Homeland Security

[alifeva]

[owequitit]

Work hard and you'll do well. Becoming a billionaire takes much more than just hard work. Granted sometimes it's passed down from generation to generation, but not always. Ie: Gates. People, rather than whining, should step up and try to do their best to get ahead in life.

Actually, everyone on that list. The only one who inherited money was William Randolph Hearst, but he didn't inherit nearly as much as he left with, and his father was a self made millionaire, i.e. he was not rich.

Keep in mind too, that back then a millionaire was equivalent to a billionaire today.

John D Rockefeller grew up in poverty that nobody on this board could even imagine, and when adjusted for inflation he is STILL the richest man that ever lived. In approximately 2005 dollars, he would have been worth about $220 Billion dollars.

The fact of the matter is that all it takes to be successful is a little bit of innovation, initiative and hard work. The number of "rich" people that took well more than one chance to succeed far outweighs the number who did it on the first try. The difference between them and the "oppressed" is that they didn't give up.

[owequitit]

That video could be ripped apart as well...

[alifeva]

I posted it for you...I thought you would like it. He reminds me of you. George galloway is a member of Parliament.

[Fake Thug]

Woohoo its sunday.

I love it when people blame Bill Clinton only for UBL being at large. That is b.s. from the propganda vehicles of Rupert the dingleberry Murdorch and others. I wish people would study up on the relationship between the U.S and saudi's, the cold war, the mujahadeen, the middle east, and just world events in general.

We can understand with an open mind exactly why UBL exists and why the U.S. is despised if we stop being lazy by letting the the biased/corrupt media research for us and manipulate what they want to feed the public. How narcisistic to think that the rest of the world hates you because of your dick size, sex habits, culture(what culture?), or whatever other B.S. reason has been fed to you.

This applies to pretty much anything, to get to the VERY top in most cases requires stepping over others. I bet the majority of people in the U.S. dont fully understand or realize what's going on with Russia and Georgia right now, but I'm sure that most think Russia is wrong. That Russia is the aggressor.

Umm imo pointing out a few billionaires and using their rare experience as an example that anyone can be prosperous is a giant fail. I say this because I dont think everyone can be a billionaire due to circumstance.

Bill Gate's background had a lot to do with him being where he is. He was born into wealth and had access to oppurtunity. He may only have limited college education but he WAS educated way before he blew up. Just not officially.

Rockerfeller senior was legit as far as working to the top, but he really didn't have to face the obstacles of the economically/social bottom of the barrel americans in that time. He had oppurtunity vs some that did not and were denied it by law. The desecendants there after were born into a dynasty.

Not only circumstance but for that much wealth to be concentrated to such a small segment of the population there must be an inbalance as it is just not possible for 300+ million people to be billionaires in a $9 trillion economy.

So just imagine 7 billion people with less than 1 % owning 20% of the global economy. Lets also not forget the monopolies that are rampart from every level.Hardwork doesn't always prevail.L What you know helps sure, but who you know helps even more. That is the unfortunate truth.

[owequitit]

Woohoo its sunday.

I love it when people blame Bill Clinton only for UBL being at large. That is b.s. from the propganda vehicles of Rupert the dingleberry Murdorch and others. I wish people would study up on the relationship between the U.S and saudi's, the cold war, the mujahadeen, the middle east, and just world events in general.

We can understand with an open mind exactly why UBL exists and why the U.S. is despised if we stop being lazy by letting the the biased/corrupt media research for us and manipulate what they want to feed the public. How narcisistic to think that the rest of the world hates you because of your dick size, sex habits, culture(what culture?), or whatever other B.S. reason has been fed to you.

This applies to pretty much anything, to get to the VERY top in most cases requires stepping over others. I bet the majority of people in the U.S. dont fully understand or realize what's going on with Russia and Georgia right now, but I'm sure that most think Russia is wrong. That Russia is the aggressor.

Umm imo pointing out a few billionaires and using their rare experience as an example that anyone can be prosperous is a giant fail. I say this because I dont think everyone can be a billionaire due to circumstance.

Bill Gate's background had a lot to do with him being where he is. He was born into wealth and had access to oppurtunity. He may only have limited college education but he WAS educated way before he blew up. Just not officially.

