FMBI

Right now, Exxon alone (OMG! VEG WHERE ARE YOU! I MENTIONED OIL COMPANIES!) has a revenue of around 3% of the US GDP - Wal-Mart has a similar share - there are around a dozen more US companies whose annual revenues exceed 100 billion. A few decades ago, we broke up Bell, and now AT&T is Bell. Now, regardless of the tax issue and all that, that is a massive portion of the economy that these companies control, and that's not even taking into account all the European and Asian companies that make most of their money in the US. Why, you may ask, am I bringing all of this oh-so-obvious material up? Because there has been absolutely no public concern about this. Anyone who does have concerns is promptly labeled paranoid (even though the ones labeling them paranoid generally believe that the EU is satanic and the UN exists solely so Muslims can take over the US, but that's another story). A handful of companies can make or break the US economy, in ways that were inconceivable a short time ago, and they are, through mergers and acquisitions (which are, by the way, though complete failures, not giving way to smaller companies through "creative destruction" for the most part - a worrying failure of libertarian predictions), expanding their share even more. Give it another decade, and I'd be willing to predict that 10 companies will control 20% of the US economy. And if there has been no outcry so far (most people are just thrilled to get those "Low Low Prices"), how can you expect it to happen in the future, when people are less and less well off (as I'm sure you know, a smaller middle class means less political activity)? Nobody will be able to do a thing about it at that point, and, sadly, most people won't even care. It'll be a return to the good old days of the banana republics, except this time corporations won't be limited to the US as a welfare base - sure, Europe will be pissed off at first, but as long as Deutschbank and London get in on the action, I'm sure they'll find a way to accept the new reality. Also, Ail.. While I mentioned Africa as a good example, there are many other countries which are just as dependent on multinats. Take, for example, that bane of the media's existence, China. For every dollar China gets in revenue from building crap for our kids (and grown-up kids), the companies doing the trade make 10 or 20. The world's second largest (PPP) economy is just as easy to dominate as a backwater state like Sierra Leone, as long as you have the right economic model. Which we do. Get an immature economy to export raw goods or cheap labor, while making it too expensive for them to develop an advanced economy on their own, thus linking them irrevocably to the more advanced economy whenever they need high technology or increased productivity.

I never mentioned Iran. The only way Iran would get involved was if the US became involved (which you seem to assume would happen), in which case Iraq would see a massive increase in violence within a day or two - and by massive, I mean 15 suicide bombings a day, suicidal base raids, very angry anti-tank missile armed populace, open Iranian intervention massive. The US and Israel have the same problem (not surprising, since both militaries have influenced each other so heavily) - great for a quick, clear-cut fight, but in a long-term fight, or one against a spread-out (or multiple) enemies, we suck. That's the #1 reason I'm betting on the Arabs if the Levant ever gets hot again. All they have to do is hold Israel down, and they can get in all the punches they want. It's also why I'm so certain Israel needs a political solution, because they're either going to have one while they're standing up, or while they're lying on the floor getting the !@#$%^&* kicked out of them in 10 years. Of course, if Israel's really desperate to win a war, they can just take inspiration from the old colonial powers or the USSR - they had militaries that could be adapted to a long-term occupation against diffuse enemies, and they didn't even have to kill thousands of civilians (though that was part of the job perk - you could mow down the inferior peoples of the world). However, until that adaption ability comes into play, then it's going to just be too difficult and risky to take too many offensive political steps. This is a reversal of the old situation, where no-war-no-peace benefited the Israelis more than the Arabs. Viva Ironica! (or whatever the word is)

2pac, take your !@#$%^&*ty animations elsewhere.

True, true, Lynx. I generally dislike John Reed's articles because they show bias and simplistic thinking, but I believe this one might be illuminating.

Astro, I think you're putting too much stock in Israel for several reasons. #1 - Israel's military is completely dependent on outside aid for a long (more than a week or so) war. #2 - Israel's military is still extremely dependent on armoured warfare, despite the fact that everyone west of the Euphrates has an!@#$%^&*ank weapons (and, via Syria, RPG-29s). #3 - Israel hasn't fought the Arabs in 35 years, during which time Egypt's population has doubled. Maybe its military is "only as good as Israel's" despite having a much larger population, but that larger population means they can throw away as many reserves as they need - again, giving them the advantage in a longer war. #4 - Israel may not be a paper tiger, but it is not nearly as strong as the west tends to view it. In the potential war I refer to, it would have to fight on four fronts, with an immediately active force of 180,000, and unreliable reserves. Also - the USSR is dead, but Russia, Ukraine, China, re-export states, and arms dealers would be ready to supply the Arabs in return for money or political influence, whichever they wanted more. Israel couldn't control Gaza during a war, because they would be taking on a combo professional force and popular opposition with a relatively small detachment of troops. It's a lot easier to control an area when you aren't in a war (thus inspiring the opposition forces and simultaneously weakening your capacity to respond). I would be willing to bet that Hamas has some sort of plan ready to exploit a gap like this. Hezbollah, if it came out into the open, would rely on a purely unconventional engagement style to survive. It would also spread out as much as possible, to make it impossible for Israel to actually lock it down without diverting massive portions of its military to the cause - not worth it to save a few civvies, military outposts, or square miles of prestige land. You wrongly assume Egypt would collapse in a war. It would be under pressure, but it would also actually gain strength, because the leadership would be able to take on the anti-Israeli banner and steal the thunder of the Islamists. So long as they ensured secularism post-war, they'd enjoy one of the biggest popularity boosts in their history. Let me say this again - Israel cannot survive a long war, Israel cannot survive a combined assault. This time, Egypt will be able to push directly into southern Israel and have a shot at occupying Tel Aviv - if that happens, a victory for Israel will be impossible. Israeli Jews might have a high birth rate, but who has that birth rate? The ultra-Orthodox nuts that contribute nothing to the military if they're inducted. As always, the secular population has the best education, is most effective militarily, but also has the lowest birthrate. Also, the Arab birthrate might be "slowing down," but it's still insanely high compared to Israel's. I find your Jerusalem argument flawed because Israel only pulled out of Gaza when it found itself running into problems. If Israel pulls out of East Jerusalem, it won't suddenly generate problems, only continue the general trend. Besides, why can't they just internationalize it, as most people have been asking for decades? All the Palestinians will not be able to return, no, but a large number could move back into the West Bank and take back land that the Israelis have been using for the last few decades for settlements. Obviously getting the West Bank as crowded as Gaza isn't a good idea, but nobody's saying that has to happen. As far as the "wouldn't let them integrate" argument, that's partly true, and partly pro-Israel BS. Israel had no intention of ever letting them come back, and several of the Arab countries were suffering large political problems in the past that wouldn't allow them to suddenly take on large minority populations. While that's waned in recent years, they also have greater populations of their own now. I'm sure they would find it easier to integrate the remaining populations if some Palestinians were allowed to move to Palestine. I don't know why you keep raising the Cyprus argument, because it doesn't apply here. Greece was ruled by a US-backed military government that planned to annex Cyprus. Turkey might have manipulated the situation, but it's not like they were just invading for the !@#$%^&* of it. Besides, that event helped move Greece toward democracy and calm down the east Mediterranean. And you had nothing to gain from refusing to take them in, whereas the other Arab countries would have had an extremely difficult time and would have gained nothing.

I disagree with that, because if a corporation (or group of corporations) is economically dominating a state (as is the case in many African countries right now, which are yoked to corporations for export income), then it can place demands on that state to use its military to enhance the corporation's goals, in return for some economic benefit. To use an example, suppose that a corporation is involved heavily in two South American countries. Let's say one of them attempts to kick the corporation out, but the corporation is unwilling to give up the income. Therefore, it talks to its other client state, and convinces them to conduct limited military action against the interests of the other nation, while stopping short of an all-out war. Eventually the other state (which does not have economic backing) will be forced to give in, and the corporation will have further cemented its "rule" over both nations. Corporations are very well placed for this kind of thing, because they can use both carrots and sticks, without fearing serious retribution once they reach a certain size. Unlike in the cold war, where there was always a balancing threat, finance and multinational corporations can exist anywhere and hide their !@#$%^&*ets in any country. There's really no way to take them out, short of freezing !@#$%^&*ets and getting international agreement - which is unlikely, and will be more so in the coming decades, when "peak oil" and other factors combine to weaken traditional states.

Uh, yeah. You get a military avatar just to have a military avatar, I use the same avatar just to make fun of you, and suddenly you're accusing me of impersonating a military member? Dare I say LOL?

lol root. Well, I completely finished the surveys, and found that, after giving out my Wyoming and Oregon addresses a few dozen times, you end up with absolutely nothing - it just leaves you at a dead end. edit - Root, the vid doesn't work, according to a guy who managed to go all the way.

Also, I tried the "quick-pic" option (enter e-mail, etc) and found, as I expected, that it's a load of !@#$%^&*. You have to give all your info (or, in my case, all your fake info) several times, and sign up multiple offers. In other words, don't bother with the site.

Ah, mb. Nice catch, root. I'll edit the original post. I was using the ref one on SS for the !@#$%^&* of it, forgot to change it.

Link Pretty funny how they're doing this, whoever they are. Basically, you go to the site, it gives you a link, and if you get people to click a link [As Root mentions, was ref link.. sorry to anyone who clicked this one before] you get "points" towards NSFW pics. It's quite gay. If the mods feel this is over the top, feel free to take it down. But I figured I'd put it up here, because it's universal in SS (and other forums I've seen) by now.

Man, what's wrong with your comp? O_o

EPILEPSY..........................

Is it wrong to lol?

On the other hand, Wells also predicted the renewed caste-ification (if that's a word) of society, which doesn't seem far off the mark, especially because of future genetic modification technology. Anyone with the money will be able to become nearly immortal, while the majority of the world's population will be left worse off than they were pre-industrialization. Doesn't sound so absurd to me.

Link Oops.. I could've sworn that as long as the liberals didn't sabotage the war, we could easily defeat terrorist groups worldwide using our strong and proud armed forces.

Oh no, guys! JDS's name has been hacked by Skywize!!

I'd sooner sleep with a Frenchie than with an Anglie, FYI.

Pickle, I'll consider giving you points if you promise not to screw up the !@#$%^&*le.. again..

They did not "allow" Israel to become a country, they forced Israel into existence. Also, the conditions I listed are generally accepted as sufficient, by everyone from western analysts to Arab-on-the-street polls. Uhh.. I said that Iran would only use Hezbollah if we attacked Iran. Thanks for repeating what I said?

1) We considered that unacceptable because the USSR was installing puppet authoritarian governments, and ignoring the popular will. I'd say the same thing happened in Palestine, because the vast majority of the population slowly watched their rights weakened, and then, in 1948, almost eliminated. 2) The British also "owned" South Africa, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Australia, Canada, Iraq, Jordan, Cyprus, Kuwait, South Yemen, Oman, the Trucial States, British Somaliland, Nigeria, Gold Coast, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Rhodesia, North Rhodesia, Malawi, Bechuanaland, Namibia, British Guiana, Ireland, and Hong Kong, among other minor colonies. But I don't recall them installing foreign governments in any of them.. except for South Africa.. which was internationally hated for decades.. But we know Israel was nothing like South Africa, so it's all good. 3) I personally regard that as Truman's biggest jerk moment. It makes the steel mill debacle look relatively good. He sacrificed the next 60 years (and, most likely the next 10 or 20 from here) to get a little political support. !@#$%^&*. 4) You know how the conservatives always like to point out cases where Muslim nutcases denounce "ANTI-ISLAMIC SENTIMENTS"? Well, guess what, now any time someone says anything about Israel those same conservatives call it "ANTI-SEMITIC SENTIMENTS". It's almost funny, except for the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe it.

Not at all true Finland. Nor have I ever said such a thing. Not so good at that whole deductive reasoning thing are you? Never once did I say I support or don't support Palestinian action against Israel. I was pointing out that your concept of the "Right-way" was inferring that the Israeli's should just hand over their land. The only things I have said are I didn't support was Iran arming Hezbollah in a manner to try to blackmail us into not enforcing sanctions, that Hezbollah started the 2006 war and that the Israeli's have a problem with the Arabs hating them more than they hate us. I could honestly care less who occupies the land. If Palestine invaded Israel tomorrow and took it over, I'd say more power to Palestine. I didn't say that. However, the only way the Israelis will get to keep their state intact at all will be to retreat to the 1948 borders and accept Palestinian de jure independence. Otherwise they're screwed. Hezbollah has nothing to do with the sanctions. Iran would only use Hezbollah if we actually declared war on Iran. I still disagree with your !@#$%^&*essment of the war. The Israelis do have a problem with the Arabs hating them, but the Arabs hate the state, not the people. Most Arabs just want an actual political settlement for once, rather than more of Israel playing for time while it cries about the big bad Arabs. You reverse yourself yet again. First the Arabs are "persecuting" Israel, and now you don't care if Palestine completely takes over Israel? wtf? Let me explain further what I mean by a settlement, since you seem to interpret it as an insistence that they all fly to NYC or something. * Israel ends settlement building * Israel retreats to 1948 borders * Israel ends blockade of Gaza * Israel either seriously backs Fatah, or else recognizes Hamas * Israel enforces discipline among troops (no more hushed up civilian killings in peacetime) * Israel provides "get off the ground" aid to Palestinians, especially in Gaza * Israel signs a permanent peace with Syria None of those things could cause a strategic disaster for Israel in any way, shape, or form. Plus, taking out the primary casus belli for future aggression would destroy support for the vast majority of Islamic terrorists. So once more.. If you truly support Israel, then you support a peaceful settlement along these lines. If you don't support Israel, then you act like CUFI and wait for 95% of Israel's population to die in a future war.

Maybe he's like Samson.. if you cut his mustache off he loses all his strength. But to cut it off, we'll have to find a girl to volunteer... Hmm.. -looks at Audry-

-cough- How do you make an emo sad? Spoiler! --Click here to view--How don't you make an emo sad? Yeah, yeah, I know, it was obvious.

I'm not sure which is funnier, the picture or the magnitude of misunderstanding.