|Putin:War to promote Mckain
|17:36:34 Sep 16th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
are three basic causes to the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait in 1990. First, Iraq
had long considered Kuwait to be a part of
Iraq. This claim led to several
confrontations over the years (see below),
and continued hostility.
lolz that sounds familiar.
iraq is like georgia and kuweit ossetta :P. exept USA is on the smaller country's side this time. me saying this some will probably get angry and tell me useless facts why its not the same. i wonder who that will be :P (not!) facts do not exist to express your anger with.
|01:12:33 Sep 17th 08 - Mr. Stones Throw:|
Well lets see Brain since you refuse to look up fact and instead use a source that can be altered by any 13 yr old that feels like it, here are some of the U.N Resolutions;
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990 - states that Iraq has to uphold UNSCR 660 basically the peace agreement. Authorizes U.N to use force to make Iraq to comply.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991- Iraq must pay liability in damages, return prisoners, and return property to Kuwait.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991- must return property (still havent done it), destroy ballistic missles, Destroy chemical weapons and biological weapons, reveal its WMD programs and destroy them.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991-Condems Iraq for repression of its sivilian pop., Must allow international aid in to help Iraqs civilians.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991-seriously condemns iraq for VIOLATION of UNSCR 687, Condemns Iraq for noncompliance with IAEA inspectors. Most comply with inspections without interference. Allow surveilance fights.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991- Iraq still not cooperating!
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994-Condemns Iraq for recent operation towards Kuwait, Still not cooperating with inspectors.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996-Still not cooperating with inspectors.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996- Iraq violating previous resolutions, still not cooperating with inspectors.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997-Iraq violating resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997-still not cooperating with inspectors and violating resolutions.
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997-condemns iraq shooting at U.N aircraft ( An act of war by the way), Tells Iraq to stop tampering with inspectors monitoring equipment.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998- still not cooperating
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998 - Still not cooperating
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998 - still not cooperating
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999- Still not cooperating, still hasnt returned all prisoners of war
UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002- most disarm all prohibited weapons (they were building ballistic weapons.) See earlier reolution to know that was illeagal.
There that is 17 total resolutions, each needed because the previous was being violated. that is 17 infractions against the Peace agreement.
dreadlord, you unwittigly just proved my point. Just because Iraq felt like Kuwait was theirs doesnt make an invasion legal. you see the result of the Iraq Kuwait war was an U.N invasion that destroyed Iraq. Are you saying that that is the same as georgia and Russia was wrong and the U.N should attack Russia? You did you just didnt catch it. A fruedian slip i guess. lol
|16:27:12 Sep 17th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
your source is the US government thats not objective at all.
|17:51:05 Sep 17th 08 - Mr. Stones Throw:|
NO they are the ACTUAL U.N PDF of notes on the resolution. Some are even signed by people in the U.N. Read a bit closer Dreadlord. Nice try though
|17:57:02 Sep 17th 08 - Mr. Stones Throw:|
|18:29:00 Sep 17th 08 - Mr. Brain:|
My apologies then,
though this makes me think,
that indeed the Georgian-Russian conflict looks like the Iraqi-Kuwait one. But not too much.
I don't think I have much left to argument...
Except to remind people to not trust just one source.
|21:22:56 Sep 17th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
The focus is on
recent documents as well as some of the earlier basic texts that lay
down UNSCOM's basic rights and Iraq's obligations.
The "titles" given
to the documents in this list are only informal descriptions designed
to describe the main points of interest from Special Commission's point
|21:26:31 Sep 17th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
|04:43:55 Sep 18th 08 - Mr. Stones Throw:|
Dreadlord, your argument is weak. I posted 17 resolutions on Iraq every one of them not just the ones I liked. The link also takes you to notes and U.N papers as well to give background.
No University accepts Wikipidea as a credible source so you should get out of that habit. Given that, the resolution mainly address the WMD issue but that isnt all. It also condemns Iraq for not returning POWs, for treating its civilians badly, for shooting at U.N planes, for not living up to its commitments in the Peace treaty they signed. All are in the Links.
lastly, Its whole existance is to enforce the peace agreements. Iraq agreed to disarm among other things. The U.N had to insure that Iraq complied, which you can see they didnt. In 2002 Saddam said himself to the world that they would not ever comply with the U.N resolutions.
