US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
by Kristov » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:04 pm
Keekano, I don't tow the party line, and I'm far from being a government support typically. I was raised by a parent arrested for protesting Black Fox(look it up), who was almost a text book flower child of the 60s. I was raised to be extremely critical of anything the government says, up to the point of looking out my window if they say the sky is blue. I turned down an appointment to the Air Force Academy after high school. I'm definately not someone who tows the party line.
Your writing alone shows exactly where your ideology is though...I've not seen those phrases used outside of communist and socialist movies and books in 2 decades. You obviously oppose any action the US takes based on our 'imperialist' aggressive stance. Uhm...maybe it's escaped your notice, but the US hasn't ever been imperialist..that term was used to describe the UK and France during the early days of the Marxist movement, since they WERE imperialist governments. If you want to use Marxism, at least apply the correct adjectives to the US.
I didn't watch Colin Powell's address to the UN, had no interest in it, as I knew it would be a mixture of reality and fantasy. I based my information on reports from around the globe, not just American media and the American government, thank you. I'm educated, intelligent, and never rely on the information from a single source to draw my own conclusions on, especially not a source which I know to be biased.
Tell you what, how about if the US pulls ALL our aid to every single country on the planet and denies all further requests? How about if we just say 'go to hell' and let you all fend for yourselves? We are just about the only country on the planet that can literally support ourselves. Canada can't, the UK can't, the EU sure as shit can't. So, how about we 'yankee imperialist dogs' say screw all of you ungrateful bastards and just take care of ourselves from here on out? I'm all for that plan actually, have been since I was old enough to understand what was going on around the planet 2 decades ago.
In less then 10 years, the face of the globe would be drastically altered. Most 3rd world countries would cease to exist, as would their populations. The Middle East would be burning, literally, for probably the next few thousand years. True, we'd have to give up some of our luxuries, but oh well, I can live without Godiva Chocolates, Swiss knives, and Russian caviar(althought I would greatly miss that). I'd be happy to trade those things for the terrorists, bio and chem weapons, and other bullshit we have to deal with because we help so much of the damned planet stay alive.
THAT is my actual stand on the whole damn thing. Fuck em all. I don't recall any help coming from other countries since the American Revolution until the 9/11 events. We've sent our troops to die all around the globe, at the request of other countries, but no one has done the same for us. I'm not a christian, and have no faith that the gods decide our fate, my religon teaches that WE decide our fate. If you want to base your ideal of what Americans are like based on one fanatical christian, that's your problem, and says more about you then anything else. I don't believe all Canadians are beer swilling idiots because of what I've seen a few of them do, but, that's me, I prefer to actually gather evidence before making assumptions based on nothing.
Your writing alone shows exactly where your ideology is though...I've not seen those phrases used outside of communist and socialist movies and books in 2 decades. You obviously oppose any action the US takes based on our 'imperialist' aggressive stance. Uhm...maybe it's escaped your notice, but the US hasn't ever been imperialist..that term was used to describe the UK and France during the early days of the Marxist movement, since they WERE imperialist governments. If you want to use Marxism, at least apply the correct adjectives to the US.
I didn't watch Colin Powell's address to the UN, had no interest in it, as I knew it would be a mixture of reality and fantasy. I based my information on reports from around the globe, not just American media and the American government, thank you. I'm educated, intelligent, and never rely on the information from a single source to draw my own conclusions on, especially not a source which I know to be biased.
Tell you what, how about if the US pulls ALL our aid to every single country on the planet and denies all further requests? How about if we just say 'go to hell' and let you all fend for yourselves? We are just about the only country on the planet that can literally support ourselves. Canada can't, the UK can't, the EU sure as shit can't. So, how about we 'yankee imperialist dogs' say screw all of you ungrateful bastards and just take care of ourselves from here on out? I'm all for that plan actually, have been since I was old enough to understand what was going on around the planet 2 decades ago.
In less then 10 years, the face of the globe would be drastically altered. Most 3rd world countries would cease to exist, as would their populations. The Middle East would be burning, literally, for probably the next few thousand years. True, we'd have to give up some of our luxuries, but oh well, I can live without Godiva Chocolates, Swiss knives, and Russian caviar(althought I would greatly miss that). I'd be happy to trade those things for the terrorists, bio and chem weapons, and other bullshit we have to deal with because we help so much of the damned planet stay alive.
