New message from Iraq resistance!

Originally posted by jsobecky

from nukunuku
Seems to me you are a bit delusional, but i would probably be as well if i was bombarded with the same you are. I just doubt anyone is buying any more.

Whether you "buy it" or not is irrelevant. You don't know the heart of the American people; you aren't one. At least I'm not embarasssed to name my country of origin.

As for dozens of reasons, i belive there are reasons as you say, but belive me there are quite a few similarities as well. There are two sides to every medal you know, you just dont bother to see the other one.

Plenty of similarities. The Germans wore helmets, so did the Americans. That's about where the similarities end, though. You have a very weak argument here.

dear mister jsobecky...

why are you so stubborn?
why dont you want to see this world from another perspective?
why do you praise so much your war hungry goverment?
why dont you read your histry, and learn once and for all the lessons there?

but then again, i already know your answers to all these questions, since you are very predictable.

when talking about comparing you and the germans during ww2, well thats another story. i belive there are quite alot of similarities in this conflict, not just "the helmets".
but then again, you dont really care about innocent people dying every day of stray bullets and dropped bombs,
its all just a big sports event to you, isnt it?


[edit on 6-1-2005 by Souljah]

Whether you "buy it" or not is irrelevant. You don't know the heart of the American people; you aren't one. At least I'm not embarasssed to name my country of origin.

I am not embarassed to name the country i live in. I was born and live in Slovenia. My grandparents were the partisans i was talking about. One of my grandfathers finished the war in Berlin with the red army. The other one escaped Dachau twice and lived to tell the story. I dont know how you come to a conclussion i am embarassed of anything.

Plenty of similarities. The Germans wore helmets, so did the Americans. That's about where the similarities end, though. You have a very weak argument here.

well i bothered explaining the similarities of both conflicts for someone that might be interested. You however have said nothing to explain your point of view on the subject. And i dont appreciate the flaming jerk. I dont care which country anyone is from as long as they listen to reason and themselves.

Cheers

Originally posted by Souljah
i have mistaken you for a moderator.
sorry.

No worries. I took it as a compliment. The mods here are pretty cool. So it was kinda like mistaking me for one of the cool people.

Originally posted by Souljah
i think you country was always split in half like that, since the civil war.
there are the "cool" democrats, the tolerant north
and the "angry" republicans, the not-tolerant south.
and still today those problems from your civil war are not solved. the position of a black man in america is never goin to be nearly as important as that of a white man. but thats another story.

Oh they will, and some are. I'll be the first to admit there is not yet 100% equality in America yet. And to be honest, there never will be. But the great divider is no longer Race, Gender, or Religion, in the U.S. Well, Bush is trying to make Religion a great divider, but he's (hopefully) only going to be around another 4 years.

No, my friend, the great divider for America is Money. If you have money, it doesn't matter if you're black, white, jewish, muslim, man, or woman. Right now, there's still quite a disperity that makes it appear the white man in America is still in control of all the power and such. And to a degree, it's true, but getting less so every day. See, there are still Americans alive today whose mothers or grandmothers were members of the Women's Sufferage Movement. There are still black people alive today who remember having to sit at the back of a bus, or drink from a seperate water fountain. For many generations, money stayed in the hands of white men. Now that both women and non-whites have rights equal to white men, they are building their own generations of wealth.

And real wealth takes time to grow, and must be invested wisely. Give the average Joe a million dollars, and rather than create a millionaire, you've just sent some schmuck out on a spending spree. But take a poor man, and have him set aside at least 10% of all income for 35 years, putting it in an interest bearing account, and you've created a millionaire. If such lessons can be passed from parent to child, then in two generations, you create a billionaire. If the money remained untouched still, and was simply allowed to grow for three generations, you have created a trillionaire. Imagine a person so wealthy, as to surpass the GDP of most countries. This person would be a God in America, with more power than the President.

That is the true strength of a Capitalist economy. Anyone, regardless of race, creed, or gender, can rise to greatness, if only they have the ability to earn a wage, the discipline to save, and stick to a budget. Most people lack at least one of these traits, and so wealth becomes limited by one's own faults. Women have only, in the last 50 years or so, really started entering the workforce in large numbers, and managing the finances. Sure, there were some before, but it was the exception and not the rule. Now there are women of all religions and races in America, who have managed to achieve independant wealth and keep it.

So the disperity exists, but less so than in previous generations. All generations in America (even illegal immigrants) have the right, ability, and power to break that wall of power and be wealthy, and ensure their children and grandchildren are even wealthier. If they fail to do this, it is not for lack of a chance to do so, but rather the lack of drive and determination. However, it does take time.

Originally posted by Souljah
you must understand that people as a mass are easily controlable. you just need an effective propaganda machine. and if you unite the goverment, religion and the media, you have a perfect brainwashing-propaganda machine, that can infulence just about anyone, everywhere!

