PDA

View Full Version : Who is a Terrorist?-25 quotes



patfromlogan
7th February 03, 03:45 PM
U.S. Must Face the Truth: Know Who is The Terrorist
25 Classic Quotes on Western Hegemony
by "TruthTeller"



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


"It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in."
-General Colin Powell [When asked about the number of Iraqi people who were slaughtered by Americans in the 1991 "Desert Storm" terror campaign (200,000 people!)]

"I will never apologize for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are."
-President George Bush 1988 [Bush was demonstrating his patriotism by excusing an act of cold-blooded mass-murder by the U.S. Navy. On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial airliner. All 290 civilian people in the aircraft were killed. The plane was on a routine flight in a commercial corridor in Iranian airspace. The targeting of it by the U.S. Navy was blatantly illegal. That it was grossly immoral is also obvious. Except to a patriot.]

"To maintain this position of disparity (U.S. economic-military supremacy)... we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming.... We should cease to talk about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standard and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.... The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
-George Kennan [Director of Policy Planning U.S. State Department 1948]

"If they turn on the radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs (surface-to-air missiles). They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need."
-U.S. Brig. General William Looney (Interview Washington Post, August 30, 1999) [Referring, in reality, to the brutal murder of hundreds of civilian Iraqi men, women and children during 10,000 sorties by American/British war criminals in the first eight months of 1999]

"The greatest crime since World War II has been U.S. foreign policy."
-Ramsey Clark [Former U.S. Attorney General under President Lyndon Johnson]

"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World] nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the 'haves' refuse to share with the 'have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."
-General David Sharp [Former United States Marine Commandant 1966]

"We have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. Our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and maintain social stability for our investments. This tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and Peru. Increasingly the role our nation has taken is the role of those who refuse to give up the privileges and pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment."
-Martin Luther King, Jr. ["A Time to Break the Silence" speech given at Riverside Church New York City April 4, 1967]

"Death squads have been created and used by the CIA around the world - particularly the Third World - since the late 1940s, a fact ignored by the elite-owned media."
-Ralph McGehee [Former CIA analyst & Author] CIABASE; The Crisis of Democracy Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA

"The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security equipment and training to governments and armed groups that have committed torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries around the world."
-Amnesty International ["United States of America - Rights for All" October 1998]

"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
-Woodrow Wilson [U.S. President during World War I]

"We must become the owners, or at any rate the controllers at the source, of at least a proportion of the oil which we require."
- British Royal Commission, agreeing with Winston Churchill's policy towards Iraq, 1913

"What we want to have in existence, what we ought to have been creating in this time is some administration with Arab institutions which we can safely leave while pulling the strings ourselves; something that won't cost very much, which the Labour government can swallow consistent with its' principles, but under which our economic and political interests will be secure. [.....] If the French remain in Syria we shall have to avoid giving them the excuse of setting up a protectorate. If they go, or if we appear to be reactionary in Mesopotamia, there is always the risk that [King] Faisal will encourage the Americans to take over both, and it should be borne in mind that the Standard Oil company is very anxious to take over Iraq."
- Sir Arthur Hirtzel, Head of the British government's 'India Office Political Department.' 1919

"If war aims are stated which seem to be solely concerned with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world. The interests of other peoples should be stressed. This would have a better propaganda effect."
- Private memo from The Council of Foreign Relations to the U.S. State Department, 1941

"Our strategic and security interests throughout the world will be best safeguarded by the establishment in suitable spots of 'Police Stations', fully equipped to deal with emergencies within a large radius. Kuwait is one such spot from which Iraq, South Persia, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf could be controlled. It will be worthwhile to go to considerable trouble and expense to establish and man a 'Police Station' there."
- British Foreign Office, policy memo, 1947

"We have about 60% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its' population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
- George Kennan, former Head of the U.S. State Department Policy Planning Staff, Document PPS23, 24th February 1948

"I came to America because of the great, great freedom which I heard existed in this country. I made a mistake in selecting America as a land of freedom, a mistake I cannot repair in the balance of my lifetime."
-Albert Einstein, 1947

"The target suffered a terminal illness before a firing squad in Baghdad."
- CIA officer testifying to U.S. Senate hearing, after bloody CIA aided Ba'th Party coup overthrew Iraqi Prime Minister Abdel Kassem, 1963

"Strikes at population targets (per se) are likely not only to create a counterproductive wave of revulsion abroad and at home, but greatly to increase the risk of enlarging the war with China and the Soviet Union. Destruction of locks and dams, however - if handled right - might offer promise. It should be studied. Such destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after time to widespread starvation (more than a million) unless food is provided - which we could offer to do 'at the conference table'."
- John McNaughton, U.S. State Department Vietnam policy, as quoted in 'The Mentality of the Backroom Boys.' Article by Noam Chomsky, 1973

"The U.S. must carry out some act somewhere in the world which shows its determination to continue to be a world power."
- Henry Kissinger, post-Vietnam blues, as quoted in The Washington Post, April 1975

"It would not have been possible for a political party to be more committed to a national home for the Jews in Palestine than was Labour."
- Harold Wilson, former British Labour Party Prime Minister, 1981

"One hundred nations in the UN have not agreed with us on just about everything that's come before them, where we're involved, and it didn't upset my breakfast at all."
- Ronald Reagan, former U.S. President, basking in the triumph that was the U.S. invasion of Grenada, 1983

Q. "Mr. President, have you approved of covert activity to destablise the present government of Nicaragua?"
A. "Well, no, we're supporting them, the - oh, wait a minute, wait a minute, I'm sorry, I was thinking of El Salvador, because of the previous, when you said Nicaragua. Here again, this is something upon which the national security interests, I just - I will not comment."
- Ronald Reagan, former U.S. President, Washington press conference, February 13th, 1983, as quoted by John Pilger in 'Heroes'

"After seeing 'RAMBO' last night, I know what to do the next time this happens."
- Ronald Reagan, former U.S. President, as reported by Daily Express, July 2nd, 1985

"Aerosol DU (Depleted Uranium) exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects. [...] Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armour-piercing munitions. [...] We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of DU exposure to military personnel during combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations. [...DU is..]... a low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage. [...] Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been linked to cancer. [...] Our conclusion regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetrators assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. [...] The conditions of the battlefield, and the long term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic penetrators for military applications."
- Excerpts from the July 1990 Science and Applications International Corporation report: ' Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environment and Health Considerations', as included in Appenix D - U.S. Army Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command report: 'Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, July 1990' These documents state clearly and equivocally that the U.S. army was well aware of the radioactive and toxic dangers of Depleted Uranium ammunition long before the first shots of the war were fired.

"We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait."
- Margaret Tutweiller, U.S. State Department spokeswoman, 24th July 1990, nine days before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait References


>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

rellik_yzarc
7th February 03, 03:51 PM
nice article. where did you get it ?


"said and done"

patfromlogan
7th February 03, 04:04 PM
link:

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt01.html

>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

fragbot
7th February 03, 04:15 PM
"The target suffered a terminal illness before a firing squad in Baghdad."

And everyone thinks CIA guys are humorless...

fragbot
7th February 03, 04:23 PM
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
-Woodrow Wilson

Hmmm, I wonder if Andrew Jackson echoed the same sentiment.

In any case, if 25 random quotes are as good as it gets, it's no wonder progressive ideas get slaughtered in the marketplace.

Hell, without Alexander Cockburn and Paul Krugman, progressives (FWIW, I've always liked Hitchens as well, but I think he's on his way towards from the religion) would be wholly screwed.

As an amusing aside, why would an author feel the compulsion to choose the pseudonym "TruthTeller?"

Edited by - fragbot on February 07 2003 15:26:48

PeedeeShaolin
7th February 03, 04:28 PM
Very informative. You can learn alot about the policies of our masters from this.

You can learn even MORE by looking at how many people even thought this was worthy of commenting about. Shows you how much people even WANT to know the truth.

Bolverk
7th February 03, 05:13 PM
"I will never apologize for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are."
-President George Bush 1988 [Bush was demonstrating his patriotism by excusing an act of cold-blooded mass-murder by the U.S. Navy. On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial airliner. All 290 civilian people in the aircraft were killed. The plane was on a routine flight in a commercial corridor in Iranian airspace. The targeting of it by the U.S. Navy was blatantly illegal. That it was grossly immoral is also obvious. Except to a patriot.]


I like the way this quote ignores the fact that one of our naval vessels was attacked by a plane using a commercial transponder shortly before this incident. It to was traveling in the commercial corridor. If I were the commander of a naval vessel at that time, I would have been a bit jumpy on the trigger too, who wouldn't be.

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Edited by - Bolverk on February 07 2003 16:15:49

magikchiongson
7th February 03, 05:17 PM
Man, I hate this crap. You guys have a very distorted view of your own country. Its pretty sad really. Let's put this into perspective. Right after the Spanish American War came an event called the Philippines Insurrection. It is estimated that about 300,000 people got killed, an entire Island, was nearly depopulated.

Now, I can sit here, and b!tch about that the rest of my life. If I want to.

Or I could view the U.S, as the Country that kicked those damned rapist, murdering Japs outta my country.

Posts, like these will absolutely get us slaughtered by further Terrorists Attacks. You're just feeding fuel to an unjustly burning fire. You can tell what kind of person you are when you look at those who are of like mind.

IN other words, who else says these things about the U.S.

1) Bin Laden
2) Communists
3) And other assorted Terrorists

Birds of a feather flock together. We should start fitting a frickin turban into everyone one you guys.

KC Elbows
7th February 03, 05:35 PM
So, you're lumping Martin Luther King in with Bin Laden?

Wow, nice job. I never would have associated the two.

You know, the case can be made that supporting imperialist policies are what actually makes us more likely to be hit by terrorists. By supporting those, you should be wearing a turban.

Bolverk
7th February 03, 06:06 PM
Man, I hate this crap. You guys have a very distorted view of your own country. Its pretty sad really. Let's put this into perspective. Right after the Spanish American War came an event called the Philippines Insurrection. It is estimated that about 300,000 people got killed, an entire Island, was nearly depopulated.

Now, I can sit here, and b!tch about that the rest of my life. If I want to.

Or I could view the U.S, as the Country that kicked those damned rapist, murdering Japs outta my country.

Posts, like these will absolutely get us slaughtered by further Terrorists Attacks. You're just feeding fuel to an unjustly burning fire. You can tell what kind of person you are when you look at those who are of like mind.

IN other words, who else says these things about the U.S.

1) Bin Laden
2) Communists
3) And other assorted Terrorists

Birds of a feather flock together. We should start fitting a frickin turban into everyone one you guys.


I have a deep admiration of the Filipinos and Filipinas. They were a strong Ally in World War II. Their strength is deep as they had to survive many, many years of oppression from more then one nation. They have a unique perspective, and strong character. I am happy to count them among my friends and family.

As far as KC Elbows goes, I do not see any lumping of Martin Luther King Jr. in his statement. What I do see are words from a person who has lived through more adversity then most Americans. I have had the pleasure of visiting the Philippines, and I got to see first hand what the average Filipino and Filipina lives through each day of their lives.

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

fragbot
7th February 03, 06:09 PM
So, you're lumping Martin Luther King in with Bin Laden?

Wow, nice job. I never would have associated the two.


You must be new to political discussions on mcdojo. Wildly inaccurate and hyperbolic bombast is the order of the day.

Just look at the post that started this thread.



You know, the case can be made that supporting imperialist policies are what actually makes us more likely to be hit by terrorists. By supporting those, you should be wearing a turban.


An opposite case can also be made that not acting to protect our interests makes us look like a weak nation who'll hide at the first sign of trouble (AKA Somalia). Which is more dangerous?

FWIW, I think the left is correct when they say imperialism is a problem. It's just not the imperialism the Western left is concerned about. Instead of economics and politics, it's the sweeping cultural imperialism that upsets the opinion-leaders herding the conservative Islamic applecart. This is what generates the visceral reaction.

Baywatch and Brittany beats bombs.



Edited by - fragbot on February 07 2003 18:21:24

PeedeeShaolin
7th February 03, 06:39 PM
Comments like that NEED to be addressed you fukking wet end motherfukker magik!!! When you IGNORE shiit like that you end up like the German people during Nazi Germany with your govt doing horrible things, the rest of the world against you, and YOU as a citizen completely oblivious to the fact.

Let me give you a little explanation:

"Strikes at population targets (per se) are likely not only to create a counterproductive wave of revulsion abroad and at home, but greatly to increase the risk of enlarging the war with China and the Soviet Union. Destruction of locks and dams, however - if handled right - might offer promise. It should be studied. Such destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after time to widespread starvation (more than a million) unless food is provided - which we could offer to do 'at the conference table'."
- John McNaughton, U.S. State Department Vietnam policy, as quoted in 'The Mentality of the Backroom Boys.' Article by Noam Chomsky, 1973

The destruction of water supplies(which DID take place) is considered a CRIME OF WAR you RETARD. It is listed, and ACCEPTED as a WAR CRIME.

Think a little.

SamHarber
7th February 03, 07:04 PM
Interesting selection of quotes. Actually only 24 becuase one of them is a more selective quote from another. The editorialisation on a couple could have been left out, as it shows a bias in the author/editor.

And now for a short rant on the nature of democracy.
Its important that we are aware of the true nature of our rulers, because they are when all is said and done, totally independent of everything except public opinion. Western democracy does not work as a means of checking their power. As an example, I did not vote for Tony Blair. I voted for an MP who did not get elected. Even if I had voted for the MP who represents me, he still would not have had any say in the election of Blair. During votes in the House of Commons, my MP does not represent my opinion. He represents what is either politically expediant for him, or what he is told to represent by the party machine. Tony Blair currently heads the larger party machine and hence his policy will always go through, except in the most outrageous cases. This is not democracy. I'm not sure of the details of the US or Canadian systems, but I doubt that its much different.
Did you know that our beloved Prime Minister is not going to let Parliament have a substantive vote on the deployment of British troops to Iraq until after we are engaged? Apparently its so we don't lose the element of surprise.
I'm tempted to move to Iceland.

