Wake Up America

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by David2004, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. David2004
    Offline

    David2004 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    227
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +25
    A combination of political and economic changes are needed starting with campaign finance reform, medical insurance, energy, foreign and military policies, right down what is in our national interest and security. In a quest for more power and control the United States federal government has over step the boundaries in the lives of Americans as well as the people rights of other nations. The United States may win the military war while losing the diplomatic battle for peace while isolating its self from the rest of the nations in the world.

    Understanding that our energy policies are connected to our environmental, political, economics and social problems in the world. Realizing there is not enough oil supplies in the world for the other nations in the world to consume oil as the United States does. Our abusive energy policies are straining our relationship with many other nations in the world raising the global level of tension. A balance between what is in our national interest and global interest has to be made more rational and fair.

    With our dependence on others for our high standard of living as a society has been at the expense of others. The American people consuming 25% of the worlds oil while being less than 5% of the world population. The amount of the world?s natural resources that the American consumer has turned into garbage is a crime in its own right. With the world population growing to new levels like never before creating a major strain on the earths limited natural resources. Fresh drinking water and oil are disappearing almost at the same rate from mother earth. Both have been treated as renewable resources because until resent times they were. The faster we consumed the oil the more chemical that ended up in mother earth?s water supply.

    The oil industry being the primary leader in our energy policies has a dispositional amount of influence over our government?s national and foreign policies. For the United States as part of its foreign policies to have another nation?s natural resources as part of its national security is wrong. In the self serving interest of the big oil companies we have an imbalance in our energy policies that are putting us in great danger. Utilizing our military and military industrial complex to guarantee a global flow of oil is putting our national security in great jeopardy. Trading oil for weapons of death and destruction while neglecting the humanitarian needs of the people has been and is our current policies today. The over lapping interests of the oil and energy industry and military industrial complex have miss led the American people and government to the truths and realities of the facts.

    Special interest groups invest millions of dollar into lobbing our government officials for multi-billion dollar contracts, policies and favors. This was clearly the case of the pharmaceutical drug bill that was passed in 2003. A drug bill written by the pharmaceutical and HMO lobbies, that is being paid for the American people. With unparallel influence the lobbies have control over our government policies in their field of self-interest.
     
  2. David2004
    Offline

    David2004 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    227
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +25
    International Crude Oil Export Tax (OET)

    The OET would be added to any crude oil that is traded between one nation and another. This tax would help in tracking and the transparency of the crude oil dollars. It would be the financial base of a new universal origination to help and promote and finance Non Government Originations programs that would be in the greater interest of the global community of nations at large. With crude oil being the root of so much global tension this tax could be a stabilizing factor.

    Developing a universal finical platform to help promote from a different perceptive what is in the best interest of the people of planet earth. With no direct connection to any one government, groups such as the United Nations, Origination of the American States, European Union, NATO, Arab League as well as a host of others organizations will be the frame from which this new universal group will work from. Taking some of the pressure off the United States Government as one of the leading nation in humanitarian and social aid.

    With an independent source of capital to be used for what is in the best interest of the nations of the world will help balance some of the economic and social inequalities. By building a stronger universal platform this taking pressure off of any individual nations from having to make any unilateral moves. The OET could finance a permanent International Peace Keepers Force to be used in hot spots around the world. OET matching fund program for humanitarian projects could help finance needed programs. Working with the already existence non-government organizations in their given field, OET will network and tailor its programs to meet the needs of the international community.

    OET will help promote the International Department of Peace to counter balance the military industrial complex on matters of war and peace. Encouraging other government to establish a Department of Peace within there own government.
     
  3. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    How would an International Department of Peace enforce peace?
     
  4. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Why?
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    COLUMNS > THE CONTINUING CRISIS
    KEY NO EVIL

    Tim Blair on http://www.bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/All/4E203FF4094C0D5BCA256E3500096301!open

    For those who hate it when you have to buy a present for the person who has everything, relax. We've found the key.


    JOHN Tulloh, the ABC's head of international operations, recently sent this memo to puzzled ABC troops: "Please be careful with Middle Eastern references. Several recent slip-ups have attracted justified complaints. The ABC follows UN guidelines on proscribed groups: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are NOT included in the UN's list of terrorist organisations and therefore must not be described as such." Since when is the ABC, funded entirely by Australians and allegedly independent, beholden to the decisions of an alien authority such as the United Nations?


    Tulloh's memo continues: "But if any of them claims responsibility for, say, a suicide bombing or similar outrage, then it is entirely appropriate to describe the incident itself as an act of terrorism. A suicide bomber who detonates himself or herself is a terrorist. While we must avoid labels where possible, do not be afraid to call such a person a terrorist." So, according to the ABC, it is possible for representatives of non-terrorist groups to commit terrorist acts. Repeatedly. Not being bound by the UN or the ABC's craven rulemakers, let me state here that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad ARE terrorist organisations, as should be obvious to anybody not presently comatose.


    Mark Latham's Partridge Family-style bus tour of country NSW was intended, the opposition leader explained, to give people the chance to pat me on the back or kick me in the shins. But when a potential shin-kicker loomed in Lismore, the would-be PM's shins quickly headed for the door. Adam Hicks, of the Northern Star news_paper, wrote on Saturday: "Mr Latham _was having a beer and watching local musicians perform at the Gollan Hotel when a man reportedly beat on a window from outside the hotel and made threatening gestures directed at him. A staff member said Latham asked to be shown to a safe exit." Perhaps the window beater was a taxi driver, seeking vengeance for his clan. It's unlike Latham to dodge confrontation; one can only assume he was concerned for the well-being of that $2500 suit.


