The Usurper: It sure sounds like it. It looks like the only thing your politicians in who knows how many years have been interested in is lining their pockets.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, but like one or more banks over here... they won't do it on the blood of others. Their policy is not to invest in any scheme which involves others suffering as a result of greed. They also run shops who's policy is in their own brand products to have as much 'fairtrade' items, or items to contain as much 'fairtrade' raw materials as possible.

Czuch: Ok... what did these economists say, what was their belief based on, and what evidence do they have to back up such a statement.

And as for what are we doing now.... We've had to rescue a few banks from collapsing thanks to (as shown via info) from collapse. We are updating our bank regulation laws. We are changing the banking system in that big bosses will no longer get fat cat rewards especially if they mess up. We are thinking of possible criminal prosecution of certain bank leaders. Our BoE Interest rates have been cut to 0.5%. Certain help has been given in legislation to cut down on the number of repo's on houses.

And also our PM is facing possible hard questions due to that he was the man in charge of looking after the finances of this country before he took over from Tony Blair.

The people of this country want action taken so that such mess up's cannot take place as has happened here. EG RBS (one of the banks we had to rescue) bought as part of a consortium a foreign bank, they as reported by people who were involved with the matter at the time of the take over DID NOT HAVE FULL ACCOUNTS OFF THAT BANK. Because if they did, they wouldn't have bought it, someone remarked that realistically the foreign bank should have paid RBS and the others money to take it over, as it's accounts showed that most of it's 'assets' in the way of loans owed to it by people, were bad, going to be written off or sub prime loans waiting to go bad.

A fix to make sure it doesn't happen again is the people of this countries main concern. As it has effected many pensions and other supposed secure investments of the people of the UK.

Artful Dodger: "There's a difference between opinion and fact and it's pretty basic."

To examine the difference:

Let us say I demonstrate through mathematical proofs that 2+2=4. This then becomes recognized as a fact, through the demonstration. But the demonstration in itself does not bestow "facthood." 2+2=4 is true, or factual, regardless of any opinion to the contrary.

Now, suppose I have a different opinion, arising either from insufficient knowledge of mathematical principles or through purposeful disinformation by a pseudo-mathematician for reasons of his own. It can then be said that opinions differ, which is true. But FACTS don't differ! We can agree on this?

Turning now to the question at hand (i.e., was the U.S. invasion of Iraq unprovoked? and the corollary questions, Was it unjust? and, Was it illegal?), my point is simply this: just as 2+2=4, so it is proven by documentary evidence that the invasion of Iraq was, in fact, both unprovoked & pre-planned before 9/11. Secondly, such an unprovoked invasion of another country is illegal by definition, both by U.N. and U.S. law. And thirdly, such an unprovoked invasion is immoral, i.e., unjust on the face of it, if there be any rational standard of justice....which we all agree there is.

Now, you may have a contrary opinion, which is your right. However, if you do, then your opinion arises either from insufficient information or through purposeful disinformation by pseudo-intellectuals, for their own reasons. I suspect, in your case, the disinformation leads to a lack of information & also psychological immobolization, from which you ought to strive to free yourself (as we all must).

However, I will readily admit that this latter statement of mine (regarding how your mind in particular has been influenced & how it works) is an OPINION based on circumstantial evidence, not FACT based on incontrovertable evidence. But the facts referred to above are incontrovertable, no matter what opinion you or I may hold.

Artful Dodger: Each night we discover grounds of agreement even in the midst of disagreements. We'll get there.

Peace & Nite.

The Usurper:"But the Allied powers, in targeting civilians, acted unrighteously nevertheless."

I agree with this opinion. 

The Usurper:"Therefore, while American civilians, if attacked on their own soil by
Iraqi forces, would have essentially brought it upon themselves, it
does not follow that the killing of civilians can ever be a righteous
act in itself."

This is saying two different things.  So I'll respond to them individually, then it's off to bed.

