regardless of anything Iran does or doesn't do, before he leaves his office?
My opinion, he's stepping up media agitprop the way he did on Iraq before he invaded that sovereign nation. I think he'll do it and I think not only will he, my stupid Dem Congress will gesture and throw their hands up and whinge, but they will sit there and let him.
I'm switching to the socialist party if this happens the way I predict.
First, I think this will not happen. He seems to be an idiot, but he is not. Idiots don't climb that high. I'm pretty much sure he (and his advisors, and congress, too) realize it will be suicidal for US.
If I'm wrong, though, I will be among the first to consider leaving US and moving my family to some neutral East Asian country like Thailand.
Misha, I've wanted to get out of this country for years. I may still if I can finagle it. I've advised all my children to flee this place before it becomes a third-world hellhole, because I'm sure it's going to.
I have to disagree with you. First, I think he is that big of an idiot. Second, I think whether he is an idiot or no, he will do it because it's good for his pocketbook and he could care less what is good for America. Third, I think he is a very stubborn man and it's on his 'to-do' list and fourth I see the build up in the media.
I know everyone likes to think the Dems will stop him, but they have been in office almost two years now with power and don't and I've lost a lot of faith in them. I so wanted to believe.
I am almost positive he's going to. He's already using the all-too-complacent MSM to make the case for war-----the latest "confrontation" between Iranian coast guard boats and our warships is just the most recent example of it. The first step was having the Iranian Revolutionary Guard declared a terrorist organization, which too many Dems (including Clinton) happily signed on to, knowing that under the Joint Resolution passed by Congress in 9/2001, he has the power to preemptively attack terrorists. It's eerily similar to the months leading up to Iraq.
I'd love to be wrong about this, but I just don't trust our government to do the right thing here. Or the smart thing. Or the diplomatic thing....
Yes. I agree with you Iðunn, idiots are easier to manage.
The latest example was ridiculous. The "breaking news" headlines made me assume it was a Battle of Midway kind of confrontation. When I saw the boat in question I almost laughed. I can hardly see how U.S warships could be "Threatened and Harassed" by something that was probably pulling a guy on waterskiis a minute ago.
I believe Bush will attempt to invade. The reason? It should be obvious, the continued, sporadic, blatant resurgence of propaganda. The justification? Don't think I need one, he's done it before.
my kids are grown now and if it comes to it I'll do whatever legal protesting I can, like that woman whose son died. it probably won't help, but apathy is getting us nowhere.
OK, let me re-phrase myself and expand a bit
He may be an idiot in a conventional meaning, but in order to get that high, he should be really good in evaluating balance of powers. That's a must for a politician of any caliber - at least based on my understanding of how politics work.
With the invasion of Iraq US lost quite an amount of support in Muslim world, but invasion of Iran will put US against the rest of Muslims, most (if not all) of the Europe, and Russia. Not sure about China and East Asian countries joining this list, but majority definitely will not be on American side.
Now, with all American might, US will not win the full-blown war against the whole Muslim world. Especially considering there will be no worthwhile allies. This is all about balance of power, and I'm sure Bush understands the picture.
Well, there is one more variable to the picture, though - current US economic crisis. If the major goal is to distract people from domestic problems (as I think it was with Iraq, btw), then war is a proven solution. This is where my analysis can go wrong, but I still think American political elite is smart enough to pick a different war for this. Not a suicidal one...
Misha, I can't tell you how much I hope you're right about this.
Your arguments are so logical. They're dead-on correct regarding the effect this would have on our place in the world.
And that's why I think the exact opposite will happen I have yet to see logic, reason, or fairness enter into any of the decisions that have been made in our foreign policy so far.
I agree that it's suicidal for us and that europe will turn their back on us, even England and Australia.... I mean look what their recent elections indicated over Iraq.
That said, you are looking at it from a 'normal' standpoint. You have to follow the money and look at it from an economic viewpoint to see the real picture. In the U.S. everything is about making money regardless of ethics or morals or right or wrong. Capitalism is amoral if not immoral.
Let's say that Bush doesn't care what happens to the U.S. as a whole, which I firmly believe. Let's say invading Iran starts a seemingly unending global conflict - we declare war on a religion and kill a bunch of innocents (which we are already doing) and they start a bunch of terroristic acts here (since they don't have the military might to beat us).