Hell, yeah! That's been my understanding since Kindergarten (check out my blog-which I really need to update--in my sig). I make no secret of the fact that most people need to be lead, and someday, I wish to be the one to lead them. World Domination has been my hobby for a while now. Don't worry though, I'll be a benign dictator, and everyone who supports me will get an extra potato ration.

Originally posted by Souljah
i agree.
there is a big mess down there, and nobody knows exactly what is goin on!
but i think that people are standing togather and having enaugh of suffering and killings. and its the people who make the changes, if they really want to!

It'd be nice if that were the case. But when has people going out in the streets ever stopped a war? It might have helped end Vietnam, but then there were also some pretty strong other reasons why it ended, so I'm not so sure protest stopped it. That's why protestors usually anger me. They don't do anything but block traffic, recite bad poetry, and make me late to work. If they really wanted to make a difference, they'd organize massive voting and lobbying campaigns, and work from within the system.
But unfortunately, the average protestor is lazy, and their conscience is fulfilled by expending a few hours one day with a bunch of friends, holding signs and singing off-key. It takes someone truly dedicated towards change, and educated in how to do so, working from within the system, in order to stop something as massive as a war.

Originally posted by Souljah
so it is all a big sports event to you all? just another "super bowl" in bahgdad? i find that a little bit disturbing, since instead of balls people are shooting bullets, and instead of coaches there are generals. nice comparison, but sport and war is not the same.

Yeah, it wasn't the best comparison, because of this. It's not that the war is a giant Super Bowl, but rather the support for the troops is much like the support for the Home Team. Both teams are going to "play against each other" regardless of whether one agrees with or likes the members of either, so one might as well root for the home team.

But as for the average view on the war in Iraq, for the average American, it varies as much as the people. You've got your far right-wingers who make Bush seem like a liberal by comparison, who think we should simply pull the troops out and drop nukes in till they stop shooting... and then you've got your far left-wingers who give even bleeding hearts a bad name who actually fly over and form human shields over bomb targetsand throw rocks at their own troops...and then there's everyone else somewhere in the middle.

Almost all Americans I know are tired of the war, for different reasons. Some are tired because they feel like we did so much for a country, at such great expense, and the reward is to have our soldiers gunned down in the street. Others are tired because of the ever-present fear that we are breeding more terrorists than we're stopping. Others are tired because they miss their family members overseas, and still more are tired for their own reasons...

The only ones who don't appear to be tired of it, are the ones sitting in the White House, because of whatever reasons to go on with it, and the ones dying in the battlefields, because they don't have the luxury of being tired.

Sorry. I'm getting kind of emotional now. I need to take a step back.

Originally posted by Souljah
i undestand that.
i dont "blame" your troops either, they are just soldiers in the streets in a country they dont know. they dont know exactly why they are here, nor do they know why are they fighting for exactly.
ofcourse the leadership is to blame if the troops are fighting where they shouldnt. but then again, when will your leaders learn this lesson of war? when will it become clear to them? since they "know" their history, it doesnt mean anything to them, since its not making the stocks to rise.

I can't tell you how much that means to me. It makes me so mad when I sometimes hear even my fellow Americans refer to our troops as evil minions of some New World Order... as if our troops just had the luxury of not following orders because they didn't feel like doing it. Regardless of someone's opinions of our government, or the war itself, those troops...the troops on both sides, are dying by the orders of others with their own aims, in lieu of those who criticize them. Thank you for being one to see and understand that.

Originally posted by Souljah
anyway the situation is very serious and without any wishes for peace and order, there will be more and more bloodshed, more people are going to die and nobody even cares about it anymore.

Oh, people care. The news media may have found something new to focus on, but everywhere I go, the war in Iraq, and debates over Bush's policies are the primary sources of conversation. Wherever I drive, I see ribbons or ribbon stickers on the backs of automobiles, flags in the neighborhoods, candlelight vigils for the innocents killed in the crossfire, demonstrations of protestors...

People care very very much. Their aims may all differ, but I see more caring about it now than I did two years ago.

May we All find Peace, Someday...

Originally posted by thelibra
No, my friend, the great divider for America is Money. If you have money, it doesn't matter if you're black, white, jewish, muslim, man, or woman. Right now, there's still quite a disperity that makes it appear the white man in America is still in control of all the power and such. And to a degree, it's true, but getting less so every day. See, there are still Americans alive today whose mothers or grandmothers were members of the Women's Sufferage Movement. There are still black people alive today who remember having to sit at the back of a bus, or drink from a seperate water fountain. For many generations, money stayed in the hands of white men. Now that both women and non-whites have rights equal to white men, they are building their own generations of wealth.