"Therefore, while American civilians, if attacked on their own soil by
Iraqi forces, would have essentially brought it upon themselves, ..."

Nonsense

"it
does not follow that the killing of civilians can ever be a righteous
act in itself."

Of course this can't follow (so we agree) but in this case only because the first statement is nonsense.

Artful Dodger: To make my point about Hiroshima & Dresden a little more clear, look at this way:

The Germans & Japanese deserved what they got. But the Allied powers, in targeting civilians, acted unrighteously nevertheless. Like Babylon, they were a punishing instrument in the hands of God (if you will), but the nature of these acts were evil & themselves merit divine retribution.

Artful Dodger: In one sense your extension of my logic is correct, in another sense incorrect.

First, yes, that Germany & Japan were aggressive powers, resulted justly in aggression being used against them. It's called the right of self-defense, and the Allied powers exerted this right.

Now, the issue we are speaking of here, is the targeting of civilians. Now let us assume that the Germans & Japanese also targeted civilians, and did so first. Then, you are correct, the peoples of Germany & Japan had strictly no cause to complain when they were targeted.

But this argument misses the broader perspective, which is that it is immoral to attack unarmed civilians. Therefore, while American civilians, if attacked on their own soil by Iraqi forces, would have essentially brought it upon themselves, it does not follow that the killing of civilians can ever be a righteous act in itself.

Think of how God used Nebadchanezzar (sp) to punish Judah. Judah, for their injustices, deserved the punishment. However, God's weapon of punishing (Babylon) was not therefore righteous. Rather it was an unrighteous power utilized by God for the righteous punishment of Judah. Only God can pull this off, by the way.

So the issue of civilian casualties is more complex. But the principle stands, don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Let's follow your logic:  You have to support dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  You have to agree that the people of Dresden, -who where were burned alive, women and children, young and old, - have no reason to complain.  

The Usurper:I don't care about any of that.  It's an opnion that you hold, NOT a fact.  I teach this stuff in school and know what I'm talking about.  You are simply wrong to call it a fact.  It's no more a fact than saying Vanilla ice cream is the best tasting ice cream on earth. 

Furthermore, saying it was unjust is also an opinion NOT a fact.  I don't mind you holding the opinion, but if you call it a fact, that tells me you really don't know what you are talking about.

It's also an OPINION that it was unprovoked.  It's a disputable point and since there is a legal definition and an agent definition, you'd have to be more specific. 

It's also an opinion to say that the war was illegal.  Again, I don't mind you holding to this opinion, but you can't call it a fact.  If you do, you are simply wrong and you DON"T know what you are talking about.  There's a difference between opinion and fact and it's pretty basic. 

Artful Dodger: I'm extremely serious. Any American who has supported the unjust & unprovoked invasion of Iraq has therefore no cause for complaint if this unconscionable action comes back to bite them on their own soil. And to the extent that we are all Americans, responsible for the actions of our government, even those who did not support the invasion must nevertheless bear some responsibility for it. After all, their tax dollars helped to fund it. In a perfectly just world, we would pay at home for the lives we have taken abroad. And in the long run, this will indeed be the case. As for the Iraqi citizens, they have the right of reciprocity, just not the power to act upon it. If bringing the fight to American soil would secure their independence at home against a brutal tyrant, they have every moral right to so defend themselves. But naturally, America makes a point of attacking those countries which can't really defend themselves. They might successfully repel the monster after great & terrible loss, but to return the favor is beyond the scope of their ability.

Artful Dodger: What is not fact? That we invaded Iraq without provocation? No my friend, that is simple, proven fact. If your opinion is contrariwise, then it is based on something besides fact.

The Usurper: "On the contrary, it is simple demonstrable fact."

It's not FACT.  It's an opinion.  You do know the difference right?  If you do, in this case, it doesn't show.

Bernice: LOL I think I'm gonna make this website my homepage for awhile and spend some time checking it out.

Artful Dodger: "That's nonsense."

On the contrary, it is simple demonstrable fact. We invaded Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, which did not support al-qaeda, and which had not attacked us first. Therefore, we started a war in the backyards of Iraqi citizens.

I watched another speech today, by a U.S. Iraq War veteran. He was a morter-man (sp). He said that in Baghdad not one apartment complex is left unscathed by American morters & plane bombs. He described how he and others were given orders on the ground to murder civilians. The idea was to wage a war of attrition to break the spirit of the Iraqi resistance.

Do you think I make these things up? Do you think the soldier is lying? There are plenty of other soldiers who have spoken out. If I were an Iraqi citizen, I'd be fighting the U.S. occupation tooth-and-nail. And I'd sure as heck prefer to take the fight to American soil, or at least kick the Invader out. Did we "liberate" Iraq? What a joke. No, we brutally subjugated it.

Only willful blindness refuses to see the truth of this matter.

hahahaha.........

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Show-Graphic.htm?EdNo=001&InfoNo=046798

Bernice: I wish. :o)

The Usurper: sounds a bit like the BK Politics Forum

Today I watched a speech by a Libertarian, made at the 2007 9/11 Accountability Conference in Arizona. This speech was very inspiring and helped clarify my thinking.

This speaker has a website, called Freedom's Phoenix (Political News & Opinion), which is run on Libertarian principles. Non-censorship & open discussion is the rule. To give an example of the Libertarian principle at work, one is even free to post an argument there in FAVOR of censorship. In fact, one is free to post any argument at all, and to use any language. It is a free market-place of ideas. It is worth checking out:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

--The Declaration of Independence

The Usurper:That's nonsense.

Bernice:Hamas hasn't learned that one.

Bernice: That's right. Which means Americans have no cause for complaint now should a war be fought on its own soil.

The Usurper: I liked one of the comments someone left after viewing that vid.
***If you don't want wars fought in your own backyard don't start them in someone elses.***

The Usurper:Ron Paul for President. 

Foxy Lady:Plastic will be taxed to the max 

(V): "It's makes me think that the land of the free is not a land of the free anymore. And the core of your government has sold out."

That is correct. And if we want it to become the Land of the Free again, it must first become, again, the Home of the Brave. We need an informed, courageous citizenry to stand up to the powers who have consistently & continually violated our Bill of Rights, and asserted control in all our private affairs...and, more, taken our wealth to enrich a few through the slaughter & subjugation of multitudes.

In short, the Contract is null & void. It has been broken by the Government. It is high time to bring this system to its knees, alter or abolish it, and constitute new government better fitted to secure the rights of the people.

Artful Dodger:

Artful Dodger: Does plastic count?

Czuch: "I think capitalism can get past this time as well"

I have great respect for the libertarian ideal of free market capitalism, because its underpinning philosophy is one of individual liberty in all phases of life. I've said before that a better solution than we have now, for every man, is the end of all welfare, to rich and poor alike, the stripping of corporations of their political ties, the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act, etc.

However, we have also established that you are a not a true libertarian. You don't support a free market (which is the definition of capitalism), but welfare to the rich. It is not intellectually honest to uphold the wonders of capitalism when combatting the socialist tendencies of the left, only to turn around and abandon or undermine capitalism while embracing the fascist tendencies of the right.

Look, we all need to examine ourselves, and get back to basics. Let's remove the inconsistencies and become a united people against tyranny. The intellectual right points out many abuses of power in government, up to an including false-flag operations like the Oklahoma City bombing, the Waco massacre, the unconstitutionality of the Federal Reserve, and even 9/11. The intellectual left points out abuses of power also, such as 9/11, the false War on Terror, the Patriot Act, and the wedding of corporations & government.

So, both the intellectual right & the intellectual left are CORRECT, as far as they see things. They both recognize the abuses of power. But both are inconsistent, in that neither recognizes the full spectrum of abuse, and each neglects to examine its own inconsistencies. But many people are waking up, and recognizing it is time to take back our country from the demagogues in power, both Democrat & Republican.

