Saddam captured!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lithium

The H1B Visa steals jobs from Americans right in front of them. The last company I worked for was over 50% employed by H1B immigrants (not US citizens) coming primarily from India. Just look at the most recent issue of Business Week for a nice article on the situation. Low wage, low skilled jobs my foot.

---

"Stealing jobs"? Give me a break. Do you think your company hired Indians because they were cheaper? No, it's because they were smarter and worked harder than the Americans who applied for the same jobs. The reason for the H1B visa's existence isn't so companies can get away with hiring cheap labour, it's so that they can have greater access to skilled workers (and to give opportunities to foreigners looking for a better life, one hopes). If this bothers you, then learn to compete better and quit whining.

Quote:

---

The country was defying US requests and defying UN requests. I still don't understand why people think we ought've waited until a bomb with "Iraq's" engraved on it fell on an American to get rid of the bastard.

To quote burgundy:

"Where are the WMDs?"

---

Think about a human sized box, marked "Corn", that contains about 180 pounds worth of VX gas in liquid form. That box has enough destructive potential to make 9-11 look like a joke. It's also no larger than Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein is the most famous person in Iraq, identifiable to every American looking for him. He needs food and water on a daily basis, which requires him to come into contact with other people on a daily basis. Those people talk to other people, creating a huge network of potential informants. And, even then, it took us how long to find Saddam Hussein?

If we genuinely thought he had WMDs (and we did, and so did the French, and so did representatives of many other countries who both supported and did not support the war), then our inability to find the needle in the haystack doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

Quote:

---

There is a middle ground between going in with guns blazing and waiting patiently to get hit first. It's called containment.

---

Our sanctions killed somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million Iraqis over the last 11 years. You think containment was 'working'?

Quote:

---

when he posited that an American presence in Iraq provides an appealing target to terrorist who would otherwise attack the American mainland. I mulled this over for a while before I decided that, because the American mainland is both more appealing and more difficult a target, and because American military action is undoubtedly agitating lots of additional anti-American sentiment, this logic is fallacious. Not to mention that it would make a wholly unacceptable justification for war.

---

The American mainland is a target slightly more appealing than the Americans occupying Iraq, but it is much much more difficult to harm. Additional anti-American sentiment just makes them more anxious to cause harm to Americans, which makes them want to get immediate results (ie bombing American troops in Iraq). We're at war - our enemies want to be seen as having made progress - which won't happen if they have to go under cover for a year or two to plan an attack like 9-11. I don't know if it's an unacceptable justification, but the logic isn't fallacious.

Jessica Alba is a more appealing and more difficult target (if you're looking to have sex) than your average hot woman. Being around hot girls makes you want to have sex. You're going to go after the average girl before you go after Alba, because you're interested in results. Economy.

Quote:

---

Saddam and company were involved with or financing direct attacks on American soil, and I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect.

---

I haven't seen evidence to that either. However, you know that Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel. It's not too much of a cognitive leap to assume that he would be willing to and was interested in financing terrorism against America in the same way, given that America and Israel are two sides of the same great white jewish colonial zionist murderous oppressor.

Quote:

---

Ask the people of Iraq how they feel about American occupation, et al.

---

If you polled the people of Iraq, giving them three choices:

1.) Saddam in power and no sanctions. (250+ Iraqis dying a week)
2.) Saddam in power and sanctions. (500+ Iraqis dying a week at least)
3.) Your country being occupied by Americans (? dying a week as a direct result of American intervention)

Which choice do you think would win? (You, me, and everyone else knows the answer).

Quote:

---

Which ones, the ones that say the US can ignore Security Council decisions and do whatever the hell it wants, even when most of the UN and the international community disagrees?

---

Ah, come on, Sleeveboy, you've seen all of the different UN resolutions guys like me can trot out to say that we were following UN rules (at some point) when we attacked Iraq, right? Do I need to go back into the archives, or are you arguing that despite the prior UN decisions that justified an attack on Iraq, none of those decisions justified an attack on Iraq without ANOTHER vote from the UN justifying an assult in that particular instance?

Quote:

---

Maybe, aside from the daily suicide attacks and assorted terrorist provocations of course.

