Say Anything Blog

How is bulldozering your way through a country without any thought to the aftermath helping the ppl of Iraq?

This is quite shortsighted of you.  Perhaps doing nothing was better? 

The only reason that troops are still there is that there is a big ‘ol mess to clear up.

Which is what we are doing… DUH.

Why did all those nations vote against invasion?

Who did???  France, Germany and Russia???  All the same countries that were in the Oil For Food payroll?  You want to talk about corruption??  OMG! 

Maybe they believed as i do that stomping around with ya oversized army boots will just cause anger in the ppl you’re trying to save.

Is that why Iraqi’s are happy to have the US there?  The people and the government want us there, but are timid because last time, we bailed on them… just like we did in Vietnam… just like, it seems, we’re about to do again.  That would anger a good number of people, I think… going in… making a mess, then bailing… that’s a good idea… NOT

Or was it just that Bush wanted to finish off the job his dad started?

I wanted Bush 1 to finish the job that we started. 

First and foremost, the US had a cease-fire agreement with Iraq that was broken nearly EVERY SINGLE DAY for 12 years.

We promised a lot of Iraqi’s that we’d remove Saddam if they helped us do it… We LIED to them after they betrayed Saddam.  Saddam gassed them.  I think perhaps there’s a bit of resentment from some of the population, and Osama uses that cowardice to recruit… Not our presence.  Muslims respect strength, they do not respect cowards. 

Your approach personifies COWARDICE!

I think… going in… making a mess, then bailing… that’s a good idea… NOT

So you agree that a mess was made by going in.

Who says that the Iraqi population are pleased that US troops are there? Certainly not the locals.
Why do you think there has been so many riots close to troop bases?
Why are troops withdrawing and staying behind closed doors?
Is it because they anger the locals when visible? YES.
Why are they angry?
Because there have been so many fatalities AFTER the invasion (yes invasion)… perhaps!

Do you not think that there could have been any other way of dealing with the problem?

So you agree that a mess was made by going in.

What war isn’t a mess?  Did anyone ever say it would be easy?

Who says that the Iraqi population are pleased that US troops are there? Certainly not the locals.

BS. There’s been a hundred stories on this site and elsewhere about how the Iraqi’s are happy to have Saddam gone and happy to have us helping them.  The MSM doesn’t want to report it… I’ve just tried to search on SA search, which brought up scores of pages, but the links failed…

Why do you think there has been so many riots close to troop bases?

I’ve not heard of “So many riots"…

Why are troops withdrawing and staying behind closed doors?

Pressure is being put on the Iraqi’s to ‘step up’…

Is it because they anger the locals when visible? YES.

According to you, perhaps… according to our troops, that’s not the case.

Why are they angry?
Because there have been so many fatalities AFTER the invasion (yes invasion)… perhaps!

Fewer have died than averaged under Saddam.  Get your facts straight.

Do you not think that there could have been any other way of dealing with the problem?

Not as long as Saddam was left in power.  Once removed, we should have sealed the border with Iran and Syria in any way possible… We might have been better off leaving the Iraqi Army in place, but that’s a hard call to have made prior to the decision.

It is the individual, social, and universal responsibility of Muslims, according to their faith, to protect the human merits and virtues of all the children of Adam, whatever their differences may be. Defending the human rights of human beings is a religious duty for a Muslim, who believes that any oppression is an obstruction of God’s will and plan in His creation. Moreover, a Muslim believes that God has created all mankind equal as human beings, and no one can claim superiority in this respect, whatever his/her ethnicity, family, wealth or gender may be.

Doesn’t really sound like the words of a terrorist.
Unfortunately a small group have interpreted this as USA government = Oppression but America have been bombing the middle east with great frequency over the last

... 16 years (oops pressed the wrong button)
And before that the US held navy troops in the Persian Gulf to protect the shipping line out of Iran. If Iraq had done that to America they’d see it as an act of war, wouldn’t they?