SLJ
10th February 03, 04:44 AM
Those quotes are extremely worrying, and very belivable judging by recent events.

Sam, I saw that "We might lose the element of suprise" bullshit aswell. They'll have to come up with something a bit better than that.

----------------------------------------------------------
The story of a woman on the morning of a war,
Remind me if you will exactly what we're fighting for.




Edited by - slj on February 10 2003 03:48:42

KC Elbows
10th February 03, 08:34 AM
Magik, Bolverk, you have a short memory. In the first post, their is a MLK quote that criticizes the US in much the same way as Magik says should be considered treasonous or some such thing.

Fragbot, I agree, the question is, which is less safe? To continue imperialism, or to stop it. Eventually all empires end. It's just a matter of how it happens.

magikchiongson
10th February 03, 09:22 AM
How did you let those leftist distort your mind like that?

KC, I think there's a difference between criticizing the U.S and calling the Country Terrorists, don't you? MLK is "criticizing" the U.S, that's fine, accusing the country of terrorism is a whole different ballgame.

PeeDee Shaolin is just showing his ignorace all across the boards no matter what the subject is. I think he could start up a conversation on beer drinking and still sound like an ignoramous.

First off the U.S wasn't gassing Jews last time I checked, we are not invading countries and using them for slave labor. But your Commie and Muslim Fanatic butt buddies sure are. As for Vietnam, all you have to look at is S. Korea. In S. Korea people are free and the quality of living is much higher, in N. Korea labor camps and MASS starvation. Ohh how awful of the U.S to want S. Vietnam to have had the same chances as S. Korea. How dishonorable of us to defend a poor country against monster China and N. Vietnam.

As for War Crimes, man its fukking war, War is a Crime, the sanists thing you can do is end it quickly. Fukking idiots like you are the reasons why, things like Nazi Germany happen, idiots like you are the reason why people like the Kmer Rouge are able to do what they did. Do you think we would have won WWII if we didn't bomb the crap out of the Germans? Do you know how many people would have died if we didn't drop the A-bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki?

The left are so retarded, bunch of commies, berate and accuse the U.S if imaginary crimes yet sit there and apologize for their Communists butt pirate buddies.

Osiris
10th February 03, 09:34 AM
US DID NOT SAVE THE WORLD IN WW2. They saved their ass. You think they did that out of the goodness of their hearts? maybe some soldiers did, but our government was only concerned with self. Had they not been attacked, they would have watched China and Europe be destroyed. That was a purely selfish act. It was justified, but that doesnt make it altruistic.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light/ Why our sons fight for the stripe?" - The RZA

magikchiongson
10th February 03, 09:49 AM
Wow unbelievable man, don't rewrite history. I know it goes against every fiber of your self righteousness, but the fact remains and uncontested that if the U.S didn't fight that war the World would be neatly divided by the Japs, Germans, Italians, and probably the Russian Communists.

I know you all think you're courageous, and brave, standing up against the evil "patriots" and there "evil" "Imperliastic" ways, but really you are just dupes. I know you guys are afraid that "World Opinion" might turn against the U.S, afraid of more bombings if sneeze and defend ourselves. But consider this, people who are much less powerful than the U.S are at the mercy of these very same tyrants you are making excuses for. You don't think poor, and powerless countries are being targeted by the Al Qaedas of the world?

Liberals just zip your mouths, America is through with you as evident in the White House, Congress, House ect.. we've had enough of your loathsome lies about our own country take that shyt to fukking Saudi Arabia I'm sure you will be welcomed with hugs and turbans there.

SamHarber
10th February 03, 09:52 AM
Fukking idiots like you are the reasons why, things like Nazi Germany happen,
The rise of the National Socialists was because people DID NOT speak out against them. All governments should be called to account for their actions by their own people. It is the stifling of any such criticism that leads to fascism.
Also, I don't think that you'll find many of us lefties standing up for the abuse perpetrated by various communist governments.

magikchiongson
10th February 03, 10:42 AM
That's true many leftists don't stand up for Communists, but at the same time you spend a lot more time berating the U.S than you do these countries. People did stand up against Hitler in Germany, and surprise surprise, it was German Conservatives who did it. They were the first ones to take up against Gun Control but you know that's hardly even mentioned.

But you know how dumb this argument is? You're validating Terrorism, you're justifying what they did, you're validating the violence they are starting all over the world. But this is dumb, its like me blaming liberals for creating people like Timothy McVeigh leftists policies making it easy for whack job Racists Groups to recruit people like McVeigh. He was a terrorist, he thought the U.S Government was oppressing him.

Its out of hand man, we get blamed for poverty, wars, famine in AFrica you name it we get blamed for it.

Osiris
10th February 03, 11:34 AM
"we've had enough of your loathsome lies about our own country take that shyt to fukking Saudi Arabia I'm sure you will be welcomed with hugs and turbans there"

Fuck the Saudi's too. I hate bin Laden almost as much as Bush. Unfortunately, when you add the bodies up at the end of the war, Bush will probably have more. The whole world is currently controlled by money. Bush, bin Laden, and Saddam are just playing a game of chess. Were pawns. We dont mean shit to them. They all need to go.

Magik, why are you trying to play politics? Ooh, Im a liberal now. Forget the labels and lets compare ideas.

"But you know how dumb this argument is? You're validating Terrorism, you're justifying what they did, you're validating the violence they are starting all over the world."

Theyre just as justified as the US is for wiping out 2 entire cities. Or bombing the shit out of everyone that opposes us. We just dont like being on the receiving end. Like i said, count the bodies. Im sure that terrorists would use missles if they had them. What, you think they blow themselves up for fun? I know Im not being PC, but lets be real. The govt is just as terroristic as bin Laden if not more so.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light/ Why our sons fight for the stripe?" - The RZA

KC Elbows
10th February 03, 11:59 AM
"if the U.S didn't fight that war the World would be neatly divided by the Japs, Germans, Italians, and probably the Russian Communists."

There would have been no russian communists, and Hitler was more hard line about communism that the US ever was. So, the above is a fallacy.

"First off the U.S wasn't gassing Jews last time I checked, we are not invading countries and using them for slave labor. But your Commie and Muslim Fanatic butt buddies sure are."

I'm not sure where this gem came from, but there it is. Commie this and Muslim that. The only invading going on right now is by us. Invading to solve a problem that we had a share in creating because of our handling of the middle east. And yet, we appear to be trying more of the same. I've yet to see one rational post war solution. We're just playing empire, which is directly opposed to our doctrine of freedom.

"As for Vietnam, all you have to look at is S. Korea. In S. Korea people are free and the quality of living is much higher, in N. Korea labor camps and MASS starvation. Ohh how awful of the U.S to want S. Vietnam to have had the same chances as S. Korea. How dishonorable of us to defend a poor country against monster China and N. Vietnam."

Actually, you cannot use the koreas as evidence of the inferiority of their economic model, as the presence of our troops in the koreas, and thus the need from the communists to keep troops there, are a tax on their industry. i.e. our presence created a strain on their economy a la the cold war, but that persists to this day.

"idiots like you are the reason why people like the Kmer Rouge are able to do what they did."

Actually, that falls on the Cambodians, Nixon, and Kissinger, among others.

"Wow unbelievable man, don't rewrite history."

Wow, right after you created a fascist/communist alliance in WWII. Glass houses and all.

"You don't think poor, and powerless countries are being targeted by the Al Qaedas of the world?"

Please substantiate. i.e. provide some evidence. Terrorists in the middle east seem pretty focused on:

-Israel
-The US
-Israeli and US interests in other countries

Are you calling the Israelis defenseless?

"Liberals just zip your mouths, America is through with you as evident in the White House, Congress, House ect.. we've had enough of your loathsome lies about our own country take that shyt to fukking Saudi Arabia I'm sure you will be welcomed with hugs and turbans there."

You know, this thread started with quotes. Some of them seem pretty cut and dried. Most of them are by people who have had more experience with our foreign policy than most members here. Why is it you are arguing with us, as opposed to desparately trying to refute those quotes?

As for the fate of liberals, the results of one election don't exactly make a final statement. I'd say faith in both parties is pretty low right now. And the conservatives who are presently in charge are in charge of a nation where the layoffs don't appear to be over, and where no one really believes in politicians. The present 'victory of conservatism' will likely vanish at the first bad turn.

"You're validating Terrorism, you're justifying what they did, you're validating the violence they are starting all over the world."

No, pointing out flaws in our own policy is not validating what other countries are doing. This whole idea you have is totally against freedom of speach and thought. During Clinton's admin, when some middle eastern countries we don't get along with were saying we are immoral, conservatives didn't stop from their little witch hunt. Little failed witch hunt, I mean. Anyway, what you're saying is that as long as wingnuts happen to include an occassional valid criticism of us, we cannot ourselves address that iddue, even if we saw it before the little wingnut groups.

The whole idea is simplistic and dangerous to freedom. It's unamerican. You are for the abolition of freedom of speach for this purpose. You have set the limits on freedom. The initial post did not call us terrorists. It merely asked who is one, and supplied quotes to show how it is not such a cut and dried thing. You cannot seem to address enough of those quotes to establish a position more coherent than 'damn commie pig fukkers', which isn't exactly effective.


Now I agree, we aren't to blame for everything, but we've got our share, and you will not look at it, and call people traitors who dare to do what you cannot bring yourself to.

We are everything we rebelled against when we became a nation. We are an empire. Sure enough, rebellions are starting against us. That's the way it goes. You take your sugar coated world, I prefer the real one.

magikchiongson
10th February 03, 12:06 PM
You hate Bin Laden almost as much as you hate Bush? Glad to know where your priorities are man.

Actually you are being PC, that's what being PC is all about. The notion that everything is just as valid as the next. One idea is as good as the other. Hey, Bin Laden couldn't possibly just be an evil SOB he must be equated to Bush. So according to you, everybody is being a terrorists, yey *claps*..... I'm sorry but that's so flaming PC.

And No we don't just bomb anybody that opposses us. That's just a ridiculous myth perpetrated by that whole Anti-America group. In the Gulf War we gave Saddam months to pull out of Kuwait he did not. Al Qaeda, Taliban has always oppossed us, yet we waited untill they hit us before we dismantled them.

You wanna know what terrorism is? Its Islamic militants chopping off childrens' heads in front of their own schools, its Al Qaeda linked groups mailing the heads of school teachers to that country's President as a "birthday gift". If we don't "bomb the shyt" out of these assholes you're condemning the people under their sphere of terror to just unimaginable shyt.

America hasn't always been a Saint, but its nowhere near as Evil as the Left, and Arab Terrorists make it out to be.

As for the A-bombs, the Japanese deserved it. They had no right to run amuk in Asia murdering and raping like they did. Furthermore, the A-bombs probably saved millions of lives on both sides, the U.S Military would have lost hundreds of thousands of troops in taking Japan. The Japanese Government, were arming school children with pikes to rush GIs for pete's sake.

War is crazy man, that's why you want to end it quick. If that means bombing Iraqi soldiers on a tactical retreat so be it, if that means bombing Iraqi City's to knock out air defenses and air installations then so be it.

Osiris
10th February 03, 01:09 PM
"As for the A-bombs, the Japanese deserved it."

The civillians did?

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light/ Why our sons fight for the stripe?" - The RZA

KC Elbows
10th February 03, 01:21 PM
Apparently WWII era Japanese were only one step away from being 'commie leftie fascists'. Whodathunk?

fragbot
10th February 03, 01:33 PM
Fragbot, I agree, the question is, which is less safe? To continue imperialism, or to stop it.


Prolly depends on whatever definition you have for the word safe as well as the amount of risk you think a particular action has.

Since you've framed the choice so starkly, I'll answer in kind--a change in US policy focused on "unimperialism" (AKA isolationism) is more dangerous than a foreign policy based on imperialism. That being said, reasonable people know the difference between actions taken in a national interest and actions taken whimsically.

Long-term, I put Iraq in the low-risk category. To what gain, added stability in the region created in 1 of 2 ways: removal of a problematic dictator (IMO, more importantly is the removal of his sons from future power as well; the nastier of the two, AKA the one likely to emerge from the post-Saddam's death power struggle, is portrayed as fairly irrational) as well as reinforcing the notion that we're committed to remaining influential in the region.



Eventually all empires end. It's just a matter of how it happens.


Ah, I didn't know you worked for Microsoft tech support. . .a true statement so broad to be wholly useless in the discussion.

patfromlogan
10th February 03, 01:38 PM
To address comments on this thread:
"FWIW, I think the left is correct when they say imperialism is a problem. It's just not the imperialism the Western left is concerned about. Instead of economics and politics, it's the sweeping cultural imperialism that upsets the opinion-leaders herding the conservative Islamic applecart. This is what generates the visceral reaction.

Baywatch and Brittany beats bombs."

This is a misconception. While partly true, they do hate our lack of morals and such, the real motivation of Islamic hatred of the West is that they believe that we are at war, and from their historical perspective, it makes sense. They have lots of examples of bombs and killings and they point to things like the refugee camp attacks by Lebanese militia-funded by Israel and therefore funded by the US. In a related note this is an article that responds to why they bombed McDonalds:

http://www.e-thepeople.org/a-national/article/13309/view?viewtype=best

I found this on a link from http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF8&group=alt.gathering.rainbow

where there was a great thread on why they hate us. Which I can't find. Though I did find this on the Afghan war and what is really going on.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kbsrttg8hsb5m2qn541gcvuin8k3diat92%404 ax.com&oe=UTF8&output=gplain


magikchiongson Man, I hate this crap. You guys have a very distorted view of your own country. Its pretty sad really. Let's put this into perspective. Right after the Spanish American War came an event called the Philippines Insurrection. It is estimated that about 300,000 people got killed, an entire Island, was nearly depopulated.