Rockerfeller senior was legit as far as working to the top, but he really didn't have to face the obstacles of the economically/social bottom of the barrel americans in that time. He had oppurtunity vs some that did not and were denied it by law. The desecendants there after were born into a dynasty.

Not only circumstance but for that much wealth to be concentrated to such a small segment of the population there must be an inbalance as it is just not possible for 300+ million people to be billionaires in a $9 trillion economy.

So just imagine 7 billion people with less than 1 % owning 20% of the global economy. Lets also not forget the monopolies that are rampart from every level.Hardwork doesn't always prevail.L What you know helps sure, but who you know helps even more. That is the unfortunate truth.

1) I would think after 3-4 years of this bullshit you would know that I don't buy propaganda. I would think that you also would have figured out that I generally use at least 3 independent sources, more if I can find them, BEFORE I make a judgement, and on top of that, I don't just buy what those sources say, I learn how the system works that they are speaking of, and then balance them all with reality. To assume anything less is a mistake on your part.

I don't recall anyone in this thread ever saying that Bill Clinton was solely responsible for the creation or perpetuation of OBL. That is a bullshit claim, and YOU know it. However, don't sit there and try to make a smoke screen for the fact that he could have done something nearly 20 years ago that would have avoided a large portion of the issues we currently have. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Had he taken care of the problem like a diligent President SHOULD have, then 9/11 most likely would not have happened. That would have eliminated Bush's involvement in the equation, and would have most likely prevented both Afghanistan, Iraq, and my inability to walk to the end of an airport concourse to watch airplanes takeoff without a boarding pass. Now, I have to stand in a parking garage in the middle of the desert heat. We would have been at least a few steps in a better direction. And yet, you want to place blame where YOU want, without placing it fully where it belongs. I don't buy it.

I know all about the Mujahideen, which you mispelled by the way. I know all about Osama, his Saudi ties, his family history, his exile, his dealings in Afghanistan, his offer to the Saudi/Kuwaiti governments and his distaste for us after he was refused. So if you are trying to make a point, please get to it.

Bottom line psych evaluation? This is a classic case of history repeats itself. Of course, I am sure everything historical is slanted by Murdoch too eh? We are haves, they are have nots. They are uneducated, and thus they buy into state run, or spoon fed propaghanda machines with relative ease. In order to have a cause, there has to be something to fight against. The easiest way to sell something to fight against, is to make people think there is one specific evil oppressing them. The easiest enemy to make people buy as an oppressor, is the largest, wealthiest country in the world. Especially among the poor. Maslow's basic hierarchy of needs, and the basic economic premise of Scarcity.

Now, that is not to say that we haven't meddled at all. However, it isn't like we are over there overthrowing governments daily, and the truth is that most of those people are not in the plight they are in because of the US. Contrary to popular belief among some people. But isn't it easier for someone like Saddam Hussein, or the Taliban, or any number of other totalitarian regimes to blame someone other than themselves? And who better than us? When was the last time that you saw one of these goofs stand up and say "gee, I am REALLY sorry. I completely fucked my country up, and I appologize?" They don't. And they want to keep it the way it is because it gives them the power. Remember the old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely?" It is true. They really do have absolute power. Money, laws, life, health; what more could a megalomaniac ask for?

I also remind everyone in this thead that in the grand scheme of life, we have been the LEAST oppressive government of our power in history. EVERY other major power in the world created an empire through tyranny, oppression and violence. As recently as 1991, much of the world was under the unwanted control of the Soviet Union. In 1999 Hong Kong was still under the control of the British. France, England, Italy, Spain, China, Japan, IRAN, Egypt, ALL of them have meddled and oppressed on far larger scales than we have. Often, the committed genocide. Does that mean we are justified? No. Does it mean that OUR behavior is blown out of proportion by the international community? Yes. It isn't like we are the only country in the world that protects our own interests (see "scarcity"). Ehem...France. In most cases, those empires didn't just fade willingly into the night. They were lost because the government could no longer afford to oppress and control. Much of the problems we currently face in the Middle East (specifically Isreal) are a direct result of British influence, not US influence. So why don't they hate the Brits on the level they hate us? Because we are an easier target.

Much like people in this thread want to believe that they can't be rich, others will readily assume that they can't be rich because we are, and therefore they will readily believe that we must have created some elaborate system to oppress them. As smart as people want to think they are, they are extremely predictable, observable, and repeatable.

