 'statesman' and 'guy next door' - a little too quick, in my opinion.
Bush was obviously involved in the Enron affair, which is quite probably the main reason it wasn't prosecuted as hardly as it should've been. He is, in a way, corrupt by this alone.

As for Bushs faith, there are two things I have to say. First, in his case I'm inclined to stop talking about 'faith' and start calling it 'fundamentalism', which is a bad thing if you're president of the country with the most diverse religious landscape in the world, and second, if a man starts 'spontaneously' telling a reporter about his faith in the middle of an interview about a completely different topic, I smell PR.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think you've misunderstood me. I'm emphasizing on people critisizing good men who gave their lives. I do not at any time equate Hitler with all his soldiers, they were good men also. I say to support the president because he was elected, unlike dictators. I honestly don't care about the politics involved, I only care about the sacrifices made by those who fought. One person explained about how is father made so many sacrifices, he is an honorable man, those who critisize him sacrifice should be ashamed of themselves.
Soldiers are giving the most anyone can give, their lives, don't dishonor them for that it ludicrous.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I fear you misunderstood me, too.
Critizising the war - possibly also by anti-militaristic rethoric as Dez, who surely doesn't disregard his father, uses it - doesn't critizise the soldiers in the frontlines, it critizises mainly the people who got them there - which brings us back to Bush, Ashcroft, Rice, Rumsfeld & co.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The thing is democracy doesn't work too well. I dont really believe in democracy, mainly because the majority of normal joe blow dont know that much, and shouldnt be responsible for everything because that would be disasterous. Honestly, people are stupid, and elected officials are about as good as i think we can get. And im talking about non-corrupt officials, there's is very little worse things than a corrupt leader, because of the power he holds and the peoples lives he influences. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I have to strongly disagree.
Yes, it is true that some people are ignorant - making this <i>the</i> mass-phenomenon is however a self-propelled clich? unwillingly spread by the media - every time they report about a burglary, a crime, or anything else negative (and let's face it, only bad news sell), they create a one-sided picture of the society only showing the 'wrong' parts and leaving the 'good' stuff out.
Look around you. You'll maybe not see many people you wholeheartedly agree with, but you've got to admit that most of them are capable of taking responsibility for themselves and their family, which also entitles them to take responsibility for their society.

Of course, those people also make mistakes, but so will even the best elected representatives you may ever find. And if it comes to the descision of allowing the whole of the people or only a select few to make mistakes, I know what I'd stand up for <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>

I doubt anyone will already read the whole of <i>this</i>, so I'll stop here.

FatboyTim · January 2003

I don't generally get involved in political debates, but I just had to comment a couple of earlier 'points' posted here.</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(Oueddy babs) They even dropped a bomb on a church while a wedding was inplace AFTER the war was supposed to be 'over' ffs.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>The guests at the wedding were firing small-arms into the air in 'celebration'. Note:It isn't such a good idea to do this in a warzone...</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(Oueddy babs) Actually, Saddam's different because he only kills his own people. Hitler invaded other countries are started killing their people..</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>Hussein doesn't invade other countries? I guess you don't remember Iraq's invasion of Iran? Perhaps you have forgotten their invasion of Kuwait?</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(AllUrHiveRBelong2Us) 1.2 million innocent Iraqi civilians killed because of illegal NATO bombings since the Gulf War</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>Those people died because Saddam Hussein refused to provide for them: His government received <i>billions of dollars</i> as part of the UN's humanitarian <a href='http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/20/un.oil.for.food/index.html' target='_blank'>"oil for food" program</a>. He chose instead to spend that money pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction. If you <i>really</i> give a damn about the starving people of Iraq, consider that they wouldn't actually <i>be</i> starving if it were not for Saddam's tyrannanical regime...</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(Nemesis Zero) ...there are no acceptable proves for him acquiring weaponry he isn't allowed to acquire - ask Mr.Blix for further details.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>OK!:</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>CNN - 9th January 2003.

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq violated U.N. sanctions by importing missile engines as recently as 2002 and delivered an "inadequate" list of scientists and technicians involved in its weapons programs, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council Thursday... <snip> ...Blix said the declaration lists the import of missile engines and raw material for the production of solid rocket fuel, done "in violation of the relevant resolutions regulating import and export to Iraq," he told the council. It also does not adequately account for stockpiles of the chemical agent VX, he said.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(AllUrHiveRBelong2Us) ...as I've said, the election was fixed, and I've yet to hear ANY argument, good or bad, to proove otherwise</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>Fine:</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><a href='http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/' target='_blank'>Florida Ballots Project</a> (CNN special)

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>

Zergling · January 2003

Nemesis thanks for deleting that smiley face, it was a flame b/c i was so **** about losing my other post...