Now, I can sit here, and b!tch about that the rest of my life. If I want to.

Or I could view the U.S, as the Country that kicked those damned rapist, murdering Japs outta my country.



So, after the Spanish stole your country, the US stole it from Spain, then the Japanese stole it from the US and then the US stole it back? So, our imperialism is way better than Spain's or Japan's? Is it because US pays for their whores, where the Japanese just raped? I am not excusing the Japanese, they have an attitude that should be very familiar to Americans-they can murder and rape and then pretend it didn't happen. Your country did so well under US puppet Marcos the crook and Mrs Marcos ( I'm sure she needed 10,000 pairs of shoes? )

magikchiongson
As for War Crimes, man its fukking war, War is a Crime, the sanists thing you can do is end it quickly. Fukking idiots like you are the reasons why, things like Nazi Germany happen, idiots like you are the reason why people like the Kmer Rouge are able to do what they did.

Ohh how awful of the U.S to want S. Vietnam to have had the same chances as S. Korea. How dishonorable of us to defend a poor country against monster China and N. Vietnam.

The US started out by backing the Khmer Rouge, as they were our friend by being Vietnam's enemy. Do yourself a big favor and actually read the article on why they bombed McDonalds. I'm a Quaker and historically Quakers feared where their leadings took them-often to prison or in the worst cases, death. In a similar way, people fear educating themselves because of where it may lead-if you are a martial artist, then you learn to face fear. Please read the article with an open mind and think about what you actually know and what is actually bullshit that has been planted.

The US refused to let the democratic elections promised by the Geneva Accords. It took asshole Macdimairaaah (sec of defense) years to figger out that monolithic communism was bullshit and that Ho was a national hero and that the Vietnamese fear and hate the Chinese. Why don't you read the assholes book? Anyhow, magikchiongson, I'm sorry to say it, as offending you won't convert or convince you of the truth, but you are ignorant-which reminds me of the joke-how do you define ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.


a link to Aspects of India's Economy's article on SPECIAL ISSUE:
BEHIND THE INVASION 0F IRAQ:http://www.rupe-india.org/34/agenda.html

Behind the Invasion of Iraq, the startling new book-length report authored by the Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE), synthesizes the seemingly disparate threads of the US war drive in what amounts to a blistering indictment of American foreign policy. The report (available on the Web at www.rupe-india.org) is lavishly documented and jargon-free; the effect, especially for readers with limited understanding of global commerce and finance, is of puzzle pieces clicking decisively into place.

The RUPE report wholly confirms the widely-held view of the coming war as a massive oil grab, "on a scale not witnessed since the days of colonialism." Further, the current debate about arms inspections and alleged links to al-Qaeda is revealed as pure political theater, since the decision to invade Iraq was made months ago.

But seizure of Iraq's multi-trillion-dollar petroleum reserves is only the immediate goal, the report shows. RUPE's rigorous analysis of publicly available sources -- including official documents, think-tank papers, and press reports -- reveals that the US intends to use the invasion of Iraq as a launching pad for a drastic reshaping of the Middle East, to be followed by an unprecedented expansion of US power worldwide. The strategic trend of US foreign policy now points unmistakably towards global empire.

The Roman empire offered law, trade, culture, and technology. US empire offers slave wages. Sounds unstable to me.






I've read part of the report and find it as described. It echoes what my historian friend said to me-he's an economic historian and has made millions in the stock market (only investing in green companies with good worker relations) and finds this ironic as a leftist, but then I'm a landlord and a leftist (what the fuck, capitalism is the game)-and he has been right on, before.




>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

magikchiongson
10th February 03, 02:06 PM
Man you all are hopeless. You actually think you're rights are being infringed upon? You cocksuckers spout off garbage about your own country and when someone bothers to defend your shyt you start whining about your Freedom of Speech? Are you retarded? Its called calling you and your dumb idea retarded, that's not a violation of freedom of speech, last time I checked, it simply makes what you're saying RETARDED.

Yah, Japan deserved to be bombed, Military, Civilian, whatever, I don't give a crap. They bring war to all corners of Asia and they don't expect payback? They send their troops out to China, Philippines, Indonesia, ect. and they don't expect to get payback?

Was U.S Imperialism different? Yes, doh. Spanish, and Japs were bastards, no doubt about that. Difference was, the U.S had a plan to build up infrastructure and eventually self Government by a set date, the U.S Court Martialed some of their black sheeps, Spanish and Japs did not.

I just keep on reading your posts, and I can't believe the crap you guys spiel. "U.S troop presence causes countries like N. Korea to starve their own people because their economy sux because of that," this is mind boggling. WoW please examine yourselves, fukking commies. Communists Economic model doesn't work, BECAUSE its fukking retarded. J.H Christ..... See what I mean? basically this cat is saying the U.S is to blame for N. Korea's piss poor economy.. My fukking God, nowonder why people are BOMBING the shyt outta us, there's absolutely nobody on our side of the PC War.

Please, keep on going with your rants about the U.S. The Terrorists will nod their heads at you, then blow your children to bits and pieces. Have fun.

Osiris
10th February 03, 02:11 PM
"Yah, Japan deserved to be bombed, Military, Civilian, whatever, I don't give a crap. They bring war to all corners of Asia and they don't expect payback? They send their troops out to China, Philippines, Indonesia, ect. and they don't expect to get payback?"

And on it goes. When does it end?

"Please, keep on going with your rants about the U.S. The Terrorists will nod their heads at you, then blow your children to bits and pieces. Have fun."

Beef is beef. I dont care who it is or where it comes from. I check all niggas the same. You can be Saudi, Afgan, Texan, African, or fucking martian. When you fuck up Ill see that shit. I wont be like "well hes my boy" or whatever. If you deserve it Ill bring it. I dont acknowledge anything else.




"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light/ Why our sons fight for the stripe?" - The RZA

PeedeeShaolin
10th February 03, 02:16 PM
Your an uneducated dipshit. You have somehow been bullshitted into thinking that speaking AGAINST something that is not righteous is ANTI American when that is what being an American is all about.

Your just one of those people that think your responsibility for being an American is to watch as much T.V. as possible, eat as much cheese in a spray can as you can find, buy the largest SUV there is and then complain LATER when you have no social security or retirement.

Dumb Ass Absoluto

Osiris
10th February 03, 02:20 PM
Its like this. If killing thousands for an SUV is being an American, then consider me antiamerican. I dont follow men.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light/ Why our sons fight for the stripe?" - The RZA

magikchiongson
10th February 03, 02:37 PM
Now we're talking about SUVs? People like you, are the reason why there are special Interests Groups who are defending our right to own a SUV.

Yes, killing people for SUVs is wrong, under that definition there's no argument. But is that what's going on? The thing with the Middle East, should be simple, they have Oil we would like to purchase Oil, but instead the whole region is a mess, that's not our fukking fault, those idiots have been killing each other for centuries, what the hell makes you think they will stop now? Oil is the lifeblood of this country. How you gonna run a semi? Use fukking solar power, genius? You dumbasses won't let us drill in Alaska, have you seen ANWR by the way? It looks like the surface of the freaking moon.

Peedee is so lost its not even funny. He thinks the cause of Bin Laden is righteous now, gimme a fricking break, there is nothing righteous, courageous about what you clowns do. Fukk peedee we could probably run the country from the amount of Oil we could squeeze from your zits.

magikchiongson
10th February 03, 03:16 PM
Okie Okie, damn it, I knew I never should have opened that freakin Thread. I've just spent months and months arguing about the same tired shyt with the same people at a different forum. Everything is the same, only the names are different, but same ole never ending topic.

Welp anyways, I don't wanna do this anymore. So here, "I love America, I think its sad that you guys find so much blame on her but I guess yall are entitled to your opinions,"

I apologize to everybody I insulted, I really don't wanna see your children get blown to bits.

patfromlogan
10th February 03, 03:28 PM
so magikchiongson, I wish you would have read atleast the link on bombing MacDonalds...it's too bad that even martial artists like you lack the courage and ambition to find out what goes on.

to be a martial artist is to follow the way of the warrior, bushido is one of many warrior ways. The common thread is to conquer ones self. Knowledge of self is first needed. To know yourself, you need to know your own history. As Bob Marley put it,

If you know your history,
Then you would know where you coming from,
Then you wouldn't have to ask me,
Who the 'eck do I think I am.

and
when I analyze the stench -
To me it makes a lot of sense:




>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

SamHarber
10th February 03, 03:30 PM
You really are an idiot.
No, really.

The middle east is in chaos because they have oil but the US wants it even cheaper. For whatever reason, the US has decided that rather than invest in safe renewables or a change in policy to wean the public away from oil consumption. Do you really want to know how to run a semi? Biodiesel fuel. Theres a good start. Its cheap, relatively clean and renewable. That pretty much negates the need to drill in Alaska. Doubtless you also advocate drilling in Antarctica on the grounds that nobody actually owns it.

You also seem to mistake being critical of your government as being the same as supporting terrorism.

And finally, just in case we wernt certain of your asshole status you make a direct personal attack on the appearance of someone you've never seen.

May you and Kungfoolss share the same mother.

fragbot
10th February 03, 03:36 PM
"Yah, Japan deserved to be bombed, Military, Civilian, whatever, I don't give a crap. They bring war to all corners of Asia and they don't expect payback? They send their troops out to China, Philippines, Indonesia, ect. and they don't expect to get payback?"

And on it goes. When does it end?


With Japan, it appears to have fundamentally ended in 1945. Viewed in another light, it ended with the Chinese settlement in Tibet.

Viewed yet another way, it'll never end as long as people exist.



Beef is beef. I dont care who it is or where it comes from. I check all niggas the same. You can be Saudi, Afgan, Texan, African, or fucking martian. When you fuck up Ill see that shit. I wont be like "well hes my boy" or whatever. If you deserve it Ill bring it. I dont acknowledge anything else.


I've read that paragraph several times and I have no idea what it means.

KC Elbows
10th February 03, 03:54 PM
Fragbot,
I like the microsoft comment.

As for your assessment on which is the greater risk, I respect your views on that. They sound fairly sound. However, I think our choosing leaders of other people's nations generally leads to problems down the road, and I think the entire of the middle east is aware of that as well, so each time we do it, we make it less and less likely to be something that we can do unopposed in the future. In otherwords, I think we're eventually gonna unite people against us because we seem to pick what's worst for the middle east.

Perhaps I should have left the window open for a smarter imperialism, but I just hink imperialism in this day and age is an excellent way to get nuked.

J Zen
10th February 03, 03:57 PM
By the time the US dropped the A-bombs, Japan was already on the virge of defeat, their mentality may have been the opposite, but their military and economics didn't give them a chance in hell to agressively invade other countries for a long long time. All that was needed was to blockade and economically punish their countries and starve them to submission. The dropping of the A-bomb was a mean to strike fear into the hearts of the Japanese (ala terror tactic or should I call it terrorism) into a quick submission. That's why they chose areas populated by Japanese civillians and industrial hubs to make sure that the psychological and economic impact will be severe and wide spread. Besides, the reason why the US decided to drop the A-bombs was also to field test its new toy (Japanese civillian building structures materials were very good for assessing the damage potential of the bomb). After pouring millions and millions of the American tax payers money into the project, the Congress demanded to see the fruit of their investment in action. Also, the Russians were on the virge of developing their own version of the A-bomb and that's why the US felt they need to make a statement and a display of power to the Russians and the rest of the world by dropping the A-bomb before the Russians did. To say that the reason they drop the bomb to save life is ludicrous - US troops may be, but definately not the Japanese. Again, no altruism or righteousness behind the action here, contrary to what some may want to believe. They didn't need to invade Japan to defeat her, children with bamboo sticks or samurais wielding katanas charging and screaming "banzai!" with bright red bandanas on their heads (which is a good target from a far for the GIs to shoot - lol, sorry couldn't resist that) can hardly stand up to GIs armed with guns, tanks and war planes.

When a minority group strikes using terror tactics (which is a legitimate war tactic), we scream "terrorism!", but when American does the same it automatically becomes "legitimate military strike". Can you not see the hypocracy in this? Terrorism is a tactic not a group contrary to what people would like to believe. And I am willing to wager it's still a trick in the book of every military in the world - fear is too powerful a weapon not to exploit. One only needs to cleverly present terrorism in the forms that the self-righteous public can be convinced or misdirected via politics and propaganda. What is terrorism is only in the eyes of the beholder.

fragbot
10th February 03, 03:57 PM
The middle east is in chaos because they have oil but the US wants it even cheaper.


A quick experiment--if the middle east had no oil, would it still be in crisis?

Obvious answer from viewing the most of the remaining third world: yeah, but no one would care.



For whatever reason, the US has decided that rather than invest in safe renewables or a change in policy to wean the public away from oil consumption. Do you really want to know how to run a semi? Biodiesel fuel. Theres a good start. Its cheap, relatively clean and renewable. That pretty much negates the need to drill in Alaska.


While I like the idea of biodiesel (particularly for boats), I've always wondered how scalable it is as a model. Especially if you consider the origin of most fertilizer.

What this has to do with drilling in Alaska. . .I've no idea.



Doubtless you also advocate drilling in Antarctica on the grounds that nobody actually owns it.


Well, the fact that no one (beyond a few scientists) lives there wouldn't hurt either. . .not that I know if there's any oil there anyway.



You also seem to mistake being critical of your government as being the same as supporting terrorism.


Well, I wouldn't say that, but it's important to understand the largest beneficiary of the anti-war movement is inarguably Saddam Hussein. For the Iraqi people, it's a wash. If we invade, several _____ people die sooner than they would otherwise but the sanctions end, they'll have a less despotic leader (if you think this is a bad assumption, explain why), and rejoin the world's ranks as a mainstream country. If we don't invade, the sanctions remain in place (if you believe the left's propaganda, the sanctions being "murderous" themselves)and they get to keep the illustrious Saddam and probably one of his sons for the future.