---

24 years, 300,000 - 1 million Iraqis executed.
12 years, 500,000 - 1 million Iraqis killed as a result of sanctions.

Quote:

---

What sort of government will ever be developed in Iraq? Do we seriously think we can get that country on its own two feet? It's a destroyed mess with no economy, no infrastructure, no military, and an entire mass of people who've only ever known one form of government that was about as different from democracy as they come. It'd take years and years and billions more dollars to get them even close. Look at the lovely state we left Afghanistan in, in many ways they were better off with the Taliban.

---

Bullshit, what, "those bloody savages wouldn't understand democracy if we shoved it down their throats". Stupid Tory bullshit.

And as far as Afghanistan goes - we haven't left. There are as many soldiers in Afghanistan now as there were the first day of the Iraq war.

The trans-Afghanistan highway opened up yesterday. It used to take 30 hours to get across Afghanistan - it now takes 6 hours.

Quote:

---

And there are plenty of Americans that needs tholse low-wage, low-skilled jobs. Not every American has a BA.

---

Do a search for the words "lump of labor", and read about - Lithium and you are both talking about the same long-lasting economic fallacy.

50 years ago, it used to take something like 30 times as many people to operate our telephone network - and those people handled 30 times fewer calls. Technology allows us 1 person to accomplish as much telephone-handling work as 900 1950 workers.

But wait - what if we still used 1950 technology? 899 more people would be employed...so how many people have lost their jobs as telephone companies have downsized in response to technology developments of the last 50 years?

Well, a lot. But they've all got new jobs, new jobs that allow them to do other things related to new technologies.

A few years ago, France decided to force a 35 hour workweek on its economy, instead of a 40 hour workweek. The motivation was the idea that if everyone was working 35 hours a week instead of 40 hours a week, a ton of new jobs would have to be created (5 hours per person = 1 new job per 8 people working less each week). In fact, the move caused a significant hit to the French economy - not 16%, but significant.

Figure out why and you'll stop worrying about jobs going to India.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Bullshit, what, "those bloody savages wouldn't understand democracy if we shoved it down their throats". Stupid Tory bullshit.

---

Uh huh. And Afghanistan is just thriving today. Oh wait, they are, thriving on heroin production :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Do a search for the words "lump of labor", and read about - Lithium and you are both talking about the same long-lasting economic fallacy.

---

:lol: Uh huh, this hasn't been a pressing issue in the IT sector for years now or anything.

Quote:

---

But wait - what if we still used 1950 technology? 899 more people would be employed...so how many people have lost their jobs as telephone companies have downsized in response to technology developments of the last 50 years?

---

Except that's very different from a job becoming obsolete and a job moving to another country.

Quote:

---

"Stealing jobs"? Give me a break. Do you think your company hired Indians because they were cheaper?

---

Of course. A worker with an H1B visa earns 25-35% less than the average for their position. An employee working with an H1B visa also has far less freedom within their job. They can not seek another company without a lot of bureacracy and are constantly under the threat of being deported should they lose their job. They also have restrictions placed on what immediate family can come to America and why.

Quote:

---

No, it's because they were smarter and worked harder than the Americans who applied for the same jobs.

---

Woo hoo, stereotypes. Just like say Mexican factory workers are so much better than American workers at assembly. No, they merely earn (far) less. If you're actually going to suggest to me that any American should just sit there and accept a 25-35% pay cut or being laid off due to a flawed and outdated program that places all of the benefit in the corporation, I have to laugh. Just wait till you're in this situation, you'll be singing a very different song.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lithium

No, they merely earn (far) less. If you're actually going to suggest to me that any American should just sit there and accept a 25-35% pay cut or being laid off due to a flawed and outdated program that places all of the benefit in the corporation, I have to laugh. Just wait till you're in this situation, you'll be singing a very different song.

---

Yes, in a couple of years I will be in that situation. I'm probably going to have to get an H1B visa if I want to stay in the US and work after I graduate (which I almost certainly will due to what I'm studying). Being an immigrant sucks in a lot of ways, but you learn to put up with a lot of BS.