I still hold with the opinion that the war on Iraq was over oil. Maybe you would too if you looked objectively at the Iraq chronology

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/iraqchron.html

Though i think there have been a lot of mistakes from all parties involved.

This brings me back to the original point that the Iraq war could have been prevented and dealt with in a different way.

... and maybe saved some bloodshed of US and British troops plus innocent Iraqi civillians.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saudi/oil.html#

Check this out and tell me the whole Iraq/Iran disputes weren’t over oil

Who did???  France, Germany and Russia???  All the same countries that were in the Oil For Food payroll?  You want to talk about corruption??  OMG!

France and Germany also had a vested interest, in that Saddam was selling Iraqi oil in Euros instead of dollars.

I think perhaps there’s a bit of resentment from some of the population, and Osama uses that cowardice to recruit…

There is a distinction in who Osama or al-Qaeda recruit. Because the Shia initially welcomed the liberation, al-Qaeda sided with the Sunnis. The Shia then got their help from other Shi-ites. Who are the nearest Shia nation? Oh, it’s Iran!
Much of the fighting is between the Shia and Sunni factions and it is these groups that the Iraqi government (and by default the US and Britain) are trying to get under control.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Doesn’t really sound like the words of a terrorist.

Where does the “78 Virgins for killing infidels” come in?  What of, “no Muslim may stand in the way of another’s jihad”?

Osama, among others, decry us westerners as immoral, thus worthy of death.  The extremists do not view all life as sacred.  Saddam did not or he would not have funded families of suicide bombers.  Hamas is an Islamic Group, right?  They don’t seem to respect life very much… Oh, they must not consider Israelis as human, perhaps…

I still hold with the opinion that the war on Iraq was over oil.

Iraq invaded Kuwait because they angle drilled into Iraqi oil, according to Saddam.  Saddam attempted to take Kuwait because he claimed the land as part of the original Persian empire, and Kuwait was “blocking access to the gulf”.  We said “fine"… Saddam invaded… we said “No...” Saddam retreated once we arrived… Half way to Baghdad we turned around and went back to Kuwait because we adhered to UN rules of engagement.  We had a cease fire while we determined what nasty WMD Saddam possessed.  He was to come clean.  He didn’t nor did he honor the cease fire.

There’s intelligence that indicates that some WMD went to Syria prior to the most recent invasion.
-------------------------------------------------
I’ve been trying to continue this but work keeps getting in the way… :(

there is massive amounts of proof that Saddam had WMD and used them

We knew, because Britain, France, Russia, and the US sold Saddam chemical and biological weapons and the materials to make them. I do find it interesting however, that his use of chemical weapons didn’t come up in his trial. He was sentenced to death for ordering the mass shooting of a whole heck of people. Could it be that our governments didn’t want it to become common knowledge.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

There’s intelligence that indicates that some WMD went to Syria prior to the most recent invasion.

If that’s true then i’m not suprised… Syria has a direct pipeline for oil which funnily enough runs from Iran.

March 1982 In a show of support for Iran, Syria closes Iraq’s 400,000-barrels-per-day trans-Syrian oil export pipeline.

This was because

Imports - partners: Saudi Arabia 11.6%, China 6.1%, Egypt 5.9%, Italy 5.8%, UAE 5.7%, Ukraine 4.6%, Germany 4.5%, Iran 4.2% (2005)

Note the German import %… is this why they didn’t join the coalition...perhaps

In an attempt to prevent the spread of Islamic extremism, surging at that time in Iran, Hussein led Iraq into a costly and indecisive eight year war with that country supported, in part, by funds and military assistance from the United States. Iraq’s 1990 invasion of neighboring Kuwait resulted in the U.S.-led Gulf War in January-February 1991.

Hussein claims he was trying to take back land that belonged to his ppl, but more then likely it would have given him free passage through the Staits of Hormuz.

Why did the US oppose this and not the invasion of Iran?