THAT is my actual stand on the whole damn thing. Fuck em all. I don't recall any help coming from other countries since the American Revolution until the 9/11 events. We've sent our troops to die all around the globe, at the request of other countries, but no one has done the same for us. I'm not a christian, and have no faith that the gods decide our fate, my religon teaches that WE decide our fate. If you want to base your ideal of what Americans are like based on one fanatical christian, that's your problem, and says more about you then anything else. I don't believe all Canadians are beer swilling idiots because of what I've seen a few of them do, but, that's me, I prefer to actually gather evidence before making assumptions based on nothing.
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Sat Feb 22, 2003 5:07 pm
Here's my slightly less than half a nickel's worth....
The definition of imperialist is a country that has colonies. To my knowledge the US has never had any colonies anywhere. The problem people have with colonies is that the people in the colonies don't have any say in their own governance. Hence the US revolution.
I think Keekanoo's argument bacically comes down to that the US government is lying to the world, and that they have some grand ulterior motive for using force in the middle east.
What would this motive be? Oil? It will cost uncountable billions of dollars to go to war. The government knows this. If the government wanted oil, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just buy it from Saddam on the black market? (as France, Germany and Russia are trying to do...) But I submit that a morally responsible entity will not buy oil and hence give power to someone of Saddam's character. The big reason that only some countries are protesting is that they don't want us to go into Iraq and find all the "Made in France and Germany" labels on all of their equipment. It is a desire to save money and face that motivates these protesting nations. Many other nations support our position. The baltic states, eastern europe, spain, italy, portugal; the list is longer than those who don't.
As far as N Korea, that is a good example of what happens when you allow a morally questionable regime to get a hold of a nuclear weapon. When any nation aquires a nuclear weapon, and the means to deliver it, it changes everything. N korea is a tricky situation because of it. If they launch a nuke at us, and then we level their country, we look like the bad guys, end up with millions of dead people, and N korea is basically unchanged, due to the condition of the country to begin with. If we launch first and level their country, we get security from them hitting us, but we look like bad guys, and no one would want to do business with us anymore and the US economy would crash and burn. If we allow them to trade as they wish, they will sell their new nukes to the highest bidder. Whoever that may be. This means anyone with money and desire can have the power to bring a country to it's knees. What do you do? It's like a bum in an old west gunfight with bill gates. Bill gates has lots of money and power and responsibility. The bum has his gun and maybe a bottle of jack daniels. Who has more to lose?
This is precisely the scenario the eeevil US gov. wants to avoid with Iraq or any other country or group that has similar views. What to do with N korea? Hell, I don't know... I don't envy the policy analysts at the State dept. and CIA over that one.
The definition of imperialist is a country that has colonies. To my knowledge the US has never had any colonies anywhere. The problem people have with colonies is that the people in the colonies don't have any say in their own governance. Hence the US revolution.
I think Keekanoo's argument bacically comes down to that the US government is lying to the world, and that they have some grand ulterior motive for using force in the middle east.
What would this motive be? Oil? It will cost uncountable billions of dollars to go to war. The government knows this. If the government wanted oil, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just buy it from Saddam on the black market? (as France, Germany and Russia are trying to do...) But I submit that a morally responsible entity will not buy oil and hence give power to someone of Saddam's character. The big reason that only some countries are protesting is that they don't want us to go into Iraq and find all the "Made in France and Germany" labels on all of their equipment. It is a desire to save money and face that motivates these protesting nations. Many other nations support our position. The baltic states, eastern europe, spain, italy, portugal; the list is longer than those who don't.
