Iraq, the US & other stuff too

[Tr0n]

Well mitoboy you are right about all that.When the guys at los alomos were working on the a-bomb the joint cheifs of staff were thinking about doing another D-Day accept this time it would be on the coast of Japan.Now the problem was that Hiroto(emperor of japan at that time) told all the civilians to fight to the death.Hell they even gave the children phamplets on how to fight the allied soilders.Kamakazi tatics would be used on a wide scale and kids would be doing bonzai charges with swords....If we didn't use the a-bomb hundreds of thousands of allied soliders would be dead.Nothing compared to the european theater.So it was the easy way or the hard way.

 

[Kadayi]

The end goal of communist philosophy was a drive towards the wholesale rejection of the industrialized state and a return to a smaller more communial lead approach to living through mutual support, not far removed from how Kibbutz Villages operate. It's a noble idea, but sadly failed wholeheartedly to take account of mans nature and desire to dominate.

Saying that though, I don't think it's a bad thing to strive for ideals however daft or far fetched their ambitions may be with regard to making the world a better place for everyone (consider the UN for example). A society without ideals or ideas driving it has nothing to aim for.

 

[The Mullinator]

Wow, a discussion of ideologies and American foreign policies and actions that HASN'T turned into a giant flame war.

I love this place.

The US isn't perfect but like Badger says, they recieve way too much negativity. The majority of people that are anti-american are just ignorant or mislead, its causing major problems and is fuelling the very wars that these anti-americans say they are trying to prevent.

Here is my view on the UN. It sucks, we need something very different, something that actually has power. Something that answers to no individual nation(s) but instead has the power to actually submit orders to the nations that join it in exchange for money and other forms of power.

Communism: It could technically work but needs alot of bugs worked out for how to implement it and keep it going properly. No communist country has ever used communism in a way that actually works properly.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Originally posted by Tr0n
Because there is bigger problems out there than here.Whats worse....some terrorist with a nuke thats pissed off at america or some guy here in america having to pay a couple more dollars on tax???

/me nods head in absolute agreement.
Rock on, Tr0n!

 

[Kadayi]

The Iraq war was about taking control of the country in order to build up a comprehensive infrastructure to take advantage of Iraqs vast untapped Oil reserves (something Saddam never had resources to carry out) nothing more.

The actual cost of the war operation is being passed onto the Iraqi people in a similar manner to how the league of nations expected Germany to pay renumeration after the first world war. The ill feeling and depravation that act of national 'taxation' caused was the primary reason for Germanys consequent economic struggle, which allowed the extremists like Hitler to rise to power. The reason for the continued troubles in Iraq is because a great many people there now realise that they haven't been freed, more changed owners.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Originally posted by Kadayi Polokov
The end goal of communist philosophy was a drive towards the wholesale rejection of the industrialized state and a return to a smaller more communial lead approach to living through mutual support, not far removed from how Kibbutz Villages operate. It's a noble idea, but sadly failed wholeheartedly to take account of mans nature and desire to dominate.

Saying that though, I don't think it's a bad thing to strive for ideals however daft or far fetched their ambitions may be with regard to making the world a better place for everyone (consider the UN for example). A society without ideals or ideas driving it has nothing to aim for.

No person should ever be threatened with "Patricipate, or die." We're all human beings, and deserve to make our choices freely. I don't think 100 million deserved to die, especially for an idealists point of view. Back when people made sense, they called that Genocide. The commie philosophy is about domination, control, and deceit. Nothing more. It sounds ''nice'', but it's a dangerous idea. Funny how communists are looked at as misunderstood, when really tehir idea biggots. They want the world to be dominated, and want others to be forced into line. Don't try to make it sound nice, because it's definitely not.

BTW: Funny how when Russia joined NATO, NATO suddenly stopped fighting communism. I'm not refering to the citizens of Russia, but the obviously condescending, and controlling govt.

 

[Fender357]

Originally posted by The Mullinator
Wow, a discussion of ideologies and American foreign policies and actions that HASN'T turned into a giant flame war.

I love this place.

