Hedo arguing with little al and the brown-star is like hitting an ant with a building.
I love it!!!
Hedo, don’t scare him off!!!
JeffR
"Of course the US acts in it’s own self interest. It just so happens that we believe freedom and prosperity around the world is actually good for us too. " Zap.
I think the problem that I have with that statement is that the US administrations of the past and also the current one do not believe in this “freedom and prosperity”,they are not consistent with applying this priniciple. How can you stand for spreading ‘freedom and prosperity’ on the one hand and on the other support unsavoury regimes like those in South America who subjugate thier own civilian populations and opposition groups?. How about currently the US administration supports Islam Karimov, President of Uzbekistan, who the State Dept in 2002 castigated for torture, his regime boiled alive one of their citizen apparently for following religion, which has been outlawed in the country. There are too many cases of double standards by the US to prove they only believe in ‘freedom’ when it suits there need and their goals.
This again proves an unwillingness by some forum posters to give up this idea of “we are the good guys”, wake up guys, a lot of the world doesn’t think so and a lot of the evidence doesn’t support this either. What you are is a the most powerful nation who seeks to further its own economic goals. Taking resources and securing long term power for your nation often means treading on others. As Public Enemy stated years ago “Don’t Believe the Hype”.
" I love it!!!
Hedo, don’t scare him off!!!
JeffR ".
The word sycophant comes to mind.
[quote]jeru72 wrote:
" I love it!!!
Hedo, don’t scare him off!!!
JeffR ".
The word sycophant comes to mind.[/quote]
jeru, after reading your posts, the word envious comes to mind. We ARE the good guys. Any other country who doesn’t think so is either our enemy for a good reason, or just a bunch of assholes. Like the French, for example.
As to your “supporting South American regimes out of one side of the mouth while talking about freedom and prosperity out of the other” (paraphrasing you there), let me ask you this:
How many friggin’ countries do you want us to invade at a time, man? Give us a friggin second, okay? We’re working on it for cryin’ out loud!
We only have so many hours in a day, ya know?
[quote]vroom wrote:
A dictatorship might be nice, but then, only if I’m the dictator.
A little more seriously, there are still problems with greed, power and government secrecy.[/quote]
if you’re the dictator, I’m leading the palace coup, and you’ll be dead in your bed.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Al Shades wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I’d just like one of you needle dicked kids to tell me exactly, and precisely, the U.S.'s imperialistic conquests.
Name one.
Punk asses.
First, realize that imperialism is a policy. It does not necessarily have to result in conquests. Now here’s one: Afghanistan, 2002.
hedo wrote:
How would you know. You’ve never participated in the economy or any of it’s oversea’s work.
How would you know?
[You know you’ve got a pathetic argument when it can be turned around and pitted against you verbatim]
How the fuck do you think I would know you pompous twit?
I own a business and have served in the army overseas. In other words I have contributed to the economy that you read about and served the government that you mock.
You pathetic attempt to “turn my argument around” speaks volumes about your immaturity. Some here think your precocious. I don’t I think you are a clown.
Give mommy back her computer now and run along.
Like I said before you talking about the economy, government etc. makes as much sense as you giving dating advice.
[/quote]
now this…this is a BURN!
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
jeru72 wrote:
" I love it!!!
Hedo, don’t scare him off!!!
JeffR ".
The word sycophant comes to mind.
jeru, after reading your posts, the word envious comes to mind. We ARE the good guys. Any other country who doesn’t think so is either our enemy for a good reason, or just a bunch of assholes. Like the French, for example.
As to your “supporting South American regimes out of one side of the mouth while talking about freedom and prosperity out of the other” (paraphrasing you there), let me ask you this:
How many friggin’ countries do you want us to invade at a time, man? Give us a friggin second, okay? We’re working on it for cryin’ out loud!
We only have so many hours in a day, ya know?[/quote]
Exactly man! We have to prioritize these things. We can’t fix everyones problems at the same time.
lothario1132 are you and Zap totally sides-stepping the points or you just not reading the posts properly on purpose ?. This perfectly illustrates my point the reluctance on some posters to acknowledge fact from perception. I think you fail to see the irony in your asinine point that America hasn’t got enough time to ‘invade’ countrys in order to bring them ‘freedom’. The US administration has no wish to spread democracy, Bush himself clearly stated in his first term that he has no desire to ‘nation build’.
Why are the French assholes ? because they are asked for second UN resolution which required greater proof of the existence of Weopens of Mass destruction ?. Why the hurry on the US part ? what’s so unreasonable about asking more time for the inspection teams to finish their job ?. After all the reality was that were no WMD’s in Iraq, following logic the US got it wrong and the French were right.
[quote]jeru72 wrote:
lothario1132 are you and Zap totally sides-stepping the points or you just not reading the posts properly on purpose ?. This perfectly illustrates my point the reluctance on some posters to acknowledge fact from perception. I think you fail to see the irony in your asinine point that America hasn’t got enough time to ‘invade’ countrys in order to bring them ‘freedom’. The US administration has no wish to spread democracy, Bush himself clearly stated in his first term that he has no desire to ‘nation build’.
Why are the French assholes ? because they are asked for second UN resolution which required greater proof of the existence of Weopens of Mass destruction ?. Why the hurry on the US part ? what’s so unreasonable about asking more time for the inspection teams to finish their job ?. After all the reality was that were no WMD’s in Iraq, following logic the US got it wrong and the French were right.
[/quote]
The French were bought off. Their intelligence service was one of the agencies who identified WMD’s in Iraq. The French politicians fearing an Islamic backlash choose to do nothing. France is 20% Muslim.
Hedo, I don’t buy your point simply because the French government has ignored the Muslim population of France on many occasions. For example they banned headscarf’s being worn in schools last year, this was a very contentious issues and the government steadfastly stuck to their guns, despite voices of descent from other parties and Muslim groups. Chirac himself (who is right wing in orientation)has delivered speeches where he stated that France is secular and his policies are driven by secularism and he wouldn’t pander to minority groups. The valid point you have is that many government agencies got their intelligence wrong, including the French, the difference was that French government acknowledged holes and inadequacies in their intelligence agencies. Chirac and Schroeder both intimated they were NOT against action against Iraq BUT only under the aegis of the UN and with a 2nd resolution. There reason being they wanted to clarify what was meant by “Material Breach” and further evidence provided by inspection teams, which included many American personnel. All this meant in essence was the process would have to have to be debated in the UN, another resolution passed, no doubt the US would have enough clout to sponser another one, the rest would come down to evidence gathered by inspection teams. All this seems perfectly reasonable, ‘we will go in BUT we want more evidence’, since I don’t live in the US I don’t understand the backlash the French received ?.
[quote]jeru72 wrote:
lothario1132 are you and Zap totally sides-stepping the points or you just not reading the posts properly on purpose ?. This perfectly illustrates my point the reluctance on some posters to acknowledge fact from perception. I think you fail to see the irony in your asinine point that America hasn’t got enough time to ‘invade’ countrys in order to bring them ‘freedom’. The US administration has no wish to spread democracy, Bush himself clearly stated in his first term that he has no desire to ‘nation build’.
Why are the French assholes ? because they are asked for second UN resolution which required greater proof of the existence of Weopens of Mass destruction ?. Why the hurry on the US part ? what’s so unreasonable about asking more time for the inspection teams to finish their job ?. After all the reality was that were no WMD’s in Iraq, following logic the US got it wrong and the French were right.
[/quote]
No side stepping here. The invasion of Iraq was not about WMD’s. That was an excuse. The invasion of Iraq was one step in a war to change the mideast.
I have said this since before the invasion and only now is the Bush administration making similar statements. You have to take a long term view of this.
Support of a tinhorn dictator in Whatthefuckistan is just the lesser of 2 evils at the moment. They will reform when the time is right.
How people can bash our support of a minor tyrant and then bash our ouster of a major tyrant is beyond me. There are very good reasons for what we are doing. A strong free Iraq will be a cornerstone for the mideast makeover. Whatthefuckistan is lower priority.
Regarding Bush’s 180 degree turn on nation building: He has learned nation building in the fucked up mideast is the only solution.
The French are assholes because they have stabbed us in the back for the past 60+ years. From DeGaulle (under US protection at the time) insisting that the Vichy French should resist the Allied invasion of North Africa because we didn’t clear it with him to Chirac continuing to sell weapons technology today to Communist China the French have tried to screw us at every turn. The French are the ones that still test their nukes at sea in the pacific islands. Fuck everone, we are French we will only do what is good for us.
If you start to find yourself agreeing with the French you should reevaluate your position.
[quote]jeru72 wrote:
Hedo, I don’t buy your point simply because the French government has ignored the Muslim population of France on many occasions. For example they banned headscarf’s being worn in schools last year, this was a very contentious issues and the government steadfastly stuck to their guns, despite voices of descent from other parties and Muslim groups. Chirac himself (who is right wing in orientation)has delivered speeches where he stated that France is secular and his policies are driven by secularism and he wouldn’t pander to minority groups. The valid point you have is that many government agencies got their intelligence wrong, including the French, the difference was that French government acknowledged holes and inadequacies in their intelligence agencies. Chirac and Schroeder both intimated they were NOT against action against Iraq BUT only under the aegis of the UN and with a 2nd resolution. There reason being they wanted to clarify what was meant by “Material Breach” and further evidence provided by inspection teams, which included many American personnel. All this meant in essence was the process would have to have to be debated in the UN, another resolution passed, no doubt the US would have enough clout to sponser another one, the rest would come down to evidence gathered by inspection teams. All this seems perfectly reasonable, ‘we will go in BUT we want more evidence’, since I don’t live in the US I don’t understand the backlash the French received ?.[/quote]
Unfortunately the French had strong economic interests in not upsetting the apple cart in Iraq. I belive it clouded their thinking.
Europe and France in particular make it very clear they want to be a thorn in the side of the US, whether they agree with our policies or not.
I think your statement on the treatment of the Muslims in France, although interesting, does not have bearing on this debate.
The backlash in the US was against the general timidness of most Europeans towards actually doing something instead of endless debate. When we have had to help Europe out of the many problems they have had this century, fortunately for them, we did not endlessly debate it.
[quote]jeru72 wrote:
lothario1132 are you and Zap totally sides-stepping the points or you just not reading the posts properly on purpose ?. This perfectly illustrates my point the reluctance on some posters to acknowledge fact from perception. [/quote]
Whether you like it or not, the fact is that we ARE the good guys. Sorry if that makes you upset. You are French, no? 
If you are poor, and have no money, no skills and no desire to make more money, then communism seems like a really good idea. You are gonna get something for nothing which is basically what you do right now but you have nothing to show for it.
If you have money, or are poor but are willing and able to have the desire and skills to make more money, than communism is a really really bad idea because it will stunt your ability to grow and earn that which you deserve.
As an american, I hate communism and socialism, because in this country, they limit the human spirit, they don’t liberate it.
Take where I work for instance, we have three cleaning people where I work, all of whom have lived in the united states for at least 5 years each, and none of them can or is willing to speak an intelligble word of english, despite the fact that all the management and about 99% of the 3000 members of the club don’t speak spanish at all. they would probably love communism, they would get more money and still be able to remain unskilled, unmotivated and lazy. All these 3 people do all day is moan “mucho trabajo, poco dinero”. If I could speak spanish I would tell them to learn english, get some skills, and get a better job. For some reason they seem content making 7 bucks an hour, not speaking english, and living in a rathole part of trenton. It doesn’t make much sense, but it is funny that they don’t speak any english with the exception of the word paycheck. they seem to speak that word awfully fine when payday hits and they are looking for their checks.
Maybe for some of the poor masses in central and south america where there seems to be no middle class and just a huge gap between rich and poor, communism might seem like a good idea
Gah! It’s people like you that drive me crazy. Before cream gets on my case, I know that pure communism is as airy-fairy as pure capitalism. However, you’re basically generalizing to make it seem as if all poor people are lazy and it’s their fault that they’re poor. You assume that the reason latin countries have a tendency to support communist ideals is because it’ll get the poor more money without having to work more.