    It's been a fantastic few weeks for the WMD doubters, what with George W. Bush and Tony Blair announcing inquiries into pre-war intelligence and John Howard being assailed by the righteous for helping boot out Saddam. Howard's "duplicity in the invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq is unambiguous and unarguable", wrote The Sydney Morning Herald's Alan Ramsey (Ramsey is one to talk; last year he wrote that Bush served a plastic Christmas turkey to troops in Iraq, a piece of flawed intel over which he is yet to make the slightest admission). The anti-war crowd obsesses over WMD because it is the one issue they've got even partly right, having been proved massively wrong on likely casualties, humanitarian disasters, a united Islamic response, Saddam's capture – and, indeed, on WMD, subsequently discovered in Libya as a direct result of the war in Iraq. They don't mention that very often, do they? Anyway, the WMD argument is boring. Here's a fun challenge for the anti-warriors: instead of complaining about Saddam's removal, let's hear your arguments in favour of leaving him in power. Go on; defend the monster.


    Before the peaceniks reply, they might consider the opinion of Iraqi hospital worker Ali, posted at the web site http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com and directed at opponents of the war: "F*** YOU ALL. GWB MADE THE RIGHT DECISION AND AMERICA DID THE RIGHT THING AND WE ARE FREEEEEEEEEE!" Sounds kind of happy about it, doesn't he?


    General Wesley Clark became the preferred US presidential candidate of Australia's lunatic commentariat the instant he announced his run for the White House. Phillip Adams swooned over Clark's "dignity and gravitas"; Margo Kingston hoped he would "help Americans recapture the vision"; and Megan Gressor wrote Clark was "the man most likely to be the next US president"; Marian Wilkinson praised Clark as "fearless in criticising Bush over his handling of the war"; academic and Evatt Foundation executive member Christopher Sheil described Clark as the "candidate from heaven". He has turned out to be the opposite. Possibly he is the worst, most bungle-prone misspeaker ever to seek nomination. Consider his views on abortion, which have veered from "life begins with the mother's decision" and "I have always been and always will be pro-choice" to "I don't believe in abortion", then back again to "I support a woman's right to choose". And Clark's supporters say Bush is stupid.
     
  6. modman
    Offline

    modman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    96
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well said. David2004
    :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Since you are in such agreement, why not answer the questions that the other members have asked?
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Keep talking David2004 and modman. Let's bring to light the full horror of you two's views.

    Just for your information, by all modern definitions of words, being against the continued supremacy of the U.S. is counter to the future interests of the nation and it's people, and therefore, anti-american. Though I know libs hate accurate labels.
     
  9. David2004
    Offline

    David2004 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    227
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +25
    Challenge before us
    For us to be a strong and balance republic with a democratic form of government we must get more than 50% of the eligible voters registered and voting. The United States and its military have become the primary leader of the industrial nations in the war on terror making the people?s vote more important than ever before in recent times. The pro Bush people are well financed by the establishment that profits from war and most of them are registered and vote while waving the flag. While many of the younger people who oppose most of the Bush Doctrines are not registered and don?t vote. With the primary reason being they are one of the same and things will not change.

    Without participation of 60% or more of the eligible voters in the United States there is not a clear mandate by the people and things will remain in the hands of the special interest groups. Raising voter participation among the people will help strengthen our nation making us more of a democratic nation and less of a republic in the hands of the selected few. Too many people feel disenfranchised by the system therefore they do not vote. Unless those people that stand-up and speak out against our current policy, register and vote things will not change. With the United States having the lowest voter participation than any of the other democracies in the world while being the military super power is a travesty in its self.
     
  10. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    50% registration is no magic number, and no requirement for democracy either. Hand in hand with the right to vote is the right to NOT vote.

    That makes it hard to punch the chad, waving that flag. But Bush supporters abound on the board and the "mindless patriot" thing so cliche.


    Well they deserve to lose then. If some "Democracy Guard" isn't already goosesteping them out of their dorms to the polls to vote for the leftist flavour of the month, well I sure as hell won't be taxed to fund them. Yet this is the only solution to your need to get out the vote, isn't it? What if it doesn't help your party win? Have you thought about that?

    The interests of those specially interesting in voting. That would leave the lazy or crazy to stew and the apathetics to continue to not care.

    And where do you get these numbers? Is 60% in the constitution? Didn't you say 50% earlier?

    If 30.0001% of the total population voted for Bush in 2004 (along with the majority of electorates) out the 60%, after it came down to multiple recounts, would that be a clear mandate and would the Libs finally shut up about him??? Are angry dogs barking mad?

    We are constitutionally a republic, yet practice democracy all the same.

    An utterly lame excuse not to vote if I've heard of one. Self-fullfilling prophecy for political losers.

    These obviously active believers don't have the time to vote after speaking out?

    Your point maybe is that that the millions of uninterested potential voters would AUTOMATICALLY vote against our current policy. Yet they would need "education" beforehand. If you volunteer to teach such mandated courses, what is your course plan?

    Assuming content people don't vote for radical changes, I'd say we are doing fine. And just because more people vote doesn't mean the results would change one way or the other. Are you counting on the ignorant, lazy, or apathetic to fill in the ballots, or can you argue why the current policy is less desirable?
     

Share This Page