Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Uh-oh, world in trouble

  1. Oct 28, 2005 #1
    Here we go, folks... heads low; who's next?
    Just 'the first great war', huh? Boy, was Orwell ever right!

    EDIT: Bets, anyone? I'm thinking... Syria, perhaps. That seems to be what things are hyping up towards from what I've seen in the news of late. What does everyone else think?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 28, 2005 #2
    Ugh. I think I'm going to move to Europe.
    I'm still in shock that the American Public is stupid enough to re-elect this moron. :mad:

    I guarentee you Bush is eyeballing several other countries for war, and as soon as gets an opportunity to get the American public to agree with him (or he "manufactures" another reason) He'll attack some other country... with your childrens lives at stake.

    I promise you if there is ever another draft and they come for my son... theres going to some bullets flying in Phoenix.

    He wants Iran & Syria for sure.
     
  4. Oct 28, 2005 #3
    I just think he's going down so fast that he'll have real problems with any more wars.

    He had 90% approval after 9/11.

    He blew it. His approval is plummeting to new lows.

    I think the next three years are mostly going to be him being angry and getting nothing done. No wars, no draft, more people want a pull out of Iraq than not - and the incumbents for 2006 know that. They won't support military action, at least not anything involving a lot more troops.

    But I'm usually wrong on this kind of stuff. So who knows.
     
  5. Oct 28, 2005 #4

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Bush has bigger things to worry about than Syria. There isn't going to be another war any time in the foreseeable future. Libby just got indicted and there's still a Supreme Court vacancy, then a decent chance that at least one house of Congress makes a significant democratic shift next year. Something really needs to be done about the domestic oil problems, too - lack of refinery capacity, high prices. Even Bill O'Reilly was pissed at the record profits, saying that Exxon, et al had "taken profit off of the backs of the working man."
     
  6. Oct 28, 2005 #5
    DAMN ... That's practically a communist slogan!!! Do you think O'Reilly is going native to avoid the chop if the general public shifts to the left?

    A lot of conservatives are 'truck drivers' and 'rural folk' with a high reliance on gasoline... 'Working men' (kinda sexist but Bill has to take it one step at a time I suppose.) who don't give a damn who dies in foreign countries as long as they are using guns and killing 'visible' [instert epithet here] but mess with their livlihoods and there's H-E-doublehockeysticks to pay.
     
  7. Oct 28, 2005 #6

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Profits Likely Won't Mean New Refineries

    or maybe this should go in the "What's wrong with capitalism thread". :biggrin:
     
  8. Oct 28, 2005 #7
    Of course doesn't capitalism rely upon competition in the marketplace to set prices?

    When you get organizations like OPEC et al., how can anyone say this is capitalism built on competition and the 'supply and demand' theory of ecconomics?

    What do you call that ... it isn't capitalism ... it isn't communism or socialism.

    And yet, since we need oil for EVERYTHING it underpines/mines everything by default.
     
  9. Oct 28, 2005 #8

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed


    Marx would have called that the internal contradictions of capitalism. The free market is 50% a fantasy; many more prices are "administered" than its fans like to believe.
     
  10. Oct 28, 2005 #9
    Uhh, am I the only one who see's this as just saying it's the first great war, not even thinking about further wars, just that this is a big war?
     
  11. Oct 28, 2005 #10
    [edit]Greater than WWII?[/edit]

    See reference to George Orwell. In the OP. It is the beginning of an endless war, where the enemies will change, and history will be re-written, while Haliburton rakes in the contracts.:tongue2:

    I am not going to fight it. Going to get me a job at Haliburton and be a rich capitalist.

    NOT!
     
  12. Oct 28, 2005 #11

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Aren't you already a contractor?
     
  13. Oct 28, 2005 #12
    How's the War George?

    "Great!!!" he replied.

    So just what does he mean by 'Great'?

    Fun?
     
  14. Oct 28, 2005 #13
    Not for Halliburton.

    Halliburton gets paid like $3000 a day for contractors in Iraq.

    Care to guess how many of those contractors are Nepalese who thought they were going to work in Jordan?

    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1017-25.htm
     
  15. Oct 28, 2005 #14
    Okay ... as amazing and as nasty as that story is:

    There was mention at the cessation of hostilities that there was a 40-50% unemployment rate in Iraq and Halliburton was bringing in Filipinos to do this type of work.

    Does anyone have new numbes?

    Has Halliburton put all of the Iraqis to work that it can or have they just gone for a new source of cheap labour?
     
  16. Oct 28, 2005 #15
    Last I heard the Iraqi's are finding work as insurgents.
     
  17. Oct 28, 2005 #16
    It's coming to the point that usually concerned but not involved people like myself are starting to think: "how can we stop this madman?" and "where can I get a gun".
     
  18. Oct 29, 2005 #17
    Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
     
  19. Oct 29, 2005 #18

    Lisa!

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    yomamma's signature!:tongue:
     
  20. Oct 29, 2005 #19

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I know. You are a capitalist, though. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Maybe if one of your friends gets elected mayor, you can get a little mini-racket going; Halliburton lite.
     
  21. Oct 30, 2005 #20

    meL

    User Avatar

    Managing resources globally
    is the only useful activity
    of the heads of state.

    Isn't simplicity fun??
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Uh-oh, world in trouble
  1. Bush = Churchill? uh (Replies: 3)

Loading...