Quit griping!

[Phi for All]

I'm just trying to say that griping is pointless.***clip*** I'm just saying whining IS NOT GOING TO HELP.***clip***I think people know about the need for solutions.

*Sigh*

 

Do you think the American Revolution was pointless? That started out with a bunch of misrepresented folks sitting around griping. If we all sat around thinking other people must know about the need for solutions and must be doing something about it, change and progress would never happen.

My parents have no problems with any of these taxes or anything. Not that they agree with them, but we're perfectly fine. No monetary worries, and we're not rich either.

Really? Your folks pulled out of the Mutual Fund market early enough not to be burned when Bush took over? Good for them, I wish I would have been more of a speculator instead of an investor.

 

Again, please don't take offense, but are you thinking about your own future? Things may seem fine for you now but what happens when Social Security is not there for you? What happens when your children can't get a decent education because the education bill was underfunded in order to start another war? Unrestricted logging means you may not be able to take your kids camping in the forest some day, or your kid's kids may not get to see them. If we keep allowing higher levels of toxins into our environment, which generation of Refsmmat's is going to be hit the hardest? Do you hope your children and grandchildren will just sit back and bear injustice like good little consumers?

 

I do hope you are thinking about them some of the time. Their future starts now.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

*Sigh*

 

Do you think the American Revolution was pointless? That started out with a bunch of misrepresented folks sitting around griping. If we all sat around thinking other people must know about the need for solutions and must be doing something about it' date=' change and progress would never happen.[/quote'] I never said that you should not do anything, just that griping is pointless!!!!!

 

Really? Your folks pulled out of the Mutual Fund market early enough not to be burned when Bush took over? Good for them, I wish I would have been more of a speculator instead of an investor.

Who said that they ever had mutual funds?

 

Again, please don't take offense, but are you thinking about your own future? Things may seem fine for you now but what happens when Social Security is not there for you? What happens when your children can't get a decent education because the education bill was underfunded in order to start another war? Unrestricted logging means you may not be able to take your kids camping in the forest some day, or your kid's kids may not get to see them. If we keep allowing higher levels of toxins into our environment, which generation of Refsmmat's is going to be hit the hardest? Do you hope your children and grandchildren will just sit back and bear injustice like good little consumers?

Don't you think that, even if he IS re-elected, that by the time I have kid's he'll be gone? Pollution is going down, and the US is NOT the only polluter. There are at least 100 other countries. Bush doesn't make decisions for the world. The Earth is only entirely united in Star Trek.

Besides, humans account to only 5% of global warming. Following the Kyoto Protocol, according to computer predictions, will lower the average temperature (compared to what it would be without it) by about .1 degrees. Pollution is also caused by cow farts and sheep farts, so why don't we regulate them?

[Dave]

Don't you think that, even if he IS re-elected, that by the time I have kid's he'll be gone?

 

The attitude of "it's someone else's problem, let them sort it out" is quite apparant throughout a number of your posts and this puts the nail in the proverbial coffin. This approach really does not work in a democratic system - each and every person in the country (ideally) should submit a vote, but many people just can't be bothered to go out there and cast their opinion because they think other people will do it.

 

Bush doesn't make decisions for the world. The Earth is only entirely united in Star Trek.

 

Funny that, because he acts like he does - what with invading Iraq and all.

 

(sorry, had to get that in)

 

On the discussion of one of the early posts:

 

The problem in Iraq is what is victory? We won the war. How do we know when to leave? When enough people get tired of it?

 

How exactly do you win a war on terrorism?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The attitude of "it's someone else's problem, let them sort it out" is quite apparant throughout a number of your posts and this puts the nail in the proverbial coffin. This approach really does not work in a democratic system - each and every person in the country (ideally) should submit a vote, but many people just can't be bothered to go out there and cast their opinion because they think other people will do it.

I'm sorry, I guess I'm not typing what I mean. I don't think we should leave it to others to sort out. That's why we should quit griping and come up with solutions!

