MonteZuma

You can't compare this invasion with WW2. The politics of the two are completely different. You seem to assume that this type of 'war' in Iraq was inevitable. I don't share that !@#$%^&*umption. How many people do you think would have been killed if the invasion of Iraq didn't happen and the World continued to seek out of political solution, or at least a less bloody military solution? Do you really think that what is happening in Iraq now is a best case scenario? I don't.

If those pictures are jokes, I sure as -*BAD WORD*- don't get it? What is the funny punchline? Pictures change everything. There is something very different about seeing people wounded and killed in horrible accidents, and seeing people wounded and killed by weapons. I feel sorry for anyone who wasn't shocked by some of those pictures. Anyone with an intact set of emotions would feel something.

AFAIK, the only element of the flag that was influenced by Hussein was the words "God is Great". The rest was there before. Many muslims already think that this is a religious war - or a war against Arabs. What are they thinking removing "God is Great", removing symbols of Arab unity (the colours) and unveiling it in the the same colours as the flag of Israel? Way to inspire more hatred. GG -nt- The only thing that they could've done that would make things worse is make this the flag: http://mirror.media.canada.com/idl/otct/20040502/236931-65877.jpg The flag of Iraq (or at least the need to change it) should be decided by referenda.

http://flagspot.net/images/i/iq.gif Why does the flag need to be changed?

Cowardly isn't quite the right word for these militants or terrorists or whatever they are. A rag-tag group of ill-equipped and ill-trained people against the might of the US military is hardly an act of cowardice. Is it brave to stand up wearing rags and use a pea-shooter against a friggin tank? They do what they think they have to do. Regardless of how futile, counter-productive, reprehensible or immoral it is. But it is hardly cowardly. Oh...and just because there are reasons behind the actions of those torturers (frustration - as you put it). That doesn't make it justifiable. Who know...maybe we would do the same thing if we were in the same situation....But whatever...It sure as -*BAD WORD*- wouldnt be justifiable. and WTF? Walk in his shoes? What do you mean by that? You think I can't judge someone who tortures another person until I do it myself? BS. I will judge whoever I want, whenever i want. If it was an Iraqi torturing an American I'm sure as -*BAD WORD*- you would've judged them in a flash. And the American government's response would be harsh and brutal and there would be a -*BAD WORD*- of a lot of "collateral" damage. Its a double standard. Clearly those soldiers thought that their -*BAD WORD*- didn't stink anywhere near as much as the people they tortured. The problem with people like you is that you think the only type of action that matters is action involving force. Force didn't work in Iraq. Force has made matters worse. "Talk" would've been much more productive. I guess that is what Blix was on about all along. As for control...The US has NEVER had control in Iraq. The US might never have control either.

Now what about these pictures of Iraqis being tortured and humiliated by US soldiers? These are war crimes. Are Americans really any different to Iraqis? maybe some are worse? I suspect that by dehumanising their enemy, the US has dehumanised some of their own soldiers. Those soldiers behaved like animals. Disgusting. The repurcussions of this for captured coalition forces and hostages could be bad. Real bad. As ugly as the photos are in the original post, they certainly help put a human face back on this war. PS I notice that this story has already been buried at cnn.com. Is CNN a US propaganda machine or what? It is still front page news (where it belongs) on the BBC, ABC (Australia) websites and even CBS websites. Although I note that even CBS didn't broadcast the story until the pictures leaked out elsewhere. They were told not to by the US government. Free press in the US my -*BAD WORD*-. http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40098000...18_myrie_vi.ram

European women are fine. They just need to shave their armpits.

Humans are not totally monogomous. Biological evidence of this is in the size of human testicles, which are bigger than gorilla's testicles. I tend to believe that there is a 'science of marriage'. The different way human male and female bodies and brains function gives each sex complementary features. Men and women generally work well together in a healthy community. Having children was somewhat innevitable before contraception and important before superannuation and pensions to care for the elderly. Human offspring take a long time to become independent. A bond of some kind is necessary to make sure that the child can survive. The bond can involve a nuclear family or a community. Divorce has become more common in the last 30 years because the 'nuclear' bond is now less important. Government (ie community) provides support for single parents through welfare payments, etc. Marriage and related aspects can definitely be scientifically investigated.

