Status:offline

Yeah i had to do it
Its not only about the iraq war, but all the other wars going on too.
The others may not be as known as the iraq war, but should be just as important
In this thread i want to hear
:::your views on the war
:::what you think could help
:::discussion about the war
:::what you think will be the out come( what effects will it bring)
:::seriousness and follow menwsha TOS(i should have put that first)
---basically your thoughts---

what i dont want to hear
] Discrimination towards any race [
] Discrimination towards any country [
] Arguments too serious or that uses too much profanity
] i would really prefer no profanity at all [
(but i cant stop everything :( )

I will also be stating where i stand with my opinion on the crisis
please keep in mind that the war may seem between a few countries, but it is affecting us all
(poll may to something significant depending on the success of this thread)

well to start off, i will say it is an uneccesary war, one that was undoubtly provoked by 9/11, to go to war was the right thing to do, just not the way that it is now being done. It's the way that the war was being handled that made it into a problem that we could not get out of....Now i will have to say that bringing back the U.S. troops into U.S. soil is a big no-no. Havoc would reak in the once U.S. assisted places all over the middle east. We would just end up having to go back and clean up a mess that was bad by poor judgement on the U.S.'s part...

I think America being in Iraq is pretty much useless. Our troops should clean up the mess they made and high tail it out of there. If not, they might anger the Iraqi's to the point where they want to bomb the US. Really, a waste of time, money, resources, and, most of all, lives.

Originally Posted by Queen Fool

I think America being in Iraq is pretty much useless. Our troops should clean up the mess they made and high tail it out of there. If not, they might anger the Iraqi's to the point where they want to bomb the US. Really, a waste of time, money, resources, and, most of all, lives.

The only problem is that if we all the sudden pull out before there is a solid form of authority established it will create a power vaccume and leave the area in annarchy, to the point that te most rutheless and nast group in the area will kill off the competition and end up in charge, leaving a bigger mess than saddam ever was. Do I like us being there, no, I was against it from day one. However one can not undo the past, and we now have to pick up the peices left to us.

Originally Posted by Ellendar

The only problem is that if we all the sudden pull out before there is a solid form of authority established it will create a power vaccume and leave the area in annarchy, to the point that te most rutheless and nast group in the area will kill off the competition and end up in charge, leaving a bigger mess than saddam ever was. Do I like us being there, no, I was against it from day one. However one can not undo the past, and we now have to pick up the peices left to us.

i agree on the part that leaving will create a bigger hole in the gap that is already there ( for power). But i also must say that i think they are already mad enough to bomb us, they just wouldn't know how to do it. The only way they could get a really good impact with weapons in the U.S. is with attacking of the U.S. armed forces...i really think there is no final way to get out of the war, unless the U.S. is willing to drop a nuke and (once again) kill thousands of innocent people along with the enemy, or if the U.S. decides not to to make it their problem any more and "high tail" it out of there, theres not much of a choice but to stay and finish what was started, but how do you finish something with no end?

--it isn't a war because it was never really declared. Technically, its just a conflict. :roll:--
D: holy cow!
I've not met any body else that thinks the same way I do. 8)

I don't necessarily agree with the way things are being handled, and I especially despise the disdain and restrictions we've put on our poor troops, but I think that its important that we stick this through.

I'm no strategist and I don't pretend to tell a real military strategist what to do but I do know that 'pulling out' like everyone wants to do is a death sentence for one faction or the other.