The list of billionaires I rattled off were all lower to middle class, and had no more intrinsic opportunity provided to them than you have had provided to you. In fact, if you study history, which apparently most people don't, you would know that it would have been far more impossible to drag yourself out of the rags and into the riches back then, than it is now. Not to mention that our "poor" standard of living in the US today is many orders of magnitude beyond what it was then. If the starvation didn't kill you, the disease would. If you made it through those, then you were likely to be dismembered or killed working in the factory. There isn't a person in this thread that has any idea what kind of squallor those people drug themselves out of, at all costs, because THEY made a concious choice.

The difference between them and you is that THEY decided it was GOING to be different, and YOU decided that nothing can be done unless you are privledged. P.S. That list was an abbreviated one. I could easily expand on the billionaires, and if I add in the self made millionaires who start with nothing, you would fall over. This country hasn't amassed the wealth it has because the average person can't get ahead, and the "robber barons" are stealing everything from themselves. Talk about buying into propaganda... Contrary to popular belief, dynasties are not like diamonds. They don't last forever. Most of those dynasties still exist because their parents taught them how to be smart with money, and they teach their kids and so on and so forth. Of course, those that want to waste money on beer would rather blame the rich for inheriting vast fortunes, even though their money is no more guaranteed to exist than your beer money.

[owequitit]

Americans are lazy and apathetic and getting worse. The fact of the matter is that our system is designed to give people the maximum opportunity to succeed. But you have to choose to take it, and then put forth some REAL effort, because nobody owes you anything. The main reason I hate government "entitlements" is that they breed apathy. Eventually, the productive citizens can't or won't support the system and it fails completely. I forget the exact statistic, but I think that economically, most governments fail when roughly 60% of the population is dependent on the government for its income. The fall of Communism was no coincidence. The economic struggles of hard line socialism are also no economic coincidence.

If you think the US makes it hard for you to succeed, I encourage you to go start a business in any number of liberal socialist countries, or countries without our open market policies, and see just how easy it is to do it there. They don't have routine unemployment at roughly the 20-30% level by some off chance. Coincidentally, that is about the same as our WORST period in history, the Great Depression.

"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Also, for Iamthenight. I have a question for you. I thought about this a couple of days ago, and just forgot to ask it.

You stated that you can't get ahead in this country because all of the "haves" created a system that oppresses everyone other than themselves. You then stated that your plan to save the world and change things was to vote. Do you think the people who were smart enough to create this elaborate construct of freedom that controls the masses were dumb enough to make the avenue of voting change anything? So in essence, wouldn't it make more sense that you are uselessly voting within their construct, which would effectively mean that you are wasting your time?

Or am I wrong?

[Fake Thug]

Americans are lazy and apathetic and getting worse. The fact of the matter is that our system is designed to give people the maximum opportunity to succeed. But you have to choose to take it, and then put forth some REAL effort, because nobody owes you anything. The main reason I hate government "entitlements" is that they breed apathy. Eventually, the productive citizens can't or won't support the system and it fails completely. I forget the exact statistic, but I think that economically, most governments fail when roughly 60% of the population is dependent on the government for its income. The fall of Communism was no coincidence. The economic struggles of hard line socialism are also no economic coincidence.

If you think the US makes it hard for you to succeed, I encourage you to go start a business in any number of liberal socialist countries, or countries without our open market policies, and see just how easy it is to do it there. They don't have routine unemployment at roughly the 20-30% level by some off chance. Coincidentally, that is about the same as our WORST period in history, the Great Depression.

"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Also, for Iamthenight. I have a question for you. I thought about this a couple of days ago, and just forgot to ask it.

You stated that you can't get ahead in this country because all of the "haves" created a system that oppresses everyone other than themselves. You then stated that your plan to save the world and change things was to vote. Do you think the people who were smart enough to create this elaborate construct of freedom that controls the masses were dumb enough to make the avenue of voting change anything? So in essence, wouldn't it make more sense that you are uselessly voting within their construct, which would effectively mean that you are wasting your time?

Or am I wrong?

I think you might be taking me the wrong way. I am not one of those types that constantly whines about how hard it is to succeed. I do pretty well for myself. 26 is the age when people are expected to be squared away, I was on it when I 22. It may not seem like it but we agree on quite a few things.

