Who are YOU going to vote for?

<p>IF Bush's decision was a mistake, then so was everyone else's. Furthermore, leaving Iraq now is simply irresponsible. The leader of this nation right must deal with the present.</p>

<p>Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...</p>

<p>"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998</p>

<p>"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others</p>

<p>"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002</p>

<p>"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998</p>

<p>"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998</p>

<p>"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002</p>

<p>"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002</p>

<p>"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002</p>

<p>"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002</p>

<p>"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998</p>

<p>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002</p>

<p>"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003</p>

<p>"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998</p>

<p>"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002</p>

<p>"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002</p>

<p>"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002</p>

<p>"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002</p>

<p>"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002</p>

<p>"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002</p>

<p>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002</p>

<p>"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002</p>

<p>"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002</p>

<p>"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002</p>

<p>"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003</p>

<p>"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002</p>

<p>"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002</p>

<p>"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002</p>

<p>"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998</p>

<p>"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998</p>

<p>"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002</p>

<p>"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002</p>

<p>"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002</p>

<p>I hope you reconsider your position</p>

<p>
[quote]
I understand that the Constitution is a living document, but the founding fathers would never have approved of the current roles of government

[/quote]

No, you do NOT understand that the Constitution is a living, breathing, dynamic, document - your protestations to the contrary. The Founding Fathers made it dynamic precisely because they could not imagine the future. Who were they to say that what worked now would work in the future? That was their outlook. Heck, they thought that the Constitution would need to be completely rewritten every 25 years or so, as it became out of date.</p>

<p>I hope you reconsider your position. What you are saying, that the Founding Fathers' words are law, goes contrary to what they themselves believed.</p>

<p>"If we never stuck out heads into the middle east and looked greedily at the oil, that attack most probably would not have happened. And the only reason they are our enemies is because we are taking away there land and instilling are own ideas into their culture."</p>

<p>This is certainly part of it, but also look at this.</p>

<pre><code>59 And We refrain from sending the Signs only because the men of former generations treated them as false: We sent the She-camel: to the Thamud to open their eyes but they treated her wrongfully: We only send the Signs by way of terror (and warning from evil).

60 Behold! We told thee that thy Lord doth encompass mankind round about: We granted the Vision which We showed thee but as a trial for men as also the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Qur'an: We put terror (and warning) into them but it only increases their inordinate transgression!
</code></pre>

<p>A. Yusuf Ali Quran Translation
Surah Al-Israa Ruku 6</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>112 Allah sets forth a parable: a city enjoying security and quiet abundantly supplied with sustenance from every place: yet was it ungrateful for the favors of Allah: so Allah made it taste of hunger and terror (in extremes) (closing in on it) like a garment (from every side) because of the (evil) which (its people) wrought.
</code></pre>

<p>A. Yusuf Ali Quran Translation
Surah An-Nahl Ruku 15</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>It is He who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: and they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! but the (wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it) and cast terror into their hearts so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers. Take warning then O ye with eyes (to see)!
</code></pre>

<p>A. Yusuf Ali Quran Translation
Surah Al-Hashr Ruku 1</p>

<hr>

<p>4 How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.</p>

<p>5 No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrongdoers.</p>

<p>M. Pickthall Quran Translation
Surah Al-A'raf Ruku 1</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>26 And those of the people of the Book who aided them Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts (so that) some ye slew and some ye made prisoners.
</code></pre>

<p>A. Yusuf Ali Quran Translation
Surah Al-Ahzab Ruku 3</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong doers.
</code></pre>

<p>Quran
Surah Al-i'Imran Ruku 15</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.
</code></pre>

<p>Quran
Surah Al-Anfal Ruku 8</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying:) I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
</code></pre>

<p>Quran Comparison
Surah Al-Anfal Ruku 2</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me; the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind; and the line of prophets is closed with me.
</code></pre>

<p>Sahih Muslim Hadith
Hadith 1062</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>If thou couldst but see when they will quake with terror: but then there will be no escape (for them) and they will be seized from a position (quite) near.
</code></pre>

<p>Quran
Surah Saba Ruku 6</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
</code></pre>