Could it be that our governments didn’t want it to become common knowledge.

I am endlessly surprised at what isn’t said!  It was a US ambassador that gave Saddam the nod to invade Kuwait… it’s hardly mentioned anywhere.  It was wrong of us (the US) to do that… A lot of problems might have been avoided by that one mistake.

It doesn’t make sense that gassing his own people wasn’t part of the trial.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saudi/oil.html#

Check this out and tell me the whole Iraq/Iran disputes weren’t over oil

The Iran/Iraq war was over a number of things, oil among them. 

The US did not overthrow Saddam because of oil, however. 

Does “Oil” play into our interests in the region?  Well, heck yeah… The world runs on oil.  Oil provides a profit and power to these dictators.  We want stability.  Saddam was stable enough for us if he wasn’t funding terror.  We also needed a foothold in the region to create more stability.

Saudi Arabia is stable.  Are they good people?  No… But they are stable, as of now. 

If we wanted the Oil, we’d have taken it by now.  It’s not about conquest, it’s about stability.

There’s intelligence that indicates that some WMD went to Syria prior to the most recent invasion.

If that’s true then i’m not suprised… Syria has a direct pipeline for oil which funnily enough runs from Iran.

Sorry wasn’t very clear here was I.

Maybe at the time Syria was trying to side with the bigger boys’, namely Iraq and the US because it’s biggest form of income is the export of oil.
Plus the UN demanded that lines were open between Iraq and Turkey…
Maybe Syria was being used as political pawn because of these pipelines…
Any ideas?

We know that because he USED them.

Buy a clue.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

I’ve been trying to continue this but work keeps getting in the way… :(

$$$ ;o)

Why did the US oppose this and not the invasion of Iran?

Because Kuwait and the US are “allies” and they asked for help.  Iran and the US were not allies and they think MTV is representative of us, thus we’re “the Great Satan"…

We supported Saddam because he was the more stable thug in the region.  We have, in recent years, adopted the notion that only a democracy or Republic can be stable enough for long term regional peace.  We no longer support any dictatorship.
--------------------------------------------------
Did you ever watch the old Star Trek series?  I liken Muslims to the Klingons.  They are filled with the notion of rule by strength.  They respect the most fearful ruler and they have a very strict code of honor.  The biggest guy on the block is the one that is not messed with.  He who has the biggest weapons, wins.  Our wimpy, sheepish, pansy-assed form of debate is frowned upon.  Reason is less effective than fear. 

Why are we having problems developing in-roads in Iraq?  Half or more of our Governments are seen as chicken.  Osama calls us a paper-tiger.  They don’t respect us. 

Have you noticed that the surge has been working? 

Imagine if we were unified in our support of the new Iraqi government.  Imagine if we were unified toward defeating the forces of decomposition.  We’d be done by now.  These endless speeches about how we have failed are CAUSING the failure.

I’ve been trying to continue this but work keeps getting in the way… :(

$$$ ;o)

I so wish I had a cushy teaching job or something…

Muslims are taught by the Quran to build their relations with others on kindness, while the minimum obligation which should be strictly observed is justice (60:8). They should always have in mind that no hostility stays permanently, and that if they follow God’s guidance, their behavior may turn an enemy into a close friend:

GOD may change the animosity between you and them into love. GOD is Omnipotent. GOD is
Forgiver, Most Merciful. (60:7)

Not equal is the good response and the bad response. You shall resort to the nicest possible
response. Thus, the one who used to be your enemy, may become your best friend.
None can attain this except those who steadfastly persevere. None can attain this except those who
are extremely fortunate.(41:34-35)

If the quran promoted violence against those less fortunate then themselves or those who oppose them then surely it wouldn’t say this.
But again it’s all open to interpretation..

MOFAL

France and Germany also had a vested interest, in that Saddam was selling Iraqi oil in Euros instead of dollars.