If he remains in power, he oughta send his protesting friends some Christmas baskets filled with apricots, almonds, pistachios, and olives.

FWIW, don't bother to tell me the anti-war movement doesn't have pro-Saddam sentiments. I understand that already, but it doesn't significantly affect the issue--they're Saddam strongest political tools.

KC Elbows
10th February 03, 04:14 PM
First, for the anti war movement to be helping sadam, you'd have to be able to demonstrate that the buildup isn't going as scheduled.

And to demonstrate that the post war Iraq would have a less despotic leader, you'd have to be able to name the replacement, and be able to show that that leader would do what's best for the people, not himself or his benefactors in the US. In effect, as long as we behave as we have in the past, any leader we put in place will be serving our interests, which decreases the stability of his leadership, which means he better be a powerful tyrant or a powerful tyrant will usurp him. Basically, it's a model for tyrants to rule as long as our goals remain the same as in the past, either our tyrants, or someone elses. Unfortunately, the day is drawing near when the fanatics of certain tyrants will have nukes and people willing to die in nuclear explosions, so this model suddenly is less foolproof as in the past, and includes some heavy risks.

And I might point out that the anti war movement people wouldn't even know who sadam hussein is if some of todays hawks hadn't, years ago, handed him everything he needed to rise to power.

patfromlogan
10th February 03, 04:22 PM
Powell is asked....

“What proof do you have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?”

Powell responds

“We kept the receipts.”


>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

magikchiongson
10th February 03, 04:39 PM
Bah asswipes just can't keep their mouths shut.

You like biodiesel? Go invent it, make plants for it ect. Nobody is stopping you. Maybe you like it when the Government is dictating to you what you should use for an energy source, but I don't. That's none of their Goddamned Business, if I want to be a liberal and drive around in a Hugo, I will, but I don't WANT to. While we do the "right" thing and switch to alternate energy sources all the other nations will be laughing their asses off as we commit Economic Seppuku.

BS energy sources there is no market for it, therefore its not going to fly. There is a market for Oil, its cheap there's plenty of it, so therefore people are going to use it. For the Oil we're supposedly dependent on from the ME anybody know the actual amount we get from that region? It is miniscule. The problem is our dependence on ME Oil, (which isn't much by the way) our solution is to drill in our own fukkin shores, Gulf of Mexico, Alaska ect.. not on fukking "Wind Power" "Solar Power" "Cow Shyt Power" that's about as usefull as running your car on PeeDee's Chi power..

A-Bombing Nagasaki, Hiroshima, was no different than firebombing Kobe or Dresden. Who the hell cares about "altruism" War is Ended huge amount of casualties are avoided. Because the Jap leaders had convinced the Jap Public that America was this great Evil country coming to rape and slaughter the jap people, sounds familiar? It should America's Enemies have pretty much convcinced you of the same thing.

There's noway around it, what you clowns are saying is directly detrimental to the continuing prosperity of this country. Not only do you not want us to take action against our enemies, you also want to scrap metal our military, subvert people at home to your SUV hating, Solar Power worshiping bullshyt. Enough is enough, Taliban is driving around in SUVs too why don't you go yell at them, fukking maggots.

KC Elbows
10th February 03, 04:46 PM
and winning the gold for quickest run on the high road, Magik, for his 'fukking maggots' speech.

JKDChick
10th February 03, 04:47 PM
Dipwad.
Not you KC.

(board breaks with a kick)
"Is that it? I feel like I should bow, or have honor or something."
-- Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "Once More, With Feeling"

SamHarber
10th February 03, 04:52 PM
Magik - a quick question.... do you have a mullet?

magikchiongson
10th February 03, 05:12 PM
Let's see.

Fukking Maggot,

Suck my Cock Whore,

Do you have a spine?

Well phuck man, its only 20 vs 1, think you clowns should be able to put up better arguments between your combined brain power. But I guess not, since its the same ole tired bullshyt.

fragbot
10th February 03, 05:15 PM
First, for the anti war movement to be helping sadam, you'd have to be able to demonstrate that the buildup isn't going as scheduled.


Just a tad disingenuous doncha think? Anyhow, what I'd really want to show was that the schedule has been significantly delayed.

Obvious question: without the outpouring of international support for Saddam's regime (my turn for a helping of ridiculous bombast), would we have moved already?

Obvious answer: well, duh.



And to demonstrate that the post war Iraq would have a less despotic leader, you'd have to be able to name the replacement, and be able to show that that leader would do what's best for the people, not himself or his benefactors in the US.


Well, the probable leader has been named (if you'd like, I'll look it up). Furthermore, for a "less despotic leader," I don't have to find Mother Teresa. Hell, even someone who's only as nasty as Egypt's president would be less despotic and problematic.



In effect, as long as we behave as we have in the past, any leader we put in place will be serving our interests, which decreases the stability of his leadership, which means he better be a powerful tyrant or a powerful tyrant will usurp him.


What interests of ours would be a particular problem for the Iraqi people--we'll undoubtedly buy some oil (this actually helps the Iraqi people), we'll undoubtedly expect him to behave himself (this actually benefits the entire region as well as the Iraqi people), and we'll probably base some troops there for awhile (maybe this is the most problematic one for you?).

Succinctly, it's not a zero-sum game. Competing groups can have common interests.



Basically, it's a model for tyrants to rule as long as our goals remain the same as in the past, either our tyrants, or someone elses.


Past goals: contain the Soviet influence in the area and political'n'economic stability
New goals: political'n'economic stability and containing terrorism

NOTE: there are no priorities with the order above



Unfortunately, the day is drawing near when the fanatics of certain tyrants will have nukes and people willing to die in nuclear explosions, so this model suddenly is less foolproof as in the past, and includes some heavy risks.


If we don't act in Iraq, do these risks evaporate? No. . .are they lessened? Maybe or maybe not. On one hand, you can argue they won't be pissed off so they won't act. On the other hand, you can argue they'll still be pissed off, they'll still try to act, and we can at least try to stop them before they board the plane.

Which point of view is more reasonable? Prolly depends on whether or not you view this as a political and/or economic issue or, instead, as a cultural issue.



And I might point out that the anti war movement people wouldn't even know who sadam hussein is if some of todays hawks hadn't, years ago, handed him everything he needed to rise to power.


This sentiment is misguided. First, from the "Everything I needed to know, I learned in kindergarten" department, if Bobby spills the milk on the floor, he's the one who gets to wipe it up.

Furthermore, it ignores the obvious--the world changes as does our policy maker's knowledge about it. Thus, Saddam didn't look so bad at first especially given the uncertainty about Iran. Likewise, the world's tolerance for certain behaviors has changed over the last mumble years.

Hearing that sentiment, it makes me think some people view foreign policy as Rodin's Thinker instead of Mr. Potato Head. Ya can't create a perfect bronze casting if all you have is a myriad of crappy plastic pieces.

JKDChick
10th February 03, 05:21 PM
Let's see.

Fukking Maggot,

Suck my Cock Whore,

Do you have a spine?

Thanks, but I only like men.



(board breaks with a kick)
"Is that it? I feel like I should bow, or have honor or something."
-- Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "Once More, With Feeling"

J Zen
10th February 03, 05:37 PM
Looks like someone can't argue without inserting vulgar insults of a 3rd grade level intellect. Try talking through your mouth rather than your ass for a change and we may actually listen to what you have to say.

Tart-Do
10th February 03, 05:59 PM
Heavy - real - Heavy!!

magikchiongsan
10th February 03, 06:09 PM
Well the truth is that none of this matters! As long as I'm here in the good ol' USA I can sit on my fat ass all day and eat as many corndogs as I want! Im not ascared of how my country looks to other wealing countries! If they get pissed that my country does something wrong we can just drop the bomb! And U dont want ANYONE to forget that! Might makes right!

As long as I can go home after work, crack open some Budweiser and turn on American Idol I really dont care WHAT the fuck happens. I could care LESS if the REASON I can get sneakers so damn cheap is because some poor people are being worked like SLAVES in other countires; in conditions that result in a DEATH RATE of 1 out of 5 and a life expectabcy of FOUR FUKKING YEARS.

I could care LESS that natives get ANGRY when U.S. backed mining companies dump FILTH into rivers they drink out of. And I could care DOUBLY LESS when those natives try and get the companies to stop poisoning their drinking water and are viewed as "hostile natives". I could care less that they are killed when they "rebel". I could ALSO care less that by poisoning the water these people have drank from since TIME those same companies are satisfying the requirement of GENOCIDE.

NONE of this shit means DIDDLY to me because I'm a goddamned AMERICAN and I couldnt give a SHIT LESS if anyone suffers.

I consider it ANTI AMERICAN to try and stop things like this from taking place. Stupid fucks like me wouldnt open their mouths about ANYTHING their government backed unless it affected my PAYCHECK.

Not even when people BLEW UP 2 buildings and killed THOUSANDS and then DIRECTLY BLAMED foreign policy did I turn my head. We shoulda just nuked em. THAT will solve everything. There cant possibly be a REASON things happen in our world. EVERYONE is just a NUT who is TOTALLY JEALOUS of me and my pickup truck and my dog, Spike.

Well fuck them.

I dont pay attention to ABYSMAL education levels.

I dont give a SHIT that a every female above the age of 11 has a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted.

I could care LESS that my country wants to spend an INFINITE number of dollars more on WAR and DEFENSE than education and environmental cleanup.

And so what if my country DOES commit acts in Vietnam that are legally consodered WAR CRIMES. As long as no one does it to MY COUNTRY then I'm just going to be a good boy and keep my redneck, hillbilly, 3rd grade reading level mouth shut.

I IGNORE the fact that 2% of my country owns %95 of all the wealth.

None of this is important to me as long as I have my television.

I am a good, loyal American. I am not HAPPY unless my water is poisoned, there is KNOWN ASBESTOS in my building wich no one will clean up, rich people eat grade "A" beef while I eat processed steroid fed meal that is churned out under substandard health codes, or that a college diploma means jack shit.

All of this is just fine with me as long as I can have my television and my twinkies.

THATS whats being an American is REALLY ABOUT: Sitting down and keeping your mouth SHUT.

Amen.

PeedeeShaolin
10th February 03, 06:19 PM
<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

KC Elbows
10th February 03, 06:25 PM
Fragbot:

"Basically, it's a model for tyrants to rule as long as our goals remain the same as in the past, either our tyrants, or someone elses."

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


"Past goals: contain the Soviet influence in the area and political'n'economic stability
New goals: political'n'economic stability and containing terrorism"

"NOTE: there are no priorities with the order above"

You confuse goals with effects. The past approach did not provide stability in the long term, though it succeeded in its soviet goal. When discussing models, the effect, and not the goal, is the important part. Just because there is a new goal does not mean that there will be a new or intended result.

And Fragbot, I recognize your view, I just don't agree. And I understand that you feel, by not agreeing, I am doing harm, but the fact is, I think by agreeing, you are doing harm, but I recognize that I could be wrong, and I'm sure you recognize that future events could prove you mistaken. Hopefully, all will go smooth as a baby's bottom, and I'm completely wrong. But I don't think so. I think the US is where England was when WWI started: unable to recognize the point where the empire ceases to be, and desparately trying to hang on to old 'glory'.

Osiris
10th February 03, 06:52 PM
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beef is beef. I dont care who it is or where it comes from. I check all niggas the same. You can be Saudi, Afgan, Texan, African, or fucking martian. When you fuck up Ill see that shit. I wont be like "well hes my boy" or whatever. If you deserve it Ill bring it. I dont acknowledge anything else.

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


I've read that paragraph several times and I have no idea what it means."

Translation for my melanin challenged friends. (Im joking)

If you initiate a conflict with me, and it escalates to a violent confrantation, I will fuck you up with no regard to who you are or what you stand for. It doesnt matter if you are my mother or my worste enemy. Should you decide to act without morals, I will confront you. The US acts without morals and often is not confrinted. Saddam acts without morals as well. So does bin Laden Ill speak against them all.

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light/ Why our sons fight for the stripe?" - The RZA

fragbot
10th February 03, 09:54 PM
"Past goals: contain the Soviet influence in the area and political'n'economic stability
New goals: political'n'economic stability and containing terrorism"

"NOTE: there are no priorities with the order above"

You confuse goals with effects. The past approach did not provide stability in the long term, though it succeeded in its soviet goal.


Stability in the long term. . .compared to what? Israel hasn't been invaded for mumble years (1973 and Egypt?). Syria and Libya have been reasonably well-behaved (granted, the breakup of the SU probably accounts for much of Syria). I haven't heard much about Turkey'n'Greece regarding Cyprus and Iran seems to be doing fairly well (not that this has much to do with us).

Succinctly, western ideals of stability aren't entirely appropriate.



When discussing models, the effect, and not the goal, is the important part. Just because there is a new goal does not mean that there will be a new or intended result.


Nor does the same goal lead necessarily to the same result. That being said, I'm not sure I understand your point. You'd prefer there wasn't any vision for our foreign policy in the area.

At some level, pretty much everyone agrees about the goals, but it's how we get around to them.



And Fragbot, I recognize your view, I just don't agree. And I understand that you feel, by not agreeing, I am doing harm, but the fact is, I think by agreeing, you are doing harm, but I recognize that I could be wrong, and I'm sure you recognize that future events could prove you mistaken.


Actually, you don't irritate me in the least. We've had an intelligent adult conversation. For that matter, another fairly prolific poster on this topic doesn't irritate me either since he's a college student and I expect college students to have unreasonable opinions.

Only two posters on this thread are irritating. One 'cause he's a foul-mouthed pr*** (irony is delicious) and the other 'cause he's too old to be as untempered and unwise as he is.



Hopefully, all will go smooth as a baby's bottom, and I'm completely wrong. But I don't think so.


While I admit I'm a tad Pollyannish, there are far too many Cassandras as well.



I think the US is where England was when WWI started: unable to recognize the point where the empire ceases to be, and desparately trying to hang on to old 'glory'.


If this is the case then a patient person has nuttin' to fight over. Kasparov would just wait for Bobby Fischer to put the king on its side.

elipson
10th February 03, 11:46 PM
You know, I was starting to think that magik guy was just trolling with that last post. Then I realized what was going on, shame on you peedee :)

You wanna know whats scary? I really couldn't tell the difference between the real one and the fake one!!

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

SLJ
11th February 03, 04:17 AM
Me neither, got me aswell.

----------------------------------------------------------
The story of a woman on the morning of a war,
Remind me if you will exactly what we're fighting for.

magikchiongson
11th February 03, 09:58 AM
First off WTF do any of you know about living in a Third World Country?

Scumbags like PeeDee probably go to the WTO to Protest "Slave Wages", you know what you are? A dupe. You're a dupe to Union Workers who want to keep their wages and benefits at a certain amount. Its simple math, let's say Nike wants to open a plant in Botswana, there Mabuto makes 2 dollars a day working at the Plant, so he can feed his family ect.. But PeeDee and a bunch of other misguided morons run amock at the WTO and protests such things.

Tell me, how does Mabuto benefit from PeeDee's Protests? He's out of the Job now, what business is it of PeeDee to keep Mabuto unemployed? So don't fukking tell me you care, because I know you don't.

I hate really assholes like this, I've seen countries run by liberals, and it is absolute chaos, and the only reason why they get away with is because they blame the U.S for it. Where I'm from, foreign investment is basically discouraged, they site reasons like "We Don't want foreigners a.k.a America raping our country," when in truth the people who control that country don't want competition on their little monopolies. Nevermind that there aren't enough jobs which foreign investment would fix.

You see where I'm getting at? Blame is neatly transfered so they can continue on their merry way under the radar. So now, you got a whole generation wallowing in abject poverty and everybody around them is telling them the U.S is to blame.

Do you feel comfortable with that? Do you like that? People are going to grow up hating your guts wanting nothing more than to tear you down, eventhough you had nothing to do with it.

ikswobarg
11th February 03, 10:39 AM
This one is definitely NOT tongue in cheek. Sig, the author, was a teen-aged Marine who marched and fought as a rifleman to and from the Chosin reservoir in Korea in 1950. He switched to the Army, and served as a Special Forces officer in Vietnam. After Vietnam he joined the CIA, and went back to Korea.

He's been there, done that, and has some specific thoughts on countries that don't "like" us.

If you aren't interested in the ramblings of an old man, please delete now. If you're still there, pull up a chair and listen.

Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the polls being taken in foreign countries as to whether or not they "like" us? The last time I looked, the word "like" had nothing to do with foreign policy. I prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. They worked for Rome, which civilized and kept the peace in the known world, and kept peace a hell of a lot longer than our puny two centuries-plus.

I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by campaigning against the foreign policy of the United States. Yeah, that's what I want, to be lectured about war and being a "good neighbor" by a German. Their head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a war against Iraq. Kind of nice, to see them taking a pass on a war once in while. Perhaps we needed to have the word "World" in front of War. I think it's time to bring our boys home from Germany. Outside of the money we'd save, we'd make the Germans "like" us a lot more, after they started paying the bills for their own defense.

Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort of liked us back on June 6th, 1944, though, didn't they? If you don't think so, see how nicely they take care of the enormous American cemeteries up above the Normandy beaches. For those of you who've studied history, we also have a few cemeteries in places like! Belleau Woods and Chateau Thierry also. For those of you who haven't studied it, that was from World War One, the first time Europe screwed up and we bailed out the French. That's where the US Marines got the title 'Devil Dogs' or, if you still care about what the Germans think, "Teufelhunde". I hope I spelled that right; sure wouldn't want to offend anyone, least of all a German.

Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian problem recently, guess who had to help out there also. Last time I checked, our kids are still there. I sort of remember they said they would be out in a year. Gee, how time flies when you're having fun.

Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us either. They "liked" us a lot better, of course, in June, 1950. It took more than 50,000 Americans killed in Korea to help give them the lifestyle they currently enjoy, but then who's counting? I think it's also time to bring the boys home from there. There are about 37,000 young Americans on the DMZ separating the South Koreans from their "brothers" up North. Maybe if we leave, they can begin to participate in the "good life" that North Korea currently enjoys. Uh huh. Sure.

I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem world now doesn't "like" us either. Did anyone ever sit down and determine what we would have to do to get them to like us? Ask them what they would like us to do. Die? Commit ritual suicide? Bend over? Maybe we should follow the advice of our dimwitted, dullest knife in the drawer, Senator Patty Murray, and build more roads, hospitals, day care centers, and orphanages like Osama bin Laden does. What with all the orphans Osama has created, the least he can do is build some places to put them. Senator Stupid says if we would only "emulate" Osama, the Arab world would love us.

Sorry Patty; in addition to the fact that we already do all of those things around the world and have! been doing them for over sixty years, I don't take public transportation, and I certainly wouldn't take it with a bomb strapped to the guy next to me.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of going to war. Been there, done that. Several times, in fact. But I think we ought to have some polls in this country about other countries, and see if we "like" THEM. Problem is, if you listed the countries, not only wouldn't the average American know if he liked them or not, he wouldn't be able to find them. If we're supposed to worry about them, how about them worrying about us?

We were nice to the North Koreans in 1994, as we followed the policies of William Neville Clinton. And it seemed to work; they didn't re-start nuclear weapons program for a whole year or so. In the meantime, we fed them when they were starving, and put oil in their stoves when they were freezing.

In a recent visit to Norway, I engaged in a really fun debate with my cousin's son, a student at a Norwegian University. I was lectured to by this thankless squirt about the American "Empire", and scolded about dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese. I reminded him that empires usually keep the stuff they take; we don't, and back in 1945 most Norwegians thought dropping ANY kind of bomb on Germany or Japan was a good idea. I also reminded him that my uncle, his grandfather, and others in our family spent a significant time in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, courtesy of the Germans, and they didn't all survive. I further reminded him that if it wasn't for the "American Empire" he would probably be speaking German or Russian.

Sorry about the rambling, but I just took an unofficial poll here at our house, and we don't seem to like anyone.

KC Elbows
11th February 03, 11:45 AM
Bosnia is the only recent action by America listed as a positive(sort of) in that article. The present US cannot afford to base anything on perceived debts from WWII, some sixty years ago.

magikchiongson
11th February 03, 11:55 AM
Gee thx for clarifying that for us KC, it should be "What Have you done for us lately?" right, right I gotcha.............

KC Elbows
11th February 03, 12:35 PM
No, the fact is, WE didn't do squat in WWII, because we were either too young or weren't even born yet. You wanna ride on the jock of the WWII generation, go ahead and do so. I'd prefer not to smell like nutsack, thank you.

KC Elbows
11th February 03, 12:36 PM
In otherwords, if the US is only great because of the WWII sacrifice, then we're not really great anymore, because no that much of that generation is left.

SamHarber
11th February 03, 12:36 PM
How far back do you go with perceived debts?
Osiris mentioned that black america was owed a debt from the days of slavery. Is that too far back? British Empire? Napoleon? The Romans? What have the Romans ever done for us?
The British constantly harp on about 1945 and 1966 whenever talking about Germany. You are harping on about the times the US intervened to the benefit of certain states. It is fundamentaly non constructive.
Policy should be based on the here and now, with one eye on the past to avoid the obvious mistakes.
I apologise if what I've written is incoherent, but I'm tired and about to go home.

magikchiongson
11th February 03, 01:52 PM
Goddamned, the Berlin Wall came down a litte more than a decade ago. I have seen some pretty stupid posts on this thread, but the lasts ones just takes the cake. You're going to sit here and attribute quotes from 1941-48 but somehow WWII is out of bounce for discussion.

If the pass doesn't matter then nothing you say here matters, because its already in the pass.

First off, this thread starts out with what the U.S supposedly did wrong in the pass, and when someone uses examples of the pass that favored the U.S it is all of a sudden inconsequential? Nobody in the U.S is asking France, Germany to bleed for us or to pay back what we gave them, we do expect a little bit more respect from these weak irrelevant litte bastards pretending to be superpowers.

I think the pass does matter, especially when you get German Politicians comparing George Bush to Hitler. I think the pass matters because that's where you find things like ohh I don't know treaties, like treaties that say when your NATO allies asks for Military Assistance you give it to them, fukking Germany, France and Belgium.

PeedeeShaolin
11th February 03, 02:59 PM
I think the pass does matter, especially when you get German Politicians comparing George Bush to Hitler. I think the pass matters because that's where you find things like ohh I don't know treaties, like treaties that say when your NATO allies asks for Military Assistance you give it to them, fukking Germany, France and Belgium.

Yes indeed.....the pass DOES matter.

In one post you have revealed what a truly braindead fool you are.

Checkmate.

KC Elbows
11th February 03, 03:16 PM
Good God, the Europeans aren't respecting treaties?

Someone get the indians on the phone. This should shock and amaze them.

Actually, to an extent, you're right, the past is pertinent, except all you were saying is that Germany/France should do what we want because of the past, which is not the way things work. In fact, it is 'what have you done for me lately', and we're no different as a country. Japan wasn't our ally in WWII, but the Chinese Communists did some excellent work for us. Yet, when the koumintang got kicked out(for being corrupt and pandering to the west, including the US-sound familiar?), we recognized the idealogical differences were too great for a real peace, whereas Japan, well, we liked 'em. They fought as crazy as us. They were beneficial to us in the now. Zen politics.

In otherwords, the past is only pertinent if it illustrates an important point, but you just want to color all of France and Germany in outdated terms, which isn't really a point at all.

magikchiongson
11th February 03, 03:59 PM
I'm surprised PeeDee knows what a Checkmate is.

But anyways to KC.

Nobody is making Germany and France do what we want them to do. Nobody here, cares whether they agree with us or not, because they are irrelevant, they can't help us, they can't do a thing to stop us if we wanted to invade Iraq or not. I don't want their Peacekeeper/Troops to repay their debt. On the other hand, I think its wrong that they loath us so damned much, and opposse us at every opportunity they get.

Turkey is a NATO ally, who is requesting weapons be deployed in their country to protect themselves from possible Iraqi Military Actions. It is the duty of NATO to do this, you know? What gets us Conservatives so damned mad, is that if Germany and France made the same request we would be there Patriot Missiles in hand. They're not even the ones providing the weapons, we are. These weapons systems were good enough to protect them when their sorry carcasses were on the line, yet its somehow wrong to offer the SAME assistance to the Turkish People?

What kind of friend is that? NATO is a mutual defense pact, France, germany and belgium just proved that the people they care about are themselves.

KC Elbows
11th February 03, 04:26 PM
We were friends with Sadam Hussein once. We gave him weapons of mass destruction technology. I can't imagine why other countries would be less forward with such baubles.

Freddy
11th February 03, 08:01 PM
Turkey has one of the worst human rights record as a NATO member country.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

elipson
11th February 03, 08:11 PM
Magik, you narrow minded sack of shit. Dont you get it? The US is trying to force NATOs hand!!
NATO has already said it wont go to war with IRAQ, so dubya tries to pull them into the war by including turkey in his plans.

Still dont see whats going on? I'll draw it a little clearer. NATO was designed to defend allied nations agianst aggressor nations, it was not designed to attack other countries.
Still with me? More help needed? ok then.

If Turkey helps the US attack Iraq, then it will not be the victomized nation, it will instead be part of the agressive nation (US), and as such should not be afforded protection from NATO, seeing how it wasnt attacked, but instead was the attacker.

Still not following me eh? I'll make it a modern situation. Your best freind is small, and can't realy fight. But he knows you spent 10 years in TKD and can project your chi through walls and start fires and stuff. So this friend of yours goes and picks a fight with people MUCH bigger then him, then EXPECTS you to help him out, no questions asked. Now the guys he started this crap with, you dont really have a problem with, but because you his friend you are obligated to jump in right? Would you jump in? Not once you realised that this kid was only your freidn so he picked fights with people and have you as backup. Thats what the US is doing.

Heres an idea magik, check out a history book of WWI and tell me one of the amin causes of the war. The alliance system you say? That's correct!! It was that system that forced everyone into a war they really didnt want. Its the same thing thats happening here.

Oh, and for you yanks who think you saved the world 50 years ago, I got news for you. It wasnt the states that saved everyone, it was RUSSIA!!!!!!! If RUSSIA hadn't joined the war, it all would have gone VERY bad!! Normandy never would have happened, and North Afrika would have been over-run with Germans. You guys don't seem to realize how much damage Russia did to Hitler.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Ghandi

Osiris
11th February 03, 08:21 PM
The US only joined to save themselves. Thats like if a thief is running lose throughout the neighborhood and I shoot him after he breaks into my house. Am I a hero? No. I saw him rob every last one of my neighbors and I didnt care. BTW Russia did Hitler just like Napoleon. They beat the shit out of him

"The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods/ The white is for the cops and the stars come from the clubs/ Or the slugs that ignites through the night/ By the dawns early light/ Why our sons fight for the stripe?" - The RZA

The Wastrel
11th February 03, 11:58 PM
What gets us Conservatives so damned mad, is that if Germany and France made the same request we would be there Patriot Missiles in hand.

Right, just like we did for the British during the Falklands war. Oh wait...

**The most miraculous power that can verifiably be attributed to "chi" is its ability to be all things to virtually all people, depending on what version of the superstition they are attempting to defend at any given moment.**

Edited by - The Wastrel on February 11 2003 22:58:37

SLJ
12th February 03, 04:03 AM
Magik,

MAYBE France and Germany don't want to go to war because the US can't produce any valid evidence.

Our government has even stooped to COPYING a students essay that was written during the first gulf war, and then trying to pass it off as "intelligence".

----------------------------------------------------------
The story of a woman on the morning of a war,
Remind me if you will exactly what we're fighting for.

magikchiongson
12th February 03, 10:21 AM
That's exactly why NATO is going to be dissolved. Like I said, nobody gives a rat's ass if the French and the Germans join in the fight. Ohh no you mean we won't support from all 20 of their Armed Forces how horrible. First of all its the Vote is like 16-3, do you fukkin understand that? That means most of the NATO members want to give assistance to Turkey except these three asshole countries.

Second of all, we aint shipping Nukes to Turkey. Biochemical suits are not WMDs you fukking moron! Like it or not, U.S warplanes will be flying out of Turkey like it or not Turkey will then be under the threat of Iraq. Turkey is right next to Iraq you dipwad, they know more than you what they are dealing with. Get with reality, this isn't WWI, which you moron Europeans started BTW. Nobody is asking the Frech fags and the German clowns to join in the fighting.

Do you not remember the First Gulf War? Countries like Israel were fired upon by Scud Missiles, some were probably tipped with biochemcal Warheads. Now you want to deny Turkey the means to defend itself against these types of attacks based on some stupid notion that "Ohh tehe hehe NATO is for non aggression countries only," what kind of fukking ally are you clowns?

Now these countries will look like total fools, because the U.S will deploy those weapons regardless of what these sissy nations say and there's not a damned thing they can do about it.

The U.S was good enough to deploy these types of units when we were protecting your sorry asses from the Russians but its suddenly not good enough for the Turkish? Fukking self serving arrogant irrelevant sacks of dog crap.

patfromlogan
12th February 03, 01:05 PM
Actually, my Jewish buddy sez that most people in Israel are scared shitless by Bush's witless war: they are the ones who will suffer.

>>>Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama

magikchiongson
12th February 03, 02:16 PM
Yeah there are Jewish Liberals too, Ehud Barak's lapdogs.

Big deal, I have friend who lives in Israel, he's rather grim about the whole prospect but he also wants to take out Saddam.

Freddy
12th February 03, 07:46 PM
Magik- I am beginning to realize why The Wastrel refered you as an "Internet Troll".

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

magikchiongson
13th February 03, 09:46 AM
I'm a troll because I have no problem responding to threads/posts that I find insulting? Ohh my God, *gasp* someone with a different opinion, he must be a Troll!

SLJ
13th February 03, 09:56 AM
Most of the fuckwitted trolls we get on here can't string two words together, and have brains the size of small wallnuts.



----------------------------------------------------------
The story of a woman on the morning of a war,
Remind me if you will exactly what we're fighting for.

WarPhalange
10th December 06, 03:24 PM
Actually, my Jewish buddy sez that most people in Israel are scared shitless by Bush's witless war: they are the ones who will suffer.

Why do the Jews hate America? :(

Stick
10th December 06, 05:10 PM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/threadnecro.jpg

Couldn't help it.

WarPhalange
10th December 06, 05:50 PM
Damn, you caught me.

ICY
10th December 06, 07:17 PM
<---Almost fell for it

GuiltySpark
11th December 06, 01:07 AM
Oh, and for you yanks who think you saved the world 50 years ago, I got news for you. It wasnt the states that saved everyone, it was RUSSIA!!!!!!! If RUSSIA hadn't joined the war, it all would have gone VERY bad!! Normandy never would have happened, and North Afrika would have been over-run with Germans. You guys don't seem to realize how much damage Russia did to Hitler.

I wonder if Elipson realises that it was the Russians who secretly trained the german armies tank regiments and airforce just before ww2 broke out.

WarPhalange
11th December 06, 01:40 AM
I wonder if Guilty Spark realizes it was Poop Loops who revived this 3 year old thread.

Thinkchair
11th December 06, 07:36 AM
Wow unbelievable man, don't rewrite history. I know it goes against every fiber of your self righteousness, but the fact remains and uncontested that if the U.S didn't fight that war the World would be neatly divided by the Japs, Germans, Italians, and probably the Russian Communists.

I know you all think you're courageous, and brave, standing up against the evil "patriots" and there "evil" "Imperliastic" ways, but really you are just dupes. I know you guys are afraid that "World Opinion" might turn against the U.S, afraid of more bombings if sneeze and defend ourselves. But consider this, people who are much less powerful than the U.S are at the mercy of these very same tyrants you are making excuses for. You don't think poor, and powerless countries are being targeted by the Al Qaedas of the world?

Liberals just zip your mouths, America is through with you as evident in the White House, Congress, House ect.. we've had enough of your loathsome lies about our own country take that shyt to fukking Saudi Arabia I'm sure you will be welcomed with hugs and turbans there.

While some of these quotes are misleading, and do not give the entire acocunt of events, it is important to bring these sorts of things to light for discussion. I find the attitude of "liberals just zip your mouths, America is through with you," to be much more alarming than than an attitude of skepticism toward the government. I love how the more afraid Americans become of the middle east, the more America starts looking like the middle east.

GuiltySpark
11th December 06, 09:29 AM
I wonder if Guilty Spark realizes it was Poop Loops who revived this 3 year old thread.

Guiltyspark does infact realise this and was just pointing out the irony of how russia "helped" defeat hitler.

Shawarma
11th December 06, 10:04 AM
Provide documentation for that claim. It's not unthinkable, but it's the first I've heard of it.

Thinkchair
11th December 06, 05:04 PM
I wonder if Elipson realises that it was the Russians who secretly trained the german armies tank regiments and airforce just before ww2 broke out.

Yes they were important, but US involvement at the end of the war was also vital. I think it is safe to say that both were needed to win the war.

GuiltySpark
12th December 06, 01:17 AM
Yes they were important, but US involvement at the end of the war was also vital. I think it is safe to say that both were needed to win the war.

So heres a question.
What would have happened if;
A) Russia didn't secretly train the German army and airforce before WW2 and,
B) The USA would have entered the war sooner?

ICY
12th December 06, 04:06 AM
Russia secretly trained the German army BEFORE HITLER WAS IN POWER.

GuiltySpark
12th December 06, 06:27 AM
Oh ya? I don't know when he came into power off the top of my head. 1936, 1938?

That doesn't change the fact that german soldiers went to russia and trained with tanks planes and artillery (i'm guessing on the artty) when they weren't suposed to. It was in Russia they develped the blitzkreg tactic and I'll check on my facts but I think actually recieved equipment (tanks and planes) from russian factories.

Like I said, I wonder how WW2 would have panned out had the german war machine not recieved those years of training and equipment.

Shawarma
12th December 06, 08:07 AM
The same. Germans are better soldiers than Russians. And the Blitzkrieg was as far as I know certainly not developed in Russia. If it had been, the Russians might not have gotten so surprised when Hitler double-crossed them.

"When they weren't supposed to?" What does that mean? Did they just nip over to Russia in their lunch hour to drive some tanks around?

JimmyTheHutt
12th December 06, 10:11 AM
Germans are better soldiers than Russians. And the Blitzkrieg was as far as I know certainly not developed in Russia. If it had been, the Russians might not have gotten so surprised when Hitler double-crossed them.


It depends on the environment. For some reason, Russian forces are traditionally better at Urban Combat than most other forces. I think it's might be because of the huge amount of land they can just give away in the process of retreating to their cities.

The ground work for Blitzkrieg was created by Germany as part of the Schlieffen Plan.

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

WarPhalange
12th December 06, 11:49 AM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/tenshirisu/threadnecro.jpg

Couldn't help it.

Turns out that it was a success nonetheless.

ICY
12th December 06, 05:32 PM
It was in Russia they develped the blitzkreg tactic and I'll check on my facts but I think actually recieved equipment (tanks and planes) from russian factories.

http://ninjapirates.net/macros/answerisno.jpg

GuiltySpark
12th December 06, 06:25 PM
And the Blitzkrieg was as far as I know certainly not developed in Russia. If it had been, the Russians might not have gotten so surprised when Hitler double-crossed them.

Where would the Germans have practiced it? Surely not in Germany without tanks and the allies watching them. The Germans developed it IN russia and practiced and refined it there. Maybe they just hid it well. I wasn't saying the Russians developed the idea. Russian territory made an ideal training ground for that very type of combat.


"When they weren't supposed to?" What does that mean? Did they just nip over to Russia in their lunch hour to drive some tanks around?
Spelling is probably off but the Versalies treaty signed and put in place whatever after world war one. If your curious about it do a search it's pretty interesting. It really put germans in a bad place with a lot of hardship so made it easier for Hitler to win their hearts and minds.

ICY
12th December 06, 06:35 PM
Read a history book, man...really, please...or at least cite sources for this BS.

Shawarma
12th December 06, 06:39 PM
I don't buy the "Developed in Russia" idea. Hid it well? That doesn't sound too likely, no matter how much Stalin thought Hitler was his buddy. And how did the Germans get their armour to Russia to train with? Didn't the Poles sort of object to the idea of a soldiers from a country with the stated purpose of annexing Poland running through their country? Please provide online source for this.

Ah, so you mean that them training for war was against the Treaty of Versailles. I see now.

PS: The reason Russians are better at urban combat is because they're notoriously unbothered about collateral damage, judging from their advances in Chechnya and Germany.

NSLightsOut
12th December 06, 06:59 PM
AFAIK, Blitzkrieg was a logical development of ideas from an Englishman, Captain B.H. Liddell-Hart (who later went on to become a very good military historian) of how to conduct a combined arms assault with armor at a point in time when nobody really had an idea of how armored cavalry was to be used (the English separation of tanks into Infantry, Cruiser, Heavy categories is a case in point)

Nothing that I've read suggests that Blitzkrieg was a Russian innovation, especially considering that the early 20s were spent fighting and recovering from a very nasty civil war between the various former factions of the Duma, Czarist loyalists, and assorted western interventions.

ICY
12th December 06, 07:39 PM
The ignorance is strong with this thread.

Phrost
12th December 06, 08:08 PM
Does my signature show up here?

Phrost
12th December 06, 08:09 PM
Ok, how about now?

Phrost
12th December 06, 08:11 PM
Fuck it.

"Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."
Jean Francois Revel

WarPhalange
12th December 06, 09:16 PM
For once I agree with Phrost. If we don't keep killing innocent people and oppressing entire populations, how will we further our own interests?

Phrost
13th December 06, 01:13 AM
1. Life's not fair.
2. There are only so many resources on the planet.
3. Every single nation on the planet is guilty of a huge number of crimes.
4. While principles and ideals of a society are important, they are not so important as to be clung to at the detriment of the members of that society.
5. Life's not fair.

WarPhalange
13th December 06, 01:47 AM
1. Life's not fair.
2. There are only so many resources on the planet.
3. Every single nation on the planet is guilty of a huge number of crimes.
4. While principles and ideals of a society are important, they are not so important as to be clung to at the detriment of the members of that society.
5. Life's not fair.

That would carry more weight if your life wasn't essentially The American Dream. If you could say the same thing as a tortured POW or starving single parent in fucking Liberia or some shit, then I'd actually say "Wow... I guess he has a point."

But saying that the food chain is fine when you're the one on top is ludicrous. I mean, even more so since you see your self as Mr. Objective.

Just remember to tell me next time you get some sort of major calamity in your life, because I am that spiteful and I would LOVE to bask in your suffering like you are doing right now with the suffering of others, although I would do it consciously.

Before you say it: fuck yeah I also live off the suffering of others. All 1st world countries do. I'm not denying that. I'm just admitting it and admitting it's wrong (self preservation =/= a plasma TV) and one of the main reasons that I am going into science is to help humanity (the other being that it interests me).

Say it with me: NEO CON!!

ICY
13th December 06, 02:45 AM
http://ninjapirates.net/macros/applause.gif

GuiltySpark
13th December 06, 02:54 AM
And how did the Germans get their armour to Russia to train with?
They didn't have to 'get' their armor to Russia. It was made in russian factories.

Good post NSLightsout, never heard that it was origionally an English concept. Who'd have thought that after their retarded approach to combat in WW1.

1st world countries are all about peace and helping people out and the greater good, until it starts costing an arm and a leg to fill up their SUVs with gas. (even though going to war won't solve that)
Kinda like the game Civilization 3. If your a democracy your citizens whine bitch and complain if your at war with people until they run out of resources then it's load the cannons.

Shawarma
13th December 06, 08:42 AM
First of all, no, 1st world countries are about furthering their own interests. They're no different than any other country in that respect.

Secondly, you still haven't provided any kind of source or official mention for the "Russians trained Germans" claim. Please do so.

GuiltySpark
13th December 06, 09:03 AM
Sure no problem. One of my buddies is a history major and has a book on the subject here so when he coughs it up I'll cite it as a reference, I'll also do some digging online and come up with some references, just be patient we only get 30 minutes online at a time.

Shawarma
13th December 06, 09:11 AM
Only THIRTY MINUTES! Wow, the army is worse than I could have ever imagined.

Thank you for providing references, preferably online ones. I don't doubt the possibility that the Russians could have been suckered into training Germans on German soil, I just never heard of it before. And I doubt that German tanks were Russian-made.

Phrost
13th December 06, 11:03 AM
That would carry more weight if your life wasn't essentially The American Dream. If you could say the same thing as a tortured POW or starving single parent in fucking Liberia or some shit, then I'd actually say "Wow... I guess he has a point."

But saying that the food chain is fine when you're the one on top is ludicrous. I mean, even more so since you see your self as Mr. Objective.

I'm living the "American Dream" because I've busted my ass, made smart decisions, and stomped on anyone who got in my way to get to where I am. Anyone who expects to be given the same lifestyle simply for being shat out on US soil can go fuck themselves.

I'm "Mr. Objective" because I've actually spent time in the third world. I've built schools for the poor. I've personally known people who lived in shanty towns built out of cardboard and sheet metal.

And I've earned my right to have an opinion on the way the world works.

Have you?