<p>Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith
Hadith 4.220</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>"An infidel spy came to the Prophet while he was on a journey. The spy sat with the companions of the Prophet and started talking and then went away. The Prophet said (to his companions), 'Chase and kill him.' So, I killed him." The Prophet then gave him the belongings of the killed spy (in addition to his share of the war booty).
</code></pre>

<p>Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith
Hadith 4.286</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>The Prophet said, "By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya' (army-unit) setting out in Allah's cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Al1ah's cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.
</code></pre>

<p>The fundamentalists have been taken these messages to heart since the 1960's. They are bent on creating a world-wide Muslim caliphate, and have been forever. Most muslims are peaceful and do not take this stuff literally, but the fundamentalists do and have been, U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia or Israel, or not.</p>

<p>"Although, I am not a fan of Hillary, it is obvious that at first with the intent of an attack on the U.S. she would obviously vote to take the thread away...but as the times past and new intelligence came in she finally realized that we are fighting the wrong war."</p>

<p>But you just cannot cut, run, and raise the white-flag. That is simply irresponsible as I stated before.</p>

<p>Quote:
Communism is Socialism.
No it's not</p>

<p>You are manipulating my words. Communism is a derivative of socialism, an offshot that includes a whole restructuring of all of society, government included.</p>

<p>Jarn, I agree with you on the living document aspect of the Constitution and how what worked then may not work now. My point is that I believe that limited gov. did work then, can work now, and will always work in the future. Capitalism is allowing people to pursue happiness on their own self-interest, which is natural. Socialism and Communism, are based on Marx's initial premise that Man is not inherently greedy. If man is not inherently greedy, then man is not inherently inclined to committ sin, a fact contrary to original sin, which I believe in and which Marx, an athiest, denied. If you believe what Marx believed, I respect your opinion, but I must disagree. Man should be allowed to pursue he self-interest freely b/c if he does not, the government of socialist or communist system will. The managers of resources will naturally take away some for themselves. Government involvement leads to an increase in government strength and a decrease in personal liberty.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But you just cannot cut, run, and raise the white-flag.

[/quote]

Very few people advocate that, contrary to what El Presidente, FOX News, and you believe. Hillary Clinton most definitely does not advocate that. But what is even more irresponsible is killing innocent people in a war that the American people do not support, that has no international backing, with no reason for being there.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Capitalism is allowing people to pursue happiness on their own self-interest, which is natural.

[/quote]

I do not believe that just because something is natural, that it is right. It is also natural for man to kill each other and they have been doing it for time immemorial. Does that make it right?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Socialism and Communism, are based on Marx's initial premise that Man is not inherently greedy

[/quote]

No, Socialism and Communism are based on the idea that man IS inherently greedy - thus, they need someone to protect them from themselves and make sure that the people who cannot defend themselves are defended. Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism ALL agree that man is inherently greedy. The difference is that the first two believe that greed should be combated while the last believes that it should be embraced.</p>

<p>How would you describe the Democrats war strategy?</p>

<p>They want to leave Iraq before succeeding to put up a gov. capable of fighting of Iran's influence and Al Queda's presence.
They are simply inviting another terrorist attack.
While the past is certainly important, something which we have differing views one, please understand that the candidates for the Dems do not think things through, or rather deny to talk about the future. Whatever will get them elected is what they will do.</p>

<p>What will happen if we begin withdrawing troops regardless of Iraq's success as a government?</p>

<p>I appreciate if you answer my question.</p>

<p>Is it really natural for men to kill one another? If it was, the human species would be extinct because we naturally would have killed eachother. Instead, it is natural for people to care more about themselves than others. That is what drives our economy. And, in a capitalist system, people can still care about other people. The difference is capitalism acknowledges religion and gives people the choice to choose how to spend their money, allowing people to exert their natural free will.</p>

<p>Socialism and Communism are actually based on the concept that man is not inherently greedy. Greed is a result of class conflicts that had developed into the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie. </p>

<p>The notion that any branch of socialism is based on the fact that man is inherently greedy is destroyed by the following logical syllogism:</p>

<ol>
<li>In a socialist system, some human beings are elected to manage and distribute resources.</li>
<li> human beings are inherently greedy.</li>
<li>Because human beings are inherently greedy, and human beings run the government, then the government, which controls the resources, will be inherently greedy, exploiting the work of the people.</li>
</ol>

<p>I am sorry, but, when you stated that man is inherently greedy, thereby disagreeing with Marx, you proved yourself incorrect on the greatness of socialism, and, for the that matter the Democratic party.</p>

<p>If you want to act in a manner similar to Mrs. Hillary Clinton, and flip-flop on man's nature go ahead. But I would like to see the logic and facts proving that man is not inherently greedy, that man naturally cares more about other people than himself, and that man will not naturally attempt to exploit other people.</p>

<p>Good Luck!</p>

<p>It has been fun debating Jarn. I hope you will reconsider your beliefs on socialism, the Democratic party, and the Iraq war. I am not stating that the conservative candidates are perfect, but they are inclined to believe in views that I have defended, the views that have made this nation the greatest nation in the history of the world, a status the Democrats wish to erase so that they will get elected.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They want to leave Iraq before succeeding to put up a gov. capable of fighting of Iran's influence and Al Queda's presence.
They are simply inviting another terrorist attack.

[/quote]

Personally, I believe that you're more likely to invite another terrorist attack by invading another country that doesn't want you there and slaughtering their innocent civilians. But hey, maybe that's just me... You have to realize, very few of the Democrats support an immediate withdrawl of all troops. Heck, I don't think ANY of them support a withdrawl of ALL troops. Even the most extreme will say that we need to keep some there to help train the Iraqis.</p>

<p>
[quote]
the candidates for the Dems do not think things through, or rather deny to talk about the future.

[/quote]
The Republicans are MUCH more likely to do this. They refuse to even consider the what our presence in Iraq will mean in the future and are, at present, completely willing to stay ad infinitum.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Is it really natural for men to kill one another? If it was, the human species would be extinct because we naturally would have killed eachother.

[/quote]

Man's nature is not one-sided. Yes, it is natural for men to band together (witness the nomadic tribes of the ancient past). It is, however, also natural for them to kill (witness the wars between the aforementioned nomadic tribes).</p>

<p>
[quote]
in a capitalist system, people can still care about other people. The difference is capitalism acknowledges religion and gives people the choice to choose how to spend their money

[/quote]
But in a Capitalist economy, people don't have to care about others. And Socialism, too, acknowledges religion. There is nothing inherently atheistic about Socialism. Also with Socialism, you have a choice how to spend your money. In Europe, the Socialist countries there have the highest standards of living in the world with tax rates not much higher than our's here in America. The fact is, our government spends their money inefficiently. As much money as you have now, that is the same you would have in a Socialist system - assuming we cleared up government inefficiency.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Greed is a result of class conflicts that had developed into the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie.

[/quote]
No, greed is the cause of class conflicts that developed into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.</p>

<p>
[quote]
1. In a socialist system, some human beings are elected to manage and distribute resources.
2. human beings are inherently greedy.
3. Because human beings are inherently greedy, and human beings run the government, then the government, which controls the resources, will be inherently greedy, exploiting the work of the people.

[/quote]
That sounds a lot like a Democracy. Are you saying that a Democracy, too, is inherently flawed - should we all move to a fascist state?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am sorry, but, when you stated that man is inherently greedy, thereby disagreeing with Marx, you proved yourself incorrect on the greatness of socialism, and, for the that matter the Democratic party.

[/quote]
Again, Marx does not say that man is inherently altruistic. The whole point of Socialism is the fact that man is greedy. That's why the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat, according to Marx. All I can do is suggest that you the Wikipedia article on Karl Marx or Socialism - or, even better, The Communist Manifesto itself. It would quickly become evident how wrong it is to say that Marx thinks that mankind is inherently altruistic. And I don't know what makes you think that the Democratic party is a party of Communists and Socialists. They're less based on Communism/Socialism than the Republican party is based on Fascism. Heck, Benito Mussolini himself said that fascism would better be called corporatism because it results from the union of corporations and government.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But I would like to see the logic and facts proving that man is not inherently greedy, that man naturally cares more about other people than himself, and that man will not naturally attempt to exploit other people.