An excellent point!  The EU benefited more from Saddam staying in power than in being deposed.  Just as the UN benefited more from the Oil for Food program (or programme for you Brits ) than without it.

A large number of UN ambassadors were on the take in that oil for food kabash. Kofi should be in jail.

Did you ever watch the old Star Trek series?  I liken Muslims to the Klingons.

hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha… i’m practically crying… hahahahahahaahahahaha

Why? Pray Tell.

Because Kuwait and the US are “allies” and they asked for help. 

But why were they allies in the first place… was it because the US realised that Saddam’s power was growing and if he held Kuwait then he’d be the 2nd biggest exporter of oil?
That’s a lot of power for a dictatorship..

Why? Pray Tell.

That’s just funny as hell… the thought of Klingon wrinkles under the turban just tickled me.... hahahahahahahahaha

When i say THE tuban, i’m thinking of Osama.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... still tickled…

But why were they allies in the first place… was it because the US realized that Saddam’s power was growing and if he held Kuwait then he’d be the 2nd biggest exporter of oil?
That’s a lot of power for a dictatorship..

I don’t know the answer to that.  Your suggestion sounds plausible.

There are a few dozen “wars” ("conflicts" might be a better word) going on around the world right now that the US isn’t involved with.  (All but a few involve factions from the “Religion of Peace”, B.T.W.)

The US doesn’t get involved in most things unless we’re asked to by an ally or there general destabilization in a region.

The US doesn’t get involved in most things unless we’re asked to by an ally or there general destabilization in a region.

Maybe this is true but what incentive has to be offered for the US to form alliance… after all you guyz have a lot of bargaining power.

Maybe this is true but what incentive has to be offered for the US to form alliance… after all you guyz have a lot of bargaining power.

You know… It’s not like the US is sitting on the worlds only supply of Gold or something.  We have a decent amount of natural resources, but no more so than most of Africa, or Asia, or South America.  What’s the difference? 

We have bargaining power because we have “might” that comes from freedom.  We haven’t always been the strongest on the planet, not by a long shot.  We’ve lost some battles, but our strength is the freedom to invent.  Our strength has, and hopefully continues to be, the LACK of government in our lives.

What does it take to form a treaty with the US?  I don’t think it takes a lot… sure, we can demand a lot, but “with great power comes great responsibility”.  I’m not in the Government, so I can’t say for sure, but it seems to me that we want stability and freedom.  If a free country comes to us looking to ensure stability, we’d offer support without asking for anything in return.  We give billions away each year in hopes of stability.

The US is 80% Christian.  The majority of us believe in “teaching a man to fish” rather than providing the daily fish.  Socialists often see this as cruel.  We get labeled as evil because we don’t do enough for Aids in Africa… but when we say, to stop AIDS, stop having promiscuous sex, we get called evil.  When we give millions and millions to help fight AIDS, we’re told it’s not enough… We give billions and billions to aid the Tsunami victims and we’re told it’s not enough.  We give Billions to hurricane victims and are told that we don’t care for our own.  There’s money sitting in accounts doing nothing because it can’t be spent fast enough… and still people call us cruel.

We try, for all it’s worth, to stabilize what we can, where we can… to provide for those who can’t, as much as we can… and still, it’s not enough. 

Statistically, the POOR in the US live at the same levels as the MIDDLE CLASS in Europe… but, you think we don’t take care of the victims of Katrina.  The majority of the victims of Katrina were taken care of immediately.  The ones you’re still hearing about have NO DESIRE to help themselves.  The media plays them up to make the US look bad.

Hey, i’m with you but don’t all governments give with one hand and take with the other?
I’m afraid that politics don’t allow much room for compassion when it comes decisions on who they form alliance with and who they don’t.
Rather then helping for the good of man it’s based on wealth and power and aid given to nations in crisis often has some bearing on future actions whether it’s ‘I scratched your back so… or ‘We’ll help you if you can just sign here....’
I’m not saying that the US is alone here,,, all nations have some level of corruption within their government.
The problem is they use the media to slate one another, a political tool if you like, which the public buys into.
The media holds far to much power. Who or what else can stop a guilty man being imprisoned or start civil disputes?

