REAL issues

ReconToaster wrote: Universal Healthcare yes. Full scale socialism no.

Well then, still involves surrendering rights to the government.

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote: Universal Healthcare yes. Full scale socialism no.

Well then, still involves surrendering rights to the government.

as does the patriot act... which you seem to support...

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ Base wrote:Were you not one of the people that supported socialism, universal healthcare, Obama, ect?
If not, then never mind.

Universal Healthcare yes. Full scale socialism no.

You do know that lots of countries have universal healthcare and it's not really working.

Universal Healthcare fails without a full socialist society backing it.

CivBase wrote:We're not even talking about the election, we're talking about Bush being blamed for things that weren't entirely his fault (or even his fault at all in some cases).

For some reason, Pie seems to believe that since Obama won the elections, all political debates can be ended by stating this. It's like some attempt to create a new, lame type of Godwin's Law in which the winner of the elections is instantly 100% right about all things or something. Now that I think about it, I believe that I promised Pie that if he lorded over someone about the elections one more time in some vain attempt to win a debate that had nothing to do with the elections, I would hunt him down and severe his fingers one at a time...

*begins tracking Pie down*

CivBase wrote:Not really twards it's civilians. Sure they fight the rebelian and try to kill the jedi, but they don't really show opression to the people themselves.

I seem to recall from one game or another that certain Rebellion characters with little attachment to the Jedi joined the Rebellion because their parents were killed by the Empire or they were oppressed or something like that.

CivBase wrote:lol
Pie, you may learn something from this whole discussion/debate/thing.

If this were true, Pie wouldn't be making the same mistakes as he has made in virtually every political debate he has participated in so far.

CivBase wrote:Were you not one of the people that supported socialism, universal healthcare, Obama, ect?
If not, then never mind.

I don't know if he supports full blown socialism, but then, neither does Obama overtly. It is all about slowly adding new systems until socialism is the inevitable outcome.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Hey Rot, what do you think is going to happen once we do pull out of Iraq, and then not to long after we start getting hit by terroist bombings in the U.S?

I expect a Fall of Saigon style collapse of Iraq after we pull out, though since this will be country wide rather than city wide, civilian casualties will far surpass the actual Fall of Saigon. I then expect a new dictatorship, likely more hostile to everyone, to come into power. From here, I must diverge from my gut feeling (that Iraq will devolve into a terrorist run state and be a major player in global terrorism to the point where the UN is forced to act and crush it again) and go with prophecy. Iraq is to be a major player in the end times, being the center of power for the Antichrist, but is not a major player until then. So I expect that there will either be a coup or the dictator will simply remain neutral in the coming turmoil between Israel and the surrounding nations (Russia, Iran, Ethiopia, Sudan, France, and other nations mentioned in the Prophecy Against Gog). Once the dust clears, Iraq will become an economic power (it controls a lot of oil, after all, and with Iran and Russia in shambles, this makes Iraq one of the larger oil producers). It will become highly influential, and will later be the center of all evil.

Lord Pheonix wrote:There are a couple of different ways this could go down, but I imagine the sneakiest thing the press can do is say its BECAUSE we were in Iraq that this is happening.

I imagine that the press will definitely spin this if it happens. I'm sure somehow they'll blame Bush for the pullout and subsequent terrorist build up. Either that, or the press will attempt to question the connections between a rise in global terrorism and our pulling out of Iraq.

ReconToaster wrote: You are, unfortunately, correct. We've turned the place into a shit-hole and now we're stuck in this war. There really is no efficient withdrawal strategy. We're in it for the long-run.

The place was a shit hole before we got there. Now it's a shit hole undergoing renovations.

ReconToaster wrote: With regard to the press, I personally do not think we are well informed enough about the War.

The press only shows the bad side of the war. You never hear about the good side. People imagine that it is just this hell hole where you are constantly under fire, when in reality, even during the uprisings just after combat operations ceased, fighting was light enough that transports could get to "besieged" coalition bases daily to deliver supplies.

ReconToaster wrote: Universal Healthcare yes. Full scale socialism no.

We wouldn't just convert to socialism in a day, but every compromise on capitalism is another step towards socialism.

PiEdude wrote:I say we GTFO.

Yes, there will be casualties, but they won't be ours once we're gone.

So if you don't give a rat's ass about Iraqi civilian casualties, what problem do you have with the war? As I've pointed out numerous times, coalition casualties in this war are the lowest we've ever had, aside from the Gulf War.

capn qwerty wrote:Pie, you sicken me.