Just remember to tell me next time you get some sort of major calamity in your life, because I am that spiteful and I would LOVE to bask in your suffering like you are doing right now with the suffering of others, although I would do it consciously.

Before you say it: fuck yeah I also live off the suffering of others. All 1st world countries do. I'm not denying that. I'm just admitting it and admitting it's wrong (self preservation =/= a plasma TV) and one of the main reasons that I am going into science is to help humanity (the other being that it interests me).

Say it with me: NEO CON!!

You know what? I've had plenty of calamaties in my life. But they're my calamaties. My fucking problems, and not my neighbor's, the Government's, or the EEEVIL NEOCONS. I only have myself to blame when I stumble, and I only rely on myself to get back to my feet.

My political ideology is centered around the concepts of individual responsibility, and earning your say in society through service to the greater community in which you live. I've already done this myself; I'm not just regurgitating the namby-pamby sentiments rectally injected into my consciousness by hippy college professors or fellow douchebags. Can you say the same for your views?

Look, I loathe the soft, spoiled, sheltered youth and average person in this country. But you know what I hate more? The soft, spoiled, sheltered person who thinks they have the right to tell me how bad we are when they've never stepped one foot out of this fucking country, never spent one day in the third world, never missed a meal in their lives, never had to dodge bullets to get to school, and never had any greater "calamity" to deal with than Uncle Roger or Sparky dying of old age.

So fuck you if you fit this description.

Thinkchair
13th December 06, 12:24 PM
I'm living the "American Dream" because I've busted my ass, made smart decisions, and stomped on anyone who got in my way to get to where I am. Anyone who expects to be given the same lifestyle simply for being shat out on US soil can go fuck themselves.

I'm "Mr. Objective" because I've actually spent time in the third world. I've built schools for the poor. I've personally known people who lived in shanty towns built out of cardboard and sheet metal.

And I've earned my right to have an opinion on the way the world works.

Have you?



You know what? I've had plenty of calamaties in my life. But they're my calamaties. My fucking problems, and not my neighbor's, the Government's, or the EEEVIL NEOCONS. I only have myself to blame when I stumble, and I only rely on myself to get back to my feet.

My political ideology is centered around the concepts of individual responsibility, and earning your say in society through service to the greater community in which you live. I've already done this myself; I'm not just regurgitating the namby-pamby sentiments rectally injected into my consciousness by hippy college professors or fellow douchebags. Can you say the same for your views?

Look, I loathe the soft, spoiled, sheltered youth and average person in this country. But you know what I hate more? The soft, spoiled, sheltered person who thinks they have the right to tell me how bad we are when they've never stepped one foot out of this fucking country, never spent one day in the third world, never missed a meal in their lives, never had to dodge bullets to get to school, and never had any greater "calamity" to deal with than Uncle Roger or Sparky dying of old age.

So fuck you if you fit this description.

Phrost you are clearly an angry person. I do not think that your success has brought peace of mind. Some of what you say has merit. But much of what you say seems to be rooted only in anger.

Phrost
13th December 06, 12:59 PM
Me being angry at certain people != me being angry at everyone.

And I clearly explained the targets of my anger in the above post.

Thinkchair
13th December 06, 02:58 PM
Me being angry at certain people != me being angry at everyone.

And I clearly explained the targets of my anger in the above post.

I never said that that was unclear. Believe me, you have made it perfectly clear who you are angry at. I just wonder how realistic your impression of the "american cultural landscape" really is. Most of the people I meet are more like you than the people you complain about.

Phrost
13th December 06, 03:22 PM
I doubt you've met many people like me.

I've lived on both coasts, in the middle of the country, in big cities, small towns, and in the middle of fucking nowhere. I've lived in Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Georgia, California, Virginia, and South Carolina. I've lived in poverty so bad my house had rats and holes in the floor, and now I own a 4400 sq foot house in the middle of town.

I also speak Spanish and previously lived in Central America for several years. My mother-in-law is actually a former Minister of the Interior for Panama.

So my impression of the "Amercian Cultural Landscape" and a good bit of the global one, is pretty fucking accurate despite whether or not someone else with the same life experience would come to the same conclusions.

But let's not let you redirect the situation to something else. Unless you've got a similar level of life experience, you should really shut the fuck up about how bad the US is.

ICY
13th December 06, 04:15 PM
You know what? I've had plenty of calamaties in my life. But they're my calamaties. My fucking problems, and not my neighbor's, the Government's, or the EEEVIL NEOCONS. I only have myself to blame when I stumble, and I only rely on myself to get back to my feet.


No collective responsibility means no armed forces. STFU.

Phrost
13th December 06, 05:37 PM
Way to completely, intentionally misunderstand everything I've ever written.

Thinkchair
13th December 06, 05:51 PM
I doubt you've met many people like me.

I've lived on both coasts, in the middle of the country, in big cities, small towns, and in the middle of fucking nowhere. I've lived in Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Georgia, California, Virginia, and South Carolina. I've lived in poverty so bad my house had rats and holes in the floor, and now I own a 4400 sq foot house in the middle of town.

I also speak Spanish and previously lived in Central America for several years. My mother-in-law is actually a former Minister of the Interior for Panama.

So my impression of the "Amercian Cultural Landscape" and a good bit of the global one, is pretty fucking accurate despite whether or not someone else with the same life experience would come to the same conclusions.

But let's not let you redirect the situation to something else. Unless you've got a similar level of life experience, you should really shut the fuck up about how bad the US is.

So only people with life experience that is equal to your own can critique the US government? I have been El Salvador on mission work. I have beb to italy. I have lived on both coasts as well. I spent ten years out of school wandering from job to job and place to place. I just recently earned a college degree. I may not have your exact level of experience or be distantly related to someone who is in the know, but I think my criticisms are well founded. Your arguments consist of attacking the people you disagree with. That proves nothing. Even if I dont know what I am talking about, I could still happen to be correct. You need to prove critics wrong.

I dont think the US is a bad place. But I am concerned about the direction it has taken since 911. I dont hate my country, nor do I hate the government. But I am a citizen and can express my opinions about what is going on.

Your such a dumb fuck that you think because you lived a little that gives you the right to silence everyone with your limited grasp on rhetoric. Why dont you present a real argument instead of a rant.

Phrost
13th December 06, 06:07 PM
So only people with life experience that is equal to your own can critique the US government? I have been El Salvador on mission work. I have beb to italy. I have lived on both coasts as well. I spent ten years out of school wandering from job to job and place to place. I just recently earned a college degree. I may not have your exact level of experience or be distantly related to someone who is in the know, but I think my criticisms are well founded. Your arguments consist of attacking the people you disagree with. That proves nothing. Even if I dont know what I am talking about, I could still happen to be correct. You need to prove critics wrong.

You're still not addressing any of the points I made in my post at all, prefering to sidestep them and make this about me. Ad fucking hominem.

But since you seem to be so infatuated with me, I'll clarify this for you:

Do you have the right to criticize the government? Sure.

Do I have the right to have contempt for you for doing so without sufficient life experience to put things into a perspective that would make you a responsible member of society who has the power to vote? Yes.

And it is this contempt that I am expressing.



I dont think the US is a bad place. But I am concerned about the direction it has taken since 911. I dont hate my country, nor do I hate the government. But I am a citizen and can express my opinions about what is going on.

Your such a dumb fuck that you think because you lived a little that gives you the right to silence everyone with your limited grasp on rhetoric. Why dont you present a real argument instead of a rant.

I presented a real argument. You're taking it personally. Address the points I made about:

1. A citizen's duty to pursue sufficient experience in life as to actually qualify them with the tools needed to responsibly participate as a voting member of society.

and

2. The fact that being willing to rush to judgement against your own country to the extent the "Blame America First" crowd does, is little different than selling out a member of your own family.

There is a marked difference between criticism and activism that has the end goal of improving and empowering one's nation, and the kind that empowers your nation's enemies.

And blaming your own country for everything wrong with the world, such as people like the ORIGINAL POSTER IN THIS THREAD, is bullshit.

Zendetta
13th December 06, 06:20 PM
Wooly-Haired Trust-fund Hippy: "America! Lol! You didn't care much about democracy when you were raping the Natives, did ya?!?!"

Jack-booted Jesus-Freak Fascist: "America!!! Fuck Yeah!!! We are so fucking great! You are only whining about (insert actual historic malfeasance) because you Hate America, you fucking commie queer!"



I fucking hate ideological fanatics. A painful and humiliating death to all of them.

Zendetta
13th December 06, 06:24 PM
And blaming your own country for everything wrong with the world, such as people like the ORIGINAL POSTER IN THIS THREAD, is bullshit.

Is this how you interpret PatfromLogan's post?

Phrost
13th December 06, 06:43 PM
It's how I interpret all of PFL's posts.

Anyone who uses "Western Hegemony" with sincerity is a jackass.

Thinkchair
13th December 06, 06:43 PM
You're still not addressing any of the points I made in my post at all, prefering to sidestep them and make this about me. Ad fucking hominem.

But since you seem to be so infatuated with me, I'll clarify this for you:

Do you have the right to criticize the government? Sure.

Do I have the right to have contempt for you for doing so without sufficient life experience to put things into a perspective that would make you a responsible member of society who has the power to vote? Yes.

And it is this contempt that I am expressing.



I presented a real argument. You're taking it personally. Address the points I made about:

1. A citizen's duty to pursue sufficient experience in life as to actually qualify them with the tools needed to responsibly participate as a voting member of society.

and

2. The fact that being willing to rush to judgement against your own country to the extent the "Blame America First" crowd does, is little different than selling out a member of your own family.

There is a marked difference between criticism and activism that has the end goal of improving and empowering one's nation, and the kind that empowers your nation's enemies.

And blaming your own country for everything wrong with the world, such as people like the ORIGINAL POSTER IN THIS THREAD, is bullshit.

I may have missed your original points. My response would be:

1) You need to define what tools are needed to "responsibly participate as a voting member of society." It sounds like you want something different than a democracy. We are not duty bound to acquire any specific life experiences in order to have the tools needed to vote. Every citizen can vote. That is why we have representatives and do not determine policy by a nationwide vote. It is assumed that some people will be less informed than others. So no. I think that is a personal matter.

2) Sure there are people who love to blame America. i have met many such people and read many such authors. There is also a "blame everybody else first crowd" as well. The best position to take on this issue is a mean between the two. When it is justified, we should express our anger or frustration with our country and its leaders. When our nation has strayed from its principles there should be people willing to stand up and say something. I personally regard much of what has happened in the wake of 911 as being unhealthy for the country. I think we have become a fearful nation, and react to everything from a position of fear. There are real threats to America out there that should be dealt with. Terrosism is frightening, and we should do what we can to stop it, but we should not allow it to control our lives or change the way we live. That is what concerns me. I am very concerned about the large number of people we have imprisoned without bringing up charges. I am also concerned that we have allowed our country to be led into a futile, deadly and expensive war because of our fear of terrorism. It seems to me, that our money would have been much better spent on beefing up our intelligence. We also could have used a comprehensive arabic instruction program from Junior High up, to help prepare us for challenges ahead. We need Arabic translators, and Bush has done far too little on this front. I know because I studied Arabic in college.

Yes the Hate america first crowd irritates me. But so does the Blame the Secular progressive crowd, and the Live free or die crowd. I just dont pay any attention to them. People think lots of strange things.

I want to point out that my "ad hominem" attack was just a criticism of your own ad hominem.

Zendetta
13th December 06, 07:03 PM
Anyone who uses "Western Hegemony" with sincerity is a jackass.

Goddam it Phrost. Here I am trying to respect your intelligence. L. Frank Baum couldn't invent a better Strawman.

OK, try this: Anglo-American Oil Industry Hegemony. That work any better, or am I being a jackass too?

You should read John Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman if you have the intellectual cojones.


Anyone who denies Western Hegemony is either:
-a product of american public education
-doesn't see international news
-is the (self-deluding) "Jackass" mentioned above


THe question isn't: "Is there really Western Hegemony?"

THe question is "Is it a good thing?"

Phrost
13th December 06, 07:10 PM
It is such a new development in history for rich and powerful people work to further their interests at the expense of the "little people". How ever would I have failed to notice and/or care about this shift in the course of human events?

If it bugs you that much, ride a bike. That's about all you're going to be able to do about it unless you claw your way to the top of the Fortune 500 list.

Zendetta
13th December 06, 07:18 PM
If it bugs you that much, ride a bike. That's about all you're going to be able to do about it unless you claw your way to the top of the Fortune 500 list.

LOL - no shit, huh?

I had this arguement with a student of mine just this morning. This is why I told her that wealthy capitalists are more powerful (and thus better) than broke hippies - the affluent can actually work their will on the world, as opposed to just bitching as they pour coffee at Starbucks.


Sarcasm aside, I'm sure that you know the idea that the 'little people' have a right to pursue their own interests and not just be serfs ground under the heel of their betters is the "new development", in stark contrast to most of the history of The Planet of The Apes.


Read the book if you dare.

Phrost
13th December 06, 07:21 PM
I may have missed your original points. My response would be:

1) You need to define what tools are needed to "responsibly participate as a voting member of society." It sounds like you want something different than a democracy. We are not duty bound to acquire any specific life experiences in order to have the tools needed to vote. Every citizen can vote. That is why we have representatives and do not determine policy by a nationwide vote. It is assumed that some people will be less informed than others. So no. I think that is a personal matter.

Yeah, you must have missed several of my posts about Heinlein's ideas of earning your right to vote through service to the greater good of the nation.



2) Sure there are people who love to blame America. i have met many such people and read many such authors. There is also a "blame everybody else first crowd" as well. The best position to take on this issue is a mean between the two. When it is justified, we should express our anger or frustration with our country and its leaders. When our nation has strayed from its principles there should be people willing to stand up and say something. I personally regard much of what has happened in the wake of 911 as being unhealthy for the country. I think we have become a fearful nation, and react to everything from a position of fear.

