A History Of Violence

xtrmn8r

22nd April 2008 - 01:47 AM

Is man really peaceable by nature?

QUOTE

In the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

BigDumbWeirdo

22nd April 2008 - 02:14 AM

If the claims in that article are true about those who claim that warfare is an invention of civilization, then some people whom I had initially held in high esteem (Stephen Jay Gould in particular) are not quite as intelligent as I believed.

I find it almost impossible to believe that any rational person could hold the conviction that advances in technology and culture in the past 2000 years have increased the amount of violence in human societies. It is one of the most patently false assumtions I can imagine.

soundhertz

29th April 2008 - 03:58 PM

This is an article that more people should read. It throws a wrench in the fatalists' views that we are doomed because of ourselves. While it is true that technology has allowed for one individual to do exponentially greater acts of destruction, look at how long we have had thousands of nuclear weapons with naught but 2 detonated directly against humanity, and those two detonations having potentially saved many more than they killed. It's quite a feat for 'the noble savage'. Hangings used to be an afternoon picnic for the whole American family, today there are discussions on the least inhumane death for convicted murderers. This humanity is even extending to animal treatment now, something unknown previously.

QUOTE

Instead of asking, "Why is there war?" we might ask, "Why is there peace?" From the likelihood that states will commit genocide to the way that people treat cats, we must have been doing something right. And it would be nice to know what, exactly, it is.

I recently listened to an interview with Dawkins on PBS, in which he ended his discussion with this same basic quote. He said "People wonder why there is so much violence in the world, I want to know why there isn't more, why instead there is so much virtue." He was aware of the decrease in human violence, and plainly dumbfounded that increase of altruism above and beyond evolutionary self-need was not only evident, but was tacitly challenging some tenets of his own theory.

Derek1148

29th April 2008 - 07:48 PM

Comments deleted. Was trying to have a rational dialogue. Forgot for a minute where I was.

Zarkov

29th April 2008 - 08:07 PM

Food or space is the key to this phenomenon.

All conflict is underpinned by a lack of food....or in some cases an overpopulation of predators leading to an underpopulation of deprived discontent

Unfortunately earthlings do not have a free will, they will follow the leader as sheep do

they will act against their common conscience if their group demands

BigDumbWeirdo

29th April 2008 - 08:32 PM

QUOTE (Zarkov+Apr 29 2008, 03:07 PM)

All conflict is underpinned by a lack of food....or in some cases an overpopulation of predators leading to an underpopulation of deprived discontent

Congrats on posting the stupidest theory I've read today.

Derek1148

29th April 2008 - 08:37 PM

There needs to be a minimum standard that one should possess at least a passing acquaintance with reality before being allowed to post here.

Gorgeous

29th April 2008 - 09:47 PM

QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 29 2008, 08:37 PM)

There needs to be a minimum standard that one should possess at least a passing acquaintance with reality before being allowed to post here.

I agree, we need an expert on 'minimum standards' to tell us, so Derek, what should the minimum standard be?

g.

soundhertz

30th April 2008 - 01:22 AM

edit. it was too mean.

photojack

30th April 2008 - 03:35 PM

Thank you xtrmn8r for posting that article and link to one of my favorite sites on the Internet, other than physorg, google and wikipedia!

http://www.edge.org is a site that I have linked to dozens of times in my posts to get thinking people, and ones like dad1, newguy, deadbeat and others, to eliminate the negative influences of any supernatural beliefs and accept science and atheism as man's best methods and attempts to capture reality and have them change our lives for the better. Unlike Zarkov's "hypothesis" that all conflict is underpinned by a lack of food, more conflicts, wars and death throughout history have developed over religious causes than even territorial claims, "Imperialism" and conquerors. I'll have to look further into the Stephen Jay Gould ("Homo sapiens is not an evil or destructive species") reference, but would like to mention Jared Diamond's contributions to this topic through his books, "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Collapse."

As an equally appalling comparison to the French practice of "cat burning", the Catholic church in California before its statehood, used to charge admission to gladiatorial-style "bull and bear" fights where a staked, live grizzly bear would be charged upon by multiple trained fighting bulls, usually resulting in the deaths of several bulls before the weakened bear was finally gored. Yes, mankind has become less violent since those gory days.

Derek1148

30th April 2008 - 04:23 PM

QUOTE (photojack+Apr 30 2008, 03:35 PM)

Yes, mankind has become less violent since those gory days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3493958.stm

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/...sierraleone.htm

http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/2733.cfm

http://balkansnet.org/ethnicl.html

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/bosnia.htm

calebthechemist

30th April 2008 - 05:15 PM

QUOTE (photojack+Apr 30 2008, 03:35 PM)

more conflicts, wars and death throughout history have developed over religious causes than even territorial claims,

I am just curious as to what exactly you mean here. How exactly are you categorizing, or more specifically, how exactly is "religion" being the cause defined. So for instance would you say the Hundred Years' War was religious?

Regards,
Caleb

BigDumbWeirdo

30th April 2008 - 05:32 PM

QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 30 2008, 11:23 AM)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3493958.stm

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/...sierraleone.htm

http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/2733.cfm

http://balkansnet.org/ethnicl.html

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/bosnia.htm

Ooooh, Derek... I like you but I have to disagree with the apparent implication of this post... (I'm assuming those links you provided were meant as an argument against PhotoJack's statement.)

Re-read the link xtermin8r provided, and note this portion:

QUOTE

The decline of killing and cruelty poses several challenges to our ability to make sense of the world. To begin with, how could so many people be so wrong about something so important? Partly, it's because of a cognitive illusion: We estimate the probability of an event from how easy it is to recall examples. Scenes of carnage are more likely to be relayed to our living rooms and burned into our memories than footage of people dying of old age. Partly, it's an intellectual culture that is loath to admit that there could be anything good about the institutions of civilization and Western society. Partly, it's the incentive structure of the activism and opinion markets: No one ever attracted followers and donations by announcing that things keep getting better. And part of the explanation lies in the phenomenon itself. The decline of violent behavior has been paralleled by a decline in attitudes that tolerate or glorify violence, and often the attitudes are in the lead. As deplorable as they are, the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the lethal injections of a few murderers in Texas are mild by the standards of atrocities in human history. But, from a contemporary vantage point, we see them as signs of how low our behavior can sink, not of how high our standards have risen.

Zarkov

30th April 2008 - 07:10 PM

QUOTE

how could so many people be so wrong about something so important?

In the "old" days it was mental retardation and total lack of education that allowed the elite to manipulate and so get their mad ways

Today it is mental cretinism caused by metal poisoning... all are afflicted
so even the elite are "so wrong about everything so important"

Now it is expedience... ie daemonise and murder eg Saddham etc... kill civilians...err sorry..collateral damage is acceptable... and no one blinks an eye...LOL...courtesy rev Wright...LOL

In a lunatic asylum rational anylasis goes over the cookoo's nest!!!

All net science forum are great examples for analysis... a microcosm of earthling relations.

Derek1148

30th April 2008 - 07:46 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

Masked Marauder

30th April 2008 - 08:15 PM

QUOTE (xtrmn8r+Apr 22 2008, 01:47 AM)

Is man really peaceable by nature?

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

Depends.

Whatcha got that I might want? If I want it a lot, the answer would be "no". If I don't want it, then the answer would be "yes"

"Be nice to America, or we will bring democracy to your country"

Derek1148

30th April 2008 - 08:22 PM

"If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." - (John Wayne)

BigDumbWeirdo

30th April 2008 - 08:31 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Apr 30 2008, 03:15 PM)

"Be nice to America, or we will bring democracy to your country"

orestis

30th April 2008 - 08:59 PM

I heard someone in a conversation on gun control say, " I'll be glad to turn in all my weapons as long as I'm the last one to do so." That pretty much summed up the issue.

The history of war is basically state sponsored banditry by one side and defense by the other. So does it follow then that war will cease when there is nothing left to steal?

Probably not. There will still be some damn cowboy in the future, with idiots for friends, who will want to pretend he's a soldier.

Gorgeous

30th April 2008 - 10:42 PM

The very idea of 'war' must be born of a warring intellect, or an intellect that is at 'war' with itself. There can be no 'war' with a thing that is essentially whole - only a divided, partial thing has an 'other' with which to oppose.

g.

soundhertz

1st May 2008 - 02:32 AM

QUOTE

The history of war is basically state sponsored banditry by one side and defense by the other. So does it follow then that war will cease when there is nothing left to steal?

War traditionally and to a large part currently, is based on scarcity. As we've continued from our beginnings, there were more things that could be wanted, and therefore more things that could be scarce, and worth fighting over.
There is a race now between: 1) energy issues/expanding population/finite natural resources/third world famine and disease/growing effects of global pollution/fresh water availability/breakdowns in industrial and political infrastructures/etc. and 2) the coming technology and importantly the widespread application of it to solve these problems. Nothing is easy, but I'm an optimist, and do expect application of saving technologies to prevail. The notion seems silly now, but it is conceivable to me that at some future point there may be no wars (not including wormhole travel to the Romulans, etc. and vice versa

)

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The history of war is basically state sponsored banditry by one side and defense by the other. So does it follow then that war will cease when there is nothing left to steal?

War traditionally and to a large part currently, is based on scarcity. As we've continued from our beginnings, there were more things that could be wanted, and therefore more things that could be scarce, and worth fighting over.
There is a race now between: 1) energy issues/expanding population/finite natural resources/third world famine and disease/growing effects of global pollution/fresh water availability/breakdowns in industrial and political infrastructures/etc. and 2) the coming technology and importantly the widespread application of it to solve these problems. Nothing is easy, but I'm an optimist, and do expect application of saving technologies to prevail. The notion seems silly now, but it is conceivable to me that at some future point there may be no wars (not including wormhole travel to the Romulans, etc. and vice versa

)
Instead of asking, "Why is there war?" we might ask, "Why is there peace?" From the likelihood that states will commit genocide to the way that people treat cats, we must have been doing something right. And it would be nice to know what, exactly, it is.

Looking at it from the kiss principle, I wouldn't underestimate comfort. The average human life is much more comfortable than a thousand years ago, and more comfortable than 50 years ago. Bringing human comfort to animals, especially over several generations, domesticates them, both to us and generally to other animals, as long as they don't feel threat.
I think that gaining easier living has served to quell some of the neanderthal impulses. Then again I could be wrong.

am_Unition

1st May 2008 - 05:20 AM

QUOTE (soundhertz+May 1 2008, 02:32 AM)

The notion seems silly now, but it is conceivable to me that at some future point there may be no wars

No, the notion seems quite possible, and above all, necessary. Perhaps one of the only things keeping it from being today's reality is, in fact, people considering it a silly and impossible notion.