[/quote]
Why do I need to give you logic and facts relating to that? I have not asserted any such thing - rather, I have asserted the opposite. As has Karl Marx. You go about saying that man will naturally attempt to exploit other people because they're inherently greedy, not realizing that this is the exact same argument that Marx himself used: mankind is inherently greedy and, therefore, the bourgeoisie will always exploit the proletariat unless the proletariat rise up in revolution to regain the means of production.</p>

<p>All I can do is hope that you will read what I have said and read a little about about what you have said. You will realize that a lot of what you have said bears no resemblance to present, past, or fact. You have completely ignored many important things I have said, such as your argument against welfare - the fact that it was the exact way you said it should have been until Reagan cut the funding and removed those portions of it, leaving only the part that you disagree with.</p>

<p>Mrcrowley1776, who are you kidding. First and foremost you don't know anything at all about Islam. Second of all you haven't even read the Koran, and if you have, there is no way you could understand since you only read a translation. Fourth, what gives you or any other random internet fiend the right to translate a book they do not believe in? Please refrain from using quran verses with support of what they truly mean and their context. You obviously do not have any true knowledge about Islam if you take everything translated from another language blatantly at face value and not even try and look into it. I find it laughable that ALL of your positions were purely copied and pasted from other people's opinions. Speak your own opinions and you might find some respect on CC.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The fundamentalists have been taken these messages to heart since the 1960's. They are bent on creating a world-wide Muslim caliphate, and have been forever. Most muslims are peaceful and do not take this stuff literally, but the fundamentalists do and have been, U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia or Israel, or not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>while they do want a world wide caliphate, they obviously have to be in control of their own country first. why in the world would anyone regardless of their position on religion travel thousand of miles to fight a country that could ultimately destroy it off the face the earth if tempted too? You say they've been taking certain ideas and implementing them as they will since the 1960s. I would love to see ONE time that any muslim extremist took action against any thing at all in America before we set foot in the middle east. You find that one time and i'll respect the fact that you imply muslim extremist want to wipe everyone but themselves off the face of the planet.</p>

<p>"That's why the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat, according to Marx."</p>

<p>No, Marx believes that the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat because of the class conflict of history, a fact he attained from the Hegelian dialectic. Marx thought that if we eliminate the class conflict, the proletariat will be free as no one will ever exploit each other. </p>

<p>Jarn, maybe you should read the Communist Manifesto. Here is what it reads in the beginning of section 2: Marx is talking about the proletariat: "they have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole."</p>

<p>Also, do you want to be like Europe?</p>

<p>30% of college grads under 30 are unemployed there.</p>

<p>"You say they've been taking certain ideas and implementing them as they will since the 1960s. I would love to see ONE time that any muslim extremist took action against any thing at all in America before we set foot in the middle east."</p>

<p>This does not relate to America, but how about the Muslim advances on Europe before the Crusades. Thank God, Urban the II called the crusades or we would all be speaking Arabic. </p>

<p>You are right in the sense that we have re-provoked them with our involvement in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran, but they still viewed us as the infidel and justified killing us in the first place.</p>

<p>Democrats are socialists/ communists in that they want higher taxes and more government control. If they did not want these, the poor and lower middle class would not vote for them and they would never win an election. </p>

<p>FDR: "tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, elect, elect, elect"</p>

<p>The Republican party, or at least the true conservatives, actually want a limited gov. that abides by the constitution, giving more powers to the states, such as abortion. Facism is complete control of the nation by one man. The republican's want the government to have as little control as possible.</p>

<p>A democracy is inherently flawed as are all government systems. A democracy is the best because it gives the most power to people. A limited democracy is the best because it allows humans to manage their own resources, with a say in the little resources that they put up for their own defense. The bigger a government, as the Dems want, the more money individuals give to the managers of resources and the more exploited/less free , individuals become.</p>

<p>Thus, the government that governs least is that which governs best. True freedom lies in the power of the individual, not the power of wealthy bureaucrats in D.C.</p>

<p>Finally, Jarn, mabye you should read the Communist Manifesto. Here is what it reads in the beginning of section 2: Marx is talking about the proletariat: "they have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole."</p>

<p>Here are some other quotes from the Communist Manifesto:</p>

<p>"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat."</p>

<p>"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."</p>

<p>"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work." Naturally, he tries to deal with one of the most popular criticisms of communism. He argues that the idea of "incentive to work" is flawed because rich people have no financial incentive to work, so their society should have self-destructed through "sheer idleness". However, he ignores the fact that many rich people are in fact idle (a fact which he himself complains about, yet he ignores it here), thus showing that a lack of incentive will keep people from working. Those who do work do so either to make sure they stay rich, or because they have replaced the motivation of money with the motivation of power. Either way, people only work because they have a personal incentive to do so, and no one has ever produced a compelling argument that this isn't the case.</p>

<p>"Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love."</p>

<p>1.</p>

<pre><code> "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." In other words, seizure of all real estate. No more worrying about saving money to buy that house ... the government will take it away!
</code></pre>

<p>2.</p>

<pre><code> "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." After taking away your real estate, the government will take away most of your income too. Wonderful.
</code></pre>

<p>3.</p>

<pre><code> "Abolition of all rights of inheritance." Taking away the right to bequeath the fruits of your life's work to your beloved children. How charming. It's one thing to tax inheritance, particularly for the wealthy, but to confiscate it entirely? That's simply unconscionable.
</code></pre>

<p>4.</p>

<pre><code> "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." Ah, yes. The never-ending communist persecution of "emigrants and rebels." Although neo-Marxists often claim that "true" Marxism does not restrict the right to live where you wish, we can see here that this is simply untrue:
*

    Marx targeted emigrants (presumably with something stronger than the general confiscation of land; he probably meant that they should lose everything but their underwear), because the free movement of people, goods and services is anathema to Marxism. This is a reminder of a serious problem with communism- it can only exist in isolation. A communist society will be "contaminated" by contact with a capitalist society, due to the capitalist habit of broadcasting images of its wealth and materialism. Those images act as a magnet for the "best and brightest," who will be rewarded like princes under capitalism but treated no better than the ignorant and useless under communism. However, a society will not fare well if the "cream of the crop" leaves. So what can they do? They can restrict access to capitalist broadcasts and they can criminalize emigration. And of course, this is precisely what real communist states have done. I think we all recall the infamous Berlin wall.
  *

    Marx wished to persecute rebels, but how does one specifically target rebels? In free societies, a rebel is only arrested if he commits an act which violates one of the general laws, such as shooting a police officer or bombing a government building. The fact that he is a rebel is not, in itself, considered illegal. There are no special laws designed to target rebels, and in fact, numerous forms of public protest, demonstration and civil disobedience are actually protected by law. So we return to the question of: "how do we specifically target rebels"? Well, one can hardly single them out by waiting for them to break a general law- this is what we do for all citizens. The only way to single out rebels is to target their political beliefs. This is exactly what real communist states have always done, and although neo-Marxists claim that this isn't what Marx intended, they can't explain how he planned to persecute "rebels" without resorting to such measures.

</code></pre>

<p>5.</p>

<pre><code> "Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." Monopoly and state control are the mantra of communism, but monopolies are always destructive. Without competitive forces to ensure quality and efficiency, monopolistic entities, whether they be corporations or government agencies, invariably descend into wastefulness and sloth. This is why Microsoft was brought up on charges by the United States Department of Justice: competition is nature's way of ensuring the strength of the species, and it has proven to be a good way to ensure the strength of an economy as well. Furthermore, competition means choice, and choice means that the buying public has power.
</code></pre>

<p>6.</p>

<pre><code> "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state." First rule of all dictatorships: seize control of the radio stations, the telephone system, and the newspapers. Neo-marxists claim that Marxism does not necessarily lead to dictatorship, but it's hard to agree with that claim when one of Karl Marx's ten commandments is the state seizure of all "means of communication"! Such far-reaching government power over communications can be abused to muzzle miscreants or suppress public knowledge of state misdeeds at any time, so it effectively removes freedom of expression. Without freedom of expression, there can be no freedom at all. Of course, it goes without saying that the seizure of transport has a similar chilling effect on freedom of movement (not to mention the power of the masses to punish or reward competing suppliers of transportation services).
</code></pre>