Oh man I know. Probably because this thread was started by hl2.net staff guy.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Originally posted by Kadayi Polokov
The Iraq war was about taking control of the country in order to build up a comprehensive infrastructure to take advantage of Iraqs vast untapped Oil reserves (something Saddam never had resources to carry out) nothing more.

I really don't care what Bush's intentions were, but I do care about the people of Iraq. Whether you believe it or not, they are free from tyranny. And we can't touch that oil without permission, anyway; The world would come down us, if we did. So what if Iraq starts trading oil freely. I'd rather the people of Iraq get the money, than Saddam.

 

[Kadayi]

It's a mistake to try and bundle Saddam into the same Catagory of international Bogeyman as Osama Bin Ladin. I don't doubt that given his extremist views and religious beliefs that Osama Bin Ladin wouldn't hesitate to use Nuclear weapons against the West if he had access to them. However Saddam was a fairly predictable despot, motivated by Money and power. Launching a nuclear strike against the US wouldn't of gained him either.

 

[Kadayi]

Originally posted by GhostValkyrie
No person should ever be threatened with "Patricipate, or die." We're all human beings, and deserve to make our choices freely. I don't think 100 million deserved to die, especially for an idealists point of view. Back when people made sense, they called that Genocide. The commie philosophy is about domination, control, and deceit. Nothing more. It sounds ''nice'', but it's a dangerous idea. Funny how communists are looked at as misunderstood, when really tehir idea biggots. They want the world to be dominated, and want others to be forced into line. Don't try to make it sound nice, because it's definitely not.

BTW: Funny how when Russia joined NATO, NATO suddenly stopped fighting communism. I'm not refering to the citizens of Russia, but the obviously condescending, and controlling govt.

I'm on about idealism in the broad sense as a point of direction, not specifically Communism. I would of thought that was clear. The idea that in the west we live in a 'free' democracy is also an illusion.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

I care for my country greatly, but the Weapons Of Mass Destruction weren't a major concern for me. I wasn't sure he had them. But I'm sure he made attempts, which should be noted in these arguments. Even if this wars facade wasn't Nuclear/Highly Destructive armaments, I still would've backed it. Because the people of Iraq are human beings. We, as human beings, should help those in need.
We, as members of the strongest nations, have a duty to protect the weak.

 

[Kadayi]

Originally posted by GhostValkyrie
I really don't care what Bush's intentions were, but I do care about the people of Iraq. Whether you believe it or not, they are free from tyranny. And we can't touch that oil without permission, anyway; The world would come down us, if we did. So what if Iraq starts trading oil freely. I'd rather the people of Iraq get the money, than Saddam.

I'm glad that Saddam is gone, he was an evil SoB thats for sure, but I think that expecting the people of iraq to foot the bill for their freedom is decidedly cheeky. Also it's not an issue of actually taking the oil, it is more that by trading for cut price oil with the iraqi people (who need to generate money to pay the debt, they have no other economic commody of international value) other oil producing countries will be forced to cut their prices as well. The benefits are never direct, they are always in the residuals.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

How are they footing the bill again? I could've swore my tax dollars were a part of this 87 billion dollar plan.

 

[peoplesuc]

However Communism is not 'a good idea that wouldn't work'...

That is a double negative. I think you mean, "communism is not a good idea that would work..."

Of course I could be wrong.:dozey:

 

[OCybrManO]

I think that technology will eventually lead to the US becoming almost a total democracy instead of the corrupted representatives we currently use as intermediaries (though they won't be gone completely, we would only take the place of most of the legislative branch and the minor legistature that would only waste our time would be taken care of by them). The main obstacle to this is security (and the fear of computers held by many people).

Election results would be nearly instantaneous, people would not have to drive to the nearest polls, the same place that you vote from would link to both a summary of the legislature and the full text (and also information from both sides arguing the pros and cons), presidential elections would be based on the exact popular vote... etc.

This system would allow more frequent votes in which the president (and all other people holding offices) would frequently be re-evaluated and it would behoove them to follow the will of the people rather than their own interests... or they could be replaced.

All of this would help to give the people a sense of participation and that their votes actually matter... which would lead to greatly increased voter turnout.