As far as N Korea, that is a good example of what happens when you allow a morally questionable regime to get a hold of a nuclear weapon. When any nation aquires a nuclear weapon, and the means to deliver it, it changes everything. N korea is a tricky situation because of it. If they launch a nuke at us, and then we level their country, we look like the bad guys, end up with millions of dead people, and N korea is basically unchanged, due to the condition of the country to begin with. If we launch first and level their country, we get security from them hitting us, but we look like bad guys, and no one would want to do business with us anymore and the US economy would crash and burn. If we allow them to trade as they wish, they will sell their new nukes to the highest bidder. Whoever that may be. This means anyone with money and desire can have the power to bring a country to it's knees. What do you do? It's like a bum in an old west gunfight with bill gates. Bill gates has lots of money and power and responsibility. The bum has his gun and maybe a bottle of jack daniels. Who has more to lose?
This is precisely the scenario the eeevil US gov. wants to avoid with Iraq or any other country or group that has similar views. What to do with N korea? Hell, I don't know... I don't envy the policy analysts at the State dept. and CIA over that one.
- FarginMofo
-
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 10:11 pm
- Location: Hurricaneville
by FarginMofo » Sat Feb 22, 2003 5:53 pm
Interesting interview some months ago:
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2002/nov/021118.qanbar.html
I always like to hear stuff straight from the horse's mouth.
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2002/nov/021118.qanbar.html
I always like to hear stuff straight from the horse's mouth.
"Well, we're not just gonna let you walk out of here."
"Who's we sucka!?"
"Smith and Wesson and me."
"Who's we sucka!?"
"Smith and Wesson and me."
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Sat Feb 22, 2003 7:33 pm
"....always like to hear stuff straight from the horses mouth..."
How do you know? Did you see the disclaimer at the bottom of the page? This was created by a private contractor and the station bears no fault or claim as to the accuracy of the transcript. Beyond that, I'm sure I could hunt up someone to say all kinds of things about anything. The guy wants in on the new gov't. Ie, he wants to help govern a new Iraq. What a good samaritan. Probably altruistic as all hell. Regular Mother Terressa. I'm sure he wouldn't bad-mouth Saddam or the conditions there just to help his own cause. People don't really do that. Do they?
I know I'm being antagonistic here. Partly Devils advocate. But this article stands as a strong example of what I'm trying to get across. How do we REALLY know what's going on over there? I've talked to people from Iraq personally and they tell me a very dif't story. Some hate Saddam, others think the system over there, apart from the embargo's and twitchy war-like personality of their leader, is pretty good. But I dunno. I havn't been there.
How do you know? Did you see the disclaimer at the bottom of the page? This was created by a private contractor and the station bears no fault or claim as to the accuracy of the transcript. Beyond that, I'm sure I could hunt up someone to say all kinds of things about anything. The guy wants in on the new gov't. Ie, he wants to help govern a new Iraq. What a good samaritan. Probably altruistic as all hell. Regular Mother Terressa. I'm sure he wouldn't bad-mouth Saddam or the conditions there just to help his own cause. People don't really do that. Do they?
I know I'm being antagonistic here. Partly Devils advocate. But this article stands as a strong example of what I'm trying to get across. How do we REALLY know what's going on over there? I've talked to people from Iraq personally and they tell me a very dif't story. Some hate Saddam, others think the system over there, apart from the embargo's and twitchy war-like personality of their leader, is pretty good. But I dunno. I havn't been there.
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Sat Feb 22, 2003 7:54 pm
Rule of Wrist..."The definition of imperialist is a country that has colonies"
Random House College dictionary: Imperialism. The policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
Naturally, the world changes. So to do the meanings of words. I agree that when I was first hearing such topics discussed and Imperialism was used as a moniker to the States' foreign policy, I immediately compared it to my traditional concepts of the British Empire between 1680 and 1880. The two are vastly different. However, the more I've reflected on it over the past 8 months or so, the more I sense that the word is being applied as reflective of the aggressive capatalization on world commodities by large corporations--many of which are based in the States.
President Bush didn't wake up one morning and say--"I'm going to attack Iraq because saddam is evil" {Lets ignore when he actually said something like that in one of his addresses to the nation}. Bush, like any figure of state in any country around the globe, is the front-man. One needs only look at someone like Regan to know that matters of import to the nation don't originate in such a mind. Bush is doing what he's being told to do. Much like any of us get told to do what we do at work. Who's telling him? Why? What are ALL the possible reasons? Do we know? Can we know? Is it what's fed to the papers?
