So how much longer do you figure????

[Big Smoothy]

The Americans will start a partial troop withdrawal near the ELECTIONS.

Regardless of how long the Americans are in Iraq, American oil companies cannot start extracting oil until the country settles down - if it settles down.

A single nation-state of Iraq may not happen.

1. The Kurds WILL separate at the appropriate time, and have been planning it very quietly for some time. The Kurds have the resources, organization, economy and they - oil. They speak Kurdish and not Arabic and don't like arabs.

2. Shiites and Sunnis:

The lastest attack on the temple of Samurra underlines the sectarian divide, and there have been massive retaliations of Sunni vs. Shiite, and vice-versa for the last two years.

Don't count on U.S. oil companies and many more contractors going in soon.

 

[BulkMeUp]

It puts us in the driver seat as opposed to the passenger seat.

I meant how does it make our behaviour different from them if we both act in a similar way. In other words, what makes us better than them?

But Seriously, do you not think Iran needs sanctions against it for it's nuclear program it has started?

I agree the issue needs to be looked into. But squeezing them out out of the oil supply chain will only make the rest of the world pay for it as well.

When Russia piled or planned to stock pile (cant remember how far they went with the idea) missiles in Cuba, didnt it freak you guys out that they were right at your doorstep with such destructive weapons? It sure did, and rightly so. As a result, didnt you ramp up your defense capabilities to ensure your protection?

Try and see the same from their point of view for a min.

Presently, You are at their (Iran's) doorstep. You marched into Iraq with reasons that havent been proven. To them, you are the agressors at their doorstep. The fact that you marched into Iraq and havent been able to justify the reasons that you gave to go there in the first place will freak them out. They must be thinking what/who next? What if you come up with some other excuse and walk into their country? So why wouldnt they ramp up their defense capabilities to ensure their protection?

If you say they are agressors and have a history of such. Then probably they think the same of you, given the present situation. JMHO.

 

[Decker]

Communism is a form of socialism.

You're the idiot, anyone who is reading that can see.

Communism: 1) A social and economic system in which all (or nearly all) property is public, not private. That is, resources are shared by everyone. Not to be confused for socialism, which only grants ownership of the means of production to workers. 2) A technically incorrect but widely used term for the system practiced by the Soviet empire. 3) In Marxist ideology, a utopia achieved in the final stage of workers' struggles. The first stage is capitalism, in which the proletariat (workers) are exploited by capitalists (business owners). The second stage would be socialism, or a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx envisioned that this stage would be brief. In the final stage -- communism -- society would become so classless and collectivist that the formal state would wither away, and society could spontaneously operate as a collective whole without government.

Socialism: A proposed economic system in which workers, not private capitalist individuals, own and control the means of production. (This includes factories, stores, farmland, machinery, etc.) Not to be confused with the "socialism" nominally practiced by the Soviet Union, which was no more than a dictatorship over workers by a ruling elite. True socialism on a national level has never been tried anywhere in the world. (It is sometimes practiced at the company level, with employee-owned firms.) Socialism has been proposed in many forms, ranging from anarcho-socialism to social democracy. However, in those variants where socialism advocates a centralized government, that government is always democratic.

 

[BigDyl]

I meant how does it make our behaviour different from them if we both act in a similar way. In other words, what makes us better than them?

I agree the issue needs to be looked into. But squeezing them out out of the oil supply chain will only make the rest of the world pay for it as well.

Try and see it from their point of view for a min.

When Russia piled or planned to stock pile (cant remember how far they went with the idea) missiles in Cuba, didnt it freak you guys out that they were right at your doorstep with such destructive weapons? It sure did, and rightly so. As a result, didnt you ramp you your defense capabilities to ensure your protection?

Presently, You are at their (Iran's) doorstep. You marched into Iraq with reasons that havent been proven. To them, you are the agressors at their doorstep. The fact that you marched into Iraq and havent been able to justify the reasons that you gave to go there in the first place will freak them out. They must be thinking what/who next? What if you come up with some other excuse and walk into their country? So why wouldnt they ramp up their defense capabilities to ensure their protection?

If you say they are agressors and have a history of such. Then probably they think the same of you, given the present situation. JMHO.

Yes, but we must slaughter the evil doers with righteous vengance.

 

[BulkMeUp]

Yes, but we must slaughter the evil doers with righteous vengance.

You go G.I Joe!

 

[BigDyl]

Communism is socialism though, go read a text book.

Such a sad, sad individual. You have my pity.

 

[ALBOB]

True socialism on a national level has never been tried anywhere in the world. (It is sometimes practiced at the company level, with employee-owned firms.) Socialism has been proposed in many forms, ranging from anarcho-socialism to social democracy. However, in those variants where socialism advocates a centralized government, that government is always democratic.

Hmmmmmmm...........I made this statement once and got trounced. Anyone care to attack Decker for his blashpemous remark?

 

[BigDyl]

Hmmmmmmm...........I made this statement once and got trounced. Anyone care to attack Decker for his blashpemous remark?

Curse you! Blasphemous Infidel!!!111111

 

[brogers]

Communism: 1) A social and economic system in which all (or nearly all) property is public, not private. That is, resources are shared by everyone. Not to be confused for socialism, which only grants ownership of the means of production to workers. 2) A technically incorrect but widely used term for the system practiced by the Soviet empire. 3) In Marxist ideology, a utopia achieved in the final stage of workers' struggles. The first stage is capitalism, in which the proletariat (workers) are exploited by capitalists (business owners). The second stage would be socialism, or a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx envisioned that this stage would be brief. In the final stage -- communism -- society would become so classless and collectivist that the formal state would wither away, and society could spontaneously operate as a collective whole without government.

Socialism: A proposed economic system in which workers, not private capitalist individuals, own and control the means of production. (This includes factories, stores, farmland, machinery, etc.) Not to be confused with the "socialism" nominally practiced by the Soviet Union, which was no more than a dictatorship over workers by a ruling elite. True socialism on a national level has never been tried anywhere in the world. (It is sometimes practiced at the company level, with employee-owned firms.) Socialism has been proposed in many forms, ranging from anarcho-socialism to social democracy. However, in those variants where socialism advocates a centralized government, that government is always democratic.

Hey look, I can copy and paste too!

communism
n 1: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

 

[GFR]

Hey look, I can copy and paste too!

communism
n 1: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Please!!!! do it for us all.


http://www.gedonline.org/

 

[Decker]

Hey look, I can copy and paste too!

communism
n 1: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Yeah, but you're wrong and I'm right. You are not first to use a dictionary that is incorrect. Here's a definition from the Oxford Dictionaries:
communism

??? noun 1 a political and social system whereby all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. 2 a system of this kind derived from Marxism, practised in China and formerly in the Soviet Union.

I see nothing about Socialism in that definition. Do you?

Read from the master http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/ethicsutility/id23.html
on Socialism.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of Production although this does not quite Correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist.

For plain lucidity I recommend reading Einstein's work.

 

[brogers]

Oh right, your dictionary is right, mine is wrong. Good argument.

 

[brogers]

Both are about the welfare of the entire population, not individualism.

Both focus on collectivism, or co-operation, rather than competition.

 

[Decker]

Oh right, your dictionary is right, mine is wrong. Good argument.

The Oxford Dictionary is definitive. Yes, dictionaries are routinely mistaken or incorrect.

 

[Decker]

Both are about the welfare of the entire population, not individualism.

Both focus on collectivism, or co-operation, rather than competition.

No one is against competition. But it has its place in a framework of cooperation. Read the Einstein article that I linked before.

Here's a bit from it, "Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society.

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees."

 

[GFR]

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

 

[The Monkey Man]

Do people really expect socialism to work in this country
with the lifestyle the upperclasses live, and the amount of unemployed
and illegal immigrant workers we have here -

 

[GFR]

Do people really expect socialism to work in this country
with the lifestyle the upperclasses live, and the amount of unemployed
and illegal immigrant workers we have here -

The PLUTOCRACY Government of America will never in a gabillion years become SOCIALISM......Never!!!

 

[The Monkey Man]

The PLUTOCRACY Government of America will never in a gabillion years become SOCIALISM......Never!!!

You better tell those other jokers from here this information

 

[Decker]

You better tell those other jokers from here this information

Think of the French Revolution as the last time plutocrats gave up something.

 

[Dale Mabry]

I meant how does it make our behaviour different from them if we both act in a similar way. In other words, what makes us better than them?

I agree the issue needs to be looked into. But squeezing them out out of the oil supply chain will only make the rest of the world pay for it as well.

When Russia piled or planned to stock pile (cant remember how far they went with the idea) missiles in Cuba, didnt it freak you guys out that they were right at your doorstep with such destructive weapons? It sure did, and rightly so. As a result, didnt you ramp up your defense capabilities to ensure your protection?

Try and see the same from their point of view for a min.

Presently, You are at their (Iran's) doorstep. You marched into Iraq with reasons that havent been proven. To them, you are the agressors at their doorstep. The fact that you marched into Iraq and havent been able to justify the reasons that you gave to go there in the first place will freak them out. They must be thinking what/who next? What if you come up with some other excuse and walk into their country? So why wouldnt they ramp up their defense capabilities to ensure their protection?

If you say they are agressors and have a history of such. Then probably they think the same of you, given the present situation. JMHO.

That is a rational explanation for the actions of an irrational group. Have you not seen the hubbub over the Muhammad cartoons yet?

 

[BulkMeUp]

That is a rational explanation for the actions of an irrational group. Have you not seen the hubbub over the Muhammad cartoons yet?

No it is not. Yes i have seen the drama over the cartoons and i think it it way over the top.

 

[Dale Mabry]

It's not a rational explanation. So you think Iran is capable of having nukes without using them for no reason or selling them to terrorists?

 

[BulkMeUp]

No i dont. But on the other hand, you guys sold weapons too

 

[Dale Mabry]

Not nukes. FYI, I don't think we should have nukes either, btw.

 

[BulkMeUp]

I agree. It is what's causing this nuke-tit-for-tat shit in the first place.