People, collectively, are always going to be a gullible mass of sheep. This is why our system was originally set up to put the responsibility on the individual for his or her own well-being, safety, and security.



There are real threats to America out there that should be dealt with. Terrosism is frightening, and we should do what we can to stop it, but we should not allow it to control our lives or change the way we live. That is what concerns me. I am very concerned about the large number of people we have imprisoned without bringing up charges. I am also concerned that we have allowed our country to be led into a futile, deadly and expensive war because of our fear of terrorism. It seems to me, that our money would have been much better spent on beefing up our intelligence. We also could have used a comprehensive arabic instruction program from Junior High up, to help prepare us for challenges ahead. We need Arabic translators, and Bush has done far too little on this front. I know because I studied Arabic in college.

As someone who's recently considered going back into the Army as a PSYOP Specialist with an Arabic language specialization, I know this.

I also believe our children are being raised by a public school system that turns them into little victims-in-waiting, expecting the Nanny State to take care of them from the cradle to the grave.



Yes the Hate america first crowd irritates me. But so does the Blame the Secular progressive crowd, and the Live free or die crowd. I just dont pay any attention to them. People think lots of strange things.

I want to point out that my "ad hominem" attack was just a criticism of your own ad hominem.

I'm both a Secular Progressive, and a member of the Live Free or Die crowd.

Thinkchair
13th December 06, 07:22 PM
LOL - no shit, huh?

I had this arguement with a student of mine just this morning. This is why I told her that wealthy capitalists are more powerful (and thus better) than broke hippies - the affluent can actually work their will on the world, as opposed to just bitching as they pour coffee at Starbucks.


Sarcasm aside, I'm sure that you know the idea that the 'little people' have a right to pursue their own interests and not just be serfs ground under the heel of their betters is the "new development", in stark contrast to most of the history of The Planet of The Apes.


Read the book if you dare.


What subject do you teach?

Zendetta
13th December 06, 07:23 PM
I also believe our children are being raised by a public school system that turns them into little victims-in-waiting, expecting the Nanny State to take care of them from the cradle to the grave.

See also: Katrina, aftermath.

Zendetta
13th December 06, 07:24 PM
What subject do you teach?

I practice and teach Massage Therapy, with an emphasis on eastern massage modalities like Shiatsu and Thai Massage.

Thinkchair
13th December 06, 07:25 PM
I'm both a Secular Progressive, and a member of the Live Free or Die crowd.

Then that must be why I find yhou both interesting and infuriating.


Do you know Arabic?

Mine is not very great. I was thinking of pursuing some more courses in it.

Phrost
13th December 06, 07:28 PM
Sarcasm aside, I'm sure that you know the idea that the 'little people' have a right to pursue their own interests and not just be serfs ground under the heel of their betters is the "new development", in stark contrast to most of the history of The Planet of The Apes.


Read the book if you dare.

It'll get added to the list after Eddie Bravo's book.

Anyway, the little people will always be little people regardless of the political or economic system in place, and regardless of how many populist movements spring up.

That's just the nature of life. Either get in the game to influence things from within, or keep spinning your wheels raging against that machine.

Phrost
13th December 06, 07:30 PM
Then that must be why I find yhou both interesting and infuriating.


Do you know Arabic?

Mine is not very great. I was thinking of pursuing some more courses in it.

I don't know more than a few words of it. I just realized that after Spanish (which I speak), it's going to be the second most useful language in the coming decades.

Either that or Mandarin.

Thinkchair
13th December 06, 07:30 PM
[quote=Jack Frost]Yeah, you must have missed several of my posts about Heinlein's ideas of earning your right to vote through service to the greater good of the nation.


quote]

Have you read Aristotles "Politics". That is where Heinlein got most of his ideas in Starship Troopers. If you have not read it you should. I have to say, some of it makes sense. i dont think it would work under our system of government. But as a seperate idea it makes some sense. Though you may not like his ideas on middle class rule.

Zendetta
13th December 06, 07:36 PM
Seriously, the book is an excellent dissection of what has really moved US foreign policy since WW2, from an insider that knows.

re: the Nature of Life.
Yeah, not everyone gets a trophy. If they do, then the trophy doesn't matter.

But the old "Life ain't fair" chestnut really does very little to square American Values (generally "good" in my book) with actual US policy (pretty fucked up on a regular basis, imo).

In other words, just because the "Lifestyle Activists" (thats my term - you can use it without royalties) are douchebags (and boy, are they ever) doesn't make what they are complaining about right.

Phrost
13th December 06, 07:42 PM
Like this?

3031880283858584099

JimmyTheHutt
13th December 06, 08:08 PM
Phrost, where did you find that documentary?

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

NSLightsOut
13th December 06, 08:19 PM
Yeah, you must have missed several of my posts about Heinlein's ideas of earning your right to vote through service to the greater good of the nation.

I have seen your ideas about Heinlein's ideas of earning one's political enfranchisement. I also think that they are ill-defined in a number of respects, as people in many areas of both the public and private sectors can legitimately claim to be working for the greater good of the nation. How, for example, do public schoolteachers fit into your electoral paradigm? How do public servants in various sectors of essential national bureacracy (diplomacy, intelligence, finance) fit? 'Public Service to the Greater Good' is a fairly nebulous concept, which can be seen by looking at any civil/military honours list such as the Australian Queen's Birthday honours list.



People, collectively, are always going to be a gullible mass of sheep. This is why our system was originally set up to put the responsibility on the individual for his or her own well-being, safety, and security.

As someone who's recently considered going back into the Army as a PSYOP Specialist with an Arabic language specialization, I know this.


Political systems are designed to be mutable. At the time that the American political system was devised, Political citizenship was limited to certain racial and socio-economic groupings. T.H. Marshall, in his essay "Citizenship and Social Class" (pretty much a must-read for anyone discussing citizenship, in spite of it's overt nutriding of the post WWII British Welfare state as the prime example of Social citizenship - the ideal that people within a society are entitled to a bare minimum standard of living) believed that a universal political citizenship only really arose around the first fifth of the twentieth century when the suffragette movement succeeded in gaining female enfranchisement in most Western Democracies. Whether an individual as private citizen can be responsible for their own well-being, safety and security without having public enfranchisement is dubious. It is notable that many of the authors I've read from different sides of the political spectrum(Frankfurt School of Social Enquiry and their adherents, Barber, notably, among others) disagree that it is possible to have fulfilled responsibility as a private citizen without playing some role within the public sphere with one's political franchise.

As a sidebar on Marshall, from a realist and neo-realist POV (international relations theory schools of thought), enfranchisement as a social citizen of one's society, as much of a waste of money as it might seem, serves as somewhat of a bulwark against certain social issues such as disease and crime, and within certain states grants one the ability for social advancement, such as the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (Low interest government loans for education) in Australia, as bastardized as it may be.




I also believe our children are being raised by a public school system that turns them into little victims-in-waiting, expecting the Nanny State to take care of them from the cradle to the grave.


LOL. You'd probably feel quite sick at seeing some of the second and third generation dole recipients in Australia, as well as the results of some of the Australian federal governments ill-conceived attempt to boost the birth rate ($5000 per newborn child grant) This is one of the largest issues that I personally had with Marshall, but I believe this can be ameliorated with social policies designed to get people off government support and into the workplace as quickly as possible to limit the amount of given support as to not be a massive drain on society.




Anyone who uses "Western Hegemony" with sincerity is a jackass.


If the usage is in the context of how we should give a greater percentage of GNP to poor countries within the global south to prop up their inept governments, then yes. If not, denial of Western economic, political and military hegemony is equally jackasslike, especially when academics on both sides of the political divide are trying to justify American hegemony as either a good or bad thing for the world at large.

Incidentally, as much as you despise being called a neo-conservative, your stance on international relations is, in fact neo-conservative (or 'Wilsonian' as Francis Fukuyama claimed when he was trying to weasel his way out of any ideological connections with the Bush administrations policies). Quite recently, you claimed to support the spread of democracy through military power, which is a feature of neo-conservative political ideology based upon democratic peace theory (the claim that democracies do not/are less likely to go to war on each other.)

Empirical evidence, including Przeworski's correlation between successful democracy and large amounts of wealth, show that this is, in short, a bad idea, especially from a realist/neorealist perspective (international relations exist in a state of anarchy). It does not behoove any state to build up the economy of a potential rival unless there is a larger goal in mind (i.e. reconstruction of West Germany/Japan following WWII as a bulwark against perceived militant spread of communism)

bob
13th December 06, 08:42 PM
I really wish you'd stop bringing reason to these discussions, NS.

NSLightsOut
13th December 06, 08:55 PM
But what fun would I have then? (Besides having little to contribute)

Shawarma
13th December 06, 09:35 PM
Australian federal governments ill-conceived attempt to boost the birth rate ($5000 per newborn child grant)
I sincerely hope you're kidding on this. If not, you should revolt RIGHT NOW, since it seems you're being governed by morons.

WarPhalange
13th December 06, 09:39 PM
I'm living the "American Dream" because I've busted my ass, made smart decisions, and stomped on anyone who got in my way to get to where I am. Anyone who expects to be given the same lifestyle simply for being shat out on US soil can go fuck themselves.
Deja vu.

Let's see, the conversation should go something like:

Dude, not everybody is on American soil or even gets the chance when the are.

You: LIVE ISN'T FAIR! HUR HURR!

Then we go back to my previous post. See how this keeps going in circles?


I'm "Mr. Objective" because I've actually spent time in the third world. I've built schools for the poor. I've personally known people who lived in shanty towns built out of cardboard and sheet metal.

And I've earned my right to have an opinion on the way the world works.

Have you?
I don't understand. You've actually been there and seen people die in starvation and still say it's the way it ought to be?

Does anybody else see something wrong with this?




You know what? I've had plenty of calamaties in my life. But they're my calamaties. My fucking problems, and not my neighbor's, the Government's, or the EEEVIL NEOCONS. I only have myself to blame when I stumble, and I only rely on myself to get back to my feet.
Wait, didn't you start a thread on why we should all watch Naruto?

Yes or no question: Do the people who died in 9/11 deserved to be blamed for their own deaths?


My political ideology is centered around the concepts of individual responsibility, and earning your say in society through service to the greater community in which you live. I've already done this myself; I'm not just regurgitating the namby-pamby sentiments rectally injected into my consciousness by hippy college professors or fellow douchebags. Can you say the same for your views?
Of course. I never talk to my professors and I can't really help that you're a douchebag. Or can I? I don't know, you're confusing me.

Which brings me to my next point: Why the fuck do you assume that if YOU were able to do something, everybody else can? Either you admit life isn't fair, or you admit that everybody has the same opportunities. The former is fucking obvious, and the latter is what some people are striving for. Where do you sit? "We have equal opportunities, but life shouldn't be fair"?


Look, I loathe the soft, spoiled, sheltered youth and average person in this country. But you know what I hate more? The soft, spoiled, sheltered person who thinks they have the right to tell me how bad we are when they've never stepped one foot out of this fucking country, never spent one day in the third world, never missed a meal in their lives, never had to dodge bullets to get to school, and never had any greater "calamity" to deal with than Uncle Roger or Sparky dying of old age.
This is what I'm talking about. It seems like you don't even know what the fuck you want.

On one hand you're saying you don't care that other people are dying, because it brings you wealth.

But I come along and say "Hahaha you went to the army and almost died. Fuck you war veteran, I have freedom because of YOU and I'm not giving you SHIT because it's MY money and I am just going to stay home and never have to deal with that shit suck my cock." and suddenly it's bad? Why? I'm just furthering my own intersts through your suffering. What's so wrong about that? Life isn't fair. You had a shitty life and had to work hard to get to where you are. I don't. You should be all over me right now because I'm so awesome.

But wait, you're hating me? Why? I am the epitome of your ideology.


So fuck you if you fit this description.
Likewise, I'm sure.

EDIT: By the way, Phrost, you say you've lived EVERYWHERE? Shitsville, East Coast, West Coast? 3rd world country even?

How much of that time did you spend as an outsider? As in, suddenly you're not American? I've lived for 4 years in Poland. I was young, but I remember everything. I remember how suddenly your view of life and of a place change when you're somewhere else. For you it doesn't count, because no matter where you went, you were an American. I still don't consider myself an American even though I obtained citizenship a few years back. I find the whole idea of nationalism to be repulsing. Nothing makes me want to stab someone in the throat than the chant of "EWE ESS AI!!" It's so superficial it's sickening.

bob
13th December 06, 09:43 PM
I sincerely hope you're kidding on this.
He's not



If not, you should revolt RIGHT NOW,
I'm too busy drinking through my $5000




since it seems you're being governed by morons


True, but what's worse is it's contagious...

http://images.43things.com/profile/00/01/d0/118936s160.jpg

NSLightsOut
13th December 06, 09:52 PM
I sincerely hope you're kidding on this. If not, you should revolt RIGHT NOW, since it seems you're being governed by morons.

Alas, I live in the midst of an apathetic population too anesthetized by consumerist trappings* to realize that our government's "great economic improvements" (the government's greatest accomplishment) could have been accomplished by a semi-trained chimpanzee given the Chinese economic boom and resultant need for commodity exports. Especially considering that John Howard's economic policies that have made my country into an extraction-based economy rather than encouraging such potential commodities as, uhh...research, education and so forth which live on in economies that don't have such a great wealth of natural resources to exploit (We shall call this 'The Saudi Resource Rape Gambit') which we are eventually going to become...

As you can tell, I'm not all that happy with my government's short sighted policy at this point in time.

(Brightens) There is a federal election next year! Yay, democracy!


* - EDIT: I blame it mostly on Big Brother. Gretel Killeen and the producers of that show must be exiled/summarily executed for the good of the nation!

ICY
15th December 06, 06:26 AM
Way to completely, intentionally misunderstand everything I've ever written.

*Bows*