I say americans (I being one myself) should never have gone over to iraq in the first place. Bush used stupid reasoning like he always does to send us over to a pointless war. However, I see the point in the fact that we can not just up and leave now that we are there. I think America needs to focus more on the problems within its own borders, but first we need to clean up the mess we've made everywhere else.....god I hate our president...he complete and utterly ignores everything good for this country including the constitution....

i dont want to make this a subject about the border now, but as i heard a good man say on tv...if the chinese could make a great wall of china and germany could have the berlin wall, why cant america just create a great chain link fence across the border then deal with legalizing the illegal immigrants already in the states

but back to the war now...
@Cinnamonmiko- yeah i agree on the death sentence for one or another, and true on the "conflict", but thats what they said about vietnam, it was never officially stated a war, but in the eyes of many americans, it was more than just a war, it was brutality

and something tell me bush could just be a figure head, (but i will not state anyother thoughts on bush, seeing that i dont want to alert any federal offense, because my thought may just do that). Why is it called war on terrorism?...because it was assumed that it was the U.S. duty to rid the world of something immpossible to rid of...the war is simply a waste of U.S. armed forces lives now...

edit: i also wanted to state that there are already many war stories out there created by the U.S. soilders, none of them are really getting common recognition. Back in the vietnam war and world war II there were war heroes who would come back and the U.S. public would appraise them for there bravery in the war...not seeing much heroes in the U.S. now are we...

I think President Bush made very poor decisions. I imagine that when he gave the go-ahead to this whole mess of an operation, he was looking at our ferociously back-sliding economy and something of a threat that needed to be dealt with (by all means, Saddam was ten time worse than our occupation will ever be. At least we don't massacre tens of thousands of people based on their factional relations), so he jumped.

A short, victorious war is what he was hoping for. It would have been a tremendous boost for both morale and economy, and then he would have been the great leader of a powerful nation who steps up to help those in need. Unfortunately for him, he must never have studied military history. There is no such thing as a 'short victorious war,' and we're paying full price for it.

I see his logic, and I see its holes.

Fact is, we're there now...and we need to clean up that mess, because it seems that no one else is willing to do it and it will only get worse if we let it lie. No need to let more than battle heat hit our troops over it, either. They're just doing their jobs. :-\

Wow, that short-vicious war statement actually makes sense and i see how you undermined it as bush's logic. i agree. Bush may have had a short lived experience of war during his enrollment, but he obviously does not any experience as a leader. But you must remember that bush is not the one to call the shot in the armed forces, the commanding general is the one that give all call commands to the force, each unit has a commanding lueitenant thats seperately directs commands to [his]/her troops, but reads commands from thier general...im no genuis in military strategy or paroling. But that is the jist to it.

democrat, republicans...its all a lie to me, i believe they are all connected one way or another and the only hope the U.S. has lies in the hands of our next president...

War is basically a classing of egos to see whose is the bigger one. Whoever can control the most land/resources is the top dog and all of the other dogs want some of the steak so the charge in using their machine guns, hydrogen bombs, and nuclear reactors.... But all that they're really doing is soiling the steak which they all long for.... And what do the wish to accomplish? Mass Killings of their own kind for an arbitrary piece of land? I do not think life for land is a fair trade. But, no matter what I or anyone else thinks the people who are in control can manipulate the publics view on the situation. We are all just puppets of the mass intelligence of the government. People in America should care more about the fighting, but we don't because our own people (non troops) aren't directly affected by the murders and car bomb killings :(

Well, I think that this whole war is the president's fault. If he wasn't the president noneof this would have happened. It is his big idea to send troops into Iraq and they are all just getting hurt or dieing. It has come to the point where it seems like this war will never end!

He just won't be a man and take the troops out of Iraq. He doesn't want to be a failure like his father was during the veitnam war, so he won't pull the troops out.

I just think all of this big mess is because of the president.

Originally Posted by ~Mutant_Marshmallow~

Well, I think that this whole war is the president's fault. If he wasn't the president noneof this would have happened. It is his big idea to send troops into Iraq and they are all just getting hurt or dieing. It has come to the point where it seems like this war will never end!

He just won't be a man and take the troops out of Iraq. He doesn't want to be a failure like his father was during the veitnam war, so he won't pull the troops out.

I just think all of this big mess is because of the president.

