"Al-Zarquawi Terminated"

[RobDog888]

Announced by Iraq's Prime Minister today that a joint raid by Iraq and the US lead armed forces that they have terminated and positivetly identified Al Zarquawi.

They are cautioning that this is not the end of Al-Queda but hope its a reduction in the violence. What, are they dreaming? I bet its only going to increase the violence in efforts to lift Al-Zarquawi up as a marter of the invasion.

[RobDog888]

I wonder who gets the $25 million dollar reward?
They are saying that they were tipped off by Iraqi's or Al-Queda members.
Sounds like either way, he was sold out by some of his own.

[System_Error]

I bet its only going to increase the violence in efforts to lift Al-Zarquawi up as a marter of the invasion.

Probably so, but maybe with the new order it won't be so bad. It's great they got him, though.


I wonder who gets the $25 million dollar reward?


I remember watching a special on A&E about people who tipped off the FBI about a most wanted character. They were suppose to recieve $1 million, but never got it.

[RobDog888]

Well what if some Al-Queda member(s) tipped them off? Will we give 25 Mil to the terrorists to buy more weapons to use against us?

[Valleysboy1978]

...up as a marter of the...I think the word you're looking for is martyr :lol:

[RobDog888]

:lol: So it is. :D

Oh, here comes Bush making his victory speech...

[RobDog888]

Bush is claiming victory and that now we can free up our resources that were looking for Al Zarquawi to now start looking for Bin Laden. :rolleyes: like they ever stopped. They just cant find him.

[sevenhalo]

I remember watching a special on A&E about people who tipped off the FBI about a most wanted character. They were suppose to recieve $1 million, but never got it.
It's not like you can make a big stink about it either. The public also expects you to do the patriotic thing and either turn down the money or donate it to a charity. If you hoard it, you better be looking for a new home in Mexico.

Also, it's kind of a catch 22. Because, if you withold information; that's grounds for treason. And if you only shared the information because of the reward, they could potentially charge you... And give you a fine... In the amount of 1mil or so? ;)

The other fun thing is, you can't be promised and legally bid the government to a promise like this. Mainly, because you can't take the government to court. All you can do, really, is whine about ethics.

[penagate]

I think the word you're looking for is martyr :lol:
Liss?

[NoteMe]

It won't change a thing. Didn't USA learn anything from Mogadishu?

[RobDog888]

Umm, this is a multinational force which England is a part of. I know Switzerland is "neutral" but you are better then France. They just rollover. :D

[RobDog888]

They just stated that they took him out in a house where they were having a meeting at by hitting it with 2 - 500 pound bombs. :lol: Talk about overkill and making sure you dont miss.

The tips on his location was from the local iraqi residents. Finally some people over there are thinking rationally and not all "death to the world that doesnt believe in Muhammad".

[penagate]

Did they kill any local Iraqi residents with their two 500 pound bombs?

[RobDog888]

No, they said only 7 people in the house were killed and Al Zarquawi didnt die immediatly. They handed him over to the Iraqi security and then he "died of his incurred injuries". Ya, right. ;) I bet when they got hold of him the Iraqi's helped his injuries along. ;)

[sevenhalo]

Finally some people over there are thinking rationally
Like Judas, right? ;)

[RobDog888]

? but I just mean that at least they are starting to see the light that hes bringing death and destruction to their country and increasing the stero types.

[penagate]

I'm fairly sure that light was already well and truly on. Maybe its more there are a few more people speaking out.

[penagate]

Story Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aTJHne0y5sgE&refer=europe)

[baja_yu]

I am all against terrorism, but I don't think that the US has the right to police the world like that. It IS a multinational force, but still it is mainly US force, UK is there but mostly because Tony Blair cant get his head out of Americas ass.

Regarding France and their refusal to support the invasion, that was tragicomic. I mean all that wine spilling and renaming the French fries to Freedom fries and hating the French because they did not want to invade a country?!? Sometime I really can't understand American people.

[sevenhalo]

Sometime I really can't understand American people.
There's nothing to understand. Some people don't have anything better to do with their lives. We've made everything a convenience and literally live the drone life... Now all of these people have energy that they need to focus and garbage protests in the name of patriotism seem like the best outlet right now.

Honestly, well over half of the people here lack purpose or direction. They're given the freedom to do whatever they want, but choose to do nothing. They get in their 8-5 at a seat-filler job (that could easily be made redundant, but keeping people paid so they can consume is the basis of our economics), get home just in time for the evening sitcoms, have dinner and then watch the 10 o'clock news before going to bed. Eventually, they'll have a kid or two and let that completely consume every aspect of their lives.

Can you really blame them for trying to feel important?

[space_monkey]

Honestly, well over half of the people here lack purpose or direction. They're given the freedom to do whatever they want, but choose to do nothing. They get in their 8-5 at a seat-filler job (that could easily be made redundant, but keeping people paid so they can consume is the basis of our economics), get home just in time for the evening sitcoms, have dinner and then watch the 10 o'clock news before going to bed. Eventually, they'll have a kid or two and let that completely consume every aspect of their lives.

I don't think this is new, or an american only thing.

[capsulecorpjx]

Announced by Iraq's Prime Minister today that a joint raid by Iraq and the US lead armed forces that they have terminated and positivetly identified Al Zarquawi.

They are cautioning that this is not the end of Al-Queda but hope its a reduction in the violence. What, are they dreaming? I bet its only going to increase the violence in efforts to lift Al-Zarquawi up as a marter of the invasion.

I don't get it. They said they killed him by dropping 500 pound bombs on his house. But they were able to find his body intact.

In terms of collateral damage, they also killed a kid and some woman.

I know its war, whatever, if I was the general I would try to get Zarquawi no matter what too. But they could have tried something else besides a carpet bomb, like maybe a swat team or a sniper shot.

[baja_yu]

I don't get it. They said they killed him by dropping 500 pound bombs on his house. But they were able to find his body intact.

In terms of collateral damage, they also killed a kid and some woman.

I know its war, whatever, if I was the general I would try to get Zarquawi no matter what too. But they could have tried something else besides a carpet bomb, like maybe a swat team or a sniper shot.

I think they were afraid to fail. I'm surprised that they didn't nuke him.
They were probably afraid of retaliation in case they failed.

[sevenhalo]

Or they had alot of tips from alot of people. And due to a lack of time to manually search each place, they just bombed them all?

[Xanith]

I don't get it. They said they killed him by dropping 500 pound bombs on his house. But they were able to find his body intact.

In terms of collateral damage, they also killed a kid and some woman.

I know its war, whatever, if I was the general I would try to get Zarquawi no matter what too. But they could have tried something else besides a carpet bomb, like maybe a swat team or a sniper shot.
From what I hear they did have Special Forces on the ground but didn’t want to take the chance of him slipping away again. And its hardly carpet bombing when you can send a satellite guided bomb right through a 4’ x 6’ window.

X

[RobDog888]

They only leveled one house and they showed a picture of it. It was a cinderblock dwelling that is now only a 3' pile of rubble. I'm sure the "house" was fortified like the usual stronghold that they hide in.

Should the USA stand idley by and do nothing until other countries start crying about how they have been invaded and bombed or nuked by them. By that time its just too late.

[demotivater]

Yea, it'd be a great idea to send guys in to get the guy that sleeps with a suicide belt on and vowed not to be taken alive. F that. JDAM all the way.

[Shaggy Hiker]

? but I just mean that at least they are starting to see the light that hes bringing death and destruction to their country and increasing the stero types.

I think you mean stereo types here. What's wrong with free trade? They should be able to get Japanese electronics just like we are. The more stereos you can choose from, the better sound you'll get. Just imagine how much better Osama's videos would be if he had something like The Beastie Boys playing in the background.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I think they were afraid to fail. I'm surprised that they didn't nuke him.
They were probably afraid of retaliation in case they failed.

Hard to identify the body after you nuke someone.

[capsulecorpjx]

They only leveled one house and they showed a picture of it. It was a cinderblock dwelling that is now only a 3' pile of rubble. I'm sure the "house" was fortified like the usual stronghold that they hide in.