That is the true strength of a Capitalist economy. Anyone, regardless of race, creed, or gender, can rise to greatness, if only they have the ability to earn a wage, the discipline to save, and stick to a budget. Most people lack at least one of these traits, and so wealth becomes limited by one's own faults. Women have only, in the last 50 years or so, really started entering the workforce in large numbers, and managing the finances. Sure, there were some before, but it was the exception and not the rule. Now there are women of all religions and races in America, who have managed to achieve independant wealth and keep it.

damn, you are so RIGHT.
eveyrthing in america is bussenis. its all about the money. i agree. and nothing else matters.
"money is the roots of all evil!"
and since great gaps are emerging again, between those multi-millioners and the poor, everyday people, without any great income.
and yes, i am beggining to unerstand this "capitalist economy", since my country has been apart of it for a decade now, so we are really learning the first tricks.
well however you turn it around, there are still two big sides in america, figting each other:
- the people who want to promote the war and with that money that they make with it
- the poeple who want to promote peace and dont care about money, but about human lives!

Originally posted by thelibra
Hell, yeah! That's been my understanding since Kindergarten (check out my blog-which I really need to update--in my sig). I make no secret of the fact that most people need to be lead, and someday, I wish to be the one to lead them. World Domination has been my hobby for a while now. Don't worry though, I'll be a benign dictator, and everyone who supports me will get an extra potato ration.

oh yeah, a training ground for power hungry world domination leaders.
that is all we need!
well, if i get extra potato rations, maybe you are not so bad after all...

Originally posted by thelibra
It'd be nice if that were the case. But when has people going out in the streets ever stopped a war? It might have helped end Vietnam, but then there were also some pretty strong other reasons why it ended, so I'm not so sure protest stopped it. That's why protestors usually anger me. They don't do anything but block traffic, recite bad poetry, and make me late to work. If they really wanted to make a difference, they'd organize massive voting and lobbying campaigns, and work from within the system.
But unfortunately, the average protestor is lazy, and their conscience is fulfilled by expending a few hours one day with a bunch of friends, holding signs and singing off-key. It takes someone truly dedicated towards change, and educated in how to do so, working from within the system, in order to stop something as massive as a war.

when people start to protest against war, it means that there is something wrong in the leadership of the country, going to this "rightous war". how you want "to help stop it" is another story. protesting and blockig traffic is just a public move, for all others to see and feel the presence of the protestors. and yes, i agree that avrege protestor is TOO lazy to do much diffrence. if all of them, that you see on the streets wanted to change something and really doit!, then changes would come sooner or later, but there is a diffrence between:
- showing that you are not happy to the world, and doing nothing about it
- showing that you are not happy to the world, and trying to CHANGE THAT!

Originally posted by thelibra
Yeah, it wasn't the best comparison, because of this. It's not that the war is a giant Super Bowl, but rather the support for the troops is much like the support for the Home Team. Both teams are going to "play against each other" regardless of whether one agrees with or likes the members of either, so one might as well root for the home team.

yes i understood that you were talking about "the support" and not comparng sport and war. but all of that comparison between sports and war just doubles the feeling of money hungry goverment, that IS treating war as sports! and THAT is the saddest part of this story!

Originally posted by thelibra
Almost all Americans I know are tired of the war, for different reasons. Some are tired because they feel like we did so much for a country, at such great expense, and the reward is to have our soldiers gunned down in the street. Others are tired because of the ever-present fear that we are breeding more terrorists than we're stopping. Others are tired because they miss their family members overseas, and still more are tired for their own reasons...

The only ones who don't appear to be tired of it, are the ones sitting in the White House, because of whatever reasons to go on with it, and the ones dying in the battlefields, because they don't have the luxury of being tired.

Sorry. I'm getting kind of emotional now. I need to take a step back.

"Older men declare war. But it's the youth who must fight and die!"
Herbert Hoover

this is the face of modern warfare: old men declare war to make more money for their bussenis partners, and the youth has to fight it out, and die in the process. ofcourse the youth has nothing to do with the "leaders in charge", they are just followers of orders in an army they are serving.
ive seen that most of your young men and woman in the service are from poor background, going to the army, because they have no other job or oppurtunites, i dont see lawyers and stock brokers and other american people fighting and loosing their lives!
its just wrong.

Originally posted by thelibra
I can't tell you how much that means to me. It makes me so mad when I sometimes hear even my fellow Americans refer to our troops as evil minions of some New World Order... as if our troops just had the luxury of not following orders because they didn't feel like doing it. Regardless of someone's opinions of our government, or the war itself, those troops...the troops on both sides, are dying by the orders of others with their own aims, in lieu of those who criticize them. Thank you for being one to see and understand that.

i am always "down with the people".
i know what it means to have a war and who decides when and how to attack and who actually attacks!
the days of alexander the great are over, when a general led his army into battle and conquered almost everybody he encountered. there are no generals in the battle fields, they are 1000 miles behind it! and ofcourse mister president himself, sitting in his oval office, cheking war situation on cnn and fox news. just like his sports statistics.