Nice comments on Marx's attitude towards religion, although spirituality is a form of idealism and is antithetical to materialism.

Never heard of Rudi Dutschke, but i'm wary of any 'communist' who refers to Jesus without mentioning Christianity. What's the point? Coming from Germany I'm sure you are familiar with the Spartakusbund, and maybe with Spartacus himself? This is a better historical example than a small religious sect of Jesus.

I was hesitant to include that bit on "trade-union conciousness" for precisely that reason, and i don't think i will bother to look it up, but it is the reality. (accuracy is very important in politics though <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='biggrin.gif'> )
Sorry for that cheap shot on "spontaneous", i'm doing this for practice at polemisizing. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tounge.gif'>

When you speak of the provisional government as "democratic", its important to mention its class character as bourgeios. Also referring to the Mensheviks as "less radical communists" is giving them too much credit. The Mensheviks did not support the October Revolution, (wait, I mean November <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>, you really know your history!) and during the resulting civil war, openly supported the white armies against soviet russia. At one point, they walked out of the soviets!

As for the organization of the organization, a Leninist vanguard party operates of the principle of democratic-centralism, which means full democracy in internal discussion, and unity of action. It is very common anti-communist syllogism that Stalinism was a necessary result of Leninist organizational principles. Maybe you have heard the saying, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? As far as giving the 'elite' the power, they are always immediately recallable by the party membership, elections can be called at any time. Once again I will repeat that centralism is an important element in the parties ability to do their work and to express distrust of centralism is either an anarchtic or petty-bourgeios attitude. To get a perspective on Stalinism, I will reiterate the value of Trotsky's [U]The Revolution Betrayed[/B].

I was wondering where in Germany you live(d) and your age?

Speed_2_Dave · January 2003

I'm going to interject with an off-topic statement. Look at how long this post is, look at all of the points of view, and look at how many people aren't flaming each other (a large number, considering the differences in opinion). I just want to thank you guys for this great debate/occaisional flame. I enjoyed reading each and every post (which I have done), and it has educated me a little on people's views, ideas, and literal facts as well.

I don't have anything but a Lob to contribute, though, sorry.

[edit]Zergling, you can look that sorta thing up by clicking on his name, it'll send you to his profile, yo [/edit]

Dezmodium · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MayIPostNow? @ Jan 10 2003, 09:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It seems you have a genuine dislike for servicemembers. I don't mind you attacking my intelligence, but I find it leaves a rather filthy aftertaste in my mind when you compare us to thugs. Thugs simply think of themselves, and any gain they can get. That is your way, sir, the civil way. We fight and die for others, whether it is a fruitless or worthless endevor is a decision to be made on an individual basis.

Many people enter the military for pay, but quickly realize that it's not worth the effort. These honorless few rarely make it far before returning to a more civilized world.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It's not the fact that soldiers often die for a fruitless endeavor, it's that they KILL for fruitless endeavors. You wanna die for no good reason? Shoot yourself in the head, and do it outside because noone wants to clean your bloody mess up. At least you won't be violating anybody's rights in the process.

Personally I wouldn't join any army. I fight for myself. I have no enemies. There is noone I wish to kill. Saddam heussein a bad man? yes. My enemy? no. I don't approve of what he does but that does not give me the right to go over a kill him. I don't approve of what a lot of people do but I am not going to go out and kill them either.

I think we would be better off if poeple just minded their own business. But the problem is, that Hussein and Bin Laden were the Bush's business. Selling someone arms and then going to war with them can be extremely lucrative.

Nor am I going to hire thugs to do it for me. My thug analogy stays. It is truely how I feel.

Gargamel · January 2003

- Thanks 2 for all your replies guys! Some of your thoughts I see right some wrong. Well thats the way it is.

-Jesus was for me not a God, but more a Communist that said "share all what you have with your people".
Sorry, i am christian but also scientist, so dont believe in any manmade god power, its just in the papers.
Dont want to insult your beliefes, its only my opinion. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wow.gif'>

-Yes, its all about the OIL.

-Yes, I always do Ctrl-C even now.

-You Soldiers out there take care, most soldiers I knew were great people (and also some of them were on another planet). In the cities there are much worse **** anyway.

-I hopt the LAbor Party wins the Israeli Elections
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/09/israel.election/index.html' target='_blank'>CNN Report</a>

-Cya soon!

Spyder_Monkey · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium @ Jan 10 2003, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MayIPostNow? @ Jan 10 2003, 09:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It seems you have a genuine dislike for servicemembers. I don't mind you attacking my intelligence, but I find it leaves a rather filthy aftertaste in my mind when you compare us to thugs. Thugs simply think of themselves, and any gain they can get. That is your way, sir, the civil way. We fight and die for others, whether it is a fruitless or worthless endevor is a decision to be made on an individual basis.