Should the USA stand idley by and do nothing until other countries start crying about how they have been invaded and bombed or nuked by them. By that time its just too late.

Hmm, I read the new developments, apparently the guy was killed in part by the rubble. Well thats good. I'm glad his body wasn't incenarted so we have proof he's gone.

[System_Error]

I wonder if he's got his 72 virgins yet :lol: :lol:

[FunkyDexter]

Didn't USA learn anything from Mogadishu?
I know its war, whatever, if I was the general I would try to get Zarquawi no matter what too. But they could have tried something else besides a carpet bomb, like maybe a swat team or a sniper shot
I think we can conclude the lessons learned from Mogadishu were fully applied in this case.

I find the whole 'You complain if we act, complain if we don't' argument disingenuous. The truth is we complain when you act without gaining a borad consensus of international support first - that's why we complained about Iraq (even though us Brits happily went along for the ride :mad: ) but were perfectly happy about Afghanistan. We'll probably be perfectly happy with an invasion of Iran IF it turns out they are developing nuclear for weapons rather than domestic purposes and IF they refuse to stop and IF they continue to proclaim a policy of annihalition towards Israel (or anyone else for that matter).

[DeadEyes]

This appeats to me to be a win,win,win,win,win situation.
1. It would appear it was other insurgents who grassed him up. So they got rid of someone whose main objective in Iraq was to wipe out Sunnis.
2. The U.S. Military got a minor victory in their "war on terror".
3. Al Zarqawi got his martyrdom.
4. His group now have a new role model.
5. And The Sunnis might feel a little bit safer.

[MasterBlaster]

This appeats to me to be a win,win,win,win,win situation.
1. It would appear it was other insurgents who grassed him up. So they got rid of someone whose main objective in Iraq was to wipe out Sunnis.
2. The U.S. Military got a minor victory in their "war on terror".
3. Al Zarqawi got his martyrdom.
4. His group now have a new role model.
5. And The Sunnis might feel a little bit safer.

I'd say it was a bit more than a minor victory. They also raided 19 other insurgent safehouses simultaneously based on intel from the same guy that gave they Al Zarqwari. That's freaking huge. Consider all of the intel and other info they can squeeze out of the guys they captured, plus whatever info was laying around the houses. JDAMing Al Zarqawi was just a pretty bow for the press. The real present was nabbing all of those other people.

Think of it this way. If someone wanted to know how to destroy your computer network. Should they kidnap you, or kidnap your companies president?

[demotivater]

And 39 more raids today.
Nobodies claiming this will end the insurgency and its all roses from here on out, but it's definitely a HUGE victory for the MNF.

[moeur]

He died soon after U.S. troops reached him. It's especially gratifying to think that Zarqawi spent his final minutes fully aware of who got him.

[baja_yu]

We'll probably be perfectly happy with an invasion of Iran IF it turns out they are developing nuclear for weapons rather than domestic purposes and IF they refuse to stop and IF they continue to proclaim a policy of annihalition towards Israel (or anyone else for that matter).

Well, I am all against using nuclear power in any way (with current technology anyway). But, what give the US or France the right to have nuclear weapons and some other country not?

[RobDog888]

Because the USA is responsible and we invented nuclear weapons. :D
You dont see the USA threatening other countries with nukes and threatening to stop importing oil if we dont get our way. :lol:

[baja_yu]

Well, all the scientists that invented it were foreigners. And, as I know, the US is the only country that actaully used them. And I dont remember that anyone (Iran included) threatned other countries with nuclear weapons, and thay are only threatning to stop exporting oil because the US is interfeering with their internal affairs. And US imposed embargos on numerous countries that did not make any threats to the US.

[RobDog888]

Well Iran is saying that they are needing/wanting nukes and if nato doesnt get off their backs then they will mess with oil production to hurt the us. They have also stated that they want them and their nuclear program is not just for energy issues.

Sounds quite clear that they want nukes and wil stop at nothing in order to get them. Why do they want them so badly? To fire against who eveer they want. If they had nukes and the majority of the worlds oil wouldnt that make them in control of the world? Seems like it to me.

[penagate]

If they had nukes and the majority of the worlds oil wouldnt that make them in control of the world? Seems like it to me.

So would you say having one country in control of the world would be bad?

[baja_yu]

Actually, the only really sovereign countries today are the countries that posses nuclear weapons. Aside from that, the probably see nuclear weapons as the only means of protecting themselves from outside intrusions, influences and control from the US and NATO. They do not have the military power that can match that of the US. So the only way to insure that they can govern themselves is to have the weapons, and maybe than others (US and NATO) will be affraid to try and pull something like in Iraq, Afganistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo etc. etc.

[baja_yu]

And, thay want to stop oil export in order to hurt the US, opposed to all other embargos the US has imposed on other countries in order to help them.

[RobDog888]

But wouldnt you say that Iran is not a sovereign nation?

So instead of a typical Cold War we have countries that just want some kind of nuclear capabilities as their way of saying "I am a powerful country and you need to give me what I want?"

[baja_yu]

Well yes, for now. But if the US continues its pattern, Iran and Korea are likely to go through the same thing as Iraq and Afganistan. Military action, and after that they install a US friendly government. A lot of countries were allready subject to that pattern, and you have to options, either sell out, or face a military invasion and forcefull change of government.

And they dont want nukes so thay can say "I am a powerful country and you need to give me what I want", they're saying "I am a powerful country and I dont want what you want".

[RobDog888]

have to options, either sell out, or face a military invasion and forcefull change of government.And whats wrong with that? :lol: jk. ;)

I think Iran and Iraq are a bit different since they control the worlds oil. Any countries that have control over the world like that have to be dealt with in a particular way as to be fair for the rest of the world. No one country should control the world like that. Democratic countries are not controlled by a dictator but controlled by its people. This makes for a mature responsible country that can interact with the rest of the world in a professional mannor and not all "death and nukes to all that dont let us do whatever the hell we want to who ever the hell we want".

[baja_yu]

I agree that Iraq and Iran are a special case, because of their strict religion and because of the oil, but if you set that asside, there are other numerous cases where the US (or NATO influenced by th US) interviened for it's own personal reasons.

[RobDog888]

Our own personal reasons = spread freedom and I supose that is a bad thing?

[baja_yu]

Spread freedom? You are kidding, right?

[Pino]

I wonder if he's got his 72 virgins yet :lol: :lol:

Was thinking the same thing lmao!

[RobDog888]

Whos getting virgins?

[Pino]

somthing they belive i'm no expert but they get 13 virgins if they kill somone.

[RobDog888]

Then they cant add as it should be 78 virgins.

[baja_yu]

Who gets 13 virgins for killing who? In any case, how come they didnt run out of virgins 30 years ago? :)

[moeur]

Well, all the scientists that invented it were foreignersIt took over 100,000 people to develop the first atomic weapon and most of those were natural born U.S, citizens. The bomb developers came from all walks of life, different cultures, countries of origin and religion. They had one thing in common: they believed in the righteousness of the U.S. and it’s task to defeat the enemy.

Today Iran wants to develop those same weapons, but you will not find many outside of Iran and the radical Islamo-Fascist world who believe in the righteousness of its nuclear weapons program.

One major difference between Iran and the U.S. is that Iran openly supports terrorism (the purposeful targeting of unarmed civilians to achieve your goal) and the U.S. is fighting terrorism.

Well, I am all against using nuclear power in any wayEven for power generation? why would that be? It's the cleanest most abundant form of energy there is.

[demotivater]

Actually, the only really sovereign countries today are the countries that posses nuclear weapons. Aside from that, the probably see nuclear weapons as the only means of protecting themselves from outside intrusions, influences and control from the US and NATO. They do not have the military power that can match that of the US. So the only way to insure that they can govern themselves is to have the weapons, and maybe than others (US and NATO) will be affraid to try and pull something like in Iraq, Afganistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo etc. etc.
Plenty of countries are able to peacefully govern themselves without nuclear weapons. Irans goal is not simply to govern themselves.