Apparently you’re only familiar with th convinient form of communism. Communism, were human nature not as repulsive as it is, would be a wonderful idea. However, that’s not the case. That doesn’t mean that communist leaders embrace the idea so that the poor can piggyback on the rich. Read over the thread and you’ll see that the main points of argument don’t include yours.
I don’t know if I should bother, but I will anyway.
Voluntarily handing all powers to a guild/club that has exclusive membership based on political ties it bad. Period. There is no argument. Lord Acton is no less right today than he was in 1887.
However, as system that allows people to vie for political power via economic means while vaguely oligarchic in nature still allows for more freedom than communism.
More freedom=Preferable.
AbsoluteFreedom=Anarchy=Impossible
The concept of occluding freedoms to pay for other’s offends me at the outset. What do I mean? The 16th Amendment for one. Requiring that I report my income for the purposes of wealth reallocation. Why not collect taxes on transactions carried out within the commonwealth, on the premise that the protection of the commonwealth allows those transactions to continue unabated.
The very fact that we must report our income creates a class based political warfare system.
In brief, I reserve the right to kick your ass in any intellectual pursuit that I choose, and in so doing take income from you that you would foolishly squander under the delusion that you are capable of said profession.
I reserve the right to pass garnered wealth down to my progeny, whether or not it decreases their competitive spirit.
I reserve the right to bitch and moan and work extra hours when some snot-nosed punk kicks my ass at my chosen profession.
I reserve the right to be happy doing so until time ends or my ticket on this ride expires.(Or I decide to live off of my savings until my ticker quits ticking.)
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Whether you like it or not, the fact is that we ARE the good guys. Sorry if that makes you upset. You are French, no? :)[/quote]
Are you bullshitting or being serious? Based on your stances I’m inclined to assume the former, but the nature of this forum makes me question that decision.
[quote]Al Shades wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Whether you like it or not, the fact is that we ARE the good guys. Sorry if that makes you upset. You are French, no?
Are you bullshitting or being serious? Based on your stances I’m inclined to assume the former, but the nature of this forum makes me question that decision. [/quote]
I am being serious, Al. The fact that you refuse to see the greatness of our nation doesn’t change reality in any way.
Rail against us all you want. Roll your eyes at me and everybody else like me, but I ask you to at least be thankful that you have the opportunity to have your thoughts be heard and to not be thrown in jail or killed for them. The fact that you have at the very least that one basic right was paid for in blood.
You are lucky to be an American, young man, and don’t you ever forget it.
Hedo I have to disagree with some your points, you stated the French had strong economic interests in Iraq, I do believe one of their oil companies were seeking to strike some deals with Iraq, but Germany ?. What was there interest ? and as I stated earlier Chiraq AND Schroeder both stated they WOULD support the US but only after a second resolution. That’s not a ’ we won’t ‘, its a ’ we will BUT we want clarification’. Clarification on why we are going in and more importantly what we will do after we remove the Iraqi leadership i.e. a post-war plan.
You stated the French Government were scared of the backlash from its Muslim minority. The point about the Muslims and banning of headscarf was to give an example of where the French Government totally ignored the Muslims and minority groups. You only have to look at the French governments handling of its relations with Algeria and Berber Arabs to show its contempt of its Muslim minority and their opinions.
Still the dynamic I don’t understand was why were the US in such a hurry? a second resolution pushed through and an inspection report would have taken weeks rather than months. If your are going to attack another country, if you are going to ‘pre-emptively strike’ another sovereign nation, which flies against the traditions of the UN and US, it’s a massive departure,therefore, what is wrong with checking the evidence fully and making sure that the country you are going to strike against is a real threat?. More importantly some member nations wanted a clarification of a reconstruction plan for post-war Iraq, judging by the situation in Iraq, the rate of US personnel losing their lives or being maimed, as well as Iraqi civilians, this would have been very important. Spending a bit more time on planning would only have benefitted the operation but also the Iraqi people.
lothario1132 - Am I French ? lol ! thanks for proving my point.
[quote]jeru72 wrote:
lothario1132 - Am I French ? lol ! thanks for proving my point.
[/quote]
I don’t see how I proved anything for you, pal. Last I checked, we were pretty much in disagreement. You said you don’t live in the US…
But that’s okay, buddy. Nobody’s perfect.