We. Can't. Pull. Out.
If we did, then I assure the bloodshed would multiply tenfold. The friction between the factions is strong, strong enough for them to blow themselves up if it means taking the other one down. that takes some serious, serious conviction. the Troops are the only barrier left between the people and all out civil war. If we pull out, they will began to kill each other, each battling to reign supreme. They will use whatever means necessary and available, be it mass genocide, public executions, c4, bombs, guns, whatever. They want that steak, and they want it bad. (thanks for the great image, Spufflez!) Eventually, one faction will come out on top of a pile of dead bodies.

Then, we'd have another mini-Saddam in charge over there, bloodthirsty and vengeful, and the rest of the world would scorn us for our cowardice in pulling out.

Maybe we should. Maybe we should let them iron this mess out on their own.

But I can guarantee you that we'll be back to facing another supreme-ist, murderous, tyrant before long, and thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of innocents shall be dead in his making.

Originally Posted by -Razor-

Wow, that short-vicious war statement actually makes sense and i see how you undermined it as bush's logic. i agree. Bush may have had a short lived experience of war during his enrollment, but he obviously does not any experience as a leader. But you must remember that bush is not the one to call the shot in the armed forces, the commanding general is the one that give all call commands to the force, each unit has a commanding lueitenant thats seperately directs commands to [his]/her troops, but reads commands from thier general...im no genuis in military strategy or paroling. But that is the jist to it.

democrat, republicans...its all a lie to me, i believe they are all connected one way or another and the only hope the U.S. has lies in the hands of our next president...

You're right on that last part. The military has been bound and gagged, so to speak, by the outrageous expectations that the politicians have put on them. They can't call the shots, no, but what they expect the military to do is superhuman and unrealistic. Our generals aren't free to fight this war, they are too busy trying to keep the politicians happy. Hopefully our next president will have seen that, and will give the Generals enough free reign to do what they do best: command the military. No, I don't think that we should simply relinquish all control on the military arm of our nation...but I think that we should let the professionals handle the professional details, rather than trying to micromanage the whole bloody ordeal. That would be President Bush's fault. He, mister Commander-In-Chief, can step in and undo the bonds and let the military do its job. But he won't and that fault lies entirely upon him, advisers or no.

(p.s. I do love that phrase! 8D. I found it initially in the introductory pages of David Weber's book: The Short, Victorious War...the whole quote is

"What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution." - V.K. Phleve, Russian Minister of the Interior to General A.N. Kuropatkin, Minister of War, 1903, on the eve of the Russo-Japanese war.

I don't know how correct it is, though the timing is correct, but I absolutely love the quote.)

Originally Posted by Spufflez

War is basically a classing of egos to see whose is the bigger one. Whoever can control the most land/resources is the top dog and all of the other dogs want some of the steak so the charge in using their machine guns, hydrogen bombs, and nuclear reactors.... But all that they're really doing is soiling the steak which they all long for.... And what do the wish to accomplish? Mass Killings of their own kind for an arbitrary piece of land? I do not think life for land is a fair trade. But, no matter what I or anyone else thinks the people who are in control can manipulate the publics view on the situation. We are all just puppets of the mass intelligence of the government. People in America should care more about the fighting, but we don't because our own people (non troops) aren't directly affected by the murders and car bomb killings :(

im sorry but im going to have to disagree with the basis of your first statement, war can not be merely described as dog fight, as have you not read your history books? war can sometimes be made through a country defending its territory, for religious or political means, ...maybe more in the past hundreds of years ago it was at times for greater glory, but in the times of now, there is no such thing as the top dog, all that is needed for a country to be a threat now is WMD (weapons of mass destruction) such as the ever-famous atomic bomb...but there are others as well

We cant pull out is right and will stay right. There is nothing that bush can do now
But to have made this huge mess and only leave it to be delt with by the next U.S. president is just kind of messed up...i dont know...it just is to me

I also will say that history is indeed doomed to repeat itself, and you do not understand how scared i am, mostly because in history all superpower(great nations) the greatest nation actually, falls to an end. That supernation currently being the U.S. (where i reside XD), the war is a great factor and is affecting the american economy greatly, one popular example would be gas prices...man i just how the war can actually find itself an end...only with the complete annhillation of one side of the war

(:D I like it when the owner of a debate thread comes back to chat! yay.)

