IRAQ nuke attack
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. This either shows that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you're one of those soft-headed, bleeding heart liberals who think that all the world's problems are the West's fault. Nope, just America's fault at the moment as has been repeatedly stated by Al Quaeda and other anti-US groups. The sooner Bush is put back in his box and the US is controlled by intelligent citizens and not the current crop of clowns the better it will be for everyone, especially the innocent bystanders. Old Simon HB9DRV
You need a little refresher so you know what you're talking about: Al Quaeda believes in the complete elimination of Israel. OBL said that the UN is a criminal organization and has called on Muslims not to deal with the UN. OBL said that Kofi Annan is a criminal. OBL supports Muslims in every conflict that they are involved in - that doesn't mean just Israel/Palestine, but East Timor, Phillipines, Pakistan, Chechnya, ... He's not making fair judgements - he's backing Muslims in any and all cases because they are Muslims. Al Quaeda has targeted the Pope because 'he is the leader of the crusaders' (can you say "crazy"?) OBL hated the fact that the US was involved in evicting Iraq from Kuwait (because infidels were on Saudi soil) Are we supposed to take their words as right in all cases, or just the ones that you agree with? ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Bangerman wrote: Dont misunderstand me I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well Both are undemocratically elected leaders, both are dangerous, and one of them openly admits to having weapons of mass destruction. Who's the enemy again?
Dylan
"In meetings, the person who is least competent usually does the most talking. Talking is a direct substitute for competence, at least in the minds of other people. Five minutes after you leave a meeting, you won't remember what anyone said but you will remember who did most of the talking. Withing a day your mind will translate that into a notion that the talker was unusually knowledgeable" - Scott Adams, Dilbert and the way of the weasel
I can only imagine that you are stupid or trolling. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: You are effectively implying moral equivalency here between a democracy and a murderous tyrant. A rose is a rose by it's smell, not by it's name. If you do like the tyrant does, calling yourself democracy won't make you the good guy.
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
A rose is a rose by it's smell, not by it's name. I thought a rose was a rose by it's genetics - not its smell. If you do like the tyrant does, calling yourself democracy won't make you the good guy. The US is a tyrant only in the wacky, funny world of peterchen. BTW, do you really dislike the US that much, or are all your anti-US opinions amplified by your fear of Americanization and American influence? ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
A rose is a rose by it's smell, not by it's name. I thought a rose was a rose by it's genetics - not its smell. If you do like the tyrant does, calling yourself democracy won't make you the good guy. The US is a tyrant only in the wacky, funny world of peterchen. BTW, do you really dislike the US that much, or are all your anti-US opinions amplified by your fear of Americanization and American influence? ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
I fully agree that my world is whacky and funny. But that's not the point. The US is not a tyranny - but it tends to explait the same mechanisms as tyrannies do. Brit wrote: do you really dislike the US that much Assuming this is a serious question, not just rhethoric: a) I consider the "one world, all american style" approach a disadvantage, I prefer diversity, and I think it's stronger as a whole. Neither I'd like to see the whole world as a Hofbräuhaus. b) I do not dislike the US. Otherwise I'd politely ask you to "f*ck off". The thing I dislike is this "whatever we do, we can't be wrong because we are the United States of America" attitude. Brit wrote: I thought a rose was a rose by it's genetics - not its smell. I'll try to refrain from using mataphers, when they tend to cause so much confusion ;)
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
-
Well said, Well said. 110% agreed. I will slap you.:suss: I will kick you.:suss: I will shoot you.:suss: I will use Nukes. :suss: I will use Carpet bombing.:suss: I can use WMD ...:suss: But Remeber you shouldnt have any thing to do the same. OK. Guess? who I am?:rolleyes: _________________________________________ sorry for my bad English.
A jerk?
-
Bangerman wrote: Dont misunderstand me I think SH is a threat to peace, but I kinda think that of Bush as well Both are undemocratically elected leaders, both are dangerous, and one of them openly admits to having weapons of mass destruction. Who's the enemy again?
Dylan
"In meetings, the person who is least competent usually does the most talking. Talking is a direct substitute for competence, at least in the minds of other people. Five minutes after you leave a meeting, you won't remember what anyone said but you will remember who did most of the talking. Withing a day your mind will translate that into a notion that the talker was unusually knowledgeable" - Scott Adams, Dilbert and the way of the weasel
Dylan Kenneally wrote: Both are undemocratically elected leaders Your opinion, has no basis in fact. By anyone's count (and damn near everybody has recounted those Florida votes) Bush won the Electoral vote. Don't give mae any rubbish about "popular vote" either, until you read and understand the background behind the Electoral college system (try the Federalist Papers...). I, for one, would not want New York or California alone to be able to chose the President. Local popularity, no matter how overwheming is still local, and not sufficiently representative of the views of the nation.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: First, the US has threatened to use nuclear weapons only if first attacked with weapons of mass destruction (and even then, it's highly doubtful any US official, elected or not, would want a nuclear strike to be part of their legacy.) (The first strike doctrine was bandied about in the 50s and again in the 80s, but mostly as an intellectual excercise and as a bluff and must be seen in the context of the cold war.) Go read up un the nucklear bunker busters that the US wants to deploy!!!!:omg:
Bangerman wrote: Go read up un the nucklear bunker busters that the US wants to deploy!!!! Get your facts right. Bush requested a "feasibility Study" not deployment. The same document (the Nuclear Posture Review.. a routine periodic assesment by the Defense Department) proposed reducing the operationally deployed nuclear force by a rather large percentage. Whether anything at all will come of the feasibility study is highly uncertain. In any event, the outcome is not likely to be known (and the technology developed) until long after the Iraq issue is moot.
-
I fully agree that my world is whacky and funny. But that's not the point. The US is not a tyranny - but it tends to explait the same mechanisms as tyrannies do. Brit wrote: do you really dislike the US that much Assuming this is a serious question, not just rhethoric: a) I consider the "one world, all american style" approach a disadvantage, I prefer diversity, and I think it's stronger as a whole. Neither I'd like to see the whole world as a Hofbräuhaus. b) I do not dislike the US. Otherwise I'd politely ask you to "f*ck off". The thing I dislike is this "whatever we do, we can't be wrong because we are the United States of America" attitude. Brit wrote: I thought a rose was a rose by it's genetics - not its smell. I'll try to refrain from using mataphers, when they tend to cause so much confusion ;)
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
I consider the "one world, all american style" approach a disadvantage, I prefer diversity, and I think it's stronger as a whole. Neither I'd like to see the whole world as a Hofbräuhaus. I agree. I don't want to visit some distant land and see a McDonalds. At the same time, I see the merging of cultures as inevitable since communication and travel is faster than ever before, and entertainment is a global. This has been happening for a long time. No doubt every european country was much more diverse two hundred years ago. Just look at the decline of the Gaelic language and culture in Brittany/Bretagne France - pulled into an increasing French melange. Further, the US is diverse. The US has been fusing cultures together for hundreds of years - on an even wider scale. I believe this is why it is so powerful right now - because cultures have been competing, and the strong parts of different civilizations have come together (though, I don't necessarily believe that an "attractive" culture means that it is the "best" culture - Brittany Spears is not exactly high-art). I think the US does have some things to offer the world. Places with wide-open doors (like europe) might get a little too much of it, but the force of it at least penetrates insular cultures (e.g. in the middle east) which generally (and wrongly) believe that they have nothing to gain from other people's ideas. I do not dislike the US. Otherwise I'd politely ask you to "f*ck off". The thing I dislike is this "whatever we do, we can't be wrong because we are the United States of America" attitude. That may be true, but in many cases, I see people who aren't saying that. And even when people aren't saying that, you still seem eager to make sure they know it. "Just in case the thought crossed their mind" I guess. Generally, when I read people's responses, there tends to be a range of opinion about America. Let's say it can be measured on a scale from 1 to 10. 1 = people who think America can do no right. 10 = people who think America can do no wrong. Generally, I'm probably around a 6. I know the US has done bad things in the past and is likely to do bad things in the future. The population needs to keep an eye on the government and corporations or they'll take advanage of the lack of supervision. Overall, I think the US is a generally good country - despite the past injustices and despite the flaunting of things the international communities wishes (e.g. Kyoto). Because the US does actually tries to do g
-
I consider the "one world, all american style" approach a disadvantage, I prefer diversity, and I think it's stronger as a whole. Neither I'd like to see the whole world as a Hofbräuhaus. I agree. I don't want to visit some distant land and see a McDonalds. At the same time, I see the merging of cultures as inevitable since communication and travel is faster than ever before, and entertainment is a global. This has been happening for a long time. No doubt every european country was much more diverse two hundred years ago. Just look at the decline of the Gaelic language and culture in Brittany/Bretagne France - pulled into an increasing French melange. Further, the US is diverse. The US has been fusing cultures together for hundreds of years - on an even wider scale. I believe this is why it is so powerful right now - because cultures have been competing, and the strong parts of different civilizations have come together (though, I don't necessarily believe that an "attractive" culture means that it is the "best" culture - Brittany Spears is not exactly high-art). I think the US does have some things to offer the world. Places with wide-open doors (like europe) might get a little too much of it, but the force of it at least penetrates insular cultures (e.g. in the middle east) which generally (and wrongly) believe that they have nothing to gain from other people's ideas. I do not dislike the US. Otherwise I'd politely ask you to "f*ck off". The thing I dislike is this "whatever we do, we can't be wrong because we are the United States of America" attitude. That may be true, but in many cases, I see people who aren't saying that. And even when people aren't saying that, you still seem eager to make sure they know it. "Just in case the thought crossed their mind" I guess. Generally, when I read people's responses, there tends to be a range of opinion about America. Let's say it can be measured on a scale from 1 to 10. 1 = people who think America can do no right. 10 = people who think America can do no wrong. Generally, I'm probably around a 6. I know the US has done bad things in the past and is likely to do bad things in the future. The population needs to keep an eye on the government and corporations or they'll take advanage of the lack of supervision. Overall, I think the US is a generally good country - despite the past injustices and despite the flaunting of things the international communities wishes (e.g. Kyoto). Because the US does actually tries to do g
Brit wrote: That was way too long. Yeah, took me about 10 minutes to read ;) You can count me in at both the "equlibrium" and "motivational" - My "cause" is that the US is at the same dangers of running from a fairly acceptable government into a disgusting mess of fear, distrust, and hate. My cause is that the words "Democracy" and "freedom" are just words, and elections are not 100% bulletproof against change for the worse. I would care less if the US wouldn't have that much influence on other parts of the world (and in this sense, yes, I'm "afraid of Americanization"). I've seen much of the diversity of the US (Once I traveled the country for half a year) but still I feel that the culture is headed towards a "common denominator", that, when in question, being part of american culture is more important than your own heritage. The "Melting Pot" analogy fits my view of the US very well. This is _good, I don't question that approach - it is the american way, but I question that it fits the rest of the world as well. I've seen too much good culture go down the drain, even in my measely 30 years. The world is fusing together - but currently, most barriers fall for economic reasons (the EU is a perfect example), at a time where the world economy as such is twisted and skewed beyond any reason.
I had an eye opener on the (b) case when I was 17 - and I'm still learning. You don't need "brain washing", or people that deliberately "tell you what is true and what not". All societies suffer from it, You, I and Mustafa. Some societies make it easier to "break out" of the scheme. At the end of the day, everybody lied to you, every book is skewed, and the truth has evaded you. Looks like I have to google for that Noam Chomsky guy :cool: Brit wrote: That was way too long. X| probably that's even longer X| Peter p.s. I always enjoy your sig when I read it.
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]_
-
Brit wrote: That was way too long. Yeah, took me about 10 minutes to read ;) You can count me in at both the "equlibrium" and "motivational" - My "cause" is that the US is at the same dangers of running from a fairly acceptable government into a disgusting mess of fear, distrust, and hate. My cause is that the words "Democracy" and "freedom" are just words, and elections are not 100% bulletproof against change for the worse. I would care less if the US wouldn't have that much influence on other parts of the world (and in this sense, yes, I'm "afraid of Americanization"). I've seen much of the diversity of the US (Once I traveled the country for half a year) but still I feel that the culture is headed towards a "common denominator", that, when in question, being part of american culture is more important than your own heritage. The "Melting Pot" analogy fits my view of the US very well. This is _good, I don't question that approach - it is the american way, but I question that it fits the rest of the world as well. I've seen too much good culture go down the drain, even in my measely 30 years. The world is fusing together - but currently, most barriers fall for economic reasons (the EU is a perfect example), at a time where the world economy as such is twisted and skewed beyond any reason.
I had an eye opener on the (b) case when I was 17 - and I'm still learning. You don't need "brain washing", or people that deliberately "tell you what is true and what not". All societies suffer from it, You, I and Mustafa. Some societies make it easier to "break out" of the scheme. At the end of the day, everybody lied to you, every book is skewed, and the truth has evaded you. Looks like I have to google for that Noam Chomsky guy :cool: Brit wrote: That was way too long. X| probably that's even longer X| Peter p.s. I always enjoy your sig when I read it.
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]_
Looks like I have to google for that Noam Chomsky guy I'm surprised you haven't heard of him. He's a professor at MIT (in Boston). He sometimes has reasonable things to say, but he sometimes goes off the deep-end. His general philosophy is that the Western culture of the last 500+ years (including he present-day) is characterized by aggression and unfairness towards others. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion