Moonlight Graham

If you read my post I did ask this question in the sentence the before the one you quoted: "Or would the Arab Spring not have even happened in the first place with the spreading of "democracy" in Iraq via the US-led regime change there." So this would be your valid argument to my question. You think no, because the Arab Spring would not have happened without the democracy regime change in Iraq. I'm torn on this, it's really hard to know. It is possible for sure, but I just don't know enough about the exact motivations of the first people who started the Spring, ie: that dude who set himself on fire in Tunisia, and the protesters in Egypt. Would be interesting to see some very in-depth interviews and surveys of those involved.

Actually I love his name, it's freaking delicious. Rocky Road, my opinion is that there is a very real likelihood that there will be a massive systemic collapse of the world capitalist economic system, worse than the Great Depression. Our capitalist system depends on perpetual growth, and this may simply become unsustainable. We have seen what the financial world has done to try to avoid and recover from these boom-bust cycles that are inherent in a capitalist economy, they have tried to squeeze money in markets/industries that can't sustain themselves and eventually have collapsed (re: tech and housing bubbles), and have partook and criminal fraud or ridiculous practices in order to sustain profit growth that have inevitably caught up with them and undermined the system and contributed to a crash (re: Enron, Nortel, banks, hedge-funders) On top of this, our governments are trying their best to "fix" the capitalist economy on different occasions over the last few decades and get back to this needed perpetual growth by throwing mountains money at businesses to bail them out and throwing huge money into the economy as "stimulus", all the while racking up massive amounts of government debts that are simply unsustainable. Also, the profits in our current economy have increasingly relied upon consumers taking out large debts to pay for this, so this wealth is simply not real and not sustainable from a consumer's perspective nor a government perspective. Personal and government debt is the primary reason why our economies are currently still teetering on the edge of disaster, yet what has been our governments' response to get the economy back on track? Lower interest rates so people/businesses can take on MORE debt!!! Lowering lending rates in order to recover after the 2000 dotcom bubble is what greatly led to the current credit crunch and recession, and yet we are repeating the same thing again?!? Insanity. If we don't change things drastically we are headed towards a major crash sometime in the future (even if we do change things it may be unavoidable), whether it be 2 or 5 years or 20 years, but it's going to come and the busts will repeat and get worse because this drive for perpetual growth seems unsustainable and just throwing money at it that we don't even have is a short-term band-aid on a bursting dam.

Hypothetically, would it have been possible, or likely or unlikely, given the strength of the Iraqi military at the time of US invasion, and they fact that Iraq actually didn't have WMD's to use on dissidents, for the citizens of Iraq to topple the Hussein regime on their own (or possibly with some NATO support re: Libya) during this era of Arab Spring uprisings if the US & gang had never invaded Iraq? Or would Saddam have been able to crush such an uprising, similar to Syria? Or would Iraqis have feared a possible WMD response re: the gassing of Kurds, and not dared to try a rebellion en masse? Or would the Arab Spring not have even happened in the first place with the spreading of "democracy" in Iraq via the US-led regime change there. The point here is: could the US-led invasion of Iraq & regime change there have been a complete waste because such regime change may have happened anyways via popular uprising?

My point is that you can't really predict the future. There may be situations that arise, ie: some country invading another, re: Iraq vs Kuwait, that might demand a major US or NATO ground response. But I also see your view, and think it would be prudent financially, politically, and even security-wise to avoid any major ground operations as possible, and do more of a Libya-style operation (airstrikes, covert ground support of locals).

very good point

I doubt that, it's impossible to predict the future. What happens if, say, a terrorist attack sponsored by the Syrian gov't is committed against the US? Or Iran attacks a neighbour for whatever reason? Also, you're forgetting that war is big business in the US and the military-industrial complex has massive power infiltrating virtually every congressional district and federal gov department in the country.

Bob, how do you feel about female genital mutilation by some cultures?

It's not multiculturalism in this instance if they arrested/detained them and putting them through trial for murder. It;s not "reasonable accommodation" unless they let them go free in the name of cultural rights.

I wouldn't have a problem letting them have the time to observe their religion. That should be their right. But they shouldn't get paid for it. No work, no pay.

From the OP article: So US gov't contracted military presence remains, but the admin has the ability to say no official US military troops are there so they can make themselves look perdy. Also, Obama says that the troops are coming home because the Iraqi gov't wouldn't grant the US troops immunity if they stayed. Who in their right might would grant them immunity? Well, at least Obama lived up to a promise, sort of.

I'm going to organize an "Occupy Bob" movement and i'm going to get all the hardest of the hardcore leftwing bleeding-heart hippies with names like "Rainbow" and "Waterdrop" (and "Moonlight") I can find and we're going to camp out on your lawn while singing acapella folk tunes and eating salads with organic dressings. This would destroy your soul. This is your Halloween nightmare.

You're right that Paul seems very genuine, I thought of him after making the post. I don't know who is more honest, I don't know enough about Cain, I think they are both quite honest compared to the average politician.

I like Cain, he seems the most honest of them all and doesn't try to pander and give the safe politically correct answer as most of the others. Refreshing, and a big part of his appeal. Most politicians do lie and spin and give the safe bullcrap answer. Yet most people don't like politicians because they are this kind of lying insincere slime. If more politicians could instead try to be honest while also straddling a line of not completely offending everyone will ridiculous comments and to be professional, maybe people would actually get behind a real leader. There have been some honest ones out there, but most of them are too incompetent to get anywhere.

People should be concerned with any kind of fraud. I don't know how big of a problem it is in US or Canada. A big difference though between welfare fraud and the things committed by Wall Street and their ilk is that a good chunk of these "money-men" were in no small part responsible for the current economic recession (which should be much the focus of the OWS'ers IMO). I dislike both, but I know who I dislike more.

How do they not?

Thought he would have lasted longer than Saddam, given he didn't have world-class occupying militaries hunting him down. edit: ill add that the rebels did have NATO support help them, including air support and covert round support.

Exactly. Funny that nobody is talking about the enormous elephant in the room of what should be cut: the massive defense budget.

i don't think lowering taxes on the rich and raising taxes on the non-rich, especially the poor, is going to fly with most voters (who are themselves non-rich). They basically want to raise taxes for most voters...UNWISE POLITICAL MANEUVER!

I wouldn't say that, but he isn't giving people the middle finger. And the first part of my post was unchallenged. He remains full of bologna, his comments being total speculative guesses.

That Saddam and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi/Ansar al-Islam (which had ties with al-Qaeda) were collaborators. More garbage made up by the Bush admin with no evidence whatsoever and debunked by the US intelligence community, the 'Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq', Colin Powell after leaving the Bush admin, and the Ansar al-Islam group itself, which considers the Hussein regime its enemy. The guy is also quite a rude lump.

The best definition of globalization" that Noam Chomsky says he's ever heard:

What specifically did you disagree with? Kevin O'Leary is greedy, disgusting pig who laughs in the face of corporate responsibility in the name of profit. All the other venture capitalists on Dragon's Den are superior human beings to him because they value profit but also have a hint moral fiber.

From today's Ottawa Citizen: Justice!

Please provide evidence where Iran threatened to nuke Israel.