We no longer support any dictatorship.

Apart from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Chad, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Oman, Qatar, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. All dictatorships, where one man (as head of state) has ultimate control. Some have token assemblies, often introduced under US pressure, but rarely having any real power.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Actually it’s quite interesting to hear what the American rags say… Just as biased as the British ones by the sounds of it.
Try this… Pick a news story and follow it around by reading as many different papers as you can and by watching as many different news channels as possible.
You’ll be amazed at the differences!!!

The majority of us believe in “teaching a man to fish” rather than providing the daily fish

Isn’t most US grain sent overseas as food aid GM (i’m not trying to get on the GM debate here - we can do that elsewhere if we must) and so therefore, even if people tried to sow it, it wouldn’t germinate?

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

and so therefore, even if people tried to sow it, it wouldn’t germinate?

Is that true for all GM grains?
Are you sure that it’s all infertile?
I’ll have to check that one… ?

Statistically, the POOR in the US live at the same levels as the MIDDLE CLASS in Europe

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

’Twas a question. Hence ‘?’

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Whose statistics?

Oh, I’ll find it when I have the time.  The exact quote is: “the average poor in the US has the same living standard as the average European”. 

Isn’t most US grain sent overseas as food aid GM?

I wouldn’t necessarily support this unless there were a reason to do so (other than stopping the recipient from growing it) like it decaying faster, or being cheaper to produce…

being cheaper to produce…

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

...isn’t that just because of subsidies. I understand that Western farmers would (pretty much all) go under if it weren’t for them, but nonetheless…

I don’t believe that this is the case.  We do give subsidies (stupid in my opinion), but I don’t believe that farms would all close because of it…

It might be tough to ween farmers from subsidies now… but they would just raise prices until they got enough to survive and the market would adjust, as it does for most everything else (except those things controlled by the government (Grrrr)).

---------------------------------------------------

So have we come to some kind of agreement regarding the Iraq war?  Do you think it wise for our governments to withdraw?  Would the chaos vacuum be a good or bad thing?  Does the lack of support by factions of our governments help or detract from the situation in Iraq?  Do you still think that our volunteer armies want to slaughter innocent civilians?  Would most enlistees re-sign if we were fighting an immoral war/slaughter?  Is Bush Satan’s spawn?

Do you think it wise for our governments to withdraw?  Would the chaos vacuum be a good or bad thing?

I don’t think that withdrawing at this stage would help anybody - it would be claimed as a victory by those committing terrorist acts, while they continued bombing the hell out of each other. Iraq as we know it would (probably) cease to exist, with the south of the country moving closer and closer to being annexed (probably with popular support) by Iran. In the center, their would probably be continued fighting and even ethnic cleansing. Warlords, like those seen in Afghanistan, would start coming out of the woodwork and the whole thing would probably turn into a right old shit-storm. In the North, it’s most likely that the Kurds would be relatively settled, but they’ve enjoyed a degree of stability since 1991. They’d probably declare all-out-war on Turkey.

Does the lack of support by factions of our governments help or detract from the situation in Iraq?

Without a doubt, our troops are there, they read, see and hear all that these spineless politicians have to say, when all they should be hearing is support for hard work in difficult conditions. However, even British politicians who have and still support the military action in Iraq (and Afghanistan), have at the same time been stripping the armed forces down to the bare minimum and leaving our troops (severely) under-equipped.

Do you still think that our volunteer armies want to slaughter innocent civilians?

Not a chance, there are rigourous measures in place to screen out psychotics at the enlistment stage and beyond. If a soldier gets kicks from killing or wounding innocent civilians, then s/he inevitably faces severe disciplinary action.

Would most enlistees re-sign if we were fighting an immoral war/slaughter?

