[quote]kroby wrote:
No, unbending. THIS colorful piece of cloth makes the people do all sorts of things.[/quote]
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN!!! WOOO!!
Oh wait. Never mind, the Canadian one is worth almost the same. $93.20 US as of yesterday.
But anyway, I see what you’re saying. But its a given. Money has been having a hypnotic influence since little after the beginning of recorded history.
But its not the cloth, its what you can trade it for. Unlike a flag, a dollar has a very real value. It represents something that does not change. (it changes in amount but that’s it.)
[quote]kroby wrote:
NO. Follow the money, lixy. When are you going to get it? They don’t give two craps for the people. They are heavily invested, and have every expectation that it will never be returned with Saddam gone.
I’m seriously questioning your ability to produce rational thought.[/quote]
Good call Kroby. In an interesting newspaper in Venice Florida circa 2003, I saw an article. I wish I had kept it. There was a chart of who would gain and who would lose the most following the ouster of Saddam.
The Germans, French and Russians had the most invested in the oil trade in Iraq. The article said after the (then) upcoming invasion, the US companies would profit.
That is why they opposed the war. They claim that we went to war for oil. Is it too much to think that others would not go to war to keep the status quo, because they did not wish to lose oil profits?
But that would counterdict the allegation that the US is interested only in oil and the French, Germans and Russians are good hearted with the little people’s feelings in mind. What a joke.
But me bringing it up, and brining up that others share in backing dictators in the world, somehow makes me a victim?
I think not. I’m just pointing out facts. Facts that others ignore because it goes against their anti-US, anti-western, anti-Israel propaganda.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The answer is many western leftists don’t really give a shit about the evils of Islam as described in the article above. They care more about gaining power in their own countries than about the plight of people on the other side of the world. Their hypocrisy is staggering. [/quote]
We have a very different definition of the Left. One that puts his personal interests above those of the community cannot possibly be considered from the Left.
[quote]kroby wrote:
NO. Follow the money, lixy. When are you going to get it? They don’t give two craps for the people. They are heavily invested, and have every expectation that it will never be returned with Saddam gone. [/quote]
That might be true. I have no insight into what was going on in their respective minds when the decision was taken. But, it doesn’t change the fact that my theory is plausible. Isn’t a democratic government supposed to represent the will of the people? In which case, could Chirac have gotten away with going against the will of the majority of the French? I know Aznar, Berlusconi and Blair didn’t.
How W gets away with all the crap he does will remain a mystery to me. I guess you people just feel that he’s less harmful than Cheney, am I right?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The answer is many western leftists don’t really give a shit about the evils of Islam as described in the article above. They care more about gaining power in their own countries than about the plight of people on the other side of the world. Their hypocrisy is staggering.
We have a very different definition of the Left. One that puts his personal interests above those of the community cannot possibly be considered from the Left.[/quote]
[quote]lixy wrote:
How W gets away with all the crap he does will remain a mystery to me. I guess you people just feel that he’s less harmful than Cheney, am I right?[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
We have a very different definition of the Left. One that puts his personal interests above those of the community cannot possibly be considered from the Left.
You have described every person on the planet.
[/quote]
Don’t think for a second that the world is made of Zaps.
Would Ghandi have put off his movement if the Brits offered him a billion dollars? Would Martin Luther King dropped his fight for the community to advance personal interests? Would Mandela have done that? Would the 9/11 brave volunteer rescue workers put their lives in danger if they didn’t value the community more than themselves? Millions worldwide give their time and resources to social organizations.
Would you give you life away to save the life of, say a dozen people? I know I would without a blink.
Would you give you life away to save the life of, say a dozen people? I know I would without a blink.[/quote]
So, go to Egypt and protect the Copts. Or, go to Iraq and protect the Christian minority. You could also try to save the non-Arabs, Christians, and Animists in Sudan. You’re on your way now, right?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, go to Egypt and protect the Copts. Or, go to Iraq and protect the Christian minority. You could also try to save the non-Arabs, Christians, and Animists in Sudan. You’re on your way now, right? [/quote]
I’m afraid there’s not much one man can do in those situations. But if you know a sure way to way to save a dozen people in Sudan or Egypt, I’m all ears.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, go to Egypt and protect the Copts. Or, go to Iraq and protect the Christian minority. You could also try to save the non-Arabs, Christians, and Animists in Sudan. You’re on your way now, right?
I’m afraid there’s not much one man can do in those situations. But if you know a sure way to way to save a dozen people in Sudan or Egypt, I’m all ears.[/quote]
Oh! Well, I thought you were willing to throw your life away to save a dozen people? Yet, it’s too difficult to even attempt? Now, you need someone else to tell you how to do it? Get off your ass and go do it. You made the claim.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh! Well, I thought you were willing to throw your life away to save a dozen people? Yet, it’s too difficult to even attempt? Now, you need someone else to tell you how to do it? Get off your ass and go do it. You made the claim.[/quote]
I had in mind a situation where I know that my act will make a difference. What you’re advocating (fighting the Sudanese militias bare handed) amounts to suicide, and is against by beliefs.
Also, I’m pretty sure it was understood that you should be present when the situation arises. Picture a grenade thrown in bus. I’ll gladly jump on it. Booking a flight to Sudan, then camping in a risk zone and waiting for somebody’s life to be in danger to save it kinda defeats the spontaneity component of heroic/altruistic actions that gives it a certain “sex-appeal”.
On a side note, what Copts have the Egyptians killed lately? I’d feel really bad if I missed such breaking news as the massacre of a dozen people. Feel free to fill me in.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
We have a very different definition of the Left. One that puts his personal interests above those of the community cannot possibly be considered from the Left.
You have described every person on the planet.
Don’t think for a second that the world is made of Zaps.
Would Ghandi have put off his movement if the Brits offered him a billion dollars? Would Martin Luther King dropped his fight for the community to advance personal interests? Would Mandela have done that? [/quote]
Ghandi was a racist that like to sleep cuddled next to preferably very young girls.
Loved to give women enemas too.
MLK liked to fuck white prostitutes in the name of Jesus…
They all had their hobbies, just because it did not involve money…
There are 6 cardinal sins besides greed…
And Mandela would not have done shit because he was locked away for decades.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Oh! Well, I thought you were willing to throw your life away to save a dozen people? Yet, it’s too difficult to even attempt? Now, you need someone else to tell you how to do it? Get off your ass and go do it. You made the claim.
I had in mind a situation where I know that my act will make a difference. What you’re advocating (fighting the Sudanese militias bare handed) amounts to suicide, and is against by beliefs.
Also, I’m pretty sure it was understood that you should be present when the situation arises. Picture a grenade thrown in bus. I’ll gladly jump on it. Booking a flight to Sudan, then camping in a risk zone and waiting for somebody’s life to be in danger to save it kinda defeats the spontaneity component of heroic/altruistic actions that gives it a certain “sex-appeal”.
On a side note, what Copts have the Egyptians killed lately? I’d feel really bad if I missed such breaking news as the massacre of a dozen people. Feel free to fill me in.[/quote]
Don’t say stupid shit you cannot backup. No one, except those faced with it, knows how they will react in the face of death, especially if you have a choice.
The only people who I would die for unequivocally is my children. The passion and fire of love I feel for them demands that at the very least. Somebody else, well maybe, but who knows; fear can be a powerful motivator, or de-motivator in this case.
[quote]kroby wrote:
NO. Follow the money, lixy. When are you going to get it? They don’t give two craps for the people. They are heavily invested, and have every expectation that it will never be returned with Saddam gone.
lixy wrote:
That might be true. I have no insight into what was going on in their respective minds when the decision was taken. But, it doesn’t change the fact that my theory is plausible. Isn’t a democratic government supposed to represent the will of the people? In which case, could Chirac have gotten away with going against the will of the majority of the French? I know Aznar, Berlusconi and Blair didn’t[/quote]
Plausible? Yes, if you don’t open your eyes to the fact that there was SO MUCH money involved. Billions, lost. And the people that voted for Chirac in entrusted their money to Chirac to invest wisely. Oops! No one wanted to lose all that money, epecially the French people.
As for Berlusconi… the same man that uses his government contacts to allow his many business ventures to prosper, like his media and dairy corporations? The same guy that shrugs off claims of corruption? You think he wouldn’t do something because of his people clamoring for him not to?
And Blair? The same guy that said something to the effect that though a decision may not seem palatable, it is up to the elected to make the hard decisions and do what’s right? As in to say no to dictators that flaunt human rights violations?
Plausible? I’d give you about as plausible as a potential snow storm in my home town of Phoenix, where it’s forecast to hit 112 degrees F today.
[quote]
lixy wrote:
Would Ghandi have put off his movement if the Brits offered him a billion dollars? Would Martin Luther King dropped his fight for the community to advance personal interests? Would Mandela have done that? Would the 9/11 brave volunteer rescue workers put their lives in danger if they didn’t value the community more than themselves? Millions worldwide give their time and resources to social organizations.
Would you give you life away to save the life of, say a dozen people? I know I would without a blink.[/quote]
Are you implying that you are of the same caliber as your examples? Just… wow.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, go to Egypt and protect the Copts. Or, go to Iraq and protect the Christian minority. You could also try to save the non-Arabs, Christians, and Animists in Sudan. You’re on your way now, right?
I’m afraid there’s not much one man can do in those situations. But if you know a sure way to way to save a dozen people in Sudan or Egypt, I’m all ears.[/quote]
Sell your computer. Give that money to an aid group that immunizes children in Africa.