Lets reverse this situation. Lets say we live in Iraq. I'm sure the papers are full of anti-U.S. sentiments. Only fools there would believe it all.
There have been several mentions that the States isn't doing this alone, therefore it's right. I question that on several levels. First of all....if 20 people jump off a cliff in front of me, does that mean I should do? What's the logic behind doing something just because the guy in front of you does it? 2ndly, I live in Canada. We've virtually nothing to add to the war-effort, beyond a few Coyotes, the odd frigate and destroyer. A token 10,000 solders (mostly being rotated through already mopped-up areas). Yet our Primeminister tries to sit on a fence. His most recent speech was as cunning a both-sides play as I've heard in a while. He feels the States should stay within the U.N. guidelines. He feels that Canada owes it to her neighbour to help her in times of trouble. What's he saying? "You're really massively big and can economically ruin us. So where would you like this pile of shit put?"
Random House College dictionary: Imperialism. The policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
Naturally, the world changes. So to do the meanings of words. I agree that when I was first hearing such topics discussed and Imperialism was used as a moniker to the States' foreign policy, I immediately compared it to my traditional concepts of the British Empire between 1680 and 1880. The two are vastly different. However, the more I've reflected on it over the past 8 months or so, the more I sense that the word is being applied as reflective of the aggressive capatalization on world commodities by large corporations--many of which are based in the States.
President Bush didn't wake up one morning and say--"I'm going to attack Iraq because saddam is evil" {Lets ignore when he actually said something like that in one of his addresses to the nation}. Bush, like any figure of state in any country around the globe, is the front-man. One needs only look at someone like Regan to know that matters of import to the nation don't originate in such a mind. Bush is doing what he's being told to do. Much like any of us get told to do what we do at work. Who's telling him? Why? What are ALL the possible reasons? Do we know? Can we know? Is it what's fed to the papers?
Lets reverse this situation. Lets say we live in Iraq. I'm sure the papers are full of anti-U.S. sentiments. Only fools there would believe it all.
There have been several mentions that the States isn't doing this alone, therefore it's right. I question that on several levels. First of all....if 20 people jump off a cliff in front of me, does that mean I should do? What's the logic behind doing something just because the guy in front of you does it? 2ndly, I live in Canada. We've virtually nothing to add to the war-effort, beyond a few Coyotes, the odd frigate and destroyer. A token 10,000 solders (mostly being rotated through already mopped-up areas). Yet our Primeminister tries to sit on a fence. His most recent speech was as cunning a both-sides play as I've heard in a while. He feels the States should stay within the U.N. guidelines. He feels that Canada owes it to her neighbour to help her in times of trouble. What's he saying? "You're really massively big and can economically ruin us. So where would you like this pile of shit put?"
- FarginMofo
-
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 10:11 pm
- Location: Hurricaneville
by FarginMofo » Sat Feb 22, 2003 8:36 pm
Uh, I also heard and saw a recent interview with the same person on one of my local news stations where the guy basically said the same things. Plus, the disclaimer is nothing new, simply meant to legally protect the organization. It does not mean the article is inaccurate any more than it means it is. I am aware that all media is biased from one degree to another. So, like Kristov said, I gather information from several sources so that I am able to have an informed opinion.
I can turn around and ask you the same about the people you talked to personally that said "the system over there...is pretty good." How do YOU know? They could have just been "towing the party line".
I can turn around and ask you the same about the people you talked to personally that said "the system over there...is pretty good." How do YOU know? They could have just been "towing the party line".
"Well, we're not just gonna let you walk out of here."
"Who's we sucka!?"
"Smith and Wesson and me."
"Who's we sucka!?"
"Smith and Wesson and me."
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Sat Feb 22, 2003 8:41 pm
Keekanoo, you continue to have all these great sources (though you haven't posted any because they're probably conspiracy theory websites). And the rest of us are a bunch of rubes who wouldn't know a newspaper from a toothbrush.
Thank you for helping us realize that all of us have been duped, except for you. Your potshot at Reagan was the clincher -- ad hominem attacks are always a great way to sway opinion.
Peace be unto you, Mullah Keek Al-Anoo.
Thank you for helping us realize that all of us have been duped, except for you. Your potshot at Reagan was the clincher -- ad hominem attacks are always a great way to sway opinion.
Peace be unto you, Mullah Keek Al-Anoo.
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:42 pm
Now it gets interesting!
So you admit that my definition of Imperialism, without looking it up by the way,(cheater) was pretty much right. You also offer no other motive that could explain the US policy decisions.
I sense you are going on the socialist tack that corporations are attempting to rule the world and spread capitalism everywhere. Capitalism and government go hand and hand. Besides if you don't think that the world should run on capitalism, what should it run on? All other systems run against human nature, and history has shown them to be failures. The reason socialism and communism can never work is that the productive people of a society lose all incentive for being productive. Everybody is reduced to the same level, regardless of merit. Without incentive, they don't produce anymore. The nonproductive people don't matter, because they never produced anything anyway. Taking care of the downtrodden and the less fortunate is all well and good, but if everyone needs care, then who provides it?
The US goal in the middle east is(or should be) to set up a democratic state there other than Israel. Once democracy and self governance are started over there, the other people in the region will see what it's like to have freedom, and it will create a domino effect.
NO government can exist without the consent of its people. It's just a question of how consent is attained.
So you admit that my definition of Imperialism, without looking it up by the way,(cheater) was pretty much right. You also offer no other motive that could explain the US policy decisions.
I sense you are going on the socialist tack that corporations are attempting to rule the world and spread capitalism everywhere. Capitalism and government go hand and hand. Besides if you don't think that the world should run on capitalism, what should it run on? All other systems run against human nature, and history has shown them to be failures. The reason socialism and communism can never work is that the productive people of a society lose all incentive for being productive. Everybody is reduced to the same level, regardless of merit. Without incentive, they don't produce anymore. The nonproductive people don't matter, because they never produced anything anyway. Taking care of the downtrodden and the less fortunate is all well and good, but if everyone needs care, then who provides it?
The US goal in the middle east is(or should be) to set up a democratic state there other than Israel. Once democracy and self governance are started over there, the other people in the region will see what it's like to have freedom, and it will create a domino effect.
NO government can exist without the consent of its people. It's just a question of how consent is attained.
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Sat Feb 22, 2003 11:36 pm
farginmofo said..." I am aware that all media is biased from one degree to another. So, like Kristov said, I gather information from several sources so that I am able to have an informed opinion."
...Yet you post this as a viable thread. Missing my point about the media and the bias anyone can espouse. When I mentioned the people I'd talked to....I pointed out I'd talked to people who had said both. And then stated. I don't know..I havn't been there. What is so hard to understand about this? I'm not believing what I'm not seeing. Cut and dry.
Doug...." ad hominem attacks are always a great way to sway opinion.
Peace be unto you, Mullah Keek Al-Anoo. "
...Uhm.... You might be the prodigy of that once famous Greek....Hypocratus. As for my 'sources'..... Uhm... Collin Powel's address, as well as Hanz Blitzs' were posted on just about every news-channel across the globe. My appologies you found those sources illusive and 'conspiracy-theory' oriented. I suggest you write a letter to Mr. Powel suggesting that. That's quite amusing, actually, given the reality of the situation.
...Yet you post this as a viable thread. Missing my point about the media and the bias anyone can espouse. When I mentioned the people I'd talked to....I pointed out I'd talked to people who had said both. And then stated. I don't know..I havn't been there. What is so hard to understand about this? I'm not believing what I'm not seeing. Cut and dry.
Doug...." ad hominem attacks are always a great way to sway opinion.
Peace be unto you, Mullah Keek Al-Anoo. "
...Uhm.... You might be the prodigy of that once famous Greek....Hypocratus. As for my 'sources'..... Uhm... Collin Powel's address, as well as Hanz Blitzs' were posted on just about every news-channel across the globe. My appologies you found those sources illusive and 'conspiracy-theory' oriented. I suggest you write a letter to Mr. Powel suggesting that. That's quite amusing, actually, given the reality of the situation.