I'm sorry if people like me are stealing jobs from natural-born Americans like you, but if it lets me support my family while doing something I love, I'm not going to pass up the chance. It's different when you look at it from the other side of the coin.

Matt, don't forget that immigrants are the backbone of this country. Check out a lot of inventions and you'll see that they were mostly made by foreign people. For example, I recall from the top of my head that an Indian was behind the creation of the Intel chip.

The average American is ignorant. But some are actually decent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

No I don, how much bitching did I do about the ousting of the Taliban?
Go on tell me.
What I do bitch about tough is the fact that the world has left Afghanistan to die yet again, the third time in as many decades, its sickening.

---

I'm just angry because you twist my statements and make it sound like I said things I never did, thus making me look dumb unmerited...don't guess about what I'm thinking and I won't get pissed off.

Sorry dude.

Heh we are all guilty of that, none as badly s Stone tough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

And there's no democrat alive who wouldn't defend Clinton and remind us it was all just lying about sex ;). Anyway, it's not solely pointing the finger at him. You can't shield him from all criticism with that argument, just like you couldn't for N. Korea. It doesn't change the fact that democrats are attacking Bush for it, when their track record on "finding" him was terrible.

---

No, the GOVERNMENT'S track record with Bin Laden is terrible, from the beginning. Like I said, Clinton fucked up, but it was only act of a comedy of errors.

I also don't see how lying about infidelity is in the same league invading a country, but.....

Quote:

---

OMG! You criticized Clinton! No way! We know he inherited the problem, like N. Korea. But, Bush did as well, along with 9-11. And, for them to be all like, "Well, Bush, you failed miserably in finding Bin Laden!" is a little over the top, no? I wasn't going that far back into it, I just think a little bit more class, less obnoxiousness, less hypocrisy could be exercised in presenting your "opposing point-of-view."

---

That sounds a lot like the typical extreme right-wing views. "Don't think like us? You must be one of those tree-hugging liberals!" Not everyone is Michael Moore you know! :p I know you're not like that.

Quote:

---

OKAY, why not. Unfortunately, I've not seen this potential solution put forth by the opposition - I only see bitching and more bitching... Put up or shut up is my reaction to it. So, you really would support Bush if he did do it or is that just for the sake of the argument? "OMG! That Bush maniac is gonna go into a nuclear armed state!!!"

---

If Bin Laden were in Pakistan, and we could prove that they have helped him, yes I'd support it. It'd be a lot more important than Iraq at this time, and our president seems to have written checks he doesn't want to cash in this matter. Didn't he say that if you're not with us you're against us? That you'd have to pay the price? It seems like he's left himself with little choice other than to go ahead like this.

Quote:

---

Well, maybe you missed the part of what I believe will be a convenient downplaying if Bin Laden IS caught. You're downplaying Saddam now that he's caught. But yeah, exactly, we don't know if he's dead or alive. Frankly, Bush not talking about Laden publicly doesn't equal him being any less important. Would you feel less resentment if Bush just came out and said we simply CANNOT find the bastard? We may never find him... What then? And who says he's not important? Like, if Bush starts talking about him again, won't your next attack be, "Oh, what about education - our domestic problems? He's always talking about Laden; scaring us with the war on terrorism; focusing on external policies..." I distinctly remember that being the criticism mid-way into the hunt for Laden. But bottomline, for some, it's "Bush failed" not anyone else. The buck stops with him when it's failure, but when it's success, better make sure we don't attribute it all to him or devalue it which is what's being done here.

---

I'm not downplaying anything. Saddam needed to be taken out, yes. I just think that Bin Laden should have been priority one. We took out the guy who flipped us out, when the guy who raped our daughter is still at large.

Quote:

---

The reasons for putting failed in quotes is because if it was a success, we pretty much can assume the credit for success would go where it's due; the military, the CIA, etc... It wouldn't say, "Bush 'succeeded' in finding Bin Laden." See, I clearly remember the opposition stating if we don't find Saddam, the Iraq war was is in part a failure; Bush's policy is a failure; the Iraqi ppl need closure, and Americans need closure. Ok, so now he's found... The response is a snide 'woohoo.' Now, since "Bush 'failed' to find Saddam" is no longer valid, it's was just our great military men/women doing their job, despite Bush's misguided policy. That's all I was getting at... If any of the raids currently being conducted in Afganistan result in finding Laden's whereabouts, or Pakistan magically pulls him out of some rabbit hole, I'd put ALL my money on that being the reaction. Just keeping in mind the past tense usage of "failed" will invalidate itself if he's found at any point in time as it did for Saddam.

---

So, you assume the mission in Afghanistan has been successful? Don't you know for sure? I don't, seeing how no one in the Bush adm. even mentions it anymore. Suddenly Afghanistan is yesterday's news and no one reports on it, mentions it, or even acknowledges it.

What I meant by referring to it was not that it was a failure, but that it had been put on the back burner. If you declare war, you'd better be prepared to fight on more than one front. We blew in to Afghanistan, then it dropped off the radar just before Iraq. Now no one talks about it. It should have been equally important as Iraq.

Quote:

---

Well, I had some fun there. No, it was a general attack on current liberal/democratic behavior derived from some of what you said. Basically implying/stating we got the wrong guy which is apart of the same mindset (Bush pulled the ole switcheroo and substituted Laden for Saddam when we really wanted Landen). And, I read some of your feelings on it before so I think some of it applies. If I'm off, I'm off - the source wasn't just your text in the post obviously. But, yeah, you didn't have to respond to anything that didn't directly apply to you - although it's my fault for merging several gripes I had.

---

No offense taken man. I know that there is a shitload of left wingers talking crap and who aren't satisfied with anything Bush does. My gripe, isn't what we're doing, it's how we're doing it. It's fine if you bake some bread, just don't blow up the bakery doing it.

I also never said that we got the wrong guy. I said we went after the easier and less threatening of the two.

Quote:

---

With this kind of polarized bickering? No, there isn't. I was referring to partisan fingers celebrating Bush's failure and not providing solutions after doing so. That was my point. And yeah, I'm defending, you're attacking the man in charge - duh, that's apparent. Simply, my take on it is, win/lose, Bush is failure to you - failure from day one. And, I'd say that's more to do with who he is, more than what he does.

---

I do think Bush has been a failure, domestically (though it stems more from his colossal fuckup on education more than the economy) as well as in foreign policy. I do think he squandered the good faith of the world after 9/11 and that he went about this the wrong way. He's too gung-ho and trigger happy. He wants the death penalty for Saddam, who should rot in miserable hell for the rest of his life. Of course, he wants this because he hasn't executed anyone since he was govenor, so he's antsy. :p

Quote:

---

There's no question in my mind Bush wants him found - that's not fair, really. To me, you're indirectly attacking Bush's patriotism with that one ;). Only a traitorous president would intentionally let him get away as that line suggests. I think it was accepted at some point it wasn't gonna happen, at least not in a timeframe that you, me or anyone else wanted. It doesn't mean behind the scenes the government isn't working on the the al-qaeda threat. It is in our interest to liquidate or imprison every last walking, living, breathing al-qaeda member on the planet. It's obvious if we're attacked again, the recovering economy would go right back down in the toilet; the living in fear would return; so, who's gonna get blamed for not protecting the American ppl? "Did Bush's misadventure in Iraq give the green-light for al-qaeda to attack us again?"

---

I'm not attacking anyone's patriotism, I'm attacking the government's inability to make good on what it says. What I want is to see the hunt for Bin Laden and the reconstruction in Afghanistan get equal press time and attention from the White House. 87 billion for Iraq? When did Bush come on TV to tell us how much Afghanistan will cost? I must have missed that. I must also have missed the updates he's been giving us on the hunt and reconstruction effort.

Iraq has been front and center for months, and Afghanistan?

You know I thought of something today, perhaps the government is overspending to improve the economic reccession, that is the standard tactic for ending one, high government spending and lowered taxes (both have been done). Otherwise it doesn't make any sense what 87 billion could do for Iraq unless part of the government is seriously mismanaging funds, you could almost build the US Army and Marine Corps, as well as part of the Navy and Air Force and maintain it for a few years with that much money.