Many people enter the military for pay, but quickly realize that it's not worth the effort. These honorless few rarely make it far before returning to a more civilized world.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It's not the fact that soldiers often die for a fruitless endeavor, it's that they KILL for fruitless endeavors. You wanna die for no good reason? Shoot yourself in the head, and do it outside because noone wants to clean your bloody mess up. At least you won't be violating anybody's rights in the process.

Personally I wouldn't join any army. I fight for myself. I have no enemies. There is noone I wish to kill. Saddam heussein a bad man? yes. My enemy? no. I don't approve of what he does but that does not give me the right to go over a kill him. I don't approve of what a lot of people do but I am not going to go out and kill them either.

I think we would be better off if poeple just minded their own business. But the problem is, that Hussein and Bin Laden were the Bush's business. Selling someone arms and then going to war with them can be extremely lucrative.

Nor am I going to hire thugs to do it for me. My thug analogy stays. It is truely how I feel.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I'm only going to comment on this statement now, as my views towards this whole thing are still biased by my military affiliation..

Do soldiers sometimes kill for the wrong reasons? Yes. Don't be foolish, it happens. Do they do it because they enjoy it? Because they think they are gaining something for it? No.

Fact is, soldiers (the ones doing the killings, without the brass/silver on their collars) are not paid to think, or to question. They are given orders, and they follow... Should they stop following orders because of a few situations? Definitely not. The US Military does more good for the world than harm, and it will always remain so.

You think we should mind our own business? If Saddamm was allowed free-roam of his own country, do you think he would stop there? Do you think that he would stop at all of Asia? Europe? How long before greed and ambition take over and he comes to our continent? Would you have us stop him at South America? Canada... maybe Mexico?

The only reason you can argue that he's not your enemy, is because he's not allowed to be... we stopped him before it could come to that.

Nemesis_Zero · January 2003

<b>FatboyTim</b>:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(Nemesis Zero) ...there are no acceptable proves for him acquiring weaponry he isn't allowed to acquire - ask Mr.Blix for further details.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
OK!:</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>CNN - 9th January 2003.
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq violated U.N. sanctions by importing missile engines as recently as 2002 and delivered an "inadequate" list of scientists and technicians involved in its weapons programs, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council Thursday... <snip> ...Blix said the declaration lists the import of missile engines and raw material for the production of solid rocket fuel, done "in violation of the relevant resolutions regulating import and export to Iraq," he told the council. It also does not adequately account for stockpiles of the chemical agent VX, he said.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Interesting article (it can be found <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/09/sproject.irq.blix.inspections/index.html' target='_blank'>here</a>, right under the lovely 'Showdown in Iraq' tag). Well, I never said that Hussein is a saint, and judging this as "pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction" is against what is told in the article itself: </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"no new information of significance" has emerged about Iraq's efforts to obtain an atomic bomb.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I'm not going to defend Saddam for his weapon projects, but I can't see how acquiring missle engines (which don't hint in any way at the equipment of that missle) would justify an all-out war. Neither can Mr.Blair, it seems.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(AllUrHiveRBelong2Us) 1.2 million innocent Iraqi civilians killed because of illegal NATO bombings since the Gulf War</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Those people died because Saddam Hussein refused to provide for them: His government received billions of dollarsas part of the UN's humanitarian "oil for food" program. He chose instead to spend that money pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction. If you reallygive a damn about the starving people of Iraq, consider that they wouldn't actually bestarving if it were not for Saddam's tyrannanical regime...</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're mixing the statistics up. The 1.2 million died directely and indirectely from the bombings as well as the sanctions (I'd have to look it up, but a daily 500 people die due to the medication embargo).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(Oueddy babs) Actually, Saddam's different because he only kills his own people. Hitler invaded other countries are started killing their people..</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hussein doesn't invade other countries? I guess you don't remember Iraq's invasion of Iran? Perhaps you have forgotten their invasion of Kuwait?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Queddy wasn't referring to militaric deaths, but to the ethnic cleansings Hitler initialized in the occupied areas.
By the way, whoever was so stupid and supplied Hussein with the weaponry for the assault on Iran?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(AllUrHiveRBelong2Us) ...as I've said, the election was fixed, and I've yet to hear ANY argument, good or bad, to proove otherwise</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Fine:</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Florida Ballots Project(CNN special)
Florida recount study: Bush still wins
A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No matter what the (antiquated) system of the electoral college may say, 52% of the total voters gave their vote to Gore. Additionally, there were some, let's say, irregularities in Florida.
It was for example proved that for one of the districts turnout to be correct, a group of jewish Shoah survivors would have to have voted for a neonazi right-winger.
BTW, did you know that during last years election, parts of Florida that are traditionally democratic didn't recieve enough of the new voting machines that were introduced after the chaos in the presidental elections?

