Escalation of War In Iraq - Page 4

IslaScotts · 01-29-2007, 05:21 AM

Sorry, wasn't aware that Wikipedia was a dictionary or that the word genocide was changed to the word "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide." The convention's purpose to "define" the word is in regards to the legal prosecution of those accused of commiting the crime of genocide. This is much like the difference between legal insanity and insanity. But I can see your point, next time I will use "general genocide" when I mean the dictionary meaning and "legal genocide" when I am referencing the crime of which someone is being accused of.

littleFella · 01-29-2007, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslaScotts

But I can see your point, next time I will use "general genocide"

Would that mean killing of generals?

j/k

IslaScotts · 01-29-2007, 06:03 AM

and those they command

endymion616 · 02-13-2007, 07:58 AM

The only reason we're fighting in Iraq is to secure the oil reserves and increase productivity. If the Middle East had no oil, the US never would have invaded in the first place.

This is a story that goes back to World War One. The British and French carved up the old Ottoman Empire into phony "states", took over the oil production, and there's been chaos there ever since.

For a good primer on how governments continue to ignore obvious lessons from history, check out the program, "Blood and Oil." It shows exactly how European meddling in the Middle East set up a century of conflict. The seeds for Al-Qaeda were planted 90 years ago.

zcoder · 02-14-2007, 08:02 AM

How many countrys, regard themself's as Democratic, yet still
have Kings and Queens?? who by the way are not elected.

How do these countrys declair what real democracies should be like
when they still allow those who think they are privileged to maintain
a position without due elections.

Who needs a list of those countrys that still pratice privileged positions
that smack the face of those people who belive in democracie?

Kings and Queens live on the system as welfare leaches, while never
contributing anything to that system. Just privileged??

Zcoder....

jg_v7n · 02-14-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zcoder

How many countrys, regard themself's as Democratic, yet still
have Kings and Queens?? who by the way are not elected.

How do these countrys declair what real democracies should be like
when they still allow those who think they are privileged to maintain
a position without due elections.

Who needs a list of those countrys that still pratice privileged positions
that smack the face of those people who belive in democracie?

Kings and Queens live on the system as welfare leaches, while never
contributing anything to that system. Just privileged??

Zcoder....

HaHa - A morachy reinforces Democracy; while the British Queen technically has some "power", legally she will not prevent the process of Democratic Governance. It remains that the Prime Minister is ultimately "Answerable" to the Queen, as well as the people. If someone tried to take over the Government by military coup, the Queen simply gains control of the Army, who would take down the coup and reinstall rightful Democracy.

The Monarchy keeps the Government "in check" and conversly the opposite is true also. It means that "Absolute Power" is more or less impossible.

The House of Lords also plays a similar role in the UK. As does Congress in the US, though in this instance the seperation is less apparent, it is more common that control of both Houses is held by the same party. The independence of a Monachy prevents this.

zcoder · 02-14-2007, 09:31 AM

But the Queen, not being fully elected by the people for the people,
live off the hard work of the people, making the people her slave??

Her position could be one to be elected, not a right given to her becouse
of privilege of blood.

The idea of position in a democracie is a temp job, that the said temp
person is to serve the people in a contribing manner, not a leache that
took possition becouse of privilege, rather the privilege should be granted
by the votes.

Zcoder....

jg_v7n · 02-14-2007, 09:50 AM

I think you are confused with an "Absolute Monarchy" where the King or Queen is the absolute ruler, this is Dictatorshiop by any other means. The only one I know of off hand is Swaziland, I have visited Swaziland, its screwed.

If the Queen was "elected" the benefits that I spoke of above would not be apparent.

Democracy is as open to abuse as any other system of Governance, perhaps more so. Safeguards to Democracy are important, such as seperate governement "houses" to ensure that everyone remains answerable to someone else. A Monarchy is an additional safeguard.

littleFella · 02-14-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zcoder

But the Queen, not being fully elected by the people for the people,
live off the hard work of the people, making the people her slave??

Her position could be one to be elected, not a right given to her becouse
of privilege of blood.

The privilege of blood happens everyday and has been for millennia. Take G.W Bush for instance. The man has not been elected to inherit the money, or the social position that eventually made it possible for him to become a US president. Law and tradition allowed that. He inherited a position, and one day he will inherit the money because of his family's previous generations' work. Without those, I doubt that he would have gone much further than an incompetent clerk somewhere in a 3rd rate company.

As for the money; the Queen gets just under $12M per year to pay for her and her family's official duties and for the upkeep of her household. A few years ago, the Queen, at her own volition, decided that she will pay taxes like every other citizen. Law didn't require her to do this. The avg. amount of taxes she pays each year is around $195M so she actually pays the taxpayers back over 16 times more than she receives from them.

I wonder what is the cost of the WhiteHouse and of the presidential family.

zcoder · 02-14-2007, 12:43 PM

she pays $195M out of $12M??? what job does she have on the side???
I find that hard to belive that she has to pull another job to keep from
going in the hole. and who is she working for on this other job???

McDonalds???

Zcoder....

littleFella · 02-14-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zcoder

she pays $195M out of $12M??? what job does she have on the side???
I find that hard to belive that she has to pull another job to keep from
going in the hole. and who is she working for on this other job???

McDonalds???

Zcoder....

She is the Queen of England. Once upon a time Kings used to practically own entire countries, she inherited some of that. Remember?

She is filthy rich, and a big chunk of her money is invested in various financial portfolios. That's how she makes enough to have to pay more than the change she gets from the taxpayers.

John Scott · 02-23-2007, 06:20 AM

An old pic.

robert s. · 02-24-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kristeejo

How about replacing "America" with "The American Government" and you won't be so offensive, Ferre.

Most people I know in "America" never supported this war.

let me guess, kristeejo: you live either on one of the coasts, or in new england and your friends, relatives and most of the people you "just know" have an education above high school or college -----becuase those people do not support bush or his politics and the war. unfortunately in so called "rural" america (you know, where there are so surprisingly many "Cousins"), most people are for bush and the war!

and when you tell ferre he should use "american government" instead of "america", because it is less offensive, you are right, but also wrong. it is less offensive, but these bad things will not happen top the government, because they are very, very well protected. no, it will happen again to some poor bastards, unresponsible for any kind of politics!

John Scott · 02-25-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

let me guess, kristeejo: you live either on one of the coasts, or in new england and your friends, relatives and most of the people you "just know" have an education above high school or college -----becuase those people do not support bush or his politics and the war. unfortunately in so called "rural" america (you know, where there are so surprisingly many "Cousins"), most people are for bush and the war!

Damn you are a bigoted moron.

**G10** · 02-25-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zcoder

Kings and Queens live on the system as welfare leaches, while never contributing anything to that system. Just privileged??

Zcoder....

I don't care much for the monarchy but then again, I have nothing against them either. Not too sure about your comment though.

The monarchy actually brings a hell of a lot of money into the UK due to the amount of tourists etc they attract and London would not be as busy if it weren't for them.

I don't know why but it seems that millions of tourists are hell-bent on seeing Buckingham Palace and other royal houses, plus all the guards and the like.

btw - There are millions of people that live on the system as 'welfare leaches' and contribute nothing. At least they bring millions into the country.

zcoder · 03-08-2007, 07:02 AM

I would rather pay someone on welfare to provide for their kids then to
pay for a lazy person with no kids.

I don't know why but it seems that millions of tourists are hell-bent on seeing Buckingham Palace and other royal houses, plus all the guards and the like.

If you removed them from the planet people would still want to go see the
royal houses, and the Buckingham Palace becouse of the history of it all.

it's not becouse of the monarchy's they come, it's the history of it all.
Hey, but who am I to say who you should pay tax's to just so she can
pay it back. plus more. so why take it in the first place huh?

sounds funny to me but hey, after all I am a dumb old american, you must
forgive me for that huh?

Zcoder....

robert s. · 03-08-2007, 08:34 PM

i dont care much for monarchy as well, but if i look at the average tourist in london (and i spend quite some time in this city) my guess would be that the monarchy is easily financed, just with the sale of the plates with the pictures of the royals on......

and if you look at spain - if there would not be a king (with actually no power at all) spain would be a fascist state today. after franko the king was the only chance for spain to stay away from the very, very, very right wing or a junta. thank god, juan carlos was a lot stronger and cleverer than the generals thought!

so for me: anytime a king before a mullah or a bush!

StupidScript · 03-08-2007, 08:54 PM

jg_v7n is rocking my world. robert s., sorry ... you've got yourself a batch of bad acid ... "if not for a monarchy you'd be facists"? What the @#%^ is that? Do you have so little faith in Human Nature (protectionism)? Those of you that say that GWB is actually "running America" are listening to too much web chatter.

With a <29% Approval Rating (look it up), GWB is "squeaking by". About the only thing he cares about is what Dick Cheney TELLS him to care about. Nobody cares what he says, but it doesn't matter ... he can do pretty much what he wants for another 17 months, and THAT's the price we pay for Democracy, unless our "representative" Governmental peoples find it in their political guts to impeach the whole damn group ... and even that would take too long, at this point in the cycle.

Cheney's got his finger up the butt of Halliburton and whoknowswhatelse major industry groups ... he's been preaching the "return to traditional heavy-handed Government" for decades ... he's got himself a finger-puppet ... why back down now? A little leg-tumor, anyone?

Are you Doubters so naive that you expect the entire political system to become swift-as-a-rabbit, now that "our" side is losing? NO! It's a freaking plodding beast! Just like your country's political system ...

We're working as fast as we can to correct the wrongs committed by "our" Government! (Don't blame me ... I voted for Gore!)

C'mon! Admit some connection to reality!!

robert s. · 03-08-2007, 09:07 PM

@stupidscript
you misunderstood me. of course, not having a monarchy does not mean you are a fscist state.
but in spain, when franko had to give away the power, his plan really was to put juan carlos on the throne, but the generals should run the country - a junta on the very right wing of the spectrum. but juan carlos was alot stronger than everybody thought. thanks to him, spain is today a liberal, free country in europe.
thats what i meant, nothing else!