After that, the next step would be abandoning political parties (instead, prospective candidates would be required to fill out large forms stating their opinions on all the various topics) and people would vote the candidate that most accurately represents their views.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Alright.

Glad someone brought this up.

My views: The United States

Only two kinds of people believe the United States is perfect under the naming of "freedom" and "democracy".

The Upper Class; and the ignorant.

Only two sanctions of Electoration and Propagandizing believe the United States is not responsible for crimes.

The Politicians and the Media

No crimes commited by the United States?

TIME FOR A LOOKIE!

Our First Source:

http://noleaders.net/anok/news/masskillings.htm

The film alleges that American troops collaborated in the torture of POWs and the killing of thousands of captured Taliban soldiers near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif. It documents events following the November 21, 2001 fall of Konduz, the Taliban’s last stronghold in northern Afghanistan.

The film was shown in Berlin by the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) parliamentary fraction to members of the German parliament on June 12. The following day it was shown to deputies and members of the press at the European parliament in Strasbourg.

After seeing the film, French Euro MP Francis Wurtz, a member of the United Left fraction that organized the showing, said he would call for an urgent debate on the issues raised in the film at the next session of the European parliament in July. A number of other deputies in the European parliament called on the International Committee of the Red Cross to carry out an independent investigation into the allegations raised in the film.

Leading international human rights lawyer Andrew McEntee, who was present at the special screening in Berlin, said it was “clear there is prima facie evidence of serious war crimes committed not just under international law, but also under the laws of the United States itself.”

McEntee called for an independent investigation. “No functioning criminal justice system can choose to ignore this evidence,” he said.

The Pentagon issued a statement June 13 denying the allegations of US complicity in the torture and murder of POWs, and the US State Department followed suit with a formal denial on June 14.

Doran, an award-winning independent filmmaker, whose documentaries have been seen in over 35 countries, said he decided to release a rough cut of his account of war crimes because he feared Afghan forces were about to cover up the evidence of mass killings. “It’s absolutely essential that the site of the mass grave is protected,” Doran told United Press International after the screening in Strasbourg. “Otherwise the evidence will disappear.”

Doran’s call for the preservation of evidence was echoed by the Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights, which issued a statement June 14 urging that immediate steps be taken to safeguard the gravesite of the alleged victims near Mazar-i-Sharif.

Late last year Doran shot footage of the aftermath of the massacre of hundreds of captured Taliban troops at the Qala-i-Janghi prison fortress outside of Mazar-i-Sharif. His film clips, showing prisoners who had apparently been shot with their hands tied, ignited an international outcry over the conduct of American special operations forces and their Northern Alliance allies.

Doran’s new film includes interviews with eyewitnesses to torture and the slaughter of some 3,000 POWs. It also contains footage of the desert scene where the alleged massacre took place. Skulls, clothing and limbs still protrude from the mound of sand, more than six months after the event.

The film has received widespread coverage in the European press, with articles featured in some of the main French and German newspapers (Le Monde, Suddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt). Jamie Doran has also given interviews to two of the main German television companies.

While the documentary has become a major news story in Europe, it has been virtually blacked out by the American media. The UPI released a dispatch on the screenings last week, yet the existence of the film has not even been reported by such leading newspapers as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. The film and its allegations of US war crimes have been similarly suppressed by the television networks and cable news channels.

This reporter was able to view the 20-minute-long documentary in Berlin. In the course of the film a series of witnesses appear and testify that American military forces participated in the armed assault and killing of several hundred Taliban prisoners in the Qala-i-Janghi fortress. Witnesses also allege that, following the events at Qala-i-Janghi, the American army command was complicit in the killing and disposal of a further 3,000 prisoners, out of a total of 8,000 who surrendered after the battle of Konduz.

Afghan witnesses who speak of these atrocities are not identified by name, but, according to the director, all those testifying in the film are willing to give their names and appear before an international tribunal to investigate the events of the end of last November and beginning of December.

