The New Iraq... - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The New Iraq...

Posted by marcus82 on May-14-2003 16:46:

The New Iraq...

looking at back at history, everything done by a republican adminstration to aid combatants fighting 'america's enemies' has resulted in those allied combatants becoming enemies of american herself.

case and point:

US covert (CIA) aid of fighters in afghan conflict with soviet union, those fighters take up arms against the united states in the early 90's after america presence in middle east (saudi) increases.

question:

looking at the new iraq and the new afghanistan for that matter, do you think that american involvement in the middleeast has taken a turn for the better or the worst? will america be subject to more attacks or will recent events show that america is not to be trifled with (at least on their own soil)?

Posted by malek on May-14-2003 18:51:

I still believe that getting rid of hunger, poverty, diseases, etc worldwide will do much more to bring terrorism and violence down than by attacking it up front (which does only add oil to the fire).

Now seeing how much the US spent in its 30 days war effort in Iraq shows where the US priorities are... these monies could've ended hunger worldwide for about 4-5 years.

meh, let's all go watch MTV

Posted by DaveSZ on May-14-2003 19:28:

50 cent's new video is on entitled, "Sand Niggaz."

Yes that money could have been used here for helping poor kids get an education, to buy books, build schools etc.

Posted by occrider on May-14-2003 20:15:

quote:
Originally posted by ahlamalek
I still believe that getting rid of hunger, poverty, diseases, etc worldwide will do much more to bring terrorism and violence down than by attacking it up front (which does only add oil to the fire).

Now seeing how much the US spent in its 30 days war effort in Iraq shows where the US priorities are... these monies could've ended hunger worldwide for about 4-5 years.

That was tried in somalia ... didn't really work

Posted by DaveSZ on May-14-2003 21:04:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
That was tried in somalia ... didn't really work

You want to know why growing more and more and more food to feed more people never works?? Humans are animals too. Animals have two basic desires; To eat, and to fuck. When someone's hunger is satiated and they are healthy, they are constantly looking for a mate. We will leave homosexuallity out of the equation here. In fact it would be nice if there were more homosexual people, because the Earth would be a little bit better off.

Anyways if they don't have access to good family planning resources and birth control (which many people around the world do not), what do you think happens??

You've got it...more little mouths to feed.

Anyone with a three year old's (ok let's say 15 year old's) sense of reasoning knows that the Earth only has a finite amount of resources to be raped.

This is why I always laugh at those ADM commercials....

p.s. I forgot to mention that modern agriculture and modern medicine makes Nature's checks and balances irrelevant, and for the short term, exludes us from them to some extent.

What am I saying?? That I won't go to the hospital if I'm sick? That I will go on a hunger strike?? HAha. No... I'm only stating what is crystal clear to me.

Posted by malek on May-14-2003 22:44:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
That was tried in somalia ... didn't really work

get lost

Posted by malek on May-14-2003 22:47:

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on May-15-2003 00:23:

quote:
Originally posted by DaveSaenz
You want to know why growing more and more and more food to feed more people never works?? Humans are animals too. Animals have two basic desires; To eat, and to fuck. When someone's hunger is satiated and they are healthy, they are constantly looking for a mate. We will leave homosexuallity out of the equation here. In fact it would be nice if there were more homosexual people, because the Earth would be a little bit better off.

Anyways if they don't have access to good family planning resources and birth control (which many people around the world do not), what do you think happens??

You've got it...more little mouths to feed.

Anyone with a three year old's (ok let's say 15 year old's) sense of reasoning knows that the Earth only has a finite amount of resources to be raped.

This is why I always laugh at those ADM commercials....

p.s. I forgot to mention that modern agriculture and modern medicine makes Nature's checks and balances irrelevant, and for the short term, exludes us from them to some extent.

What am I saying?? That I won't go to the hospital if I'm sick? That I will go on a hunger strike?? HAha. No... I'm only stating what is crystal clear to me.

That's a theory first presented in 1798 by an english monk named Thomas Malthus, in his work called "Essay on the Principle of Population". He stated that the human population is expanding geometrically, while the natural resources can only be linearly expanded. As he stated, all children that are born above the number necessary for maintaining the population size on a desired level should disappear unless place for them appears when an adult person dies. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

One of his more interesting paragraphs say this: Nature should be helped in creating mortality instead of attempting to lower it. Instead of recommending cleanness to poor people, the opposite habits should be encouraged. Streets should be narrowed, more people should be put in houses, and plague return should be invoked. Villages should be built near standing waters and swamps. But above all, medicines against raging diseases should be condemned, as those good willed people who are mistaken and are thinking they are doing humanity a favor by extinguishing a specific disease.