Just like you I despise the entitlement system. It alienates my bracket. I will however point out the inequities cause imo they do exist and america might be the best thing since sliced bread but its not exempt from criticism.

Speaking of liberal socialist economies I swear the U.S. is headed in that direction every day. Look at cali. The two party system fails. Instead of a loose coalition of different groups I would prefer we just many different parties that can actually win. Dont you agree? Europe got that part right I think.

I'm sorry I spelled mujahideen mujahadeen wrong.

[IAmTheNight]

I asked you a simple question. You gave one answer to a situation that was haphazardly interfereing at best. So I will restate the question again.

What have we done exactly in that region to deserve the reputation we have? Enlighten me. I didn't put words in your mouth (stop avoiding the question with rhetoric), I asked you a simple question.

Clearly, we have this reputation, of being "aggressors" in the region. Clearly, we have been attacked because of it. You have yourself stated numerous times that we are viewed as "aggressors" for good reason due to our meddling affairs. I asked you to cite specific and certain examples of WHY their perception is not correct, and all you can come back with is one "scandal" that could easily be classified as an attempted diplomatic solution, and that is all you can give.

Iran-Contra:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

It became an arms for hostages trade. Of course, a trade is a diplomatic solution, so clearly, the only other solution would have been violence. But we were meddling far more than we should have been trying to get our hostages back. Hopefully, you never have the opportunity to experience being a hostage indefinitely in a foreign country while people negotiate for your well being indefinitely to no avail.

Our presence there wasn't necessarily in militaristic fashion. During the mid-to-late 20th Century, American businesses were setting up operations in the Middle East (like McDonalds), and parts of American culture were flooding into places like Iran. It was an American invasion, to them.

As for the Iran-Contra Affair, you said it yourself: we were meddling far more than we should have been. Once Iran realized that, do you think they cared about it being an "attempted diplomatic solution" anymore? Foreign relations are very sensitive to a country's international operations, especially in the Middle East.

That is exactly what I am saying. If you want to oppress yourself, be my guest, but you have nobody to blame for it but yourself.

Oh yeah, John D Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Milton Hershey, William Wrigley, George Hearst, Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison would all disagree with you.

Of course, judging by your attitude, you have already lost.

Oh yeah, and you still have not provided any specific examples as to how you are being oppressed. More generalized rhetoric, but nothing concrete. Come on, if society is holding you back like that, you should be able to cite at least a few specific examples. I mean I could. I see challenges in life, but not impossibilites, but I can expand if you would like.

Guy, it's not like I'm going into work everyday believing I will be poor my entire life. As a matter of fact, my family and I do very well for ourselves, and we come from nothing. I believe I said these systems attempt to prevent lower levels from rising; I never said it was impossible to be rich. Once again, don't just read what you want to read. Specifically though, favoritism on the job, the glass ceiling, social inequality, and privatization of government enterprises (we have representation in government, not in business) are some of the barriers restricting us.

I find it mildly amusing how you get pissed off and accuse me of putting words in your mouth, and yet, here you are doing the same thing. Nice double standard there buddy. Sorry, it didn't escape my attention.

1) I never said that. What I said was that diplomacy in this situation was not the best idea. How do I know this? It didn't work for over a year. I don't know how much larger of a clue you need, but that seems pretty clear cut to me. Of course, I guess we could have tried for 12 years like we did in Vietnam, and the outcome probably would have been similar.

I NEVER said diplomacy couldn't or shouldn't be used first. What I said was that an immediate response would have worked better in this situation. "Immediate" can be a relative term if you aren't unrealistic about world time frames. Clearly, 1 month, or 2 months could have been relatively "immediate" compared to the "solution" that was used. It wouldn't have taken very long for an intelligent person to figure out that diplomacy wasn't working. Of course, that is more difficult when you are in denial of reality. The base point is (I am being direct, so that you don't confuse this with rhetoric) that after a reasonable amount of time, it was clear diplomacy wasn't working. Instead of doing nothing which IS perceived as weak by those groups of people, further decisive and PROPORTIONAL action should have been taken.

More rhetoric. I have given quite a few concrete examples of what could have been done differently. I am also just getting started, but you are unable to match my current level of discussion, so continuing further down the road is pointless, because I would be having a conversation with myself. I already know what I would do/say, so that doesn't do me much good.

Actually, you haven't given any concrete examples. All you have said is that Carter should have made an "immediate response" and should have "taken action." You keep hinting at military force, but I really don't know what you believe should have been done differently. Just more "rhetoric" from you.

To answer your question about voting: Am I wasting my time? Not really. Not all politicians support the elites. They can't control ABSOLUTELY everything, but my point is, they don't need to. There are enough suckers in America and around the world that think these systems can't and don't exist. Everybody doesn't vote the same way I do. If enough anti-elite politicians had control of the government (they are far from that), our leaders wouldn't just be used as puppets.

[owequitit]

I think you might be taking me the wrong way. I am not one of those types that constantly whines about how hard it is to succeed. I do pretty well for myself. 26 is the age when people are expected to be squared away, I was on it when I 22. It may not seem like it but we agree on quite a few things.

Just like you I despise the entitlement system. It alienates my bracket. I will however point out the inequities cause imo they do exist and america might be the best thing since sliced bread but its not exempt from criticism.

Speaking of liberal socialist economies I swear the U.S. is headed in that direction every day. Look at cali. The two party system fails. Instead of a loose coalition of different groups I would prefer we just many different parties that can actually win. Dont you agree? Europe got that part right I think.

I'm sorry I spelled mujahideen mujahadeen wrong.

You are right. We are not free of criticism, because nobody is perfect. As long as humans create it, it will be flawed.

As far as inequities, yes they do exist. However, that does not necessarily indicate that there is some system at work to keep the poor people from getting richer. In the vast majority of cases, people are their own worst obstacle. Not everyone needs to be rich, nor do they desire it, and money doesn't necessarily make happiness. I am a personal proponent of doing what you love first, and then worrying about money, because you will be much happier that way. Still, when you break out the "statistics" you will have a group of people that appears to be "poor" even though they might have chosen that and are in fact perfectly happy. My only point was that the money and opportunity are out there, you just have to be willing to get up and get it. The rich didn't grow their money on trees. They created, innovated and worked for it. Maybe not the later generations, but it would be hypocritical for most people to say that they wouldn't like to do the same for their future families. I am pretty sure that even the poor would like to put their kids in a position where they don't have to struggle to survive.

Oddly, scarcity, and thus inequity are never going to go away. It is part of nature, and it exists, simply because the demand for stuff (anything) outweighs the supply. As long as that happens, there is going to be scarcity. Oddly, Communism and Socialism still have inequity, and if you look at it on the individual level, Capitalism, which in theory should have the MOST inequity actually ends up with the least, and Communism, which should have the least, ends up with the most inequity. We are far richer because when the rich benefit, or generate wealth, everyone connected to them economically benefits as well. But really, the driving incentive in Capitalism, and specifically in the American system, is that if you don't like the way something is being done, you are more than welcome to offer a different way of doing it, and you are rewarded for your behavior.

In the end, we probably do agree on a lot of this stuff, but I was merely clarifying my position.

[owequitit]

Our presence there wasn't necessarily in militaristic fashion. During the mid-to-late 20th Century, American businesses were setting up operations in the Middle East (like McDonalds), and parts of American culture were flooding into places like Iran. It was an American invasion, to them.

So because we were opening shop there and some extremeist leader decided that they didn't want us there (who got there after we did by the way) we deserve what happened to us?

Just for the record, in case you were unaware, the average Iranian doesn't sympathize with the government. They deal with it for the same reason Iraqi citizens did. They have no choice.

As for the Iran-Contra Affair, you said it yourself: we were meddling far more than we should have been. Once Iran realized that, do you think they cared about it being an "attempted diplomatic solution" anymore? Foreign relations are very sensitive to a country's international operations, especially in the Middle East.

Diplomacy either works or it doesn't. When it doesn't, then you are left to other avenues. It doesn't matter why it wouldn't work, only that it wouldn't. Besides, you are woefully optimistic if you think foreign relations will NEVER cause unintended consequences. The government being overthrown by a group with anti-US sentiment? Yeah, that is an unintended consequence.

Also, don't kid yourself. One of the main reasons they don't like us? Our lifestyle does not allow them to oppress those they feel are beneath them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They have it, and I am sure they don't want to get rid of it.

Guy, it's not like I'm going into work everyday believing I will be poor my entire life. As a matter of fact, my family and I do very well for ourselves, and we come from nothing. I believe I said these systems attempt to prevent lower levels from rising; I never said it was impossible to be rich. Once again, don't just read what you want to read. Specifically though, favoritism on the job, the glass ceiling, social inequality, and privatization of government enterprises (we have representation in government, not in business) are some of the barriers restricting us.

My name is not "guy."

You said there was a system that was keeping you from being rich. I can quote you if you like. Now, you are backpedalling and saying that you didn't say that... Odd.

[owequitit]

Actually, you haven't given any concrete examples. All you have said is that Carter should have made an "immediate response" and should have "taken action." You keep hinting at military force, but I really don't know what you believe should have been done differently. Just more "rhetoric" from you.

I have given you far more concrete examples than you have provided me. I was holding off until you tried to substantiate your position, so that we could hopefully have some kind of legitimate discussion here. You have failed to do so. So allow me to ellaborate in no uncertain concrete terms.

1) Long term perspective. The best solution would not have been to get involved in the first place. However, the support of their government and the spread of communism caused us to make certain decisons against that. We got involved and supported governments that weren't necessarily the best governments to keep them from falling to Soviet control. Don't kid yourself, the Soviet Union did the same.

We made those decisions, so historically we have to deal with them.

2) The diplomatic solution is ALWAYS the best first option. However, it takes a blind and dumb person to pursue diplomacy when it is clear that the other party is not interested in doing so.

We saw this frequently in Vietnam, where "bargaining" was used frequently by the Vietcong to buy time to repair their war machine. We continued to pursue this route, even though it became clear that it was a total and utter failure.

Just so you don't get confused, here is MY plan, or what I would have done, based on historical information available in the late 1970's when this occurred:

A) try to open diplomatic channels. See what progress can be made and what solutions might come of that.

Diplomacy shouldn't take 300 years to show results. In this case with lives on the line, it shouldn't take more than a month or two to start to make substantial headway. Why? Because within that timeframe, all involved parties have had ample time to sit down, discuss grievences, and begin to work towards a solution. If they are SERIOUS about sitting down, you should at least have an idea what is going on at this point.

If they are NOT serious about sitting down, then you will get the responses that we got. They will not negotiate, they will not talk to diplomats, they will make unreasonable demands and refuse to compromise on those demands.

Diplomacy is compromise. No compromise, no diplomatic solution. Period. After a couple months of absolutely no compromise, it becomes clear that diplomacy is failing. At this point, you have 2 options. You can either pull outu completely and pursue other avenues, or you can use a hybrid approach to spur the negotiations into action. I would have chosen the latter.

In fairness to all involved, you set a concrete timetable, just like you have to live with every day of your life. You let them know "this is the goal date." It could be considered an ultimatum. You let them know. "If we have not made significant progress by xx/xx/xx, then we will have to seek alternative solutions." You then define for everybody was constitutes "significant progress" so there is no room for interpretation.

Diplomacy in and of itself is not ineffective. The way it has been applied most of the time in the last 30-50 years is ineffective. It has been pursued as this touch feely, feel good, never ending, open ended system with no defined goals, outcomes or expectations. It has been used to make people think we are trying to solve the problems of the world without actually solving them. Then, when it breaks down, rather than admit failure and move on to the next best solution, we just pretend that everything is hunky dory.

Changing the perception of reality is not the same as changing reality. But that is what we have done with it.

B) A good leader is always contingency planning. Since we can't possibly see the future, the only best course of action is to prepare for as many possible outcomes as is conceivable. A good leader, and a strong leader always tries to do things nicely the first time. They also understand that you have to be willing to go all the way if necessary, even though it is not the preferred method. There are times when you just have to fight because someone called your bluff. You ALWAYS want to fight as little as possible, so that is why I would have chosen the latter route.

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

The second plan of action, in case diplomacy stalled, which it did, would have been to have something setup like we did. A special forces op to either strike select strategic targets, or to mount an operation to free the hostages. Either way, it is going to get their attention. They will either be more willing to talk, or they won't. The choice is theirs at that point. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. But you can put the onus on them.