That's frightening, -Razor.- Mostly because you are right: history does tend to run in circles no matter what we do to prevent that. One thing that seems to have pulled out of circulation that worries me most: side don't seem to settle any more. You're right, it seems like the only way to win a war these days is to crush the opponent and grind them beneath the heel of a boot. complete annihilation is all too accurate a description...and it scares the bajeebies out of me.

The 8-year maximum-run of a President seems really silly to me, as well. It seems that reforms of any sort take about 12 years to come to a head, and by that time, the nincompoop that initiated it is scott-free and someone else is having to put up with the mess! bah! A backwards system, that one.

(XP I'm done agreeing with you know! Argue time!)

The nation's economy is being drained by the war not solely because it is a war. War is usually frighteningly good for an economy, because it pushes up spending and presses down inflation which makes for a better market over all...
Where our country is getting in to trouble is our lack of a monetary power base, so to speak. We effectively have no middle class. (My father and I plotted out the problems with the economy right now; stuck in traffic does horrible things to peoples' topic choices.) America has historically thrived upon the wealth of the middle class; they would take the blue-collar jobs and they would take medium wages and they would spend it on American corporations which paid other workers who spent money which paid... and it goes on and on. The lower class has too little money to spend on any profit-making things and the upper class is too small to support a whole nation.
A family which might have once been classified as 'middle-class' made about 50,000$ a year equivalent and yeah, it wasn't a life of luxury but they could own two cars and a house and live in security with food and heat and clothing. Now days, that same family is making 90,000+$ a year, and still struggling to make ends meet in some places.

So you have the few rich, and the many poor, and the tiny middle-class doesn't have the money to spare to support a war.

Because of that, we don't have the economic support for the war, so it is only weakening the market.

Okay, I'm going to start off with a disclaimer here. Part one being, I'm in the U.S. Navy. I've seen footage of actual bombings done by jets that I myself have helped repair and make airborn to do the job. I won't say all I want to though as some things that are common knowledge to me may not be common knowledge to non-military personel. When it comes to Bush, I'll try not to comment much about him as no matter what I have to fight for him. Finally, the things I say are my views and just for I am a service member does not mean that my views are those of anyone else in the U.S. Military or the military or any branch as a whole.

Going to add, with so much here already, I hope I don't forget any of the points I came across when reading all this over. Also, this will be long...

Razor in his second post is right. We needed to act to the events of 9/11. But how we continued after those events were wrong. I saw Ted Koppel on Conan last night (repeat) and he had some very good thoughts that I agree with. One of those being the U.S. should only be playing around 20% when it comes to dealing with this. Rather then fighting like we mostly are doing and destroying things, we should be over there working primarily on humanitary issues. Why? They didn't like us over there so they bombed us. Now I'm sure we're only giving them more reason to hate us. If we spent most of our efforts building them schools, hospitals, and other such things then it would be a lot harder for them to keep on supplying their fire with fuel to keep at us. Another thing Ted Koppel said was that this could quite possibly go on for decades, maybe even 50 years before it is over and as sad as that is, it could be true.

Originally Posted by Queen Fool

Our troops should clean up the mess they made and high tail it out of there.

-twitch twitch- Seriously here, that just ticks me off. Basically being that you make it sound like it's the troops faults as well as make it seem like it would be so easy. Service members follow their orders as we have to and over all we do it for your freedom. Cinnamonmiko was right in stating troops don't get a lot of support and you seem to be a good example to that.

Originally Posted by Mimi Lara

I say americans (I being one myself) should never have gone over to iraq in the first place. Bush used stupid reasoning like he always does to send us over to a pointless war.

As stated near the start of this post, I disagree to never going over there. After 9/11 if we didn't do anything at all we most likely would have been viewed as weak and quite possibly we would have seen a lot more incidents like 9/11.