Who gains? People who get no-bid contracts for 'defense' abroad and then increasingly here, and the corporations involved in making weaponry and the people who own stock in those things and those who own stock in oil.
He'll do it and he'll do it because the elite own this government and because it's "good business". They don't care about anything else.
the only thing standing in the way, by the way, is pakistan. that's one of the reasons I've paid so much attention to the situation there. they have nuclear arms. we NEED to have a puppet dicator there for our purposes. that's why bhutto was killed and our govt was probably part of it.
Exactly, exactly, exactly! Everyone I know looks at me like I'm insane when I say that, but I believe in my gut that our gov't was a major player in her assassination.
It's all so insane....my kids are 3 and 4, and I have another due in May. Hopefully before they're of military age this mess will be over. My husband's brother is 16. If things don't change, and fast, it's almost a given he'll be drafted. They can't keep up this level of militarism without reinstating the draft.
I agree with both, I believe it is about legacy and balance of power. We have two (potentially 3) rising superpowers who will contend with the U.S for global cultural dominance. All three of these superpowers have better access to the middle-east than the U.S does. (India, China, Russia)
I believe the elite are afraid of the same thing happening to them that happened to Russia in Afghanistan. If this is, in part, the case, then moving now is the key.
Obviously, I'm not discounting the money trail either. Either way, the benefits are obvious in the short and long term to the ruling class.
well, if it's tin foil hats, at least we have company in each other, but I don't think it is.
you have my sympathy on worrying about your children. I have two grown sons who both were required to and have registered with selective service. If we invade Iran, there will probably be a draft and it makes my blood boil to think Bush would use my children as cannon fodder and kill them to make a few extra bucks in the stock market or for kickbacks.
Pakistan's nuclear program was tied to the Bhutto family, through Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Just a thought to put out there.
In my opinion, given the dangers present in waging war on big oil to Gee-dumb's wallet, if he is truly going the route of his father then he'll invade Iran before the year is out. Didn't make sense before, and it doesn't make sense now.
Also, it is my opinion that the governments we owe trillions of dollars to will come to America's aid, if only to protect the investment they made in our continued existence.
Or use it as a weapon. Imagine what would happen if China decided to sell all its dollars lol.
there was a hint of a threat of it recently in the news and it got smushed down. China said something rather vague about switching to euros or yen. haven't seen anything since, but the media here isn't really all that open.
that's why I tend to read bbc and belfast telegraph and other sources too.
Yep, I remember some whispers of that, too.
yeah, I think people miss that, about our debt, and about the effect on their own economies if we wash out.
It is infuriating. When I think of all the men and women who have died so the rich can get richer...I'm honestly speechless with anger.
We just have to hope that the next President has the sense and decency to completely change the course we're on. I'm also sorry to say that I'm too jaded (or realistic? I'm not sure anymore) at this point to really believe there will be change. I believe Clinton will probably be our next president. I don't see her as an agent of change. Obama, yes, quite possibly. Not Clinton, and certainly not any of the Republicans.
yeah to all of that.
my guess it will end up being giuliani vs clinton and clinton will take it. huckabee can't get it because he's loony (although he seems nice) and the mormon guy is out. ron paul is an economic idiot who would drive us into another Great Depression and if he runs independent he will split the Repub vote ensuring Clinton's win. I would think McCain is their best bet but the GOP doesn't like him because he split on the party line over our right to torture people.
Our side, Obama is too young, too inexperienced and that's even if the bigots don't vote him down. I like Edwards, but he's too nice a guy to have a chance. It will be Hillary in primary. I'm sure of it. I don't like her much.
Yep, with you on all of that. Huckabee and Romney are both total jokes. Giuliani's a joke too, but he's the one they'll ultimately run, I think. There's an outside chance they'll run McCain, even if they are pissed at him---you've got the war hero, and then you've got the fundie nutjob, a failed governor from Mass., and Giuliani, who has enough skeletons in his closet to keep the media and his opponents busy into the next election. Besides the fact that by this point he's totally made a mockery of 9/11 by using it again and again as an excuse/reason for everything.
Either way, it's going to be Hillary in the end.
If the latests results are any indicator, Giuliani is at the bottom of the pile. And these are red states. Thankfully, I can't see him winning short of new tragedy that infuriates the American public.
giuliani is a mafia thug. zomg I am going to put that bloody Hub back up. I had just deleted it because it was so controversial but it's all backed up with reliable sources. I had it up when I first noticed him starting up his presidential bid. it won't be updated yet, but I suppose now I will have to.
I did mention in my Hub profile I'm not a poet. I'm a politco
anyone who thinks Bush isn't a total idiot yet should read today's headlines:
Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_ … _holocaust
On the topic, Musharaff may be so frightened of being assassinated or sitting on the fence, Bush might find less support there than he wants. Also from today's headlines:
Pakistan president tells US to stay out
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_ … s/pakistan
Of course, that last could well be and probably is agitprop. Musharraf trying look like he's standing up to Bush for popular support in Pakistan, but not really behind the scenes.
Blair did that to Sinn Fein's favor (and to my delight) with the loyalists for years. :p
It would be nice to have some sort of debate here, where are the conservatives?
doubtful and I agree. I too would welcome debate.
I'd love to see someone come in here and try to justify our upcoming unilateral invasion of Iran.
The problem is that there are currently no justifications for the U.S to invade any country at all. The Arab nations have been attacking one another for thousands of years, why is it suddenly our purpose to bring peace to a land that will remain stricken until the peoples as a whole choose not to fight one another?
America is most certainly not the best country to be the "World Police force."
With the decline of sanity in our government officials, I am merely waiting for the day that Canada takes over. I've even got a maple leaf flag ready for it!
ok, that made me smile.
I wish. I don't have a Canadian flag, but I do have the Irish tri-colour. I'll fly mine if you'll fly yours.
"Oh, Canada, my home and native land...."
LOL I have to learn the rest of it
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
WAYYY easier to learn than the Star Spangled Banner!
L'Italia s'è desta
Dell'elmo di Scipio
S'è cinta la testa
Dov'è la vittoria?
Le porga la chioma
Chè schiava di Roma
Iddio la creò
L'Italia s'è desta
Dell'elmo di Scipio
S'è cinta la testa
Dov'è la vittoria?
Le porga la chioma
Chè schiava di Roma
Iddio la creò
Stringia moci a coorte
Siam pronti alla morte
Stringia moci a coorte
Siam pronti alla morte
L'Italia chiamò. Sì!!
LOL I didn't even get the first line right!!!
this is like, the best thread ever. go thoog!
*wonders why people think I am anti-american*
I am not anti-American. I'm anti-stupidity. I am anti-government, if only for the reason that a small body of wise and intelligent individuals has swelled to thousands of people who I have never even MET creating laws, spending my money, and making poor military choices in the name of freedom.
Let freedom ring.. but not at the hands of aged manipulative butt-heads.
Lots of my friends are American, they are as mystified as I am. Although in Italy it is worse Gamergirl. Our president is 80 something, 1/10th of our politicans have been charged guilty in a court of law, over fraud and corruption, yet they remain where they are. The average age of politicians is also very much higher.
I'm not really anti-american either although it often looks that way. I think our current government is anti-american and has been since the "reagan revolution" and the introduction of supply-side economics.
you guys have to remember I'm really old and I remember the beaver cleaver days of glory of america when people just went to work and could house and feed their families. I want that back.
Me too! I could buy like.. uhh.. a thousand loaves of bread and feed sammiches to the homeless if grocery prices were like they were back then.
I can't believe I've been drawn into a political discussion LOL. I avoided such things like a plaque for many years...
Anyway, I think we tend to look at politicians and generally at rich people too - umm - one-dimensionally. It's not all about money, they are people like us, they have friends and families, they have kids and things to worry about, they want to love and be loved, etc., etc.
They care about their friends and relatives as much as we do, and do not care about strangers like us as much as we don't care about them. Do you personally care about Bush or Clinton or Rockefeller? Why should him care about you, then?
I think on average their addiction to money is pretty much the same as for poor people or middle class. There are people for whom money is everything, there are people for whom money is nothing, and most of us (or them) are in between.
Also, I don't buy into "money rule the world" or "economics rule the world". I think economics and money (and the rest of what is happening in our lives) just follow what our individual and communal consciousness (or unconsciousness for that matter ) dictates. I've been fed up with materialistic views on the Universe too much in school and university, I'm a total idealist in this sense now
People on the top try to rule the country as good as they can, taking into account their personal (not necessarily monetary) interests first, and our interests second. That is exactly how we perform at work - why do we get so furious about that then? It is in human nature to behave like this, and cannot be changed - but can be accounted for.
So, coming to the conclusion - I don't think it is in American political elite interests to start this suicidal war. Too much danger and hassle to their own families, friends, and themselves. That being said, people don't always behave rationally. It's in the human nature, too. Groups of people are even worse in that sense...
P.S. While I was writing this thread moved three pages down and completely off-topic. LOL. Trying to steer it back on topic
Well Rockefeller aside, the others are supposed to act on our behalf and interest. It is/was their job lol
It's not about liking really.
But aside from that I agree Misha! Don't get angry with me
Misha, I don't agree with you. Once upon a time, people would enter politics for idealistic reasons, but there's no place in politics for nice guys these days. People enter politics because they want power and fame. The qualities you need to be a politician - thick skin, ruthlessness, an unshakeable ego and an ability to fudge the lines between right and wrong to achieve your goals - are all hallmarks of the psycopath.
There's a very good book called "Snakes in Suits" that describes how our current business culture favours the psycopath, and our politics is just the same.
I don't see any contradiction here. I say they pursue their personal interests first, and you say essentially the same. And I did not say anything about their personal traits - except for their higher than average ability to evaluate balance of power - which has a direct relation to the thread topic...
Theres's this great old song in Italy that's still aired from time to time,
"Se potessi avere, mille lire al mese" which means "If I could have 1000 lire a month" (which is roughly 1 dollar)
You can hear all the neighbors sigh in unison when it's played
I tend to disagree with you, Misha. I think a lot of the ways rich people get rich involve unearned income that is derived from the misery of others and could even be viewed as theft of labor, however legal and that it makes them bad people generally.
However, that said, Misha, don't get mad at me either.
I find "Don't judge and you will not be judged" to be a fundamental cornerstone of every religion I know of. It took me a while to understand when I'm judging and when I'm not, though. With my current understanding, I would say that I was judging if I was to say something like you just said
maybe, but it's what I think.
I think there is a difference between having an opinion and judging others. tom robbins said in 'even cowgirls get the blues' that even an amoeba has a basic survival instinct that allows it to "judge" whether some area is poisonous or not. I don't believe in being so non-judgemental that it's damaging to self.
I see choosing to be aware of news and politics and grasp the direction and intent is intelligence and that to call a thing what it is by the right name is useful, not judgemental.
Hey, we're doing rather well with the whole keeping it polite thing here.
Misha, I would really like to think that the guys up top care, but honestly I don't believe they do. They SAY they do, and that is why I find politicians to be sleazy, manipulative and on the whole conniving. Don't tell me you care about the issues that need addressed and then divert your whole attention to invading countries which were never our place to invade. Just care and fix our country.
I do think, on the side, that people as a whole think it is up to the government to fix issues all by themselves. When it doesn't happen, this tends to cause anger which is blindly directed at the government.
When we point our finger at them, we point three at ourselves. Every individual is held accountable, or should be, for any country's decline.
I am, by and large, an honest person. I won't lie to get a job, or over exaggerate my skills either. I am pretty blunt, online and offline. My tact programming is like Windows Vista. It's pretty, but it doesn't mesh with 90% of programs.
Oh pish-posh Misha!! You love to get me talking about something other than the topic, don't you?
I suppose you would say I'm judgemental if I think this sucks:
"...The company is a US corporation, Renco Doe Run. The gases are the product from the main smelter a mile or two down the valley. The high mountains around keep out the cleansing winds, meaning that airborne metals are concentrated in the valley. Neither humans nor nature can escape the company's outpourings of poisons. And, despite evidence that gases have been behind the premature deaths of workers and residents young and old, the business-oriented, pro-US government of President Alan Garcia is too afraid of foreign investors to do anything about it...
...The pollution from his plants appears both horrific and difficult to contest. A study of 93 newborn children in the first 12 hours of their life, conducted by Hugo Villa, showed they had highly dangerous levels of lead in their blood, inherited from their mothers while in the womb. The nearer the mothers lived to the main smelter, the higher was the babies' level of lead poisoning...
...The quality of air sampled in the neighbourhood by three Peruvian voluntary agencies showed 85 times more arsenic, 41 times more cadmium and 13 times more lead than is safe. In parts of the town the water supply contains 50 per cent more lead than levels recommended by the World Health Organisation. The untreated waters of the Mantaro river are contaminated with copper, iron, manganese, lead and zinc and are not suitable for irrigation or consumption by animals, according to the standards supposed to be legally enforced in Peru. The water coming out of the nearby Huascacocha lake contains more than four times the legal limit of manganese...
...Rennert's record as a polluter is not confined to Peru. For nearly 13 years, according to industry reports, the company topped the US Environmental Protection Authority's list as the worst air polluter in the country."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/st … 39,00.html
guess I am, then, because this stinks. anyone who knows this and has stock in that corporation and profits off of this is of poor character, in my opinion.
I can definitely conclude that this pollution is not beneficial to the health of people living around. I don't have any way of knowing whether it is good or bad on a great scale of things, though... As well as no way of knowing about the characters of the shareholders...
we'll have to agree to disagree.
it really has been fun debating with you and I'm glad you posted and I hope to again, but I do have to do some 'good' or 'useful' things around the house, because they aren't doing themselves :p
you guyz have a neat day and hope to catch you all this laterz this evening.
Sorry Misha, I got dropped, the thread was moving very quickly.
I was refering to
I think that not judging is a valid philosophy, although I disagree with this comment. Christianity raises you with a certain mind-set with regards to good and bad, and subsequently you're ability to judge.
The 10 commandments for instance. The idea of heaven and hell. I'm aware that Jesus said he'd not judge. But it seems fairly paradoxical.
Interestingly, the idea that he forgave us, is a sign that he "judged" us.
I'm not a Christian so feel free to correct me
I'm not a Christian either. And I do not belong to any formal religion, including atheism
The fact that one is raised with certain preconceptions does not give to the mind ability to judge - I think. How many times in your life you saw the event initially considered bad for you turned into good, and vice versa? And then turned the other way? And once more? I've seen this a lot. And this is just on individual level, let alone the great scale of things.
I link not judging in Western religions to non-duality concept in Eastern ones.
As for what is literally written in Bible and other sacred books - I take this with a *huge* grain of salt. After those books were given, they were translated, edited, and re-written million times - and not always by the people without embedded interests...
I've just read all the posts here, and I don't know how it got offtrack. But Bush has planned to intervene in Iran from the beginning. It would have been done by now if the GOP had won the 2006 elections. GW went into Iraq so he could become "a wartime president" and he will attack Iran so he can tell America it's too dangerous to hold presidential elections this year. Thus he becomes "President for Life." The entire world will be in so much turmoil by then that elections will be a thing of the past. How else could five little Irani boats scare the wits out of America's great war machine?
No,no what you say makes perfect sense.
I think what we disagree on is simply what judging means.
You believe a judgment is something absolute, whereas I am referring to a personal opinion that can be influenced.
Well, I think one has to terminate personal judgment in order to reach heaven or avoid samsara - whichever rings your bell I'm really talking about personal opinion here. In that sense, I like Paraglider's motto quite a bit - read his profile if you haven't yet.
Goodness you have to be quick on this thread!
Putin is a good example of what I mean - do you really believe he is holding on to power for the sake of the country, or just because he likes being at the top? And what about Musharaff?
And if I can get back to the topic, I've only recently begun to realise how much power an American President has. There's something screwy with the way American democracy is set up, if a President can "unilaterally" invade Iran without other elements of your government being able to step in and stop him.
Perfect examples, Marisa. It's a power-grab, and, once they have power, they refuse to give it up. It has nothing to do with what's good for their people.
Putin - I think both, and Musharaff probably, too. Those things are not mutually exclusive. Remember Saddam? He was a dictator, but his country was stable...
I can lose a lot of fans here ( (c) jimmy ), but I'm not sure democracy is something that grants sanity by default.
by SEXYLADYDEE5 years ago
Why do so many people think it's better to be in a bad relationship than to be alone?I enjoy my own company and I have so many crafts and hobbys that I love. Being alone is not a bad thing to me. I have three children...
by Sandi Kroeger2 years ago
Why do so many people think that doctors are God? Why believe that they can never make a mistake?
by Chitrangada Sharan5 years ago
Many people think, 'Ignorance is bliss'. What's your opinion?
by deecoleworld3 years ago
Why do many people think astrology is just prediction and zodiac signs? Do you know what astrology is? Do you have an idea? Do you believe in it? No?? Yes??
by Dale Mazurek8 years ago
Every single day we see new posts in the forums of people asking why their scores are so low.Then every single day we see someone like Mark or Darkside busting them for duplicate content or something.Do these people...
by ixwa7 years ago
When was it that the American People have been so Angry at a President as they do President Obama?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.