As you mention though, there are quite a few problems that beg to be addressed before a peaceful world could sustainably exist. I think the most stringent issue is Earth's expanding population. I agree that once we level off and population growth is at a standstill, technology will indeed provide the means to tackle and solve all the other problems.

Derek, it's harder to believe that humanity's altruistic nature has grown, on the whole, when the media is constantly bombarding us with horrific stories of doom and gloom. As everyone knows, that's what sells these days, unfortunately. I have mixed feelings about this... in some circumstances, media attention can help alleviate the problem, but in other instances it seems completely sensationalized and entirely unnecessary.

Again, we must consider the effects of having such a large global population, and the fairly recent ability to send, receive, or search for information nearly instantaneously. The consequence is that more violence-based atrocities happen around the world, and these are seized by those wishing to report on it, hear about it, or search for it, but the total violence per capita has greatly dropped. As soundhertz mentioned, this is definitely due to improved resource distribution and an increase in comfort.

What I'd like to know is exactly why so much money, time, and human lives are sacrificed to this country's current endeavors when a fraction of the resources we're currently using to wage war could be used to cure issues like the genocide in Darfur (just one example, the most obvious). I've heard people make statements like "The U.S. is not the world's police service", but it seems as though we make efforts to do just that in select situations... oddly, situations that potentially benefit none other than ourselves.

Masked Marauder's quote on democracy takes the cake on that one

photojack - Both "Collapse" and "Guns, Germs, and Steel" were recently recommended to me by my uncle. Looking forward to reading them once I have more free time in the summer.

While I whole-heartedly agree that religion is responsible for so many wars, this does not automatically call for eliminating all belief in the supernatural. Embracing science is a worthy cause, but your suggestion that each and every citizen adhering to atheism is the quickest way to change our lives for the better is something I find a bit ironic. Indeed, it is only through unconditional tolerance and respect for diversity of opinion/beliefs that peace will come about.

And what about the large number of people who fall somewhere in the spectrum between "atheist" and "religious"? It's really only when people strictly adhere to dogmatic rhetoric and extremism that violence abounds. Of course, the bounds of "extremism" or "dogma" are things that have no objective basis

Caleb - the role religion has played in creating wars where there was no other basis for them is very subject to interpretation. There are a few exceptions, such as the Crusades, where religion was obviously number one on the list of reasons why organized violence took place.

Derek1148

1st May 2008 - 06:11 AM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Apr 30 2008, 08:15 PM)

"Be nice to America, or we will bring democracy to your country"

Personally I believe that is a sound policy. But interpreting “nice” can be tricky.

Suppose a despot is content to butcher, rape, and torture his own people. Within his own borders. Should we care? Some on this forum would suggest prayer as a solution. Others would try reading a science book to the despot.

Now imagine the genocidal despot has nuclear weapons with a delivery system.

Zarkov

1st May 2008 - 06:29 AM

The cause of all violence against each other is illusion... or in some cases delusion.

Metal poisoning that has been a curse on earthlings for thousands of years has grown some strange ideas on how life should be lived... and in many cases that "style" is backed up by force.

Plato advocated rule by at the minimum of 3 people who were trained in the tasks of decision making from presented evidence.

Democracy is a very poor and very very dangerous method of choosing such a candidate to (b)lead a country

Propaganda, secrets, spin, media... basically lies can win an election and keep the felons in power.

Now nothing will work as long as the people in power are intoxicated by (a) power due to a (

toxic metal overload... altered biochemistry

The people who are given the task of doing GOOD for all citizens must be *[sane]*
(therefore clear direct conscience driven for the common (ALL) GOOD [Socratic good]) that is the governing people must be free from chronic metal toxic overload....

So there is no way out of this, so ?

and there is no time left ! right ?

Masked Marauder

1st May 2008 - 12:36 PM

QUOTE (Derek1148+May 1 2008, 06:11 AM)

Personally I believe that is a sound policy. But interpreting “nice” can be tricky.

Suppose a despot is content to butcher, rape, and torture his own people. Within his own borders. Should we care? Some on this forum would suggest prayer as a solution. Others would try reading a science book to the despot.

Now imagine the genocidal despot has nuclear weapons with a delivery system.

My own personal opinion. Do what you want to do inside your own borders, it is not our place to be the world police, and keep in mind, we have never gone anywhere unless there were "National Interests" involved. I would also make a caveat to that... Example.

Iran and nukes. Make as many as you want, parade them around in your country, show them off to the world! Impress your neighbors, your friends, your enemies.

And the first one that goes off outside your border, we will wipe your country from the face of the earth. Not one of our soldiers will ever step foot in your country, we will launch such a nuclear attack as it will make your entire country glow as an ember for centuries.

Welcome to the "big boys" club.

Derek1148

1st May 2008 - 04:29 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 1 2008, 12:36 PM)

...and keep in mind, we have never gone anywhere unless there were "National Interests" involved. I would also make a caveat to that... Example.

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/

Masked Marauder

1st May 2008 - 04:52 PM

QUOTE (Derek1148+May 1 2008, 04:29 PM)

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/

Yep. no question about it, we do help a lot of countries. Some outright, some through loans, both governmental and privately.

Keep in mind, TANSTAAFL....

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

If we give, we get something in return. We are, after all, a capitalist society, and no, I do not mean that in a negative way.

Somalia - the port was taken to enable Chevron to bring in their drilling rigs. (Directly from a friend that was their fighting for that port)

Banana Republic Wars (usually unheard of by most Americans) Asked my father in law why we were there (he was a front line Marine) his reponse? Oil. We were there protecting the rig workers and oil fields from the local natives who were a bit bent out of shape over the rigs.

Iraq - Goes without saying 1st or 2nd war.

WWII - we cut off the oil supplies to Japan, who had just become oil dependent for their booming economy, otherwise we may have delayed that war for quite some time.

Korea - Stop communism

Vietnam - Stop communism

Spanish American War - more land

Mexican War - more land.

and the list goes on and on... WWI is the one we might have gotten into for helping friends out, same with WWII except the mood at the time was to stay out of it. Then the Germans sank one of our boats and Japan attacked.

Up and coming?

Probably Iran and Syria, another "Weapons of Mass Destruction" excuse.

Will see....

MM

Derek1148

1st May 2008 - 06:20 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 1 2008, 04:52 PM)

Yep. no question about it, we do help a lot of countries. Some outright, some through loans, both governmental and privately.

Keep in mind, TANSTAAFL....

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

If we give, we get something in return. We are, after all, a capitalist society, and no, I do not mean that in a negative way.

Somalia - the port was taken to enable Chevron to bring in their drilling rigs. (Directly from a friend that was their fighting for that port)

Banana Republic Wars (usually unheard of by most Americans) Asked my father in law why we were there (he was a front line Marine) his reponse? Oil. We were there protecting the rig workers and oil fields from the local natives who were a bit bent out of shape over the rigs.

Iraq - Goes without saying 1st or 2nd war.

WWII - we cut off the oil supplies to Japan, who had just become oil dependent for their booming economy, otherwise we may have delayed that war for quite some time.

Korea - Stop communism

Vietnam - Stop communism

Spanish American War - more land

Mexican War - more land.

and the list goes on and on... WWI is the one we might have gotten into for helping friends out, same with WWII except the mood at the time was to stay out of it. Then the Germans sank one of our boats and Japan attacked.

Up and coming?

Probably Iran and Syria, another "Weapons of Mass Destruction" excuse.

Will see....

MM

You’re somewhat skeptical of our motives? As far as altruism goes, Al Capone: "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

BigDumbWeirdo

1st May 2008 - 06:36 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 1 2008, 11:52 AM)

Keep in mind, TANSTAAFL....

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

If we give, we get something in return. We are, after all, a capitalist society, and no, I do not mean that in a negative way.

This is very true, but there's one thing most people who read this won't consider:
The global economy and the US's dependance upon it.
By improving the economy of other nations with which the US has a relationship, we improve our own economy.
If we could bring the rest of the world's economies up to US standards, we'd be doing ourselves a great service.

QUOTE

Up and coming?

Probably Iran and Syria, another "Weapons of Mass Destruction" excuse.

Will see....

I see our brewing issues with Iran as the most likely candidate for the cause of a WWIII. That being said, here's to hoping the lessons learned in Nagasaki and Hiroshima haven't been forgotten, and we (the world, not the US) find ourselves willing and able to fight this possibly impending conflict using non-nuclear means.
A large scale nuclear exchange (between two groups of nations*) at this point will probably be the beginnings of the short, painful death of humanity.

*I can see how the US could get away with nuking Iran, if we came up with sufficient justification. After all, the other nuclear powers in the world are so tied into the US economy, they'd be reluctant to retaliate on behalf of a nation whose leaders have professed their bigoted and zealous fanaticism on so many occasions. The destruction of the US would directly harm their own economies, not to mention bring about the threat of further retaliation from US allies, or the US itself if they failed to do the job in one strike, which is fairly likely.

Derek1148

2nd May 2008 - 12:25 PM

QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+May 1 2008, 06:36 PM)

That being said, here's to hoping the lessons learned in Nagasaki and Hiroshima haven't been forgotten...

What lessons?

BigDumbWeirdo

2nd May 2008 - 12:48 PM

QUOTE (Derek1148+May 2 2008, 07:25 AM)

What lessons?

1: Nuke-you-ler bom make reely big boom!
2: Reely big boom kill lots of pepol.
3: Lots of ded pepol not good.
4: Too minny nuke-you-lar boms kill all pepol!
5: All pepol ded not good at all!

(I'm not making fun of you, btw, just the fact that it seemed to have taken the actual detonation of those two bombs to drive this lesson home.)

Derek1148

2nd May 2008 - 12:50 PM

QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+May 2 2008, 12:48 PM)

1: Nuke-you-ler bom make reely big boom!
2: Reely big boom kill lots of pepol.
3: Lots of ded pepol not good.
4: Too minny nuke-you-lar boms kill all pepol!
5: All pepol ded not good at all!

(I'm not making fun of you, btw, just the fact that it seemed to have taken the actual detonation of those two bombs to drive this lesson home.)

The Imperial Japanese Army conducted themselves like animals. Raping, torturing, and murdering children. The only lesson I can draw from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the Manhattan Project should have built more bombs.

BigDumbWeirdo

2nd May 2008 - 02:14 PM

QUOTE (Derek1148+May 2 2008, 07:50 AM)

The Imperial Japanese Army conducted themselves like animals. Raping, torturing, and murdering children. The only lesson I can draw from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the Manhattan Project should have built more bombs.

Indeed, they did.
However, I don't know of any widespread opposition to the use of nuclear weapons BEFORE we dropped the bombs on Japan. There's plenty of it afterwords...

Anyways, I misspoke, as the bombings in Japan were not the only reason people oppose the use of nuclear weapons, they were simply a vivid reminder of what happens when we do. It is specifically the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction that really did it. I was taking a bit of poetic liscence by referring to it as the lessons learned "...in Nagasaki and Hiroshima."

photojack

2nd May 2008 - 02:20 PM

Derek1148, The U.S., Russia, and now several other countries HAVE built more bombs.

And look where it got us!

Your war-mongering stance is not the answer.

There are major U.N. and other agencies, some sponsored by some of the best and most important of the world's Universities, working at far better and more optimal means of conflict resolution. Your posting of examples of genocide, rape and intolerance DO NOT counter my earlier claims.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center
http://www.splcenter.org/

And especially: http://www.tolerance.org/teach/?source=red...achingtolerance

YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING OF VALUE THERE!

Derek1148

2nd May 2008 - 02:25 PM

QUOTE (photojack+May 2 2008, 02:20 PM)

Derek1148, The U.S., Russia, and now several other countries HAVE built more bombs.

And look where it got us!

Your war-mongering stance is not the answer.

There are major U.N. and other agencies, some sponsored by some of the best and most important of the world's Universities, working at far better and more optimal means of conflict resolution. Your posting of examples of genocide, rape and intolerance DO NOT counter my earlier claims.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center
http://www.splcenter.org/

And especially: http://www.tolerance.org/teach/?source=red...achingtolerance

YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING OF VALUE THERE!

Jesus Christ, what are you babbling about now? Our development of nuclear weapons has prevented WWIII.

BigDumbWeirdo

2nd May 2008 - 02:51 PM

QUOTE (photojack+May 2 2008, 09:20 AM)

Derek1148, The U.S., Russia, and now several other countries HAVE built more bombs.

And look where it got us!

Your war-mongering stance is not the answer.

There are major U.N. and other agencies, some sponsored by some of the best and most important of the world's Universities, working at far better and more optimal means of conflict resolution. Your posting of examples of genocide, rape and intolerance DO NOT counter my earlier claims.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center
http://www.splcenter.org/

And especially: http://www.tolerance.org/teach/?source=red...achingtolerance

YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING OF VALUE THERE!

I'm quite sure Derek meant that bit about building more bombs as a bit of rhetoric, not to be taken literally.

QUOTE (Derek1148+)

Our development of nuclear weapons has prevented WWIII.

I disagree. The almost sure knowledge of mutually assured destruction has prevented a NUCLEAR exchange. WWIII might still be fought, considering the current situation in the middle east. Any conflict which pits two large groups of nations against each other could accurately be called WWIII.

Masked Marauder

2nd May 2008 - 02:54 PM

QUOTE (Derek1148+May 2 2008, 12:50 PM)

The Imperial Japanese Army conducted themselves like animals. Raping, torturing, and murdering children. The only lesson I can draw from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the Manhattan Project should have built more bombs.

and we executed them for it. Funny though.. We are doing the same thing using the CIA as the interrogators, and they are performing the exact same things we called "atrocities" and executed the Japanese for doing....

We have become what we once despised, eh?

Love my country....
Fear my government.

MM

Derek1148

2nd May 2008 - 02:56 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 2 2008, 02:54 PM)

and we executed them for it. Funny though.. We are doing the same thing using the CIA as the interrogators, and they are performing the exact same things we called "atrocities" and executed the Japanese for doing....

We have become what we once despised, eh?

Love my country....
Fear my government.

MM

Have you met photojack?

BigDumbWeirdo

2nd May 2008 - 03:10 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 2 2008, 09:54 AM)

and we executed them for it. Funny though.. We are doing the same thing using the CIA as the interrogators, and they are performing the exact same things we called "atrocities" and executed the Japanese for doing....

WRONG.
We are not capturing civilian women to serve as concubines for our military brass. We are not performing medical experimentation upon POWs. We are not pursuing the extinction of an entire ethnic group.
While I agree that we are doing unethical things in the service of the "greater good" to compare our current military actions to those of the Japanese during WWII is a great disservice to those men and women of the CIA and military intelligence and command who are doing everything in their power to end the "war on terror" as quickly as possible. Even if their actions are not always justifiable, they have not even approached the line that Japan crossed during WWII.

orestis

2nd May 2008 - 03:12 PM

Derek-

The reason we went to war in the middle east was to find and destroy those who attacked us. That's a legitimate use of force. The whole world understood that and wished us success.

It's been six years now and the people who attacked us are still walking around, and even worse, become mythic among fanatics. Why?

While I agree with you about Imperial Japan this isn't the same issue. And we may even have reversed roles. The only people who have benefited from the violence in Iraq are oil companies. And that is not a legitimate use of force.

photojack

2nd May 2008 - 03:46 PM

Derek1148, What I am "babbling" about are OPTIMUM methods of conflict resolution! ....As a way out of your "Dark Ages" mentality of war-mongering.

BigDumbWeirdo, Derek1148 DID mean that literally!

Have you followed his posting history and constant war-mongering stance?

QUOTE

Have you met photojack?

Derek1148 quote directed at Masked Marauder.

"KINDRED SPIRITS THINK ALIKE!"

I would rather meet Masked Marauder than YOU, despite our relative's similarities during WWII.

BigDumbWeirdo has it right, we have not even approached the line that Japan crossed during WWII. But we are doing unethical things.

The first Gulf War was masterfully executed and had the broad coalition which included other Arabic countries. Dubya's war was poorly conceived, poorly executed, had no 'exit strategy', has no coalition supporting it, AND HAS BEEN COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, resulting in the vast likelihood of more future terrorism, a less safe world, training camps for violent propagandizing of youth and much more.

Derek1148, Please read up on conflict resolution and study the alternatives to your 'blind patriotism' and war-mongering!

photojack

2nd May 2008 - 03:48 PM

To eliminate a duplicate posting of the above.

Derek1148

2nd May 2008 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE (photojack+May 2 2008, 03:46 PM)

I would rather meet Masked Marauder than YOU..

Well there you go. I thought you and I were friends.

Sorry for the delay in responding I was at a rally to change the 22nd Amendment so Bush can run again. (Later today I have a pro-war rally.)

Steveo

2nd May 2008 - 07:12 PM

QUOTE

Dubya's war was poorly conceived, poorly executed, had no 'exit strategy', has no coalition supporting it, AND HAS BEEN COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, resulting in the vast likelihood of more future terrorism, a less safe world, training camps for violent propagandizing of youth and much more.

And is illegal based on international law, which the U.S. claims to support.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Dubya's war was poorly conceived, poorly executed, had no 'exit strategy', has no coalition supporting it, AND HAS BEEN COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, resulting in the vast likelihood of more future terrorism, a less safe world, training camps for violent propagandizing of youth and much more.

And is illegal based on international law, which the U.S. claims to support.

"Be nice to America, or we will bring democracy to your country"

I love that quote. Is there anyone else who sees on country "giving" democracy to another country as something not very meaningful? America fought for its own freedom (I know they had help) and that is a great source of pride for many people.
Its one thing to help out a country to fight for its own democracy, but it just seems that trying to deliver democracy to a country is meaningless, but also not very effective. You need a population that really wants a democracy, otherwise it won't be supported. I am not very familiar with the politics of the Iraqi democracy (or if it can even be called one) but it sure doesn't seem like they want it, or are ready for the change.

QUOTE

Sorry for the delay in responding I was at a rally to change the 22nd Amendment so Bush can run again. (Later today I have a pro-war rally.)

I know I have been posting very erratically lately, but I can't understand why you, or anyone would want Bush to run again.

Masked Marauder

2nd May 2008 - 07:27 PM

QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+May 2 2008, 03:10 PM)

WRONG.
We are not capturing civilian women to serve as concubines for our military brass. We are not performing medical experimentation upon POWs. We are not pursuing the extinction of an entire ethnic group.
While I agree that we are doing unethical things in the service of the "greater good" to compare our current military actions to those of the Japanese during WWII is a great disservice to those men and women of the CIA and military intelligence and command who are doing everything in their power to end the "war on terror" as quickly as possible. Even if their actions are not always justifiable, they have not even approached the line that Japan crossed during WWII.

Perhaps not. But we executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding our boys during WWII and the practice was outlawed by the US sometime back.

Please review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Also, as a Marine who served for 6 years, we were brought up on the code of conduct and the Geneva Convention (That the US pulled together) during war time, and at no timewas torture of ANY kind allowed. Never. and we were notified that if we did, we would be punished to the fullest extent of the UCMJ. (Uniformed Code of Military Justice).

Your "War On Terror" is the biggest crock of *** the US has ever come up with. We started it, (we trained Osama) we egged it on, and as long as we remain in the middle east, it will continue.

Imagine this. You are a happy little Iraqi living in your home in the middle of bum f*ck egypt. You are fairly happy, and as long as you keep a low profile, you are pretty much left alone. Then you hear that the US just invaded your country. So on your way back from trying to sell wares in the local shopping area, your house is blown to hell by a cruise missle that veered off course, killing your wife of 15 years, and your 3 children. The US calls it "collateral damage" and essentially tells you to take a hike.

Personally, I would pick up a rifle, a few good friends, and go kill me some Americans who just slaughtered my family.

On CBS news, they show that same guy, face down in the street with several parts and pieces missing, and of course, he is another dead "terrorist". Did you notice that there weren't any of these terrorists running around until we invaded Iraq? The only poor piece to all of this is that those "terrorirsts" haven't got enough brains or financing to come over here and cut the head off the snake, ie. George W, *** Cheney, and those that voted for this war.

So before you call me wrong, read more detail about waterboarding and the happy crap our government is doing that they at one time called illegal and executed people for.

MM

Derek1148

2nd May 2008 - 07:36 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 2 2008, 07:27 PM)

Imagine this. You are a happy little Iraqi living in your home in the middle of bum f*ck egypt.

If you were an Iraqi living in “bum f*ck egypt.” You wouldn't have anything to fear except dysentery, typhus, religious violence, and maybe getting stepped on by a camel.

Masked Marauder

2nd May 2008 - 07:45 PM

QUOTE (orestis+May 2 2008, 03:12 PM)

Derek-

The reason we went to war in the middle east was to find and destroy those who attacked us. That's a legitimate use of force. The whole world understood that and wished us success.

It's been six years now and the people who attacked us are still walking around, and even worse, become mythic among fanatics. Why?

While I agree with you about Imperial Japan this isn't the same issue. And we may even have reversed roles. The only people who have benefited from the violence in Iraq are oil companies. And that is not a legitimate use of force.

We went to Iraq because of oil. No other reason. Hussein was a destabilizing force, and George's boys were asked to leave Saudi Arabia:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/01/27/saudi.us.presence/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...0430-psab01.htm

permanently. So, in reponse, The "W" crew decided that as long as Saddam was still around things might become destabilized, so if they took him out, they could stablize the region, build permanent bases in Iraq:

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/fac.../iraq-intro.htm

and have a staging point out of Iraq for years to come.

Now then...

There were how many Iraqi terrorists aboard the planes that flew into the Towers or the Pentagon?

Give up?

NONE.
ZERO
ZIP
ZILCH
NADA

They were:

Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.

Not a single Iraqi....

So explain to me what we are doing in Iraq?
Oh, wait, weapons of Mass Destruction... and there were how many found?

NONE.
ZERO
ZIP
ZILCH
NADA

But they did find chemical weapons. THAT WE SOLD TO THEM.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Oh, to kick a mean dictator out of a poor country.
What about these dictators?

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/20...-2006/Dictators
(and that was 2 years ago)

No wait, it was to install a Democracy in the Middle East and "Free the People"....
Since when was that our job?

So take your war on terror and .... never mind.

MM

Derek1148

2nd May 2008 - 07:48 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 2 2008, 07:45 PM)

We went to Iraq because of oil. No other reason. Hussein was a destabilizing force, and George's boys were asked to leave Saudi Arabia:

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/01/27/saudi.us.presence/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...0430-psab01.htm

permanently. So, in reponse, The "W" crew decided that as long as Saddam was still around things might become destabilized, so if they took him out, they could stablize the region, build permanent bases in Iraq:

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/fac.../iraq-intro.htm

and have a staging point out of Iraq for years to come.

Now then...

There were how many Iraqi terrorists aboard the planes that flew into the Towers or the Pentagon?

Give up?

NONE.
ZERO
ZIP
ZILCH
NADA

They were:

Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.

Not a single Iraqi....

So explain to me what we are doing in Iraq?
Oh, wait, weapons of Mass Destruction... and there were how many found?

NONE.
ZERO
ZIP
ZILCH
NADA

But they did find chemical weapons. THAT WE SOLD TO THEM.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Oh, to kick a mean dictator out of a poor country.
What about these dictators?

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/20...-2006/Dictators
(and that was 2 years ago)

No wait, it was to install a Democracy in the Middle East and "Free the People"....
Since when was that our job?

So take your war on terror and .... never mind.

MM

Are you photojack?

Masked Marauder

2nd May 2008 - 08:08 PM

QUOTE (Derek1148+May 2 2008, 07:36 PM)

If you were an Iraqi living in “bum f*ck egypt.” You wouldn't have anything to fear except dysentery, typhus, religious violence, and maybe getting stepped on by a camel.

But you didn't have to worry about being mistaken as a terrorist, and you STILL have to worry about dysentery, typhus and religious violence as they STILL don't have water, sewer, electricity, and the "pay back" between all the Shia, the Sunni's will go on for centuries....

The thing about good ol Hussein is that he kept the peace. Nobody dared piss him off, so everyone sucked it up and got along. Not saying that it wasn't brutal, and that he wasn't a deranged wacko... But no one else got involved, as he was the meanest SOB in the valley...

Now, nature abhors a vaccuum, and when he went, the control went, now everybody wants to be the meanest SOB in the valley... So we went from dancing with a devil we knew to dancing with hundreds of devils we DON'T know. and Iran now has the ability to kick the *** out of Iraq.... and I have no doubt they intend to....

Brought to you by the US!

Thank you George W....

Masked Marauder

2nd May 2008 - 08:13 PM

QUOTE (Derek1148+May 2 2008, 07:48 PM)

Are you photojack?

Nope, can't say I know the guy/gal.

Just a severly pissed off veteran watching my country start a fight it had no right to start, and the guy who kicked it off, walking away with millions in his pocket, whistling dixie along with his buds. and it really really pisses me off when I think about my fellow Marines getting killed for it.

If Saddam had been behind the 9/11 attacks, I would have picked up a rifle and gone over on my own. The point then and now, is there was no reason to go after Iraq, and the guy who did this, Osama, is still walking around thumbing his nose at us...

7 years and counting....

MM

Edward 3

2nd May 2008 - 08:21 PM

MM,
Well articulated.
Have you not noticed that Dubya´s favourite phrase is "democracy and the free market? Why the free market has to be so inextricably linked to democracy is down to one reason and one reason only - the interests of corporatism. And, despite being a pacifist, if I and my family were victims of corporate America I wonder how I might respond !
Secondly the idea of the U.S imposing democracy on another nation promises about as much as the British Empire imposing nationalism - have you ever seen all those ridiculous straight lines that represent "national" borders in Africa?
Finally, if the US is determined to pursue the path of democratisation - whatever that might mean - why not start with Saudi Arabia - that is one sick regime - about as anti-democratic as any country I can think of - not to mention their approach to human rights.
Perhaps Americans need to reflect on the not so well known words of Martin Luther King - " America, you are too arrogant". I am not sure if those were his precise words but the meaning is true - makes one wonder if the man was not a prophet in the traditional sense.
And at the end of the day, am I anti-American as Dubya and his ilk would define me? No , I am very definitely pro-American and my sentiments reflect my deep sorrow for what is being done to a wonderful people. Trillions being spent on war - or more correctly to feed the military/industrial complex ( not my phrase but that of a former US president ) in a country that provides a healthcare system that would be cause the collapse of any European government.
Hope you guys make better use of your vote this time around - for all our sakes!
peace
edward

Zarkov

2nd May 2008 - 08:41 PM

QUOTE

we will wipe your country from the face of the earth. Not one of our soldiers will ever step foot in your country, we will launch such a nuclear attack as it will make your entire country glow as an ember for centuries.

well said for a completely insane madman

Earthlings y'all are going up in smoke... all of you

BigDumbWeirdo

2nd May 2008 - 08:46 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 2 2008, 02:27 PM)

So before you call me wrong, read more detail about waterboarding and the happy crap our government is doing that they at one time called illegal and executed people for.

Before you defend your position any further, note that I did not quote your whole post, and note the final line in my response:
"Even if their actions are not always justifiable, they have not even approached the line that Japan crossed during WWII."
Apparently my description of such actions as "not justifiable" wasn't enough to communicate the message that I do not support such actions.

I was responding directly to your comparison of our behavior in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (Does that sit with you better than "war on terror"?) and I pretty much agree with everything you said in the quoted post, except for the implication that I don't understand what I'm talking about. I may not have served in the Marines for 6 years, but I did some time in the Army, and have spent most of my life reading and studying military strategy, history, and technology.
It's not MY war, either. It's Bush and Cheney's war, with a handful of others taking up some more of the responsibility. I'm not sure whether to be flattered that you think I'm capable of initiating such an action, or offended that you think I support such an action, despite such obviously not being the case.
Nothing in my previous post attempted to justify anything done in the name of the "war on terror," and I even went so far as to enclose it in quotation marks and fail to capitalize it in an attempt to distance myself from it. Arguing from the assumption that I'm a Bush supporter or a "war on terror" supporter is a straw man to an incredible degree. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Masked Marauder

2nd May 2008 - 11:06 PM

QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+May 2 2008, 08:46 PM)

Before you defend your position any further, note that I did not quote your whole post, and note the final line in my response:
"Even if their actions are not always justifiable, they have not even approached the line that Japan crossed during WWII."
Apparently my description of such actions as "not justifiable" wasn't enough to communicate the message that I do not support such actions.

I was responding directly to your comparison of our behavior in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (Does that sit with you better than "war on terror"?) and I pretty much agree with everything you said in the quoted post, except for the implication that I don't understand what I'm talking about. I may not have served in the Marines for 6 years, but I did some time in the Army, and have spent most of my life reading and studying military strategy, history, and technology.
It's not MY war, either. It's Bush and Cheney's war, with a handful of others taking up some more of the responsibility. I'm not sure whether to be flattered that you think I'm capable of initiating such an action, or offended that you think I support such an action, despite such obviously not being the case.
Nothing in my previous post attempted to justify anything done in the name of the "war on terror," and I even went so far as to enclose it in quotation marks and fail to capitalize it in an attempt to distance myself from it. Arguing from the assumption that I'm a Bush supporter or a "war on terror" supporter is a straw man to an incredible degree. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My humble apologies BDW...

MM

Derek1148

2nd May 2008 - 11:42 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 2 2008, 11:06 PM)

My humble apologies BDW...

MM

Don't be so quick to apologize. If we all acted like that we could never create conflict.

BigDumbWeirdo

3rd May 2008 - 12:04 AM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 2 2008, 06:06 PM)

My humble apologies BDW...

MM

And you have my humble (if such is even possible!) acceptance

Couldn't you have kept arguing with me for a week or so? Now I gotta REMEMBER to poz ya.... Yeesh.

QUOTE (Derek+)

Don't be so quick to apologize. If we all acted like that we could never create conflict.

Good point... This IS an internet discussion board, after all...

Masked Marauder

3rd May 2008 - 12:34 AM

QUOTE (Derek1148+May 2 2008, 11:42 PM)

Don't be so quick to apologize. If we all acted like that we could never create conflict.

Da*n. no conflicts. Now what?

Margaritas.

Beach.

Hammock.

Peace.

and a *&$* cell phone that keeps going off. Where is my 9mm when I really need it?

orestis

3rd May 2008 - 02:28 AM

Airborne, Mr. Marauder! Well said.

A recomendation. To save amo find the nearest wall or tree and pitch the phone.

BigDumbWeirdo

3rd May 2008 - 03:56 AM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 2 2008, 07:34 PM)

and a *&$* cell phone that keeps going off. Where is my 9mm when I really need it?

I've always found a quick dunking to be more effective in silencing an annoying cell than a couple of rounds from a semi-auto...
But then, there's always the possibility of answering each call by blowing a police whistle into the mic.
It may take a while to work completely, depending on the size of your phonebook, but I gaurantee that people WILL stop calling you quite soon.

(plus it's funny as all hell, imagining their reactions...

)

uaafanblog

3rd May 2008 - 08:25 AM

It isn't that I want to continue the off-topic nature of the conversation so I'll just pretend it's a tangent.

While reading Masked Marauder's excellent posts here I thought he gave short shrift to the despots that America has put in power during the last century. And these are just the ones that were DIRECTLY installed by the U.S. Yes ... DIRECTLY! None of these men would likely have come to power without the intervention of the CIA and/or the U.S. Government. DIRECTLY!!!

Marcos in the Phillipines -- Murder tens thousands, stole billions, more than a decade of martial law
The Shah of Iran -- Murdered tens of thousands, stole billions
Pinochet of Chile -- Murdered hundreds of thousands, stole hundred of millions
Various Puppets in Vietnam -- caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese people, contributed to the deaths of millions of Cambobians, stole hundreds of millions
Samoza in Nicarauga -- Murder tens of thousands, stole billions
Noriega in Panama -- Used U.S. dollars to maintain a drug cartel, only deposed by U.S. when he got lippy otherwise they would have ignored it.
Duvalier's in Haiti (Papa Doc and Baby Doc) -- Murdered tens of thousands, stole mulitiple tens of millions
Suharto in Indonesia -- Murdered hundreds of thousands, stole hundreds of millions
Muboto in Zaire -- 5 billion stolen directly from US aid and American corporate bribery, hundreds of thousand starved to death.

I won't list all the ones that came to power on their own and ultimately benefitted from billions in US foreign aid except to mention that the Sultan of Brunei lives in a BILLION dollar home while 90% of his people live in brutal poverty. But he was good buddies with that great American Oliver North.

So my point here is that the US's record on human rights is STAGGERINGLY bad.

Zarkov

3rd May 2008 - 09:00 AM

QUOTE

US's record on human rights is STAGGERINGLY bad.

I would say totally anti-LIFE= EVIL

This world would be better off without the USA

orestis

3rd May 2008 - 11:30 AM

QUOTE (Zarkov+May 3 2008, 05:00 AM)

I would say totally anti-LIFE= EVIL

This world would be better off without the USA

That's going to far.

If your in the states, planes leave from either coast.

If your anywhere else, mention what you said at passport clearance on your way in.

Edward 3

3rd May 2008 - 03:25 PM

Orestis,
I agree - this is going too far.
However, let´s get back to your earlier statement that the reason you attacked Iraq was that you were going after those who attacked you - presumably bin laden & co. The simple fact is that there were never any links between Saddam and bin Laden´s terrorists, and everytime the US mentions this the whole arab world falls around laughing - those two were like chalk and cheese. So no wmd´s, no link to terrorism and what have you left? - OIL. And, if there were any links to terrorism why did Bush feel the need to invent the wmd scenario? This was not an intelligence error - it was a fabrication to justify an illegal and immoral war.
edward

Derek1148

3rd May 2008 - 03:57 PM

Define “Patriot.”

orestis

3rd May 2008 - 04:01 PM

Edward3-

All of your questions were answered by Masked Marauder. And the comment about people laughing is what pisses me off the most about the draft-dodging sons-of-bitches in office now. Ive been to Jordon and Turkey within the last five years.

But here is the beauty of America. Americans may get fooled by bull___ and slick media manipulation but it can only last eight years at the most. And when the change comes its bloodless and a new administration can go about fixing the mistakes.

Take a look at the list of dictators posted here. How long have some of them lasted? Hell, probably longer then some of the people reading this are old.

Perfection in government is a fantasy but we have the next best thing here.

Edward 3

3rd May 2008 - 05:53 PM

Orestis,
As I said in an earlier post I am most definitely not anti-American - what pisses me off is the way the American people are treated by their government , and I mentioned healthcare as a specific example. Another obvious example is the way the government responded to the recent financial crisis - rescued the incompetent , overpaid bankers and to hell with the low-wage homeowner. When I say I am pro-American I mean I am for the millions of Americans, living in the richest country in the history of humanity, who suffer the indignity of a second class medical system , just because, thro no fault of their own, they cannot keep up their insurance payments.
As for the opportunity to replace their leaders every four years, that sounds good, until you reflect on the fact that all candidates have to sell their souls to get their hands on sufficient funding they get elected - so the puppet can only last 8 years but do the puppet masters ever really change?
edward
ps - but if I did not live in Europe my second choice would probably be America - by which I mean you guys have things to fix but there are a lot worse options.

Derek1148

3rd May 2008 - 05:58 PM

QUOTE (Edward 3+May 3 2008, 05:53 PM)

Orestis,
As I said in an earlier post I am most definitely not anti-American - what pisses me off is the way the American people are treated by their government , and I mentioned healthcare as a specific example. Another obvious example is the way the government responded to the recent financial crisis - rescued the incompetent , overpaid bankers and to hell with the low-wage homeowner. When I say I am pro-American I mean I am for the millions of Americans, living in the richest country in the history of humanity, who suffer the indignity of a second class medical system , just because, thro no fault of their own, they cannot keep up their insurance payments.
As for the opportunity to replace their leaders every four years, that sounds good, until you reflect on the fact that all candidates have to sell their souls to get their hands on sufficient funding they get elected - so the puppet can only last 8 years but do the puppet masters ever really change?
edward
ps - but if I did not live in Europe my second choice would probably be America - by which I mean you guys have things to fix but there are a lot worse options.

I might have missed it, but what is your nationality?

Edward 3

3rd May 2008 - 06:39 PM

Derek,
I am Irish - living in Spain
edward

Derek1148

3rd May 2008 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE (Edward 3+May 3 2008, 06:39 PM)

Derek,
I am Irish - living in Spain
edward

Just curious.Thanks.

Zarkov

3rd May 2008 - 08:36 PM

QUOTE

When I say I am pro-American I mean I am for the millions of Americans,

maybe so, some are good some are bad
but the country is completely PRO-VIOLENCE

and they export their EVIL convictions to destabolise the world's people

Therefore like it or not when you talk of the USA you not only talk about the evil lords but you must include the people who back them up... democrat or republican... each totally controlled by MONEY and POWER...... self over the whole

such is the raw nature of EVIL = anti-LIFE

orestis

3rd May 2008 - 08:53 PM

Derek,

Man, that Zarcov is an idiot.

What Edward said is so damn true about people laughing at us about bin Laden. And it's not just places like Jordon or Turkey. As soon as they hear your accent and find our you're American and not Canadian the ____ hits the fan. The people who have a financial interest in you are polite enough, (taxi drivers, hotel employees), but its a constant state of defense with everybody else.

I was in New Zealand when the towers went down. You should have seen the outpouring of sympathy from the people there. Flowers at the consulate in Auckland, people saying "were sorry for your loss," others saying "go get whoever did it."

I went back there after Iraq and it was, "what the hell is wrong with you Americans," and "where is bin Laden." And the problem was I agreed with them.

As tragic as the attack on the towers was it was a golden opportunity to stop terrorism across the world. I would say there were few governments who wouldn't have helped us any way they could. Strong alliances could have been formed to benefit all governments, not just the States. But it was squandered.

And then Cheany led us into Iraq and the chance was gone.

I say Cheany because Bush is to dense. Cheany is the spider in the background pulling the threads. I don't have any references, maybe Marauder has, but I think Bush is only Cheany's lap dog, barking when told to do so.

Enough, I'm finished with this. My anger and frustration doesnt stop the violence, its just making me feel sick.

Zarkov

3rd May 2008 - 10:11 PM

QUOTE

a golden opportunity to stop terrorism across the world.

so going and killing people, and becoming terrorists is the way eh ????

and you are not going to address why these people are willing to kill themselves to protect their children ???

Hey don't go looking at what your country has done to this world ???? to its people, to its culture, to its children... total corruption... madness, money and power and greed... and to hell with RIGHT and GOOD.

You guys really are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo dense

a curse on Earth.

xtrmn8r

3rd May 2008 - 10:42 PM

Zarkov,

QUOTE

so going and killing people, and becoming terrorists is the way eh ????

and you are not going to address why these people are willing to kill themselves to protect their children ???

Hey don't go looking at what your country has done to this world ???? to its people, to its culture, to its children... total corruption... madness, money and power and greed... and to hell with RIGHT and GOOD.

You guys really are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo dense

a curse on Earth.

I rarely respond to your posts, but of all the asinine, idiotic things you've written, this one is fingernails on a chalk board to me.
The U.S. is nothing like those who orchestrated 9/11 and these people do not have there children's best interest at heart. They are stuck with a medieval mentality and have not contributed anything of substance to science or social enlightenment since the 7th century. If it weren't for oil, they would have nothing and asking for handouts from the United States of America just as others who cannot support themselves.

I,m with orestis, this subject is aggravating.

BigDumbWeirdo

3rd May 2008 - 11:33 PM

QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 3 2008, 05:42 PM)

I,m with orestis, this subject is aggravating.

Funnily enough, it wasn't until Zarkov showed up with his idiotic claims, lies, and retarded condemnation of an entire country, based on the actions of that country's government.
And his continual implications of being an extra-terrestrial.

Zarkov

3rd May 2008 - 11:54 PM

QUOTE

is fingernails on a chalk board to me.

good then I am hitting a chord

What makes you think "the modern way of living" is GOOD (Socratic GOOD) ?

Y'all are poisoned to the eyeballs... and your brains are therefore addled and yet you claim to be right when the rest of the world's unpoisoned people KNOW you are entirely WRONG...EVIL.

Y'all may well make earthlings extinct... and you won't think twice... that is just how mad your population has become.

Mad people never know they are mad.... QED

photojack

4th May 2008 - 05:59 AM

For a continuation of uaafanablog's list of the evil dictators American foreign policy blunders and collusion have brought to power, see: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Third.../dictators.html

QUOTE

Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America. Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets and apologists for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. In any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their people in fair and open elections.

They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism" and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US government supports them. They may be linked internationally to extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League, and some have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary to WWll Nazi war criminals.

They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and US-backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the worst human rights violators in the world.

This site then goes on to list and enumerate the offenses and records of dozens of these "undemocratic allies".

Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria
Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal ----------------------------Brunei
Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa
Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil
Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia
Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain
Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany
Hassan II-------------------------------------------Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama
Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran
Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece
Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile
Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala
Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua
Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay
Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan

I have stated for decades that America's foreign policy sucks and we need to look beyond the "instant gratification" of ousting "Communist sympathizers" and analyze human rights violations, military alliances, corporate connections, affiliations and much more.

These decisions and actions need to be based on what will work for generations to come and to have a keen eye on global cooperation and a concern for the true future benefits for all mankind. Shortsightedness has failed and will continue to fail.
"Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance."

Derek1148

4th May 2008 - 06:09 AM

QUOTE (photojack+May 4 2008, 05:59 AM)

Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/200...cus/focus4.html

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i4kT7pJ...YIPcvQD90E49P86

Edward 3

4th May 2008 - 12:38 PM

Orestis,
You summed it all up on the button when you said you had the sympathy and support of the world in the aftermath of 9/11, whereas now ....well no need to repeat the obvious and risk causing offence. Interesting to hear of your take on the reception you are getting overseas - what I hear frequently from American tourists in Ireland goes something like this " Hi, I´m xxx , I´m American but I didn´t vote for Bush" - and then we get back to the status quo of telling them tall tales while they buy the drink!!
cheers
edward

orestis

4th May 2008 - 01:04 PM

QUOTE (Edward 3+May 4 2008, 08:38 AM)

" Hi, I´m xxx , I´m American but I didn´t vote for Bush" - and then we get back to the status quo of telling them tall tales while they buy the drink!!
cheers
edward

That's a diplomacy I haven't tried yet. Thanks for the suggestion. Next time I'll bring extra money.

gmilam

4th May 2008 - 02:18 PM

I was in the UK when the towers came down and we did have the sympathy of the world. They even played the Star Spangled Banner during the changing of the guards at Buckingham Palace!

Several months later I was playing at a little bar in Ft Worth, where many of the soldiers from the nearby Naval Airbase came. One night (Spring 2002) the men came in saying that they were shipping out the next day. We asked where and they said they couldn't tell us... but this time they were going to be allowed to "stay and finish the job". No one needed to tell me anymore, I knew it was Iraq.

During the following months I watched as the case for war with Iraq was slowly presented. I watched the public sentiment slowly turn from "but isn't Bin Laden in Afghanistan" to "let's go kick some butt". All the while I knew we already had men over there setting the stage.

I even made a bet with a friend who said, "We " (I love that "we" - he was sitting home watching it on TV) "WE will go in there and find those WMDs just like Bush says we will." My side of the bet was, "No, we won't find a damn thing and Halliburton is going to make a fortune."

He still hasn't paid up.

photojack

4th May 2008 - 05:56 PM

Derek1148, I could post links to articles like those all day. What's your point?

Edward 3, In my travels, I've used the phrase, "I didn't vote for Bush" countless times. It breaks the ice (literally, the iciness most Europeans and others feel toward America in the wake of Bush) and opens up to true dialog and communication.

orestis, Try that "diplomacy". I'll drink to that!

gmilam, Though still carrying my Vietnam-era draft card in my wallet, I had never marched in a protest rally... until Dubya's second Gulf war.

I made a sign that on one side read, "Who will profit from this war?" And on the other side it said, "CHENEY"S Halliburton!" As I marched, I flipped the sign regularly so people could see both sides. It got the biggest reaction from the crowds of all the other protesters around me. One of the most glaringly stupid and perverse things I have ever heard a President utter, was when Dubya said, "Bring it on"!

That appalling, insensitive "challenge" to terrorists in general, was imbecility personified! I couldn't believe my ears. Bush has to rank as the worst man ever to hold that office.

McCain would closely follow in his footsteps.
WE NEED CHANGE!

Derek1148

4th May 2008 - 06:17 PM

QUOTE (photojack+May 4 2008, 05:56 PM)

Derek1148, I could post links to articles like those all day. What's your point?

Describe the problems with Ian Smith’s government. And then describe the conditions under Mugabe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTxYa-QjX20

photojack

7th May 2008 - 01:10 AM

Derek1148, To use a very valid analogy, should the U.S. have supported Karl Dönitz as Hitler's successor, because MAYBE he wouldn't have been as bad as Hitler?

Just because Ian Smith maybe wasn't quite as despotic as Mugabe...
DOESN'T MEAN THE U.S. SHOULD SUPPORT HIM!

That is exactly the shortsightedness I was referring to!

YOU can describe the problems with Ian Smith’s government and the conditions under Mugabe until you're blue in the face!

NEITHER OF THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED!

newguy

7th May 2008 - 03:49 AM

QUOTE (photojack+)

Thank you xtrmn8r for posting that article and link to one of my favorite sites on the Internet, other than physorg, google and wikipedia! http://www.edge.org is a site that I have linked to dozens of times in my posts to get thinking people, and ones like dad1, newguy, deadbeat and others, to eliminate the negative influences of any supernatural beliefs and accept science and atheism as man's best methods and attempts to capture reality and have them change our lives for the better.

xtrmn8r: In case you're not already aware, photojack is not my spokesperson. How ironic that this supposed "thinking person" seeks to link me to "the negative influences of any supernatural beliefs" when I've REPEATEDLY spoken out against violence in the name of God/religion while simultaneously posting the following Biblical definition of "religion" many times:

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."(James 1:27)

What a day it is when a professing "thinking person" finds such things to be "negative". Take care.

tlocity

7th May 2008 - 04:50 AM

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those who did not return.

It became very quiet in the room.

~~~~~~~~~~

Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying, 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 5,000 people three meals a day; they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day; and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'

Once again, dead silence.

~~~~~~~~~~

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, 'Whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'

Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, 'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'

You could have heard a pin drop!

~~~~~~~~~~

AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE:

A group of Americans, retired teachers, recently went to France on a tour. Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. "You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.

"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready." The American said, "The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."

"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France!" The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, "Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find any damn Frenchmen to show it to!"

tlocity

7th May 2008 - 04:53 AM

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those who did not return.

It became very quiet in the room.

~~~~~~~~~~

Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying, 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 5,000 people three meals a day; they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day; and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'

Once again, dead silence.

~~~~~~~~~~

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, 'Whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'

Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, 'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'

You could have heard a pin drop!

~~~~~~~~~~

AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE:

A group of Americans, retired teachers, recently went to France on a tour. Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. "You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.

"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready." The American said, "The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."

"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France!" The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, "Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find any damn Frenchmen to show it to!"

Derek1148

7th May 2008 - 06:05 AM

QUOTE (photojack+May 7 2008, 01:10 AM)

Just because Ian Smith maybe wasn't quite as despotic as Mugabe...
DOESN'T MEAN THE U.S. SHOULD SUPPORT HIM!

We didn't support him. Because of individuals, such as yourself, we allowed Mugabe to come to power.

deadbeat

7th May 2008 - 06:16 AM

QUOTE (photojack+May 4 2008, 05:59 AM)

For a continuation of uaafanablog's list of the evil dictators American foreign policy blunders and collusion have brought to power, see: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Third.../dictators.html

This site then goes on to list and enumerate the offenses and records of dozens of these "undemocratic allies".

Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria
Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal ----------------------------Brunei
Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa
Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil
Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia
Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain
Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany
Hassan II-------------------------------------------Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama
Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran
Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece
Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile
Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala
Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua
Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay
Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan

I have stated for decades that America's foreign policy sucks and we need to look beyond the "instant gratification" of ousting "Communist sympathizers" and analyze human rights violations, military alliances, corporate connections, affiliations and much more.

These decisions and actions need to be based on what will work for generations to come and to have a keen eye on global cooperation and a concern for the true future benefits for all mankind. Shortsightedness has failed and will continue to fail.
"Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance."

HAHAH

What flavor Kool-aid is that you are drinking?

uaafanblog

7th May 2008 - 08:30 AM

QUOTE (deadbeat+May 7 2008, 06:16 AM)

HAHAH

What flavor Kool-aid is that you are drinking?

Are you really so in need of an argument that you're willing to defend the foreign policy record of the U.S. with regard to the coups it has directed.

Bring it on. There isn't anyone on my list that wasn't put there DIRECTLY by the U.S. so I'd love to see you attempt to defend those.

I'll paste it here for you again.

QUOTE

Marcos in the Phillipines -- Murder tens thousands, stole billions, more than a decade of martial law
The Shah of Iran -- Murdered tens of thousands, stole billions
Pinochet of Chile -- Murdered hundreds of thousands, stole hundred of millions
Various Puppets in Vietnam -- caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese people, contributed to the deaths of millions of Cambobians, stole hundreds of millions
Samoza in Nicarauga -- Murder tens of thousands, stole billions
Noriega in Panama -- Used U.S. dollars to maintain a drug cartel, only deposed by U.S. when he got lippy otherwise they would have ignored it.
Duvalier's in Haiti (Papa Doc and Baby Doc) -- Murdered tens of thousands, stole mulitiple tens of millions
Suharto in Indonesia -- Murdered hundreds of thousands, stole hundreds of millions
Muboto in Zaire -- 5 billion stolen directly from US aid and American corporate bribery, hundreds of thousand starved to death.

Pick one. Any one. Defend whatever you wish about that particular person or policy or situation. The plain truth here is that US leadership has often made convenient choices in the past in order to favor American economic interests and often the result has been the death of many innocent people. Denial of that is blind patriotism at its worst. It wouldn't surprise me that you'd be as blind to it as you are to the fairy tale mythology you defend. Please say it is so! Please. I haven't eaten anyone else's lunch all week.

tlocity

7th May 2008 - 09:05 AM

Uaafanblog it is very easy to criticize and make everything look evil when you have no solutions or do not have the responsibility of the problems of the world.

Try putting yourself in the problem. Were the people we tried to support any worse then the people they replaced? Are we to go in whenever we find that the leader of any country bad and take over? Are we to ignore the problems of the world?

Since the WW2 many people in this country have been trying to help all the people of the world and this has been a sacrifice to the US. Ask yourself where would the world be without what you call the evil intent of the US. Billions of people all over the world live a better life and in fact are just able to live because of the US.

Try learning some history about the world condition after WWII. Compare that with the result of WWI and see what a difference we made for the world.

The only intent we have is a stable world. A stable world is good for all the people of the world.

We have allowed our industry to move to other counties. This has reduced our standard of living somewhat but has allowed others to live and be free. We think the cost has been and is worth it.

The Middle East is about to blow up and you criticize our involvement. I guess you would just sit by and wait until every country in the Middle East had nukes. We are there for one purpose and only one purpose and that is to save the lives of hundreds of millions of people and the world from nuclear war. I am sorry if you don’t accept the fact that the US is not perfect but the only perfect person is the one that does nothing.

Zarkov

7th May 2008 - 09:45 AM

nice put, tlocity

Yes its no ones fault it has all come from ignorance and metal in-toxification

However the only way out is through, where mistakes that have been made are addressed and the world declares itself interred in an insane asylum to be made well again.

desire can be very abusive and one eyed.

Edward 3

7th May 2008 - 10:31 AM

tiocity,
Just on a point of info - you say you have allowed your industries to move to other countries. The primary reasons why your large corporations relocate is their pursuit of lower labour costs and , more important , lower corporation tax rates. Your own IRS are not too happy with this situation but seem unable to influence government policy. To tell the truth, in my country ( Ireland ) we are thrilled with this arrangement and are vigorously resisting all EU attempts to force us to bring our corporation tax rates up to the standard european level.
regards
edward

uaafanblog

7th May 2008 - 11:30 AM

QUOTE (tlocity+)

Uaafanblog it is very easy to criticize and make everything look evil when you have no solutions or do not have the responsibility of the problems of the world.

Absolutely. However, by even liberal standards what I said wasn't a "criticism". I merely interjected some facts into a pre-existing discussion. This is a forum for discussion. I made a reasonably relevant point with my original post. Your assertion that I have no solutions is wrong and your observation of my responsibilities is short-sighted. As a citizen of this fine country I have a responsibility to speak out. I do so. I also vote (even though NOBODY I ever voted for won an office above Mayor).

QUOTE

Try putting yourself in the problem. Were the people we tried to support any worse then the people they replaced? Are we to go in whenever we find that the leader of any country bad and take over? Are we to ignore the problems of the world?

Since your question about the relative merits (were they worse) of the replacements from the predecessors is simple, I'll provide a simple answer. Yes. In virtually every case that I listed the replacements turned out to be much worse than the original. No we shouldn't ignore the problems of the world. We just ought to get on the right side instead of the side that benefits us economically or for some vaguely understood political ideology.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Try putting yourself in the problem. Were the people we tried to support any worse then the people they replaced? Are we to go in whenever we find that the leader of any country bad and take over? Are we to ignore the problems of the world?

Since your question about the relative merits (were they worse) of the replacements from the predecessors is simple, I'll provide a simple answer. Yes. In virtually every case that I listed the replacements turned out to be much worse than the original. No we shouldn't ignore the problems of the world. We just ought to get on the right side instead of the side that benefits us economically or for some vaguely understood political ideology.

Since the WW2 many people in this country have been trying to help all the people of the world and this has been a sacrifice to the US. Ask yourself where would the world be without what you call the evil intent of the US. Billions of people all over the world live a better life and in fact are just able to live because of the US.

I don't know that I used the words "evil intent of the US" anywhere. But rather than focus on your attribution of that to me lets just agree that supposing about different histories is mostly folly. I'm talking about the DIRECT results of the interference; i.e... don't put Pinochet into power and perhaps HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Chilean people aren't murdered. Maybe the next Newton was killed? Such an example can be made for each of the despots I listed.

QUOTE

Try learning some history about the world condition after WWII. Compare that with the result of WWI and see what a difference we made for the world.

To borrow a Brad Pitt line from a favorite movie, "Don't *** condescend to me". You said, "Try learning some history ..."? LOL. For all you know I have a doctorate in History. I don't by the way. But don't think for a second that I'm not well-versed in historical matters. You make a good point about U.S. involvement in WWII versus the world's failure to "set things right" in the first. Things were set right. I wouldn't argue that. It was the end of classic Empire building. It was mostly replaced with economic empire building but that doesn't belong in this discussion. Good for the US. Bully bully for us! I didn't "criticize" U.S. policy in WWII did I?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Try learning some history about the world condition after WWII. Compare that with the result of WWI and see what a difference we made for the world.

To borrow a Brad Pitt line from a favorite movie, "Don't *** condescend to me". You said, "Try learning some history ..."? LOL. For all you know I have a doctorate in History. I don't by the way. But don't think for a second that I'm not well-versed in historical matters. You make a good point about U.S. involvement in WWII versus the world's failure to "set things right" in the first. Things were set right. I wouldn't argue that. It was the end of classic Empire building. It was mostly replaced with economic empire building but that doesn't belong in this discussion. Good for the US. Bully bully for us! I didn't "criticize" U.S. policy in WWII did I?

The only intent we have is a stable world. A stable world is good for all the people of the world.

This is plain and simply not true. As often as not the intent of our foreign policy decisions were without regard to anybody else and made from nothing but our own selfish reasons.

QUOTE

We have allowed our industry to move to other counties. This has reduced our standard of living somewhat but has allowed others to live and be free. We think the cost has been and is worth it.

This is another whole ball of worms that really has nothing to do with me pointing out the despots that the U.S. installed (often through violent overthrow) during the past century. The results of what we've done today are probably only measurable in the future. But I can say that much of what has happened has lined the pockets of the already filthy rich. Maybe in time it will benefit more than it has hurt. We'll have to wait and see but it's clear that the one thing they have in common with the past transgressions I've listed is their selfish economic-based decisions.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

We have allowed our industry to move to other counties. This has reduced our standard of living somewhat but has allowed others to live and be free. We think the cost has been and is worth it.

This is another whole ball of worms that really has nothing to do with me pointing out the despots that the U.S. installed (often through violent overthrow) during the past century. The results of what we've done today are probably only measurable in the future. But I can say that much of what has happened has lined the pockets of the already filthy rich. Maybe in time it will benefit more than it has hurt. We'll have to wait and see but it's clear that the one thing they have in common with the past transgressions I've listed is their selfish economic-based decisions.

The Middle East is about to blow up and you criticize our involvement. I guess you would just sit by and wait until every country in the Middle East had nukes. .

Yes it is. And our continued dabbling in their affairs over the last 50 years has not only lit the wick of that pending explosion, it has made us one of the prime targets. Don't think for a second that the last 30 years of fundamental rule in Iran wasn't a DIRECT result of the puppet that the U.S. installed there for the previous 30 years. Don't think for a second that the repressive regime in Saudi Arabia isn't playing both sides of the table and will ultimately bite us in the *** when their people revolt after the oil runs out in 30 years. The common people in the middle east resent the U.S. involvement. We made no effort to understand them culturally and then demand that they adhere to our way of doing things? Simplistic views of that part of the world on the part of western governments have sown a powerful seed whose ultimate fruition will probably be quite bitter for us.

QUOTE

I guess you would just sit by and wait until every country in the Middle East had nukes. We are there for one purpose and only one purpose and that is to save the lives of hundreds of millions of people and the world from nuclear war. I am sorry if you don’t accept the fact that the US is not perfect but the only perfect person is the one that does nothing.

And by what special dispensation from what authority determines that those people don't have the right to the same technology that we have? Because we are AMERICANS? What? We have some special wisdom that nobody else possesses? How arrogant is that? Sounds a lot like Manifest Destiny to me. Perhaps you believe that some mythological super-being has imbued us above other races of his creation?

Put yourself in Iran's shoes for a moment. A militarily ruled neighbor (Pakistan) has nukes and a pretty unstable history. They're neighbor (India) has nukes and doesn't get along with them. On the other side you've got the mess that is Iraq and all the negative history you have with that country and now they're under control of the most powerful country on the planet. The country that imposed itself on you for 30 years through the brutality and repression of the Shah. And just to the south you have one of the richest nations on the planet (Saudi Arabia) with whom you have an age old disagreement as to who is really the inheritor of your Prophets mantle? And who throughout known history you have conflicted from time to time (Persians versus Arabs ya know?). Yeah I'm pretty sure if I was in charge there I'd want a bigger stick to wave around and keep everyone at bay in case that potentiality came up. If you wouldn't then you wouldn't be much of a leader. WE have to begin to understand that.

We're currently allowing our ignorance and fear to dictate policy. I'm sorry if you're a victim of the "evil empire" rhetoric; but the truth is that Iran is NO THREAT to the U.S. even if they build a few dozen nukes. The overwhelming superiority that the U.S. has in that area is an effective deterrent. It was effective against a country that had tens of thousands of nukes wasn't it? It will be effective against any Iranian nukes. Yes, I'm sure you'll trot out the terrorists getting a nuke and blowing up Des Moines. But you cannot hope to counter that by invading countries left and right. If that is going to happen that is going to happen. Iran will know it is in their best interest to keep it's devices out of extremists hands just the same way the U.S. keeps it's nukes out of the KKK's hands. You can only counter terrorism by the realization that it is the last resort of those that feel politically disenfranchised and by finding ways to engage them politically. That doesn't mean giving into demands ... it means giving them a path to a political voice that they can believe is fair.

I'm sorry for you that your fear has clearly gotten the better of your reason. It's a shame to see such a thing on a forum dedicated to reason.

Masked Marauder

7th May 2008 - 02:58 PM

QUOTE (tlocity+May 7 2008, 09:05 AM)

Uaafanblog it is very easy to criticize and make everything look evil when you have no solutions or do not have the responsibility of the problems of the world.

Try putting yourself in the problem. Were the people we tried to support any worse then the people they replaced? Are we to go in whenever we find that the leader of any country bad and take over? Are we to ignore the problems of the world?

Since the WW2 many people in this country have been trying to help all the people of the world and this has been a sacrifice to the US. Ask yourself where would the world be without what you call the evil intent of the US. Billions of people all over the world live a better life and in fact are just able to live because of the US.

Try learning some history about the world condition after WWII. Compare that with the result of WWI and see what a difference we made for the world.

The only intent we have is a stable world. A stable world is good for all the people of the world.

We have allowed our industry to move to other counties. This has reduced our standard of living somewhat but has allowed others to live and be free. We think the cost has been and is worth it.

The Middle East is about to blow up and you criticize our involvement. I guess you would just sit by and wait until every country in the Middle East had nukes. We are there for one purpose and only one purpose and that is to save the lives of hundreds of millions of people and the world from nuclear war. I am sorry if you don’t accept the fact that the US is not perfect but the only perfect person is the one that does nothing.

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those who did not return.

It became very quiet in the room.

I would agree with that statement if it were "freedom" we were fighting for. We are in Iraq for one single purpose. A stable supply of oil for the US for the forseeable future. There was no other reason.

In 2002, the Saudis asked the US to leave their country. President Bush, Cheney, and his advisors shortly thereafter declared that Iraq had WMD, and invaded. If you have noticed (or not) we have several permanent bases inside of Iraq, primarily around the oil fields, not key economic areas.

I believe that the original reason for going in was WMD of which none have been found. Then it was to depose of a nasty dictator. (One we supported for 8 years while they fought Iran) Oh, did you ever ask why the chemical weapons they found were not discussed too much?

Because we sold them the chemical weapons....

Our government is excellent at pumping the average citizen full of bullsh*t. They put their spin on it, and throw it on TV, where everyone chants "Yeah! US!". Remember how Cheney tied Iraq to the Al Quieda right after 9/11? Guess how many Iraqi's were on the planes that hit the Towers, the pentagon, and that empty field?

Give up?

None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

They were mostly our buddies from Saudi Arabia. Osama is a Saudi. and the Saudi's top religious advisor told the Saudis on live TV that it was perfectly fine to kill Americans and drive them out of Iraq.... Our friends...

Another note:
Everyone touts how great we were in WWII. Do you know why Japan attacked us?

Because we cut off their oil supply. and they had just become industrialized enough to know they wouldn't survive without it. We attacked Germany only because they began sinking our ships. (We were supplying Europe with weapons) But the US had decided not to get involved in Europes problems.

Another little thing to think about. Since when were we elected the police of the world? Why is it our reponsibility to take on the problems of the world?

I could go on and on and on. Our government in the past 8 years has become more corrupt, and more open about it than anytime that I can think of in my memory. one president lies about a marital affair and gets impeached. Another lies about intel, kills close to a million Iraqi's and 40,000+ americans and gets rich off of it. Seems everyone forgot about Cheney and his ownership of Haliburton and our President is an Oil Boy. (Guess who is making out like a bandit)?

How many of your congressmen/women are deeply involved in contracts over in Iraq, or own stock of Bechtel, Halliburton, or any one of the hundreds of companies making a load of cash over in Iraq?

Anyhow, before you go pumping up your government, you might want to research the motives behind them... We have helped some countries, but usually with some major strings attached...

Perfect example: Somalia. remember that? We were there helping to feed starving people.... 3 friends of mine helped take the port (US Marines) Nasty firefights, as we, the US armed Somalia for years... Oh, and right after they took the port, Chevron pulled in some drilling rigs that they had not been able to get in for quite some time.... funny how that just coincided.....

Be careful about touting how wonderful the reasons are behind helping other countries... The Devil is in the Details.

MM

(USMC 1981-1987) Love my country, fear my government..

Gorgeous

7th May 2008 - 04:13 PM

QUOTE (Masked Marauder+May 7 2008, 02:58 PM)

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those who did not return.

It became very quiet in the room.

I would agree with that statement if it were "freedom" we were fighting for. We are in Iraq for one single purpose. A stable supply of oil for the US for the forseeable future. There was no other reason.

In 2002, the Saudis asked the US to leave their country. President Bush, Cheney, and his advisors shortly thereafter declared that Iraq had WMD, and invaded. If you have noticed (or not) we have several permanent bases inside of Iraq, primarily around the oil fields, not key economic areas.

I believe that the original reason for going in was WMD of which none have been found. Then it was to depose of a nasty dictator. (One we supported for 8 years while they fought Iran) Oh, did you ever ask why the chemical weapons they found were not discussed too much?

Because we sold them the chemical weapons....

Our government is excellent at pumping the average citizen full of bullsh*t. They put their spin on it, and throw it on TV, where everyone chants "Yeah! US!". Remember how Cheney tied Iraq to the Al Quieda right after 9/11? Guess how many Iraqi's were on the planes that hit the Towers, the pentagon, and that empty field?

Give up?

None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

They were mostly our buddies from Saudi Arabia. Osama is a Saudi. and the Saudi's top religious advisor told the Saudis on live TV that it was perfectly fine to kill Americans and drive them out of Iraq.... Our friends...

Another note:
Everyone touts how great we were in WWII. Do you know why Japan attacked us?

Because we cut off their oil supply. and they had just become industrialized enough to know they wouldn't survive without it. We attacked Germany only because they began sinking our ships. (We were supplying Europe with weapons) But the US had decided not to get involved in Europes problems.

Another little thing to think about. Since when were we elected the police of the world? Why is it our reponsibility to take on the problems of the world?

I could go on and on and on. Our government in the past 8 years has become more corrupt, and more open about it than anytime that I can think of in my memory. one president lies about a marital affair and gets impeached. Another lies about intel, kills close to a million Iraqi's and 40,000+ americans and gets rich off of it. Seems everyone forgot about Cheney and his ownership of Haliburton and our President is an Oil Boy. (Guess who is making out like a bandit)?

How many of your congressmen/women are deeply involved in contracts over in Iraq, or own stock of Bechtel, Halliburton, or any one of the hundreds of companies making a load of cash over in Iraq?

Anyhow, before you go pumping up your government, you might want to research the motives behind them... We have helped some countries, but usually with some major strings attached...

Perfect example: Somalia. remember that? We were there helping to feed starving people.... 3 friends of mine helped take the port (US Marines) Nasty firefights, as we, the US armed Somalia for years... Oh, and right after they took the port, Chevron pulled in some drilling rigs that they had not been able to get in for quite some time.... funny how that just coincided.....

Be careful about touting how wonderful the reasons are behind helping other countries... The Devil is in the Details.

MM

(USMC 1981-1987) Love my country, fear my government..

I think you should run for president!

On second thoughts, don't do that...the good ones don't seem to last very long!

g.

photojack

7th May 2008 - 04:22 PM

Great post Masked Marauder. Knowing history thoroughly, opens up one's eyes to the foibles of mankind AND our past foreign policy gaffs. What you said about Bush sums up what I have been saying since before his first term.

I saw this recently:

"Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities." From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200805...UyGSWDAxEEDW7oF

Maybe that's why the war-monger Derek1148 is so happy!

Another reason "liberal-leaners" may not be as happy... we're really pissed that Bush hasn't been impeached, when he clearly should have! He's "done the crime, he should do the time!"

photojack, Love my country, fear THIS government!

deadbeat, Typical uninformed response from you.

Did you go to the source I posted and do ANY research? NO! Go back to the sandbox!

Here's the pertinent information from that source:

QUOTE

ADOLF HITLER Chancellor of Germany.

As German bombs fell on London and Nazi tanks rolled over US troops, Sosthenes Behn president and founder of the US based ITT corporation, met with his German representative to discuss improving German communication systems. ITT was designing and building Nazi phone and radio systems as well as supplying crucial parts for German bombs. Our government knew all about this, for under a presidential order, US companies were licensed to trade with the Nazis. The choice of who would be licensed was odd, though. While the Secretary of State gave the Ford Motor Company permission to make Nazi tanks, he simultaneously blocked aid to German-Jewish refugees because the US wasn't supposed to be trading with the enemy. Other US companies trading with the Third Reich were General Motors, DuPont, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Davis Oil Co., and the Chase National Bank. President Roosevelt did not stop them, fearing a scandal might lead to another stock market crash or lower US moral. Besides, the same companies that traded with Hitler were supplying the US with its armaments, and some corporate leaders threatened to withdraw their support if Roosevelt exposed them. Henry Ford was a good friend of Hitler's. His book -- The International Jew -- had Inspired Hltler's Mein Kampf. The Fuhrer kept Ford's picture in his office, and Ford was one of only four foreigners to receive Germany's highest civilian award. As for Sosthenes Behn, at the end of the war, he received the highest civilian award for service to his country -- the United States of America.

From: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Third.../dictators.html

It looks like more corporate meddling and corruption, just like what Masked Marauder so ably discussed from current events!

READ, LEARN, BECOME INFORMED AND DROP YOUR "HOLIER THAN THOU" STANCE, ONCE AND FOR ALL! WE KNOW BETTER! ((

))

Gorgeous

7th May 2008 - 05:06 PM

QUOTE

...foibles of mankind...

Do cats from Brooklyn get those?

How about this...

g.

orestis

7th May 2008 - 05:23 PM

Before we get too lost in the nastiness of governments I'd like to say something nice about the American people.

After WWII there was a civil war in Greece that left it a mess. One of my earliest memories was about these boxes that my whole family would get around and open with joy.

Food came out of those boxes. Wonderful food. It wasn't till the early 1960's, when I asked my older brother about them, that I found out those were CARE boxes.

I'm sure that American governments have had economic and political reasons for helping one side or another over the years. But the American people have been just plain good. Those CARE boxes went to families on both sides of the conflict in Greece.

OK, back to politics.

Masked Marauder

7th May 2008 - 05:33 PM

QUOTE (orestis+May 7 2008, 05:23 PM)

Before we get too lost in the nastiness of governments I'd like to say something nice about the American people.

After WWII there was a civil war in Greece that left it a mess. One of my earliest memories was about these boxes that my whole family would get around and open with joy.

Food came out of those boxes. Wonderful food. It wasn't till the early 1960's, when I asked my older brother about them, that I found out those were CARE boxes.

I'm sure that American governments have had economic and political reasons for helping one side or another over the years. But the American people have been just plain good. Those CARE boxes went to families on both sides of the conflict in Greece.

OK, back to politics.

Don't misunderstand my posts.

The US does a LOT for other countries, we have bailed out and helped out a lot of countries in need. There are compassionate people in places of power, and many times have come to the aid of others who were hit by disasters both man made and natural.

For those times, I applaud the leaders who would do so...

MM

orestis

7th May 2008 - 06:17 PM

I understand that MM.

And I believe, like others on this board that a president shouldn't be allowed to ask for war unless he has played tag with those eager little pieces of lead that seek his warm body. The experience would make him a better statesman who would resort to war as an only option.

Thank god Cheney got deferments and stayed out of the jungle. If he shot a friend, in the States, with a shotgun, he would of wiped out his whole platoon with an M-16.

What frightens me with the current bozos is how blatant they are and get away with it. Something...something is wrong with that. Something that's going to have bad consequences later on.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.