<b>Zergling</b>:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Never heard of Rudi Dutschke, but i'm wary of any 'communist' who refers to Jesus without mentioning Christianity. What's the point? Coming from Germany I'm sure you are familiar with the Spartakusbund, and maybe with Spartacus himself? This is a better historical example than a small religious sect of Jesus.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Dutschke was initiating and organizing many of the first mass protest actions. He was considered the greatest rethoric of his generation. Also, if there has ever been a real scientific communist, it was him - he knew the biggest parts of Marx' and Engels works literally by heart.
Also, he was a believing christ who however openly critizised the conservative and repressive official structures of his religion.
I really suggest you take a look at him - in many peoples opinion, this guy could have led Germany into a communist revolution.

Yes, I know the Spartakusbund (A friend of mine *admires* Rosa Luxenburg:)). I didn't mean to tell people that Jesus was <i>the</i> example for utopian socialism, I just wanted to confirm that his lifestyle can be viewed in this way.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When you speak of the provisional government as "democratic", its important to mention its class character as bourgeios.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh, I wouldn't go so far to call them bourgeois, especially since the half-industrialized Russia simply hadn't really developed that class at the point. True, most of the richer supported the provisoric government, but that was forseeable. The conservatives nonetheless never held the majority in the Duma - Trade - Unionist social democrats held it.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also referring to the Mensheviks as "less radical communists" is giving them too much credit. The Mensheviks did not support the October Revolution, (wait, I mean November <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>, you really know your history!) and during the resulting civil war, openly supported the white armies against soviet russia. At one point, they walked out of the soviets!</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I was again using their own declaration - which was communistic. Also, I don't think that supporting the revolution - which, as said before, can't really be counted as such - was the perfect determination for communism thoughts. Even the Bolschewiki were split about it, but followed their proffesional revolutionaries - a concept that was in turn rejected by the Menschewiki.
The walking out of the Soviets is a <i>really</i> difficult matter, if you want to discuss it further, I'll have to read up. As far as I can remember, this was a reaction to a pretty straightforward try for the might by the Bolschewiki (which were still a minority at that time). It's by the way funny - even the existance of two parties like Bolschewiki and Menschewiki contradicted the ideas of the Soviets <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Once again I will repeat that centralism is an important element in the parties ability to do their work and to express distrust of centralism is either an anarchtic or petty-bourgeios attitude. To get a perspective on Stalinism, I will reiterate the value of Trotsky's <u>The Revolution Betrayed</u>.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I confess - I did read Bakunin <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'>
I really am convinced of the idea of corruption through power, which is why I believe the revolution to be very dependent on the quality of the men at its first line. I'd not say that Lenins policy made Stalin inevitable (although there is also too much blood on Lenins hands), but it cultivated the ground on which Stalin could rise.

In case you're too lazy to check my profile, I'm living in Bruchsal (South-West Germany), and am 18.

Spooge · January 2003

Ok Nem, you know I can't let that slide. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>

We've covered the electoral college before. It is only anticquated in the sense that it's been in use for over 200 years. It's value is just as full now as it was then. The individual voter has more value within a state than he would in a nation. There really isn't much more to it than that. Besides that, we vote for a new president every 4 years so if there are really that many voters who don't want him in office, he'll be out in 04.

Also, your ad hoc description of the embargos on Iraq are misleading. The embargo doesn't kill people. The leader (Saddam) who intentionally restricts resources like food and medical supplies are to blame. But it's easy to convince his people that it's everyone else's fault. You can say anything you want when you control all of the media in your country.

nicegame · January 2003

To all the people who claim this war is "all about oil". I bet you get very mad when gas prices go up. Do you own your own vehicle? If you dont like the problems the struggle over oil causes, dont buy gasoline. I quit buying gas 3 years ago. I ride my bike to work. And i live 5 miles from the city. I walk sometimes too, its not that hard. Try i sometime, your body might enjoy the workout.
But, since i live out in the country it might be easier to ride around. I never have rode a bike in the city.
And the city i do live by and where i work is a very small one, the closest town that is big, about 10,000 people, is 15 miles away.
Granted, i dont have what some would describe as "cool lifestyle" , but i dont pollute the enviroment, and support the oil mongers.
Another thing, if you oppose the "war of oil" write , call, nag, scream at your local politicians. Tell them to LEGALIZE INDUSTRIAL HEMP. Hemp is an excellent soucre of many types of products(about 40,000) including useable fuel.
Amazingly, i called my local state rep. about ths issue, and to my amazement, he supports the legalization of industrial hemp! We had a nice chat , and i found out that a hand full of inteligent, sensible politicians do.
The only problem, the powers that be dont support it.
If hemp was legal we could, quit using trees for paper mass, totaly erase the dependence on fossil fuels. And , we could help feed alot more people around the world.
I know, many of you probaly already think, ugh another "hippie" trust me i am far from it. Just dont let the "reefer madness" cloud your abiltiy to judge this plant. Hemp and marijuana are 2 differnet things, most people wont or simply refuse to accept that fact.

mindtrick · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (nicegame @ Jan 11 2003, 06:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If hemp was legal we could, quit using trees for paper mass, ...</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I myself do agree that hemp (anykind) should be legal, but I don't believe that hemp could be as large source of paper mass as forests are. To what do you base this opinion?

Jim · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spyder Monkey @ Jan 11 2003, 12:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If Saddamm was allowed free-roam of his own country, do you think he would stop there? Do you think that he would stop at all of Asia? Europe? How long before greed and ambition take over and he comes to our continent? Would you have us stop him at South America? Canada... maybe Mexico?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I'm sorry but that did make me chuckle <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

he's not <i>that</i> powerful is he <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='confused.gif'>

Spyder_Monkey · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim @ Jan 11 2003, 04:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spyder Monkey @ Jan 11 2003, 12:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If Saddamm was allowed free-roam of his own country, do you think he would stop there? Do you think that he would stop at all of Asia? Europe? How long before greed and ambition take over and he comes to our continent? Would you have us stop him at South America? Canada... maybe Mexico?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I'm sorry but that did make me chuckle <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

he's not <i>that</i> powerful is he <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='confused.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
No. Because people oppose him.

Narfwak · January 2003

All this talk of war, and not one mention of North Korea. In my own opinion, North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq could ever be. They've been shipping MGs up (er, down) to the DMZ, restarted their reactors, and pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty. All-in-all, not good news. In fact, NPR, the most optimistic and least sensationalistic of all news agencies, played a quote saying that North Korea has a good shot at starting WW III. Again, not good news.

I also heard a story that the Bush administration was going to take over the oil industry in Iraq as soon as the invasion starts to ensure the stability of the industry. It was on NPR, and I was half-asleep when I heard it this morning, so I may not be correct.

Speed_2_Dave · January 2003

ah NPR.. I wish I could start listening to news again.

I saw the "Countdown Iraq" on some news thing and immediately knew we would go to war.. it's "suuuch" a great idea for many people. The news could cover another "middle eastern" conflict in the comfort of air-conditioned hotels, get great travel rates to foreign countries, and not really have to worry about getting hurt. The military gets more money funneled into them, the president's popularity artificially inflates (happened for Bush Sr., too) and Daddy's boy gets to carry on the war against the man who "wants to kill my dad." Joy <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='confused.gif'>

Sometimes a friend of mine and I wish we were still in Germany.

CallMessiah · January 2003

Okay, now this was quite a long and interesting read, as I have now taken the time and read all the posts. What I find the most interesting thing is that the most intelligent conversation I have yet witnessed on the internet, aside maybe some older topics about politcial discussions here, is posted in the oh-so terrible Off-Topic board. As you may notice I am getting a little off topic here as well...

I must say that my background knowledge on history isn't even close to the detailed knowledge of many of you, altough I did have a minor exam in history a year ago (btw, good luck to you Nem to all the exams still to come, I suppose). It is interesting to see through how much work people will go just to prove a point by valid argument and that at least leaves some kind of hope for myself, as I am (by heart an optimist about every day life) a pessimist about human situation in general and the things yet to come.

So, it is 3:00 AM, over here in Germany, welcome to my Good Morning Ramble:
I must say that I agree with the non militants and pacifists here, I can see no valid reason to go to war. At least that's how I see it now, may be different when I come to the end of this.
War in general does not help anyone and causes only more suffering, but I'm sure you all have heard this before. I know it may sound sarcastic, but whenever a discussion about war and killing arises one quote comes to my mind saying "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". While I cannot completely agree with this, it is true that actual fighting, in which people get killed, should never be the solution, unless all else fails (More on this later).
Only a short remark about the religious aspect that somehow snug into this discussion: I find it rather impressive how many here seem to still, against the modern notion, display stong believe in religious ideals. Having been raised christian myself, I have no become more of an atheist, not knowing what to truely believe in, but myself. I will not discuss anything on anything about religion, as I find the organized religions of todays world rather ridiculous, although I deeply value a strong faith in things one believes in. The only bad thing I can see is blind faith and hipocrisy in following imposed ideals as it is so common today.
I have read the posts of the soldiers and the person, whose father was in Vietnam (I'm sure many more were too, but he's the only one that said so), with a great interest, as they have been rather intelligent and sensitive, different form things I have expirienced so far or come to expect. I suppose every soldiers' life, once he has been in extreme combat will be ruled by the impressions left on him and I do not wish to ever have these experiences, nor do I wish them for anyone else.
I know many soldiers myself, since here in Germany you have to either join the army for a year or do civil service. This very fact of course leads to a very different morale than in any voluntary army, but nevertheless they have the same limitations on their freedom as in any other army of the world. They may not speek about the army, neither in a good nor bad way, nor the government. Of course they have follow orders and are subject to military as well as civil punishment, if they fail to do so. They do not fight for anything they believe in, they serve because they have to and none of them want to die for their country as far as I know, but I guess that is the difference between a voluntary army and a drafted one.
I do believe that it is the right thing to fight for those things you believe in, but I fail to see how joining a militant force may be the right way to do so. You should always follow your conciesness, but never blindly. You may be wrong sometimes, you may even be completely heading in the wrong direction, so the key, I guess, is to always keep an ear open for different views and judge them by the values of your beliefes, but to compare them. There is always room for compromise.

Now, a little more on topic. If there ever should be anything like a world police (and going the way we are right now, I suppose we'll need one sooner than later), it should definitly not be the US or any other government for that reason, but a standalone institution with members from all over the world, regardless of country or race, economic growth or polution figures. The way I see it, the role of the world police has so far been aimed for by the US for quite a while and I don't regard this as a good thing in anyway.
I definitly thing something should be done about governments threatening world peace(if that has ever existed), but invading, bombing or simply nuking them off the planet is just the wrong way, no matter how you turn it.
I don't really know what to think about the "weapons of mass destruction" discussion either, as I find it rather hypocrathic when someone with the more such weapons than all else combined tries to force everyone else not to have them. I myself would get rid of all "weapons of mass destruction" across this whole damned planet (because thats what it is, if we don't), and yes, even the atomic arsenal the US keeps to protect freedom across the galaxy or something, but for some reason, nobody asked me.
I don not know, if this war is only about the oil, as there may be this worldwide conspiracy or not, but it sure looks like oil could be a major reason for the way the US government (beeing careful here about the words) handles the situation in Iraq. Maybe they only want the oil, maybe they truely want to get rid of an evil they see as threating to their people.
I can't tell.
I can only see, that they don't try hard enough not to turn this into a war.
That is the whole point. The situation has to be solved somehow, but noone seems to care if that will be done with all out war. I think there is another way to this, eventhough I do not have the detail knowledge on all the personalities involved and how to play them right to find such a solution. As I said before, I do not support this war, because it is rather opvious that neither side is trying hard enough to prevent it.
And now back to what I said very early on. I think it is right to fight for your ideals, it is right to fight with any means, even war, combat and killing, when nothing else helps, although I said killing was never right, for nothing. Well, see it this way: Once you get to the point were war is the only answer to any problem the whole world is going to hell faster than you can even close your eyes when the reaper closes in on you and than I don't care what happens anymore.

I have now finished my rambling and I hope, I managed to keep the sarcasam out as much as possible, which is the hardest thing in the world for me. I am by heart a sarcastic person and I once leraned that "All sarcastic persons are idealists". That's probably where my views come from... Please excuse any spelling mistakes, it is late and this is a lot longer than anythign I ever posted before, though I could've gone on for hours. It is now 4:00 AM, Good morning Germany, Good Night America.

Call:1800-MESSIAH (19,1st semester Student of Computer Science in Oldenburg, Germany)

Dezmodium · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Narfwak @ Jan 11 2003, 03:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>All this talk of war, and not one mention of North Korea. In my own opinion, North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq could ever be. They've been shipping MGs up (er, down) to the DMZ, restarted their reactors, and pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
North Korea IS a bigger threat. But I still don't beleive in attacking them. I honestly beleive that they are playing the "political game" with us more than anything. They see Bush for what he is and are trying to make his motives transparent. He looks real dumb when he says, "we need to get rid of weapons of mass destruction," and then still goes after Iraq when North Korea is slapping him in the face with nukes. It's a game. A game of <b>Death</b> and <b>Destruction</b>. I'm sorry. I'm not going to play that game.

Not me.

Nemesis_Zero · January 2003

<b>Spooge</b>:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ok Nem, you know I can't let that slide.
We've covered the electoral college before. It is only anticquated in the sense that it's been in use for over 200 years. It's value is just as full now as it was then. The individual voter has more value within a state than he would in a nation. There really isn't much more to it than that. Besides that, we vote for a new president every 4 years so if there are really that many voters who don't want him in office, he'll be out in 04.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<span style='color:purple'>* Nemesis Zero smacks himself </span>

That's what I get for making posts with a serious headache - now I can discuss details of the October Revolution and the US' Constitution at the same time - let's see where I make my first mistake <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'>

Yes, we've covered the electoral college before, and as I said back then, the President is the representative of the whole of the people of the United States, not the representative of the whole of the states; he is therefore to be elected by the people in the federation, not the people in each state.
Stately control of the Federation is being institutionalized in the Senate which consists of two Senators per state, it's therefore not necessary to give the people in the less densely populated states a bigger vote in the presidental election - in fact, electing the President and his main controlling institution on the same basis is against the constitutional system of checks and balances.
You will tell me that the Founding Fathers did think something while creating the college, I'll tell you they simply created a provisorium as a joint vote in the whole of the new states was technically impossible - in our hearts, we know we're both right. The Founding Fathers were strongly divided in those more in favor of a stronger central state and those advocating a loose union - and this struggle did not only survive the Civil War, us discussing this today shows it's not even solved today.
It's pointless to discuss whether the Founders wanted it like <i>this</i> or like <i>that</i>, because they wanted both. Let's better discuss todays realities than yesterdays.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also, your ad hoc description of the embargos on Iraq are misleading. The embargo doesn't kill people. The leader (Saddam) who intentionally restricts resources like food and medical supplies are to blame. But it's easy to convince his people that it's everyone else's fault. You can say anything you want when you control all of the media in your country. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You are right - Saddam <i>is</i> to blame for the misdistribution. The blood is at his hands, not 'ours'. I did never say I supported him.
But what you did not doubt - in fact, you said it yourself - is that Saddams position isn't weakened by the embargos, they have even strengthened him. At the same time, hundreds die dayly <i>indirectely</i> due to the embargos, only creating more suffering and hate towards 'us'.
The embargo is thus not capable of achieving the goals it was put in place for. I therefore believe that it should be stopped right here and be replaced by better thought-out sanctions.

<b>Spyder</b>:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You think we should mind our own business? If Saddamm was allowed free-roam of his own country, do you think he would stop there? Do you think that he would stop at all of Asia? Europe? How long before greed and ambition take over and he comes to our continent? Would you have us stop him at South America? Canada... maybe Mexico?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Although it's the unhealthy thing to do (<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>), I have to disagree. The dictator striving for world domination is a clich?.
It's obvious that Hussein has occupant ambitions, but they would not reach that far, even the biggest megalomanianc gets enough sooner or later. Assuming that he'd 'conquer the world' only weakens and ridicules your (valid) point of view.

Yes, Hussein has led assaults in the past, but, as old as the argument is, he only could thanks to the help of the people commanding you.
Their policy hasn't changed since then, which means that in the next war, where you, MayIPostNow and your friends are sent out to risk your lives, it's quite possible that a new dictator is unwillingly created, thus preparing the wars your children will have to risks their lives in.
Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be the right solution to me.

<b>1800</b>:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(btw, good luck to you Nem to all the exams still to come, I suppose)</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Thanks, it'll be a hot year for me <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'>

I prett much agree with everything you said, and will keep the saying "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity." in mind <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>

<b>Narfwak, Dez</b>:

I agree that Kim Yong Il is currently the biggest threat - problem is that he obviously wants to <i>provoke</i> a war (making it already two national leaders trying that, now how screwed is that). It'll be hellishly difficult to avoid a confrontation.

Gargamel · January 2003

Well said Call01800Messiah.
Religion is ****.
Oil is their God.
And if Soldiers go to war other then defending their Country (for example because some OIL Businessmen like Bush want to) then they are stupid and being abused.
Preemptive Wars are not legal. So I could say lets attack US cause if we dont do, maybe the whole world will be in flames... thats stupid.
And yes, Korea, if you see the whole thing from the who-gots-WoMD-issue, is a greater threat than Saddam, that only shows that its not the problem, the problem is who will control the middle east and its resources. And Pakistan, Israel also have NuclearWeapons, but its ok, cause they are us allies? HA!
Yes, its about Money, and oil is money for the next hundred years maybe.

<b>The UN made a secret research on the consequences and found that in an upcomming war in Iraq there would be 500.000 non-combatants who will suffer from bombings and will need medical treatment and food while other 3.000.000 will be suffering from hunger and be fighting rising Illnesses like Cholera and Typhus. Also the whole infrastructure of Iraq will be devastated, the Country destoyed and its oil production will come to a halt(Thats, till Exxon and co get over and start sucking the iraqi oil).
So you see, its not for the iraqi people. Its only for their oil. US Army never interveaned to make things better. It only made things worse but got America some advantages in those regions. And why the heck does the US have military bases all over the world? Its the new Imperium.</b>

May God help us ( id dont see him though)

Salty · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 11 2003, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>[</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You think we should mind our own business? If Saddamm was allowed free-roam of his own country, do you think he would stop there? Do you think that he would stop at all of Asia? Europe? How long before greed and ambition take over and he comes to our continent? Would you have us stop him at South America? Canada... maybe Mexico?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Although it's the unhealthy thing to do (<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>), I have to disagree. The dictator striving for world domination is a clich?.
It's obvious that Hussein has occupant ambitions, but they would not reach that far, even the biggest megalomanianc gets enough sooner or later. Assuming that he'd 'conquer the world' only weakens and ridicules your (valid) point of view.

Yes, Hussein has led assaults in the past, but, as old as the argument is, he only could thanks to the help of the people commanding you.
Their policy hasn't changed since then, which means that in the next war, where you, MayIPostNow and your friends are sent out to risk your lives, it's quite possible that a new dictator is unwillingly created, thus preparing the wars your children will have to risks their lives in.
Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be the right solution to me.

<b>Narfwak, Dez</b>:

I agree that Kim Yong Il is currently the biggest threat - problem is that he obviously wants to <i>provoke</i> a war (making it already two national leaders trying that, now how screwed is that). It'll be hellishly difficult to avoid a confrontation.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Shouldnt controling Iraq be enough to fill his greed? It would be maybe if a cliche if this happened maybe 1 2 or 3 times but people like this are all threw out the history of people. Whats better then controling the middle east? Controling the middle east and northafrica. Then it keeps going. Im not saying he would conquer the world but his forces would become stronger and more agresive and even more people would die. He would control most of the oil in the world and be able to finance a much better war machine.

Yeah we did help him grow up his army. That was a diffrent time thought. We were in a nuclear stand off with Soviet Union. This war would be trivial as a celebrity stealing from a deparment store if the cold war went hot. So we did all that we could to hault soviet exspansion it may have not done anything but we did try.

Yeah there are other threats but this isint Upcomming War with North korea post. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='sad.gif'>

Nemesis_Zero · January 2003

Then tell me - how many people have actually tried to control the whole of the world?
If you can't say: One. Alexander of Macedonia. Even Hitler 'only' tried to conquer the whole of Eastern Europe.

Also, during the Cold War, the US government was trying to promote the democratic model throughout the world, right? Why the hell did they ally with a fundamentalist dictator, then? "That was a diffrent time" isn't really a good explanation.

Salty · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 12 2003, 02:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Then tell me - how many people have actually tried to control the whole of the world?
If you can't say: One. Alexander of Macedonia. Even Hitler 'only' tried to conquer the whole of Eastern Europe.

Also, during the Cold War, the US government was trying to promote the democratic model throughout the world, right? Why the hell did they ally with a fundamentalist dictator, then? "That was a diffrent time" isn't really a good explanation.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
the Persian Emperors, The Roman emperors. The Carthage emporers. Stalin. Napolean. The list goes on.

Why did we help him? hmm sadam isint the nicest man in the world to America but he wasnt as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was at the time. His forces were pretty powerful but they dont compare to an icbm with 10 seperate nuclear warheads. America was desperate for allies to stand up to the USSRs allies.

Nemesis_Zero · January 2003

Both the Persian and the Roman Empires did never actually focus on conquering 'it all'. They had at all times borders which they respected and did not cross. Carthago was more of a trading empire than anything else.
Napoleon did aim to rule Europe, it's true. Europe does however not equal with the world.
Stalin... No. Absolutely not. He did not even really try to conquer anything - instead, he was just a paranoic man who saw threats to his power everywhere and then tried to eliminate them.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>America was desperate for allies to stand up to the USSRs allies. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

In this phrase, you sum the neurose that made the Cold War possible up: "<i>We</i> have got to defend ourselves against <i>them</i>." Both sides lived in constant fear of the other, while being absolutely certain that they weren't threatening anyone themselves. Being under this never ending pressure, both blocks tried to gather as many allies as possible around them.
Soon, they did no longer pay attention to what kinds of people those allies really where.
And so, the UdSSR created the North Korean dynasty, while the USA created Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

And now, more than ten years after the Cold War, the 'Western World' feels attacked again - by the 'Islamic World', which in turn feels invaded by 'us'. Isn't it time to stop this spiral of insanity?

Salty · January 2003

Well since nuclear war never broke out Saddam, North Korea, castro, ossama are just a small price to pay.

Since the US went in and helped him shouldnt we be the ones that fix our mistakes and take him out of power?

Upcomming War In Iraq

Comments