BF2S Forums The only way is war.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Could be.

In ten years time when people are literally starving all it will take is for a politician to say:
'Its China'/Russia's/Saudia Arabia's fault'
And you'll all march off to war.

We need a proper "Dust Bowl" too.

War is never the answer. Never.

apollo_fi wrote:

ATG wrote:

The only thing that will " save " our economy is the same thing that pulled it out of the great depression.

Can't find fault with your logic there.

At the moment, and in the foreseeable future, you've got an abundance of supply and no demand.

Employing millions of men in the activity of destroying most of the economically productive assets on the planet is an obvious solution. Demand is created with all those new jobs and supply is severely constricted. Prices will begin to rise (rapidly after the war) and the deflationary spiral is broken.

See also

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/l … 8A9566F%7D

That was a really great article. I wonder if Obama has had a chance to read it.

+1-----------ATG

Shahter wrote:

jord wrote:

.Sup wrote:

War is never the answer. Never.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/42/83858 … 8d42a1.jpg

Lulz.

this time usa are in need of ending idiotism, jord. war's not any good for that.

There entire world is suffering from an idiotism pandemic.

how about you go to work, get an education, and diversify yourself?


or think of nutter shit all day is one way i guess.

jord wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Pug wrote:

Didn't we try that a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How's that working out?

We are fighting a guerrilla war on their terms, trying to avoid as many civ casualties as possible.  If we stopped fighting it that way and just opened up like it was a real war with everything to lose, and use everything in our arsenal, the middle east would already be destroyed.

The middle east is the middle east.

The odds of the USA pulling off a victory in a war against the rest of the world are the same odds as a T rex impregnating a Human male. Small indeed.

My quote is directed at his comment about Iraq and Afghanistan.  I never said anything about taking over the entire world.

Kmarion wrote:

DonFck wrote:

A revolution, that's what we all need.

Insisting that the corrupt and irresponsible be prosecuted or otherwise held accountable is not a revolution. Returning to the idea of a government of the people, for the people, and by the people is not revolution. Our war for independence was not a revolution. The colonist actually just wanted to continue to govern themselves. If we hadn't molested the idea of responsible capitalism we would not be here. We allowed Washington to create this mess. It's not a revolution .. it's a purging.

A purging is needed indeed.  But once the purge is done (if ever), how do we as American citizens address the increasing disconnect between the population and the politicians?  How do we address the inherent problems within our own political system, things like money buying votes and the general failure of government policy?

A revolution is needed - but not an armed overthrow of the power elite or even a benevolent changing of the guard.  The revolution starts in the minds of the population - the sole biggest asset the US (and by extension the government) has.  The general population for the most part cares about politics once every four years - and even then we mobilize to pull a lever or touch a screen and that's it.  If we look back at advances in our society (labor rights, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc) we see that concessions are not given to the public by the government; those concessions are resultant from hard-fought and lengthy battles after which official policy comes in line with often long-felt popular opinion.  In short, rights are not given, they are earned.

A lot of people here seem to think Americans need to wake the fuck up in regards to world opinion about our government's policies, as if popular opinion in the US is in line with the policies our government enacts.  Well that's simply not the case.  The problem is that our government's policy reflects the opinion of those who literally clutch the purse strings.  Our political system has become reliant on money to win elections.  Politicians aren't elected on platforms or opinion; they are elected on marketability.  Political campaigns are run much the same as marketing campaigns, with concentrated capital running the show.  Americans know this - it's painfully obvious along every political process.  The revolution doesn't come in the form of some mind-blowing realization, it comes by way of the American people saying enough is enough.

Popular activism takes many forms: general protest; economic boycotts; grass-roots mobilization; simple dissent through print and word of mouth.  As far as the large picture (the current American political system), Americans have failed at being active in politics.  It takes a concerted effort by the population to enact change in our system.  We can't expect the entrenched system to be changed within because it's simply not going to happen.  We must look inward at domestic attitudes regarding politics if we want a systematic change, and act on those impulses.

A parting quote by American philosopher John Dewey that I think is relevant to this discussion:

“A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience”

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-01-13 16:07:18)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The revolution starts in the minds of the population - the sole biggest asset the US (and by extension the government) has.

If we had nothing but the populace to run with, George Washington would be king and the Civil War would have ripped us apart, if not during the war then in its aftermath.

Our best asset is the individual American mind. Is that a very helpful response? No, unless you feel you have the ability to fix the problems of our time. In any case, it is an accurate one. If anything should be stressed to the population as a whole, it is the importance of the individual.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You need a credible third political part, that people can get behind.

The dumbocrats changed the game with the last election, showing grassroots support does win elections.

You can boycott and disent all you like, the same group of people will get re-elected.
Need a third party this time, with grassroots support.

Grass-roots my ass. George W. Bush could have won the election after George W. Bush.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Who said it was right?

I didn't say you said it was, it wasn't grass-roots at all. People have been throwing more elegant adjectives at Obama than I have ever seen used to describe a rainbow, grass-roots being one of them. If anything the grass-roots campaign was con Bush, not pro Obama.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Grass-roots donations and activisim have been credited with winning it for Obama.

I'm sure the grace of the merciful God has been as well.

ATG wrote:

It sucks, but it's true.
Our government created the housing bubble, not questionable borrowers. Banks would never have over extended themselves making loans to the poorer people without some sort of promise of a safety net. This all begins and ends with politicians.
I have searched long and hard for an answer as to why this is all happening.
Those familar with the stated goals of the PNAC may know what I'm getting at. You think those people are going to stop their insidious machinations because Obama got elected? Hah!

The only thing that will " save " our economy is the same thing that pulled it out of the great depression.

In not too many years the american people will be offering up our treasure and children for a global war of domination. It may be called a NWO, or a one world government but you can bet your ass we are getting into position to be the defacto dictator of it all, as such is our nature.

This war will be embraced by a desperate and hungry population.

I would go so far as to say the peoples of the world should stop us, while there is still a chance of that, because otherwise the center of power in the world shall be based here ( as it basically is now anyway ), except that whereas now we appear to be benevolent and bumbling and misguided, I believe we ( meaning the insane behind the scenes real leadership ) have the socio-pathic potential to make the Holocost a memory of the good old days.

So when people ask you why the worlds economies are going to hell, now you can answer; it is all by OUR design.

I'll ignore the second part of that post and focus on the first part about a war saving our economy like it did the great depression.

The social climate has changed from the days of the great depression. American standard of life has gotten so high up that people would not quickly or totally embrace having to donate money to fight the war or give up benefits and privileges or ration their food and other items.

You also have a nice flow of information on the internet that will show people the reality of the war they are going to be facing upon their arrival on the battlefield.

Further more there isn't a major enemy around nowadays that would choose to go to open all out total war with the United States. Not out of fear of us but out of the realities of the outcome for both sides and the rest of the world.

But I would say if there was a major power that would go to war with us and our people weren't totally spoiled we could still very well win a war and come out on top. But at a huge loss of life, property, thought, and money.

Either it was grass-roots support, activism and an efficient low level politcal machine or God came down, delved into the brains of predominantly black and working class people and made them donate money and get out and vote Obama.

I don't really care which one, the main thing is McDuhbya didn't get elected to continue the policy of more fail.

I guess if you want to change america you can get a direct line to god or try activism.
Pick one and go your hardest!

Its lunchtime so I need to start drinking if I'm to have a good evening out. Let me know how you get on.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-13 16:43:20)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Either it was grass-roots support, activism and an efficient low level politcal machine or God came down, delved into the brains of predominantly black working class people and made them donate money and get out and vote Obama.

You could take one of these as the primary factor, or the one you added to your list a little late:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't really care which one, the main thing is McDuhbya didn't get elected to continue the policy of more fail.

lol

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The revolution starts in the minds of the population - the sole biggest asset the US (and by extension the government) has.

If we had nothing but the populace to run with, George Washington would be king and the Civil War would have ripped us apart, if not during the war then in its aftermath.

I'm not sure I follow you there.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Our best asset is the individual American mind. Is that a very helpful response? No, unless you feel you have the ability to fix the problems of our time. In any case, it is an accurate one. If anything should be stressed to the population as a whole, it is the importance of the individual.

Yes and no.  The individual mind is not inherently a good or bad thing.  It's how that asset is used.  I agree wholeheartedly that ideas sparked within individual minds are often a great thing for society.  The ability for an "elite" idea to penetrate society and take hold for the benefit of that society is indeed a good thing.  I am not referring to the American public as a group of individuals.  I am referring to collective American thought regarding activism in politics.  Collectively Americans need to get off their asses, because one individual isn't going to do anything.  A bunch of individuals acting together will.  I know very well your (Ayn Rand's) ideas regarding the importance of individuals, but frankly I don't think it's relevant to this particular conversation.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-01-13 16:48:14)