I just wish I could understand his viewpoint. He is against the war, but doesn't care about civilian casualties. The only real viable reasons I can see for him being against it are his belief that somehow, the US is undermanned and unable to fight elsewhere due to the Iraq War, or that the war costs too much money. Neither seem like reasons why we should risk hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

CivBase wrote:Well then, still involves surrendering rights to the government.

Indeed.

ReconToaster wrote: as does the patriot act... which you seem to support...

But you see, we aren't against surrendering rights to the government. We believe that surrendering a few rights for security is ok. You were the one who said that was bad, yet you also support programs that involve surrendering rights for security. The only difference, is that you believe in economic security while we believe in personal security.

KristallNacht wrote:You do know that lots of countries have universal healthcare and it's not really working.

Universal Healthcare fails without a full socialist society backing it.

Another good point. Especially with the economy the way it is right now, we can hardly afford such an expensive program.

Rotaretilbo wrote:But you see, we aren't against surrendering rights to the government. We believe that surrendering a few rights for security is ok. You were the one who said that was bad, yet you also support programs that involve surrendering rights for security. The only difference, is that you believe in economic security while we believe in personal security.

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin

KristallNacht wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:But you see, we aren't against surrendering rights to the government. We believe that surrendering a few rights for security is ok. You were the one who said that was bad, yet you also support programs that involve surrendering rights for security. The only difference, is that you believe in economic security while we believe in personal security.

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin

I'm pretty sure that Ben was talking about a bit more than just having to go through a metal detector at the airport...

Q: isn't patriot act the one that allows government to do stuff like in "enemy of the state" (awesome movie) or is it something else?

So if you don't give a rat's ass about Iraqi civilian casualties, what problem do you have with the war? As I've pointed out numerous times, coalition casualties in this war are the lowest we've ever had, aside from the Gulf War.

Spending, or the principle of the war itself. The fact that there are low casualties is not a reason to be there.

Especially with the economy the way it is right now, we can hardly afford such an expensive program.

Oh, I agree. We are not ready for Universal Healthcare. That's why I supported Ron Paul so much. He was all about focusing on the war and cutting spending/reforming the economy before jumping into expensive, and complicated things like healthcare.

Ron paul wanted to further eliminate government involvement in Healthcare which is, in my opinion, the right thing to do FOR NOW. We are not ready for national healthcare.

Obama's ideas of National healthcare and clean energy are great, but we are not in the economic position to pursue them.

We need four years of reform before we can go through four years of progression.

ReconToaster wrote:

So if you don't give a rat's ass about Iraqi civilian casualties, what problem do you have with the war? As I've pointed out numerous times, coalition casualties in this war are the lowest we've ever had, aside from the Gulf War.

Spending, or the principle of the war itself. The fact that there are low casualties is not a reason to be there.

But we are also aiding a foreign country and ridding it of an opressive government (and the influences from that government). That is a reason to be there.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

For some reason, Pie seems to believe that since Obama won the elections, all political debates can be ended by stating this. It's like some attempt to create a new, lame type of Godwin's Law in which the winner of the elections is instantly 100% right about all things or something.

Hey, Pie. Andrew Jackson won the election in 1828. I suppose everything he did was 'correct'. Including the Trail of Tears.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I seem to recall from one game or another that certain Rebellion characters with little attachment to the Jedi joined the Rebellion because their parents were killed by the Empire or they were oppressed or something like that.

Well, there's dissidents everywhere. But if the xenos kept their heads down and stayed in line, nothing happened to them.
Killing Palpatine was a bad decision. A United Empire was the only faction that ever could have fought effectively against the Yuuzan Vong.
Killing Grand Admiral Thrawn was a Crime against the entire galaxy, as he was the only man who ever could have beaten the scourge of the Yuuzan Vong back. It was a crime, the punishment of which should have been visited against the entire race of Noghri.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

I don't know if he supports full blown socialism, but then, neither does Obama overtly. It is all about slowly adding new systems until socialism is the inevitable outcome.

That's how it always works, isn't it?

Rotaretilbo wrote:I expect a Fall of Saigon style collapse of Iraq after we pull out, though since this will be country wide rather than city wide, civilian casualties will far surpass the actual Fall of Saigon. I then expect a new dictatorship, likely more hostile to everyone, to come into power.

True. Or perhaps there are enough people who remember voting for their government. Perhaps there are enough factions with a vested interest in the new government.

If the Revolution does come, I hope it is like Iran. For all their bluff and bluster, they haven't done too much, have they?

Rotaretilbo wrote:
I imagine that the press will definitely spin this if it happens. I'm sure somehow they'll blame Bush for the pullout and subsequent terrorist build up. Either that, or the press will attempt to question the connections between a rise in global terrorism and our pulling out of Iraq.