[RobDog888]

Plenty of countries are able to peacefully govern themselves without nuclear weapons. Irans goal is not simply to govern themselves.
Correct, as is why the countries of NATO must do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from attaining nukes, PERIOD!

[MasterBlaster]

Who gets 13 virgins for killing who? In any case, how come they didnt run out of virgins 30 years ago? :)

Have you ever seen Iraqi women? It is understandable that there are a never ending supply of virgins. :p

[RobDog888]

:lol:

So is that why the have to wear vails too?

[MasterBlaster]

The veils are to protect them from the smell of a freshly exploded martyr. This brings up another question that has been laying heavy on my mind. If a suicide bomber blows himself up with a pair of c4 packed underpants, what good will 70 something virgins do him if hid bits and pieces are blown off. :confused:

[sevenhalo]

It's the same reason people drown their laptops. To make sure that you get a replacement rather then trying to fix it.

[zaza]

It is interesting that these Islamic fundamentalists decry our decadent western society where girls can do as they please, they force their women to dress in as unprovocative and controlled a fashion as they can...and then lure their "martyrs" to join the cause with the promise of plenty of nookie in the afterlife.

[demotivater]

It is interesting that these Islamic fundamentalists decry our decadent western society where girls can do as they please, they force their women to dress in as unprovocative and controlled a fashion as they can...and then lure their "martyrs" to join the cause with the promise of plenty of nookie in the afterlife.
Mohammed promised all kinds of luxuries to recruit people that had nothing. Virgins, young boys, water, wine, riches, and fruit. Everything they wanted to hear, they were told.

[RobDog888]

Brainwashing.

[sevenhalo]

Being born into it, it's hard not to believe it. What seems obsurd to us only appears that way because we have a clean slate to really give our own opinion of it. There's beliefs we have in our country that are obsurd to other people (God's son was the son of a carpenter? 9/10 religions, depicting a God on the same level as us is blasphemy in the least).

The only real truth is that beliefs are dangerous; regardless of region or religion.

[capsulecorpjx]

Being born into it, it's hard not to believe it. What seems obsurd to us only appears that way because we have a clean slate to really give our own opinion of it. There's beliefs we have in our country that are obsurd to other people (God's son was the son of a carpenter? 9/10 religions, depicting a God on the same level as us is blasphemy in the least).

The only real truth is that beliefs are dangerous; regardless of region or religion.

I agree whole-heartedly. Fanatics are those who believe their idealogy is the "gosphel-truth" and try to impose it on others by force.

Its not limited to religion either. Communism and facism were also full of murderous fanatics.

I wish more people would be skeptical and question more. Demand proof and question the hypocrisy and contradictions found in many idealogies.

People need to listen to Bruce Lee's philosophy. If you watch his "Lost Interviews" you'll know what I'm refering to.

[moeur]

I wish more people would be skeptical and question more. Demand proof and question the hypocrisy and contradictions found in many idealogies.Then there would be no religion or other matters of faith. Fine with me, but some people feel they need that in their lives and don't want to question things too deeply.

[RobDog888]

These are people that are insecure with themselves and their lives as if you are confident you usually dont have to believe that something else will get you out of your situation.

Stiff upper lip people and stop killing youselves for hopes of "prizes" in the afterlife. :rolleyes:

[baja_yu]

[south park]
Welcome to Muslim sensitivity training!

It is important for us to understand why the Muslims feel the way they do, and why we can never show an image of Muhamed.
Lets all look at why Muslims are upset. First of all, in the Muslim religion you're not allowed to have what?..... SEX, good. There's no sex until marriage in the Muslim world.
Now this would be fine except that in the Muslim religion you also can't..... Anybody?.... JACK OFF. Ok, jacking it is strictly forbidden in the Muslim religion. And what do we know about the places Muslims live? They live in...... Good! SAND. Now put yourslef in the shoes of a Muslim. It's friday night, but you can't have sex AND you can't jack off, there's sand in your eyes and probably in the crack of your ass and then some cartoon comes along from a country where people are getting laid and mocks your prophet! Well you know what, I'd be pretty pissed off too!
[/south park]

[Shaggy Hiker]

And whats wrong with that? :lol: jk. ;)

I think Iran and Iraq are a bit different since they control the worlds oil. Any countries that have control over the world like that have to be dealt with in a particular way as to be fair for the rest of the world. No one country should control the world like that. Democratic countries are not controlled by a dictator but controlled by its people. This makes for a mature responsible country that can interact with the rest of the world in a professional mannor and not all "death and nukes to all that dont let us do whatever the hell we want to who ever the hell we want".

RD, you might find it interesting to read Julius Ceasar's Conquest of Gaul. Though he wrote it several centuries BC, it reads very close to what you have been saying in this thread. Of course, the Gauls didn't have nukes, but otherwise, the reasons and arguments used are VERY similar.

Now I don't mention this to suggest that America is attempting an empire, I don't think the question really matters. The point is, that we attacked Iraq for reasons very similar to why Ceasar created salad...I mean....why Ceasar fought various fights in Gaul. Though the stakes seem higher, the result is the same: Roman might is just a memory, so will be America. What we are doing is important to us now, and seems to have an importance that will last through the ages, but that is unlikely. If there are people a thousand years from now, Americas actions will not be seen as good or bad, it will just be seen as a country exercising its power to make the world a safer place for itself. We aren't the first, though we might manage to be the last.

[Moon Pie]

But, what give the US or France the right to have nuclear weapons and some other country not?
Mainly, because the US and Russia have built thousands of them and never used them. This shows considerable self-control.
If you want to see why most other countries should not have them, keep an eye on India and Pakistan. It's going to be like Spy vs Spy.
As for France -- don't you think that if Germany began to develop its own nukes, France would sell them the machinery to do it and then fire off a couple before the Germans were finished?

[DeadEyes]

Mainly, because the US and Russia have built thousands of them and never used them. This shows considerable self-control.

I think you may be forgetting a couple of instances there.

[demotivater]

If there are people a thousand years from now, Americas actions will not be seen as good or bad, it will just be seen as a country exercising its power to make the world a safer place for itself. We aren't the first, though we might manage to be the last.
Thank you, Mr. Pessimism.

[RobDog888]

How about Bush sneaking over there last night. Basically getting in Al Queda's face saying that now that Al Zarquawi is dead he will have his way or such.

[DeadEyes]

As one news reporter put it.

The Iraqi president was summoned to Saddam Husseins Palace, now the American Embassy, by George Bush. The American president stood and smiled at the cameras. The Iraqi president stood and bore it.

In otherwords there's no doubt who's really in charge (of the government if not the country).

[RobDog888]

:lol: Thats right. He did look a bit pissed.

[DeadEyes]

He probably had a nasty flashback when a soldier told him he had to go to Saddams palace. :)

[Shaggy Hiker]

Thank you, Mr. Pessimism.

Any time.

Frankly, the similarity between what Julius Ceasar wrote, and what we are doing in the world today is striking. The scale is different, and the weapons are different, but the similarity is there. We hope that we are making a difference, but there is no reason to believe that we have shifted the strange attractor about which humanity revolves. There is no proof against our extinction, and we are no more than one wave in the sea.

However, it isn't pessimism. It's not that I don't believe that we can make the world a better place, it's just that I don't think that we are trying to. Some individuals are trying, but most are starting from the assumption that their individual goals are a viable surrogate for the benefit of all, an assumption that I would dispute.

[demotivater]

Any time.

Frankly, the similarity between what Julius Ceasar wrote, and what we are doing in the world today is striking. The scale is different, and the weapons are different, but the similarity is there. We hope that we are making a difference, but there is no reason to believe that we have shifted the strange attractor about which humanity revolves. There is no proof against our extinction, and we are no more than one wave in the sea.

However, it isn't pessimism. It's not that I don't believe that we can make the world a better place, it's just that I don't think that we are trying to. Some individuals are trying, but most are starting from the assumption that their individual goals are a viable surrogate for the benefit of all, an assumption that I would dispute.
I'm impressed that you're privy to the individual goals of "most". That's quite a feat.

And, you seek proof for something that hasn't, and given the ingenuity of man, won't happen. Our extinction? Give me a break!! Laughably unargueable.


Just to add, the individual goals of one hell of a lot of people are to see you, your family, and all of your friends dead. There's the extinction you speak of. Defeatist attitudes like yours pave the way. It scares me to death to imagine what will have to happen before you people step out of your fantasy world and realize what's going on.

[visualAd]

Because the USA is responsible and we invented nuclear weapons. :D
If i remember my history correct. The USA are the only ones responsible for inventing and using nuclear weapons.

Back to the main subject. I think the display of this guys body in public and the active condemnation of his death, saying it was a "victory" and a "good day" is dispicable. There has been very little in the way of success where Iraq is concerned.

It just goes to show that the so called "good guys" are just as bad if not worse than the ones they are trying to fight. I wonder when the world (eerrr, I mean western world) will wake up.

[Valleysboy1978]

Umm, this is a multinational force which England is a part of. This is something about the Yanks that REALLY annoys me. Many Welsh, Scottish and Irish soldiers have died in this war, the least you could do is recognise that fact by calling the force a UK force. :mad:

[visualAd]

This is something about the Yanks that REALLY annoys me. Many Welsh, Scottish and Irish soldiers have died in this war, the least you could do is recognise that fact by calling the force a UK force. :mad:
C'mon, its heard enough to get the americans to recognise that the UK exists. :D

[Valleysboy1978]

True, true. It was funny though when I was in Orlando when they always said "Ah! So you're from England" and to watch their faces as we looked at them with such anger they knew they'd said something wrong.

What was even better was when we told a taxi driver we were from Wales he said "Yeah I've been to Wales, went in the seventies. Let's see I went to Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. Good times!"
:ehh: Didn't have the heart to tell him none of them are actually IN Wales :lol:

[nemaroller]

Pfff... Quaker.
http://www.ywca.org/atf/cf/%7B03A476D3-A58C-4305-A3DC-94383F98DBF4%7D/Quaker%20Corporate%20Logo_Web%20(%5B1%5D.jpg)_8317.jpg

[FunkyDexter]

What was even better was when we told a taxi driver we were from Wales he said "Yeah I've been to Wales, went in the seventies. Let's see I went to Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. Good times!"
Didn't have the heart to tell him none of them are actually IN Wales :lol:

Frankly, the similarity between what Julius Ceasar wrote, and what we are doing in the world today is striking. Agreed and I'll go you one better. Julius Ceaser never 'Invaded' Gaul. He was at the head of 'Freindly Occupation Force' that was there to 'protect' them from German who were invading across the Rhine (actually they weren't but that's what Ceaser claimed). The fact that he had to put down 'local insurgencys' of Gauls who obviously didn't know what was good for them might ring a few bells down the ages.

On the point of whether USA is building an empire or not - I doubt that's the motivation. But then it wasn't the motivation behind the other Great Empires of History. Alexander just wanted the Persians to stop invading Greece every five minutes, the Romans were obsessed with pushing the barbarians further and further back after the Celts sacked Rome in it's early history, The British were protecting their trade incomes... All of these were basically the result of self protection gone mad.

Our extinction? Give me a break!!It happened to the Romans, the Parthians, the Babylonians, the French (...well, we can hope), so why not you? Nothing is permanent.

[nemaroller]

When the Internet arrived, you were all toast.

http://mondediplo.com/1998/09/02schiller

[moeur]

This is something about the Yanks that REALLY annoys me. Many Welsh, Scottish and Irish soldiers have died in this war, the least you could do is recognise that fact by calling the force a UK forceI thought you were all European Union-ists now. Your leaders are in Brussels.

[moeur]

I think the display of this guys body in public and the active condemnation of his death, saying it was a "victory" and a "good day" is dispicable. There has been very little in the way of success where Iraq is concerned.wherever this piece of trash went people were tortured, terrorized, beheaded or killed in other gruesome fashions. He deserves no respect what so ever in life or death.

It is true that both sides in this war cause innocent deaths. But the only way you can call both sides equal is if you cannot see the moral difference between the two.

The US goal is to create a country where the Iraqis can live under a democratic system and hence be free. The other side’s goal is to control the Iraqi people for their own political and personal gain.

I think that the only reason you would equate the two is that you hate the U.S. (and/or President Bush) so much that it clouds your reasoning.

[Valleysboy1978]

I thought you were all European Union-ists now. Your leaders are in Brussels.And you wonder why everyone hates the US so much? Perhaps you have answered your own question by assuming everyone in Europe is the same. Even the UK is split into its four constituent parts, yet you refuse to acknowledge any country outside of your own as important

[FunkyDexter]

four constituent parts5 if you include Kernow. (Did you know there's actually a Kernow Liberation Front? A friend of mine's a member :lol: )

[DeadEyes]

The US goal is to create a country where the Iraqis can live under a democratic system and hence be free.
So they've given up on the WMDs? wasn't that their goal.

[Wally Pipp]

I thought you were all European Union-ists now. Your leaders are in Brussels.

That would make you lot Nafta-ists right?

[Wally Pipp]

5 if you include Kernow. (Did you know there's actually a Kernow Liberation Front? A friend of mine's a member :lol: )

Not by any chance in Cornwall, is it? :wave:

[moeur]

And you wonder why everyone hates the US so much?I don't really.
Perhaps you have answered your own question by assuming everyone in Europe is the same.Is that all it takes. Even the UK is split into its four constituent parts, yet you refuse to acknowledge any country outside of your own as importantThis really comes close to the reason the US is hated in a large portion of Europe (including the 4 or 5 parts of the UK). The US is the most powerful prosperous nation in the world and that gives you an inferiority complex. This is because we have a capitalistic society that rewards individual achievement and not a socialistic nanny state. Communism has failed almost everywhere it has been tried and socialism hasn’t fared much better, but capitalism works every time it is tried.

If we followed more of a socialist philosophy then we would tend to share our power (and wealth) among the other nations of the world, but we are more on the conservative end which believes that the power should be in the hands of the individuals as much as it can be and it is up to the individual to build his own wealth and power. In an “unfair” system like ours it is mostly the people without the power and wealth who complain and want to push it more toward the liberal direction. They feel powerless and build a hatred toward the ones with the money and/or power. Of course there are exceptions: “have nots” who know that in a system like this they can change their status, and people who have it all but believe in the socialist ideal.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm impressed that you're privy to the individual goals of "most". That's quite a feat.

And, you seek proof for something that hasn't, and given the ingenuity of man, won't happen. Our extinction? Give me a break!! Laughably unargueable.


Just to add, the individual goals of one hell of a lot of people are to see you, your family, and all of your friends dead. There's the extinction you speak of. Defeatist attitudes like yours pave the way. It scares me to death to imagine what will have to happen before you people step out of your fantasy world and realize what's going on.

I think you were a little fuzzy on this. You appear to have used an incorrect definition of proof. If you re-read my post, you will see that I don't mean the definition of proof that you do. I use proof in the sense of insure, not "to prove". Therefore, your misunderstanding exposed a rather obvious blunder on your part rather than a counter to my statement.

As for your edit, I do realize what is going on. There is nothing necessarily defeatist in anything I said. I said that we should strive to do better, I never suggested that we should stop trying. However, the goal I feel is worth attaining is not one of "screw them before they screw us." I feel that we should decide what would be the ideal, and seek that. I realize that there would be plenty of people who would seek to take advantage of you, or even kill you for trying to be nicer, but is fear sufficient justification for not being a good person? I can think of only one example (Mother Thereasa) who strove their whole life to do good things for other people, and not cause harm, who was also not murdered.

Would the world be a better place without Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, or Christ? Were they wrong for trying to bring fairness and justice into the world? Should they have kept their heads down for fear that somebody would kill them? Will all your fear keep you alive forever? Will your desire for vengeance against those you feel have wronged you (or whatever motivates you to be antagonistic towards the group you mentioned) keep you alive forever? You're going to die, you only get to choose how you live.

And as for your first statement, I am flattered that you would suggest that I have accomplished that feat, but I must confess that what you so laud is nothing more than a concept that has been voiced by virtually every erudite philosopher down through the ages. I don't stand on the shoulders of giants in this instance, I simply listen to what they have to say.

[penagate]

The US is the most powerful prosperous nation in the world and that gives you an inferiority complex.

I don't know about that, but what it has done is given you, for one, a superiority complex.

[nemaroller]

There are about 50 parts of the US each with their own capitols. So we have you beat by about 45 parts.

This is the capitol building of my part - Wisconsin.
http://www.pps.org/graphics/gpp/wisconsin_capitol_large

This is the capitol building of Illinois.
http://www.rch.drwinters.net/SMILCapitol.jpg

New York...
http://www.tax.state.ny.us/images/nys_capitol_1.jpg

etc... etc..

[Wally Pipp]

This really comes close to the reason the US is hated in a large portion of Europe (including the 4 or 5 parts of the UK). The US is the most powerful prosperous nation in the world and that gives you an inferiority complex...

Long live bland generalisations. :afrog:

[FunkyDexter]

Not by any chance in Cornwall, is it? Yep, it's amazing how much damage a suicide pasty can do.

[capsulecorpjx]

And you wonder why everyone hates the US so much? Perhaps you have answered your own question by assuming everyone in Europe is the same. Even the UK is split into its four constituent parts, yet you refuse to acknowledge any country outside of your own as important

haha! Reminds me of a bit done by the comedian Patrice O'Neil.

Patrice said he was talking with a Turk and the foreigner asked him if Patrice knew who the Turkish president is. Patrice said no. Then the Turk tried to tell him who the president is but Patrice interrupts him saying "Don't tell me that, I don't want to hear that."

Yea, not only do we not care, we don't want to know because to us the information is useless.

[yrwyddfa]

I think you'll find that there isn't hatred, per se, for the US.

The Americans I meet in the general course of my business are wonderful people, and understand the concept of humility before the weight of the human condition.

It is unfortunate that those with undereducated, uninformed opinions tend to post on websites and skew the balance against themselves.

The mantra of "those who know what's best for us will rise up and save us from ourselves" was fine during the cold war; perhaps even during 1980's when the economic balance of the world was changing (due, in some significant part, to Margaret Thatcher's uncompromising dismissal of socialism)

Today, however, I think it's becoming self-evident that human beings are arbitrary animals that now look to each other for support and global society.

To enforce borders, to devote your time to making foreign nations partisan so their wealth can be exploited is no longer acceptable.

It is in this that it can be seen that global trade, and foreign policy emanating from the US seems to be about 20 years out of date.

Those with even a modicom of grasp of history know that the generation that currently holds office and responsibility in the US will eventually die out and the next one will be reaching out. The next one will understand that they live in a global society: it's a shame the likelyhood is that I won't be alive to see it.

Lastly, what's so honourably about the creation of individual wealth. It's self-circular. Once you've acquired that wealth you can then exploit that power to generate more wealth and so on.

Unless you run your own company, then your boss is exploiting you to either guarentee continued high revenues, or to generate more personal wealth.

If wealth is the measure of success then count me out.

I also believe that using such wealth to increase ones military might is simly part of the same equation. Sure, it's hidden as 'national security' it's waived as 'essential'

Nah! Complete tosh; the escalation of military might is to exploit that might on the world stage to generate more wealth.

Some people call it profit, some people call it business.

I call it an abuse of one's (predominantly fortunate) position to fuel the ongoing concept of 'greed is good'

Anyone miss me?

[Valleysboy1978]

This really comes close to the reason the US is hated in a large portion of Europe (including the 4 or 5 parts of the UK). The US is the most powerful prosperous nation in the world and that gives you an inferiority complex. This is because we have a capitalistic society that rewards individual achievement and not a socialistic nanny state. Communism has failed almost everywhere it has been tried and socialism hasn’t fared much better, but capitalism works every time it is tried.Actually I held no resentment against the US as they haven't done anything to me but please continue with that superior attitude and you may well change my mind. All I was saying is that due in no small part to the superior attitude you have so kindly demonstrated, other countries will get very angry at how your country has deemed itself the law of the world. Sort out your own country before starting on others

nema -> they are states in a country. Wales, England, Scotland and Ireland a individual countries in their own right. Very different.

[moeur]

Actually I held no resentment against the US as they haven't done anything to me but please continue with that superior attitude and you may well change my mind. All I was saying is that due in no small part to the superior attitude you have so kindly demonstrated, other countries will get very angry at how your country has deemed itself the law of the world. Sort out your own country before starting on othersI knew when I posted that others would see this as a "superior attitude" when all I was doing was just stating facts.

Although socialism has a certain appeal to it, it has some major faults that make it unworkable.

1. Because there is a large distribution of wealth, it removes much of the incentives to succeed, hence progress and growth are slowed.

2. Because so much power is placed in the hands of the government, it is expensive (to run such a large government) and it is ripe for corruption (as are all large bureaucracies)..

In addition, it is undesirable to many including me because it takes power away from the individual and places it in the hands of this large bureaucracy.

[yrwyddfa]

I knew when I posted that others would see this as a "superior attitude" when all I was doing was just stating facts.

Although socialism has a certain appeal to it, it has some major faults that make it unworkable.

1. Because there is a large distribution of wealth, it removes much of the incentives to succeed, hence progress and growth are slowed.

2. Because so much power is placed in the hands of the government, it is expensive (to run such a large government) and it is ripe for corruption (as are all large bureaucracies)..

In addition, it is undesirable to many including me because it takes power away from the individual and places it in the hands of this large bureaucracy.I'm sorry Moeur but don't claim to be 'just stating facts' and then proceed with opinion. I normally expect a vastly superior argument from you than this rubbish

[System_Error]

Sort out your own country before starting on others

I wish we would do just that. I think we can all agree that what has happend is the past. If it was a mistake then we need to fix our mistake. If it was right then let's finish right.

Obviously I'm an American, but I have no superior attitude and almost EVERY American is the same way despite the steriotype given.

[Valleysboy1978]

You're alright mate, but unfortunately it's the few bad opinions that dictate the view of the many. Such is the media ideal of "There's no news like bad news", makes for good ratings. Added to which moeur is certainly not helping the image.

[moeur]

hmm...

My two previous posts were not opinion, they are factual. The only opinion in them was my guess as to why the US is hated abroad.

You can challenge the validity of my facts by providing facts of your own.

And, you can disagree with my opinion; in which case I hope you will provide one of your own.

But claiming something is rubbish without properly challenging it is a waste of bandwidth.

[yrwyddfa]

1. Because there is a large distribution of wealth, it removes much of the incentives to succeed, hence progress and growth are slowed.Since all societies have complete distribution of wealth, I cannot see how progress and growth are slowed. Furthermore you are describing all societies - all wealth, by definition, must be distributed - so there is no conditional basis to conclude that progress and growth are slowed regardess of your stance (or what you actually meant) I can only summarise this statement as patently nonsensisical - or colloquially - rubbish.

Semantics aside, there is always a complete distribution of wealth in all societies. I suspect what you meant was that socialism aims to redistribute the unequal distribution of wealth in a society. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_curve (Lorenz Curve) is quite good at hypothesising the outcome of such an idea.

2. Because so much power is placed in the hands of the government, it is expensive (to run such a large government) and it is ripe for corruption (as are all large bureaucracies)As it stands you have lumped the term 'socialism' into a broad 'catch-all' scenario. One form of socialism is 'market-socialism' which far from being a bed partner to the more extreme socialist philosophy of communism, is nearly the opposite - it certainly is far far removed from marxism. It is also known as economic democracy, and is a situation where the workers own the factory in which they work (as oppose than the capitalist share-holders idea) This, of course, is not bureaucratic, and is not government controlled.

[System_Error]

communism has failed almost everywhere it has been tried and socialism hasn’t fared much better, but capitalism works every time it is tried.


a 100% communist nation is impossible and has never and will never exist. People think nations like China are communist, but they're not. They're AT most 30-40% communist. True 100% communism is almost mere anarachy and anarchy fails 100% of the time. If you don't believe me then look on a map and there'll be 191 reasons why I'm right.



2. Because so much power is placed in the hands of the government, it is expensive (to run such a large government) and it is ripe for corruption (as are all large bureaucracies)..

As are all governments? Do you not consider the power of lobbyist, the FCC and bill riders political corruption? Corruption is inevitable, but you are right to the extent that we have checks and balances to protect against corruption potentially harmful to the people.

[moeur]

Since all societies have complete distribution of wealth, I cannot see how progress and growth are slowedExcuse me for my typo, I'm referring to a redistribution of wealth. This is the main tenant of socialism/communism; take from the wealthy and give to the poor. Most nations currently have some form of redistribution. Some nations, however, lean more toward the socialist (left) end of the spectrum than others.

As it stands you have lumped the term 'socialism' into a broad 'catch-all' scenario. One form of socialism is 'market-socialism' which far from being a bed partner to the more extreme socialist philosophy of communism, is nearly the opposite - it certainly is far far removed from marxism. It is also known as economic democracy, and is a situation where the workers own the factory in which they work (as oppose than the capitalist share-holders idea) This, of course, is not bureaucratic, and is not government controlled.Yes, when I mention socialism I am talking about a system that is to the right of communism and to the left of capitalism.

The system you describe above is a socialistic or even communistic system on a local level. The company still needs a governing board (government) that I suppose is elected by the employees. The employees through their governing board, must then decide whether they want their company to concentrate on profits (income for the employees) or employee benefits.

Also note that if the company does not make a profit then the employees don’t get paid. There is no VC there to pump money into the company during the hard times.

[yrwyddfa]

Excuse me for my typo, I'm referring to a redistribution of wealth. This is the main tenant of socialism/communism; take from the wealthy and give to the poor. Most nations currently have some form of redistribution. Some nations, however, lean more toward the socialist (left) end of the spectrum than others.

Yes, when I mention socialism I am talking about a system that is to the right of communism and to the left of capitalism.

The system you describe above is a socialistic or even communistic system on a local level. The company still needs a governing board (government) that I suppose is elected by the employees. The employees through their governing board, must then decide whether they want their company to concentrate on profits (income for the employees) or employee benefits.

Also note that if the company does not make a profit then the employees don’t get paid. There is no VC there to pump money into the company during the hard times.Am I correct to consider you as a strong proponent of market economics?

[moeur]

Am I correct to consider you as a strong proponent of market economics?If you mean a free market system, then yes indeed.

[MasterBlaster]

Obviously I'm an American, but I have no superior attitude and almost EVERY American is the same way despite the steriotype given.

Blahhhhh! speak for yourself. I am definatly better than any dirty Brit out there. :wave:

[FunkyDexter]

True 100% communism is almost mere anarachy :confused: Not sure where you'd get that idea from. Anarchy is an absence of laws and/or an absence of their enforcement. Communism describes a centralised totalitarian state whose stated goal is to remove all inequities from it's society. By it's nature it tends to have a great number of laws and alot of enforcement.

I do agree that communism is doomed to failure though. I think the whole redistribution thing is a bit of a red herring because you can redistribute up as well as down. The real key to it's failure is that, in theory, it provides an equal reward regardless of effort thus dissincentivising (almost certainly miss-spelt :blush: )it's populace. With the carrot removed the only means to motivate the public to be productive becomes the stick, leading to the high levels of law enforcement that characterise such a state. And those high levels of enforcement inevitably breed the large beuracracies needed to support them.

I think pure capitalism is similarly doomed in the modern age though (assuming you take capitalism to mean the ammasing of personal wealth without regard for any social or political consequence). Capitalists tend to talk about the trickle down effect of wealth that leads to everyone being better off but there's precious little evidence to support this. On the contrary, wealth tends to trickle up and then pool at the top of society. It's far easier to make money of you already have it, particularly in a society whose bottom descends into poverty because you are ideally positioned to exploit that poverty for your own ends. Equally, those without wealth find it increasingly hard to begin amassing it because because they start from a position where they are prone to exploitation if they want to eat this evening. Unless there are at least some checks in place you are very soon left with the kind of divided societies that characterised Europe in early part of the 20th century and they led to massive revolutions in Spain, Russia, Italy, many german states before Germay formed, Germany itself once it was formed and a host of other minor Europoean states.

The truth, as in most of these kind of arguments, is that the best form of govenment lies somewhere in the middle. It requires a system that rewards effort but does not abandon it's unfortunates to poverty. You can all that socialism, liberalism, social conservatism or whatever you like but they're ultimately all just shades of the same principle.

It appears from the outside that America is moving towards a purely capitalist society (though it's not there yet as it does still make some effort to look after it's poor) but I think it's likely that that's simply the pendulum swinging and it'll swing back soon enough - you are a nation that was, after all, founded on principles of equality and in reaction to the exploitation you were experiencing at the time.

[yrwyddfa]

If you mean a free market system, then yes indeed.I concur that when considering the free market that luxuries should be subject to the vagueries of the market.

But I object to the notion that commodities necessary for human well-being be subject to market forces. The implication is that market forces are a good thing, that drives prices down and competition up.

A good example of this not happening is what is going on with the Water Companies in the S/E England. They were somewhat deregulated which has meant virtually no government control and a body (OFWAT) was put into place to ensure fair competition and prevent profiteering. They were effectively privatised, and made responsible for corporate market funding, and have the remit to construct their price strategy according the the free market system (under certain industry guidelines)

What's happened? In the last ten years all of the companies continue to raise prices, reduce infrastructure investment, but continue to pay dividends that increase, more or less, with the rate of inflation. It is, Moeur, entirely consistent with your (apparent) belief that the creation of wealth is necessarily, by definition, a good thing.

This has a real knock on effect. In England, Kent, S London, N Sussex are now faced with the prospect of collecting water in buckets from stand-pipes in the street. Already water restrictions are in place to prevent non-essential water use.

I can already hear the capitalists scream that this is force majeure, that this is an act of God - probably induced by global warming.

It is NOT force majeure; they report (there is evidence that the pressure is turned down overnight to prevent higher figures) leakage of 915m litres water/day, and no (long term) infrastructure development scheme in place is the cause of the problem. When the rains stop for a little while (like they do from time to time) there should be plans in place to prevent shortages. There isn't. Well, there is: get the consumer to use less of it. It is also nothing at all to do with global warming.

On the opposite side of the coin, British Airways, despite a ropey beginning, has flown (sorry for the pun) to be an internationally recognised brand, and is earning fortunes.

What's the difference? The difference, of course, is between luxury and need.

What can I do about the water company? Can I stop buying water? I can certainly stop flying, but I cannot stop purchasing water. If it was government owned then I can use my vote to dis-elect the ruling party. As it stands today I can do nothing. Zip. Squat. F**k all.

It is, for all intents and purposes, a cartel, and one, I presume, that free-market capitalists susbscribe too.

[moeur]

I don't think a water company is a good example of a business that is in the free market. It has nothing to do with water being a necessity either. I doubt that the company is in the free market.

You say they were “somewhat” deregulated; what does this mean? As long as the government regulates an industry it is not free. We have another example of this in California. The electric power companies. They were somewhat “deregulated” and soon after we started having shortages of power. You’d think that the power companies would be making a ton of money in a market where the demand was higher than the supply. Well they weren’t several were close to bankruptcy because of the few regulations kept in place. What was deregulated was the price suppliers could charge the companies, but the price they could sell it to the end user was still regulated.

My second point is that some industries, because of a limiting infrastructure, have a virtual monopoly. Some examples are cable TV service and water companies. In most areas there is allowed only one cable system and one water system. I believe that these services need to be regulated because they are a monopoly and not in the free market.

I am not a laze-faire capitalist, I do believe that government has a small role in making sure that the free market is kept free. I hold the beliefs of a political party in this country called the Libertarians: personal freedom and limited government. This is opposite the beliefs of the liberal parties who believe that the government is the answer to all of our problems.

[nemaroller]

nema -> they are states in a country. Wales, England, Scotland and Ireland a individual countries in their own right. Very different.

Yet they are controlled by an external Parliament that could abolish the local parliament. So how's that really different?

[zaza]

Actually the Welsh have the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish have the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Irish have the Northern Ireland Assembly, when they can actually stop fighting and get on with it.

We in England are staring the so-called West Lothian question in the face, namely that MPs for Scotland retain their rights to sit in the UK Parliament which can pass England-only laws. Scotland-only laws are passed in the Scottish Parliament.
This means that MPs for the current government can vote on matters for which they are completely unaccountable, as it does not affect their constituents. Current Scottish MPs who sit on the Cabinet of the UK include John Reid (Home Secretary), Alistair Darling (Trade) and Gordon Brown (Chancellor of the Exchequer, and possibly next Prime Minister). Indeed, there has been more than one motion passed in the UK which affects only England but was passed only due to the votes of Scottish Labour MPs in favour of their party.

[Shaggy Hiker]

This starts with bombing one terrorist, and now the debate is over the definition of communism/socialism, and discussing the nature of British government.

How did we end up here?


It MUST be Bush's fault!

[nemaroller]

This starts with bombing one terrorist, and now the debate is over the definition of communism/socialism, and discussing the nature of British government.

How did we end up here?


It MUST be Bush's fault!

He's got quite the low approval rating - 34% last I looked - so might as well blame him I say.

[grilkip]

Ya get fooled, ya can't get fooled again.

[Valleysboy1978]

This starts with bombing one terrorist, and now the debate is over the definition of communism/socialism, and discussing the nature of British government.

How did we end up here?


It MUST be Bush's fault!:lol:

zaza I totally agree with you. For England specific laws only English MPs should be able to vote :thumb:

[moeur]

Blame Bush for an online forum discussion? I thought Al Gore invented the internet.

[demotivater]

He's got quite the low approval rating - 34% last I looked - so might as well blame him I say.
41% and climbing (slowly, but climbing)

[yrwyddfa]

I understand that it's not free-market economics, but corporate greed is corporate greed. Read about it here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5101434.stm)

[Xanith]

I understand that it's not free-market economics, but corporate greed is corporate greed. Read about it here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5101434.stm)

"Ofwat said customers were paying the higher prices Thames Water had been allowed to charge - an average increase of 24% over 2005 to 2010, excluding inflation - without getting all the benefits the company had promised to deliver."

How can it be greed if the company was allowed to charge those rates (I’m assuming it was the government that allowed this)? Sounds like this company is just poorly run, as they didn’t even meet their own target for reducing leaks. Doesn’t look like there is any competition in distributing water to the effective areas, without competition no one can switch to another water company if they wanted too, so you are right its not free market at all.

X

[Shaggy Hiker]

Blame Bush for an online forum discussion? I thought Al Gore invented the internet.

Actually, it was his dancing.


I'm sure you've heard of it.... the Al Gore Rhythm.

[FunkyDexter]

the Al Gore Rhythm. :lol:

While I agree that Yrwyddfa's example wasn't the best because the water companies effectively represent localised monopolies (shame on you, Yrwyddfa, you normally do so much better ;) ) I broadly agree with him and there are plenty of examples where unchecked capitalism has been damaging. The most obvious one that springs to mind for me is the supermarkets. Sure, Tesco's might give me good prices but they do so at the expense of the producers who are forced to spend a smal fortune complying with the the supermarkets procedures one year before having their profits squeezed into nothing the next and finally being dropped like a bad habit after that. Net result, no local producers, centralised warehousing, more polluting trucks on the road and planes in the sky as third world countries have their often meagre agricultural resources carried away at prices so low that they'll never see any opportunity to turn their state of relative poverty around. But hey, that's fine and dandy becuase capitalism served the consumer. And our politicians probably had the gall to tell us we were somehow helping out the third world because we were engaging in trade.

The consumer is just as selfish as the capitalist if they get the chance to be and the net result is that, unless you have some kind of government regulation then someone, somewhere is going to get screwed.

[yrwyddfa]

"Ofwat said customers were paying the higher prices Thames Water had been allowed to charge - an average increase of 24% over 2005 to 2010, excluding inflation - without getting all the benefits the company had promised to deliver."

How can it be greed if the company was allowed to charge those rates (I’m assuming it was the government that allowed this)? Sounds like this company is just poorly run, as they didn’t even meet their own target for reducing leaks. Doesn’t look like there is any competition in distributing water to the effective areas, without competition no one can switch to another water company if they wanted too, so you are right its not free market at all.

XAs I said, it's not a free market, but the licensing for the water authorities can be bought and sold as a marketable commodity.

Funkydexter - I was having a bad day. I've read that post and I have to say 'whoops' :blush:

Not used to this internet debating anymore; I've actually had to get on and do some work!

[Valleysboy1978]

I've actually had to get on and do some work!How dare you suggest such a travesty on a family forum! http://www.umilmi81.com/imageshare/images/banplz.gif

[yrwyddfa]

How dare you suggest such a travesty on a family forum! http://www.umilmi81.com/imageshare/images/banplz.gifJust so I can be really sent out to be eaten by rabid dogs, I was actually rewriting so code that someone wrote some years ago. Modula2, actually. More OO crap to deal with.

[Shaggy Hiker]

More OO crap to deal with.

[Darth Vader]
Do not underestimate the power of the dark side.
[/darth vader]

[Valleysboy1978]

Just so I can be really sent out to be eaten by rabid dogs, I was actually rewriting so code that someone wrote some years ago. Modula2, actually. More OO crap to deal with.Modula2! :sick:

[FunkyDexter]

Yep, Work is the bane of all properly researched posts. Can we get a moderator to ban it?

[hellilyntax]

Well Iran is saying that they are needing/wanting nukes and if nato doesnt get off their backs then they will mess with oil production to hurt the us. They have also stated that they want them and their nuclear program is not just for energy issues.

Maybe US is too desperate for oil...that is why they invade MiddleEast countries.
Maybe they are too paranoid because of their cruelty.
"Criminal doesn't feel safe at any second".

[Shaggy Hiker]

Maybe US is too desperate for oil...that is why they invade MiddleEast countries.


Sure doesn't look like a solution, does it.

[hellilyntax]

Why everybody talking about religion, freedom, democracy, powers...
it is so simple...it is about money...

Can anybody dig up why US didnt care much about North Korea?
It is because they have no oil...

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well, I don't agree with that. North Korea isn't a push-over. Last time we went in there, we ended up fighting China. Bush probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq had he known what it would turn into. They thought they could go in, sweep Saddam aside, and the people would cheer a few times, then elect George Washington. Sure there would be benefits in terms of cash and resources, and that certainly was a part, but a BIG part was that they expected a tiny little war. No rational person thinks that fighting North Korea would be a tiny little war.

[moeur]

Here is my opinion since I know you want to hear it :)

Oil does have something to do with why we are so involved in the middle East. I don’t think that the world would pay much attention to them at all if there was not so much oil there.

The U.S. went into Iraq to try out an experiment. Yes they thought it would go easier than it is going. The experiment is to see if people who are living in a free, prosperous democratic country will continue to support acts of terrorism against the west. It is thought that if democracy can take hold in one country then the others will follow.

Unfortunately, there are many in the region who have a stake in keeping democracy out of the region and are trying their best to prevent it.

North Korea can be controlled by China if the Chinese government so wishes. The people of North Korea, on the whole, support the North Korean leader because they think he is descended from the gods. The west has a little more bargaining power with North Korea than they do with Iran or did with Iraq. This is because N.K. cannot support themselves on oil; they are a poor country and need the help of other nations.

[hellilyntax]

I dont agree with this US syntax

Dim Palestin as Freedom
Dim Muslim as Terrorist

this syntax is absolutely wrong
my VB together with Windows would crash by this syntax...
it will do infinite loop

The true syntax is

Dim invader as terrorist
set terrorist = whoever come into another county kill their people, destroy their building, steal their resource, rape their women...

Return Zionis

How come US didnt say that Zionis are terrorist?

[moeur]

You forgot to mention how the Israelis are eating Muslim babies.

I think your Windows crashed a long time ago and it is time to reboot.

This time get a genuine copy of Windows rather than that cheap imitation you've been running.

[hellilyntax]

You forgot to mention how the Israelis are eating Muslim babies.
I think they wont..
All they want is land...
Not food...

[Shaggy Hiker]

I dont agree with this US syntax

Dim Palestin as Freedom
Dim Muslim as Terrorist

this syntax is absolutely wrong
my VB together with Windows would crash by this syntax...
it will do infinite loop

The true syntax is

Dim invader as terrorist
set terrorist = whoever come into another county kill their people, destroy their building, steal their resource, rape their women...

Return Zionis

How come US didnt say that Zionis are terrorist?

Neither Freedom nor Terrorist are intrinsic types, so you have to define both before they exist. The point Bush is trying to make is that this code will work depending on how you define those classes.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Here is my opinion since I know you want to hear it :)

Oil does have something to do with why we are so involved in the middle East. I don’t think that the world would pay much attention to them at all if there was not so much oil there.

The U.S. went into Iraq to try out an experiment. Yes they thought it would go easier than it is going. The experiment is to see if people who are living in a free, prosperous democratic country will continue to support acts of terrorism against the west. It is thought that if democracy can take hold in one country then the others will follow.

Unfortunately, there are many in the region who have a stake in keeping democracy out of the region and are trying their best to prevent it.

North Korea can be controlled by China if the Chinese government so wishes. The people of North Korea, on the whole, support the North Korean leader because they think he is descended from the gods. The west has a little more bargaining power with North Korea than they do with Iran or did with Iraq. This is because N.K. cannot support themselves on oil; they are a poor country and need the help of other nations.

I agree with everything you said except for the second sentence of the second line. There is somebody who would pay attention to them if there wasn't oil over there: Cats!!! To a cat, that country must look like a giant, luxurious bathroom well stocked with plenty of reading material, a fridge, and a TV.

[rory]

I dont agree with this US syntax

Dim Palestin as Freedom
Dim Muslim as Terrorist

this syntax is absolutely wrong
my VB together with Windows would crash by this syntax...
it will do infinite loop

The true syntax is

Dim invader as terrorist
set terrorist = whoever come into another county kill their people, destroy their building, steal their resource, rape their women...

Return Zionis

How come US didnt say that Zionis are terrorist?

there wouldnt be Dim without an american .. heck would be stuck with linux doms .. :bigyello:

Lets go over the VB6 Code again for clarity. ..


Private Sub Command1_Click()

Dim TERRORIST(2) As String
Dim TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP As Integer

Const THEY_ARE_NUTS As String = "THEY ARE NUTS!"

'// TERRORIST(0) = "IRA" <- discontinued **
TERRORIST(0) = "Hezbollah"
TERRORIST(1) = "Hamas"
TERRORIST(2) = "Al Qaeda"
'// TERRORIST(3) = "n/a" <- live update

Debug.Print "============"
For TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP = 0 To UBound(TERRORIST)
Debug.Print "One More Nutcase Gone!! -> " & TERRORIST(TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP)
Next TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP
Debug.Print "============"
Debug.Print THEY_ARE_NUTS

End Sub


if you have VB6 give it a whirl... :wave:

Another version ...


Private Sub Command1_Click()

Dim TERRORIST(2)
Dim TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP
Dim TERRORIST_TMP

Const THEY_ARE_NUTS = "THEY ARE NUTS!"

'// TERRORIST(0) = "IRA" <- discontinued **
TERRORIST(0) = "Hezbollah"
TERRORIST(1) = "Hamas"
TERRORIST(2) = "Al Qaeda"
'// TERRORIST(3) = "n/a" <- live update

TERRORIST_TMP = vbNullString
TERRORIST_TMP = TERRORIST_TMP & "============" & vbCrLf
For TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP = 0 To UBound(TERRORIST)
TERRORIST_TMP = TERRORIST_TMP & "One More Nutcase Gone!! -> " & TERRORIST(TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP) & vbCrLf
Next TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP
TERRORIST_TMP = TERRORIST_TMP & "============" & vbCrLf
MsgBox THEY_ARE_NUTS & vbCrLf & TERRORIST_TMP, vbCritical, "SYSTEM ERROR!"

End Sub


And if no VB6 ..
then open new notepad txt file, copy paste this code into it and save as a .vbs file ..
then click it to run..

'// VBSCRIPT

Option Explicit

Call DeyCrazyNutCases

Sub DeyCrazyNutCases()

Dim TERRORIST(2)
Dim TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP
Dim TERRORIST_TMP

Const THEY_ARE_NUTS = "THEY ARE NUTS!"

'// TERRORIST(0) = "IRA" <- discontinued **
TERRORIST(0) = "Hezbollah"
TERRORIST(1) = "Hamas"
TERRORIST(2) = "Al Qaeda"
'// TERRORIST(3) = "n/a" <- live update

TERRORIST_TMP = vbNullString
TERRORIST_TMP = TERRORIST_TMP & "============" & vbCrLf
For TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP = 0 To UBound(TERRORIST)
TERRORIST_TMP = TERRORIST_TMP & "One More Nutcase Gone!! -> " & TERRORIST(TERRORIST_GOT_CUT_HIP) & vbCrLf
Next
TERRORIST_TMP = TERRORIST_TMP & "============" & vbCrLf
MsgBox THEY_ARE_NUTS & vbCrLf & TERRORIST_TMP, vbCritical, "SYSTEM ERROR!"

End Sub

[Shaggy Hiker]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's the most over engineered response I have ever seen!!

Most of us don't bother with research for our posts, let alone write actual code for a World Events post :afrog:

[rory]

ok .. :D

here is a more simple one that wont crash his PC using the syntex he quoted above ... :wave:



Option Explicit

Type Freedom
People As String
End Type

Type Terrorist
Extremist As String
End Type

Type People
Muslims As String
End Type

Public Sub Main()

Dim Palestine As Freedom
Dim Muslim As Terrorist
Dim Normal As People

Palestine.People = "Cool"
Muslim.Extremist = "Bad"
Normal.Muslims = "Good"

MsgBox "Palestine People are " & Palestine.People
MsgBox "Muslim Extremists are " & Muslim.Extremist
MsgBox "Normal Muslims are " & Normal.Muslims

End Sub

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's good, but it's VB6. I'm not about to re-write it as .NET code, but it's pretty close already. You are a loon to put that much effort into that response, but good to have you around.

[hellilyntax]

it's look fine...and really executable!!!
but the condition is wrong...
here is my remark..

MsgBox "Palestine People are " & Palestine.People 'it is not cool if their land is violated.
MsgBox "Muslim Extremists are " & Muslim.Extremist ' without them nobody fight for Palestine
MsgBox "Normal Muslims are " & Normal.Muslims 'this should be the only output

[honeybee]

There's nothing to understand. Some people don't have anything better to do with their lives. We've made everything a convenience and literally live the drone life... Now all of these people have energy that they need to focus and garbage protests in the name of patriotism seem like the best outlet right now.

Honestly, well over half of the people here lack purpose or direction. They're given the freedom to do whatever they want, but choose to do nothing. They get in their 8-5 at a seat-filler job (that could easily be made redundant, but keeping people paid so they can consume is the basis of our economics), get home just in time for the evening sitcoms, have dinner and then watch the 10 o'clock news before going to bed. Eventually, they'll have a kid or two and let that completely consume every aspect of their lives.

Can you really blame them for trying to feel important?

Sometimes I suspect that's actually true! And that's the most horrible part: that it actually could be true!!

.