Is this the case in the US? There are huge amounts of soldiers leaving the British Armed Forces, often because of the aforementioned equipment shortages.

Is Bush Satan’s spawn?

No. In his own way, he probably thinks he’s doing Gods’ will.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Do you still think that our volunteer armies want to slaughter innocent civilians?

Sorry, still? Was that directed at Geez ppl? I didn’t say that.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Sorry, still? Was that directed at Geez ppl? I didn’t say that.

::snicker:: Yeah ManOF’nL, the whole thing was kinda aimed at Geez PPL.  I forgot to say it at the break in the comment… I should have made them two separate comments. 

But I appreciate the responses!  Rational and logical, in my estimation, they are.

ManofFireandLight makes a claim, We knew, because Britain, France, Russia, and the US sold Saddam chemical and biological weapons and the materials to make them.

The United States didn’t. Those chemical weapons materials primarily came from France, Germany and Russia.

It might be tough to ween farmers from subsidies now… but they would just raise prices until they got enough to survive and the market would adjust, as it does for most everything else

D’ya think this might stop intensive farming and stockpiling?

Apart from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Chad, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Oman, Qatar, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. All dictatorships, where one man (as head of state) has ultimate control. Some have token assemblies, often introduced under US pressure, but rarely having any real power.

MOFAL, Point taken.  Forgot to comment on this during the grain topic change…

The United States didn’t. Those chemical weapons materials primarily came from France, Germany and Russia.

Thanks Lik… this was the other point I forgot about.

D’ya think this might stop intensive farming and stockpiling?

I’m not sure I know what you mean, Jeez PPL.

Removal of farm subsidies would result in the most efficient producers finally being the winners in that business.  The farming would become more intensive, because that’s the way to produce the most food per acre of land cultivated.  Duh.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

The United States didn’t. Those chemical weapons materials primarily came from France, Germany and Russia.

Apologies. Comment (re USA) retracted.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Removal of farm subsidies would result in the most efficient producers finally being the winners in that business.  The farming would become more intensive, because that’s the way to produce the most food per acre of land cultivated.

But would inevitably result in smaller farms being swallowed up. S’pose it isn’t such an issue in the US where there aren’t really small farms on the scale of Europe and developing countries. Also, the move away from intensive farming is probably not focussed on the US. In Britain, and throughout Europe, there is a move back towards locally sourced, less intensively farmed foods, as public confidence in intensive farming waivers, following numerous food related health scares.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Anyway, Geez ppl keeps taking us off topic. ADD?

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

But would inevitably result in smaller farms being swallowed up. Why the emotionally charged terminology? S’pose it isn’t such an issue in the US where there aren’t really small farms on the
scale of Europe and developing countries. Which is why our farming industry is more productive.  If small farms were more efficient and productive, there would be no reason for govt interference in the market.  The truth is, large, intensive farms are much better at producing food.  That’s the reality. Also, the move away from intensive farming is probably not focussed on the US. In Britain, and throughout Europe, there is a move back towards locally sourced, less intensively farmed foods, Clinging to the romantic ideal of small farms is nice as a hobby, but for food production, it just fails. as public confidence in intensive farming waivers, following numerous food related health scares. “Scares"; exactly.  It is the last gasp of socialism to force its utopian ideals on a populace that would not choose it, if free to do so.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

No emotional charge at all, projecting again Robert. Ultimately, there will always be a demand for intensive farming, but there will also always be a demand for locally sourced foods. It’s just a matter of personal choice.
It isn’t an attack on American Ideals, so don’t take it so personally.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

No emotional charge at all, projecting again Robert. Ultimately, there will always be a demand for intensive farming, but there will also always be a demand for locally sourced foods. It’s just a matter of personal choice.
It isn’t an attack on American Ideals, so don’t take it so personally.