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Sun Feb 23, 2003 12:39 am
Doug ...."Thank you for helping us realize that all of us have been duped, except for you."
I don't feel you've been duped. You may allow yourself to believe something as it's easier than believing something else. The power of being duped lies with your responsability, not some 3rd-party.
Perhaps I am duped. Perhaps I'm not. My point here is that it's impossible for us little people to know what's really going on--not without horrendous efforts. It would be the full time job of a thousand people to sift through the mountain of dis-information out there, trying to piece together a puzzle--and that largely in the dark.
I have tried to apply simple logic to the equations, and pointed out how some things don't add up. That doesn't at all mean I support Saddam Hussein. Nor does it mean I'm a socialist, a facist, a Stalinist, or whatever.
I started at the outset to indicate I'm most concerned in this impending attack with the average citizens of Iraq. Six months ago, or whenever the launch date against Afghanistan was, I'd have been saying the same thing about the Afghan people.
This war will not kill Saddam. Nor, likely, any of his top-guns or family. It WILL kill a lot of conscripted soldiers and civilians. It WILL promote devestating decay to the utility infrastructure, thus leading to even more hardships and suffering for the people. And for what? To establish democracy? DEMOCRACY?? Is that what we have? The right to vote? Vote for who? Do you honestly think for a moment that your president or my primeminister gives a shit about us little people? Do you see them in the front lines? Or their families? I've covered this before so won't irritate myself over the point again. We don't live in a democracy. I don't know what it should be called.
Rule of wrist...."So you admit that my definition of Imperialism, without looking it up by the way,(cheater) was pretty much right. You also offer no other motive that could explain the US policy decisions."
No, your definition is not right. Clearly the dictionary definition encompasses a far broader scope to the meaning of the word. Random House is published in the States, by the by. But I no more comfortably use Imperialism for U.S. foreign policy than I do democracy for either of our countries. We are in a time where new words should be made for such things.
Rule of wrist..."I sense you are going on the socialist tack that corporations are attempting to rule the world and spread capitalism everywhere."
Uhm.....yeah...lol. Call it socialism if you will. My perspective doesn't imply a political ideology as much as it shows objectivity. If you've ever seen me with good chocolate, you'll know I'm not a socialist I would add one thing, though. They arn't trying to take over the world. That was done some time ago. Now it's haggling over the slices of the pie.
Rule of wrist: "if you don't think that the world should run on capitalism, what should it run on?"
If only I did have a magic wand. The ability to change such with one sweep. We arn't going to get out of this stranglehold easily. Capatilism attempts to maximize profits and minimize expenses. Expenses range from creating widgets more effectively to minimum wage. The American Dream is all about becoming the President of a company that makes widgets--not one of the workers. Unfortunately, for every president there are a hundred, a thousand, tens of thousands workers. A pyramid scheme on a grand scale.
Yes Presidents work very hard. So does the girl slugging coffee and donuts. Where is the pay-equity in all that? You're right. It isn't socialism, where everyone (theoretically but never in practice) is equal. Capatalism is quite different. It draws clear boundaries between the very rich and the rest. The majority. Provide a base salary, just enough to keep them from revolting, a base health-care system that keeps them alive long enough, well enough, to do the necessary work, pay the necessary taxes, then....a few short years of retirement, and death. Provide distractions--consumer society after all. Keep them sated to obese excess with luxurious foods, blaring tv's, outrageous fetishes. Keep them in their homes, alone, each family a nuclear unit seperated. Hermits by choice, living shoulder to shoulder amongst millions. Allow extreme violence on tv, let them vent off any vague ideological unease in a voyeuristic orgy as they live through Swarzenagger.
No, Rule of Wrist. There's no better way. It would get nuked before it peeped it's head out of the ground. Or laughed and ridiculed by a populace frothing and fanatically hell-bent on defending their Great Way.
Personally, and this is a point I hold dear to my heart, I think we made the biggest mistake when we invented language. But that's another story and deals with behavioural evolution.
I don't feel you've been duped. You may allow yourself to believe something as it's easier than believing something else. The power of being duped lies with your responsability, not some 3rd-party.
