8 million+ iraqis defy terrorists & insurgents to vote: widespread dancing in the streets

Sweet!



Can we come home now?

Unfortunatley, we have to keep troops there to babysit for god knows how long. The presence of armed force is the only thing that prevents another leader rising ffrom the ashes of previous dictatorships and seizing control of the people--even the ones that would like to see a more democratic and peaceful style of govt.
Might makes right, sad but true

we ?
when did you go to iraq ?

you're well aware of what I meant, regardless of your need to draw attention to my improper pronoun usage

[Lefty]

It'll be years, Halliburton & Brown & Root found a cash cow w/political backing (HURRAY profit sharing for the V.P!) Between massively overbilling the military for everything (getting caught red handed & facing no penalties at all) & the reconstruction for all the shit we blew up it's atleast a decade. You don't think the C.I.A., which has has disastrous results like Noriega, Hussein, and countless others, isn't hip deep & billing every second of it? Slush funds & black ops abound, surely.

i wasn't mocking you, vroota.
my target was shredder.
sorry about the misunderstanding.
his remark seemed to me to
imply he was trying to represent our troops
as if they were begging to come home right now
instead of finishing their jobs first.


(Message edited by admin on February 14, 2005)

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Halliburton &amp; Brown &amp; Root found a cash cow w/political backing (HURRAY profit sharing for the V.P!) Between massively overbilling the military for everything (getting caught red handed &amp; facing no penalties at all) &amp; the reconstruction for all the shit we blew up it's atleast a decade. You don't think the C.I.A., which has has disastrous results like Noriega, Hussein, and countless others, isn't hip deep &amp; billing every second of it? Slush funds &amp; black ops abound, surely.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

yada yada yada
just rain on the parade
not a shred of proof
pure speculation, conjecture
meant to diminish the
euphoria we all rightly feel
with this success.



(Message edited by admin on February 14, 2005)

btw, you're wrong.
hallibrton recently announced that it won't be seeking new contracts in iraq after the current ones run out.

EDIT: poor Shredder

(Message edited by vrooota on February 14, 2005)

we ?
when did you go to iraq ?

Yes!!! I love it!!! The man who loves to rant and rave about how we're all one people and how everyone is a brother and sister to everyone is mocking me for choosing to include myself in the mass collective that is this supposed oneness. Excuse me as I squeeze out a nice big loaf of . Mock away!!!

And I like this "until the job is done" shit. Yep, like the job fully done in Afganistan. When does this Great Victory get declared and we can bring our troops home? Because I remember Bush sitting on this aircraft carrier...oh, wait, this is just more rhetoric based in their propogandha. I'll stop.

(Message edited by taoistshredder on February 14, 2005)

well, it's just that by using the word we
you were insinuating yourself into the
equation and putting your words in their mouths
so i just had to take exception.
i don't think a person who is hostile
to their mission really should try to
represent that he speaks in their behalf.
on the other,
let's see
WW2 ended 60 years ago
rumors abound that we won that war
yet we still have tens of thousands
of personnel deployed in all of the
combatant nations, germany, italy and japan.
not to mention in others that were our allies,
such as the UK, canada, australia.
does the fact that our troops are still there 60 years later really
signal a defeat for us ?
would not the long term presence of our troops in iraq, assuming the consent of the iraqis, actually be a good thing,
perhaps eventually forming
along with afghanistan and others
a new pan-arab form of NATO
to bring peace and security to the region ?

(Message edited by admin on February 14, 2005)

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

would not the long term presence of our troops in iraq, assuming the consent of the iraqis, actually be a good thing,
perhaps eventually forming
along with afghanistan and others
a new pan-arab form of NATO
to bring peace and security to the region ? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Is this the first step in the formation of the inevitable world state that you have spoken of? If so, other people around the world will see this before long and take offense at the assault on their soveiranty (whoa.. sp) and presumably try to kick out the troops while there is still time and they are spread thin