ABC (Australia) radio

Society decides the age of consent. Rape is not the only thing that is wrong. If some 13 or 14yo girl wants to have sex, it is wrong to accept. End of story. Most 14yos don't know what they want. And they don't know what is good for them. Obviously the correct mental age varies from person to person. For some people it is probably about 30. But we have an age of consent for practical reasons. We have speed limits that don't vary according to driving ability. You have to draw a line somewhere. There are ages of consent for gambling and watching porn. Fwiw I think the age of consent for everything should be 18.

Kids haven't much wisdom and few are capable of good judgement when it comes to decisions about sex. Thats why we have and need an age of consent. It doesn't matter what kind of sex, hetero or homo...virtually all 14yos in modern western civilisations do not have the lifeskills to give informed consent. A lot of kids get totally screwed up by adults who talk them into 'consensual' sex. Lock up anyone who takes avantage of kids. The FBI need a copy of this thread so they know whose computers to tap.

WTF? The highest stat I ever earn was 1 in 7. Seems unreal to me too, but I guess it depends on your definition of homosexual. I'm sure homosexuality is more common than 1 in 300. How can you know 300 people without knowing someone who is homosexual?

100% of people have an appendix and yet it has no significance to human survival. The opposite in fact.

Thats what I keep saying. The bottom 10% isn't living off minimum wage. We've already covered that. Half of the bottom 10% are unemployed. Half of the rest are living off part time jobs. The rest work full time and earn a pittance. For low income earners (not just minimum wage earners) a small wage increase is very significant. For the economy, it means 50% of 50% of 10% of sweet FA.

The US federal minimum wage was introduced in late 1938. The minimum wage increased by 20% one year later. Yet in 1939 the inflation rate decreased from -1% to -2%. There were no increases in federal minimum wages until 1945 and yet inflation skyrocketed to +10.5% in 1942. In 1945 the federal minimum wage increase 30% and yet inflation increased only +6.5% from 2% to 8.5% The next minimum wage increase was in early 1950 when it increased a whopping 90%. In 1950 the inflation rate was 1.5% and 8% in 1951, but dropped back to 2% in 1952. In the 1970s minimum wage increases were exactly in line with inflation. The cost of VietNam and the Oil embargo, and the effect of these on business confidence, were bigger contributors to inflation than minimum wage rates. Inflation in the US has steadily declined since 1990 despite minimum wage increases in 1990, 1991, 1996, 1997 and more recently. Clearly, even if there is a link between minimum wage increases and inflation, the impact is minimal and temporary. And clearly workers on low wages are better off even if inflation is totally responsible for inflation increases (which it isn't) and even if they bare the full inflationiary impact (which I doubt). Inflation is caused by lots of things. Wage increases for the poorest 10% of society is insignificant.

Heh. Indeed. That is truely the work of a statistical genius. Dav. Higher pay for a small segment of the community does not necessarily result in inflation. I suspect that the wages of low-income earners are a relatively small portion of the cost of most goods and services. The spectre of inflation is no reason to make people live in poverty in a wealthy nation. As Bargeld says, it is possible to find creative solutions.

