General Politics Thread

**Vulgotha** · 02-28-2013

Originally Posted by Valefor

And that is better for the West, and this is only possible because of US support in the form of weapons technology. This highlights Israel's strategic importance. Although I am not even sure it would be a steamroll now - they have the superior military in the region for sure, but how that would play out in the context of the Arab Spring, I don't know. They would not only have Iran to deal with; Hamas would no doubt continue to fire at will into Israeli territory and Egypt, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, would be putting on pressure as well. Then there are other toppled governments, due to the 'democratic revolution', who now have access to weaponry who may see it as an attack on Islam. It's a mess, there's no other way to describe it.

I know the word 'jihad' can be attributed also to more friendly ideals like inner peace, and we're not at war with all jihadists, but we (and other Muslims) are at war with people who would consider their 'resistance' as jihad. Let's not ignore the other ways in which the term is used just for the sake of political correctness, it hinders the questioning of ideas.

I am not disputing the problems with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I am just pointing out that Iran should not be brushed off so easily - no situations are as simple as you made out in your last post. Each country has to be approached uniquely, and the Iranian leadership is the one that has made its thoughts on the matter of Zionism very clear - it wants to remove Zionism from the pages of history (or whatever the correct translation was). And whilst Zionism isn't a very good idea, if it comes to it, the use of nuclear weapons against Israel is likely to be a worse idea.

I don't think the situation with North Korea should be brushed off easily either. Their leaders are crazy and desperate - a dangerous combination. We have to consider the wider implications that the spread of nuclear arms to these states would bring to world stability. Thinking about it when we see mushroom clouds above cities - even if not our own - is too late. Even if it didn't come to that, a North / South Korean war could easily escalate, and the confusion it could bring could be beneficial to terrorist activities.

Of course but finding a rational explanation from ones who think irrationally is quite the task. The West has screwed up in many ways, especially with Iran, so I don't think anyone is blameless. I'm not sure how this cycle is to be broken though.

Aren't most religions a lifestyle? Islam certainly offers a unique problem. It has not been through the Renaissance and the Reformation like Christianity has for example, so it hasn't caught up to modern ethics and secularism. When people make jokes about Jesus, some Christians ignore it, laugh it off, or voice their opposition in a civilised manner. When people have made jokes about Muhammad, there have been riots in the street and people have been murdered. This intolerance can't be tolerated, and it certainly is incompatible with Western ideals.

I don't know how this is resolved. Education, as you say, would be integral to any plan, and decent Muslims speaking out in numbers against extremists would be invaluable. It would also be beneficial for the West to stop trying to cater to everyone's feelings by having a rule of law that applies to everyone equally, as it should do. We shouldn't have a situation where we have Sharia and Jewish committees that deal with problems according to their own culture, and we shouldn't have situations where religious believers are not held to the same standard as other believers / non believers when it comes to policies - this encourages segregation. We all need to live, work, and abide by the same rules together.

I don't see how it's better for the west that the counter balance that Iran embodies now to cease continuing to exist. Iraq and Iran served as region stabilizers out there, especially in relation to Saudi Arabia and each other (as history has shown). By toppling them we must either allow there to exist a power vacuum or step up to the plate and fill it.

How is this good for us? That region is inherently volitile and not friendly towards the west. Why interfere even more and continue to throw money and lives into this drain?

I mean it'd make a hell of alot more sense if we kept what we invaded or something. Cracked down and did actual reforms and created satellite nations- providing this were actually feasible. Something tells me it just wouldn't be worth the cost and investment. Moreso than what we are doing. Yes, this sentiment could be viewed as empiricism, but I'm not interested in the 'rights' or 'wrongs' of war from a moral point of view. Only what benefits the most people.

But it has to be financially solvent and tactically prudent. This, and what we are doing now, is neither.

We topple Iran and take over, the middle east gets more paranoid and belligerent (and rightfully so). Anger and violence towards the west and Israel escalates.

We topple them over and do nothing- a few things could happen. Chaos and infighting to take control of the power void or anger\resentment from other nations when Israel\Saudi Arabia takes advantage of the situation they instigated.

Who wins here? What do we get out of it?

This is what I'm saying. We don't get the most out of this deal- the nations pulling at our strings and goading us into it do. Israel and Saudi Arabia. We throw the most money, lives and technology at it and they will reap the benefits. I'm not ok with that.

Iran is not a real threat. Further, if they ever were a real and tangible threat we were the ones who made them that way when we armed Saddam Hussein (along with UK and Israel and others) with weapons (some of them chemical, remember the WMD's?) to wage war on Iran. Up until this point, Iran was remarkably western and pro west. Hell, they were actually adopting the latest styles from the 70's and getting into disco.

Amazing what history does.

And I'm not being 'politically correct' here with Jihad and muslim terminology. I'm using what is accurate, because if you don't understand the culture and the beliefs of the enemy then you've lost half the fight before you even started. Calling them jihadists is just a bad move, to Muslims out there it smacks of the west waging war against all of Islam. Be specific. Call them Wahabis and Salafists. This only matters to me because, again, with insurgency warfare this type of stuff is paramount. They recruit from the every day Muslim stir them up with rhetoric and illustrations of how 'evil' we are. And there's alot of Muslims out there.

Many religions operate within degrees of how Islam does- but I cannot really embrace the point of view that they're all so similar. Islam, for instance, has an entire economic model on how to do business. This is why many, many, Muslims do not use western banks. They use Muslim ones located in the middle east- because they believe collecting interest on a debt is immoral.

That being said, they levvy "fees" or other such semantics based work arounds in order to do the same thing.. But yea, capital flows out of the west and into Muslim financial institutions and nations. As one example.

As for North Korea, I'm not denying that they're nuts. But their actual potency is very limited without Chinese backing, which has waned considerably in recent years. They're near starving and entirely out gunned as a nation, with no real allies (save a weary China). There would certainly be great loss of life in a war with them, but it would last maybe a month and it'd be over. The biggest concerns are chemical weapons and all of the tunnels they've been digging and what kind of death toll that would inflict upon population centers.

**Sub-stance1** · 02-28-2013

Originally Posted by DayWalker

@ Megan Kelly (however you spell her name) trying to defend Hannity this morning.

that woman is too hot to be so stupid.

That's a good description for most of the women over there......except maybe Greta....lol I don't know that guy but i'm glad he put Hannity in his place. I'll never for get when Jesse took it to him.

**Valefor** · 02-28-2013

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

I don't see how it's better for the west that the counter balance that Iran embodies now to cease continuing to exist. Iraq and Iran served as region stabilizers out there, especially in relation to Saudi Arabia and each other (as history has shown). By toppling them we must either allow there to exist a power vacuum or step up to the plate and fill it.

How is this good for us? That region is inherently volitile and not friendly towards the west. Why interfere even more and continue to throw money and lives into this drain?

I mean it'd make a hell of alot more sense if we kept what we invaded or something. Cracked down and did actual reforms and created satellite nations- providing this were actually feasible. Something tells me it just wouldn't be worth the cost and investment. Moreso than what we are doing. Yes, this sentiment could be viewed as empiricism, but I'm not interested in the 'rights' or 'wrongs' of war from a moral point of view. Only what benefits the most people.

But it has to be financially solvent and tactically prudent. This, and what we are doing now, is neither.

We topple Iran and take over, the middle east gets more paranoid and belligerent (and rightfully so). Anger and violence towards the west and Israel escalates.

We topple them over and do nothing- a few things could happen. Chaos and infighting to take control of the power void or anger\resentment from other nations when Israel\Saudi Arabia takes advantage of the situation they instigated.

Who wins here? What do we get out of it?

This is what I'm saying. We don't get the most out of this deal- the nations pulling at our strings and goading us into it do. Israel and Saudi Arabia. We throw the most money, lives and technology at it and they will reap the benefits. I'm not ok with that.

And I ask you the same thing - how is Israel being toppled good for us? Do you think the toppling of Israel would not rally terrorists? Wouldn't Israel's toppling make the middle-east more volatile and escalate violence against the West? You can ask all these questions you pose and direct it both ways. I'm not OK with the scenario you set out, and I am not OK with the scenario I set out. That's my point, the situation is not simple enough to just leave them to it and put our fingers in our ears. Ideally, diplomacy will prevail, but both sides are crazy so I doubt it will.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

Iran is not a real threat. Further, if they ever were a real and tangible threat we were the ones who made them that way when we armed Saddam Hussein (along with UK and Israel and others) with weapons (some of them chemical, remember the WMD's?) to wage war on Iran. Up until this point, Iran was remarkably western and pro west. Hell, they were actually adopting the latest styles from the 70's and getting into disco.

Amazing what history does.

Which is why I mentioned its leadership's intention - the actual people of Iran, generally, are educated with a modern view of the world - at least, the ones I know personally are. The Iranians themselves are not the issue, it's their leadership's desire to topple Israel/Zionism and their sponsoring of terrorism which has implications for us if they obtain nuclear weaponry.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

And I'm not being 'politically correct' here with Jihad and muslim terminology. I'm using what is accurate, because if you don't understand the culture and the beliefs of the enemy then you've lost half the fight before you even started. Calling them jihadists is just a bad move, to Muslims out there it smacks of the west waging war against all of Islam. Be specific. Call them Wahabis and Salafists. This only matters to me because, again, with insurgency warfare this type of stuff is paramount. They recruit from the every day Muslim stir them up with rhetoric and illustrations of how 'evil' we are. And there's alot of Muslims out there.

Many religions operate within degrees of how Islam does- but I cannot really embrace the point of view that they're all so similar. Islam, for instance, has an entire economic model on how to do business. This is why many, many, Muslims do not use western banks. They use Muslim ones located in the middle east- because they believe collecting interest on a debt is immoral.

That being said, they levvy "fees" or other such semantics based work arounds in order to do the same thing.. But yea, capital flows out of the west and into Muslim financial institutions and nations. As one example.

Salafists/Wahabbis fighting against us are waging jihad, and the violent nature that is also attached to the term won't be addressed if we pretend it's all nice and fluffy. And if we're going to be precise, you give too much credit to them by calling them 'insurgents' - insurgency is a broad term and does not require the use of terrorism. We are dealing with people that target people, including non-combatants, using violence and intimidation - this is terrorism. I am not in total agreement with the Scheuer line of thinking.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

As for North Korea, I'm not denying that they're nuts. But their actual potency is very limited without Chinese backing, which has waned considerably in recent years. They're near starving and entirely out gunned as a nation, with no real allies (save a weary China). There would certainly be great loss of life in a war with them, but it would last maybe a month and it'd be over. The biggest concerns are chemical weapons and all of the tunnels they've been digging and what kind of death toll that would inflict upon population centers.

'Outgunned' becomes a moot point when you have a nuclear weapon. Starved, and may soon be nuclear and willing to supply other states - not a good situation. China's influence would be irrelevant in the long-term. It is reported (whether it is accurate is an unknown) that North Korea colludes with states such as Iran, Pakistan, Syria etc, all of which happen to be areas where we have problems.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/claudiar...nuclear-wares/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77N2FZ20110824

Overall, outside of diplomacy I don't know what the correct course of action is, my argument is merely that it is a complex situation that could be bad for us whichever way it is handled if diplomacy fails.

Non-intervention is great on paper, and was a sensible strategy in the days of limited technology, but in a high-tech globalised world it can become careless, since we live in a age where we have the capacity to destroy the earth itself. If we had the technology to negate such attacks at a 100% success rate, that would be a different story. Let's not play with our lives.

**Bigdoggy** · 02-28-2013

Whatever, North Korea can just go straight to hell. If they shoot a missile towards the USA even if it's not a real missile and mainly target practice, I say go in there and fuckem up. If China doesn't like it, tough shit.

**MATRIX 2** · 02-28-2013

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/27/wo...html?hpt=hp_t3

$$$

**DayWalker** · 03-03-2013

http://readersupportednews.org/opini...types=og.likes

who all read that time magazine article?

thoughts?

**DayWalker** · 03-04-2013

**Rapture** · 03-04-2013

B-but they worked for that money! It's the lower classes and welfare users taking our money and sinking our economy! Damn damn, damn them all! How can the poor bankers and CEOs afford their fifth house if we actually lower the insane disparity between the rich and poor?

This is a sad trait of the current America. Everyone, Democratic, Republican, whatever, needs to recognize this is a serious issue. The elite of the nation posses far too much money and power. They are a detriment to this nation and its people. It baffles me that some are not only OK with this, but actively support it with their opinions and voice. How long do we need to let this continue, until eventually all of the nation is poor and grieving? When only the few and rich control everything and hold all the money? I read an article recently citing how the middle class is shrinking and how the rich continue gaining ground nationally. If we don't do something now, we simply won't have the time, money or power to do anything at all in 30 years. It will be too late.

Trickle-down doesn't work. You can't build a working economy from the top-town. It topples and fails. We need to expand our economy out from the base and middle, and let those who really deserve the wealth come anew. There's nothing wrong with a CEO making more money than a janitor. What is wrong is when that CEO is living in a mansion, hoarding millions if not billions of dollars, and the janitor can barely get by feeding his family, and suddenly the injury he received last week put him in debt due to medical bills. Whoops! He must have worked harder; he clearly brought this on himself.

Honestly, the United States is really fucked up right now. There's so many things wrong with our government and society. I feel disgusted sometimes. It makes me sad seeing this stuff, but even sadder when my fellow Americans fail to recognize it as the issue it truly is.

**weskurtz81** · 03-04-2013

Originally Posted by Rapture

B-but they worked for that money! It's the lower classes and welfare users taking our money and sinking our economy! Damn damn, damn them all! How can the poor bankers and CEOs afford their fifth house if we actually lower the insane disparity between the rich and poor?

This is a sad trait of the current America. Everyone, Democratic, Republican, whatever, needs to recognize this is a serious issue. The elite of the nation posses far too much money and power. They are a detriment to this nation and its people. It baffles me that some are not only OK with this, but actively support it with their opinions and voice. How long do we need to let this continue, until eventually all of the nation is poor and grieving? When only the few and rich control everything and hold all the money? I read an article recently citing how the middle class is shrinking and how the rich continue gaining ground nationally. If we don't do something now, we simply won't have the time, money or power to do anything at all in 30 years. It will be too late.

Trickle-down doesn't work. You can't build a working economy from the top-town. It topples and fails. We need to expand our economy out from the base and middle, and let those who really deserve the wealth come anew. There's nothing wrong with a CEO making more money than a janitor. What is wrong is when that CEO is living in a mansion, hoarding millions if not billions of dollars, and the janitor can barely get by feeding his family, and suddenly the injury he received last week put him in debt due to medical bills. Whoops! He must have worked harder; he clearly brought this on himself.

Honestly, the United States is really fucked up right now. There's so many things wrong with our government and society. I feel disgusted sometimes. It makes me sad seeing this stuff, but even sadder when my fellow Americans fail to recognize it as the issue it truly is.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is the best way to level out income in the United States?

**Sub-stance1** · 03-04-2013

Originally Posted by Rapture

B-but they worked for that money! It's the lower classes and welfare users taking our money and sinking our economy! Damn damn, damn them all! How can the poor bankers and CEOs afford their fifth house if we actually lower the insane disparity between the rich and poor?

This is a sad trait of the current America. Everyone, Democratic, Republican, whatever, needs to recognize this is a serious issue. The elite of the nation posses far too much money and power. They are a detriment to this nation and its people. It baffles me that some are not only OK with this, but actively support it with their opinions and voice. How long do we need to let this continue, until eventually all of the nation is poor and grieving? When only the few and rich control everything and hold all the money? I read an article recently citing how the middle class is shrinking and how the rich continue gaining ground nationally. If we don't do something now, we simply won't have the time, money or power to do anything at all in 30 years. It will be too late.

Trickle-down doesn't work. You can't build a working economy from the top-town. It topples and fails. We need to expand our economy out from the base and middle, and let those who really deserve the wealth come anew. There's nothing wrong with a CEO making more money than a janitor. What is wrong is when that CEO is living in a mansion, hoarding millions if not billions of dollars, and the janitor can barely get by feeding his family, and suddenly the injury he received last week put him in debt due to medical bills. Whoops! He must have worked harder; he clearly brought this on himself.

Honestly, the United States is really fucked up right now. There's so many things wrong with our government and society. I feel disgusted sometimes. It makes me sad seeing this stuff, but even sadder when my fellow Americans fail to recognize it as the issue it truly is.

**Rapture** · 03-05-2013

Originally Posted by weskurtz81

Out of curiosity, what do you think is the best way to level out income in the United States?

A substantial fix would be to remove money from politics as much as possible, then push for stronger representation within the government. You remove tax loopholes and stop treating companies with the same rights as people. Unavoidable federal taxes for the rich and social programs for the poor would be effective as well, maybe even lessening taxes on the very poor in general. You then cut spending (specifically military) and put that money elsewhere, where it can actually aid people.

**Vulgotha** · 03-05-2013

Originally Posted by Rapture

A substantial fix would be to remove money from politics as much as possible, then push for stronger representation within the government. You remove tax loopholes and stop treating companies with the same rights as people. Unavoidable federal taxes for the rich and social programs for the poor would be effective as well, maybe even lessening taxes on the very poor in general. You then cut spending (specifically military) and put that money elsewhere, where it can actually aid people.

No. You cut the spending and lower taxes. I see no point in letting the government keep that money to itself to further mismanage once the military has been axed.

I'd also throw away the entire tax code. Go for something straight forward and simple, like a flat tax\fair tax.

And rework or entirely remove Social Security, remove the postal service, amtrac, etc.

There's alot that can be done to trim down the bloat put more money back in the people's hands and limit the politicians. But it won't happen.

**Rapture** · 03-05-2013

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

No. You cut the spending and lower taxes. I see no point in letting the government keep that money to itself to further mismanage once the military has been axed.

Weksurt asked me of my opinion on how to balance the wealth of the nation, not fix the economy (balancing the wealth would help the economy massively, but that's beside the point). Lowering taxes and spending less alone doesn't balance anything. You'll continue having that dichotomy in wealth. You have to make active changes to shift the money around. Besides, I stated "You then cut spending..." anyways. Lowering taxes as well is fine, though the USA does have some of the lowest taxes in the industrialized world already. I wouldn't say it's a necessity.

Originally Posted by Vulgotha

There's alot that can be done to trim down the bloat put more money back in the people's hands and limit the politicians. But it won't happen.

Unfortunately not probable, but it can. We still have our rights and money right now. We outnumber the elite of the nation and we can effect betterment if we tried. That is, sadly, beyond my power though, and up to the American population as a collective. Will they stand and say enough is enough, or will we continue abating this degradation before capitulating ourselves and our children as wage slaves?

I hope decades from now, the generation then looks back and thinks how silly the country was to let this imbalance of wealth and power happen in the first place. Yes, I hope.

**DayWalker** · 03-05-2013

Disagree... closing tax loopholes and using that revenue to create a better education system is a great way to build a stronger middle class.

education = the great equalizer

**Morganator** · 03-05-2013

Originally Posted by DayWalker

Disagree... closing tax loopholes and using that revenue to create a better education system is a great way to build a stronger middle class.

education = the great equalizer

I'd be fine with that if and only if, a constitutional amendment could be created to fund education and base the entirety of the tax system around it. This would include college education of which, would be funded by the tax payers as well. This would necessitate sweeping reforms though of which, I don't ever see happening in Washington. Best idea though is to ax it at the national level and let the local governments take care of it or have it community based. There is always a fix. People just have to be able to stomach the consequences associated with the respective fixes.

**Rapture** · 03-05-2013

Originally Posted by DayWalker

Disagree... closing tax loopholes and using that revenue to create a better education system is a great way to build a stronger middle class.

education = the great equalizer

Originally Posted by Rapture

You then cut spending (specifically military) and put that money elsewhere, where it can actually aid people.

I'm a huge advocate for better education in the United States. An educated population is the best thing you can ever have, and its where your real benefits will eventually come from. I would like to see technology (personal teachers) introduced into the schools so that children can learn at their own pace.

**Completely Average** · 03-05-2013

Originally Posted by Rapture

A substantial fix would be to remove money from politics as much as possible, then push for stronger representation within the government. You remove tax loopholes and stop treating companies with the same rights as people. Unavoidable federal taxes for the rich and social programs for the poor would be effective as well, maybe even lessening taxes on the very poor in general. You then cut spending (specifically military) and put that money elsewhere, where it can actually aid people.

You sound like a typical liberal. Brainwashed to the end.

For the record.....

46% of Americans do not pay taxes at all. And guess what. NONE of them are rich.

Giving money to the poor for nothing only makes the poor dependent on handouts. Why try harder if you get everything you need without having to work for it?

Every country in history that has attempted to use government to make the population equal in wealth has failed. Every single one. Basically, you either end up with an elite ruling class controlling a mass of slaves (Marxism/communism) or you end up with everyone being equally poor. Fact is there isn't enough wealth in the world for everyone to be rich, so either you want to make everyone poor or you have to accept the fact that some will be rich and some will be poor.

And most important, if the government controls your income then the government controls your life. I would take a good, hard look at how effective the government is before I would say that government controlling your life is a good idea.

**Completely Average** · 03-05-2013

Originally Posted by DayWalker

Disagree... closing tax loopholes and using that revenue to create a better education system is a great way to build a stronger middle class.

education = the great equalizer

Define "better education system".

Let's be realistic here for just a moment. There are social problems that hold certain groups back that cannot be fixed by simply throwing money at the problem. Non-English speaking immigrants will always struggle because they did not speak English before coming to this country. They will always have lower graduation rates, they will always be forced into lower paying jobs, they will always be at a disadvantage because they cannot easily assimilate into the American population.

Even more important, many simply do not want to. They live in little enclaves, cities within cities where they willingly and deliberately segregate themselves and refuse to integrate into the greater American society. Chinatown, Little Mexico, Little Havana, etc... No amount of money is going to fix this.

Then you have another problem with the poor who have been conditioned to live a certain lifestyle. Inner city blacks, Appalachian hillbillies, Native American Indians, etc... These people have for generations taught themselves how their lives should be, what they should aspire to be, what is acceptable for them. Again, simply throwing money at the problem isn't going to change anything because these people CHOOSE their lifestyle. You could increase education spending tenfold but you're not going to increase the graduation rate of inner city blacks. The change that they need will have to come from their home and start at birth. Long before they enter the education system they are taught that they are poor, they are stuck where they are at, and that their lifestyle is acceptable and even desirable. Nothing you teach them in a school is going to change that.

From birth you see that mommy lives on welfare and does drugs, who knows where daddy is, and all your friends are in the exact same position. That's normal, acceptable, and the way life should be in your eyes.

It's easy to sit back and say things like "improve the education system" and "build a stronger middle class", but it's not so easy when you start addressing the REAL problem.

The REAL problem is that the vast majority of people choose the lives they live, and to fundamentally change the way society works requires fundamentally changing the way people think, what they believe, and how they choose to live. That change will have to be taught from birth, if you wait until they enter your 'improved education system' then it's already too late because many will have already chosen if education is important to them or not.

**Rapture** · 03-05-2013