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Is this the first step in the formation of the inevitable world state that you have spoken of?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
indeed,
you catch my drift.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

we're all one people...everyone is a brother and sister to everyone <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
so you do not accept that notion
that we are all one ?
a brief study of the human genome
should help you to see my point.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

other people around the world will see this before long and take offense at the assault on their soveiranty (whoa.. sp) and presumably try to kick out the troops while there is still time and they are spread thin<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

yes,
you're quite right, imo.
the birth of the new unified human state
will of necessity
be a bloody painful process.
but once again one has to adopt
a long term perspective that places
the greater good of the future humanity
above the self interest of
existing nations, individuals,
religious or corporate concerns.
we must begin to think
as a species
not as isolated self interest groups.
it is in the interest of our species
to unify.
all other concerns are at best secondary.
but i think it's already far too late in the game for anything short of cosmic-scale disaster to halt or even slow the process.
history teaches us that states grow by absorbing other states and incorporating elements of that society into itself, spreading a new hybrid culture ever further.
until now each state has fallen short,
but the british came very very close
and i think one could mount a good argument that the brits actually still pull the strings worldwide via their proxy state, the usa,
their 'son' if you will.
modern technology, industry, transportation and communication networks have finally made a world state possible in real time.
and modern warfare technology has given us the ability to finish the job as long as certain vital key players such as russia and china are incorporated in the process.
which their own self interest ensures.
very soon china will begin to emerge as the third leg of a world-super-state formed on the remains of the old cold war nuclear powers.
as that process unfolds
i think we will see that no power on earth
will be able to avoid being assimilated.




(Message edited by admin on February 14, 2005)

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

but once again one has to adopt
a long term perspective that places
the greater good of the future humanity
above the self interest of
existing nations, individuals,
religious or corporate concerns.
we must begin to think
as a species
not as isolated self interest groups.
it is in the interest of our species
to unify.
all other concerns are at best secondary<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I could not agree with this sentiment more. I do however, differ in my opinion of methodology to accomplish making us "all one" Wars only encourage unity of groups, and not of the whole species. This is a true principle on every scale, not just globally. If an adolescent's parents try to force him/her to hold the same values as them and to be a functional part of "the group" in this case a family, they will undoubtedly react in an undesirable manner.
Just as you say that tech will make a world state possible in real time, I see the same technology based systems collapsing for lack of energy and resources capable of supporting a world state. I fear that the last of our supply of cheap fuel will be squadered on jets dropping bombs instead of tractors plowing fields. For those with the balls to look; the future is a boiling nexus of infinite possibilities. Not too many of them are particularly attractive. I just think that this whole policy of war and forced unification is a dangerous, back-asswards way to get people to come together. By the time it succeeds (if indeed you are correct and Bush [or his 'sponsor'?] is pushing for globalization and not just fun with guns) there may not be enough resources left to hold us together. We're certainly not a divine enough of a species to not fall back on survival of the fittest when the going gets tough. I wouldn't want any sort of future race conciousness to be born premature and die from something as silly as a lack of fuel.
Btw-I love this discussion-it is a subject that few people are comfortable engaging

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

I just think that this whole policy of war and forced unification is a dangerous, back-asswards way to get people to come together.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
perhaps
but it's the only way
as people/governments will never
just give consent
to a plan that works
against their own
short term interest
to benefit a generation as of yet unborn.
just as individuals are born wild
and must be socialized
to become fully human,
so too our societies must all be
tamed and forced to incorporate themselves
into a greater social harmony
whether the people now alive
like it or not.
being tamed and subdued
isn't much fun
for a wild animal
but it must be done
in the animal's own interest
if it is to survive dwelling
in a human society.
again
look to history as a guide.
did the ancient lands of germany, france or england come before rome and ask to be incorporated into the greater roman empire ?
no.
they had to be conquered, subdued, incorporated.
in doing so
a process began that is still unfolding
to this very day.