When a farmer elects to sell his land to a more efficient operation, because it is more valuable to them than it is to him, that isn’t being “swallowed up”.  You use emotionally-charged terminology to describe a market decision.  Lie #1

If there is a demand for “locally-sourced foods"(which is, I take it, code for small farming, as large farms are also “local” somewhere), then those operations will succeed without subsidies to support them.  In any case, let the market decide.  Subisdies are not “a matter of personal choice”, btw.
You made the part up about an attack on American Ideals, and the fiction that I am taking your inaccuracies personally.  Lies #2 and #3.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Not lies, just a different terminology. Calling me a liar, is emotionally-charged however.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Saying that you lied is a matter of fact.  I didn’t call you a liar, which is something you made up.  Lie #4
I just tell the truth as I see it.  I’m either right or wrong, but in any case, it’s not emotional.  You can’t seem to understand that, probably because you are emotion-driven.  You see yourself reflected in the world around you, which is your subjective reality.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Stating that my perspective on a situation is a lie, is is wrong. Misconception might be better.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Also, by saying that I have lied, by a simple process of deduction, you imply that I am a liar.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Anyway, Geez ppl keeps taking us off topic. ADD?

And never answers the questions… SHEESH PPL…

Regarding farming.  There was a time when farming needed the largest segment of the workforce.  Productivity was crushed in feeding the population.  With new technology, we are able to feed more people with massively fewer workers.  This lowers the cost and increase the overall productivity of the population. 

There are risks, as with anything.  With fewer farmers, a problem with a crop could present a sever shortage.  We see this from time to time with Oranges in Florida… A bad freeze occurs… a hurricane… but the market responds by increasing costs which reduced demand… People switch to grapefruit… Or frozen orange juice…

---------------------------------------------------

I’m not seeing where MOFAL has been over emotional, Robert.  Compassion for the small business is a normal progression in the intellectual development cycle. 

Who was it that said “if you’re not a liberal in your 20’s, you have no heart, but if you’re not a conservative in your 40’s, you have no brain” - Churchill, I think.

You have inferred that; I never said it, and am not one for implication.  I say things straight out.  I hope your statements are the result of misconceptions; I never said anything about your perspective, only specific statements you made.
I do find it amusing that your emotional response was a result of my agreeing with you on the fundamental statement that sociology has led to prejudice; I only stated that it was a predetermined outcome.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I’m not seeing where MOFAL has been over emotional, Robert.  Compassion for the small business is a normal progression in the intellectual development cycle. His responses seem to be from the typical ego-centered perspective of the emotional.  It’s all about him, not the real subject of the discussion.  What I have written about farming has nothing whatsoever to do with “normal progression in the intellectual development cycle”; it’s about market forces and the most efficient and productive way to produce food. People who resist or deny this reality are generally having an emotional reaction to the real world.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

It is the last gasp of socialism to force its utopian ideals on a populace that would not choose it, if free to do so.

We are free to choose whether we want to source our food locally or not. Many choose not to, others do. It makes economic sense to buy ones food locally, because it hasn’t travelled as far and the transportation costs are not applied. Socialism and communism sought to have large farms providing food for the entire population, small privately owned farms are a direct contradiction to this ethos.
Large farms do not concentrate necessarily on quality, but on quantity of produce. Smaller farmers take more care with their produce, because they know their customers are more discerning.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

We are free to choose whether we want to source our food locally or not. Not when subsidies are involved. Many choose not to, others do. It makes economic sense to buy ones food locally, because it hasn’t travelled as far and the transportation costs are not applied. You deal with only one component of the final price, which explains why food from small farmers generally costs more, even with the subsidies. Socialism and communism sought to have large farms providing food for the entire population, small privately owned farms are a direct contradiction to this ethos. Command economies are not efficient; demand economies are. Your history is inaccurate, btw.
Large farms do not concentrate necessarily on quality, but on quantity of produce. Not necessarily true; just more mythology. Smaller farmers take more care with their produce, because they know their customers are more discerning.Not all small farmers are virtuous, just like all the American Indians weren’t peaceful warriors who never did anything wrong.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

R108, you state that intensive farming is more productive. I haven’t disagreed. I go for taste over size in my food, as do many Europeans. That was the crux of my statement. Do you want the whole world to be homogenous? Isn’t that a bit socialist?