I don't know about this. Yes, the press does have a hardon for Obama. But when they find out...
For lo, he hath great power and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection and great dedication
master the art of Karate
Lo, we will rise up.
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.

Rotaretilbo wrote:The place was a shit hole before we got there. Now it's a shit hole undergoing renovations.

It was Hell.
It is still Hell. Satan has gone on vacation, and his underlings are jockeying for his seat.
It will be Hell. It will just be Hell warmed up.

Rotaretilbo wrote:The press only shows the bad side of the war. You never hear about the good side. People imagine that it is just this hell hole where you are constantly under fire, when in reality, even during the uprisings just after combat operations ceased, fighting was light enough that transports could get to "besieged" coalition bases daily to deliver supplies.

True. I have a few friends who fought in Iraq.
They hated it. They had an embed with them who followed them for days. He took pictures of them destroying weapons caches, playing with the children, helping out civilians.

He wrote a story about the one time they were ambushed, and quietly published the pictures of them playing with the children in Leatherneck magazine.

ReconToaster wrote:

Ron paul wanted to further eliminate government involvement in Healthcare which is, in my opinion, the right thing to do FOR NOW. We are not ready for national healthcare.

We need four years of reform before we can go through four years of progression.

Yes, there is so much that needs reform. Social security, Medicaid, Medicare, Customs and Immigration, Welfare...

545 people can't pull it all off by themselves. So I find myself swinging between wanting Ron Paul's policies implemented, and yearning for someone to declare a coup and hammer us back into shape.

BTW, isn't that Ron Paul in your avatar?

CivBase wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:But you see, we aren't against surrendering rights to the government. We believe that surrendering a few rights for security is ok. You were the one who said that was bad, yet you also support programs that involve surrendering rights for security. The only difference, is that you believe in economic security while we believe in personal security.

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin

I'm pretty sure that Ben was talking about a bit more than just having to go through a metal detector at the airport...

We aren't talking about metal detectors.

Rotaretilbo wrote:The place was a shit hole before we got there. Now it's a shit hole undergoing renovations.

Your underestimating the damage we've done. Sure, it may have been a shit hole before we got there, but it was an organized shit hole. When we went there, the took out their government, healthcare, and education. We replaced all this with nothing.

Their military offered to help us, and to police the streets. We declined their offer, instead opting to disband them, leaving thousands of men with no source of income.

People needed guidance, and so they flocked to extremist groups.

It already was a shithole, but it was maintainable and repairable. Now it's just a BIG, disorganized, irreparable shithole.

repairable?
who would repair it?

CivBase wrote:repairable?
who would repair it?

I mean that it could have been repaired by us.

Unfortunately, we fucked up. Now it's too big of a shithole to really revive.

CivBase wrote:repairable?
who would repair it?

The people. Saddam hadn't done any human rights violations for over 6 years before we barged in, so the threat of death was minimal.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:repairable?
who would repair it?

The people. Saddam hadn't done any human rights violations for over 6 years before we barged in, so the threat of death was minimal.

But has anyone tried to organize a revolution and overthrow him in those 6 years?

Recon Toaster wrote:I mean that it could have been repaired by us.

Unfortunately, we fucked up. Now it's too big of a shithole to really revive.

We could have repaired it? But aren't we now? So you're saying we could have repaired it, but when we did such it turned worse? I'm afraid I don't folow...

civbase wrote:We could have repaired it? But aren't we now? So you're saying we could have repaired it, but when we did such it turned worse? I'm afraid I don't follow...

It's quite simple. it was repairable. We stepped in, fucked it up beyond repair. Now it's not repairable.

ReconToaster wrote:

civbase wrote:We could have repaired it? But aren't we now? So you're saying we could have repaired it, but when we did such it turned worse? I'm afraid I don't follow...

It's quite simple. it was repairable. We stepped in, fucked it up beyond repair. Now it's not repairable.

But you said before that we could repair it at that point... though we failed when we came in and started to repair it.
Besides, I doubt any of us really know what it's like over there, be it for the worse or for the better.

But you said before that we could repair it at that point... though we failed when we came in and started to repair it.

by god you're difficult. It was POSSIBLE to have been repaired under the right coordination and strategy. We failed to meet the requirements and thus failed to repair it. Now it is a bigger shithole than before.

It is possible to repair a broken arm, but some idiot can still step in with a chainsaw and just cut the arm off.

CivBase wrote:
But has anyone tried to organize a revolution and overthrow him in those 6 years?

His human rights violations had nothing to do with punishing treason, but only ethnic cleansing, which he never completed, yet still completely stopped.