The helicopter rescue mission that failed, was mismanaged from the start. They should have tried again, AND they should have been prepping and planning from day 1. Afterall, diplomatic failure is ALWAYS a possibility. The more prepared you are to take the next step, the more likely it will result in a success as opposed to a failure.

This strategy was employeed effectively by Clinton against Iraq the second time around with the weapons inspections. They didn't want to cooperate, so we took out some specific, but important targets with cruise missles. Guess what? He was suddenly willing to renegotiate again. Of course, it failed again a short time later, so was it truely effective? That is up for debate. Personally, I think it was because it got us back in there with minimal loss of life, and the prospects of a full blown invasion weren't any more promising long term.

Also, had the helicopter mission succeeded, it would have resulted in a wildly different outcome. Our people would have been safe by our hand. Iran would have had no leg to stand on as far as leverage, and we wouldn't have been the laughing stock of the area because we couldn't even get our helicopters in, to take back a bunch of hostages held by college students.

If they choose to negotiate at that point, fine. If not, they still don't win. Check and Check mate. It is a fair, proportional response, it is timely, it is effective, and either way, we win. "WIN" is based on OUR mission and duty to get our people out of harm's way, and to maintain our perceived strength.

From that point, you can alter the foreign relations course to fit the need. If you want to pull businesses out, you may do so. If they want to let you stay, they may do so. But I promise you they would have been more willing to cooperate.

The fact of the matter is that the best defense is a good offense. Have you noticed historically (probably not) that when our military was perceived to be unstoppable, that our national security was much better? Have you also noticed that as that perception has declined, so has our security? Why? Because the best deterrent to war is to make people afraid to go to war with you. Disagree if you want, it proves true from the beginning of history until now. The more we blunder, and the more we fail, and the more we let partisan BS stand in the way of the common goal, the worse it will get. IMO, you are either in the middle, or you are part of the problem.

C) The 3rd and final course of action is war. If you make an effective use of the first two, and back yourself up, this will almost never happen. Given the circumstances and military capabilities of the US at the time, there is absolutely no reason the plan should have ever proceeded past B) unless there is gross mismanagement at the top. This is not a good option, because it has the potential for a large loss of life, with a small probable return, although make no mistake, we have lost far more life for far less in history. Sometimes, this is the only way. I do not believe the Iran issue had to be that way.

Just to make sure we are clear in review.

Step 1: Talk to them. Make a whole hearted attempt to create a legitmate solution. Both sides lose, both sides win. That is diplomacy.

Step 2: If they don't want to talk, convince them that they do. If they aren't serious about talking at this point, then you were not effective at convincing them. So you try again.

Step 3: If they still won't talk, then you remove their ability to do anything BUT talk.

Is that clear and concrete enough for you, or would you like exact dates and times too?

[owequitit]

To answer your question about voting: Am I wasting my time? Not really. Not all politicians support the elites. They can't control ABSOLUTELY everything, but my point is, they don't need to. There are enough suckers in America and around the world that think these systems can't and don't exist. Everybody doesn't vote the same way I do. If enough anti-elite politicians had control of the government (they are far from that), our leaders wouldn't just be used as puppets.

Who makes suckers? The individual, or the machine?

Also, per your PM, I read this thread in its entirety and saw not one direct insult to you. So perhaps you were reading into it because you are the type that clearly makes veiled insults hoping that people are too dumb to pick up on it. Me? When I insult you, there will be no mistaking it. I don't want it veiled, I don't want it misinterpreted, and I don't want you to accidentally think I am being nice. What I said in the other thread was an insult, and I meant every last little bit of it.

Now, if you want to provide something substantial for use in this thread, I might start to change my opinion. If not, then it still stands. You have solutions, and you disagree with mine, then let's hear them. But this little 20 year old kid B.S. of whining and crying, placing veiled insults, and then crying via PM bullshit stops here and now, as does the baseless unsubstantiated rhetoric. Act like an adult in an adult conversation, or see your way out of it. Comprende?

Now, to show that I am as fair as I say I am, I am going to go ban you for your flaming of John McCain's physical limitations, and then I am going to extend the ban to myself for the exact same period of time. However, since I have not banned myself, I don't know if that is even possible. If it is not, then I will have to get another mod to do it for me. There isn't much I can do about that if it comes up.

[owequitit]

I am not able to ban myself, so I left a not for the mods. I will serve my 3 days when they get to it.

Fair is fair.

[IAmTheNight]

Hmmm. Apparently we're the only two keeping this thread alive. Alright then....

I have given you far more concrete examples than you have provided me. I was holding off until you tried to substantiate your position, so that we could hopefully have some kind of legitimate discussion here. You have failed to do so. So allow me to ellaborate in no uncertain concrete terms.

This is why I called you a hypocrite. Regardless of whether or not you were holding back, your examples of a better plan of action lacked as much supporting material as mine. Now you've explained yourself after I accused you of doing the same thing you are accusing me of. Fact is, neither one of us knew the other's position and should've explained further. But now we're getting into finger pointing....

Before this recent post, I assumed you were just a pessimistic war hawk, believing that once diplomacy fails (and it would eventually fail), the only other resort is violence, so we should just hurry up and get to it. Thanks for clarifying.

I think your plan sounds like a good one (Yup, we agree on something, Hell froze over). Mchaley had the idea of a military buildup in the Gulf, which would have given the hostage-takers the perception of a power to be feared but not necessarily the invasion of an oppressive force (assuming that American businesses were shut down in Iran immediately after the hostage taking). After all, the crisis was only supposed to last a few hours because Khomeini was apprehensive beforehand about potential action from the American military. This is the part I believe I am still in disagreement with you on. If America wants to be perceived as a powerful force, that's fine, but how do you know how someone fears you? Muslim extremists fear America for potential of oppression, not military power. Just read or listen to their statements. The presence of American businesses in Middle Eastern economies along with the presence of American military bases is all the justification a Muslim terrorist needs to believe he/she needs to defend his/her religion and land. That is why 9/11 happened. I never said we deserved it. WE DIDN'T. I said we were screwed from the beginning because of elitist greed because they must constantly expand to maintain their wealth.

You said there was a system that was keeping you from being rich. I can quote you if you like. Now, you are backpedalling and saying that you didn't say that... Odd.

Please do quote my statement. Just for effect, I'll repeat myself one more time: "These systems ATTEMPT to prevent lower levels from rising; I never said it was impossible to be rich."

Who makes suckers? The individual, or the machine?

Both. Don't think I'm just another loser who blames "the system" for all my failures. I take responsibility for both my successes and failures and I do what I gotta do.

Also, per your PM, I read this thread in its entirety and saw not one direct insult to you. So perhaps you were reading into it because you are the type that clearly makes veiled insults hoping that people are too dumb to pick up on it. Me? When I insult you, there will be no mistaking it. I don't want it veiled, I don't want it misinterpreted, and I don't want you to accidentally think I am being nice. What I said in the other thread was an insult, and I meant every last little bit of it.

Now, if you want to provide something substantial for use in this thread, I might start to change my opinion. If not, then it still stands. You have solutions, and you disagree with mine, then let's hear them. But this little 20 year old kid B.S. of whining and crying, placing veiled insults, and then crying via PM bullshit stops here and now, as does the baseless unsubstantiated rhetoric. Act like an adult in an adult conversation, or see your way out of it. Comprende?

Now, to show that I am as fair as I say I am, I am going to go ban you for your flaming of John McCain's physical limitations, and then I am going to extend the ban to myself for the exact same period of time. However, since I have not banned myself, I don't know if that is even possible. If it is not, then I will have to get another mod to do it for me. There isn't much I can do about that if it comes up.

I certainly was placing veiled insults, because that was the vibe I was getting from you. It seemed to me that you considered me unintelligent because of my age and, in particular, my disagreement with you on the wealthy. I'm not chasing some silly pipe dream to one day be Superman and save all the world's poor. That's stupid. Don't call me stupid.

So I was "bitching" because I believed I was the victim of an unprovoked attack? Fine, whatever. I'm a sniveling, whining, young punk. You say act like an adult but you throw insults at whomever you feel deserves it? That sounds really mature. As a moderator and "certified adult", you are setting quite the example, aren't you?

If my rhetoric stops here, then so does your hypocrisy. Agreed?

And please tell me if I didn't inflate my post with enough useless information. No need for you to post any dates; you could have made your point with half the information you gave me.