Saddam's appointment with the hangman

[browneyedgirl]

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Well, Saddam hits 2 out of 3, not bad!

[stratohawk]

Nobody should be punished do death. No human being has the right to take away other people's life.
I know what some might add here: That Saddam himself killed thousands of people. But in this case also GWB must be sentenced to death. No, no human being, no organisation, no government should have the right to decide to take away other's life. Yes, now comes the grey zone discussion: What if you have to protect and defend yourself or the lives of others? Yes, there are exceptions. But except these tough cases there should be a strict line that no one should cross.

That's nothing but revenge. And it will lead to nothing.

Will mankind wake up one day?

PS: Yes, Saddam is an evil person and mass murderer, just as Stalin, Hitler, Phol Pot, Pinochet, Mussolini, Milosevic, Franco, ... They all get/will get what they deserve. But still it's not our right to take away their life. If they are doomed and damned anyway...

[stratohawk]

I just read some bullshit written on the first page of this topic! It's suprising how much fucking rubbish can be posted in this forum!!
How aggressive some promote their extreme opinions here... unbelievable...
Ignorant and... argh, go wasted!
About the point to judge other Western governments for their "business" with Saddam: You could send your whole government life-long to prison for doing business with him as well (do you know the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?), promoting weapons, also for the Taliban, and other corrupt and cruel regimes in South America or Africa, just because those governments were a good tool in their hands in times of cold war.

I WOULDN'T COMPLAIN IF WE'D ONLY DISCUSS ON A REASONABLE LEVEL HERE, WITHOUT ACCUSING OTHERS ALL THE TIME FOR THEIR ATTITUDE!!! BUT YOUR ATTITUDE IS THE MOST EXTREME OF ALL!! YOU OFFEND OTHERS WITH YOUR PREJUDICES AND YOUR FANTASTIC CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!
Again I don't say we shouldn't discuss contradictory topics. It's not the point that I don't want to accept that others have different opinions. But on this level...

Why do I always read these topics? That's my own problem I guess...

I go and abreact with the newest records of Deftones and Semtex. Huh, I'm so angry. If I had a gun I would go and shoot someone. Maybe this would help, eh?

[browneyedgirl]

Nobody should be punished do death. No human being has the right to take away other people's life.
I know what some might add here: That Saddam himself killed thousands of people. But in this case also GWB must be sentenced to death. No, no human being, no organisation, no government should have the right to decide to take away other's life. Yes, now comes the grey zone discussion: What if you have to protect and defend yourself or the lives of others? Yes, there are exceptions. But except these tough cases there should be a strict line that no one should cross.

That's nothing but revenge. And it will lead to nothing.

Will mankind wake up one day?

PS: Yes, Saddam is an evil person and mass murderer, just as Stalin, Hitler, Phol Pot, Pinochet, Mussolini, Milosevic, Franco, ... They all get/will get what they deserve. But still it's not our right to take away their life. If they are doomed and damned anyway...

All you are saying is wonderful if we all lived in a fairy tale world, but we don't. We live in the real world where there is more arrogance, hurt, pain, and sorrow than love and peace. And like I said people don't have to use weapons to hurt someone. Anyway, there is always going to be wars&rumors of wars. These wars are caused by the inner spirit of man which is prone to selfishness, and arrogance. There does not have to be a war to know&see those traits in humanity. It exists within our sociological interaction with others every single day. In everything EVERYTHING there is a pecking order&those at the bottom rung get the shaft----like these countries that those rulers controlled. The ones at the top of these leaders pecking order did not suffer during their rule, you can bet on that!
The point is, people need to realize that if a leader kills their own people--slaughter&hurt them purposely--they have to pay for that crime.

[miditek]

Why do I always read these topics? That's my own problem I guess...

Lose your Ritalin again? I'm sure that Uncle Saddam could slide you a few.

[Carcass]

Less tactless than gassing a village full of Kurds?

Of course not, but tactless nevertheless

Death is everywhere these days, and not simply in Iraq. Does your town or city have a federal "Safe Streets" Task force dealing with problems from the Crips, the Bloods, or Mexican gangs? Even in the city that I live in, there are some very dangerous areas that people get killed in every day.

Are you blaming Saddam for this? Totally irrelevant for this topic.

The death penalty of course is a very grave form of punishment that is not to be taken lightly.

But yet you are joking and giving demeaning comments to other members insinuating that they are on Ritalin.

Those convicted of first-degree (premeditated)murder. This also should include genocide and other forms of state-sponsored murder.

Be careful what you wish, your own policy-makers might wind up in their death cells aswell.

Drug warlords/kingpins on the high level, and even those that sell crack cocaine and heroin on the retail or street level.

You'd be killing awfully many then. Like in the case of Saddam and the aid from west, it's the drug user's choise to use drugs. He's a victim you say, but in a way so are many dealers too. Many times they have been recruited from low life junkies who do everything to get their fix. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any consequences, but executing them is pretty over-the-top.

[stratohawk]

Why do I always read these topics? That's my own problem I guess...

Lose your Ritalin again? I'm sure that Uncle Saddam could slide you a few.

I don't get what's so funny about provoking others, miditek, especially on such serious topics. And very nice that you didn't reply to the rest of my post. It shows me that at least I got you in some points to which you can't contradict (and that's seldom, am I right ). Sorry, I cannot understand why you're doing this. I like discussing on a normal and reasonable level, also about serious topics like this one, about opinions I don't share. But the behaviour of people like you makes me sick.

Btw, do you really listen to Stratovarius? If you do so, you don't really agree with their lyrics, right?

@BEG: The fact that I'm against death penalty has nothing to do with living in a dream world or being too far away from reality. That's my own attitude, like others have their one, but IMO death penalty doesn't help a damn thing to make this world better, more safe or anything else. And IMO it's a point of moral and ethics, if we condemn others because they kill people, we shouldn't act the same way.
Yes in some way I might be an idealist with lots of utopics. But only idealists can change this world. Not claiming that I personally can do this. Did you read pieces about Ethics, like from Kant? Yes, man has something in it, something "bad", or let's name it brute. But every single person on this earth is reasonable enough to control him/herself and to care about others. It must be possible to find a way.
Also Stratovarius is not only singing fairy tales. Songs like "Mother Gaia", "We hold the key", "Infinity", "Anthem of the World", "Paradise" etc are realistic contemplations about the situation of us human beings and (of course idealistic) appeals to change something.

[NeonVomit]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Iraq war has solved absolutely nothing and should never have happened. The American public has shown its discontnent with its government over this issue (House now in Democrat hands, and AP now reporting the Senate too, what's your opinion/viewpoint on this miditek?) and like any regime, if they lose support of the people, something is not going right at all.

Saddam's execution is nothing but symbolic. Let's not cloud ourselves with illusions of 'justice' or anything like that. He is a symbol, nothing more and nothing less, and the execution of the symbol is the final bell.

Slobodan Milosevic was to spend the rest of his life in prison (in fact, he did), but that's because that's the way things are done in Europe, the death penalty having been abolished. His 'symbolic' value was to be sentenced to life in jail. Now, trying to compare Slobo v.s. Saddam is a bit silly, I think they were just as bad as each other, but if Saddam had been a European dictator, he'd be facing life in prison, and Slobo would've been executed had he been an Arab. It's just the way things work in that part of the world.

[browneyedgirl]

Less tactless than gassing a village full of Kurds?

Of course not, but tactless nevertheless
Tactless is being a Rebel just for the sake of being a rebel, Carcass.

Death is everywhere these days, and not simply in Iraq. Does your town or city have a federal "Safe Streets" Task force dealing with problems from the Crips, the Bloods, or Mexican gangs? Even in the city that I live in, there are some very dangerous areas that people get killed in every day.

Are you blaming Saddam for this? Totally irrelevant for this topic.

I think he was just making comparisons.

The death penalty of course is a very grave form of punishment that is not to be taken lightly.

But yet you are joking and giving demeaning comments to other members insinuating that they are on Ritalin.
Ban him then!

Those convicted of first-degree (premeditated)murder. This also should include genocide and other forms of state-sponsored murder.

Be careful what you wish, your own policy-makers might wind up in their death cells aswell.
I don't think miditek was wishing anything, do you?

Drug warlords/kingpins on the high level, and even those that sell crack cocaine and heroin on the retail or street level.

You'd be killing awfully many then. Like in the case of Saddam and the aid from west, it's the drug user's choise to use drugs. He's a victim you say, but in a way so are many dealers too. Many times they have been recruited from low life junkies who do everything to get their fix. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any consequences, but executing them is pretty over-the-top.[/quote]

Don't you have kids, Carcass? Or do you? Do you love them? If so, you'd understand what Miditek was saying.
Unless they are Rebels as much as you seem to be.

@NV, yes I'm a Democrat&I do want this war to end. I don't think it is accomplishing anything&as long as the war is going on, no progress can e made in rebuilding Iraq.

[Carcass]

Well, do you know any parents with kids who are dealing drugs? Bet not, I think you wouldn't be so quick to put a death sentence on them if you would.

[browneyedgirl]

Well, do you know any parents with kids who are dealing drugs? Bet not, I think you wouldn't be so quick to put a death sentence on them if you would.

Don't get your underwear in a knot, Carcass! Don't take so any sarcasm pills at once, you'll OD! I wasn't the one that said I'd put people like that to death. Usually, they wind up killing themselves with their own drugs. "You get what you order"
But, I'd sure want those types of people put away a very long time so they would not influence/tempt the good children of the world who are trying to make something out of their life.
And, no I don't know people like that, and don't associate with those types of people because I choose not to. IMO drug dealers are murderers in a sense. It does not matter to me how rich&famous these dealers&their parents are, either. Evil knows no dollar signs.
If you had had a child on drugs you would not be such a Rebel about this matter. I was fortunate, but other parents not so.

To change the subject, Carcass, don't you have any sarcastic comment about the elections.
As a leftist myself, I was very glad. We need Hilary Clinton now as Prez to clean up the mess. But, the Dems also agree Saddam got what sentence he deserved.

[stratohawk]

Btw, while some are calling for revenge and more violence, I read an article that shows how senseless it is to spend billions in wars that serves nothing and nobody. The world has bigger problems.
Read this please. It's a short but dramatic article. Ignoring the real threats for mankind like this and just preaching egoistic ways to gain every benefit for ones own country, no matter what's the cost, is coward and short-sigthed. All this will strike back in some way one day.


The 2006 Human Development Report

Throughout history water has confronted humanity with some of its greatest challenges. Water is a source of life and a natural resource that sustains our environments and supports livelihoods – but it is also a source of risk and vulnerability. In the early 21st Century, prospects for human development are threatened by a deepening global water crisis. Debunking the myth that the crisis is the result of scarcity, this report argues poverty, power and inequality are at the heart of the problem.

In a world of unprecedented wealth, almost 2 million children die each year for want of a glass of clean water and adequate sanitation. Millions of women and young girls are forced to spend hours collecting and carrying water, restricting their opportunities and their choices. And water-borne infectious diseases are holding back poverty reduction and economic growth in some of the world’s poorest countries.

Beyond the household, competition for water as a productive resource is intensifying. Symptoms of that competition include the collapse of water-based ecological systems, declining river flows and large-scale groundwater depletion. Conflicts over water are intensifying within countries, with the rural poor losing out. The potential for tensions between countries is also growing, though there are large potential human development gains from increased cooperation.

The Human Development Report continues to frame debates on some of the most pressing challenges facing humanity. Human Development Report 2006:

• Investigates the underlying causes and consequences of a crisis that leaves 1.2 billion people without access to safe water and 2.6 billion without access to sanitation
• Argues for a concerted drive to achieve water and sanitation for all through national strategies and a global plan of action
• Examines the social and economic forces that are driving water shortages and marginalizing the poor in agriculture
• Looks at the scope for international cooperation to resolve cross-border tensions in water management
• Includes special contributions from Gordon Brown and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, President Lula, President Carter, and the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.

[browneyedgirl]

@stratohawk, I don't think anyome would argue with your post. Those things NEED to be done. But, can all the money in the world straighten it out?
Maybe for a year all proceeds from ALL record&music&movie sales could be put into a fund&given to these needy people!
I thought so. People(especially the rich&famous)love to talk the talk, but they sure would not walk the walk. To my suggestion they would say, "Thats not my job, man." Then make excuses, scapegoat people&point fingers.

We know that if countries took every penny they spent for war games it might make a difference, a little bit for a little while. Lots of lves can be saved. Alittle is etter than nothing. But, if you think this world will be made into an utopia by giving up all weapons, wars etc. you need to think again.
We all can try to make a better world, but its not gong to happen. Not as long as Mankind is at the helm because as a species, humans are too shallow, and selfish!

[miditek]

Less tactless than gassing a village full of Kurds?

Of course not, but tactless nevertheless

Death is everywhere these days, and not simply in Iraq. Does your town or city have a federal "Safe Streets" Task force dealing with problems from the Crips, the Bloods, or Mexican gangs? Even in the city that I live in, there are some very dangerous areas that people get killed in every day.

Are you blaming Saddam for this? Totally irrelevant for this topic.

Of course not. You had mentioned that I supported the death penalty for Saddam while alluding to the fact that I was sitting in front of my computer thousands of miles away. My city has some very dangerous places, and that is why I asked if your city had a federal "Safe Streets" task force.

The death penalty of course is a very grave form of punishment that is not to be taken lightly.

But yet you are joking and giving demeaning comments to other members insinuating that they are on Ritalin.

Apparently, some people can't take a joke, unless of course, it's about Jesus, Muhammad cartoons, the Pope, or President Bush. According to the prevailing European viewpoint, all other humor must be summarily outlawed.

Those convicted of first-degree (premeditated)murder. This also should include genocide and other forms of state-sponsored murder.

Be careful what you wish, your own policy-makers might wind up in their death cells as well.

Yes, we know- the EU and its citizens/minions criticize the death penalty for Saddam, but support it for Americans. I am sure that many Eurocrats could scarcely conceal their glee when the film "Death of a President" was released. European hypocrisy is exposed yet again.

Drug warlords/kingpins on the high level, and even those that sell crack cocaine and heroin on the retail or street level.

You'd be killing awfully many then. Like in the case of Saddam and the aid from west, it's the drug user's choise to use drugs. He's a victim you say, but in a way so are many dealers too. Many times they have been recruited from low life junkies who do everything to get their fix. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any consequences, but executing them is pretty over-the-top.

And they, along with their customers, are killing a lot of innocent people, and not just in America. The drug gangs have killed people all across Central and South America as well. And it is not just the crackhead or heroin addicts that are affected. Families have been destroyed, property is damaged, the streets are less safe in general, and the cost to deal with all of the related problems is quite extravagant.

Iran and Malaysia hang drug dealers every year, but we hear very little in the way of criticism from Europe because of that.

[stratohawk]

We know that if countries took every penny they spent for war games it might make a difference, a little bit for a little while. Lots of lves can be saved. Alittle is etter than nothing. But, if you think this world will be made into an utopia by giving up all weapons, wars etc. you need to think again.
We all can try to make a better world, but its not gong to happen. Not as long as Mankind is at the helm because as a species, humans are too shallow, and selfish!

Again, as I said before, I'm aware of the fact that this world might never be the perfect one we wish it to be. But this does not mean not to fight and struggle for it!
And, as with food, and also medicin, it's the same with water: The world has enough of it. It's "simply" not shared just and equally. Money is not the point.

[Carcass]

Don't take so any sarcasm pills at once, you'll OD!

You could give the same advice to Miditek.

But my meaning was not to be sarcastic, it was a serious question that I wished people here would contemplate on. Now that I reread the stuff you said I see that you indeed did not wish to "put a death sentence on them", as I wrongly said. Sorry for that.

By the way, what does OD mean?

And, no I don't know people like that, and don't associate with those types of people because I choose not to.

It's not always a matter of choosing.

If you had had a child on drugs you would not be such a Rebel about this matter. I was fortunate, but other parents not so.

I guess I would be blaming myself equally, if not more. But yes, without a doubt I would be furious.

To change the subject, Carcass, don't you have any sarcastic comment about the elections.
As a leftist myself, I was very glad. We need Hilary Clinton now as Prez to clean up the mess. But, the Dems also agree Saddam got what sentence he deserved.

Nope, not really. I'm glad to see that a woman is the new Speaker. Not that I think women are superior politicians, but this indicates that equality between sexes is progressing. Hilary would not be a bad choice.

The Dems can agree on whatever they want. To me this is a matter of principle.

[browneyedgirl]

Don't take so any sarcasm pills at once, you'll OD!

You could give the same advice to Miditek.

But my meaning was not to be sarcastic, it was a serious question that I wished people here would contemplate on. Now that I reread the stuff you said I see that you indeed did not wish to "put a death sentence on them", as I wrongly said. Sorry for that.

No big deal. This is just a forum. I was just discussing.

By the way, what does OD mean?[/quote]
Overdose. I just meant you would get too sarcastic. I guess it sounds like I took a few of those pills, too.

And, no I don't know people like that, and don't associate with those types of people because I choose not to.

It's not always a matter of choosing. [/quote]
I think most times we can choose who we associate with, unless we are in jail or in the army.

If you had had a child on drugs you would not be such a Rebel about this matter. I was fortunate, but other parents not so.

I guess I would be blaming myself equally, if not more. But yes, without a doubt I would be furious. [/quote] This would be one of the biggest heartbreaks of parenthood. To have a child succumb to the lure of drugs. Sure, the child is partly to blame, maybe the parents, but the seller who makes these things available deserves little mercy. Many children use drugs as an escape, plus a quick high&some children are weaker than others and cannot resist.

To change the subject, Carcass, don't you have any sarcastic comment about the elections.
As a leftist myself, I was very glad. We need Hilary Clinton now as Prez to clean up the mess. But, the Dems also agree Saddam got what sentence he deserved.

Nope, not really. I'm glad to see that a woman is the new Speaker. Not that I think women are superior politicians, but this indicates that equality between sexes is progressing. Hilary would not be a bad choice. [/quote] America is slow when it has came to these issues. I'm glad we have finally wisened up! I think Hilary would be excellent. But, lets not hire her a handsome intern just in case.

The Dems can agree on whatever they want. To me this is a matter of principle.[/quote] Well, dems are not entirely perfect.

[miditek]

Why do I always read these topics? That's my own problem I guess...

Lose your Ritalin again? I'm sure that Uncle Saddam could slide you a few.

I don't get what's so funny about provoking others, miditek, especially on such serious topics. And very nice that you didn't reply to the rest of my post. It shows me that at least I got you in some points to which you can't contradict (and that's seldom, am I right ).

Some people can't take a joke, I guess. And I'll be happy to provide some responses to your last posts.

Sorry, I cannot understand why you're doing this. I like discussing on a normal and reasonable level, also about serious topics like this one, about opinions I don't share. But the behaviour of people like you makes me sick.

If you liked discussing things on a normal and reasonable level, you wouldn't be exploding with expletives, typing in all "CAPS", and inserting your angry little emoticons, every time you happen to read something that I've posted that you don't agree with. You are one of the very few users I've seen in the forum that does this with any degree of consistency.

Btw, do you really listen to Stratovarius? If you do so, you don't really agree with their lyrics, right?

I like Rush, but don't pay much attention to Neil Peart's atheism or rude comments about his American fans. Queensryche's Operation: Mindcrime, is another example; love the music, but could care less for their political views.

If I didn't listen to and/or like Stratovarius, then why would I post to its forum? I love Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Saturday Night Special", but am not exactly what you'd call a supporter of gun control. So, are you saying that everyone who doesn't necessarily agree with the lyrical content of a writer is not really a fan?

I just read some bullshit written on the first page of this topic! It's suprising how much fucking rubbish can be posted in this forum!!
How aggressive some promote their extreme opinions here... unbelievable...
Ignorant and... argh, go wasted!

And what extreme opinions, specifically, are we discussing here? Because I believe in justice and the spirit, if not the absolute rule of, the law?

Ignorant? Hmm, let's take a look at some genuine and bona fide evidence to the contrary:

The EU/Europe has over the years-

a) Not held Saddam accountable for UN weapons inspectors in Iraq

(EU= does nothing)

b) In collusion with the UN, helped to make an end
run around the sanctions and cease-fire terms of
Gulf War I via the "Oil for Food" and other UN/EU
related scams.

(EU= does plenty to line its pockets, but no accountability for Saddam. Only collusion and collaboration. Just ask Kofi and his son. )

c) Vetoed the authorization to use force on Saddam
if he did not come clean on WMD.

(EU= no accountability for Saddam yet again. War is
now unavoidable- a frequent fruit of European style
diplomacy)

d) Protested Gulf War II endlessly, and brand new French and Russian ordnance and weapons (anti-tank,
etc.) were found there by US troops.

(EU= does nothing other than complain, again.)

e) Austrian arms manufacturer Steyr Mannlicher, last
year had sold over 800 .50 caliber high-tech
sniper rifles to Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
Wonder what happened to those rifles now that we
have seen a recent upswing in sniper attacks
against Coalition forces (dutifully played over
and over again by al-Jazeera's US subsidiary,
CNN)?

(EU= What arms sale to Iran? Oh, .50 Cal rifles? As long as you shoot them at US or UK troops, then it's okay with us.)

f) Protested that the US were running "gulags" and
forcing information from known terror gangs and
operatives.

(EU= We'd rather condemn America, than save ourselves)


g) American nuclear weapons have defended Western
Europe from the Red Army (and now Russia) for
two generations now.

I wouldn't brag too much about Europe being at peace for 60 years now- the USSR certainly had designs on Western Europe, and I am sure that the Kremlin is getting a bit restless these days.

I propose that all US forces and weapons be removed, as they are no longer needed there. Besides, if Putin wants to bully the EU, he now has Gazprom- even if he doesn't have sufficient fuel for his fleet of 50,000 aging T-72 and T-80 tanks at the moment.

However, I am sure that Russia would most likely begin rearmament on at least some scale with its new oil and natural gas profits.

I'm sure that the Kremlin's opinion is that the EU will do as its told, or else- Gazprom shuts off the valves for now; and possibly worse later. The same applies to the imams, so I hope that the EU enjoys its new Dhimmi status. Instead of the bells of Notre Dame, just get used to hearing "Allu, Akbar" from the towers, and five times a day, no less.

[stratohawk]

Well, miditek I'll explain my reaction to you (though I guess you know it anyways): You wrote"Why do you think that Germany, France, and Russia opposed Gulf War II so vociferously? It was certainly not out of concern for Iraq or its people, as they so self righteously declared, but were more or less, acting out of their own economic self-interests. "
But you never, never ever look at your own government and on the egoistic business they are running. You always blame EU and UN but never ask yourself if there could be anything wrong inside your own country. That's the point that makes me angry. Always pointing the finger out on others, but not at least questioning some facts that show some responsibility on your own side.
You explained in detail again why you so much dislike the EU. But what you didn't answer was my question: What about US governments doing business with Saddam in the 80s? About arming the Taliban? About supporting dictators in any part of the world, just because at that time they were a usable tool in their hands? But letting them fall when the wind was changing (IMO Saddam is even a very good example for that). What about these things?
I often mentioned that I don't live in the illusion that our own governments are saints. Corruption is every where. Also our German government is doing almost nothing to improve things about social problems here. At least nobody can blame them for doing nothing in international crisis, as the UNIFIL fleet is guided by German ships, or German soldiers are in Afghanistan, at the Horn of Africa or in Kongo. But if you always blame our governments: I tell you that the hundred thousands of protesters in our streets were neither Saddam supporters nor businessman that were afraid of losing business when Saddam's time is over. We simply didn't want another useless war to get started. The result now is far from the worst everybody expected.
Of course you don't like UN and EU to condemn Guantanamo (is that what you ment with Gulag? Sorry, my English abilities are limited), because Guantanamo is a tool in the "war on terrorism", which in my (and many others) opinion is simply against human rights.
I know we differ in opinions about one very important fact: Collateral damages. Every civilian that is killed in a war, every innocent person that is imprisoned in Guantanamo for years is in my opinion a reason to stop actions like that. In your opinion they are unevitable victims.

So, I know we differ in opinions and that's nothing bad. Just for example like in this topic, where I expected some controverse discussions about death penalty, I again had to read your accusations based on a mixture of facts and your own imagination against my country. That's what made me angry. Why do you so much have the drive to show us again and again your disguise against the rest of the world?

A completely different point, on which I understand you, is: Since the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003 it seems like the rest of the world has forgotten what US has done good to this world. I see that you miss some being grateful for the US protecting Europe against the Sovjets, for building up Germany etc. I want to tell you that I simply don't want to mix this together with the crisis of nowaday. The administration of GWB has nothing to do with the benefits tha rest of the world got from the USA. If we had a different topic of on topics like the Cold War, you would definitely read different opinions from me.
Oh, what just comes to my mind: Politic of appeasement is not always something bad. Think of the Cuba Crisis. If GWB was President at those times, WWIII would have been inevitable. Thank God you had John F. Kennedy who solved the crisis in a peaceful way, and on both sides not losing his face (German saying, dunno if this exists in your language) before the Sovjets but also not giving up on an important issue of safety for the US. Believe me, if Dubya was President at those days, the nuclear missiles would have been launched.

I just forgot another point: No, I don't say you shouldn't listen to music to which's content you do not totally agree with. I was just interested. Personally I must say I pay lots of attention to lyrics (that's also why I like Strato so much ), and I cannot really listen to music with lyrics I absolutely disagree with. Though I might like the music, I don't listen to many cause of Satanistic contents or glorification of violence. I would never listen to the music of right extremist nazi bands (we have them here just as in any other country, although they are prohibited), no matter how "good" the music itself would be.
But yeah, that's different for everybody, I was simply interested.

[NeonVomit]

Claiming the US never did/does anything wrong and saying the EU and Russia are responsible for all that is bad in the world is beyond ridiculous.

The current US administration has failed time and time again, and they paid the price for it by losing both houses of Congress.

[browneyedgirl]

Claiming the US never did/does anything wrong and saying the EU and Russia are responsible for all that is bad in the world is beyond ridiculous.

The current US administration has failed time and time again, and they paid the price for it by losing both houses of Congress.

Being a Democrat,I am so happy that we took back both houses! BUT, now if anything goes wrong the "other side" will have a handy scapegoat to blame problems on.

But, YEAAAAAAA! We won! Thats a first step. Bringing the boys home, raising minimum wage&better health care for starters.

[Carcass]

Plus, the market regulates itself. If $2 an hour is such a bad wage, no one will work for it, the businesses will have to raise their wages. Really, everything'll balance itself out. But I'm not advocating an end to minimum wage, I simply want the minimum wage to stay at the minimum...

I believe the counter argument would be that a lot of people don't have the luxury of choosing their occupation. Dems want to give them a chance for life with more dignity. But I'm no economist, so....

[Carcass]

Damn, there are so many posts I want to reply to, I'll do my best but I'm extremely busy for the time being.

[JensJohansson]

Plus, the market regulates itself. If $2 an hour is such a bad wage, no one will work for it, the businesses will have to raise their wages. Really, everything'll balance itself out. But I'm not advocating an end to minimum wage, I simply want the minimum wage to stay at the minimum...

"The market" (whatever that is) unfortunately can't solve each and every problem in the world. You get a nice fringe benefit from structures such as governments and laws evolving. Without them we'd still be climbing the trees.. perhaps we would be trading bananas with each other and all the banana trading would be market guided and self regulated ... well at least locally, in the places where you can grow bananas. Yes, there would be no minimum wage in bananas. You offer me two bananas for one hour of picking nits, I say fuck you, there's someone three branches down who'll undercut you and only charge a banana and a half! But we'd still have smallpox around. If you don't like this planet with its governments and laws etc... I don't know what to say really? Buy a rocket ship and start over somewhere else? Earth... love it or leave it! =)

[JensJohansson]

The EU/Europe has over the years-

Well, that seemed like a list of some stuff from the last.. 10 years or so. You have to look at it from another perspective. The last 1000 years have been very depressing... people in the US just have to adapt to the fact that people in Europe are a bit wary of starting armed conflicts, having fought so many senseless wars in the past. You're going to have a hard time to make a rational argument to eg. a German or Russian person that starting wars is no big deal. That's just how things are. I'm not saying you're not free to try, I'm just saying there is not that much sense in beating your head against the wall 400 times trying to do that.

"Why the hell do people in the US have to adapt to the attitudes of Russians and Eurotrash" you might ask? Well, the world is a smaller place nowadays and just about everything is interconnected. A truly successful "war on terror" (which I would rather describe as a long-term conflict on religious radicalism or other insanity) will take international cooperation, and it's not the kind of conflict that will be solved militarily. It will have more of the characteristics or an international police operation, and intelligence gathering and cross-border cooperation will be crucial.

e) Austrian arms manufacturer Steyr Mannlicher, last year had sold over 800 .50 caliber high-tech sniper rifles to Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Wonder what happened to those rifles now that we have seen a recent upswing in sniper attacks against Coalition forces (dutifully played over and over again by al-Jazeera's US subsidiary, CNN)?

... do I detect some hint of a call for some sort of gun control in this paragraph?

After all, it's not the rifles that kill Coalition forces. It's the people firing those rifles? Right?

[browneyedgirl]

Plus, the market regulates itself. If $2 an hour is such a bad wage, no one will work for it, the businesses will have to raise their wages. Really, everything'll balance itself out. But I'm not advocating an end to minimum wage, I simply want the minimum wage to stay at the minimum...

I believe the counter argument would be that a lot of people don't have the luxury of choosing their occupation. Dems want to give them a chance for life with more dignity. But I'm no economist, so....

Amen to that. Not all of us can be doctors, lawyers, professors, or musicians.
I have a socialist view of life&I think minimum wage should rise proporionately to the cost of goods&services. Damn, if all the wages in Poduck, Alabama rose as the price of gas, everyone would be able to move out of their Jetstream trailers! Which would mean a booming construction&real estate business. Plus, poor people would be able to buy more clothes, beer, TVs&CDs. And, visit the doctor&dentists to have better health care.
So, Hell yeah, I am for raising minimum wage because it would raise the comfort of living for everyone in the end. You squash the "little person" in financial&social ways, and it will come back to haunt eventually.
@Kork, have you ever tried living on a minimum wage? Walk in someone else's shoes before you are so harsh. But, I guess you are one of the privileged ones who would ever understand.
And that comment, "you are paid what you are worth." WTF was that? Maybe the garbagemen, ditchdiggers, factoryworkers, waiters, clerks etc.(you know-- the people you big shots spit upon, figuretively speaking)in the world will all die, or go on permanent strike and the "high&mighty" would not take those services for granted. Especially if you had to build your own car or TV, pour your own coffee, or take your own garbage to the dump. Oh, we don't want our daughters to marry such lowlifes as lower class workers, and you well-off folks don't want to even speak or acknowledge them as humans, even---but in the end you upper class cannot live without these services. So, really, how much worth do you want to put on a human life? And, that kind of attitude causes mucho, mucho anger to build up between the classes----anger that is not so good to the upper class, believe me. If you think the upper class disrespects&hates the lower class, you do not realize and cannot imagine how much the lower class despises the snotty nose arrogant upper class. And, don't flatter yourself, the feeling is not envy or jealousy. Its just that being respected&liked for what you have, possess&how far up the fame&wealth ladder a person's rung is does not fare well with great, decent&yeah, believe it or not, intelligent lower class people who simply have not had the breaks, or just made slip-ups in life.
But, life usually evens itself out and what is a short life of UNdeserved disrespect, and hardship compared to an eternal bliss in Heaven? But, I know you would not understand any of that stuff, so lets leave it here.

[Carcass]

Its really nothing more than "take from the rich and give to the poor." And of course BEG firmly stands behind it not because its just, not because its fair, but because SHE sees a personal benefit from it.

And don't you benefit from what you demand from your economy too? The poor certainly do not.

American dream is a joke for the great majority of the poor. The chance of changing their rags to riches is between slim and nil, no matter how hard they work, especially if they do not have an education.

You seem to take great pride in that you didn't resort to welfare. It's not a thing to be ashamed over if you do that, it's your right as a citizen. And I would say, the responsibility of the state is to provide the citizens a welfare system that can support them if they can't do it themselves. Believe me, very few out there actually want to be unemployed. It can be a hell on earth.

[NeonVomit]

But, life usually evens itself out and what is a short life of UNdeserved disrespect, and hardship compared to an eternal bliss in Heaven? But, I know you would not understand any of that stuff, so lets leave it here.

Remember not eveyone believes that. For many people, what happens in this life is all that matters.

Anyway, 'bringing the boys back home' will probably not do much good. Neither does staying there. It was a massive error to go in in the first place. Leaving now however would probably give a very negative message "We came, we saw, we destroyed, we left" whereas 'staying the course' (whatever that means) might possibly make some people happy.

[JensJohansson]

And you for some reason think you're so much better than the person who's willing to work for 1.5 bananas, and you just deserve more, right?

No, I'm saying that if everyone agrees that for example 2 bananas is the minimum wage for nit-picking, and as a bonus we don't have smallpox then I'm ok with paying the two bananas. =)

Think of it this way: your services are worth what they pay you. An artificial minimum wage does this: it says that even though any uneducated moron can stock the shelves, and lots of people will do it for 4 bucks an hour, YOU arbitrarily deserve 7.25. And once again, its not just free money. That 7.25 costs the business which must raise its prices to compensate, so everyone else gets screwed over.

Who are "they"? In short: everyone. There used to be no minimum wage laws.. no laws prohibiting child labor.. and unions used to be outlawed. Then people voted for politicians who got them all these things. You have to live with that, that's the price you pay for being part of a Western democracy.

But tell me this: if markets can solve every problem, why do countries even need government-mandated things like firemen, laws, police and armies?

My house is on fire.. but I'm sure the all-knowing market will somehow help putting the fire out!

Because I'll run around the neighborhood (= makeshift marketplace for firefighting services) screaming "Hey!! You look like an uneducated moron.. I'll pay you $7.25 if you can put it out in an hour! NO? OK, how about $10!? OK... I'll pay you $50??"

While the house burns down.

[JensJohansson]

It seems as though your entire argument consists not of why a minimum wage is necessary, but that the people voted for it and I have to live with it. Well of course I have to live with it, I"m not saying we should overthrow the government and ignore its laws, I'm just trying to represent the other side of the opinion against the new initiatives which are attempting to RAISE the minimum wage from $5/hour to $7 hour. What I personally believe is that a minimum wage (if we have one) should truly be the MINIMUM wage.

Yes, that is basically the entirety of my argument. I know it's a bit "black-or-white" but it goes to the deepest issue: should society mess with the free market? The issues of "how much" are just details. The fact is that without society messing with the free market for a long time we would not have gotten as far as we have.

What I am in fact attacking is not the $5 minimum wage, but the "governments are evil" strawman... because it's actually not a strawman amongst some of the "market can solve everything" libertarian droids out there. Granted... that is the opinion of the wild-eyed lunatic libertarian fringe, but at least for the last 6 years, it appears as if the lunatics took over the asylum in the US... just look at the national debt due to tax decreases and military spending. (And if not outright took it over, at least had a lot of influence.)

Regarding the less interesting topic of the minimum wage.. we're basically both wasting our energy.. the US elections went the way they did, and I'm confident it will be raised some day no matter what we type here... =)

(What about inflation? I don't even know if the minimum wage in the US is tied to the consumer price index. It would make sense to me if it was anyway)

I have trouble believing that in this great country with all the welfare programs, all the charities, that life is SO tough for the people (people who slacked off throughout their public education and never made anything of themselves) that we should raise their minimum wage EVEN more because...why, are they starving??

Of course there are people slacking off, and people are ultimately responsible for themselves. A general increase in wages or the standard of living is in my opinion never a bad thing though, it increases the quality of life for everyone at the expense of (or in compensation of) some inflation and tax pressure. I see a big, long-term picture of people's standard of living increasing a lot the last 10000 years, moving out of cages and such. None of this would have been possible without social contracts.

People who are working at minimum wage pay no income taxes. People who earn industry wages in software development pay 40%. Now that is injustice. But hey, its one of the many ways (along with welfare, charities, government programs) that we make life easier for the economic lower class. we shouldn't have to, in addition to all of this government help, have to raise their wages too. I really don't think that many Americans are starving (hell there are food banks ).

There are many other ways to look at these problems than "they = the economic lower class in the US" versus "us = not the economic lower class in the US". I'd go as far as saying that your dichotomization is stuck in the 50's... the 1850's. I'm not saying Marx' ideas didn't reflect some real issues in society at the time, or that there is a little truth or value in still refering to societal classes at war with each other. But some new ideas will probably be needed also. You for instance see yourself at odds with a US "lower class" that is being coddled by expensive government protection, while a lot of the jobs in the US are being outsourced as we speak... here it's the market redistributing wealth on a massive scale, eg. from the US to India. I have a feeling that Marx would probably at least smile at this.. it's almost like some sort of socialist international created by market pressures.

So it's an immensely complicated thing to figure out what to do. For instance, what's your opinion, should the US government protect the US manufacturing industry, or just let the all-benevolent market weed out those ultimately unprofitable US companies in favor of eg. Chinese manufacturing companies?

My guess is that neither of us are probably interested in economics or sociology enough to come up with any novel ideas.

The answer to that question is extraordinarily simple. Fireman, police and armies are jobs which take some form of skill, be it physical or mental. And in this capitalist society that we (well, at least I) live in, we reward people who do services for us.

That still doesn't answer the question why the government should have a monopoly in providing these services. Or any services. To make it more interesting, what makes the army so different from eg. health care?