Originally posted by thelibra
Oh, people care. The news media may have found something new to focus on, but everywhere I go, the war in Iraq, and debates over Bush's policies are the primary sources of conversation. Wherever I drive, I see ribbons or ribbon stickers on the backs of automobiles, flags in the neighborhoods, candlelight vigils for the innocents killed in the crossfire, demonstrations of protestors...
People care very very much. Their aims may all differ, but I see more caring about it now than I did two years ago.

damn!
if people care that much, how come this a**hole is president again?
that kind of sitation puzzles me!
there were elections, and your people chose him again, well one way or another he is in charge for 4 more years.
4 more wars?
i am afraid for your poeple, for your youth for young men and women, that are going to suffer most.
soldiers and their families.

the innocent always suffer first.

Originally posted by Souljah
damn, you are so RIGHT.
eveyrthing in america is bussenis. its all about the money. i agree. and nothing else matters.

I'm afraid you're mostly right on this one, but I think the main reason is that, as a country, we have very little in the way of culture compared to, say...most of the rest of the world, actually. We hardly have any man-made buildings left standing older than 100 years old, and of the ones that are, they're mainly tourist attractions or roped-off historical landmarks. Whereas in Italy, the flat someone lives in may be the same flat someone else lived in 1000 years ago. All of our artists start, at the earliest, in the Neoclassism period or later, but most of best known ones are either Post-Impressionists or Pop Art. We barely even have folklore, and most of what does exist either came from other countries, or the natives whom the land was taken from. About the only things I can think of, unique to American folklore, are things like Bigfoot, Area 51, Paul Bunyun, and Jonny Appleseed. And most kids nowadays have never even heard of the latter two.

The greatest achievements in America have all been industrial, commercial or scientific in nature, and it's became a culture all its own, and is now the dominant culture. In all three of those areas, what matters is not aesthetic value, but results. And the best way to measure results appears to be with money. After all, if you want a business to be successful, are you going to entrust it to some dirty bugger on the street with holes in his jeans, or are you going to trust it to the rich guy in the fancy suit, sitting in a million-dollar penthouse?

Originally posted by Souljah
"money is the roots of all evil!"

Weeeeellll, actually the phrase is "For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs." - Timothy I, 6:10, King James Bible

The important distinction is that with the first version of the phrase, the beginning of all evil can be traced directly to money. Which is untrue, it could be due to any of the other "Seven Deadly Sins" besides greed, and even through initially good intentions. However, in the latter phrase, it infers that humans who treat money with greed can commit evil acts (a much more reasonable assumption).

It seems a minor point to argue, but since it applies to these paragraphs, I felt it neccesary to clarify.

Originally posted by Souljah
and since great gaps are emerging again, between those multi-millioners and the poor, everyday people, without any great income.
and yes, i am beggining to unerstand this "capitalist economy", since my country has been apart of it for a decade now, so we are really learning the first tricks.

True. The gaps are emerging in a huge way. The middle class are dying out, leaving mostly rich and poor. Either that, or perception has swung that way. But the sad thing is, no one needs to be poor. At least not forever.

You said your country has been a part of the capitalist economy for a decade now, and learning the first tricks... Which country, incidentally?

Oh, and if you want a head start on being rich, I cannot recommend any book more than this: "The Richest Man in Babylon" by George S. Clason. I should put this in my sig, really, as I've recommended it in a number of threads where the subject turns to poor vs. rich. Following the rules of money management set forth in this rather entertaining book of allegories set in ancient Babylon, even a humble maid can become rich within her own lifetime. It's been proven time and again since it was written during the 20's. In a way, you could say it was the "The Art of War" of money management.

Originally posted by Souljah
well however you turn it around, there are still two big sides in america, figting each other:
- the people who want to promote the war and with that money that they make with it
- the poeple who want to promote peace and dont care about money, but about human lives!

Yes. Sadly there is, and always will be, a conflict of interests between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots." The subject could be money, power, land, a particularly attractive significant other, education, fame, talent...even health!

The "Have Nots" will always be resentful of the "Haves," because they feel cheated out of what someone else has got. It becomes a demon to them, to which every bad thing in their life can be attributed. If they lack wealth, they often claim it is because the rich hoard all the money. Which is mostly inaccurate, as true wealth -must- be reinvested in order to grow properly and let time increase it. If they lack power, they claim it is because "The Man" keeps them down, which is also inaccurate. The Earth has a long history of powerless buggers who got pushed just a little too far and ended up becoming The Man. If they lack education, they claim it is because The System doesn't work. While it may or may not be true The System doesn't work, men like Albert Einstein have proven that one does not need formal schooling to teach onesself. They need only a library, and their own craving to learn...and so on, and so forth...