Perhaps I am duped. Perhaps I'm not. My point here is that it's impossible for us little people to know what's really going on--not without horrendous efforts. It would be the full time job of a thousand people to sift through the mountain of dis-information out there, trying to piece together a puzzle--and that largely in the dark.
I have tried to apply simple logic to the equations, and pointed out how some things don't add up. That doesn't at all mean I support Saddam Hussein. Nor does it mean I'm a socialist, a facist, a Stalinist, or whatever.
I started at the outset to indicate I'm most concerned in this impending attack with the average citizens of Iraq. Six months ago, or whenever the launch date against Afghanistan was, I'd have been saying the same thing about the Afghan people.
This war will not kill Saddam. Nor, likely, any of his top-guns or family. It WILL kill a lot of conscripted soldiers and civilians. It WILL promote devestating decay to the utility infrastructure, thus leading to even more hardships and suffering for the people. And for what? To establish democracy? DEMOCRACY?? Is that what we have? The right to vote? Vote for who? Do you honestly think for a moment that your president or my primeminister gives a shit about us little people? Do you see them in the front lines? Or their families? I've covered this before so won't irritate myself over the point again. We don't live in a democracy. I don't know what it should be called.
Rule of wrist...."So you admit that my definition of Imperialism, without looking it up by the way,(cheater) was pretty much right. You also offer no other motive that could explain the US policy decisions."
No, your definition is not right. Clearly the dictionary definition encompasses a far broader scope to the meaning of the word. Random House is published in the States, by the by. But I no more comfortably use Imperialism for U.S. foreign policy than I do democracy for either of our countries. We are in a time where new words should be made for such things.
Rule of wrist..."I sense you are going on the socialist tack that corporations are attempting to rule the world and spread capitalism everywhere."
Uhm.....yeah...lol. Call it socialism if you will. My perspective doesn't imply a political ideology as much as it shows objectivity. If you've ever seen me with good chocolate, you'll know I'm not a socialist
I would add one thing, though. They arn't trying to take over the world. That was done some time ago. Now it's haggling over the slices of the pie.
Rule of wrist: "if you don't think that the world should run on capitalism, what should it run on?"
If only I did have a magic wand. The ability to change such with one sweep. We arn't going to get out of this stranglehold easily. Capatilism attempts to maximize profits and minimize expenses. Expenses range from creating widgets more effectively to minimum wage. The American Dream is all about becoming the President of a company that makes widgets--not one of the workers. Unfortunately, for every president there are a hundred, a thousand, tens of thousands workers. A pyramid scheme on a grand scale.
Yes Presidents work very hard. So does the girl slugging coffee and donuts. Where is the pay-equity in all that? You're right. It isn't socialism, where everyone (theoretically but never in practice) is equal. Capatalism is quite different. It draws clear boundaries between the very rich and the rest. The majority. Provide a base salary, just enough to keep them from revolting, a base health-care system that keeps them alive long enough, well enough, to do the necessary work, pay the necessary taxes, then....a few short years of retirement, and death. Provide distractions--consumer society after all. Keep them sated to obese excess with luxurious foods, blaring tv's, outrageous fetishes. Keep them in their homes, alone, each family a nuclear unit seperated. Hermits by choice, living shoulder to shoulder amongst millions. Allow extreme violence on tv, let them vent off any vague ideological unease in a voyeuristic orgy as they live through Swarzenagger.
No, Rule of Wrist. There's no better way. It would get nuked before it peeped it's head out of the ground. Or laughed and ridiculed by a populace frothing and fanatically hell-bent on defending their Great Way.
Personally, and this is a point I hold dear to my heart, I think we made the biggest mistake when we invented language. But that's another story and deals with behavioural evolution.
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Sun Feb 23, 2003 1:10 am
First of all, the mullah thing was a joke. You know, the terrorist crack from earlier?:P
Secondly, this seems like a lost cause. The only way I'm going to keep up with this is to go out and find myself a higher horse than yours.
Or maybe I'll just have to educate myself on the subject of groups like the Illuminati. That way maybe I'll learn just how much it sucks to do anything, as doing anything would just ultimately benefit someone else higher up the ladder.
