Post by: nemt on May 16, 2004, 06:58:00 AM
| QUOTE (Marine Corps News) |
| While leading his platoon north on Highway 1 toward Ad Diwaniyah, Chontosh's platoon moved into a coordinated ambush of mortars, rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons fire. With coalition tanks blocking the road ahead, he realized his platoon was caught in a kill zone. He had his driver move the vehicle through a breach along his flank, where he was immediately taken under fire from an entrenched machine gun. Without hesitation, Chontosh ordered the driver to advance directly at the enemy position, enabling his .50 caliber machine gunner to silence the enemy. He then directed his driver into the enemy trench, where he exited his vehicle and began to clear the trench with an M16A2 service rifle and 9 millimeter pistol. His ammunition depleted, Chontosh, with complete disregard for his safety, twice picked up discarded enemy rifles and continued his ferocious attack. When a Marine following him found an enemy rocket propelled grenade launcher, Chontosh used it to destroy yet another group of enemy soldiers. When his audacious attack ended, he had cleared over 200 meters of the enemy trench, killing more than 20 enemy soldiers and wounding several others. |
http://www.usmc.mil/...ef/200456162723
You can also read about how Americans apparently care more about prisoners who would kill them and their families if given the chance, who hate america, being "abused," than a hero defending his countrymen. Sounds kind of strange doesn't it? It's because it is, the liberal media only reports what they want to public to hear about, to shape the political image they desire.
http://snopes.com/po...ry/chontosh.asp
Post by: Hercules Q Einstein on May 16, 2004, 07:11:00 AM
Post by: nemt on May 16, 2004, 07:15:00 AM
| QUOTE (Hercules Q Einstein @ May 16 2004, 11:11 AM) |
| That has nothing to do with the libral media, ever notice on your local news you hear more about robberys and other crimes than nice storys about people helping the community? Its because thats what people what to hear, they expect the good things to happen but want to hear about the bad. |
The first part of your statement is only partially true. There's plenty of positive human interest stories in local news, but they are rarer in many communities than crime. On a national level, heroism and valor in the war are MUCH more common than american casualties and prison "abuse," but which do you hear about?
Post by: cainedna on May 16, 2004, 05:25:00 PM
This solider is pretty obviously a hero. That only makes me more proud of the country I'm coming back to in a week or so. While I don't equate more dead with heroism, on the scale of what a solider can do, he's certainly gone beyond expectations.
Don't think that makes the abuses unimportant, though. Whether it was a few or many soldiers acting inappropriately, it leaves a much bigger impression about the United States on the rest of the world, especially the part that we should be most concerned about. I'm sure Hitler did a number of good things for Germany as well.</hyperbole>
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 16, 2004, 05:38:00 PM
i just remembered something while i was sleeping in class, this war is totally immoral and theres no ethical or moral basis behind it, as it doesnt meet the Just cuases for war (theres 5 of them if i remember correctly, and this war sure in hell does not meet all 5 of them)
on that note, once again, wow, i feel so much more pride to a military that boasts itself on how many and in what fashion people were killed
Post by: HeLiuM on May 16, 2004, 06:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (cainedna @ May 17 2004, 02:53 AM) |
| I'm not proud of the people who sent this guy to Iraq, but I do believe that soldiers have a purpose, and he did an impressive job in that capacity. |
You're proud hat your country has the superior killing machine?
Bravery is a good thing, but don't equate that with a large body count. I'm not denouncing the soldiers bravery, but there are many of those enemies that would show the same sort of dedication. If one were to show a similiar combat prowess, should iraqis be proud of their country for it? I don't blame the soldier by any means, but I don't see why he would be congratulated for causing the most deaths. If you want to be proud of him for doing what he feels is right, by all means do it. But don't be proud of him for filling up the nearest morgue with the other side in an unjust war.
Great use of word choice by the marine corp by the way. He used an rpg to "destroy" enemies.
Post by: IndieSnob on May 16, 2004, 09:40:00 PM
As to the original posters why wouldn't the liberal media tell us this is, this allready has been on most every newsast I have seen, from local to nationial media. Fox didn't show it anymore then CNN, so does that make them wrong also? As previously posted the bad always outweighs the good on the news, and always will.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 17, 2004, 12:01:00 PM
technically, everyone in this war is innocent, both iraqi insurgents and us marines, so they dont need to emphasize how many innocent people that soldier killed
Post by: BloodyMary on May 17, 2004, 06:26:00 PM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 17 2004, 04:01 PM) |
| technically, everyone in this war is innocent |
I'm hoping that perhaps you will thoroughly elaborate on that statement... I don't think I'm getting what your are saying...
Post by: melon on May 18, 2004, 12:28:00 PM
(bloody M those remarks were done in humour)
We should go one further because under the Geneva convention we are under obligation to uphold certain standards
| QUOTE |
| Article 3 In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: 1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. |
This has been ignored! It is documented that soldiers have gont to an adress to arrest a man suspected of cohorting with terrorist groups, he hasnt been at home so they have arrested his nieghbour.
| QUOTE |
| © Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; |
hmmmm
| QUOTE |
| Chapter IV. Precautionary measures Art. 57. Precautions in attack 1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. 2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken: (a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall: (i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them; (ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects; (iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; |
I dont think DU ammunitions and cluster bombs fit in with this.
between 9,000 and 11,000 civillian deaths
for proof http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
what is Americas position on this?
The quote on the top of the page in the link says it all.
I am not saying Iraqi insurgents are sticking to the geneva convention but they havnt got the weaponary we have, how are they supposed to fight us?
We are meant to be morally superior, if we are not we have no rite to "liberate" anybody.
edit: ballsed up the gramma
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 18, 2004, 01:52:00 PM
maybe you havnt taken Christian Morality, or dont remember, or never learned this concept, but under the church (and god, and morally and socially and every other view) theres 5 (might be 6, i cant remember) criterias that must be met for a Just, and ultimately, right war, and unless all 5 are met, everyone in the war is innocent, and killing them is essentially the same as going into a mall and shooting random people
so, thats how were killing innocent people
Post by: BloodyMary on May 18, 2004, 02:10:00 PM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 18 2004, 05:52 PM) |
| maybe you havnt taken Christian Morality |
or maybe I'm just not a perfect Christian... (really.. who's a perfect follower of their religion [no matter what it is] anyway).
I understand what you are saying and partially agree with it... however, I believe that you are interpreting the scriptures (or what ever you are interpreting) with a biased that leans towards your own human point of view...
Post by: nemt on May 18, 2004, 02:33:00 PM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 18 2004, 05:52 PM) |
| BloodyMary maybe you havnt taken Christian Morality, or dont remember, or never learned this concept, but under the church (and god, and morally and socially and every other view) theres 5 (might be 6, i cant remember) criterias that must be met for a Just, and ultimately, right war, and unless all 5 are met, everyone in the war is innocent, and killing them is essentially the same as going into a mall and shooting random people so, thats how were killing innocent people |
Oh please, either you support the church or you don't. You liberals can't go preaching abortion and gay marriage, then try to hide behind the just war theory. It's just like Michael Moore protesting the 2nd ammendment, then hiding behind the 1st to support his radical views.
The Just War Theory also applies much more to the wars of older times than today, as it's based upon principles from a different era. Just to be fair though:
| QUOTE |
| A just war can only be waged as a last resort. |
Saddam was given over a decade to cooperate.
| QUOTE |
| A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. |
The coalition governments are all legitimate bodies on local and global levels.
| QUOTE |
| A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. |
Over a million civilians murdered, I'd say that's a wrong suffered.
| QUOTE |
| A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. |
I think the capital city falling in under a month pretty much proves the coalition had a reasonable chance of success, not like it's suprising to anyone.
| QUOTE |
| The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. |
This one is tricky, as a lot of islamist activity probably would have been avoided had the war not gone on, however, civilians would still be oppressed, and Saddam would still be an imminent threat to the stability of the region, if he were still in power.
| QUOTE |
| The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. |
The peacekeeping force is almost entirely reactionary.
| QUOTE |
| The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. |
Civilians are treated better by the invaders than by their own government.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 18, 2004, 03:08:00 PM
either he attacked and you're defending yourself, or its not just
and bloody marry, it wasnt a scripture, and i learned it in school (one of the things i do partially remember)
nemt, i love how everyone is a liberal or a kid or a fag or person who cant type english correct on an online forum to you....i dont even know what a liberal is, im just posting because of my own, unbiased, uninfluenced views on the war, i dont even care who wins, even if castro himself ran for president
and when you were comparing the points of a just war, you weren't even using basis, your just saying what you want
i guess having iraqis form sexual positions naked is treating them better......
and america and UK might be legitime, but in a state of world like this, legitime would more preferrably mean the UN, as, unlike the past, wars now a days affect most of the world (back in the middle ages, wars barley affected other, non involved countries)
Post by: nemt on May 18, 2004, 03:18:00 PM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 18 2004, 07:08 PM) |
| nemt, you also forgot the big one, a war must be for absolute defense, and it cant be a "well he might attack sometime" either he attacked and you're defending yourself, or its not just |
What are you talking about? Do you even know what the just war theory is?
You have yet to know what you're talking about, in any topic on this forum, ever.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 18, 2004, 03:37:00 PM
thats one of the requirements for a just war (according to the church)
it must be a war of defense, or else we could go out and attack anyone
Post by: nemt on May 18, 2004, 04:02:00 PM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 18 2004, 07:37 PM) |
| umm, no, ill go get the statement from my book at school, ill ask the teacher and then ill ask my pricipal (whose a priest) thats one of the requirements for a just war (according to the church) it must be a war of defense, or else we could go out and attack anyone |
Either your book and teacher are incorrect, or you're very confused, or both. I outlined the entire just war theory above, you don't know anyone who knows more about catholicism than I do, including your priest principal.
Post by: EmperorPsiblade on May 18, 2004, 04:14:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 18, 2004, 05:15:00 PM
anyways, everyone, and that means everyone, in this war is innocent
Post by: melon on May 18, 2004, 09:11:00 PM
or are we above such annoying things?
Post by: Yuyu on May 18, 2004, 09:39:00 PM
He has provided me countless times with entertainment, not only with his points of view, but the hostile reactions everyone posts in their rebuttles...
nemt I thank you for the entertainment...
Post by: nemt on May 19, 2004, 04:16:00 AM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 18 2004, 09:15 PM) |
| yea everyone, nemt is smarter then both a book and a school teacher with a phd..... |
Well, apparently I know more about the just war theory than he does.
Or much more likely, you're just making things up based loosely on something he said to you.
Post by: melon on May 19, 2004, 08:41:00 AM
I just want to understand your point of view.
Q1. If the civillians are better treated under coallition forces rather than Saddam (something i question as having an irqi as a best firend allows me to find out what is going on in baghdad from an iraqi point of view). How do you feel about the fact America has supported brutal dicatators for years and even put Saddam in power?
Q2. How can continuesly bombing baghdad with heavy artillery including cluster bombs and 11,000 civillians dead be classed as succesfully protecting civillians?
Q3. You say over a million civillians murdered is a just reason for war. What do you think about the 4 million vietnamese and cambodia civillians US troop killed?
and what part do you think the us sanctions on iraq played in these deaths?
(Saddam has not killed a million civillians btw)
I would like to hear your response.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 19, 2004, 12:52:00 PM
and yes, do answer melon's questions without saying "your all a bunch of kids, learn to spell, liberal fags hahahahaha!!!111!!"
Post by: nemt on May 19, 2004, 12:54:00 PM
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
| nemt i want you to answer these 2 questions please. I just want to understand your point of view. |
Looks to me like you've given me three questions, does that mean I only need to answer two, or do you just have poor memory/counting ability?
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
Q1. If the civillians are better treated under coallition forces rather than Saddam (something i question as having an irqi as a best firend allows me to find out what is going on in baghdad from an iraqi point of view). How do you feel about the fact America has supported brutal dicatators for years and even put Saddam in power? |
I don't think the US should go out of its way to support "brutal dictators," but the era you're referring to is an era where the world had a much bigger threat than islamists and radicals. In any event, Saddam deposed to legitimate Iraqi monarchy, his coup was not aided by the United States, and if anything, it's Britains fault. You're probably confusing Saddam's rise to power with the Iraq/Iran War, which occurred decades later. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, that's the first rule of foreign policy. In addition to minor funding, independent corporations leased or sold military equipment to Iraq, but not anywhere near the amount or capabilities of the equipment provided by France and the former Soviet Union. Hindsight is also 20/20, as many of Saddam's atrocities only became apparent in the past few years.
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
Q2. How can continuesly bombing baghdad with heavy artillery including cluster bombs and 11,000 civillians dead be classed as succesfully protecting civillians? |
It was Saddam's choice to base military units in the cities, not the coalition's. Every attempt was made to use smaller ordinance munitions to minimize civilian casualties, and the civilian death toll for the entire war up until now has been less than any single attack on the Kurds or Shiites.
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
Q3. You say over a million civillians murdered is a just reason for war. What do you think about the 4 million vietnamese and cambodia civillians US troop killed? and what part do you think the us sanctions on iraq played in these deaths? |
I don't think there was any reason to go to war in Viet Nam, and I think the civilian death toll is a testament to what happens when troops lose all morale and respect for their commanding body. This is one of the first, but not the last time Democrats blunder foreign policy over and over. As for the US Sanctions on Iraq, I really don't see how that has anything to do with Indochinese casualties, but I assume you just worded the question incorrectly. The sanctions were imposed by the UN, and through the Oil for Food program, which the Annan family funnelled millions of dollars from, was supposed to keep the people of Iraq from starving. Bear in mind, it all would have ended early, had Saddam cooperated. The Arab League also defended Saddam until the 11th hour and prevented any sort of inter-council negotiation.
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
(Saddam has not killed a million civillians btw) |
There have been over half a million already found in mass graves, what are the odds these are the only civilians killed by Saddam?
| QUOTE (melon @ May 19 2004, 12:41 PM) |
I would like to hear your response. |
And I'd like to hear how you spin my words, clown.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 19, 2004, 01:08:00 PM
that shit is funny
anyways, whats the difference between why we went to vietnam and why we went to iraq (dont say WMD, thats pure bullshit)
if it was to get rid of a brutal dictator or for the appeasement of the people, there both similar (although the amount of people that wanted us in those countries is different), i mean fuck, monks were burning themselves to protest the gov.
so if vietnam was a democratic blunder, iraq is a republican blunder, go figure
anyways, i love how alot of what you say is opinionated and has no backing to it (none that you provide) but when other people provide sources for thier argument you say its all liberal bullshit or that persons source is dead wrong
you must be some kind of genuis to know everything
o and if you want to, correct my spelling for me as i ride the special, short bus
Post by: BloodyMary on May 19, 2004, 01:32:00 PM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 19 2004, 05:08 PM) |
| o and if you want to, correct my spelling for me as i ride the special, short bus |
Save me a seat...
Post by: melon on May 20, 2004, 12:20:00 PM
)as a taster my girlfriend studied a masters in international relations. hes fesis (
) woz aboutt the food for oil program (even the name of it is fucked up) wee will take your oyl and giv u a loaf of braed.im off to bed. im fuckin knackered (i spelt it phonetically 1st but it spells naked)
Post by: muerte on May 20, 2004, 12:34:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 20, 2004, 01:46:00 PM
o wait, because were pussy whipped by oil, thats why
Post by: Maximumbeing on May 21, 2004, 11:23:00 AM
Funny, I remember Saddam welcoming all the UN inspectors and doing pretty much whatever we asked...No, that wasn't enough for our courageous dictator, Bush had to make sure he was top-gun in the battle of WMD.
I don't exactly get your side of the Just-War theory raptor, you tell it from the bible's point of view, but didn't that book inspire the crusades? Purely defense right? Actually a defensive war was called a Jihad, but only the muslims had a word for DEFENSIVE war...
When it comes to the media, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly both have more influence than any liberal I know of, luckily for us broad-constructionalist thinking individuals there is a liberal radio station going up soon, including one of my favorites: Al Franken.
Post by: nemt on May 21, 2004, 12:05:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ May 21 2004, 03:23 PM) |
| Funny, I remember Saddam welcoming all the UN inspectors and doing pretty much whatever we asked...No, that wasn't enough for our courageous dictator, Bush had to make sure he was top-gun in the battle of WMD. |
Your memory is wrong, then. Were you drinking heavily in 1998 when Saddam expelled all UN inspection teams? How about in 2002 when inspectors found locked doors and sealed access in nearly every top priority site?
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ May 21 2004, 03:23 PM) |
| I don't exactly get your side of the Just-War theory raptor, you tell it from the bible's point of view, but didn't that book inspire the crusades? Purely defense right? Actually a defensive war was called a Jihad, but only the muslims had a word for DEFENSIVE war... |
The bible didn't inspire the crusades, nor is it the basis of the just war theory. The crusades were a response to Islamic occupation of the holy land, and the just war theory was developed throughout the 16th and 17th centuries based on contemporary church teachings. Jihad has no defensive connotation, it simply means "A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels." The koran also repeatedly encourages violence and forced conversion throughout.
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ May 21 2004, 03:23 PM) |
| When it comes to the media, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly both have more influence than any liberal I know of, luckily for us broad-constructionalist thinking individuals there is a liberal radio station going up soon, including one of my favorites: Al Franken. |
Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly don't have more influence then the combined media coverage of the world, which is solidly anti-us. Err America has already "gone up," and it's already struggling to retain sponsors and was even forced to have an open call for radio hosts. Also, I wish I had seen your praise for Al Franken sooner, so I wouldn't have bothered writing this all out for you. Only an idiot would take political advice from a COMEDIAN, a comedian who can't even think up an original name for his show or book.
Post by: Maximumbeing on May 21, 2004, 12:30:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Your memory is wrong, then. Were you drinking heavily in 1998 when Saddam expelled all UN inspection teams? How about in 2002 when inspectors found locked doors and sealed access in nearly every top priority site? |
I doubt it, seeing as we've occupied Iraq for quite some time now, and guess what? No WMDs, so there'd really be nothing to hide. In addition, had he any WMDs, don't you think he'd fire them when under the barrel of the Coalition forces?
| QUOTE |
| The crusades were a response to Islamic occupation of the holy land, |
Oh, you mean the holy land promised to the Israelites as in the old testament? Yeah, good call there.
| QUOTE |
| Only an idiot would take political advice from a COMEDIAN, a comedian who can't even think up an original name for his show or book. |
It's hardly political advice I'm taking, it provided amusement though, just as a comedian should. I think his titles were somewhat inspired, the fact that Bill O'Reilly and Fox News were so pissed about the title being stolen gave me some entertainment, again, just as a comedian is supposed to do. I think the real comedian is Rush Limbaugh, he's like a god when it comes to sniffing out liberal propaganda, and when I say liberal propaganda, I mean substantial fact or valid evidence.
Bill O'Reilly is an ass, that's about as far as I'm gonna go with that one.
Post by: nemt on May 21, 2004, 01:09:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ May 21 2004, 05:04 PM) |
| Nemt: this surprised me coming from you. Thats not true - those inspectors were never kicked out of Iraq by Saddam that was media rhetoric. Fairness in the media.org |
Regardless of the reason, the fact reamins the inspectors were given no choice but to leave, as Saddam had not complied with UN mandates.
Post by: Banj on May 21, 2004, 01:40:00 PM
Post by: nemt on May 21, 2004, 02:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (Banj @ May 21 2004, 05:40 PM) |
| I'd be interested to know Americas situation with WMD, funny how you never hear anyone asking to see theirs. I bet the fuckers are riddled with all manner of nasty shit. |
The USA doesn't invade its neighbors or murder thousands of its citizens. The USA, as a first world country, is also compelled to keep peace in the world, and you can't do that with candy canes and good intentions.
Post by: Maximumbeing on May 21, 2004, 04:16:00 PM
Post by: nemt on May 21, 2004, 07:52:00 PM
| QUOTE (HeLiuM @ May 21 2004, 08:08 PM) |
| As a first world country, the US should be responsible enough to cooperate with other first world countries to bring peace to the world, not go gungho into the middle east guns-a-blazin. This war has brought anything but peace. |
Maybe when the "other first world countries" stop getting kickbacks and illegal deals with dictators, and the UN becomes the higher power beyond corruption it used to be, that can happen - but until then, it's every state for itself, and the US won't step down - ever.
"There is no cave or hole deep enough to hide from justice."
Post by: nemt on May 21, 2004, 08:05:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program? |
| QUOTE |
| "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" |
| QUOTE |
| New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations. |
| QUOTE |
| A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit." |
| QUOTE |
| "Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N." |
| QUOTE |
| "Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -- well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]." |
| QUOTE |
| through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles -- probably the No Dong -- 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment," Kay reported. |
| QUOTE |
| The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program." |
Source: WorldNet Daily
Post by: Banj on May 22, 2004, 12:42:00 AM
I'd be interested to know Americas situation with WMD, funny how you never hear anyone asking to see theirs. I bet the fuckers are riddled with all manner of nasty shit.
Nemt - "The USA doesn't invade its neighbors or murder thousands of its citizens. The USA, as a first world country, is also compelled to keep peace in the world, and you can't do that with candy canes and good intentions."
So basically what you're saying is you're allowed them becuase we're a first world country? You can't seriously say the USA doesn't murder thousands of citizens (wether theirs or other countries is moot) and not be biting you lip. Nemt, I've always read your posts with interest as you have the strength of your own conviction to make an argument worth considering but fuck me, you've just posted a load of fucking shite. There can be no double standards with WMD, it's hypocritical to INVADE another country on the pretence of dissarming their WMD when you have a shed full in your own garden.
Post by: Intensecure on May 22, 2004, 12:55:00 AM
Banj - I have to leave this thread - you are more than capable of argueing this from what I see
Post by: nemt on May 22, 2004, 02:14:00 AM
| QUOTE (Intensecure @ May 22 2004, 04:55 AM) |
| The US continues to develop nuclear based weapons at an alarming rate |
Alarming to whom? Treehugging hippies, yes. Anti-nuclear activists, yes. Enemies of the US, yes. This is the point, you're not supposed to like it. They're meant to scare you, and they're doing the job well. It's not alarming to anyone with common sense, as the US has shown nothing but restraint with nuclear weapons.
| QUOTE (Intensecure @ May 22 2004, 04:55 AM) |
| - in violation of international treaties. |
You can't violate a treaty you're not a part of. The defense of the US shouldn't be jeopardized by cold war era pacts with no relevance to contemporary political climates.
| QUOTE (Intensecure @ May 22 2004, 04:55 AM) |
| Yet complains when North Korea etc wishes to develop their own. |
Yes, it's "alarming" when a communist country run by a clinically unwell despot, which has already expressed anti-us sentiment as well as invaded or threatened South Korea on numerous occassions, developes weapons capable of killing millions, because unlike the US, he is not a world leader in research and peacekeeping, and has shown no responsibility, restraint, or right to have such weapons. The US also doesn't have more humanitarian atrocities and UN sanctions than it knows what to do with, either.
| QUOTE (Intensecure @ May 22 2004, 04:55 AM) |
| Who gave the US the right to decide who does what? No-one. Except the US govt. |
The government which invented these weapons, I'd say that gives them a liscense to do whatever they wants, but don't take my word for it: the US has always been a leader in peacekeeping, and needs to have the most powerful weaponry available. To say "why does the us get WMD but iraq doesn't" is to expose how ignorant, and resistant to logic you idiots truly are. There are plenty of semi-valid arguments against the war, and this is the weakest one - it's used by straw grasper who know they're wrong, and want to cling to some ridiculous ideal of communist-like equality among states which are obviously not equal.
| QUOTE (Intensecure @ May 22 2004, 04:55 AM) |
| You DON"T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO DOES WHAT. Get it? Because you are the major super power now that the USSR is dismantled. It was the USSR that kept YOU in check, not the other way around. |
I don't have to right to, no, but the US has a right to protect itself. Your views on the cold war would be "alarming," and if they weren't so downright idiotic.
| QUOTE (Intensecure @ May 22 2004, 04:55 AM) |
| Now that you have been "unleashed" we may well see the "nuclear light" possibly in our lifetime . |
This doesn't even make sense, in any event: yours is the stupidest post I've seen since 67thraptorbull's greatest hits tour, by the way
I'm done writing these long replies to you assholes, you never learn, and in the end, you're still as ignorant and barren of all political knowledge as ever, because in the eyes of any liberal, the facts are insiginificant as long as you can still twist words and spin the truth.
Post by: melon on May 22, 2004, 03:05:00 AM
)Post by: melon on May 22, 2004, 03:09:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| I can tell you why America is hated around the world. QUOTE Hope Bush gets re-elected and all the liberals move to Europe. Actually I think they would all run out of money and become another third world country who depends on aid from the US and then bastardize the US for not giving enough. So funny how a group of people who espouses to "tolerance" is the most intollerant. And honestly, I dont give a shit anymore why arabs dont like us. Im more concerned of why I dont like them. TSOPrano get your head out of your ass and go to moveon.org where people believe in black helicopters and dont believe in God. They will welcome someone like you. This idiot is one of the reasons. The people of America are seen as stupid - harry potter and the philosophers stone was changed to sorcerers stone. You are seen as uneducated and ignorent about the rest of the world. Even though Britain is meant to be your closest ally what do you actually know about the place? Who is the opposition leader? Where is it on a world map? Can you name five English Cities? Do you know where Scotland and Wales are? These may seem like stupid questions but how many of you can name the French President? Or the German, Japenese, Russian???? Part of the reason your hated is because of the total ignorance of any other country. Another reason is your foriegn policy (I am repeating myself from another thread now), but at university in America, students who study International Relations get indocterated with the "American way" of doing things. My girlfriend Studied International Relations in England and she was taught to come up with her own ideas. She had to look at other ways of doing things, communism, fascism, whether they be correct or not she was taught to open her mind and consider others. It is this arrogance that the American way is correct, and the fact EVERYBODY feels Americans hold the rest of the world in contempt (proved by the quote above), that leads to hatred. American dumb tourists are mocked and disliked worldwide There is also the fact your multinationals in cohorts with your government will fuck anybody who gets in there way. The IMF (basically a branch of your government), had already fucked up Jamaica and it was in a bad state. One of the last goods Jamaica could export was Banannas. Because Jamaica was an ex-colony of ours, our government allowed them to import banannas without paying any import tax, this was a pathetic attempt by our government to right many wrongs but it was still something. The problem was chiquitos couldnt dominate our market because of the Jamaican banannas. What was the solution? President Clinton (at the time), took the UK to the International trade court to stop us giving Jamaica this feable tax break. The reult? Virtually all Jamaican bannana plants closed as they couldnt compete with the might of chiquitos. By the way where do there Banannas come from? Not one bannana they sell is grown in the USA. I know and I suggest you find out how much blood they have on thier hands! I can give you another example, I will even keep it with Jamaica. Jamaica use to produce its own milk, they had diary farms. An American company who produced powdered milk thought untouched market. The USA government subsidied the powdered milk too such a level it was far cheaper buy it rather than the fresh, locally produced milk. Slowly the local diary farms went out of business, a country with already vast unemployment had 1000's more people without work. Once they had all gone out of business the government stopped subsidising the powdered milk which instantly shot up in price. Far more than what the local fresh milk was sold at, and the people had to spend a lot more of thier pittance on a basic provision which once had health benefits. Your Governmant helped them do this! The problem is I could give you examples in every country in the world Here is a video which will show you how bad it is I could mention the african women who if they became pregnant would be paid in powdered milk! Dictators are evil. They rule thier people through fear. They come in the night and take away your children and torture and kill you. Sound like Saddam? So why does your government put in dictators the world over. In far too many countries America has had a role in the overthrowing of a government, either by military action (troops or constant bombing?) or by supplying intelligence, training, wepons and equipment . Actually at any give time America is not in war with over 10 countries but still bombs them (IRAQ EXCLUDED). The arrogance! But it gets worse. Your government then instals a local high ranking military Officer as a leader. He controls with the army and takes complete control. Then all civil rites go out the window as your government gives them a nice sweetner every now then. All the leader has to do is keep his country in poverty by looking after his own and nobody else. Just so American corporations can bulldoze into the country and with American government subsidies undercut any local price and destroy local industry. This has happened worldwide, creating countries of mass unemployment. It does create a lot of jobs worldwide. Everybody has heard of a sweatshop. Look in whatever is in front of you. Where was your monitor made? How about the clothes your wearing? All American corporations are very good at this. Children the world over are brought up knowing they live in a hut with 20 others, they have to walk 3 miles just to get water which wont kill them. They know they have nothing, and every day they have to go to work in a factory for an American corporation (no weekends here a 7 day week standard), for a tiny amount to live on but they have to as your corporations have completely abolished local industry. Your governmant backs all this and helps!!!!! You act like a bully. Nobody likes a bully. It rules your argument, we're not as bad as he was, redundant. Your worse. And it all for the sake of more money for the very rich. Do you think you benefit? Sure an xbox costs $130 in the US and £130 here but you live in a country were you can be run over by a car, it drives off, an ambulance comes and if you havnt got insurance your screwed. Look at Cristopher Reeve. Superman. He was a movie star, millionare. He injured his back and the health care costs were so great he lost everything, even after very large donations from friends and for appearences. If he couldnt afford it can you? You can attack me if you want but the question was asked and I am giving you an accurate picture of the worlds view on the United States of America. I have travelled (10% of you own a passport), and this is how everybody sees your county. These are not my views I think there are some good people who dont have a politican to lead them. I just dont think they ever will. But if you acctually do wonder why. You wont hear it often but layed out is the reasons backed with fact and well articulated. |
Post by: nemt on May 22, 2004, 03:32:00 AM
Neither you, nor your "girlfriend" are intelligent, despite alleged degrees - and you both have ignorant, dangerous views on the united states and global politics.
Post by: melon on May 22, 2004, 03:45:00 AM
Post by: nemt on May 22, 2004, 04:38:00 AM
| QUOTE (melon @ May 22 2004, 07:05 AM) |
| Ive decided I cant be botheered to argue with you aneymore nemt. |
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 22, 2004, 12:29:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 22, 2004, 04:38:00 PM
unless im missing something and WMD can shoot down ICBM's......
Post by: DasHelghast on May 22, 2004, 06:58:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on May 22, 2004, 07:41:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| You are absolutely right. War should be illegal, and we should pass this legislation immediately. We shall call it the "Kellog-Briand Pact" and leave it up to the U.N. and the rest of the international community, excluding the U.S. of course, to enforce it. What a splendid idea sir, I tip my hat to you. |
Maybe if you U.S. actually acted like a part of the UN shit wouldn't be so messed up and there'd be no reason to make war illegal, because war wouldn't be happening! Had the U.S. complied with the UN there would be no war in Iraq, but the U.S. so high and mighty decided to ignore the UN inspectors reports, ignore our own inspectors reports, and tell all the civilians that 'of course Iraq has WMD, they're just hiding them!'. Well that's all fine and dandy until you fire off your guns killing countless amounts of civilians looking for these, 'ghost WMDs', that have yet to be found. The UN would work if we stopped acting like we were better than everyone, or that we have better morale values than the rest of the world.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 23, 2004, 06:31:00 AM
Post by: methie on May 23, 2004, 07:11:00 AM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 23, 2004, 07:42:00 AM
Post by: Banj on May 23, 2004, 08:35:00 AM
I think your incredibly presumptive title is a testament to your intellect. You deem someone a HERO because he has the capacity to kill people singlemindedly? I'd say psychopath myself but the armed forces are full of those. It takes a 'special' kind of person to blindly follow orders that invariably lead to other peoples misery.
On the other hand you label the prisoners as SCUM. Hmm, if I were you I'd educate myself as to the motivations of such 'scum' before dissmissing there validity as loving, family men and women who simply don't share you point of view.
It's rather stupid and nieve of you to stereotype all your countries 'enemies' as scum, or evil. All you are doing is cusioning yourself from the fact that these are human beings who have as much right to life and liberty as an illeducated shit talker like you.
Post by: nonamer66 on May 23, 2004, 12:18:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ May 22 2004, 10:41 PM) |
| Maybe if you U.S. actually acted like a part of the UN shit wouldn't be so messed up and there'd be no reason to make war illegal, because war wouldn't be happening! Had the U.S. complied with the UN there would be no war in Iraq, but the U.S. so high and mighty decided to ignore the UN inspectors reports, ignore our own inspectors reports, and tell all the civilians that 'of course Iraq has WMD, they're just hiding them!'. Well that's all fine and dandy until you fire off your guns killing countless amounts of civilians looking for these, 'ghost WMDs', that have yet to be found. The UN would work if we stopped acting like we were better than everyone, or that we have better morale values than the rest of the world. |
why would we want to be like the UN? They never get anything done. They just pass resolution after resolution and no matter if a country is breaking those laws (cough IRAQ cough) then the UN just passes another resolution on top of that. This war is completely justified. The living standards in IRAQ are dramatically improved, the oil for food scandal is uncovered, and Saddam is going to get what he deserves. Yes, this came at a cost, but we have to sacrifice to make a difference in the world and obviously the UN does not care to make sacrifices for the betterment of the world.
Oh yeah one more thing. There would be no UN unless the US created it!!!
Post by: Maximumbeing on May 23, 2004, 12:38:00 PM
Post by: nonamer66 on May 23, 2004, 12:39:00 PM
| QUOTE (Intensecure @ May 22 2004, 03:55 AM) |
| The US continues to develop nuclear based weapons at an alarming rate - in violation of international treaties. Yet complains when North Korea etc wishes to develop their own. Who gave the US the right to decide who does what? No-one. Except the US govt. You DON"T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO DOES WHAT. Get it? Because you are the major super power now that the USSR is dismantled. It was the USSR that kept YOU in check, not the other way around. Now that you have been "unleashed" we may well see the "nuclear light" possibly in our lifetime . Banj - I have to leave this thread - you are more than capable of argueing this from what I see |
so you're saying you would like to see North Korea with nuclear weapons. An evil country that starves and robs from the future of its children. A country that is set on invading South Korea if it wasn't for the US stepping in and trying to keep the odds evened. I'm sure glad you don't live here because we have enough idiots in the us that think like you.
Post by: nonamer66 on May 23, 2004, 07:04:00 PM
Post by: Intensecure on May 24, 2004, 01:39:00 AM
"You ask yourself how someone can grin at the sufferings and humiliation of another human being - drag a naked Iraqi man along the floor with a leash? set guard dogs at the genitals and legs of cowering, naked prisoners? rape and sodomise prisoners? force shackled hooded prisoners to masturbate or commit sexual acts with each other? beat prisoners to death? - and feel naive in asking the questions, since the answer is, self-evidently: people do these things to other people. Not just in Nazi concentration camps and in Abu Ghraib when it was run by Saddam Hussein. Americans, too, do them when they have permission. When they are told or made to feel that those over whom they have absolute power deserve to be mistreated, humiliated, tormented. They do them when they are led to believe that the people they are torturing belong to an inferior, despicable race or religion. For the meaning of these pictures is not just that these acts were performed, but that their perpetrators had no sense that there was anything wrong in what the pictures show. Even more appalling, since the pictures were meant to be circulated and seen by many people, it was all fun. And this idea of fun is, alas, more and more - contrary to what Mr Bush is telling the world - part of "the true nature and heart of America".
Susan Sontag - An American journalist - The Guardian 24/5/2004.
American "values", that are so often touted as being superior, need to be seen in action - not just talked about by the empty-headed.
Post by: Banj on May 24, 2004, 02:24:00 AM
Post by: nemt on May 24, 2004, 04:24:00 AM
Post by: Intensecure on May 24, 2004, 04:42:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| We all know how impartial and fair the guardian is |
You forgot your little smilie again
The Guardian newspaper is world renowned for being "fair and impartial", and having a high standard of journalism.
And Al-Jazeera can be quite interesting to watch sometimes - you know, study both sides of an argument instead of relying on what CNN feeds you. They have the news from an Arab standpoint, sometimes very biased, sometimes very interesting to see what the Arab in the street thinks about world affairs. I don't suppose you've ever watched it - because you have the preconception that it must be anti-American.
Yawn...you miss the point as always.
And Susan Sontag, whom I quoted from the Guardian (which I doubt you have ever read) is a well respected American journalist, novelist and essayist whom I suppose you would find too "liberal" for your tastes.
From Wikipedia:
Susan Sontag (born January 28, 1933) is a well-known American essayist and novelist, who is also renowned for her work as a human rights activist.
Sontag was in born in New York City, grew up in Tucson, Arizona, and attended high school in Los Angeles. She received her B.A. from the College of the University of Chicago and did graduate work in philosophy, literature, and theology at Harvard and Saint Anne's College, Oxford.
Someone of that caliber is worth reading, and considering.
But, yet again, you simply respond with your version of sarcasm, and without constructive comment (did you read the article?) and so should be ignored by everyone who posts here to stimulate reasoned debate. I shall certainly not waste further time discussing your futile "contributions" when there are so many other intelligent people posting on this forum.
Bye-Bye.-
Title: What The Liberal Media Doesn't Tell You
Post by: nemt on May 24, 2004, 05:06:00 AM
-
The Guardian newspaper is world renowned for being "fair and impartial", and having a high standard of journalism.
And Al-Jazeera can be quite interesting to watch sometimes - you know, study both sides of an argument instead of relying on what CNN feeds you. They have the news from an Arab standpoint, sometimes very biased, sometimes very interesting to see what the Arab in the street thinks about world affairs. I don't suppose you've ever watched it - because you have the preconception that it must be anti-American.
Yawn...you miss the point as always.
And Susan Sontag, whom I quoted from the Guardian (which I doubt you have ever read) is a well respected American journalist, novelist and essayist whom I suppose you would find too "liberal" for your tastes.
From Wikipedia:
Susan Sontag (born January 28, 1933) is a well-known American essayist and novelist, who is also renowned for her work as a human rights activist.
Sontag was in born in New York City, grew up in Tucson, Arizona, and attended high school in Los Angeles. She received her B.A. from the College of the University of Chicago and did graduate work in philosophy, literature, and theology at Harvard and Saint Anne's College, Oxford.
Someone of that caliber is worth reading, and considering.
But, yet again, you simply respond with your version of sarcasm, and without constructive comment (did you read the article?) and so should be ignored by everyone who posts here to stimulate reasoned debate. I shall certainly not waste further time discussing your futile "contributions" when there are so many other intelligent people posting on this forum.
Bye-Bye.
Post by: nemt on May 24, 2004, 05:06:00 AM
| QUOTE (Intensecure @ May 24 2004, 09:42 AM) |
| The Guardian newspaper is world renowned for being "fair and impartial", and having a high standard of journalism. And Al-Jazeera can be quite interesting to watch sometimes - you know, study both sides of an argument instead of relying on what CNN feeds you. |
Please, even the crossword puzzle in the guardian bashes bush.
Anyway, I happen to like al-jazeera for war and non-war news, actually - but that doesn't make them any more legitimate.
...and CNN is one "peace pipe" away from being the guardian anyway. I get my news from Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal (or the ny post/philadelphia metro when I'm in a rush), and National Review. Of course, you would call many of these "right-biased" sources (other than the metro, which is a non-partisan rag written sans-spell check and distributed for free), but only because you and your european media is so far left, even moderation seems extreme to you.
Post by: moistness on May 24, 2004, 06:33:00 AM
| QUOTE (Intensecure @ May 24 2004, 02:42 PM) |
| The Guardian newspaper is world renowned for being "fair and impartial", and having a high standard of journalism. |
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 24, 2004, 06:33:00 AM
| QUOTE (nemt @ May 24 2004, 08:06 AM) |
| Please, even the crossword puzzle in the guardian bashes bush. Anyway, I happen to like al-jazeera for war and non-war news, actually - but that doesn't make them any more legitimate. ...and CNN is one "peace pipe" away from being the guardian anyway. I get my news from Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal (or the ny post/philadelphia metro when I'm in a rush), and National Review. Of course, you would call many of these "right-biased" sources (other than the metro, which is a non-partisan rag written sans-spell check and distributed for free), but only because you and your european media is so far left, even moderation seems extreme to you. |
wow, so a newspaper bashed bush, does that mean its biased?
newsweek has cartoons all the time that pokes fun at bush, does that mean there biased?
Post by: moistness on May 24, 2004, 06:35:00 AM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 24 2004, 04:33 PM) |
| wow, so a newspaper bashed bush, does that mean its biased? newsweek has cartoons all the time that pokes fun at bush, does that mean there biased? |
Um, yes! Dont underestimate the power of humour!
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 24, 2004, 07:53:00 AM
Post by: Banj on May 24, 2004, 09:11:00 AM
Post by: melon on May 24, 2004, 11:17:00 AM
Next you will be4 trying to tell me that the mirror is low brow or the sport is not intellectual enough. Your ignorence disgusts me!
people in the uk wil get this only
Post by: nemt on May 24, 2004, 11:21:00 AM
| QUOTE (melon @ May 24 2004, 04:17 PM) |
| people in the uk wil get this only |
Everyone knows the guardian is a biased, one sided rag, in and out of the UK.
Post by: TheSheerPowerofIndustrialMight on May 24, 2004, 12:21:00 PM
| QUOTE (melon @ May 24 2004, 08:17 PM) |
| the guardian is soooo biased. if you want good, honest, real journalism you should read the sun or the times. Im dissapointed you didnt know this simple fact inter!!!!! Next you will be4 trying to tell me that the mirror is low brow or the sport is not intellectual enough. Your ignorence disgusts me! people in the uk wil get this only |
You have to be JSE
Post by: nemt on May 25, 2004, 06:17:00 AM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ May 25 2004, 02:26 AM) |
| Nemt: for someone who seems to hate bias so much why do you frequent Drudge as much as you do ? |
The only drudge I frequent is the metro, but it's not crap because of bias, it's crap because the people writing it have worse spelling and grammar skills than the members at this forum, and it's more than half ads.
Post by: CHRONOSTORM on May 25, 2004, 06:54:00 AM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 24 2004, 04:53 PM) |
| haha, i guess your right, jon stewart must have a big influence on politics then |
helll yes. here in the u.s. he is the most well respected news caster. lmao every night from 10:00~10:30. did you see someone announced there candidacy on the show.
Post by: melon on May 25, 2004, 08:35:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others |
What happened at the end of the book?
Post by: moistness on May 25, 2004, 08:46:00 AM
Post by: melon on May 25, 2004, 08:56:00 AM
edit: all this does is distract from points bieng made i.e. it is pointless
Post by: gronne on May 25, 2004, 10:04:00 AM
Post by: gronne on May 25, 2004, 10:24:00 AM
Post by: melon on May 25, 2004, 10:42:00 AM
Just like the US and UK are not accurate representations of democracy.
I suppose its down to the old adage, power corrupts.
Post by: Maximumbeing on May 25, 2004, 10:43:00 AM
Post by: bluedeath on May 25, 2004, 11:56:00 AM
We should raise hefty tarriffs against any country without the word america in it's name and call it a day. So what if crude goes through the roof. We can all pay $6 dollars a gallon if every iso container moving through port has an extra thousand bucks tacked onto it. Oh wait you don't want to pay then you don't get any intel from us, the next thing you know our well equipped satellites (thanks to the star wars program) start shooting down every communications satellite without a U.S. flag branded on it. Just to piss off france we should take as many sewer rats that we can find and jam them into the statue of liberty and send the bitch back with "Return to Sender" spray painted on the side in big black letters. If we really wanted to have fun we could start printing Euros like monopoly money and sell them on the open market for a penny each.
Post by: gronne on May 25, 2004, 12:16:00 PM
Post by: melon on May 25, 2004, 12:25:00 PM
I actually like some of the ideas in Cuba. Tony Blair even went to learn about and get ideas from its health system. The law is, if you have a car you have to stop to give people lifts. I think that is brilliant.
Try no to make this anti-american gronne, I also compared the UK's democracy and you can include most countries governments in bieng corrupted forms of a philosophy. Take the koran, this forbids arranged marriages which we know are common practice amongst muslim communities, even here in the UK.
edit: I would be happy to live in a society governed by a pure form of communism.
(ive probably now got an MI5 and an FBI file for saying this)
Post by: gronne on May 25, 2004, 01:31:00 PM
I would also love to live in a pure form of communism. Unfortunately as long as man has greed, there'll be a problem making that real. In countries like Sweden, which is socialistic, we think very collective. I think that's made us better in team-sports, since we have the collective thinking "in the blood". The bad part is that we're going more greedy here than before, and I suppose it's because we have a lot of shows from the US showing how great it is to be capitalistic(too bad their shows don't show the people living in sub-ways also, or the fact that countries like USA make all of Africa poorer). I support all people's equal right to live and to live freely, and I'd say that's possible in communism, in collective thinking.
I also like Cuba(somewhat). N. Korea might be called communistic, but is only a crazy dictatorship. China is at least starting to care more and more of it's citizen.
In a true communism people would come to understand how to care of everyone else better instead of only themselves(I think/hope). We would eventually(hopefully) not care about buying the latest equipment only to have it(nowadays we're fooling ourselves we "need" stuff. If society slowed down a little we wouldn't be forced to buy new stuffs, and we'd be just as happy). I believe the people in the stoneage probably had more "fun" than we do now with all our stuffs, so what's up with the rush.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on May 25, 2004, 02:16:00 PM
shit, i was walking down the mall in my city (toledo, oh) and alot of stores with useful things when your shopping (like a starbucks and a cookie company, and kohls, a very cheap clothign store) was closed down, but god damn if there still werent 4 jewelry shops left in that mall
i mean, in our economic times, with the gas and all, why spend thousands on a piece of rock?
refer to the beginning of my post and youll know why
Post by: Banj on May 26, 2004, 02:37:00 AM
Post by: melon on May 26, 2004, 09:48:00 AM
Banj have you seen life and debt? Its a docu-film about Jamaica and the role of the IMF and american corporations in fucking it over. I really do recommend this film to everyone. I have used it as an example before but it really was an eye opener. I knew corporations fucked over poor countries but didnt the intricit details of how they done it untill this film.
(i copied raptor and now put a couple of spelling mistakes in, just to wind nemt up - sad but enjoyable)
Post by: EmperorPsiblade on May 26, 2004, 10:41:00 AM
yeah corperations DO screw over small countries... it sucks but there isnt much you can do....
Post by: melon on May 26, 2004, 10:54:00 AM
There is something we can do about corporations. We can put political pressure on our governments and boycott certain companies. I will never touch anything Nestle again after its horiffic powdered milk as wagwes for pregnant women program.
Post by: Intensecure on May 28, 2004, 05:26:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| But as an American, I call this stuff "news" and "moderate" in the most lenient sense of the word. |
Well said, hiroll3r. All the things I wanted to say, but had fallen asleep after banging my head all night.
Fox is the product of Rupert Murdochs empire, so I don't think words can even *start* to describe the depths to which his networks and media can/will/have sunk, and will blow to the right.
The British and Australian media suffer from the same domination by one man and his organisation, which shapes so much of what people hear and see.