To a degree, I favor the "Haves"--at least in America--because I know that anyone has the right and ability to become a Have (short of the mentally handicapped, and they aren't likely to care). Heck, Stephen Hawking can't move much more than a few fingers, and still managed to achieve an amazing level of education, wealth, and power. Once his armored battle-mecha is finished, I will make him one of my generals.

In other countries, this may not be the case. Some places still have a very strict caste system, or a communist economy, or other such openly enforced limitations on what the individual may achieve. But in America, there really isn't any excuse for someone to stay in the dirt for their entire life, unless they want to be there (or if they have a very short life).

The problem is that the "Have Nots" are largely ignorant of their ability to rise up, and legitimately attain anything they want. It's not like this information is hidden in the deepest dungeon of an impenetrable fortress, guarded by the Dragon of Eternal Darkness... It's usually guarded by nothing more than a library card, or the price tag at a book store. Nowadays, if one has an internet connection, it could be had for free.

So what prevents the "Have Nots" from attaining this succcess, if their ignorance could so easily be corrected? After all, if one who was poor sat down and decided one day, that they will become rich, through legitimate means, the most logical place to start would be to ask someone who had become independantly wealthy how they became so. One thing I have learned is that the rich will invest only in favorable interests. This means that while they would probably not trust their money to a pauper, they will probably entrust a couple of hours of their time to someone who was willing to learn. From there, the person can be pointed to the library, where they can find "The Richest Man in Babylon" or some other equally valid book on money management, and then start a course to enact the precepts of those texts.

Thus ignorance is not an excuse. Perhaps then, they lack the discipline to enact these lessons. Discipline is not an inherited trait, it is a learned trait. Anyone can do it, given time and practice. Are the religious not able, for the most part, to resist sin in hopes of achieving some positive event after death? Are those with morals not able to resist stealing, even when hungry and poor? Are those with ethics not able to to go to work each day, despite disliking their job? Discipline is a growing, expandable resource that one can draw upon to better themselves in society. If one cannot be bothered to discipline themselves, and instead seek instant gratification, this amounts to nothing more than laziness.

Thus, ultimately, the truest gap, in a free society, is between those with Discipline and those who are Lazy. Those who remain Lazy will never achieve the level of success they desire in any subject, short of outside intervention, and those who are Disciplined will remain in charge.

Originally posted by Souljah
oh yeah, a training ground for power hungry world domination leaders.
that is all we need!
well, if i get extra potato rations, maybe you are not so bad after all...

Am I not generous? (grins)

Originally posted by Souljah
when people start to protest against war, it means that there is something wrong in the leadership of the country, going to this "rightous war".

Weeellll, again, not 100% the case, but I am inclined to agree. People can agree with a war and there still be a problem with the government. People can disagree with a war and there be a fine government. But I do see your point, and I'd say, the majority of the time, it's correct.

Originally posted by Souljah
how you want "to help stop it" is another story. protesting and blockig traffic is just a public move, for all others to see and feel the presence of the protestors. and yes, i agree that avrege protestor is TOO lazy to do much diffrence. if all of them, that you see on the streets wanted to change something and really doit!, then changes would come sooner or later, but there is a diffrence between:
- showing that you are not happy to the world, and doing nothing about it
- showing that you are not happy to the world, and trying to CHANGE THAT!

You raise a very good point. I never really considered it that way before. I guess public demonstrations do have some point, then.

Originally posted by Souljah
yes i understood that you were talking about "the support" and not comparng sport and war. but all of that comparison between sports and war just doubles the feeling of money hungry goverment, that IS treating war as sports! and THAT is the saddest part of this story!

My view on the Iraq war has flipped back and forth so many times... at one point it was about WMDs... then it was about getting Saddham out of power... then it was about money... now it appears to be about the election... Truth be told, though at one time I thought it was about money, America is going to have lost so many hundreds of billions of dollars on this war that we'll never see any level of profit from it. I figure right now it's a war just for the sake of having a war... because the goal seems to change constantly. I hope to God we get out of there once the elections have taken place.

Originally posted by Souljah
ive seen that most of your young men and woman in the service are from poor background, going to the army, because they have no other job or oppurtunites, i dont see lawyers and stock brokers and other american people fighting and loosing their lives!
its just wrong.

I've got mixed feelings on it. To be honest, it makes sense that the majority would be poor, because the majority of people in general are poor. The poor also tend to be in better physical condition, as they are not softened by luxury. The rich tend to be older, because money needs time to turn into wealth. Those who have successful careers are a lot less impressionable, because they know what works, and what doesn't. These aren't the kinds of people you want in the battlefield. You want people who are going to follow orders without question. And additionally, this does give the poor a really good chance at a new life. They can come home a veteran, which opens a LOT of doors, jobwise. Although their wage is for crap, their living, legal, and medical expenses are all paid for, so in reality, they technically net more than the average middle-class person (if they can hang on to the money instead of spending it on leave). Thanks to the G.I. Bill, and other programs, they can get a free education, plus various skill trainings for their job in the military that can later be applied to society...

...assuming they live through it...

Now I would never dare refer to the military as a route to instant gratification. However, it is a quicker route to achieve those ends than the comparitively slower effects of good money management. If one takes a compassionless view of risk vs yield, it's not unlike taking a high-risk investment. Just as there is an appreciable chance that the investment that might net 20-50% in the next few years may instead fail, there is a chance that the faster military route to wealth and education will result in the person's death. Both are risks that are voluntarily taken in a free society. While the consequences can be tragic in either circumstance, that's why it's called a high-risk investment. I realize this is a very cold way of looking at it, but in a society where people have the choice not to assume high risk, that's what, ultimately, it comes down to.

Originally posted by Souljah
damn!
if people care that much, how come this a**hole is president again?
that kind of sitation puzzles me!
there were elections, and your people chose him again, well one way or another he is in charge for 4 more years.

Just like the quote from that magazine in the UK, "How Can 59 Million People Be So Dumb?"

This boggles the mind for about half of the United States citizens, and everyone has their own theories as to how, with all the idiocy of Bush thrown before them in plain view, could over half the voters vote for Bush... He not only won the electorate, but the popular vote as well! So the standard whining about the electoral system being outmoded doesn't even apply.

I've got got a few theories myself, but mostly it comes down to the fact that: Bush knew how to twist Kerry's words to his advantage, better than Kerry could. Bush was, admittedly, better looking (a terrible but true factor in politics). And Bush has a better way of speaking to the lowest common denominator.

Additionally, I blame all the idiots who refused to vote Kerry because they thought their vote wouldn't matter. All those self-righteous disaffected and spoiled members of Generation-X who sit on their arses through the entire election, because they're so adsorbed in their own conspiracy theories and ego that they can't be bothered to take 10 minutes out of their day, go to the nearest poll, and vote for their beliefs... those are the ones who make me absolutely livid. ARGH!!! THOSE bastages are the reason we're stuck with the very idiot they are afraid of! BLAH!!!!

Okay... I need to go have a smoke. I'm furious now.

Originally posted by Souljah
when people start to protest against war, it means that there is something wrong in the leadership of the country, going to this "rightous war". how you want "to help stop it" is another story. protesting and blockig traffic is just a public move, for all others to see and feel the presence of the protestors. and yes, i agree that avrege protestor is TOO lazy to do much diffrence. if all of them, that you see on the streets wanted to change something and really doit!, then changes would come sooner or later, but there is a diffrence between:
- showing that you are not happy to the world, and doing nothing about it
- showing that you are not happy to the world, and trying to CHANGE THAT!

When people have been stripped of all power, they're left with no option but protest. It's either that, or take up arms and start killing politicians. Which would you prefer to see?
Not only don't politicians listen, they don't care if you do happen to disagree. This is especially true with Bush. Protestors feel powerless to change the government. I tend to agree. There is nothing we can do until we take power back the only way they're going to give it back...with violence.

Originally posted by thelibra
I'm afraid you're mostly right on this one, but I think the main reason is that, as a country, we have very little in the way of culture compared to, say...most of the rest of the world, actually. We hardly have any man-made buildings left standing older than 100 years old, and of the ones that are, they're mainly tourist attractions or roped-off historical landmarks. Whereas in Italy, the flat someone lives in may be the same flat someone else lived in 1000 years ago. All of our artists start, at the earliest, in the Neoclassism period or later, but most of best known ones are either Post-Impressionists or Pop Art. We barely even have folklore, and most of what does exist either came from other countries, or the natives whom the land was taken from. About the only things I can think of, unique to American folklore, are things like Bigfoot, Area 51, Paul Bunyun, and Jonny Appleseed. And most kids nowadays have never even heard of the latter two.

well you are a "young" nation so to speak, have been around this world for the last 200-250 years since the founding of your nation and declaratation of independace. on the other side, here in europe we live in cities thousands years old, since the roman empire. and you, have for such a young nation a very violent history, more history of violence, from the day that first colonist set foot on the american soil.

Originally posted by thelibra
The greatest achievements in America have all been industrial, commercial or scientific in nature, and it's became a culture all its own, and is now the dominant culture. In all three of those areas, what matters is not aesthetic value, but results. And the best way to measure results appears to be with money. After all, if you want a business to be successful, are you going to entrust it to some dirty bugger on the street with holes in his jeans, or are you going to trust it to the rich guy in the fancy suit, sitting in a million-dollar penthouse?

but i have to agree that in this few hundred years you have discovered and invented much good stuff. it has always been in america, that the american way allows you to do whatever you want and if you are good at it and have a really big "dream" than you will be successful.
and this comment of yours reminds me of a movie called "trading places", where two rich brothes bet each other, that they can convert a common criminal into a successful stock broker millionare, and turn a successful stock broker into a homeless criminal. and that is the american way!

Originally posted by thelibra
The important distinction is that with the first version of the phrase, the beginning of all evil can be traced directly to money. Which is untrue, it could be due to any of the other "Seven Deadly Sins" besides greed, and even through initially good intentions. However, in the latter phrase, it infers that humans who treat money with greed can commit evil acts (a much more reasonable assumption).

the "love" for money is a sin. for the love of money people would rob their own mother, kill their own brother. money changes you, and the greed becomes even more strong, if you are a weak person. money has that way with people, i have seen it myself.

Originally posted by thelibra
True. The gaps are emerging in a huge way. The middle class are dying out, leaving mostly rich and poor. Either that, or perception has swung that way. But the sad thing is, no one needs to be poor. At least not forever.
You said your country has been a part of the capitalist economy for a decade now, and learning the first tricks... Which country, incidentally?

yes i have to get used to that, since this transformation is happening right before my eyes right now!
i am from Slovenia, apart of former yugoslavia, and we have come from socialism directl into captialism.

Originally posted by thelibra
Oh, and if you want a head start on being rich, I cannot recommend any book more than this: "The Richest Man in Babylon" by George S. Clason. I should put this in my sig, really, as I've recommended it in a number of threads where the subject turns to poor vs. rich. Following the rules of money management set forth in this rather entertaining book of allegories set in ancient Babylon, even a humble maid can become rich within her own lifetime. It's been proven time and again since it was written during the 20's. In a way, you could say it was the "The Art of War" of money management.

richest man in babylon is a book?
i have at home a cd album with that name by a group called thievery corporation,
which i like very much! but now that i know that is a book, i will have to go out any borrow it or buy it soon!
thanks for the info!

Originally posted by thelibra
Yes. Sadly there is, and always will be, a conflict of interests between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots." The subject could be money, power, land, a particularly attractive significant other, education, fame, talent...even health!
The "Have Nots" will always be resentful of the "Haves," because they feel cheated out of what someone else has got. It becomes a demon to them, to which every bad thing in their life can be attributed. If they lack wealth, they often claim it is because the rich hoard all the money. Which is mostly inaccurate, as true wealth -must- be reinvested in order to grow properly and let time increase it. If they lack power, they claim it is because "The Man" keeps them down, which is also inaccurate. The Earth has a long history of powerless buggers who got pushed just a little too far and ended up becoming The Man. If they lack education, they claim it is because The System doesn't work. While it may or may not be true The System doesn't work, men like Albert Einstein have proven that one does not need formal schooling to teach onesself. They need only a library, and their own craving to learn...and so on, and so forth...

To a degree, I favor the "Haves"--at least in America--because I know that anyone has the right and ability to become a Have (short of the mentally handicapped, and they aren't likely to care). Heck, Stephen Hawking can't move much more than a few fingers, and still managed to achieve an amazing level of education, wealth, and power. Once his armored battle-mecha is finished, I will make him one of my generals.

that is a good point and a good comparison.
i agree with you on the "have's", since they are at least DOING something to change the world around them, even if for their own goals. well at least they have a goal to follow. and its always easier to whine about something and feel pity for yourself, then to do something about it. real changes dont come quick, nor do they come "easy".

Originally posted by thelibra
The problem is that the "Have Nots" are largely ignorant of their ability to rise up, and legitimately attain anything they want. It's not like this information is hidden in the deepest dungeon of an impenetrable fortress, guarded by the Dragon of Eternal Darkness... It's usually guarded by nothing more than a library card, or the price tag at a book store. Nowadays, if one has an internet connection, it could be had for free.

So what prevents the "Have Nots" from attaining this succcess, if their ignorance could so easily be corrected? After all, if one who was poor sat down and decided one day, that they will become rich, through legitimate means, the most logical place to start would be to ask someone who had become independantly wealthy how they became so. One thing I have learned is that the rich will invest only in favorable interests. This means that while they would probably not trust their money to a pauper, they will probably entrust a couple of hours of their time to someone who was willing to learn. From there, the person can be pointed to the library, where they can find "The Richest Man in Babylon" or some other equally valid book on money management, and then start a course to enact the precepts of those texts.

i agree with you completly.
if they wanted to change something, they would do it, and in that minute they would change from a "have not" to a "have". lazziness? ignorance? whatever the cause of their non-movement, it is giving the "haves" alot of advantage, since they have nobody to compete with, its easy for them to pile even more money in their big bank, and smile to the angry and pissed "have nots", that are just complaining.
after all WE have the power to CHANGE! change ourselfes, change our neighbourhood, change our country, change the world! if we WANT TO. not if we talk about it. thats a start. but its far, far, far away from the end.

Originally posted by thelibra
My view on the Iraq war has flipped back and forth so many times... at one point it was about WMDs... then it was about getting Saddham out of power... then it was about money... now it appears to be about the election... Truth be told, though at one time I thought it was about money, America is going to have lost so many hundreds of billions of dollars on this war that we'll never see any level of profit from it. I figure right now it's a war just for the sake of having a war... because the goal seems to change constantly. I hope to God we get out of there once the elections have taken place.

if you ask me, i was against this war in iraq since the day one.
i knew that this would happen, and that it will be a beggining of "second vietnam war", since us army is still stuck in that place, not going nowhere.
from the day one i despice your presidents actions to "incrase the peace in the middle east", because he is doing exactly the OPPOSITE. but anyway, as long as the money flows, right?
just bussenis. nothing personal.

Originally posted by thelibra
I've got mixed feelings on it. To be honest, it makes sense that the majority would be poor, because the majority of people in general are poor. The poor also tend to be in better physical condition, as they are not softened by luxury. The rich tend to be older, because money needs time to turn into wealth. Those who have successful careers are a lot less impressionable, because they know what works, and what doesn't. These aren't the kinds of people you want in the battlefield. You want people who are going to follow orders without question. And additionally, this does give the poor a really good chance at a new life. They can come home a veteran, which opens a LOT of doors, jobwise. Although their wage is for crap, their living, legal, and medical expenses are all paid for, so in reality, they technically net more than the average middle-class person (if they can hang on to the money instead of spending it on leave). Thanks to the G.I. Bill, and other programs, they can get a free education, plus various skill trainings for their job in the military that can later be applied to society...
...assuming they live through it...

well, i have seen the new movie by michael moore fahrenheit 9/11, and he was talking about this, how the soliders fighting and dying in iraq are most from poor backgrounds, who lost their jobs or cant get a job. looks like a way out of their money problems, and they will have a "steady job".
anyway, the "small people" are always the lowest in the army, therefore with less importance and higher casualites. thats how it has always been.

Originally posted by thelibra
I've got got a few theories myself, but mostly it comes down to the fact that: Bush knew how to twist Kerry's words to his advantage, better than Kerry could. Bush was, admittedly, better looking (a terrible but true factor in politics). And Bush has a better way of speaking to the lowest common denominator.

Additionally, I blame all the idiots who refused to vote Kerry because they thought their vote wouldn't matter. All those self-righteous disaffected and spoiled members of Generation-X who sit on their arses through the entire election, because they're so adsorbed in their own conspiracy theories and ego that they can't be bothered to take 10 minutes out of their day, go to the nearest poll, and vote for their beliefs... those are the ones who make me absolutely livid. ARGH!!! THOSE bastages are the reason we're stuck with the very idiot they are afraid of! BLAH!!!!

yes i find that kerry's fliping and floping on the issues confused most of his fans, since one minute he was pro war and the next minute he was against it! so, what did he say anyway? on the other side bush jr has very good propaganda machine, and a very capable guy who writes him speeches (since he is unable to write a complete sentance, well at least he can read!). he knows what he is doing and writing, and knows how to get the attention of all those people who are deciding who to vote:
and YES i understand your problem with people who dont go voting!
we had elections this year also, and from our big list of political parties, it is not very hard to find a party, that suits you (we have alot of political parties in the parlament, so you can choose from a broad variety of them). but STILL most of the poeple did not go voting! especially in the urban areas, where the so called generatio-X dont give a fu** about anything but themselfes and their own interests. what country will they live in for next four years nobody even wants to know.
i belive that is the problem in most of contries during elections.

Originally posted by Damned
When people have been stripped of all power, they're left with no option but protest. It's either that, or take up arms and start killing politicians. Which would you prefer to see?
Not only don't politicians listen, they don't care if you do happen to disagree. This is especially true with Bush. Protestors feel powerless to change the government. I tend to agree. There is nothing we can do until we take power back the only way they're going to give it back...with violence.

if you ask me,
a peacefull protest does one thing: alarms the poeple who DONT know about the problem and alarms the govorment about the problem, that the common people do not support your actions. but what does a protest actually CHANGE? most of the times, nothing. i have to agree with you on that.
since no politican will ever listen to the protestors, they can try to change in the legitimate way, gathering signatures, collecting support and growing in numbers! the more people, the more influence, the more possibility for a change. but then there are also extreme measures:

- take the power back, one way or antother: with violence

that is the final part of this "revolution" that you are talking about. when people stop talking and start DOING IT, then true changes really start to happen.
and taking back the power with violence, has only one result in usa:
another civil war!

I do believe it'll become necessary in the near future. Civil or revolutionary war is inevitable. Although, as much as Americans seem to deny what's happening, it could be another 100 years before people are finally so oppressed that they feel they have no other option. We will see some horrid changes before all hell breaks loose, IMO.

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Damned]

Libra, you old weenie, I can see why you keep getting these "way above" medals. Your post above that talked about "The Richest Man in Babylon" got a vote from me.