(Message edited by admin on February 15, 2005)

on the issue of resources and energy,
you really should look into some of the ideas of a fellow called bucky fuller.
he had a radical way of viewing wealth
that i share
that turns our conventional ways
of measuring expenses and resources
on its' head.
it's based on the laws of physics,
notably the 2nd law of thermodynamics
generalized to apply to human systems.
in essense resources and wealth
cannot really be destroyed or lost,
merely transformed into another form.
the earth is essentially a closed system,
or perhaps open at one end
in that the earth takes in energy and material
from the surrounding space environment
much more than it loses.
so while you see a looming disaster
when the oil runs out
instead i see a huge opportunity
as the loss of oil
will force huge re-allocations of wealth
and it is the movement of wealth
that fuels our world.
numberless billions will be spent
building new power sources and new engines
the entire world will be forced to go shopping
and the economic/commercial/governmental concerns will all stand to benefit.
ultimately we will turn to the most basic energy supply, also the most common, hydrogen.
perhaps in the form of fusion power eventually
but at least in the chemical energy now.
the wheels are already well in motion
to create a new hydrogen-powered economy
over the next century or so.
and that's just the tip
of the economic power iceburg,
more solar and wind and geothermal plants
will be built,
and perhaps even near-earth orbital space
will provide an inexhaustable supply of power
if NASA's plans ever come to fruition.
no sir,
it's a good thing that the oil is running out.
in the long run
the earth will be better off without it.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

it's a good thing that the oil is running out.
in the long run
the earth will be better off without it. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
That I agree with, but I don't see anyone doing much of anything to cushion us from the fall in the short term. Too much to gain from a resource that will continue to soar in price until it's too late for a lot of peeps. bucky fuller huh...

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Wars only encourage unity of groups, and not of the whole species. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

i daresay
you'd be hard pressed to
prove that true.
no one has ever waged a war
to unite the species
but i see no good reason
to just assume
that human nature would somehow suddenly change
just because the 'group'
has now become so large as to include us all.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

If an adolescent's parents try to force him/her to hold the same values as them and to be a functional part of "the group" in this case a family, they will undoubtedly react in an undesirable manner. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

this is not generally true either.
the simple fact is that most youngsters
do fall in line, get with the program
and do as they are told by parents/societal agents.
only a small % resist and rebel.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

but i see no good reason
to just assume
that human nature would somehow suddenly change
just because the 'group'
has now become so large as to include us all.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
A faction isn't really a faction if it includes the entire population. even during the civil war not many Union troops were really fooled into believing that they were fighting for unity, or were they? Could they have beeen so naive? I wouldn't know as I wasn't there, but today most acknowlege that the reasons that the civil war were fought had little to do with unity or even slavery as a moral concept.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

do fall in line, get with the program
and do as they are told by parents/societal agents. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Of course; this is necessary for continuity, but change is good in the right dosage to. New ideas don't come from those that are satisfied with a life of maintaining the status quo. Thats an aside though, my point was that any sort of repression will always cause a share of it's targets to resist. Religions that are persecuted, thrive; subcultures that are pressured legally and driven underground become more attractive to the type of person that roots for the underdog. In a nutshell: prohibition didn't stop drinking or alcholism; military force won't stop terrorism or people being divisive.

all governments becomes corrupt and tyranical eventually, and then they fall. It is and will continue to happen here in the US. The only government that could rule the world would be a tyranny. The only way to true peace is within, if we all attain that, then governments will disappear, people will cooperate, and the world would live as one, just like Lennon said in Imagine. THAT is the ONLY way. I hope god wasn't lying when he said the meek shall inherit the earth.

[Hippie3]

don't get too hung up on the definition of the word 'faction'
like that, it's just a word, limited.
but a 'faction' could include all living humans,
and we could call that faction 'society'.
if we all begin to see ourselves and others
as members in one big family
then much of the evil in this world
would wither away.

Originally Posted by vrooota!

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

but i see no good reason
to just assume
that human nature would somehow suddenly change
just because the 'group'
has now become so large as to include us all.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
A faction isn't really a faction if it includes the entire population. even during the civil war not many Union troops were really fooled into believing that they were fighting for unity, or were they? Could they have beeen so naive? I wouldn't know as I wasn't there, but today most acknowlege that the reasons that the civil war were fought had little to do with unity or even slavery as a moral concept.