Originally Posted by Razor

democrat, republicans...its all a lie to me, i believe they are all connected one way or another and the only hope the U.S. has lies in the hands of our next president...

To think, back at the start of this country, Washington gave out a warning about the two party system stating it would ruin our country. Look what we have now, basically a two party system and look at our country. Orson Scott Card's view of the United States in his Ender's Game book series seems quite plausible right now. In it (which takes place in an unknown future time) the U.S. after a devastating war (which basically seems to me to refer to the one we currently are in) ended up pulling all the troops around the world back home basically humiliated. From there it over all sealed off it's borders and (besides trading) only dealt with themselves. Their power as the world's strongest nation had ended (they still were a strong country, just not the top power) though America itself still held onto the ideal that they were the strongest.

Originally Posted by ~Mutant_Marshmallow~

Well, I think that this whole war is the president's fault. If he wasn't the president noneof this would have happened. It is his big idea to send troops into Iraq and they are all just getting hurt or dieing. It has come to the point where it seems like this war will never end!

If Bush wasn't the president, this never would have happened... Sure. Really, if Gore won back in 2000 there still is a very good chance that 9/11 still would have happened. If Gore was president when such an event happened, I'm sure he would have sent troops over as well in retaliation. As stated at least twice now, it was smart to retaliate. It's just how things have gone on since...

Originally Posted by Cinnamonmiko

War is usually frighteningly good for an economy, because it pushes up spending and presses down inflation which makes for a better market over all...

I've heard that as well. War bonds and all, though I have trouble seeing it right now myself. Maybe if the war is quick and easy it helps, but not if it lasts. Our economy has plummeted(sp?) since Bush got into office and I don't really see it getting better. What has been going on to help this? I know for military, base pay keeps rising every year (not enough to have let us keep up with the prices) and I believe minimum wage has also went up. Still, raising how much one gets paid to try and balance things out with how prices are raising doesn't seem to be working to me. When Clinton was president I don't recall pay raises with him (I was young though and could be wrong). Still, with the relatively peaceful times we had when he was in office our economy had been doing great. Heck, for a while you could get gas at less then one dollar per gallon.

As for the dissapearance of the middle class, I really don't know anything along those lines at all XD And so with that, I think I'll end this long long post of mine as I think I got to everything else I wanted to bring up. I hope everything I said made sense... if people read all that that is...

Originally Posted by Adverb

Okay, I'm going to start off with a disclaimer here. Part one being, I'm in the U.S. Navy. I've seen footage of actual bombings done by jets that I myself have helped repair and make airborn to do the job. I won't say all I want to though as some things that are common knowledge to me may not be common knowledge to non-military personel. When it comes to Bush, I'll try not to comment much about him as no matter what I have to fight for him. Finally, the things I say are my views and just for I am a service member does not mean that my views are those of anyone else in the U.S. Military or the military or any branch as a whole.

Going to add, with so much here already, I hope I don't forget any of the points I came across when reading all this over. Also, this will be long...

Razor in his second post is right. We needed to act to the events of 9/11. But how we continued after those events were wrong. I saw Ted Koppel on Conan last night (repeat) and he had some very good thoughts that I agree with. One of those being the U.S. should only be playing around 20% when it comes to dealing with this. Rather then fighting like we mostly are doing and destroying things, we should be over there working primarily on humanitary issues. Why? They didn't like us over there so they bombed us. Now I'm sure we're only giving them more reason to hate us. If we spent most of our efforts building them schools, hospitals, and other such things then it would be a lot harder for them to keep on supplying their fire with fuel to keep at us. Another thing Ted Koppel said was that this could quite possibly go on for decades, maybe even 50 years before it is over and as sad as that is, it could be true.

-twitch twitch- Seriously here, that just ticks me off. Basically being that you make it sound like it's the troops faults as well as make it seem like it would be so easy. Service members follow their orders as we have to and over all we do it for your freedom. Cinnamonmiko was right in stating troops don't get a lot of support and you seem to be a good example to that.

As stated near the start of this post, I disagree to never going over there. After 9/11 if we didn't do anything at all we most likely would have been viewed as weak and quite possibly we would have seen a lot more incidents like 9/11.

To think, back at the start of this country, Washington gave out a warning about the two party system stating it would ruin our country. Look what we have now, basically a two party system and look at our country. Orson Scott Card's view of the United States in his Ender's Game book series seems quite plausible right now. In it (which takes place in an unknown future time) the U.S. after a devastating war (which basically seems to me to refer to the one we currently are in) ended up pulling all the troops around the world back home basically humiliated. From there it over all sealed off it's borders and (besides trading) only dealt with themselves. Their power as the world's strongest nation had ended (they still were a strong country, just not the top power) though America itself still held onto the ideal that they were the strongest.

If Bush wasn't the president, this never would have happened... Sure. Really, if Gore won back in 2000 there still is a very good chance that 9/11 still would have happened. If Gore was president when such an event happened, I'm sure he would have sent troops over as well in retaliation. As stated at least twice now, it was smart to retaliate. It's just how things have gone on since...

I've heard that as well. War bonds and all, though I have trouble seeing it right now myself. Maybe if the war is quick and easy it helps, but not if it lasts. Our economy has plummeted(sp?) since Bush got into office and I don't really see it getting better. What has been going on to help this? I know for military, base pay keeps rising every year (not enough to have let us keep up with the prices) and I believe minimum wage has also went up. Still, raising how much one gets paid to try and balance things out with how prices are raising doesn't seem to be working to me. When Clinton was president I don't recall pay raises with him (I was young though and could be wrong). Still, with the relatively peaceful times we had when he was in office our economy had been doing great. Heck, for a while you could get gas at less then one dollar per gallon.

As for the dissapearance of the middle class, I really don't know anything along those lines at all XD And so with that, I think I'll end this long long post of mine as I think I got to everything else I wanted to bring up. I hope everything I said made sense... if people read all that that is...

whoo awesome!! now thats the type of hard-based facts i like to hear ^_^, don't worry i read it all :D
i will first say that i respect and honor you in serving our country,
secondly, i agree with most of what you say...actually all of what you say.
The part about washington warning everyone about a two party system really caught my attention, that is exactly what we have now if dont count that uncommon third party(forgot the name). What i said, though, i may have said out of tiredness of hearing "democrat this" and "republican that"...but i will admit that those are in deed the two parties that people tend to stick either one or the other regardless of the person who actually running for office...i say i hear out the person...not the party
not much to argue with you there, thumbs up :)

(I like it when the owner of a debate thread comes back to chat! yay.)

That's frightening, -Razor.- Mostly because you are right: history does tend to run in circles no matter what we do to prevent that. One thing that seems to have pulled out of circulation that worries me most: side don't seem to settle any more. You're right, it seems like the only way to win a war these days is to crush the opponent and grind them beneath the heel of a boot. complete annihilation is all too accurate a description...and it scares the bajeebies out of me.

The 8-year maximum-run of a President seems really silly to me, as well. It seems that reforms of any sort take about 12 years to come to a head, and by that time, the nincompoop that initiated it is scott-free and someone else is having to put up with the mess! bah! A backwards system, that one.

(XP I'm done agreeing with you know! Argue time!)

The nation's economy is being drained by the war not solely because it is a war. War is usually frighteningly good for an economy, because it pushes up spending and presses down inflation which makes for a better market over all...
Where our country is getting in to trouble is our lack of a monetary power base, so to speak. We effectively have no middle class. (My father and I plotted out the problems with the economy right now; stuck in traffic does horrible things to peoples' topic choices.) America has historically thrived upon the wealth of the middle class; they would take the blue-collar jobs and they would take medium wages and they would spend it on American corporations which paid other workers who spent money which paid... and it goes on and on. The lower class has too little money to spend on any profit-making things and the upper class is too small to support a whole nation.
A family which might have once been classified as 'middle-class' made about 50,000$ a year equivalent and yeah, it wasn't a life of luxury but they could own two cars and a house and live in security with food and heat and clothing. Now days, that same family is making 90,000+$ a year, and still struggling to make ends meet in some places.

So you have the few rich, and the many poor, and the tiny middle-class doesn't have the money to spare to support a war.

Because of that, we don't have the economic support for the war, so it is only weakening the market.

true true. lol, thanks for the agreeing part
but that whole lower class-high class thing is like i said...true true, lol
the whole idea of the small amount of rich people is good, but the amount or worth of them could only support the war for a few more years and according to Ted koppel, which was stated by adverb, the war could go on for another 10-50 years...that is plain out horrible. The economy would slump tragically and debt would engulf the U.S., and not only the U.S. but also thier "allies", truly a bad event.

Yah! One of my long (well really long) posts were read! And thanks for the support. There were a few more things I could have brought up, but I didn't for as I said before, I don't know if such knowledge is common to me for being in the military or not. All I will say about it is it seems freakin' stupid to me.

I do wonder what would happen to this country if we could somehow manage to go back to actually having no parties. If we could go back to the person runs alone and whoever comes in second place becomes vice president. I know it is basically impossible, at least to jump back to that system, but it would be interesting to see how the country would do back with that system and away from the parties.

The thing with Ted Koppel having been on Conan O'Brian (for the repeat) was advertising his show called "Our Children's Children's War." I really wish I got to see that but I had been in the Persian Gulf when it aired.

Now about Razor's words of economy slumping and all, it could happen. Granted, I'm not a historian and don't recall much details off hand at least to the reasons behind the Great Depression but could it be possible that we might be heading towards another one? If Cinnamonmiko is correct and that the middle class is mostly sliding into the lower class level, then perhaps we are heading to another Great Depression. Hopefully if that is where we are going, whoever takes over next will pull things around and keep us from that. Can't really say though until that does happen.

First and foremost, I want to thank you, Adverb, for serving this country, even in light of the disrespect that is often shown to either you or your peers. I thank you, and like -Razor-, I want to say that I respect you deeply for your service. :D

Originally Posted by Adverb

...Our economy has plummeted(sp?) since Bush got into office and I don't really see it getting better. What has been going on to help this? I know for military, base pay keeps rising every year (not enough to have let us keep up with the prices) and I believe minimum wage has also went up. Still, raising how much one gets paid to try and balance things out with how prices are raising doesn't seem to be working to me. When Clinton was president I don't recall pay raises with him (I was young though and could be wrong). Still, with the relatively peaceful times we had when he was in office our economy had been doing great. Heck, for a while you could get gas at less then one dollar per gallon.

As for the dissapearance of the middle class, I really don't know anything along those lines at all XD And so with that, I think I'll end this long long post of mine as I think I got to everything else I wanted to bring up. I hope everything I said made sense... if people read all that that is...

(Oh, I read it. :D YAY!)
I don't remember much about Clinton, either, having been much too young to give a rat's ear about politics then. I do know (mainly from listening to my sister who studies politics fervently) that he rode heavily on President Reagan's 'coat-tails' or rather, his reforms, and did his level best to keep those reforms rolling strong.

And you're right, the economy isn't getting any better. The base-pay raise didn't help much, either, for a number of reasons. The war helped out for less than a year, and now things are worse than before. Again, the lack of a 'power base' and the rise in cost is killer.

-(Razor, this is really too small to quote so: YES. The rich are the only people who can afford this war right now and a) they aren't really being taxed for it and b) there aren't enough of them to support it for long, even if they gave their all.)-

Originally Posted by Adverb

Now about Razor's words of economy slumping and all, it could happen. Granted, I'm not a historian and don't recall much details off hand at least to the reasons behind the Great Depression but could it be possible that we might be heading towards another one? If Cinnamonmiko is correct and that the middle class is mostly sliding into the lower class level, then perhaps we are heading to another Great Depression. Hopefully if that is where we are going, whoever takes over next will pull things around and keep us from that. Can't really say though until that does happen.

Yes, and yes, and yes once more. :D
You're right, this is the mixing for a second great depression, though not for the same reasons or within the same parameters.
Yes, this lies in the hands of the next government. However, with the strong Democratic favor in the government (and I strongly believe that the Republicans don't stand a snowflake's chance in hell of winning this next election) a Democratic president could work wonders for the economy or it could ruin it.
And yes, we won't know until we're their. To put it in the words of some song or other: 'everything's hazy unless its the past.'

Unfortunately, I truly believe that the best way to 'reset' the economy, as it were, is to reset the market. The way to do that is to have a massive stock market crash (which, if people keep playing it the way the do, is imminent) in order to re-price everything during a great depression, or we need to become more self-sufficient again and support our people. We need to put more jobs in to this country, so that people will make money enough to support the expenses of living here. I think the reset is more likely, but I would much prefer it if the government would step in and fiz it rather than let the market crash and rise from the ashes.
I'm not so sure it would, this time.
[/morbidity]

Ah, the stock market. You make it sound almost like a phoenix there, Cinnamonmiko.

As for getting in a democrat for the next president it is highly likely. Personally, I myself am not so sure about those running to run for president (tongue twister) on either side. Or have they picked a main candidate yet for either party?

Anyways, I can't really disagree with anything there Cinn (your name is too long XD).

ok im back ^_^
yeah another great deppresion would seem as the good way to restart the economy...but...in the sitautions that the U.S. is involved in right now, having the stock market crash in just a horrible thing to do. It would indefinently leave us as the most vunerable nation in the world. We would not even be able to conduct regular trafficking(transportation of military personal or weapons/supllies) from one area to another and not even in our own country would it be safe to conduct big billed buisnesses. The economy will in fact crumble to the ground, but it also will not leave any room to get back up. The U.S. is in deep debt as it is already, and the stock market crashing would just leave a huge whole in the already slumping economy. U.S. would then not be able to support any of thier outter military bases or any international affairs. It's like taking out all the pulp from an orange and then squeezing the orange and hoping juice will come out. "Reseting" the economy would leave the government and the people not being able to support them selves.

The U.S. has wasted already too much of what it doesn't have...and thats okay, it always natural to go into debt during a war such as the one in iraq. But there is a limit to the amount of debt that the U.S. can go into.

The raise in minimum wage wont help at all either, you got to remember that it is still counted as circulating money and the prices of things will just get higher too.

Yeah, its now the governments job to step in and do all they can(and i dont mean government as in republicans and democrats=[)
Im talking about all the branches that make the U.S. government need to get thier brains working> this is no time for slacking off!!
(yes...i did for get the branches names...its like legislative branch, supreme branch and something like that right?? :oops: )

i will note that i will also call you cinni ^_^

(OMG I swear I speak english, and I do know the difference between they're, their, and there. I promise! I don't know why I messed it up earlier....o-o. please don't shoot me. :D)
(and okies. :D You can shorten it to whatever you like...I know its a bit tedious to type. >_>'Cinni' is a first, though. =3 )

O_o you stole the words right form my mouth, -Razor-. That's why I'm so scared of a stock-market crash...I really don't think we could recover from it.

Re-pricing though wouldn't be so bad.
It'd be very communist, socialist, whatever, yes. If the government was smart about it, though, and ignored all temptation to be greedy and down the price of oil and rubber just for them, it would work very well. It'd be like erasing the whole great depression era and just starting over. xP

No slacking, and no greedy!!
Or, you know, we could just set up a whole bunch of pro-economy reforms and that could do the trick, too.

And it is Executive (the President), Legislative (the house of Reps and Senate), and Judicial (the Supreme Court).