 

 

 

Funny that' date=' because he acts like he does - what with invading Iraq and all.

 

(sorry, had to get that in)[/quote'] World policing is different then ruling it all.

 

How exactly do you win a war on terrorism?

You can't, as far as I know. The stupid terrorists keep popping up all over the place. They're like weeds. You can't kill them all. Even if you're the Roundup of countries, some of them go unseen and then POOF! there's hundreds more!

[jordan]

Would anyone like to comment on my first post in this thread, especially the second big paragraph about Iraq. I don't want to sound forceful or whining or anything, but I touched upon the "how do you win a war on terror" and "what is all the griping good for" questions, but no one has responded to my thoughts. I want to know what people think.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It might not be so much griping as pointing out the lack of responsability or leadership and thus a reason not to vote for that person. Everyone has their best interests in mind when they vote and they want to perswade others that their candidate is better. To do that, one must show the downfalls of the other (though that can get very annoying hearing the same thing over and over). If I can show that Bush was negligent in 9/11, I can convince people not to vote for him. By doing that, I can prevent it from happening again. So while I can't change the past, I can use the past to change the future.

Yes, that's true. You can't change what they did already. So I agree there.

 

The one thing that does bother me are the uncontrolable situations. The one right now is Iraq. I feel the time to complain is over. Iraq is no longer a choice. We have to finish it whether we like it or not. I believe that when the people of the world hear how the US can't even keep itself united during the war, we make ourselves look worse that when Bush went into Iraq without the approval of the UN. I would imagine that when the protestors and bombers in Iraq hear that the US is crumbling from within over conflicts about the death toll, that is just more of a reason for them to want to attack our troops. Since we are stuck in Iraq until it's finished, I say let's stand behind the troops, back our own country, show them we wont give in and just finish the job. Then you can complain or whatever, but complaining now is just making the situation worse and that isn't something you should want.

So true. So true that it's actually kind of sad. We're commited and we're stuck. Leave and the terrorists take Iraq back and then the whole effort is ruined. Instead of saying "There's too many casualties, we shouldn't have gone there!" you should try to think of a solution.

Of course in this situation there is no good solution. I've thought about it several times. Leave and terrorists come back. If we get the UN and all of our allies to help, they'll still kill them, just less of ours and more of other people. That's still not satisfactory. You want to eliminate the casualties and the waste of money, but that is NOT possible.

Go ahead, try to think of one.

[jordan]

If the terrorist in Iraq saw that the world was united against them (rather than devided because of them) do you think they would continue to fight?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Of course! Unless an Arab country/countries came and helped out, then they'd just fight against the evil non-believers until they were all dead. They believe that they'd go to heaven for it too.

Not that all Muslims are like that, it's just the radicals.

[budullewraagh]

terrorist

please properly use that word

[jordan]

Argue semantics if you wish, but my point still means the same thing.

[Thales]

Its not semantics. Its a critical point. Too many naive Americans operate under the assumption that if someone sets out to kill or maime an American soldier they are terrorists. As for Bush. What a clown! As I have said repeatedly(in the hope it will get through)people fail to realise that re-electing him will futher distance America and Americans from the rest of the world. The fact that more than half the country(extrapolating from the latest polls) supports him illudes to the extent of naivity and stupidity in your country. The guy is a ultra right wing mo-fo but unfortunately most people who vote for him don't understand that(or the concept of right/left (in more ways than one)).

 

As for griping. It does help. Discussions such as this yield interesting and informative viewpoints from which the seeds of change can be sown. People who are against such discussions are usual that way as a result of not wanting their baseless doctrines to be challenged. Unfortunately the value of questioning things and of frank open discussions such as these has been forcefully forgotten.