Secondly, this seems like a lost cause. The only way I'm going to keep up with this is to go out and find myself a higher horse than yours.
Or maybe I'll just have to educate myself on the subject of groups like the Illuminati. That way maybe I'll learn just how much it sucks to do anything, as doing anything would just ultimately benefit someone else higher up the ladder.
by bayotanzk » Sun Feb 23, 2003 1:12 am
Keekanoo,
You speak of untold civilians casualties in this impending military action, doubt it will be long enough to call a war, yet you must spend less time reading than I do(hard to believe), because the US gov't has been dropping pamphlets for some time telling Iraqi soldiers to give up when the war begins. They have a chance. You seem to give very little thought or show any or no concern about the launch of iraqi scuds on Israeli cities during Desert Storm. Pardon me but were these not civilians? During any military action someone is going to get hurt, even our own from friendly fire!
Fortunately, you are not a US citizen, and do not vote in our country, and that I believe is a good thing. So your feelings about our comander and chief, past and present means little. Your opinion is refreshing, way way way out there and off the wall, but isn't it great to be able to voice your opinion without being tortured or killed. You seem to be educated, so I must ask you: Do you really believe that an election held anywhere or at any time on a country wide basis would EVER end up with a 100% vote for any one candidate? I mean what could possibly be the odds of something like that! Unless is rigged. Do you really believe that in any authoritarian gov"t the people that you seem to be so concerned about, the ones flipping burgers and making doughnuts, are treated well?
I respect you for having your own opinion and believe that everyone, all people, should enjoy this right. But when the security of any nation is in question, it is the responsibilty of that nation to provide a safe environment.
They have been warned and know our intentions. I guess it is in each individuals scope to, as best as any war will permit, guard there safety. SURRENDER unconditionally.
I have a sneaky suspision, not to bust your bubble, but if we go to war and saddam does not seek sanctuary in another country, he'll probably end up next to Panamas ex-president, in a US jail.
You speak of untold civilians casualties in this impending military action, doubt it will be long enough to call a war, yet you must spend less time reading than I do(hard to believe), because the US gov't has been dropping pamphlets for some time telling Iraqi soldiers to give up when the war begins. They have a chance. You seem to give very little thought or show any or no concern about the launch of iraqi scuds on Israeli cities during Desert Storm. Pardon me but were these not civilians? During any military action someone is going to get hurt, even our own from friendly fire!
Fortunately, you are not a US citizen, and do not vote in our country, and that I believe is a good thing. So your feelings about our comander and chief, past and present means little. Your opinion is refreshing, way way way out there and off the wall, but isn't it great to be able to voice your opinion without being tortured or killed. You seem to be educated, so I must ask you: Do you really believe that an election held anywhere or at any time on a country wide basis would EVER end up with a 100% vote for any one candidate? I mean what could possibly be the odds of something like that! Unless is rigged. Do you really believe that in any authoritarian gov"t the people that you seem to be so concerned about, the ones flipping burgers and making doughnuts, are treated well?
I respect you for having your own opinion and believe that everyone, all people, should enjoy this right. But when the security of any nation is in question, it is the responsibilty of that nation to provide a safe environment.
They have been warned and know our intentions. I guess it is in each individuals scope to, as best as any war will permit, guard there safety. SURRENDER unconditionally.
I have a sneaky suspision, not to bust your bubble, but if we go to war and saddam does not seek sanctuary in another country, he'll probably end up next to Panamas ex-president, in a US jail.
486 dx 50 -32 megs ram -8 meg vid card -120 meg HD -14"vga monitor, dos 5.0
- FarginMofo
-
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 10:11 pm
- Location: Hurricaneville
by FarginMofo » Sun Feb 23, 2003 2:44 am
Hey Doug,
I tried finding that higher horse for you but I passed out from the lack of oxygen. Think I'll go back to being distracted now and pop a little T2 into the tele.
I tried finding that higher horse for you but I passed out from the lack of oxygen. Think I'll go back to being distracted now and pop a little T2 into the tele.
"Well, we're not just gonna let you walk out of here."
"Who's we sucka!?"
"Smith and Wesson and me."
"Who's we sucka!?"
"Smith and Wesson and me."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests