Repubs and warmongers, read and learn

[strongchick]

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/33/features-cooper.php

L.A. WEEKLY: Are you arguing that the 3,000 civilians killed on September 11 somehow deserved their fate?

GORE VIDAL: I don't think we, the American people, deserved what happened. Nor do we deserve the sort of governments we have had over the last 40 years. Our governments have brought this upon us by their actions all over the world. I have a list in my new book that gives the reader some idea how busy we have been. Unfortunately, we only get disinformation from The New York Times and other official places. Americans have no idea of the extent of their government's mischief. The number of military strikes we have made unprovoked, against other countries, since 1947-48 is more than 250. These are major strikes everywhere from Panama to Iran. And it isn't even a complete list. It doesn't include places like Chile, as that was a CIA operation. I was only listing military attacks.

even more interesting, and similar to my position back in October 2001:

What it was really about -- and you won't get this anywhere at the moment -- is that this is an imperial grab for energy resources. Until now, the Persian Gulf has been our main source for imported oil. We went there, to Afghanistan, not to get Osama and wreak our vengeance. We went to Afghanistan partly because the Taliban -- whom we had installed at the time of the Russian occupation -- were getting too flaky and because Unocal, the California corporation, had made a deal with the Taliban for a pipeline to get the Caspian-
area oil, which is the richest oil reserve on Earth. They wanted to get that oil by pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan to Karachi and from there to ship it off to China, which would be enormously profitable. Whichever big company could cash
in would make a fortune. And you'll see that all these companies go back to Bush or Cheney or
to Rumsfeld or someone else on the Gas and Oil Junta, which, along with the Pentagon, governs the United States.

 

[strongchick]

note that Gore Vidal is a republican.

 

[Lumbuss]

yeah, i guess you are right. we didn't go there to get osama despite the fact that he has people crash a plane into our wold trade center (your hero's stongchick, remember them) and then he threatened more terrorism on the usa. why would we want bin laden? im sure the anthrax sent was by american citizens right strongchick?

basically your post makes no sense and your views suck so bad it isn't even funny or worth arguing any more. we dont give a shit about their fucking oil, if we wanted that shit bad enough we would just take it and they would let us. then when they commited more terrorism, they would find themselves up shits creek because we would probably bomb the shit out of them, and rightfully so.

 

[strongchick]

My position taken almost a year ago, will become the accepted position, in time.

It takes time for people to look at themselves and see their faults.

Americans are no different.

I am being proven right more and more as the months go by.

While that is great for my ego, it isn't really the point though.

It would be nice if we as a superpower could set an example rather than becoming like the enemy.

 

[HansNZ]

basically your post makes no sense and your views suck so bad it isn't even funny or worth arguing any more. we dont give a shit about their fucking oil, if we wanted that shit bad enough we would just take it and they would let us. then when they commited more terrorism, they would find themselves up shits creek because we would probably bomb the shit out of them, and rightfully so.

I think strongchick's point is exactly that. You did want their access to oil and you did go and take it.

The Taliban were an easy target. In fact the whole use of the military was unnecessary. It was Pakistan that was propping up the dysfunctional Taliban. Once that support was removed the whole regime would have come crashing down by itself given a few more months. But the American public's desire to punish someone justified immediate intervention.

...but George W wants a good reason to justify more military spending, so the military is used at any opportunity - esp. an opportunity that was such easy pickings.

It was also another excuse for an american presence in that region which under normal circumstances would be TOTALLY unacceptable to the Russians, Iranians or Chinese.

 

[Lumbuss]

my point was that we dont give a shit about their oil, we bombed them because they commit terrorism. what do you guys suggest, letting them commit more terrorism?

 

[strongchick]

Lumbuss is a Real American (tm):

 

[gymtime]

SC, meet Hans. Hans, this is SC. When you both have abandoned your unnatural urges and eventually fall in love, I expect to be toasted at the wedding for introducing you two crazy kids.

 

[Lumbuss]

is that little red x supposed to prove something? all im saying is if you care more for the well bieng of people in other countries than this one, which it looks like you do, why dont you do something about it?

 

[HansNZ]

my point was that we dont give a shit about their oil, we bombed them because they commit terrorism. what do you guys suggest, letting them commit more terrorism?

Oh Puhlease. Terrorism is committed constantly, still is, and was before sept.11. The CIA sponsors terrorism for God's sake! Just look at the Central American Death Squads funded by US taxpayers. "Terrorism" is being used to justify a future attack against Iraq even though there is no clear link between Sept.11 and Saddam.

Even the so-called cotact between Sept.11 hijackers and Iragi agents in Prague which got so much publicity in the american propangda machine was proved false by the Czech police. Of course that revelation got far less (if any) exposure in the American propa...opps... I mean press.

 

[Lumbuss]

Oh Puhlease. Terrorism is committed constantly still is, and was before sept.11. The CIA sponsors terrorism for God's sake! Just look at the Central American Death Squads funded by US taxpayers. "Terrorism" is being used to justify a future attack against Iraq even though there is no clear link between Sept.11 and Saddam.

Even the so-called cotact between Sept.11 hijackers and Iragi agents in Prague which got so much publicity in the american propangda machine was proved false by the Czech police. Of course that revelation got far less (if any) exposure in the American propa...opps... I mean press.

i guess your right, saddam is a good guy. i doubt he would ever commit terrorism, good thing we have guys like him in this word to keep peace. its all the USA government, they ran the plane into the pentagon and killed their own too probably.

 

[HansNZ]

i guess your right, saddam is a good guy. i doubt he would ever commit terrorism, good thing we have guys like him in this word to keep peace. its all the USA government, they ran the plane into the pentagon and killed their own too probably.

You seem to have forgotten who Saddam's allies were. Do you think he fought a war against the "evil" Iranians (a country 3 times the size of Iraq) by himself? NO, it was the US which propped him up.

If you want to really know what went on during the gulf war and why the americans started it read: The Fire This Time: US War Crimes in the Gulf. By former US attorney General Ramsey Clark.

 

[HansNZ]

my point was that we dont give a shit about their oil, we bombed them because they commit terrorism. what do you guys suggest, letting them commit more terrorism?

Further to my earlier point:

"Terrorism" seems to be shaping up to be the new "human rights diplomacy" which American propaganda exploits so well. Essentially "human rights" were used as a justification for punishing a country to further American national interests, while similar or worse human rights violations by american allies (or the US itself) were ignored.

Look at Cuba. "Human rights" under Castro are exploited by the US often, yet they are FAR better than they were under the US puppet dictator Batista who Castro toppled.

When did you ever hear about what happened to the Kurds in Northern Iraq. You didn't - not until after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Of course the Iraqi military's crackdown on kurdish militants (or are they called "freedom fighters" now?) is considered Iraqi oppression, yet Israeli Crackdowns against Palestinian militants is considered " a war against terror".

 

[huntmaster]

so basically your objective in this thread is to attempt to convince everyone that "I told you so"

whether you did(tell us so) or not(I am leaning heavily toward the not)---

I think that you have managed to convey your priorities clearly


later

 

[Lumbuss]

You seem to have forgotten who Saddam's allies were. Do you think he fought a war against the "evil" Iranians (a country 3 times the size of Iraq) by himself? NO, it was the US which propped him up.

If you want to really know what went on during the gulf war and why the americans started it read: The Fire This Time: US War Crimes in the Gulf. By former US attorney General Ramsey Clark.

do they have cliffnotes for that? there is no way im going to sit down and read a fucking book.

 

[strongchick]

do they have cliffnotes for that? there is no way im going to sit down and read a fucking book.

surprise, surprise.

That would explain your brick headed reasoning.

 

[Lumbuss]

surprise, surprise.

That would explain your brick headed reasoning.

so are we going to start name calling now, dont make me call you a man because i have seen your pics. i am above you so i wont call you a man.

with that said, i dont need to be a scholar or history major to shoot down your pathetic arguments. it is quite clear that your emotions and racist views (dont tell me you dont hate whites or you are a god damn liar) drive your political beliefs. All you ever talk about is how you are black, and how you are better and smarter than everyone and how everyone who disagrees with you is a stupid little child. the reason most dont agree with you is because most people give a shit about their country, not a country half way around the world who sponsors terrorism and that has problems which are no ones fault but their own. the middle east hates america, flat out. you can't argue that they dont because they do. you cant sit back and tell me that america is evil and the middle east is good. first off they are cold blooded killers who are full of hate for us, and second you should support the country you are living in during war. otherwise you shouldn't not be living in a country if you dont support it while it attempts to fight terrorism.

 

[HansNZ]

do they have cliffnotes for that? there is no way im going to sit down and read a fucking book.

I'll give you and abridged version.

Essentially no country in the middle east does anything that will guarantee US intervention because that country knows what the consequences are.

The US ambassador to Iraq is ON TAPE telling Saddam that the US would turn a blind eye (but wouldn't publically endorse) if he wanted to re-intergrate the last province of Iraq (i.e. Kuwait) into his country. These records actually got some coverage (albeit briefly) in the US media. CNN reported this for instance.

Once Saddam did this (with US blessings), the US changed its tune (always intending to) and used this as an excuse for military action against Saddam.

The reason why the Americans wanted to do this was because Saddam's gigantic military was unsettling the balance of power in the region, because it was no longer pre-occupied by a war with Iran. Iraq made peace with Iran (unexpectedly) which left Iraq with a giant military bristling with American and European supplied armaments.

Saddam tried repeatedly to pull out of Kuwait after he realised that he had been tricked. He tried to do so while saving face, i.e. getting concessions for the Palestinians, etc. But the US would have used every opportunity to initiate a war because the whole purpose was to crush the Iraqi military machine.

Saddam tried hopelessly for several months to wiggle his way out of the situation. The man has ruled Iraq for over 20 years. Do you think anyone who achieves this is stupid? He knew he couldn't win a war against the US, but needed an excuse to get out of it - which the US wouldn't give him.

Anyway, you really need to read the book.

And btw, the international law which Saddam violated by invading Kuwait which was used as an excuse for US intervention is EXACTLY the same International law the US violated when it invaded Panama 8 months earlier. No wonder the US is so hostile towards the idea of an International War Crimes court.

 

[huntmaster]

(in regard to Lumbuss' post)
tru dat especially this war


the terrorists are jealouse

Jealousy fuels there terrorist impulses

Jealous of our freedoms and our progress

 

[HansNZ]

(in regard to Lumbuss' post)
tru dat especially this war


the terrorists are jealouse

Jealousy fuels there terrorist impulses

Jealous of our freedoms and our progress

It's not really jealousy that has fuelled this. If you bully someone long enough and hard enough they eventually strike back.

The average American is oblivious to the immoral way its government behaves around the world. If you spoke to an ordinary American or saw a typical American movie you'd swear that the US was somehow "spreading freedom and democracy". Such is the nature of propaganda.

Oh but of course you don't have propaganda in the USA, do you? It is only the Chinese, or Russians, or whoever disagrees with you that are the victims of propaganda.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Oh but of course you don't have propaganda in the USA, do you? It is only the Chinese, or Russians, or whoever disagrees with you that are the victims of propaganda.

Hows it goin. I like your opinions, you seem educated.

in regards to the propaganda thing, i hear that too, esp. from people who live in foreign countries. However i can't find any so called unbiased sources of info on the internet. Can you name some i can look at. Usually the info i find is left wing masquerading as unbiased.

I tried www.worldnews.com, but i don't know if those sources are any more trustworthy. Like when the Taliban first became our enemy, everyone was bitching about how evil they were for how they treated women, but all the news organizations 'forgot' to mention that our allies like egypt are just as bad. Half info propaganda to make us look good, i'd like a counterbalance to that.

I've tried the guardian unlimited (a UK paper) but they seemed anti-USA, not unbiased. I like the BBC and the UN wire, but they don't have alot of info on america.

That Vidal article isn't too good. He is too biased to be a valid source of info. It is no different than huntmaster believing rush limbaugh when he says 'the terrorists did what they did because of jealousy'. It is just half truths to make one side look good/bad.

 

[HansNZ]

Well i don't think you're going to find anything ubiased, esp. when it comes to politics. There is no non-ideological ideology. The way to gauge something for yourself is to examine an issue from different perspectives and draw your own conclusion.

If you want an excellent expose on the US media read Noam Chomsky's book: Manufacturing Consent. He is a left-winger.

 

[HansNZ]

the reason most dont agree with you is because most people give a shit about their country, not a country half way around the world who sponsors terrorism and that has problems which are no ones fault but their own. the middle east hates america, flat out. you can't argue that they dont because they do. you cant sit back and tell me that america is evil and the middle east is good. first off they are cold blooded killers who are full of hate for us,

Isn't it strange that it is the "innocent" US who these people are targeting, not Sweden or Brasil or New Zealand.

If you think the problems in the Middle East are of these people's own making and that the British (before WW2) and the Americans (since then) have had no hand in their circumstances, then you are sadly misinformed about Middle Eastern history.

Just look at Iran. They had a flourishing democracy until the 1950s when a CIA sponsored coup toppled a democratically elected government. It had nationalised the oil industry so that British and American oil companies wouldn't export the profits for themselves.

Once toppled, the US propped up a puppet dictator known as the Shah for decades. He was hardly a paragon of democracy or a friend of human rights. He became hated by the Iranian people. It was the US which kept him in power.

His rule played into the hands of reactionary Islamic fundamentalists under Ayatollah Kholmeni who toppled him. These groups have been virulently anti-American since then because of the problems the US has caused throughout the Middle East in a totally selfish pursuit of its own self-interest.

and second you should support the country you are living in during war. otherwise you shouldn't not be living in a country if you dont support it while it attempts to fight terrorism.

This is known as nationalism which Americans hide behind the term "patriotism". It is a blind allegience to one's own country without regard for whether your country is in the right or the wrong.

It is a form of control designed to get people to conform and make them go along with (and often get killed in war for) the interests which their elites pursue.

I often don't support my country's policies. Why should I not live there? It is after all MY country. Just because the blind majority or the elites have different ideas doesn't make it their country, not mine. I'm not going to leave if I disagree with predominating opinions. If I leave it imples that my country doesn't belong to me but to someone else.

 

[HansNZ]

(in regard to Lumbuss' post)
tru dat especially this war


the terrorists are jealouse

Jealousy fuels there terrorist impulses

Jealous of our freedoms and our progress

You don't live in a free country. Your government now has the most far reaching powers over you through organisations which aren't really accountable to the public or a democratic process. You have lost the most basic of freedoms in the US since 9/11 which my government where I live can't deny me.

This lack of freedom isn't completely new either. No other Western government has the right to execute its citizens. Capital Punishment is considered a human rights abuse somewhat like torture in these countries.

For a long time the US has been at the bottom of the list of Western countries when it comes to respect for human rights. The US sits around about the same rank as Israel.

Your freedoms exist largely in rhetoric more than in fact.

 

[huntmaster]

sure bud

 

[Robert Jan]

I like to simply watch Al Jazeera and CNN in turns and try and draw conclusions.

 

[The Dude]

All I've got to say to this liberal hatemongerer is what did the Dems do when they were in charge of the military? They didn't retaliate for terrorist attacks. They did, however, engage in nation building attempts that were full of bloodletting. If you don't know how to use military force, then stay out of the office! Damn, every one of 'em since FDR has screwed it up!

 

[strongchick]

You don't live in a free country. Your government now has the most far reaching powers over you through organisations which aren't really accountable to the public or a democratic process. You have lost the most basic of freedoms in the US since 9/11 which my government where I live can't deny me.

This lack of freedom isn't completely new either. No other Western government has the right to execute its citizens. Capital Punishment is considered a human rights abuse somewhat like torture in these countries.

For a long time the US has been at the bottom of the list of Western countries when it comes to respect for human rights. The US sits around about the same rank as Israel.

Your freedoms exist largely in rhetoric more than in fact.

You are correct about this. America is the laughingstock of the entire world because we have held these pompous attitudes that we are somehow better than the rest.

Tom Cruise, for example, may/may not have stated his is leaving this country for the same reasons, but I'll bet many people with enough money are sincerely thinking about walking away.

Our government is so entertwined with corporate bribery; and we won't be able to repair it until there is critical mass on the decision that enough is enough.

But so much of our populace is ignorant and tunnel-visioned and brainwashed (think The Matrix) that it will never happen.

 

[PursuitOfShredded]

I have to say...

I agree with SC and Hanz. I check out worldnetdaily.com frequently (which happens to be right-leaning) and they had a poll of whether the US has more, less, or the same freedoms as in 1776......the overwhelming majority of responses were that we have LESS. We are WAY away from where we started.

 

[Hangfire]

America is the laughingstock of the entire world.........so much so that everybody wants to live here, and every nation that gets itself into trouble comes crying for help, or financial aid, or humanitarian relief, or--of course--military intervention. It is a classic example of biting the hand that feeds.

The question for Tom Cruise, or Alec Baldwin, or strongchick, or anyone else is this: where would you prefer to live, and why don't you just go there? They won't go because there IS NO OTHER place on earth that is preferable to the United States. There is no other place on earth that will provide them the opportunity to make the kind of lives for themselves that they want. Of course, the irony is that the very government that they rail against is the reason that they have the right to mouth off like they do. Biting the hand again.

 

[p0ink]

and the leftists are the people who want to continue to take more and more freedom away from the american people, so they can one day have the totalitarian government they have always dreamed of. their answer to every problem is to have more and more government involvement and even less individual freedoms. just look at things like campaign finance reform, gun control, the creation of the epa (personal property is a joke to them), etc etc.

 

[HansNZ]

The question for Tom Cruise, or Alec Baldwin, or strongchick, or anyone else is this: where would you prefer to live, and why don't you just go there? They won't go because there IS NO OTHER place on earth that is preferable to the United States. There is no other place on earth that will provide them the opportunity to make the kind of lives for themselves that they want. Of course, the irony is that the very government that they rail against is the reason that they have the right to mouth off like they do. Biting the hand again.

This is exactly the sort of arrogant attitude I think strongchick was talking about. This whole idea that everywhere else is inferior to the USA. Do you think that the USA offers its citizens more opportunity than those of Australia, or Canada, or Germany.

The UN regularly publishes its Human Development Index. This gauges a country based on income, social statistics, human rights, etc. I never see the USA anywhere near the top.

 

[HansNZ]

and the leftists are the people who want to continue to take more and more freedom away from the american people, so they can one day have the totalitarian government they have always dreamed of. their answer to every problem is to have more and more government involvement and even less individual freedoms. just look at things like campaign finance reform, gun control, the creation of the epa (personal property is a joke to them), etc etc.

The far right government currently stinking out the White House has done more in the last nine months to remove the basic rights and freedoms of Americans than any other administration in living memory.

Yu don't live in a free country. You live in a country ruled by a right-wing monied elite. The USA has to be the most plutocratic society in the Western world. Money dominates your most basic requirements in terms of quality of education, healthcare, or legal representation. None of the other so called "less free" developed countries have such extreme variations and inequitable distribution of these basics as the US does. But this is what happens in right wing societies.

In any case your right wing idea of government involvement and individual freedom is just double-speak for taking away power from democratically accountable organisations and giving it to the monied classes under the quise of "individual freedom" It is known as economic fascism - those who own are those who control. This is why you can't trust anything you see in the American media - it is controlled by the same plutocratic corporate elite who control your congress which masquerades as a democratic institution. The rest of the world is laughing at you because you are just so damned brainwashed. But you dismiss these "unfree" foreigners because you are so complacent about the US's largely illusory "superiority".

I lived in the former USSR briefly. A major difference between the Russian and American publics was that the Russians knew they were being manipulated and were wary of what they heard. They watched the nightly news with a sceptical eye in the way an American might look at advertising. In the US, brainwashed people like yourself just soak it all up hook, line, and sinker, and that is why you are so easy to manipulate.

 

[HansNZ]

America is the laughingstock of the entire world.........so much so that everybody wants to live here, and every nation that gets itself into trouble comes crying for help, or financial aid, or humanitarian relief, or--of course--military intervention. It is a classic example of biting the hand that feeds.

Oh yes! Everyone wants to be an American. Puhlease!!!!

If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the US gives the smallest ratio of aid to GDP of any developed nation. The US's aid budget is about the same size as France's - a country one fifth the size. Most of this aid is far from humanitarian. Huge chunks of it comes in the form of military subsidies for countries like Israel and Egypt.

The USA does NOTHING out of altruism. If it intervenes militarily or financially, or whatever it is for it's own interests. In fact this intervention is usually detrimental to those who are subject to it. But I suppose you think that the US is spreading freedom, democracy and human rights? Excuse me while I puke.

 

[HansNZ]

America is the laughingstock of the entire world.........so much so that everybody wants to live here, and every nation that gets itself into trouble comes crying for help, or financial aid, or humanitarian relief, or--of course--military intervention. It is a classic example of biting the hand that feeds.

The question for Tom Cruise, or Alec Baldwin, or strongchick, or anyone else is this: where would you prefer to live, and why don't you just go there? They won't go because there IS NO OTHER place on earth that is preferable to the United States. There is no other place on earth that will provide them the opportunity to make the kind of lives for themselves that they want. Of course, the irony is that the very government that they rail against is the reason that they have the right to mouth off like they do. Biting the hand again.

Further to my point:

It seems plenty of Americans voluntarily give up their so called freedom and opportunity to make lives for themselves in inferior countries. They don't seem to be a part of the "everyone wants to live here (the USA)" crowd that you refer to.

You can't go anywhere without tripping over Americans who have emigrated here. The same is true when I travel over to Australia.
One of my closest friends is from California. He lives here now and says he can't stand the prevalent mentality which you have just demonstrated. He said he was horrified by the attitudes that he had assimilated and was saved from this by travelling to other countries and being exposed to different ideas. Unlike you he realised that others had something to offer and that the USA didn't hold a monopoly on everything good.

Another thing that strikes me is the number of Americans who seem to know how much better the USA is while at the same time knowing little or nothing of the outside world about which they are commenting. Many of them haven't even left North America. Only such an insular and ill-informed populace could maintain such patently absurd attitudes about so many things.

George W. is perfect manifestation of this parochialism.

 

[danielson]

nice posts Hansnz

 

[danielson]

I've tried the guardian unlimited (a UK paper) but they seemed anti-USA, not unbiased. I like the BBC and the UN wire, but they don't have alot of info on america.

i think the guardian is more pro-europe than anti-america, its just their pro-europe stance often mkes them appear to be anti-american

 

[rushx79]

Tom Cruise, for example, may/may not have stated his is leaving this country for the same reasons, but I'll bet many people with enough money are sincerely thinking about walking away.

you do realize you just used tom cruise as an example? a guy that isnt happy with the evian they give him on set. no wonder you are so out of touch with real life.reminds me of the democratic convention. titled something like "everyday americans" yet all they had were actors on stage.im going to give you some free advice my white-hating-man-looking-lesbian moron:never listen to an actor unless they are reading from a script in a movie or play. i pity you, you give democrats a bad name.

 

[Hangfire]

The UN regularly publishes its Human Development Index.

Well, there is the first problem. The United Nations is an organization of nations united in hating America. My suggestion would be that they move their headquarters to the Hague that you all love so much.

 

[Hangfire]

Oh yes! Everyone wants to be an American. Puhlease!!!!

If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the US gives the smallest ratio of aid to GDP of any developed nation. The US's aid budget is about the same size as France's - a country one fifth the size. Most of this aid is far from humanitarian. Huge chunks of it comes in the form of military subsidies for countries like Israel and Egypt.

The USA does NOTHING out of altruism. If it intervenes militarily or financially, or whatever it is for it's own interests. In fact this intervention is usually detrimental to those who are subject to it. But I suppose you think that the US is spreading freedom, democracy and human rights? Excuse me while I puke.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[gwl9dta4]

Further to my point:

It seems plenty of Americans voluntarily give up their so called freedom and opportunity to make lives for themselves in inferior countries. They don't seem to be a part of the "everyone wants to live here (the USA)" crowd that you refer to.

You can't go anywhere without tripping over Americans who have emigrated here. The same is true when I travel over to Australia.
One of my closest friends is from California. He lives here now and says he can't stand the prevalent mentality which you have just demonstrated. He said he was horrified by the attitudes that he had assimilated and was saved from this by travelling to other countries and being exposed to different ideas. Unlike you he realised that others had something to offer and that the USA didn't hold a monopoly on everything good.

Another thing that strikes me is the number of Americans who seem to know how much better the USA is while at the same time knowing little or nothing of the outside world about which they are commenting. Many of them haven't even left North America. Only such an insular and ill-informed populace could maintain such patently absurd attitudes about so many things.

George W. is perfect manifestation of this parochialism.

Well i am glad you wrote this, and i agree with you on all points, (but you are still a fag ) .

I have been in the US and have always been mortified by the attitude the average American has toward the rest of the world. Everything in the US is the Best and anywhere else Sucks. Could not be furthest from the truth. The US is a Police state where your individual freedoms are nothig but an illusion, just wait till you become a person of low income to find out.

I have lived in France, Poland, Sweden, US and visited Germany on many occasions. Believe me that once you get sincerely exposed to different cultures you will see the US as being FAR from the top of the list of countries you would want to live in. And do not even get me started on the media and it's propaganda machine. Everytime i hear the president and the media use the word "evil" when referring to the enemies of the US i have a small burst of laughter. How could the American populace be so low on IQ and education that they actually buy the "evil" argument for this war?

"THEY" are "EVIL"- man that is an argument that a 5 year old could make up. And the fact that the US public accepts it and does not question it lends to them being the laughing stock of the world.

 

[clusterfoxtrot]

God bless the USA
God bless nuclear weapons
God bless stealth technology
God bless the .50 BMG
God bless the supercomputer

If the Clinton Administration hadn't been so busy tearing the innards out of our intelligence system for 8 years, we might have actually been able to parse out the traffic sitting in our laps that would have tipped us off to the attack. But, noooooooo, President Clinton and her husband had to spend time yanking and allocating monies to go to worthless programs and groups who expect money to be given tothem on a silver platter. The only group this country owes a debt to are the American Indians.

I will get up on a soapbox and scream that the US has gone soft. We do not have the appetite it takes to defeat terrorism in the manner which needs to fought. We lose 2 guys in an operation and they get front page pictures and visit the White House. How many people remember the countless names scrolling by on TV at the end of the Vietnam war?

Like any marriage, we are going to bicker with our "spouse" from time to time. THe US has only 4 intelligence allies: Canada, England, Australia, and New Zealand. Outside of that, intelligence is shared on a need to know basis.

Just a thought....

CF

 

[gymnpoppa]

I have been in the US and have always been mortified by the attitude the average American has toward the rest of the world. Everything in the US is the Best and anywhere else Sucks. Could not be furthest from the truth. The US is a Police state where your individual freedoms are nothig but an illusion,

I have lived in France, Poland, Sweden, US and visited Germany on many occasions. Believe me that once you get sincerely exposed to different cultures you will see the US as being FAR from the top of the list of countries you would want to live in. And do not even get me started on the media and it's propaganda machine. Everytime i hear the president and the media use the word "evil" when referring to the enemies of the US i have a small burst of laughter. How could the American populace be so low on IQ and education that they actually buy the "evil" argument for this war?

"THEY" are "EVIL"- man that is an argument that a 5 year old could make up. And the fact that the US public accepts it and does not question it lends to them being the laughing stock of the world.

Agreed, uh clusterdude, you obviously have no clue about our intelligence agencies. They have been downsized for more than 20 years....since the Reagan years ended........do some research.
Agents were either reassigned, or retired. NONE were trained to replace them. If you listened to the current Cia director, he alluded to this fact. It takes years to develop dbl agents.....to infiltrate other countries, organizations.

Given the current state of security, and the scandal-trashed economy, lack of investor confidence, consumer confidence, I'm trying to figure out why bush has such a high rating. I don't see the stated campaign promise of fiscal responsibility (Not a single bill vetoed by him), A proposed massive reorganization of the government, which doesn't address the problems. We had information, we didn't process it, and the two inept agencies aren't included in the shakeup.

And it is about the oil. The area around Afghanistan is prime territory......

We have been told that another attack is certain, so what's next........take more civil liberties away?

 

[Hangfire]

Oh yes! Everyone wants to be an American. Puhlease!!!!

I never said everyone wants to BE an American. They just want to come to our great country and enjoy the freedom to decide their own futures; to think and say whatever they want--even if it is in opposition to the government that gives them the opportunity to do so; to educate their children as they choose; to obtain state-of-the-art healthcare; to have the chance to work toward personal wealth and security; and even to have the freedom to try to change this country into their own vision of what it should be.

What's that you say? Europeans have all the same freedoms and opportunites? Of course they do. They were purchased with the blood of Americans. Not once, but twice and who knows how many more times in the future.

 

[Gubernatorial Goosefish]

I lived in the former USSR briefly. A major difference between the Russian and American publics was that the Russians knew they were being manipulated and were wary of what they heard. They watched the nightly news with a sceptical eye in the way an American might look at advertising. In the US, brainwashed people like yourself just soak it all up hook, line, and sinker, and that is why you are so easy to manipulate.

Where in the former USSR did you live? Somewhere in Russia, or some other former republic?

In any case, the reason why the Russians (I'm assuming you lived either in Moscow or St. Petersburg) are so wary of what they see on TV is because they still remember the Soviet times and the crude propaganda that they were exposed to on a daily basis. They're aware of their past, and that's why they're sceptics and cynics for the most part.

US propaganda, on the other hand, is a lot more sophisticated and not as crude. US propaganda is slick, well-packaged, and marketed on a huge scale - that's why it's so successful.

The reason why the USSR went under is because there was an actual discrepancy between their reality and the crude propaganda that they were turning out. In contrast, the US elites have money, a lot of it, and they know how to use to manufacture high-quality propaganda products.

Oh, and most northwestern European nations, as well as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are just as hierarchical and socially stratified as the US. Only their elites have deflected popular anger by incorporating more socialist methods of governance into their power structures.

 

[Citruscide]

I'm just happy to see SC is back in out huge, happy family... it makes me feel all cozy inside... ahhhh....

C

 

[Mdguy]

Another thing that strikes me is the number of Americans who seem to know how much better the USA is while at the same time knowing little or nothing of the outside world about which they are commenting. Many of them haven't even left North America. Only such an insular and ill-informed populace could maintain such patently absurd attitudes about so many things.

.

As an American, I couldn't agree more with this statement....

Excellent thread on all accounts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Citruscide]

Is this thread about anti-american thoughts? Wow... who would have ever thought people would slam the US? I mean, this is the best place to buy peanut butter in the whole world!!! A whole dollar cheaper than anywhere else, that's for sure!

C

 

[Gubernatorial Goosefish]

The UN regularly publishes its Human Development Index. This gauges a country based on income, social statistics, human rights, etc. I never see the USA anywhere near the top.

Really? Hmmm... Here's an HDI report from 2001: http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/hdi.pdf

 

[clusterfoxtrot]

Gymnppoppa:

I actually have quite the idea of what's going on in the intel community. We had great humint and sigint capabilities, during the Reagan years. Unfirtunately, they were all in Russia Section. We ignored most other threats.

The Clinton administration completely dismanteled the inner workings and the budgets of these agencies, leaving us with our pants down when the shit hit the fan.

CF

 

[gymnpoppa]

Gymnppoppa:

I actually have quite the idea of what's going on in the intel community. We had great humint and sigint capabilities, during the Reagan years. Unfirtunately, they were all in Russia Section. We ignored most other threats.

The Clinton administration completely dismanteled the inner workings and the budgets of these agencies, leaving us with our pants down when the shit hit the fan.

CF

No, you're mistaken, we had operatives in the M East, they just weren't entrenched in terrorist organizations....terrorism was only beginning (23 years ago)........at the same time we were downsizing the agencies. And because it takes years to actually infiltrate ANY organization/state, we had nothing. A big part of the reason we have never caught the first terrorist.

 

[spongebob]

my town is the best place to live.

 

[HansNZ]

I never said everyone wants to BE an American. They just want to come to our great country and enjoy the freedom to decide their own futures; to think and say whatever they want--even if it is in opposition to the government that gives them the opportunity to do so

Actually the Europeans I have met who do want to immigrate usually want to go to Australia, not the USA.

Europeans don't have the freedom to decide their own futures? In fact Europeans probably have more chance to do this because their opportunities are not tied so closely to how much money you have as is the case in the US.

To think and say whatever they want? I don't see the US offering these freedoms any more than other developed nations. Your media is such a plutocratic monopoly that I actually doubt that Americans enjoy as much freedom to think and say whatever. Other Western nations are much more politically diverse societies. The US two-party system locks people out from representation who aren't part of the establishment. In fact your country has actively crushed political opposition it doesn't like - i.e. communists. You've lost a great many basic freedoms under the Bush administration.

to educate their children as they choose; to obtain state-of-the-art healthcare; to have the chance to work toward personal wealth and security; and even to have the freedom to try to change this country into their own vision of what it should be.

You are deluded if you think that ordinary Americans can change the system. An American can only impact on the system once they become part of your society's establishment with support from special interest groups.

How is it that Americans somehow can choose their type of education more than others??? Other nations have public or private, religious or secular education. You name it, it is there. In fact money is what determines American educational choices more than any other factor.

State-of-the-art healthcare??? You must be joking. There are 20 million people in your country with no healthcare cover. Point out any other Western nation that has any segment of its population without healthcare cover! There isn't one!

Quality of healthcare in the USA is directly determined by how much money you have. In fact healthcare costs are so out of control in the USA that state-of-the-art medicine is less accessible to ordinary Americans than it is to Europeans.

What's that you say? Europeans have all the same freedoms and opportunites? Of course they do. They were purchased with the blood of Americans. Not once, but twice and who knows how many more times in the future.

I don't quite know what the twice is that you are refering to. I assume the first time is WW1 when the US joined in right at the very end, only engaging in conflict in any real way during the last Anglo-French push into Germany - a Germany which was already collapsing. The USA's influence was only a morale boost - nothing decisive.

As for WW2, I assume you must have learned your history from American movies. It was actually the Russians who defeated Germany. They fought them alone for years and were rolling them back across Europe for 18 months before DDay happened. Have you ever heard of the Battle of Stalingrad? All DDay did was speed up Germany's defeat.

You also forget that the British fought the Germans ALONE while Germany was at the height of its power. The British were the ones who prevented the Germans from conquering their country, not the self-flattering, self-important Americans.

In fact it can be argued that the British and Russians saved YOU! Do you think that if Germany had defeated Great Britain, thereby controlling the greatest navy in the world and all of the industrial might of Western Europe, that the USA would have been safe? Your country was so unprepared for war that a German invasion would have crushed you like a fly. Even if you'd won you'd probably have lost 28 million people like the Russians did when they (not the USA) defeated Germany.

You've also forgotten that other non-european countries fought decisively in WW2, including my own country, which lost war more people in proportion to its population in both wars than the USA did.

You are a typical arrogant American, typically brainwashed by propaganda designed to manipulate you for the benefit of those who ACTUALLY rule your society. Americans would rank up at the top of the list in terms of its levels of false consciousness among ordinary citizens.

 

[HansNZ]

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

And no one is more adept at manipulating statistics than right wing conservatives.

These statistics are quite straight forward. They are collected the same way across all countries and are quite devoid of the factors that often complicate social statistics for instance. The US government is not challenging the validity of these statistics. It is in fact the US government that provides them.

If you deny the truth of a statistic you have to show why that statistic is false. Simply denying it because you don't like what it shows you is hardly valid.

 

[HansNZ]

Well, there is the first problem. The United Nations is an organization of nations united in hating America. My suggestion would be that they move their headquarters to the Hague that you all love so much.

Actually the UN is an organisation controlled and manipulated by the US. Because it challenges even just a fraction of the false notions that Americans have about themselves, Americans think it is anti-USA when it is more like an American Lap dog.


An analogy would be to a restaurant you are dining in. You complain that it is mistreating you by forgetting to salt your soup, and give you the right cutlery. You complain even more about your mistreatment because you didn't get the correct wine you ordered.

Yet all this time you haven't bothered to look around and see that the other people in the restaurant are only eating porridge, gruel, and water. Some are even having their cutlery taken away from them so that you can have the right spoon which this dispicable "anti-you" restaurant has denied you.

 

[Hangfire]

HansNZ,
I love reading your posts--you are, obviously, an astute, educated person who has studied history and has a grasp of the facts as you understand them.

What is apparent, though, is that the majority of your argument against the US has to do with your preference for socialism and the elimination of the distinction between the poor and the wealthy. That is not how it works here. In America, the poor are provided the basic needs of food, shelter, medicine, education. But they are not provided the same level of benefits as someone who pays his own way, and that is as it should be. I realize that philosphy flies in the face of what you, and the precious U.N., are all about.

If you are looking for a society that is devoid of any economic strata, social pecking order, or whatever you want to call it, look in the history books because that is the only place you will find it. The social irony in America is that the plight of the poor is the work product of the people who claim to want to eliminate poverty. Those are the political leaders who share your social philosophy and have been in power here for the last 40 years--the Democratic party. Your restaurant analogy, while presented in the most intentionally harsh manner, is basically correct. Those who can afford to eat soup, do so. Those who cannot afford it eat gruel, but everybody eats. Perhaps a daily diet of porridge, gruel and water is enough incentive to make the personal changes necessary to be able to afford soup. In America, the opportunity to make those changes exists for everyone.

There are 20 million people in this country of 280 million who do not have healthcare coverage. That is correct---they do not have a healthcare insurance policy with a card that they can present to a physician or hospital. Here is a secret--they still receive medical treatment and that level of treatment is what is appropriate to the condition. The U.S. taxpayers also pay for medical treatment for illegal immigrants, and for their education and their childrens' education. Pregnant Mexican immigrants enter the U.S. illegally just so their children can be born on American soil. What a terrible place to live this must be!

Regarding our freedom here, you always seem to frame the debate in term of politics. I argue that Americans enjoy the utmost individual freedom, and I cannot grasp your comment about our losing a great many freedoms under the Bush administration. Then again, the argument from your side was never about the individual. I suspect that the disgruntled expatriate Americans that you encounter share your mindset and validate your opinions. The vast majority of Americans do not want America to be Europe.

Finally, as you try to marginalize the U.S. involvement in the two world wars, consider that the U.S. was never in danger of being overrrun by Germany---the rest of Europe was. Whether you think their contribution was worthy or not, please do not stoop to sweeping aside the American lives that were lost in stopping European occupation.

Regards.

 

[clusterfoxtrot]

Gym:

We are probably arguing about roughly the same thing here. Mid-East terrorism started much longer than 23 years ago. It started as soon as the UN gave Israel it's independence. From day 1, settlers had to deal with Palestinians attacking settlements and kibbutzes.

The bulk of our Mid-East HumInt assets were not US, but rather Israeli assets. For reasons of physical appearances, it is very difficult to even operate in a capacity which allows to convert operatives on the ground as double agents, much less planting our own assets.

Until the fall of the Berlin wall, greater than 75-80% of all of our intelligence gathering capabilities were devoted to Cyrillic and Baltic language derivatives. Russia section was so big, I knew husbands and wives who both worked in the same "departments" for 20 years and never knew the other worked there as well.

Our biggest problem is that we can snatch any type of Elint or SigInt out of the ether, but we don't have the language specialists to interpret the data. The intelligence community has been warning every administration since Carter about this. Reagan spent much of the budget building offensive capabilities. The Clinton administration spent much of its energies dismantling offensive, defensive, and intelligence gathering capabilities.

The fault of much of this mess lies with the American public, who believes in its invulnerability and wretches at the thought of 1st amendment infrgingements and other privacy invasions that ultimately would be able to avert terrorist attacks. We have to give up some of the rights for the freedom and safety in the long run.

CF

 

[HansNZ]

Well hangfire, I think we will have to agree to disagree, hehe.

I don't want to berate you further for your opinions or engage in any more American bashing. Generally speaking I get on very well with Americans. The USA has many admirable characteristics, but when you meet someone who walks around saying "i'm the best, i'm the greatest, everyone wants to be me, everyone wants me" then you tend to want to give them a reality check.

I also feel that you have misunderstood some of my arguments and my analogies, but never mind. I also feel that your arguments probably make sense from a perspective so prevalent among many Americans. This perspective is grounded in some rather ideologically debatable definitions of freedom or equality or whatever, and some interesting assumptions about how the world works, which people outside the US frequently find somewhat quirky.

You might be surprised to hear that I am not a socialist or a liberal. In fact the ideas that so many Americans apply the label "liberal" to are rather curious. Your arguments are an adaption of essentially liberal assumptions, but you probably wouldn't be labelled a liberal in your country.

In any case we could go on forever. There is another person on here - ttlpkg - who would share most of your opinions. We regularly get into debates, but both of us decide to let things slide once we reach a certain point. We know we'll end up going around in circles. If, however, you want to keep going, we can do so, LOL.

Hans.

 

[HansNZ]

clusterfoxtrot.

Your post is interesting. I remember seeing a news article saying that were little or no people in the intelligence organs before 9/11 able to translate information from Afghanistan. People familiar with Afghan languages were also hard to come by.

So apparently it wasn't necessarily a failure of intelligence gathering or the intelligence system, but a simple lack of reliable interpreters to handle the information.

 

[big4rt]

After earning both my undergad and graduate degrees in politics, both american and international, I have learned that politics is so easily argued AFTER THE FACT. Almost everybody has an ARGUABLE point here. Even if you make a prediction about what is to come you can take all the facts you want and force them to fit your theory or prediction.

The bottom line is this. You all have opinions and are using inductive reasoning to prove your point--maybe not the best way to argue your point. I'm not saying anybody here is right or wrong. I'm saying NOBODY HERE IS OMINISCIENT. Nice arguments in any event. This is interesting.

 

[HansNZ]

Hehe, yes it is interesting the gems you can find on this board wedged between the "I find my cat sexually attractive" and the "who has the nicest titties" threads, LOL!

 

[clusterfoxtrot]

Hans,

Reading between the lines, that's exactly what I said. We collected the Intelligence. We are horribly understaffed. It took the government 4 hours turn off ciphering on the encrypted cellular phone networks.

The NSA had Inmarsat intercepts from Bin Laden going back months prior to 9/11 sitting in someone's inbox. An original note to that fact appeared in the Washington Times on 9/15 - it was quickly killed. The story reappeared several weeks ago in national media - it was quickly killed.

Assuming that you are in New Zealand, NZ is one of our 4 "true" allies, including Canada, England, and Australia. We operate a system called Echelon that grabs SigInt and Elint from sat, fiber, and RF on all traffic coming in and out of the 5 countries. Supercomputers and listening stations in those locations ultimately send everything back here to Ft. Meade for analysis. Unfortunately, the agency is horribly understaffed in language interpreters and cannot get to everything.]

So, to your point, we probably didn't fail in gathering the G2, only reading it. In either case, we got caught with our pants down and our asses unlubed. Thanks Klintons!

CF

 

[HansNZ]

Hans,

Reading between the lines, that's exactly what I said. We collected the Intelligence. We are horribly understaffed. It took the government 4 hours turn off ciphering on the encrypted cellular phone networks.

The NSA had Inmarsat intercepts from Bin Laden going back months prior to 9/11 sitting in someone's inbox. An original note to that fact appeared in the Washington Times on 9/15 - it was quickly killed. The story reappeared several weeks ago in national media - it was quickly killed.

Assuming that you are in New Zealand, NZ is one of our 4 "true" allies, including Canada, England, and Australia. We operate a system called Echelon that grabs SigInt and Elint from sat, fiber, and RF on all traffic coming in and out of the 5 countries. Supercomputers and listening stations in those locations ultimately send everything back here to Ft. Meade for analysis. Unfortunately, the agency is horribly understaffed in language interpreters and cannot get to everything.]

So, to your point, we probably didn't fail in gathering the G2, only reading it. In either case, we got caught with our pants down and our asses unlubed. Thanks Klintons!

CF

Yes, I am in New Zealand. It is interesting that NZ is in the intelligence loop. I know there are listening stations throughout New Zealand, the best known being in Keri Keri (I think).

But in the 1980s we had a falling out with the US because of our nuclear free policies. I thought we were still standing with our face against the wall. I hadn't realised we were back "in the club" so to speak.

 

[strongchick]

An analogy would be to a restaurant you are dining in. You complain that it is mistreating you by forgetting to salt your soup, and give you the right cutlery. You complain even more about your mistreatment because you didn't get the correct wine you ordered.

Yet all this time you haven't bothered to look around and see that the other people in the restaurant are only eating porridge, gruel, and water. Some are even having their cutlery taken away from them so that you can have the right spoon which this dispicable "anti-you" restaurant has denied you.

Best analogy I've heard to explain what I see all around.

What is worse is that a lot of the privileged in America are really NOT protected. Many of these people live on credit. The minute they lose their job or suffer a tragedy, they are poor just like the rest. Since none of us save money, most of us have no more than $10K in the bank. That doesn't go very far if you are laid off from work more than six months, which is what is happening to thousands.

Americans won't fight back until it gets much much worse. We are heading for another recessionary dip. I hope we get smashed, not because I hate my country and what it stands for, but because we have the potential for greatness and the middle class is under the illusion that they are immune, while slowly but surely we are being wiped out.

We have to take a stand together.

 

[Hangfire]

Well hangfire, I think we will have to agree to disagree, hehe.

I don't want to berate you further for your opinions or engage in any more American bashing. Generally speaking I get on very well with Americans. The USA has many admirable characteristics, but when you meet someone who walks around saying "i'm the best, i'm the greatest, everyone wants to be me, everyone wants me" then you tend to want to give them a reality check.

I also feel that you have misunderstood some of my arguments and my analogies, but never mind. I also feel that your arguments probably make sense from a perspective so prevalent among many Americans. This perspective is grounded in some rather ideologically debatable definitions of freedom or equality or whatever, and some interesting assumptions about how the world works, which people outside the US frequently find somewhat quirky.

You might be surprised to hear that I am not a socialist or a liberal. In fact the ideas that so many Americans apply the label "liberal" to are rather curious. Your arguments are an adaption of essentially liberal assumptions, but you probably wouldn't be labelled a liberal in your country.

In any case we could go on forever. There is another person on here - ttlpkg - who would share most of your opinions. We regularly get into debates, but both of us decide to let things slide once we reach a certain point. We know we'll end up going around in circles. If, however, you want to keep going, we can do so, LOL.

Hans.

Hans,
I agree that it is pointless to go around and around, and I find myself in philosophical agreement with ttlpkg more often than not. I will leave you with one last thought: do not assume that Americans are handcuffed by a parochial notion of the way the world works borne out of a lack of exposure. THAT strikes me as an arrogant position. Your ideas of socialism and liberalism may be somewhat different from mine, but please don't assume that I am too stupid to know the difference between actual liberalism and conservatism. Debating one another's ideology is pointless since neither of us will change our minds. You are a worthy opponent, but I still disagree with you. Have a great day in NZ.

 

[clusterfoxtrot]

In NZ, the GSCB operates that specific portion of the network. Most of your/our listening posts are in Tangimoana, Waihopai, and Tangimoana.

Despite NZ anti-nuc policy and their vocal acknoledgement of participation in ECHELON, they are one of the more valuable listening positions given their look-angles at a variety of Inmarsat birds (the L-band satellites which carried a lot of Bin Laden's traffic.)

As far as I know, the posts are 100% operational and NZ actively sends GSCB employees for cross training and participation in UKUSA activities.

***all information contained herewithin has been cleared and is not classified***

CF

 

[HansNZ]

Best analogy I've heard to explain what I see all around.

The analogy I think is symbolic for those in priviledged positions.

People who have always had priviledges take them for granted. Those priviledges become invisible to them. So when someone comes along and asserts their claim to equality or to question the priviledges that a chosen group has enjoyed, that group then complains of being persecuted, discriminated against, or becoming second class citizens.

The reality is quite the opposite. They are simply having their priviledge (which they take for granted and expect) challenged.

Another good example would be gay imagery versus heterosexual imagery. We are constantly surrounded by heterosexual imagery, and the portrayal of heterosexual relationships. But when one image of two men kissing makes its way into the main stream media or programmes start appearing portraying same-sex relationships then we hear all this hoopla about how the homosexual lifestyle is being shoved down people's throats.

Yet anything homosexual is portrayed in the media or our daily lives far less than the how much those homosexual behaviours are actually occuring in real life. No wonder gay people grow up thinking that they are supposed to be straight and start repressing their natural impulses for the same sex. But of course they then get told that what they are isn't "natural". But we won't go there - that is another thread entirely.

 

[HansNZ]

Hans,
I agree that it is pointless to go around and around, and I find myself in philosophical agreement with ttlpkg more often than not. I will leave you with one last thought: do not assume that Americans are handcuffed by a parochial notion of the way the world works borne out of a lack of exposure. THAT strikes me as an arrogant position. Your ideas of socialism and liberalism may be somewhat different from mine, but please don't assume that I am too stupid to know the difference between actual liberalism and conservatism. Debating one another's ideology is pointless since neither of us will change our minds. You are a worthy opponent, but I still disagree with you. Have a great day in NZ.

As an aside from our debate, it is interesting to look at the ways certain cultural attitudes are shaped by circumstances. Liberalism is an ideology that largely ignores the notion of scarcity. From the perspective of Europeans in the 1600s and later, North America was a vast continent, with plenty of resources and space and opportunity for everyone. The industrial revolution also put scarcity on a back foot.

China is a country borne of quite different circumstances. The culture has been greatly shaped by its dealings with the issue of scarcity which has lead to vastly different behaviour and values. Under such conditions, having as many children as you like isn't as personal freedom for instance, because under scarcity it impacts on the welfare of so many others.

It will be interesting to see how the West adapts to the limits and scarcity which the environmental crisis has thrown up. This is something that Western civilisation of the last 400 years has not really had to deal with.

Certainly denying the existence of the problem (as the Bush administration is doing) because it fundamentally challenges so many premises on which their ideology and system operates, and which without this denial would need to be modified, won't be able to continue forever.

 

[HansNZ]

Hangfire, just one more point:

Another reason why I took so much offense at the "America is the best" attitude has to do with a clash of cultures.

In NZ society we are generally quite deferential. We are an extremely self-critical nation which is perhaps over-critical of what we perceive as gaping failures in our country.

Unlike the US it is usually foreigners who tell us to stop putting ourselves down so much. Culturally we consider it arrogant to go around congratulating ourselves and would certainly never claim to be the "best or greatest" in the world. We'd consider ever making such an subjective claim about anything somewhat absurd and quite grandstanding.

When I go to Europe people seem to think I come from some sort of paradise, when over here we are preoccupied with our own failings. We have a tendency to be very realistic about our own shortcomings, which is not something I see reflected among most Americans, who while acknowledging token failings in their society, essentially are complacent in their assumed superiority, and in their rather delusory set of ideas about their country and its place in the world.

 

[spongebob]

As for WW2, I assume you must have learned your history from American movies. It was actually the Russians who defeated Germany. They fought them alone for years and were rolling them back across Europe for 18 months before DDay happened. Have you ever heard of the Battle of Stalingrad? All DDay did was speed up Germany's defeat.

the germans were kicking the russains asses up until stalingrad. they had pushed deep into russia reaching moscow and leningrad. yes, the major turning point was stalingrad but up until that point germany was kicking asses. the real task was to push the germans back out and in order to help facilitate that, a major offensive was launched in africa. germany was too spread out at this point and could not devote enough resources in all areas to win. that was the strategy. thats what D-day was supposed to do in 1942 but it was delayed until 1944.

You also forget that the British fought the Germans ALONE while Germany was at the height of its power. The British were the ones who prevented the Germans from conquering their country, not the self-flattering, self-important Americans.

in 1939 the US modified its neutrality act by allowing the sell of weapons to our allies. it was on the same "cash and carry" basis that was allowed for non military goods already in place. the land lease act was passed in 1941, it enabled great britain, who could no longer afford to pay cash for its military and non military supplies, and who was being bombarded nightly by the german airforce, to "borrow" the much needed supplies. the US was the MAIN supplier of oil to the allies, do you think this might have helped just a little. without oil, you have no aviation fuel or tank fuel. hardly think you could survive without that. so the allies did not fight the germans ALONE.

In fact it can be argued that the British and Russians saved YOU! Do you think that if Germany had defeated Great Britain, thereby controlling the greatest navy in the world and all of the industrial might of Western Europe, that the USA would have been safe? Your country was so unprepared for war that a German invasion would have crushed you like a fly. Even if you'd won you'd probably have lost 28 million people like the Russians did when they (not the USA) defeated Germany.

in 1940 roosevelt took steps to prepare for a possible war by creating the national defenseadvisory commission and the council of national defense. in june of the same year he brought two prominent republicans into his cabinet as the secretaries of war and navy. in the summer he traded fifty destroyers to great britain for the right to build military bases on british possessions in the atlantic. in october the congress approved a big increase in defense spending and instituted the first peacetime draft registration and conscription in american historyand another draft law, increasing draftee's service from one year to two and half years passed in august. etc. etc. to say the US was unprepared and would have been crushed is ignorant. the germans could not have successfully crossed the atlantic and done any real damage to the US. they had no where to station the needed manpower to do so. thats one reason why the US is a great location strategically. since the germans knew they could not do it that is why they entered into a military alliance with japan.

You are a typical arrogant American, typically brainwashed by propaganda designed to manipulate you for the benefit of those who ACTUALLY rule your society. Americans would rank up at the top of the list in terms of its levels of false consciousness among ordinary citizens.

you have not presented any evidence or examples to back up your post yet you resort to name calling and rhetoric and arrogance yourself. im not argueing one way or the other, who saved who's ass, thats rediculous to do when you look at the big picture.

 

[spongebob]

Everytime i hear the president and the media use the word "evil" when referring to the enemies of the US i have a small burst of laughter. How could the American populace be so low on IQ and education that they actually buy the "evil" argument for this war?

"THEY" are "EVIL"- man that is an argument that a 5 year old could make up. And the fact that the US public accepts it and does not question it lends to them being the laughing stock of the world.

yes and what arguement have you presented to counter the "evil" arguement? nonthing except that americans have a low IQ and education. so your arguement is that of a five year old also.

 

[aurelius]

do they have cliffnotes for that? there is no way im going to sit down and read a fucking book.

Ladies and gentlemen, one of the millions of custodians of a democratically elected representative republic. Terrifying.

 

[aurelius]

sure bud

Another eloquently delivered counterpoint.

 

[aurelius]

America is the laughingstock of the entire world.........so much so that everybody wants to live here, and every nation that gets itself into trouble comes crying for help, or financial aid, or humanitarian relief, or--of course--military intervention. It is a classic example of biting the hand that feeds.

The question for Tom Cruise, or Alec Baldwin, or strongchick, or anyone else is this: where would you prefer to live, and why don't you just go there? They won't go because there IS NO OTHER place on earth that is preferable to the United States. There is no other place on earth that will provide them the opportunity to make the kind of lives for themselves that they want. Of course, the irony is that the very government that they rail against is the reason that they have the right to mouth off like they do. Biting the hand again.

Man, you are ignorant. Immigrants are flooding into Europe over here.

 

[aurelius]

It seems plenty of Americans voluntarily give up their so called freedom and opportunity to make lives for themselves in inferior countries. They don't seem to be a part of the "everyone wants to live here (the USA)" crowd that you refer to.

Hmmm...

 

[clusterfoxtrot]

This is going to get complicated, but I'll keep it brief. The Russians defeated the Germans on the Eastern front. However:

1) We wiped the Japanese off the face of the map with a few small nukes;

2) The English and the other European allies were kept alive by our (eventual) ability to keep the sipping lanes open and (relatively) safe from Wolfpack hunter/killer U-Boat groups;

3) Our ability to do this was only because of early advances by the Polish, followed by joint efforts with the French and English, and subsequently the OSS which in conjunction with Bletchly Park's operations were able to reproduce both cipher systems of the Enigma and Purple. The ability to decode the Kreigsmarine and Reich transmissions was critical in our ability to defeat the Axis powers;

4) DDay was successful because of counterinsurgency terrorist operations run by members of the OSS. Essentially, 17+ OSS operatives trained 1700 French, etc. resistance fighters who prepared traps and countermeasures to divert, demolish, and confuse the retreating German army. This chaos was instrumental in successful mop-up operations.

5) The British did a remarkable job defending their homeland, no doubt about that. There is a lot more, however, to attacking another continent the size of the US with no allies involced. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the Germans could have made a successful, sustained invasion of the US.

6) And IMO, yes we have some right to arrogance. While not steeped in history and warfare as other nations. We have a kill to casualty ration second to none. Our weapons systems are the most advanced in the world. An the bulk of the free world looks to us everytime there is a problem that needs to be mopped up. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS. Again, IMO, I think we should convert to a paramilitary state, with allies (read bases of operation: UK, Germany, Israel, South Africa, Australia, and Japan) and rent our services out for all global conflicts - cash up front. Other than that, everyone else is on their own unless they have something to pay for services with - no credit.

CF

 

[HansNZ]

SPONGEBOB: the germans were kicking the russains asses up until stalingrad. they had pushed deep into russia reaching moscow and leningrad. yes, the major turning point was stalingrad but up until that point germany was kicking asses. the real task was to push the germans back out and in order to help facilitate that, a major offensive was launched in africa. germany was too spread out at this point and could not devote enough resources in all areas to win. that was the strategy. thats what D-day was supposed to do in 1942 but it was delayed until 1944.
_______________

HANSNZ: Yes, the Germans were kicking the Russians asses until Stalingrad. That is why I cited it as the turningpoint. And so, as I said before, it was the Russians who pushed the germans back, not the Americans. British and American material support for Russia only added up to 4% of Russia's military materiel.

North Africa was a British centre of operation, not American. The Americans were only involved in a secondary role. NZ and Australian troops were predominantly involved in this theatre of war.
______________

SPONGEBOB: in 1939 the US modified its neutrality act by allowing the sell of weapons to our allies. it was on the same "cash and carry" basis that was allowed for non military goods already in place. the land lease act was passed in 1941, it enabled great britain, who could no longer afford to pay cash for its military and non military supplies, and who was being bombarded nightly by the german airforce, to "borrow" the much needed supplies. the US was the MAIN supplier of oil to the allies, do you think this might have helped just a little. without oil, you have no aviation fuel or tank fuel. hardly think you could survive without that. so the allies did not fight the germans ALONE.
_____________

HANSNZ: Incorrect. The lendlease system did indeed supply the British with much material, as did other allies such as NZ and Australia, for most of the war. This materiel was not decisive at the time of the Battle of Britain when the UK fought back Germany ALONE. It wasn't until after this that this war material started to have an effect. The BRITISH prevented their own defeat, later american assistance kept a bankrupted UK in the war, it did not save them initially - the British saved themselves.
___________________

SPONGEBOB: in 1940 roosevelt took steps to prepare for a possible war by creating the national defenseadvisory commission and the council of national defense. in june of the same year he brought two prominent republicans into his cabinet as the secretaries of war and navy. in the summer he traded fifty destroyers to great britain for the right to build military bases on british possessions in the atlantic. in october the congress approved a big increase in defense spending and instituted the first peacetime draft registration and conscription in american historyand another draft law, increasing draftee's service from one year to two and half years passed in august. etc. etc. to say the US was unprepared and would have been crushed is ignorant. the germans could not have successfully crossed the atlantic and done any real damage to the US. they had no where to station the needed manpower to do so. thats one reason why the US is a great location strategically. since the germans knew they could not do it that is why they entered into a military alliance with japan.
_____________

HANSNZ: Agreed, invading North America by sea would have been difficult strategically. But to say that if the Germans had attempted that the preparations the Roosevelt administration had made at that point would have been sufficient is stretching it a bit.

The British and French were making plans much earlier and look how much trouble they found themselves in nonetheless. In any case Russia was Germany's prefered target, not the US. But to say that a German defeat of Britain and Russia wouldn't have been a direct threat to the US is laughable. These two countries were all that stood between Germany and total world domination. In the longer-term it seems unlikely that the USA would have been able to defeat a victorious Germany and marauding Japan alone.

With German control of all of Europe and the USSR, the industrial and manpower odds against the USA would have been staggering. To think otherwise would involve some serious self-delusion about American power. A land invasion from Siberia down through Nth America would have by-passed the issue of projecting naval power. The Germans would have been far more familiar with fighting in such climactic conditions too. In any case we are starting to creep into "what-if" scenarios now.
______________

SPONGEBOB: you have not presented any evidence or examples to back up your post yet you resort to name calling and rhetoric and arrogance yourself. im not argueing one way or the other, who saved who's ass, thats rediculous to do when you look at the big picture.
_______________

HANSNZ: Really? You've done nothing more than me to prove your points. So calling arrogant Americans arrogant makes me arrogant? Interesting philosophy....

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/33/features-cooper.php



even more interesting, and similar to my position back in October 2001:

Yeah... I hope you're kidding

 

[chesty]

Well, they attacked us, and if it is a by-product that we get the oil. I am all for it. Besides for the complicity you speak of that would mean that practically all of our gov't would have been in on murdering our own citizens, which makes you and me responsible as well since we gladly (yeah right) pay our taxes and "blindly" vote the same assholes in office year after year.

BTW, I wouldn't believe the L.A. Times any more than Taliban spokesman.

 

[musclebrains]

IT was the LA Weekly, an independent weekly paper.

 

[chesty]

la weekly, la times I dont' believe squat coming out of CA

 

[gymnpoppa]

Well, they attacked us, and if it is a by-product that we get the oil. I am all for it.

By-product? Hardly............

 

[aurelius]

What is worse is that a lot of the privileged in America are really NOT protected. Many of these people live on credit. The minute they lose their job or suffer a tragedy, they are poor just like the rest. Since none of us save money, most of us have no more than $10K in the bank. That doesn't go very far if you are laid off from work more than six months, which is what is happening to thousands.

Bingo!!!

Except you´re way off regarding savings. According to what I read in the Economist, the US worker has by far the lowest average savings of any post industrial country worker at around 1200 dollars.

 

[chesty]

Yeah hardly! I still can't believe some foster the idea that we would murder our own just to get better oil rights.

As Metallica wrote: "Kill 'em all" and let the athiests sort them out.

 

[spongebob]

HANSNZ: Incorrect. The lendlease system did indeed supply the British with much material, as did other allies such as NZ and Australia, for most of the war. This materiel was not decisive at the time of the Battle of Britain when the UK fought back Germany ALONE. It wasn't until after this that this war material started to have an effect. The BRITISH prevented their own defeat, later american assistance kept a bankrupted UK in the war, it did not save them initially - the British saved themselves.

first, i never said it was decisive, but to say it didnt contribute is wrong. non-military supplies was already being sold to the allies under the 1937 neutrality act. weapons were allowed in nov 1939 under a modification of the law. and as i mentioned the US was the MAIN supplier of oil to the allies(tanks and aircraft fuel). the land lease act was passed in march of 41. at this point great britian had already been fighting for 18 months and was broke. are you telling me that at this point the british could have continued to fight the germans with success? we both agree that the major turning point was stalingrad in late 42 early 43. these american contributions did nonthing to help up until this point???

HANSNZ: Agreed, invading North America by sea would have been difficult strategically. But to say that if the Germans had attempted that the preparations the Roosevelt administration had made at that point would have been sufficient is stretching it a bit.

it would have been unsuccessful.


The British and French were making plans much earlier and look how much trouble they found themselves in nonetheless. In any case Russia was Germany's prefered target, not the US. But to say that a German defeat of Britain and Russia wouldn't have been a direct threat to the US is laughable. These two countries were all that stood between Germany and total world domination. In the longer-term it seems unlikely that the USA would have been able to defeat a victorious Germany and marauding Japan alone.

i never said it would not been a direct threat. that is the reasoning roosevelt used to convince the americans to enter the war. we could have just as easily dropped h-bombs on germany and who ever else.

HANSNZ: Really? You've done nothing more than me to prove your points. So calling arrogant Americans arrogant makes me arrogant? Interesting philosophy....

i wasnt referring to you calling americans arrogant as your arrogance. you attempted to discredit americas contributions and even went on to say that germany could have easily defeated the americans. thats arrogance to me. basically your emotions took over at that point in your post.

 

[spongebob]

I don't want to berate you further for your opinions or engage in any more American bashing. Generally speaking I get on very well with Americans. The USA has many admirable characteristics, but when you meet someone who walks around saying "i'm the best, i'm the greatest, everyone wants to be me, everyone wants me" then you tend to want to give them a reality check.

to say you are going to put someone in "reality check" when actually you just disagree with them is somewhat arrogant IMO.

 

[spongebob]

My position taken almost a year ago, will become the accepted position, in time.

It takes time for people to look at themselves and see their faults.

Americans are no different.

I am being proven right more and more as the months go by.

While that is great for my ego, it isn't really the point though.

It would be nice if we as a superpower could set an example rather than becoming like the enemy.

please tell me your joking. what exactly is proving you right? an article? why dont you put together a real post with actual subject material covering in detail why we invaded afganistan and what companies are involved in the pipeline consortium and explain your theory just a little.

 

[huntmaster]

I hope we get smashed, not because I hate my country and what it stands for, but because we have the potential for greatness and the middle class is under the illusion that they are immune, while slowly but surely we are being wiped out.

We have to take a stand together.

You hope we get wiped out b/c the conservatives are in the White House.

that is where it starts and that is where it ends--lets be honest here. Your just pissed that the repubs got the presidency.

 

[talonracer]

Too bad Hanz's and Strongchick's families weren't killed in the Sept 11th attack......maybe then they wouldn't be cheering it on as the US "getting what it deserved". Again just look at the staements these fools make, they are haters of freedom and the USA just like the Taliban.

 

[Burning_Inside]

but strongchick, you dont understand I mean IT'S OK FOR US TO BE HYPOCRITICAL, I MEAN WE'RE THE USA! WHAT WE DO IS FINE! FUCK EVERYONE ELSE! WOOHOOO!

 

[cockdezl]

You don't live in a free country. Your government now has the most far reaching powers over you through organisations which aren't really accountable to the public or a democratic process. You have lost the most basic of freedoms in the US since 9/11 which my government where I live can't deny me.

I agree with your statements, but I bet we differ in the specifics. Be specific in what basic freedoms we have lost, that your government cannot remove from you.

This lack of freedom isn't completely new either. No other Western government has the right to execute its citizens. Capital Punishment is considered a human rights abuse somewhat like torture in these countries.

This is why I realize that we do not agree on specifics. You believe that the execution of a convicted murderer, given due process of the law, tried by a jury of his peers, is somehow immoral. Yet I watch on TV as most of Europe (countries that is, not the individuals, but a significant number mind you) will kill and destroy at the drop of a hat over soccer games.

Only in modern times has capital punishment become some sort of human rights issue, ignoring the fact that it is simply the most logical means of individual punishment. Somehow many make the leap in logic that there is moral equivalency in societal punishment for crime and the immoral act of the criminal.

For a long time the US has been at the bottom of the list of Western countries when it comes to respect for human rights. The US sits around about the same rank as Israel.

I read further down that you took this from a UN statistic, but I must ask: Why do we care what the UN states? Can you give me some reason why a multi-national body, consisting of undemocratic officials, despots, and figure-heads, has some sort of unbiased credibility?

Also, I must ask what specific human rights violations have we commited in the eyes of this benevolent organisation, which represents a multitude of nations, some of which impose forced abortions on its women, condone slavery and outright kill its civilians at whim?

Your freedoms exist largely in rhetoric more than in fact.

Again we agree in idea, but not in specifics. It is evident that what you conceive as rights are not what my philosophy defines as rights. I have read the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and it becomes ridiculous as it begins to mention such pseudo-liberties as:
The right to social security
The right to a standard of living
The right to rest and leisure
(all qualified mind you in Article 29 which states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.")

I do believe my freedoms are being infringed upon, with ever expanding central government depriving me of individual liberties, all under the guise of "security" and the "general welfare".

 

[cockdezl]

The far right government currently stinking out the White House has done more in the last nine months to remove the basic rights and freedoms of Americans than any other administration in living memory.

I agree with you, but I am afraid to ask you to elaborate, since I have a feeling that you will refer to some pseudo-liberties, such as right to health care and right to a pristine environment.

Yu don't live in a free country. You live in a country ruled by a right-wing monied elite. The USA has to be the most plutocratic society in the Western world. Money dominates your most basic requirements in terms of quality of education, healthcare, or legal representation. None of the other so called "less free" developed countries have such extreme variations and inequitable distribution of these basics as the US does. But this is what happens in right wing societies.

Your assertion that economic status is correlated to individual freedom is a pure product of the collectivist, dialectical materialistic mentality that predominates in Europe (and is spreading in the US). Because one does not have a million dollars does not mean that he is not guaranteed the rights afforded our constitution. Money can buy leisure and luxury, but these are not rights, simply the products of success. America is not founded on the premise the all are guaranteed access to our national treasury, or that one has pre-eminence over another due to his economic situation, but that one has right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Actually all rights derive from the first right, the possession of life. America was created with the idea of individual responsibility, while Europe is permeated with the idea of individual entitlement (don't think that I am putting the US on a pedastal, we are becoming very much like this).

In any case your right wing idea of government involvement and individual freedom is just double-speak for taking away power from democratically accountable organisations and giving it to the monied classes under the quise of "individual freedom"

??????

It is known as economic fascism - those who own are those who control. This is why you can't trust anything you see in the American media - it is controlled by the same plutocratic corporate elite who control your congress which masquerades as a democratic institution. The rest of the world is laughing at you because you are just so damned brainwashed. But you dismiss these "unfree" foreigners because you are so complacent about the US's largely illusory "superiority".

Fascism denotes State control, not corporate, another left semantic tool, used to correlate conservatism with Fascism.

But I agree, I do not trust anything that comes from the TV or press, until I have investigated the topic as much as possible to try to validate the claim. What is hilarious is your assertion that what evidently occurs in the US (we are very blind) somehow, magically, does not occur in Europe. Is Europe not made of humans? I guess they laugh because they don't want to feel like they are the only one's duped.

I lived in the former USSR briefly. A major difference between the Russian and American publics was that the Russians knew they were being manipulated and were wary of what they heard. They watched the nightly news with a sceptical eye in the way an American might look at advertising. In the US, brainwashed people like yourself just soak it all up hook, line, and sinker, and that is why you are so easy to manipulate.

Very true, since this is a true of all humans. Man is mentally and ethically lazy, he prefers tyranny over self rule.

 

[cockdezl]

Actually the Europeans I have met who do want to immigrate usually want to go to Australia, not the USA.

Europeans don't have the freedom to decide their own futures? In fact Europeans probably have more chance to do this because their opportunities are not tied so closely to how much money you have as is the case in the US.

Obviously you fail to understand that for one to be GIVEN social services: healthcare, education, social security, then someone else had to have private property (income) taken away. So your idea that money does not play a part in the collectivist utopia is false. Collectivist governments simply denies the right of private property, from the successful, and gives "rights" to the "underpriviledged" (healthcare, housing, etc). This is why collectivist philosophy is immoral, all individuals are not equal, some have needs that are deemed greater than others' needs.

And if the US prevents acheivement due to economic disparity, then why is it that the US produces more Nobel Prize winners, foreign and native born, than any other country?

To think and say whatever they want? I don't see the US offering these freedoms any more than other developed nations.

Really??? Try writing an anti-Holocaust book in Germany. Put a national flag in your front yard, and see if the police don't come knocking asking questions.

Your media is such a plutocratic monopoly that I actually doubt that Americans enjoy as much freedom to think and say whatever. Other Western nations are much more politically diverse societies. The US two-party system locks people out from representation who aren't part of the establishment. In fact your country has actively crushed political opposition it doesn't like - i.e. communists. You've lost a great many basic freedoms under the Bush administration.

The European system of fifty million parties is not particularly pleasing. It imposes a greater tyranny than a two party system, since you can have a party that only a small percentage of citizens agree with gain control of government.

I agree with the problem of the two party system, since it prevents the voice of parties such as the Libertarian Party, but that is the limitations of governmental systems.

You are deluded if you think that ordinary Americans can change the system. An American can only impact on the system once they become part of your society's establishment with support from special interest groups.

Generally, yes, but I would never say never.

How is it that Americans somehow can choose their type of education more than others??? Other nations have public or private, religious or secular education. You name it, it is there. In fact money is what determines American educational choices more than any other factor.

Agree

State-of-the-art healthcare??? You must be joking. There are 20 million people in your country with no healthcare cover. Point out any other Western nation that has any segment of its population without healthcare cover! There isn't one!

As much as leftists wish to play with words, the US DOES have healthcare for ALL of its citizens. The argument that people in the US do not have healthcare is semantics.

Quality of healthcare in the USA is directly determined by how much money you have. In fact healthcare costs are so out of control in the USA that state-of-the-art medicine is less accessible to ordinary Americans than it is to Europeans.

Actually sky-rocketing healthcare costs is a direct response to government intervention. Healthcare costs only became outrageous after government established government healthcare programs.

You are a typical arrogant American, typically brainwashed by propaganda designed to manipulate you for the benefit of those who ACTUALLY rule your society. Americans would rank up at the top of the list in terms of its levels of false consciousness among ordinary citizens.

Probably.

 

[cockdezl]

Best analogy I've heard to explain what I see all around.

What is worse is that a lot of the privileged in America are really NOT protected. Many of these people live on credit. The minute they lose their job or suffer a tragedy, they are poor just like the rest. Since none of us save money, most of us have no more than $10K in the bank. That doesn't go very far if you are laid off from work more than six months, which is what is happening to thousands.

Define "priviledged". Take it from leftist code to real world meaning. I assume you are referring to monetary status as somehow being a priviledge, since this is how collectivists view the world: people aren't successful from acheivement, but from "priviledge" and "luck".

Since none of us save money, why should any of us receive sympathy? If I decide to take all of my paycheck and spend it on the Lottery (a very real everyday occurance), why should I be given aid? Should we condone stupidity? Why should those who are saving for retirement be required to assist the foolish and lazy?

Americans won't fight back until it gets much much worse.

Fight back against what? Personal responsibility? A work ethic?

We are heading for another recessionary dip. I hope we get smashed, not because I hate my country and what it stands for, but because we have the potential for greatness and the middle class is under the illusion that they are immune, while slowly but surely we are being wiped out.

This makes loads of fucking sense. A devout Democrat/leftist who preaches about altruistic socialist policies to help the "poor" and "unfortunate", but dreams of a recession to wipe out people's incomes and life savings.

There is no greatness in your Utopia of theft and entitlement. It is tyranny of the masses, nothing more.

We have to take a stand together.

Yes, and crush the bourgeoisie, eh Lenin?

 

[HansNZ]

This blue writing you have is immune to the "quote" function, so i'll have to do another cut an paste job.


SPONGEBOB: first, i never said it was decisive, but to say it didnt contribute is wrong. non-military supplies was already being sold to the allies under the 1937 neutrality act. weapons were allowed in nov 1939 under a modification of the law. and as i mentioned the US was the MAIN supplier of oil to the allies(tanks and aircraft fuel). the land lease act was passed in march of 41. at this point great britian had already been fighting for 18 months and was broke.

HANSNZ: Any weapons sold under a modification of the neutrality act in 1939 were too late to matter for the Battle of Britain.

So you are also saying that because Britain traded with the US, buying your goods for the profit or your industries that you saved them? The British also traded such material with the Dutch and the French and others, and later raw material with the Russians (which the US also needed). NZ and Australia were huge suppliers of food to the UK which kept them afloat as well, or is food non-essential? This is like saying that I owe my supermarket something because it provides me with the food to stay alive that I spent my money buying from it.


SPONGEBOB: are you telling me that at this point the british could have continued to fight the germans with success?

HANSNZ: If the US had remained outside the conflict then that doesn't mean Germany would have been victorious. It certainly would have changed the character of the war though.

Britain most probably would have sued for peace after it won the battle of Britain. In fact Hitler and Mussolini called on the Brits to call of the war now that they realised that Britain couldn't be knocked out through invasion. Hitler's real target was Russia and didn't want to have to the British biting at his ankles while he was focussing on the Russians. The Spanish dictator Franco refused to join Germany in the war until it had either invaded Britain (which it was unable to do) or made peace with Britain.

Although in the first 6 months of the Russian invasion Western aid hadn't made an impact, the War with Germany may have meant the loss of Leningrad and Moscow to the Germans (as it was to Napoleon). Although loss of these cities would have been psychologically devastating, this in fact would have probably be to the Russian's advantage since these cities were a drain on resources and their strategic factories had either been quickly removed to behind the Urals, or were unusable (i.e. leningrad was under seige and cut off).

To cut a long story short, the war in Russia would most likely have become more partisanlike as it was in Yugoslavia which Germany was also unable to defeat. WW2 certainly would have been longer without US involvement. It is likely to have become more a war of attrition which would ultimately have been to the Russian's advantage.

The Eastern front was a huge bloodbath with Germany eventually just starting to run out of soldiers towards the end of the war (as happened with Napoleon's France too). Considering the USSR had 2.5 times more people than Germany then the Russians were at a clear advantage if the war had dragged on in the long-term. Hitler's whole war strategy against the USSR was one with a short war in mind.


SPONGEBOB: i never said it would not been a direct threat. that is the reasoning roosevelt used to convince the americans to enter the war. we could have just as easily dropped h-bombs on germany and who ever else.

HANSNZ: Well the US nuclear programme was a continuation of the British nuclear programme. Without the extra resources of the US the British feared the Germans would get a bomb first, that is why they ran a joint project. Without the head-start the Brits had made, the whole manhattan project would have had years of research to make up. Britain's exit from the war would have denied the Americans this.

With this scenario it is not unlikely that Germany's nuclear programme may have got to the bomb first. The allies frequently attempted to bomb nuclear research installations yet the German programme continued nonethless. This is why Russia managed to have nukes by 1949. They captured these installations. Obviously the Germans had destroyed much of their research before the Russians could get to it, but they weren't far off. This is why Russia got the bomb so quickly and without the scientific resources that Britain or the USA had.


SPONGEBOB: i wasnt referring to you calling americans arrogant as your arrogance. you attempted to discredit americas contributions and even went on to say that germany could have easily defeated the americans. thats arrogance to me. basically your emotions took over at that point in your post.

HANSNZ: You say I have belittled the sacrifices of American blood. Yet you have also ignored the role or other non-european allies in the war, implying that it is only the US which was decisive. You seem to ignore the role the European powers played in allowing the US to be where it is today. I frequently find it amusing when the Americans say that Europeans would be speaking German if it wasn't for them. Few Americans seem to consider the possibility that they too may be speaking German now also.

 

[HansNZ]

Too bad Hanz's and Strongchick's families weren't killed in the Sept 11th attack......maybe then they wouldn't be cheering it on as the US "getting what it deserved". Again just look at the staements these fools make, they are haters of freedom and the USA just like the Taliban.

Interestingly more civilians have been killed by American bombing in Afghanistan than were killed on sept.11. The Bush administration calls this "collateral damage" which is necessary for the greater good of American "whatever".

This is the same attitude as Bin Laden who says that US civilian deaths are necessary for the greater good of Islamic salvation.

I actually love freeom which is why I oppose militarism and ignorance justified by blind nationalism.

 

[HansNZ]

I agree with your statements, but I bet we differ in the specifics. Be specific in what basic freedoms we have lost, that your government cannot remove from you.

If your government can remove them from you then i'd imagine my government can remove them from me also. But it hasn't done so.

This is why I realize that we do not agree on specifics. You believe that the execution of a convicted murderer, given due process of the law, tried by a jury of his peers, is somehow immoral. Yet I watch on TV as most of Europe (countries that is, not the individuals, but a significant number mind you) will kill and destroy at the drop of a hat over soccer games.

Only in modern times has capital punishment become some sort of human rights issue, ignoring the fact that it is simply the most logical means of individual punishment. Somehow many make the leap in logic that there is moral equivalency in societal punishment for crime and the immoral act of the criminal.

Well it wasn't my intention to start a debate on the death penalty. That is subject matter for another thread completely.

But briefly, let's just say it is an issue of moral authority. You cannot punish a murderer by murdering them because then you are just repeating the same violation and moral authority is lost. I find is a weak argument to say to someone that you can't do something while doing it yourself. That is why you have to treat criminals completely ethically (the perceived "cushy" treatment which the public generally gets so upset about). If your behaviour is not beyond reproach then you automatically begin to lose the moral authority to punish the criminal in the first place, so that is why the law, jails, etc have to be careful about jail conditions, etc.

Murder is murder no matter who is doing it, who did what first, or whatever justification is given. I simply think it is laughable for the USA with its death penalty to preach to other countries about human rights.

But I accept that we are in disagreement. So we'll leave it at that.

I read further down that you took this from a UN statistic, but I must ask: Why do we care what the UN states? Can you give me some reason why a multi-national body, consisting of undemocratic officials, despots, and figure-heads, has some sort of unbiased credibility?

Also, I must ask what specific human rights violations have we commited in the eyes of this benevolent organisation, which represents a multitude of nations, some of which impose forced abortions on its women, condone slavery and outright kill its civilians at whim?

Again we agree in idea, but not in specifics. It is evident that what you conceive as rights are not what my philosophy defines as rights. I have read the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and it becomes ridiculous as it begins to mention such pseudo-liberties as:
The right to social security
The right to a standard of living
The right to rest and leisure
(all qualified mind you in Article 29 which states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.")

I do believe my freedoms are being infringed upon, with ever expanding central government depriving me of individual liberties, all under the guise of "security" and the "general welfare".

I didn't cite it as a UN statistic. It was either a US government survey or an organisation linked to the US gov't, using American definitions of human rights. Many of the categories of what consititutes a human right were very American ideologically and I did not agree with them all. (e.g. that it is not a violation to execute someone so long as they've had a free trial, etc.)

It was a report issued every year. It's been a while since I saw it. From memory the US scored somewhere in the mid 80% mark. Most European countries scored in the 90s, and Norway and NZ scored 99-100% (although they may have dropped). I think most countries fluctuate a couple of percent from year to year.

 

[HansNZ]

I agree with you, but I am afraid to ask you to elaborate, since I have a feeling that you will refer to some pseudo-liberties, such as right to health care and right to a pristine environment.

From reading this latest post it is becoming apparent that you are speaking from a Libertarian ideological perspective.

And I am refering to libertarian style negative rights rather than positive rights - i.e. right to healthcare, etc - which libertarians don't recognise.

Your assertion that economic status is correlated to individual freedom is a pure product of the collectivist, dialectical materialistic mentality that predominates in Europe (and is spreading in the US).

No actually it was a response to the idea that the US has greater opportunities. State-of-the-art healthcare was one example cited, education was another. I pointed out that access to these was dependent on money in the USA more so than in Europe. It wasn't debating ideas of whether these were rights. I don't consider them rights.

Because one does not have a million dollars does not mean that he is not guaranteed the rights afforded our constitution. Money can buy leisure and luxury, but these are not rights, simply the products of success. America is not founded on the premise the all are guaranteed access to our national treasury, or that one has pre-eminence over another due to his economic situation, but that one has right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Actually all rights derive from the first right, the possession of life. America was created with the idea of individual responsibility, while Europe is permeated with the idea of individual entitlement (don't think that I am putting the US on a pedastal, we are becoming very much like this).

These "entitlements" you talk about are paid for through tax revenue derived overwhelmingly from income taxes (not business taxes) on the middle and working class to whom the vast majority of these entitlements are returned.

I also think you have misunderstood my intentions (or I have not clearly conveyed them). I don't rember saying that everyone was entitled to the same as a right. I was responding to the comments about "opportunity" again.

I was also pointing out the fact that rights in theory don't necessarily translate into rights in practice. I also cited how you need a great deal of money to get elected in the USA. Certainly anyone has the right to run, but without financial backers you are unlikely to get elected.

Even though the US congress is "democratically elected", it is very much under the thumb of special interests which manipulate political outcomes and policies. Even Eisenhower, when he left office, commented on how much influence the military establishment has.

Fascism denotes State control, not corporate, another left semantic tool, used to correlate conservatism with Fascism.

Well I was using the term facism in a different semantic context. I wasn't correlating it with conservatism but with unelected unaccountable people being in control because they happen to control wealth. And yes I do agree with the Marxian idea that societies are controlled by those who control the means of production.

But I agree, I do not trust anything that comes from the TV or press, until I have investigated the topic as much as possible to try to validate the claim. What is hilarious is your assertion that what evidently occurs in the US (we are very blind) somehow, magically, does not occur in Europe. Is Europe not made of humans? I guess they laugh because they don't want to feel like they are the only one's duped.

Oh no, I agree, people in other Western countries get manipulated too. I see it in my own country. What I was commenting on was how prevalent this was in the USA's mainstream media. US movies and TV programmes are absolutely pervaded by rhetoric - far more so than those from other countries.

Because you do have press freedom in the USA there are some independent newspapers who cover everything. But sadly only 3% of the population (estimated) ever really access this alternative media.

The US media also comes across as being "left-wing" from the perspective of so many right-wing Americans. I too acknowledge it's superficial "liberalism", but at the same time I am very conscious of a rather American set of basic values and ideas which pervade it and it's journalists which is very much loaded, manipulative ideas designed for the benefit of establish US elites.

very true, since this is a true of all humans. Man is mentally and ethically lazy, he prefers tyranny over self rule.

Actually I think you might be quite surprised how much more we'd agree on if we weren't limited by this medium and the limits it places on expressing subtle points.

 

[HansNZ]

Obviously you fail to understand that for one to be GIVEN social services: healthcare, education, social security, then someone else had to have private property (income) taken away. So your idea that money does not play a part in the collectivist utopia is false. Collectivist governments simply denies the right of private property, from the successful, and gives "rights" to the "underpriviledged" (healthcare, housing, etc). This is why collectivist philosophy is immoral, all individuals are not equal, some have needs that are deemed greater than others' needs.

OK this is based on a libertarian "tax is theft" type of perspective. The idea being that the way wealth is distributed by the market (an economic liberal construction) is somehow "natural" and "earned".

Access to this wealth is also highly dependent on opportunity which is why modern liberals/social democrats (the people you call "socialists") started to introduce concepts such a free education, etc.

And if the US prevents acheivement due to economic disparity, then why is it that the US produces more Nobel Prize winners, foreign and native born, than any other country?

I don't think economic equality is a pre-requisite for achieveing much in the fields of science, technology, literature, etc. The USA's massive population is another reason, as well as your excellent research endowments and the high proportion of GDP you invest in reasearch and development. This is certainly an example to the rest of the world.

Really??? Try writing an anti-Holocaust book in Germany. Put a national flag in your front yard, and see if the police don't come knocking asking questions.

Try being a Communist in the USA.

The European system of fifty million parties is not particularly pleasing. It imposes a greater tyranny than a two party system, since you can have a party that only a small percentage of citizens agree with gain control of government.

I agree with the problem of the two party system, since it prevents the voice of parties such as the Libertarian Party, but that is the limitations of governmental systems.

We moved from a two-party Westminster system to a Proportional Representation system about 8 years ago. It is certainly far more democratic and accountable.

Your theoretical argument about the smaller party having a democratically disproportional amount of power makes sense but is not translated into reality. Our experience has been that the policies of each party are included in proportion to their size of their electorate vote.

There are two main parties and several smaller parties in parliament here in NZ. If the smaller partner is not co-operative then a coalition with a different party is formed. The coalition is usually based on support during cofidence and supply votes. When it comes to legislation, the coalition partners often vote against eachother in parliament - joining forces with the "opposition" on areas of common ground.

As much as leftists wish to play with words, the US DOES have healthcare for ALL of its citizens. The argument that people in the US do not have healthcare is semantics.
Actually sky-rocketing healthcare costs is a direct response to government intervention. Healthcare costs only became outrageous after government established government healthcare programs.

Really? Well experiences overseas have shown the opposite. In fact the US system is often cited as the reason FOR having state provisioned healthcare.

I have received medical treatment in the USA. Without going into details lets just say that I was overtreated. When something is provisioned for profit then the incentives are to sell more of the "product". I was required to have expensive blood tests which seemed to serve no crucial function - it was "procedure". I also received X-rays which cost FAR more than they would cost here (about 3 times more).

I also felt that much of my overtreatment was to cover the doctor's own back in case something went wrong. I was given routine care by doctors when a nurse could have done the same job just as effectively. Money was spent testing and avoiding "possible" side-effects which seemed highly unlikely to occur, and seemed motivated simply out of fear of lawsuits.

The US spends about twice as much per person as Europe on healthcare. Yet despite what you say not everyone in your country receives the "state-of-the-art" healthcare that someone earlier was claiming. Two basic social statistics - infant mortality and life-expectancy - are not as good as Europe's, despite the USA's excessive expenditure.

A state run system can keep costs on medical treatment under control, and the price of prescription drugs down. But once again I suspect we won't ever agree on this point.

In any case it has taken me two hours to respond to these posts. While I find your comments interesting, I am not sure whether i'll have the time to continue the debate. I have work to do, so I will leave you to have the last word.

 

[aurelius]

The European system of fifty million parties is not particularly pleasing. It imposes a greater tyranny than a two party system, since you can have a party that only a small percentage of citizens agree with gain control of government.

I can´t tell you how funny you sound clumping "Europe" together. Big differences in this "union."

Your hypothetical situation above doesn´t exist in Spain. You see, you must have 50% plus 1 like anywhere else to pass anything. That means coalitions with other parties UNLESS you win an abslute majority of seats. That´s what the Partido Popular has here right now so they can pass what they want, but before 2000 that wasn´t the case.