(V): "In the short term, New Deal programs helped improve the lives of people suffering from the events of the depression. In the long run, New Deal programs set a precedent for the federal government to play a key role in the economic and social affairs of the nation."

I think this is a correct analysis. Over time, the programs which improved the lot of the common man were gutted, while the corporatism set in place led to the fascist state now entrenched in our political culture. Was this the plan all along? An argument can be made for it.

Czuch:I think that says it all.

(V): Well it certainly didn't cause your country to fall into complete ruins.


Well, if your point is that a bit of socialism didnt totally ruin the US, well, maybe you are correct.... Now we are getting a dose even bigger than before, I think capitalism can get past this time as well, maybe in spite of it, maybe because it gaver us a boost we need... but I also believe that it wont be too long before we are capitalists using a bit of socialism once in awhile to get us through the hardest times, to becoming socialists


Let me ask you a question... this recession is affecting you guys as well as many other countries with socialized models, what do you do when things get rough????

Artful Dodger:

(V): There are many economists who believe that we would have come out of our depression faster had we done nothing at all.... that the new deal actually ended up making things worse......

I happen to think that is the case right now too

Czuch: Well it certainly didn't cause your country to fall into complete ruins.

Highly controversial... explain.

(V): The effects of the New Deal still remain a source of controversy and debate amongst economists and historians...

The consequences were predictably uneven. (See "Recession of 1937 and recovery," below). Whether the New Deal can be credited with the economy's eventual recovery, or blamed for impeding it––and which of its aspects were most effective––thus remains a complicated, and highly controversial, question.

The Usurper: Won't you be surprised when you figure out your Problem-Reaction-Solution scenario has real merit. :o)


hahahah.... what makes you think I will be surprised?


Now too... Al Gore et al are in cahoots to create a big scare over global climate changes, causing john q public fear and panic to the point that we will give up anything..., money, other luxuries, even our economies future, Then they can make tons of cash and power getting us to pay for new energy sources and paying carbon credits taxes and a whole bunch of stuff they havent even decided on yet!

The Usurper: Interesting that the book confirms other observations regarding UFO's

They started to appear more soon after we exploded atomic bombs.

Maybe they have experience with planets being at this stage of development and choose to send a message in their coming here. "You are the human race and we are visitors from other races... get it human race."

The Usurper: It makes me think that America is heading towards a even bigger crises in the long run. Or..... A lot of people are going to get locked up.

.... It's makes me think that the land of the free is not a land of the free anymore. And the core of your government has sold out.

The Usurper: Big business tries to run America but fails badly. The way your lobbyist system allows so much pressure and greed within your political system it's diabolical. It seems that problem with the USA is the level of corruption and 'departments' that are not answerable to anyone.

... Oh I forgot... It's a secret. We shouldn't be talking about such things.... or we might get lent on.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his new deal......

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/depwwii/newdeal/newdeal.html

" The New Deal Roosevelt had promised the American people began to take shape immediately after his inauguration in March 1933. Based on the assumption that the power of the federal government was needed to get the country out of the depression, the first days of Roosevelt's administration saw the passage of banking reform laws, emergency relief programs, work relief programs, and agricultural programs. Later, a second New Deal was to evolve; it included union protection programs, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers. Many of the New Deal acts or agencies came to be known by their acronyms. For example, the Works Progress Administration was known as the WPA, while the Civilian Conservation Corps was known as the CCC. Many people remarked that the New Deal programs reminded them of alphabet soup.

By 1939, the New Deal had run its course. In the short term, New Deal programs helped improve the lives of people suffering from the events of the depression. In the long run, New Deal programs set a precedent for the federal government to play a key role in the economic and social affairs of the nation. "

I don't blame the Jewish people, or the American people, or any other people. But the global elites, both Jewish & American and others, are blameworthy.

Czuch: Welcome back Czuch.

Won't you be surprised when you figure out your Problem-Reaction-Solution scenario has real merit. :o)

saeco: As you prefer.