<p>7.</p>

<pre><code> "Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan." Broadening of state industry- this is actually redundant, given his previous statements. If the government has already seized all real estate, it already controls all the factories. I'm not sure why this directive was included at all.
</code></pre>

<p>8.</p>

<pre><code> "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture." What sounds better to you? Being paid to work, or being forced to work? Choosing an employer based on pay and benefits, or being forcibly conscripted into an "industrial army?" The phrase "obligation to work" sounds better than "being forced to work by threat of punishment", but without the possibility of positive incentive, it means the same thing. Marx would take away your freedom to choose not to work. Suppose you decide that you would rather move to a small cabin up north, live largely off the land, and do just a little bit of occasional work for spending money? In a capitalist society, you would be forced to adopt an austere lifestyle, but no one would stop you. But Karl Marx would accuse you of not pulling your weight, and you would be forced to go work the same way as everyone else.
</code></pre>

<p>9.</p>

<pre><code> "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country." Like all advocates of social re-engineering, he thinks that it should be possible to "turn back the clock" on the process of industrialization. Sorry, but there is no practical way to decentralize heavy manufacturing operations so that they're spread out over the countryside like primitive feudal farming operations. This is wishful thinking at best, and sheer stupidity at worst.
</code></pre>

<p>10.</p>

<pre><code> "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc." This sounds pretty good, and indeed, all civilized nations have instituted public schools and made child labour illegal. But if you read his full text, you will see that he is not merely advocating the creation of public schools. He wants children to be taken away from their parents and educated in state boarding schools! And he is not trying to abolish child labour entirely, he just wants to abolish child labour in its present form. In its place, he suggests that schools and industrial factories be merged into one, so that children work and go to school at the same time. How charming.
</code></pre>

<p>analysis, courtesy of: <a href="http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:dTJ6eKXR1KsJ:www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html+Karl+Marx+%2B+communism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:dTJ6eKXR1KsJ:www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html+Karl+Marx+%2B+communism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Most of that sounds like the aims of the Democratic party.</p>

<p>O sorry Sheed, I cannot form my own opinions about the Koran b/c, I do not speak ARABIC.</p>

<p>i just registered to vote!! i'm so excited :)</p>

<p>Obama</p>

<p>The beliefs of Sayyid Qutb, creator of the Muslim brotherhood, are as follows. Keep in mind that Qutb authored his beliefs in the 1950's.</p>

<p>By the way, the jahiliyyah is any non-Islamic state.</p>

<ul>
<li>The way to bring about this freedom was for a revolutionary vanguard [31] to fight jahiliyyah with a twofold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihaad."</li>
</ul>

<p>The vanguard movement would grow until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world. Islamically-correct Jihaad now being interpreted by Qutb as offensive, no longer "narrowly" defensive as those "defeated by the attacks of the treacherous Orientalists!" believe. [32]</p>

<p>Qutb emphasized this struggle would be anything but easy. True Islam would transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim. True Muslims could look forward to lives of "poverty, difficulty, frustration, torment and sacrifice." Jahili erzatz-Muslims, Jews and Westerners would all fight and conspire against Islam and the elimination of jahiliyyah.</p>

<p>Qutb: "Islam ... is the only Divine way of life ... those who deviate from this system and want some other system, whether it be based on nationalism ... class struggle, or similar corrupt theories are truly enemies of mankind!"</p>

<p>Qutb: </p>

<p>"The Islamic society is, by its very nature, the only civilized society, and the jahili societies, in all their various forms, are backward societies. It is necessary to elucidate this great truth. [p.94]"</p>

<p>"regarded as the father of modern fundamentalism and described by his (Arab) biographer as "the most famous personality of the Muslim world in the second half of the 20th century,".... Qutb was the most influential advocate in modern times of jihad, or Islamic holy war, and the chief developer of doctrines that legitimise violent Muslim resistance to regimes that claim to be Muslim, but whose implementation of Islamic precepts is judged to be imperfect...."
<a href="http://gemsofislamism.tripod.com/milestones_qutb.html#answer_west%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://gemsofislamism.tripod.com/milestones_qutb.html#answer_west&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>