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

His responses seem to be from the typical ego-centered perspective of the emotional.

I see the context of his thoughts to be more like someone who has been surrounded by liberal thinking all of their lives, but is open-minded and intellectual enough to examine other possibilities. 

The free market concept is less appealing to liberals because it lacks an air of instantaneous gratification.  Reason and logic of conservative principles usually win out once someone starts to look at the bigger picture.

My perspective is that MOFAL has simply not had a rational discussion about the principles that you and I take for granted.  He’s trying to reconcile our ideas with what he’s known for years. 

I could be completely wrong… but it’s the impression I get.

You could be right, Seth. Let’s continue this later, guys. I’ve got to go out. I’m already late.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

My perspective is that MOFAL has simply not had a rational discussion about the principles that you and I take for granted.  He’s trying to reconcile our ideas with what he’s known for years.

I certainly hope so, otherwise things will become boring rather quickly for me.  However, for me to assume what you say would be based on facts not yet in evidence.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I go for taste over size in my food, as do many Europeans. That was the crux of my statement. Do you want the whole world to be homogenous? Isn’t that a bit socialist?

Not at all.  In socialism, businesses have little or no incentive to produce a quality product because the state wipes out competition.  Large growers still compete with other large growers by raising quality/lowering price. 

There will always be a segment of the populous that prefers rare products, or products that have been individually handled… this segment will just have to pay more for the product than if they bought from a large producer.

R108, you state that intensive farming is more productive. It’s a fact. I haven’t disagreed. I go for taste over size in my food, as do many Europeans. That was the crux of my statement. Do you want the whole world to be homogenous? Isn’t that a bit socialist? I want people to have the choice to eat whatever they want, if they are willing to pay the price for it.  “Organic” food is widely available in this country, and people pay higher prices for it.  If the demand is there, it will be supplied. What I don’t support is social engineering in the form of subsidies to prop up certain farming practices.  It could be that without the subsidies, organic food would be too expensive for people to buy.  We just don’t know.  I’m the farthest thing from a socialist.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I certainly hope so, otherwise things will become boring rather quickly for me.  However, for me to assume what you say would be based on facts not yet in evidence.

I may be being presumptuous… and I could be wrong… I’d rather err on the side of trying to enlighten than berate.

I’d rather err on the side of trying to enlighten than berate.

Those aren’t my only choices.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Those aren’t my only choices.

I wasn’t trying to limit your choices.  I was creating a scale with two extremes.

But if you like I can limit the conversation… or maybe your choice is to be obtuse…

Whatever… (shrug) I plan to sign off and go watch Rome.

SY: I seem to have ruffled your feathers.  I should have said right out that I am for remaining neutral until sufficient evidence is in.  That would have been clearer.  I apologize.  I don’t do well with presumption, either in myself or from others.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I’m with yah, man.  It’s cool.  I saw funny obnoxiousness and pointed it out. 

But you could lighten up a little… I don’t recall you as so dower.

There will always be a segment of the populous that prefers rare products, or products that have been individually handled… this segment will just have to pay more for the product than if they bought from a large producer.

Of which I am one, however I can often get products cheaper than the large stores, because I buy locally.
The products - dairy, fruit, vegetables, meat do not pass through so many pairs of hands each getting their cut. The farmers can work with higher overheads and still make profit.

Farming in Britain, is in dire straits. With new countries joining the EU, the farming subsidy system has been reformed, with subsidies going now to farmers on the basis of farmed land, rather than on value of crop. Only the larger farms can survive, unless they diversify into niche markets. The growth of organic foods in this country has come at just the right time for our farms. The farmers who often struggle are those that supply the