It seems to me Dreadlord that any proof to the contrary of your already established opinion is not credible. So again I ask what sources you rely on for your facts? It is getting slim. (Other than Wiki of course). So far CNN, BBC, U.N, U.S states department, history books, are all not credible sources according to you. Im kind of at a loss here. Only ones left would be Al jazerra and Alqieda forums. Would make sense come to think of it.
|14:20:59 Sep 18th 08 - Mr. Brain:|
Just pointing out, Al Jazeera is actually filo-american (just like CNN) nowadays.
There's tens of dozens of other newspaper agencies... Even the Washington Post is better than CNN in terms of bias.
|22:55:58 Sep 18th 08 - Mr. Stones Throw:|
Al Jazeera is flagrantly biased, but they have been trying to mainstream themselves in the last few years. I agree that multiple sources are good. Always go to the source though. Like in this case we are talking about U.N resolutions. Go to the U.N resolutions themselves to get answers not Iraq daily.
Books are always good too. History books help alot. You may not trust them, Dread or Brain (cant remember who said they where biased, sorry) but they are approved by a panel of history professionals so you will get the approved version of the event based on all available facts. That is the best one can hope for.
Thanks for the good debates. -Stones-
|09:14:32 Sep 19th 08 - Mr. Duca:|
Sorry for taking so long to give my replies.
Just to set things clearer, I am not imposing any judgment over whether it was good or bad, nor biasing my answers on any kind of "religous" jihad against "the empire" - as Mr Chaves would yell. So Mr Stones, please dont take me as one of those anti-us guys and take my words so badly
"Why isnt it a heroic act? Are you imply Duca that Afganistan and Iraq
didnt need intervention? You seem to be saying that they where better
off before American help. I am I right? If so you have to ignore facts.
The Iraqi economy is higher than under saddam. Oil output higher, they
have elected government, all religious sects are being represented.
Same goes for Afganistan. Do you even know some of the things that the
former Taliban Govt used to do to the people in that country? If you
did you wouldnt of said what you did."
Mr. Stones, I need to call your attention at one thing major thing, You only pointed out economy improvements as references to improvements on human rights and quality of life. -- i'll talk about taliban's govt later --
Here i must disagree with you, you must have a nice clue that Iraq does not have a home industry capable of rebuilding their country but they DO have ELITE guys who must now own some kind of business.
I capitalized the "elite" word because they lived under a totalitarian regime that priviledged some few over the major creating an arbitrary sized gap between this chosen and the rest of the population.
The majority of the companies now working in Iraq are foreigners, I bet everyone here can conclude that almost all of them came from the "allies". Even if these companies start some kind of partnership to operate there, they certainly would partner with someone capable of raising funds of at least spare some...not some poor roaming guy (although this one could be hired). There must be not so many "formally" qualified professionals, wich will require the importation of them
Ok, now mathing a bit, it seems that:
- the elite group will get richer;
- the peon class will appear (low salaries and stuff);
- the high salaries will be paid for foreigners or somone inside the iraq's government machine;
- the already big companies will get bigger.
A big questions arises in my mind:
- To where their oil is being sent to? Is this production STRICTLY subjetced to the OPEC decisions?
***** ADVICE: Not suggesting that this oil is being stolen or something *****
Now comes a even wicker assumption:
Some guys now owns money, A LOT continues to be unemployed, food prices rising (their food production is not sufficient due to climate)....LOTS OF GUYS depending on ngo's and their government......everyone knows that no government can reach all of it's population...
Assumption: starvation increasing, terrorism increasing because the terrorists can (or so it they say) offer money/food
I cannot see the direct link between economic growth and improvements in quality of life there, can you?
----if you have patience, please read the end of this post to have some other examples that can make my assumptions not-so-impossible
Zooming out, one could also notice that iraq cant fund it's reconstruction and billions of (public) dollars are being directed to them in order to help paying the companies.
Mathing again: money from taxes goes to our government who funds UN and UN is funding Iraq; other source is direct fund from countries (money raised from taxes).
The money is used to pay for the reconstruction, wich is being carried out mainly by foreign countries....
So you could notice that our money is being transfered to the companies ---- ok if our govt build a road, it would happen the same ---- it's a way to make the wheel of some economic sector turns...not money fully thown away in charity...it's going to come back as jobs and more taxes (and in form of interests on the money lent)
I wrote this long text to show what i was thinking of when I suggested that your government is not doing charity or heroic acts...there will be a pay back and the interests won't be of charity kind. I cannot see any us acts that really didnt have a pay back expected, your government is not saving the world....it's "lending" its helpfull hand or at best, exchanging "favors"
Now comming back to my personal point of view, I will not say they were right or wrong in Afghanistan or Iraq, even if by the international laws they were right.....things could be done differently, they could do a lot more to really help those populations and not removing the fiercifull hand of their former leaders and lay over them the heavy hand of the ocidental financial market.
I really must think on what i would sugest...but from my point of view, there is no heroism.
Now, my other examples in America:
* During the first years of cold war, US promoted a series of acts and brought military dictatorship (not so different from Hussein's way of guide - they didnt have to make ethnic purge, just get rid of that age's former of "opposed" - opinions).
Some people reminds those years with horror in their face, others remember those years with nostalgy.
When the soviets failed, the dictatorships were not needed anymore since they tended to protect their industries and now the word of the day was liberalism. Selling public companies and services...ok...a LOT of money went to them...their economic output improved....
now i ask, do you know anything about the life there?
There were no real good improvements, just a improvment of the gap between riches and the rest of the population...some guys started to earn a little bit more and all prices started to sky rocket...the era of uncontrolled inflation of the prices.....more starvation than ever.
*** Argentina:: the imf jewel of well behavior (considering their rules) and an example to be followed....they totally broke
*** Brazil:: not really broke because one country should be saved and all the money from privatization was used to pay for the favors.
The rest of the latin america, specially the south, is watching populists arriving because the people is not trusting the tradicional pró-us politicians.
Unfortunatelly some of them is taking the speech as an ideological war funded by oil and gas...the funny thing is that none of theses guys cant really cut they relationship with US and the rest of us.
Another example of US "supposed" intervention was revealed...let's see what happens.
|09:24:10 Sep 19th 08 - Mr. Duca:|
importation => importing
I sincere appologize for my misspeling, it's 4:24am now here and I just couldnt find all of them during revision of the text.
I forgot to remove the italics modifier from the rest of the text.
The money is used to pay for the reconstruction, wich is being carried out mainly by foreign countries....
The money is used to pay for the reconstruction, wich is being carried out mainly by foreign companies....
|09:31:14 Sep 19th 08 - Mr. Duca:|
SORRY GUYS, another major correction:
During the first years of cold war,
US promoted a series of acts and brought military dictatorship (not so
different from Hussein's way of guide - they didnt have to make ethnic
purge, just get rid of that age's former of "opposed" - opinions).
During the first years of cold war,
US promoted a series of acts and brought military dictatorships to the governments of the majority of the latin american countries (not so
different from Hussein's way of guide - they didnt have to make ethnic
purge, just get rid of that age's former of "opposed" - opinions).
I really needed to re-read before posting...darn it.
---> to those who didnt know what i meant when i said about the intervention...i was meaning interference on latin american...namely Bolivia.
|16:45:33 Sep 19th 08 - Mr. Stones Throw:|
Ok, long post and i Kind of followed and kind of didnt. Ill do my best.
Well Draw comparisons to illistrate points. Your main point (correct me if im wrong) was that the actions of the U.S wasnt Heroic because some people namely foriegn will and have benefitted from the U.S actions in Afganistan and Iraq. So the U.S has a decision. Iraq is a rogue country that is failing to live up to the Peace agreements from the Gulf war. There is proof that saddam used biological weapons on Kurds, and that he is giving money to palistinian terrorist families of suicide bobmers. What to do? America spends Trillions of dollars on a war to not just eliminate a dictator but to rebuild a crumbling and destroyed infrasturcture that has been deteriorating ever sense the Iran Iraq war. U.S sacrafices 4000 soldiers in doing so and has asked for nothing in return from that country except that they elect a represenative to run the country and to write a contitution that protects the rights of the people. In the mean time the U.S pays companies to rebuild roads, govt buildings, and schools empolying Iraqis to do so.
The by product of all this is that oil output for the Iraqis in higher than pre iraq war. They have a small stock market that trades during the week, and small businesses are poping up all over. There is alot that goes into any economy and every economy has foriegn investors. Iraq will be the same. It will take foreign money for Iraqis to borrow to open a company and then it will take time for those companies to grow. So this is just the start.
Lets look at the sucesses around the world. Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Columbia, Germany.
Now lets look at the staunch communist countries or quasicommunist.
Russia- in economic colapse. Venezuala- has all that oil money and still not doing as well as columbia. N Korea- do i even need to say anything about this one, pretty obvious. Iran- only kept afloat by oil money, economy sucks really. Cuba- pretty sad state.
Some facts of Iraq: Before communist Russia started influencing the Middle East Iraq was a huge exporter of Wheat and Grain not just oil. THey had a booming economy some of the largest cities, prosperous cities in the world. Iraq is just one of many examples of what communism can do to a country.
The Goal: Soon Iraq will be free of the protection of the U.S military and the Iraqis will continue to prosper under their new found freedom just as many other prosperous countries around the world. They will slowely build that economy and be much more wealthier than they have ever been. Not just the rich, but all iraqis. Cause all people benefit from the wealth of companies and others.
Afganistan in my opinion will be more difficult. Why: because the people havent stood up to fight like the Iraqis did. And because Pakistan is still protecting and supplpying fighters from their madrassas. As long as Pakistan holds the U.N back from taking the fight to the Taliban then they will always have a problem in Afganistan. maybe once Iraq is finished and all attention is turned back to Afganistan, things will get better but i still think Pakistan is the missing link.
Last point: There is no doubt that mistakes have been made in Am. foreign policy. Some dictator improvements where mistakes. And Not supporting others was bigger mistakes (example: Carter allowing Irans ayyoltola (spelling) to be forcefully over thrown.) Most the time is was to get a rouge dictator out and someone you can manage in. (Not saying right just saying lesser of two evils). The problem is that U.S cant help every country that wants it to fight their dictators so supporting a rebelion is the easiest thing to do. When talking about these things it is best to take a step back and look at the over all picture. Most all stem back to the Cold War. If U.S did nothing the world would look alot different. Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, All of Korea, Germany, ect ect would all be communist ruled. All Russian sattilite states. Would that be better? Dont know, my opinion is no! North Korea is not better than south for example. But not all is better, mistakes where made by the U.S. But Russian Influence had to be headed up as well.
No country in the world is innocent of interference or making international mistakes, but the difference in my mind is why a country did something now what the outcome was. America (for the most part) did most those things to spread Democracy and Civil Rights to the world. the outcome of those actions werent always right or had good outcomes. If you have a Cake and it is the best cake you have ever tasted what would you do with it? Most would want others to taste it and benefit from its good taste. I believe that that is what modivates most AMericans. The urge to share their good tasting "Cake" with the world.
|21:19:45 Sep 19th 08 - Mr. Doctor Strange:|
It's actually a red-white-and-blue apple pie in the form of uncle sam's d1ck.
|22:42:35 Sep 19th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
dude on your last post agains me your just makeing no sence at all.
Dreadlord, your argument is weak. I posted 17 resolutions on Iraq every
one of them not just the ones I liked. The link also takes you to notes
and U.N papers as well to give background.
accepts Wikipidea as a credible source so you should get out of that
habit. Given that, the resolution mainly address the WMD issue but that
isnt all. It also condemns Iraq for not returning POWs, for treating
its civilians badly, for shooting at U.N planes, for not living up to
its commitments in the Peace treaty they signed. All are in the Links.
Its whole existance is to enforce the peace agreements. Iraq agreed to
disarm among other things. The U.N had to insure that Iraq complied,
which you can see they didnt. In 2002 Saddam said himself to the world
that they would not ever comply with the U.N resolutions.
seems to me Dreadlord that any proof to the contrary of your already
established opinion is not credible. So again I ask what sources you
rely on for your facts? It is getting slim. (Other than Wiki of course)
my sources where the site you gave me and the meaning of the special comity.
i just wrote what your source itself said read your own source plz.
that and what the UNSCOM stands for.. from wiki or whatever.
we cant even talk logicly anymore, if you already knew i quoted your source.
i cant talk to someone who never learned to apply basic logic.
|01:23:45 Sep 20th 08 - Mr. Duca:|
"... has asked for nothing
in return from that country except that they elect a represenative to
run the country and to write a contitution that protects the rights of
the people. In the mean time the U.S pays companies to rebuild roads,
govt buildings, and schools empolying Iraqis to do so."
This is mostly where i believe you get it wrong. The US money wont just fly away, most of the companies there are from US and the other countries wich stepped over there. Those money your government is spending paying for them will come back to US as jobs vacancies, taxes and INFLUENCE because the money spent there is lent, not given...holding someone's direction by let him owe you money is an old trick.
"Some people need to get the book 1984 out
of there heads. The book was referring to Totalitarian societies not
Democratic Republics. One of the Founding Fathers (Cant remember which
one) of the U.S Const. stated that prolonged war in a Republic was
Just as economic recession is impossible. So I can't believe someone would risk his country's economy and his political career (and compromising the future of his party in the next elections) just to spread the word of salvation to the world.
Another fact that i was resufing to bring to discussion is all the scandals related to bush's election...he must pay back for that favor (war industries and oil industries mainly).
I must reenforce the argument that you can fall to the mistake of removing a fiercefull hand of a dictator and place the heavy hand of IMF and other international banks (wich is just as destructive as the human dictator). There is no money being thrown over the lap of iraqi government, those dollars will be repaid....with interests, it has been done this way for ages.
Perhaps, by writing such a long text and by not being an native english speaker, i must had lost my line of argumentation during my previous post for it seems you really didnt comprehend it.
Using your "Cake" analogy, let's discuss one of the most important things i tried to say:
- All right, you have a cake and you believe it's the best of the world. It's very nice to share your cake or at least, it's receipe.
You could make me taste your cake using, amongst all possible ways, these two:
(a) Force me to eat it no matter my health condition (alergies and all health related problems that a candy could cause) and no matter what i openly say i like most....i could not even like cake preferring pies, for example.
(b) Kindly offer me, if I refuse to taste it, you could respectfully move on to the next door.
Wich one US has been doing to the world? Just one guess...
Mine is (a).
Actually my "full" conclusion is more complex, you force me to taste your cake and force me to accept it's the only cake eatable. If i say "ok" and accept it, you come to me and force me to buy the rights to cook the cake myself.
Some cultures is used to have a single ruler, eat only pie and knee to some direction during sunrise and sundown, let them live their lives. We all know that they are protective to their way of life, the more we interfere, the more they will appear trying to stop us.
I cannot deny the fact you have a broad source of information, but imho you are misleading your conclusions...ignoring the capitalist logic is a dangerous way to analyze your environment...nonetheless is such a beautifull thing to have a citizen like you, patriot till the end no matter what is being said (whether it makes sense or not) or done.
I wonder if you really believe that the twin buildings fell that way only due to the planes impact ---- but please, let leave this particularly discussion to another topic.
PS.: Columbia is not doing OK...it's a mess down there and Mr Uribe is messing things up between it's neighboors. That country is an US watchtower in latin america, no one cant deny.
|03:02:58 Sep 20th 08 - Mr. Doctor Strange:|
the cake thing has gone to far. and don't get into an arguement about which countries are good and which one's suck, plz? it's pointless...
|05:22:44 Sep 20th 08 - Mr. Duca:|
Mr. Strange, please read everything before posting criticizing...it's pointless flamming blindly
|08:03:08 Sep 20th 08 - Mr. Doctor Strange:|
omg, speaking of reading... I'm not trying to flame anyone, you were just getting very close to the age old "your country sucks" thing. and it is pointless, but forgive me if I jumped the gun a little
|10:25:38 Sep 20th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
lol its not about how mutch iraq's oil that makes bush rich its the amount the US spends on Bush and co. not to mention the loans they take from the "private" national bank..that just prints the money and lends it to the US government with already interest attached to it. so its even theoreticly absolutely impossible to pay it back. i would say that its around a thosuand billion dollars by now( the money spent on iraq and afganistan). it used to be 800bil around a year ago. with over 300 bil interest attached. all this money goes to bush and co. companies. where they for example sell plastic plates for 35 dollars to the US government.. and the plastic plates a soldier uses every meal is worth more then his salery and so his life..
|17:54:44 Sep 20th 08 - Mr. Brain:|
@Stones Throw et All.
You guys need to understand some basic facts.
1. Capitalism is NOT the BEST choice for EVERYBODY.
It's good for the rich, bad for the poor.
Communism is an alternative choice that is best for the poorest classes.
2. If a country's government is not Democracy, it does NOT mean they live BAD.
Lots of European countries have a MONARCHY.
China has SOCIALISM. (Communism if you want to call it that) And it's doing Very Well.
3. Politicians don't do actions just "for the good of ALL the people", but sometimes for themselves as well as SOME people.
When you go to a war, you're clearly not doing good to your military people. They will die.
That's about it, for now.
|20:59:24 Sep 20th 08 - Mr. Stones Throw:|
Duca, your off handed insult didnt go unnoticed. I am patriotic and dont find that to be a downfall. But i also have a mind of my own and have pointed out misgivings in U.S policy. I just argue that America has done alot of good in this world and Iraq will be labeled as one of them in the future when History is written. And will caution those that bash America the most are most the time ones that benefit from its good graces the most as well. ;) But i do like your arguments. Only one here that even tries.
Its all in perspective. It appears that no one here has a problem with a dictator that kills and suppresses individual freedom but only has a problem with Other people making money. ( of course other than yourself). I say that what America did in Iraq was offering a taste of the cake while you say that it was forced feed to them. but to get them to llift their heads out of the trough of pig slop (Dictators) then you have to knock their plate on the floor. How do you know it is worth tasting unless given a bit. I say that America has given them a bite like we have for many other countries in the world that have not only tasted but baked their own cakes.
Enough with analogies: on to the last comment. "I wonder if you really believe that the twin buildings fell that way
only due to the planes impact ---- but please, let leave this
particularly discussion to another topic." i do believe that because science backs me up. i am a Mechanical Engineer and know the mechanics that would allow such a thing to happen.
Columbia, is new Democracy and is working things out but are still doing better than the Solialist/Communist Countries that are around it.
Mr. Brain, China is only prospering due to the fact that they opened up their country to free markets. Once they did that their once pathetic economy started to boom. If you want to know the real effects of China Communism then read up on Mao. please report back with the total number of attributed deaths he had due to his failed Communist programs. (hint: They are in the hundreds of Millions)
Last, I never said that one country is better than another. Cake was only used as analogy to explain a mind set and reason for policy. So please dont put words in my mouth.
dreadlord, i already explained the UNSCOM point you had so refer to my post below it. And I stand by my comment on college sources. Just giving you a heads up so you can break that habit.
|23:35:02 Sep 20th 08 - Mr. Brain:|
Don't judge a philosophy by those who interpret it.
Stalin, Mao et all are Dictators, not what real communism is supposed to be.
Otherwise we could say Democracy sucks, if you take a look at what the Georgian President is doing now. Ethnic cleansing. Sounds good.
Ideally, communism is good. But it seems to be close to impossible to implement. Why bash the countries that try to? They're only trying to get a better life to their citiziens. In theory.
I'll have to agree with Duca. America does not offer the cake, but grabs away whatever plate is the other having, and puts the cake up his mouth.
Is it right to do so? Maybe the 'guy' is eating poison, maybe not. Maybe it's a rotten apple, but it's still better than a cake since it has diabetes.
It's all relative...
|08:19:39 Sep 21st 08 - Mr. Duca:|
Mr. Stones, sorry if you took it as a insult, actually patriotism is really what my country needs the most and i do believe on it. My only concern is sometimes you sound like what i would expect a "cruzader" would do (like freeing the world -- almost arrogantly assuming to be the bearer of the truth and nearer-god values). I dare to say that what we are discussing (you and me) is much more than simply political/economical point of views.
Mr. Brain took many important things of my post like indeed it's against capitalist logic and against your quote of the "foundind fathers". Sunking economy is not what any president would risk.
There is a economic trade off and more often, a transnational political trade off.
US' help to Columbia is charity? No and it'll never be since it's a country bordering Amazon Forest, bordering Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil and others...some kind of free trade agreement was to be signed between the two countries....4 billion dollars (wich was the official 2007 bill to Mr Uribe) is more like a bargain for the benefits, notice that i didnt even include the drug war (wich is the way, not the purpose).
I swear I will try to find any kind of proof that would support your theory that US didnt forced the political ideals and economical ideals over Iraq like popular demands of usa intervention or something like that.
Someone who dare to re-read the Truman's Doctrine and see it's similarities with the present days will certainly find it interesting, at least.
Either way, Mr. Stones, considering that we are touching ideals and faith and in respect of yours and yourself, I suggest (after you send your answers) we end our debate.
One last thing,
Thanks to everybody who actually contributed to it and I will still visit this topic to argument with whoever desire although I may end up rewriting my previous messages.
The topic regarding the towers will find it's way to the forum, but i'd like to not get involved on it right now.
-- i would love to discuss capitalism / socialism in another topic to keep this one not that far from it's origins --
|21:57:57 Sep 24th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
i would say communism isnt immposible its just impossible to belive it works for most people raised by/in the capitalist system some here :)
again i tell you i really respect stalin of all the people all :the west" effort goes to makeing him look bad(btw he was georgian) one of the greatest socialist leaders...
|22:05:07 Sep 24th 08 - Sir Ice Ice Baby Ice:|
|14:34:53 Sep 25th 08 - Duke Elliott:|
Dreadlord ur a bloody stupid *beep*. Stalin killed MILLIONS of people. He wasn't socialist u *beep*ing wanker. Your a *beep*ing twat callng him a great person. i sincerely hope that you either get cancer or get him by a truck and die.
You obviously have NO idea about what you're talking about so maybe u shud shut ur mouth.
Socialist countries are countries like sweden, who dont have Gulags that kill millions and millions of people.
Go and die in a hole u stupid faggot
btw McCain can join you in your hole
Communism is about equality for all but it will NEVER succeed due to human greed for wealth and power. He
|15:09:18 Sep 25th 08 - Mr. Brain:|
|16:06:51 Sep 25th 08 - Prince Tiber Septim IV:|
|15:51:50 Sep 26th 08 - Duke Elliott:|
Prince Tiber Septim, that's exactly what i meant, good work.
Jeez, who the hell said China was socialist? Socialist is COMPLETELY different to Communist. You really do know nothing about politics. You must be American. You have no idea about the fuel consumption and green-house gases being admitted that is polluting so horrendously for China "to do so well" as you put it. China is being forced to change their tact as they are rapidly killing themselves with all the pollution. Breathing the air for one day in Hong Kong is the equivilant of smoking a pack of cigarettes.
Next thing you'll say is that there's no such thing as green-house gases affecting our atmosphere.
|22:33:33 Sep 26th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
stalin did not kill millions of ppl.
capitalists did in vietnam over 4mil.. cant even remember witch prez. but thats normal since killing people is never linkt . if your a capitalist
|22:35:48 Sep 26th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
china know they are socialists.
but obviosly the capitalis opinion on who is socialist overrules all ''
|23:16:12 Sep 26th 08 - Mr. Brain:|
Sad but true - Stalin as well as Lenin did kill many people, by sending them in prisons etc. Even those from the military (that's why there were very heavy losses in WWII - no good officers!).
Same goes for China - lots of repression.
Can't say that the same doesn't go for democracy, can you?
Look at Iraq even... Repression as well, if you think about it. But the media call it "freedom".
|10:45:04 Sep 28th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
uh Lenin killed many millions,he wages wars on the same side as the US.
you dont ever hear Lenin doing bad things its always Stalin.
Stalin dint nearly kill as much as the others and considering he was in charge for 50 years its even a great achievement of how little people died under his rule. despite the fact that the west incited many revolt against his reforms.
That what stalin did reforms and under him the common wealth prosperd.
Because he was the greatest commonwealth leader/threat to capitalism.is the only reason why he is shown as an evil murderer.
|12:36:30 Sep 28th 08 - Mr. Brain:|
Dreadlord, actually, no.
Stalin was Paranoid, thus not trusting anyone around him, and getting them killed/imprisoned many many people.
That's one of the reasons why he is disliked.
|16:32:11 Sep 28th 08 - Mr. Dreadlord:|
he was paraniod?
well let me tell you the sovjet union colapsed because of its own government positions where US installed... he was not paranoid enough...
|[Top] Pages: (back) 1 2 3 |