This is more or less a quote with english->croatian->english translation, so it's not 100% accurate, but you get the picture. The passage of time has shown however that this ideas are far from truth, as developed nations coped well with their population increase due to their technological and scientific advances. Also, population growth in developed countries has plummeted, due to various reasons, so now most of them are faced with a population deficit. Anyway, history shows that when a country becomes a developed one, it enters a sort of short term baby boom stage. That stage however, doesn't last for long, and a country's population growth soon consolidates.

But, the republicans have partially adopted Malthus's theory, as is visible from Henry Kissinger's 1974 document entitled "National Security Council Study Memorandum 200", or short NSSM 200. It dealt with "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests". Between other things, what it says is that the global rise in population clashes with US interests, and the overpopulated countries will use up more of their natural resources for themselves instead of trading them to the US. Also what is stated is that this population growth in some countries is a potential "threat to national security" and should be dealt with. The solution to that problem, as Kissinger sees it would be to stop the global population growht within a few decades. It also states that uncontrolled population growth is the reason why undeveloped countries remain poor (no mention of the world bank or IMF). There's also a hint that decreasing natality rates in Europe resulted in faster industrial development (although actually it's vice-versa), and that such decrease is recommended to undeveloped countries as it will result in their faster industrialization.
http://www.africa2000.com/SNDX/nssm200all.html

Here's also one interesting quote in which he recommends what the US government should do:

quote:
Sterilization of men and women has received wide-spread acceptance in several areas when a simple, quick, and safe procedure is readily available. Female sterilization has been improved by technical advances with laparoscopes, culdoscopes, and greatly simplifies abdominal surgical techniques. Further improvements by the use of tubal clips, trans-cervical approaches, and simpler techniques can be developed. For men several current techniques hold promise but require more refinement and evaluation. Approx. Increased Cost $6 million annually.

Posted by occrider on May-15-2003 00:31:

quote:
Originally posted by ahlamalek
get lost

Eh ... grow up. Donating to poverty and allieviating world hunger will do no more good to rid the world of terrorism than pre-emptive wars, simply because ambition isn't based upon how full our stomachs are .

Posted by DaveSZ on May-15-2003 01:59:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
That's a theory first presented in 1798 by an english monk named Thomas Malthus, in his work called "Essay on the Principle of Population". He stated that the human population is expanding geometrically, while the natural resources can only be linearly expanded. As he stated, all children that are born above the number necessary for maintaining the population size on a desired level should disappear unless place for them appears when an adult person dies. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

One of his more interesting paragraphs say this: Nature should be helped in creating mortality instead of attempting to lower it. Instead of recommending cleanness to poor people, the opposite habits should be encouraged. Streets should be narrowed, more people should be put in houses, and plague return should be invoked. Villages should be built near standing waters and swamps. But above all, medicines against raging diseases should be condemned, as those good willed people who are mistaken and are thinking they are doing humanity a favor by extinguishing a specific disease.

This is more or less a quote with english->croatian->english translation, so it's not 100% accurate, but you get the picture. The passage of time has shown however that this ideas are far from truth, as developed nations coped well with their population increase due to their technological and scientific advances. Also, population growth in developed countries has plummeted, due to various reasons, so now most of them are faced with a population deficit. Anyway, history shows that when a country becomes a developed one, it enters a sort of short term baby boom stage. That stage however, doesn't last for long, and a country's population growth soon consolidates.

But, the republicans have partially adopted Malthus's theory, as is visible from Henry Kissinger's 1974 document entitled "National Security Council Study Memorandum 200", or short NSSM 200. It dealt with "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests". Between other things, what it says is that the global rise in population clashes with US interests, and the overpopulated countries will use up more of their natural resources for themselves instead of trading them to the US. Also what is stated is that this population growth in some countries is a potential "threat to national security" and should be dealt with. The solution to that problem, as Kissinger sees it would be to stop the global population growht within a few decades. It also states that uncontrolled population growth is the reason why undeveloped countries remain poor (no mention of the world bank or IMF). There's also a hint that decreasing natality rates in Europe resulted in faster industrial development (although actually it's vice-versa), and that such decrease is recommended to undeveloped countries as it will result in their faster industrialization.
http://www.africa2000.com/SNDX/nssm200all.html

Here's also one interesting quote in which he recommends what the US government should do:

Yep. Everything is just rosy...that's why there's 2X more Bengal tigers living in zoos than in the wild right?? That's why ~2-3 species (1000 a year) go extinct everyday too...rosy.

We (except for those rare few people's like the Ainu) tend to forget that we are a part of nature, and put ourselves above it. We forget or aren't taught that we are a part of Earth's beautiful ecosystem; Thus we destroy it. We forget the fact that we are destroying ourselves in the process.

If you break enough links in the chain, the main link, so too, will crumble...

"Man did not weave the web of life - he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."
Chief Seattle, 1854.

quote:
Originally posted by ahlamalek
get lost

He has as much right to be here as you or I. At least he doesn't insult those he disagrees with.

Posted by malek on May-15-2003 03:57:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Eh ... grow up. Donating to poverty and allieviating world hunger will do no more good to rid the world of terrorism than pre-emptive wars, simply because ambition isn't based upon how full our stomachs are .

it does not deminish the fervor of some, what it does, it removes popular support for these crazy ideas.

poor and hungry people support extreme ways, and its a known tendacy for a while now...

Posted by malek on May-15-2003 04:31:

quote:
Originally posted by DaveSaenz
He has as much right to be here as you or I. At least he doesn't insult those he disagrees with.

I know, but trying to end discussion by presenting a lame excuse is just... lame

Posted by DaveSZ on May-15-2003 04:55:

^^
OK. It started a heated debate instead lol.

quote:
Originally posted by ahlamalek
it does not deminish the fervor of some, what it does, it removes popular support for these crazy ideas.

poor and hungry people support extreme ways, and its a known tendacy for a while now...

You're correct about that at least when it comes to Palestinian suicide bombers...

Posted by occrider on May-15-2003 05:05:

quote:
Originally posted by ahlamalek
I know, but trying to end discussion by presenting a lame excuse is just... lame

So if it's a lame excuse argue your point intelligentely to point out how it doesn't address the issue in its entirety. It was more or less a comment to provoke further embellishment of your argument since your original statement was two sentences long.

quote:

it does not deminish the fervor of some, what it does, it removes popular support for these crazy ideas.

poor and hungry people support extreme ways, and its a known tendacy for a while now...

Well some can say that pre-emptive wars could strike just as big of a blow to terrorism as eliminating hunger, and maybe even more. By attacking a host country you eliminate the number of governments that host or financially support terrorism through the use of force or the threat of force. Which constitutes a greater threat ... a terrorist backed by tens of thousands of hungry, poor people or the terrorist backed by the funds and resources of a government?

Additionally, most terrorist organisations are not founded on the objective of achieving social welfare. If so then Africa should be the largest source of terrorism on the world tenfold. Most terrorist organizations are politically motivated, and as such, ************ of how much the US devotes towards aid it would likely accomplish little in the way of reducing terrorism..

Posted by malek on May-15-2003 05:20:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Additionally, most terrorist organisations are not founded on the objective of achieving social welfare. If so then Africa should be the largest source of terrorism on the world tenfold. Most terrorist organizations are politically motivated, and as such, ************ of how much the US devotes towards aid it would likely accomplish little in the way of reducing terrorism..

But Africa IS one of the largest source of terrorism and violence?!!??! Look at Algeria, Subsaharian Africa, South Africa, Rwanda et al., Sierra Leone, Mozambique, etc etc

Do you mean that if Americans aren't involved, it doesn't count as terrorism?!?!

Posted by marcus82 on May-15-2003 13:31:

well...this thread took a total detour...n e ways, eliminating the threat of 'terrorist' iraq was bushes game. now that saddam is gone has suicide bombings in israel gone down? i dunno....just a thought.

btw, how is africa one of the world's largest sources of terrorism in the world?

rwanda and sierra leone don't 'export' their terrorism to other nations, rather, parts of africa are the world's most concentrated areas of civil war....where rebels use things like diamonds, cocoa, and that crap they put in cell phones (what's it called...someone help me out...tungsten?) to fund their activities. activities which solely focus on ousting the government's of those countries.

Posted by occrider on May-15-2003 14:00:

quote:
Originally posted by marcus82
well...this thread took a total detour...n e ways, eliminating the threat of 'terrorist' iraq was bushes game. now that saddam is gone has suicide bombings in israel gone down? i dunno....just a thought.

btw, how is africa one of the world's largest sources of terrorism in the world?

rwanda and sierra leone don't 'export' their terrorism to other nations, rather, parts of africa are the world's most concentrated areas of civil war....where rebels use things like diamonds, cocoa, and that crap they put in cell phones (what's it called...someone help me out...tungsten?) to fund their activities. activities which solely focus on ousting the government's of those countries.

Agreed ... largest sources of terrorism in the world:

Spain, N. Ireland, Chechnya, South America, and Middle East. I can't think of one terrorist group that is indigenous to Africa. And I can't imagine that any of these terrorist groups that would be any weaker if there was no hunger in the world.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on May-15-2003 18:15:

There are some in north africa, mainly in the muslim states like Egypt or Algeria. One of them planted a car-bomb in Rijeka, Croatia few years ago after we turned in their leader to CIA officials. Gamma al Islamya I believe it was called.

Posted by marcus82 on May-16-2003 03:23:

geographically yes...those countries are 'african', but do your refer to middle east counties are asian or middle east? in a technical sense they are asian, but recently 'muslim states' have been affliated with the 'middle east', which is still a part of asia...

so maybe we should generalize asia and say...all of asia is a hotbed for terrorism?