 

As for a solution to the terrorist problem, to me it seems obvious. Address the root causes, stop antagonising them and respect peoples right to have religious/political diversity. Terrorists didn't just start blowing things up because they felt like it, they are responding to Americas unjustified global policing. I'm not saying they are right but you cannot seriously hold that America has done/is doing no wrong. If you research the facts and take an objective look at recent history, America has one of the worst human rights records of all 'developed' nations. Investing in poorer counrties, educating them and helping them will be more productive than killing people, always. To quote president Eisenhower;

 

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

 

The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children....

 

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.

 

Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross."

[Phi for All]

president Eisenhower;

 

"Every gun that is made' date=' every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

 

The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children....

 

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.

 

Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross."[/quote']I like Ike!

 

This from a man who'd seen it all, from 2nd lietenant to Commander-in-Chief. He signed bills starting the interstate highway system and NASA.

 

I think Ike would kick Bush's a$$ from here to eternity if he was alive to see what a world-class mockery he's made of the office of the President of the United States.

[jordan]

As for a solution to the terrorist problem, to me it seems obvious. Address the root causes, stop antagonising them and respect peoples right to have religious/political diversity. Terrorists didn't just start blowing things up because they felt like it, they are responding to Americas unjustified global policing. I'm not saying they are right but you cannot seriously hold that America has done/is doing no wrong. If you research the facts and take an objective look at recent history, America has one of the worst human rights records of all 'developed' nations. Investing in poorer counrties, educating them and helping them will be more productive than killing people, always. To quote president Eisenhower

Whether I agree with this or not doesn't seem important because I think you are making a case for the future of our country's foreign policy and not trying to deal with the present. In Iraq, there is no way to alleviate the current situation by not antogonising them. If we just leave, Iraq with plunge into anarchy and if you want to talk about poor fereign relations, how about invading a country on a mistake and then pulling out and letting them fight it out with bombs. That wont work. So in the future, perhaps letting them fight amungst themselves might be an option, but it isn't a very good one right now. We need a good plan for how to get out of Iraq, but leave it a peaceful nation. When Iraq is stable, we can start in with the education investments and such. However, I don't think the "men who are currently resisting American troops with guns and bombs" (does that make my meaning more effective than using "terrorist"?) are going to want to go to class and learn about democracy. Therefore, it seems the best solution is to stop griping (for the time being) and finish the job in Iraq. Once that's done, go protest on the White House lawn and plead America becomes isolationist, but until then, lets make the best of a bad situation and get out of Iraq as quick as possible by uniting and not griping.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

freak of a politician

If you want a disgusting politician, try Ted Kennedy. He picks his nose and flicks the snot at others...

Seriously. My mother SAW HIM DO IT while in a debate. (no, not when he was a kid, either)

[Dave]

Whether I agree with this or not doesn't seem important because I think you are making a case for the future of our country's foreign policy and not trying to deal with the present. In Iraq, there is no way to alleviate the current situation by not antogonising them. If we just leave, Iraq with plunge into anarchy and if you want to talk about poor fereign relations, how about invading a country on a mistake and then pulling out and letting them fight it out with bombs. < snip >

 

This is the precise problem that Bush has landed your country in: what the hell do we do now? If invalding Iraq was truly a part of the "war on terrorism" - which, for the record, I highly doubt - what next? Do we go invade Iran as well, Syria, or what?

 

This is the ideal example of opening Pandora's Box. Now that Bush has declared war on all terrorists and started overthrowing countries, more and more terrorist groups are just going to pop up all over the place and the situation is going to decline rapidly.

 

As for dealing with the present, part of that is sort the foreign policy out completely. That policy has lead to a few wars, the WTC being demolished, God knows how many human lives and a lot more. When is going to be a good time to deal with it? 10 years time? Unless something is done to correct the issue immediately, there's always going to be excuses to put it off.

 

So I guess what I'm saying is: sure, sort Iraq out (because Christ knows something needs to be done), but look at what has already happened - it should be blatently obvious that a policy that dictates to the world is not a good route to go down.

 

To address another issue:

 

I'm sorry, I guess I'm not typing what I mean. I don't think we should leave it to others to sort out. That's why we should quit griping and come up with solutions!