The stats in the second link are filled with bias and false !@#$%^&*umptions. I could pick apart many of those stats... Most basically, almost all of these stats conveniently ignore people who earn $0.05 or so per hour more than the minum wage rate. As we both agree (for different reasons), the minimum wage is political BS. The real issue should be poverty. I suspect that raising the minimum wage also raises incomes for other low income earners who are paid above minimum wage rates, but still live at or near the poverty line. Some random observations: "Teenage unemployment rose sharply when the minimum wage was increased from $3.35 to $4.25 in 1990 and 1991." This unemployment was linked to the recession, not minimum wage increases. The recession was caused by the credit crunch, which was not related to wages at all. "...the unemployment rate for nonwhites is about twice the rate for whites, and changes in the unemployment rate for nonwhites closely parallels changes in the real minimum wage." This is clever misuse of statistics. Yes. When there was little or no social security and no protection for workers then people did work for peanuts and allow themselves to be exploited. Today there are safety nets that protect people. Social security is one of those safety nets. Unemployment sucks but it is far better than living a hand to mouth existance and being simultaneously worked to death. "The minimum wage reduces on-the-job training opportunities that allow low-skilled, low-income workers to rise up the job ladder out of poverty. " -*BAD WORD*-. Being trained to wash dishes and serve fries does not allow low-skilled, low-income workers to rise up the job ladder out of poverty. We don't need to create minimum wage jobs. We need to create real jobs that can sustain families. Education and training should have little or nothing to do with minimum wages. "Evidence demonstrates a link between minimum wage increases and the recessions of 1990-91 and 1974-75. " What evidence? Minimum wage rates at that time increased in line with inflation. Inflation was very high in the 70s. Real minimum wages didn't increase much if any. As for 1990...the credit crunch. Bah...This could go on forever. I don't have the time to destroy every 'fact'. Here are some stats of mine..."71% of minimum wage workers are actually adults, almost half are full-time workers, and 58% are in families at the bottom of the income scale." random source Socialism isn't the way to go. Socially responsible capitalism is the best system we have for the moment. The US system is clearly socially irresponsible.

Well thats a good thing

I don't need you to tell me to look deeper than the surface. I've had direct exposure to a wider demographic spectrum than you will ever understand. I lived in a family that subsisted at or below the poverty line for over a decade. I haven't forgotten what it was like. It sucked. You make smartarsed remarks about paying $2,000 per hour and giving away convertables, but there are families who's net worth is <$2000 who don't even own a friggin car. Say whatever you want about those people and how they got there, but paying $6 per hour is sure as -*BAD WORD*- not gonna get them out. Believe it or not people ARE living off the minimum wage and less - somehow. You don't think ironing shirts is a real job? Try doing it for 8 hours a day. Some people do. In general, low wage earners don't get shafted when the minimum wage increases. We still need people to wash dishes in restaurants, iron our shirts, patrol our carparks and make and serve our fries. That need doesn't change whatever the minimum wage is. These people don't get shafted because every other employer in that industry must pay the same minimum wage. Will you stop buying fries if the price goes up $0.05? Take away the minimum wage and workers are totally at the mercy of supply and demand. People are not commodities that should be traded and bought for the lowest price like bananas. Paying $8 per hour won't make your economy collapse. But it may result in a better workforce and fairer distribution of wealth.

Yes...it is BS, but who do you think 'hurts' more? Business owners or adults earning $6.25 per hour? Anybody working full-time in anything resembling a normal job deserves more than that. You can't live off that money. Jesus. How can anyone begrudge $8 per hour in the wealthiest nation on Earth????? Aside from issues of morality and ethics, paying people wages that keep them in poverty has a high social cost and an indirect economic cost. Poverty (in particular inequality), social problems and crime are directly related. If I earned $6 per hour, I'd be pissed off at the world. Treat people like 2nd class citizens and they will act like 2nd class citizens. I'd vote for Kerry. Kerry's lies sound much better for America and Americans than Bush's lies.

Some women do. I know a young heterosexual woman with a gay brother. She is disgusted by the thought of lesbian activity.

30% of nothing is still nothing, so that increase wont hurt businesses much at all. US$6.25 per hour is absolute exploitation that can't be justified in the US or any other wealthy country.

The number of 'hidden' unemployed probably outnumber the people in the official unemployment figures.

Bacchus...I tend to agree with everything you say....There are biological/neurological reasons why some people have homosexual desires/tendencies and its kinda unfair to walk all over these peoples access to the same kinds of rights that the majority of the community enjoy... But....I also think that it is a natural human condition for most people to be repulsed (even disgusted) by the very thought of homosexual sex. I think that for most people there is no sexual attraction to the same sex at all. In fact the opposite applies. There are sound biological and probably anthropological reasons for that. Anything that attempts to present homosexuality as having equal morality and decency as heterosexuality is always gonna be controversial. Most people aren't programmed to think like a homosexual person and will never understand. I sure as -*BAD WORD*- don't understand.

I don't think that all people in the western world think that all muslims are extremists. But many muslims (I think millions) obviously support the actions of islamic terrorists. They even call them martyrs.