 

Your present Government just isn't listening to anyone. Do you really think that Bush is going to come along and say: "Hey, that war on Iraq was just a bad idea all along! Let's call it quits and get some peace convoys in!" No. Because he'd kill his political career - which is what this war is really about when it comes down to it. So if people moan and moan and moan, then something may get done eventually.

 

The only way I can foresee anything of good happening is when someone gets elected that cares a bit more for helping the world out rather than getting re-elected, and that person most certainly is not Bush.

[Thales]

The point is that what I am talking about is the future. So first we are not allowed to gripe about the past and now we shouldn't be worrying about the future?

 

The American government is notorious for making the same mistake repeatedly. That and it is hardly democracy if you force it onto people. You will never defeat terrorism by bombing islamic countries, never. Maybe that was where the truth lies in Bush's statement about how this war can't be won. It certainly can't be using his methods which create terrorists and make it easier for them to recruit moderates to the hard line. As for the semantics we had an in depth discussion about the difference between Iraqi's who are fighting for their nations soveriegnty(because they are being occupied by an unwanted force) and foreign terrorists who have entered the country because, even though it wasn't before, Bush has made it the front line on the 'war on terror'.

 

What I find interesting is other than the obvious Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, the last three 'wars' this administration have declared have been; A war on drugs, a war on terror and a war on poverty. What they fail to realise is that declaring war on these entities is probably the worst possible way to affect positive change. But if it stikes a cord with the increasingly naive electorate then what does positive change matter?

 

Sure things need to be finished in Iraq but gun toting US soldiers who have obviously not been educated in cultural sensitivities are doing little to quell the violence. I'm not saying leave but the UN should have been involved all along and the only reason the Americans haven't formally requested their assistance is because they are too darn proud to admit their own shortcomings. Well that pride is costing lives, both American and Iraqi. Is that something to be proud of?

[john5746]

However, I don't think the "men who are currently resisting American troops with guns and bombs" (does that make my meaning more effective than using "terrorist"?)

 

Iraq has terrorists, sure but everyone fighting isn't a terrorist. We need to quit generalizing every Arab with a gun as a terrorist. You have different factions in Iraq trying to gain power. Iran has a vested interest in making Iraq a Shiite theocracy, just as we want them to be a democracy. The majority are Shiite.

 

This can very easily end up being a civil war, not just a few thugs killing to make a point. This is a difficult situation. We could train a nice military, only to watch it go to the other side. Both sides dislike America more than each other.

[budullewraagh]

i do not believe, however, that iraq would turn its military forces on the united states anytime soon at least

[john5746]

i do not believe, however, that iraq would turn its military forces on the united states anytime soon at least

 

I wasn't suggesting that, just that the military may not support "our" Iraqi government after a withdraw.

[budullewraagh]

agreed

[Sayonara]

First of all, to you whining about casualties: In the Civil War, 20,000 people could die in ONE DAY.

There are so many things wrong with this I am not sure where to begin.

 

"Whining", jesus

[Dave]

I wasn't suggesting that, just that the military may not support "our" Iraqi government after a withdraw.

 

Quite. After the US pulls its troops out, everything is going to go completely and utterly pear shaped (not that it isn't already, that is). I don't think it'll be possible to keep a stable democracy running in that country.

[jordan]

I would disagree dave. It will be some time before a major pull-out of Iraq, and even longer until we completely pull out. We should know by then if the new government is capable of controlling the country.

 

I really don't see what makes Iraq so much different than any other country. If they want democracy, democracy should be able to survive. Sure, there are those against it, but many democracies have rebels and still survive. It may take a while for the country to smooth out, but that's the legacy of Saddam for you.

[Sayonara]

*cough* Afghanistan *cough*

[jordan]

Alright Sayo. Let me know about Afghanistan. I'm aware that I know very little about the history of the middle east, so perhaps you could explain where I went wrong and enlighten me.