In Doran’s film, Amir Jahn, an ally of Northern Alliance leader General Rashid Dostum, states that the Islamic soldiers who surrendered at Konduz did so only on the condition that their lives would be spared. Some 470 captives were incarcerated in Qala-i-Janghi. The remaining 7,500 were sent to another prison at Kala-i-Zein.

Following a revolt by a number of the prisoners in Qala-i-Janghi, the fortress was subjected to a massive barrage from the air as well as the ground by American troops. The atrocities inside Qala-i-Janghi are confirmed in the film by the head of the regional Red Cross, Simon Brookes, who visited the fort shortly after the massacre. He investigated the area and found bodies, many with their faces twisted in agony.

The American Taliban supporter John Walker Lindh was one of 86 Taliban fighters who were able to survive the massacre by hiding in tunnels beneath the fort . In one chilling scene in the film, we witness actual footage, secretly shot, of the interrogation of Lindh. We see him kneeling in the desert, in front of a long row of captive Afghans, being interrogated by two CIA officers. The officer leading the interrogation is heard to say: “But the problem is he needs to decide if he lives or dies. If he does not want to die here, he is going to die here, because we are going to leave him here and he’s going to stay in prison for the rest of his life.”

Massacre in Mazar then goes to describe the treatment meted out to the remaining thousands of captives who had surrendered to the Northern Alliance and American troops. A further 3,000 prisoners were separated out from the total of 8,000 who had surrendered, and were transported to a prison compound in the town of Shibarghan.

They were shipped to Shibarghan in closed containers, lacking any ventilation. Local Afghan truck drivers were commandeered to transport between 200 and 300 prisoners in each container. One of the drivers participating in the convoy relates that an average of between 150 and 160 died in each container in the course of the trip.

An Afghan soldier who accompanied the convoy said he was ordered by an American commander to fire shots into the containers to provide air, although he knew that he would certainly hit those inside. An Afghan taxi driver reports seeing a number of containers with blood streaming from their floors.

Another witness relates that many of the 3,000 prisoners were not combatants, and some had been arrested by US soldiers and their allies and added to the group for the mere crime of speaking Pashto, a local dialect. Afghan soldiers testify that upon arriving at the prison camp at Shibarghan, surviving POWs were subjected to torture and a number were arbitrarily killed by American troops.

One Afghan, shown in battle fatigues, says of the treatment of prisoners in the Shibarghan camp: “I was a witness when an American soldier broke one prisoner’s neck and poured acid on others. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them.”

Another Afghan soldier states, “They cut off fingers, they cut tongues, they cut their hair and cut their beards. Sometimes they did it for pleasure; they took the prisoners outside and beat them up and then returned them to the prison. But sometimes they were never returned and they disappeared, the prisoner disappeared. I was there.”

Another Afghan witness alleges that, in order to avoid detection by satellite cameras, American officers demanded the drivers take their containers full of dead and living victims to a spot in the desert and dump them. Two of the Afghan civilian truck drivers confirm that they witnessed the dumping of an estimated 3,000 prisoners in the desert.

According to one of the drivers, while 30 to 40 American soldiers stood by, those prisoners still living were shot and left in the desert to be eaten by dogs. The final harrowing scenes of the film feature a panorama of bones, skulls and pieces of clothing littering the desert.

Not convinced? Well I just hit the max amount of characters per message!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Next!

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/maz-j21.shtml

Massacre in Mazar, a documentary by Irish director Jamie Doran, was screened last week before select audiences in Europe. The film documents events following the November 21, 2001 fall of Konduz, the Taliban’s last stronghold in northern Afghanistan. [See: “Afghan war documentary charges US with mass killings”]

The film presents powerful testimony from Afghan witnesses that US troops collaborated in the torture and killings of thousands of Taliban prisoners near Mazar-i-Sharif. The film, which has prompted demands for an international commission of inquiry on war crimes in Afghanistan, received widespread coverage in the European press, with major stories in the Guardian, Le Monde, Suddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt and other papers.

This major story, however, has received virtually no coverage in US newspapers or on network or cable television. Aside from stories on some alternative Internet publications, and a June 16 article on Salon.com, the story has been essentially blacked out in the US.

A search for news about the documentary in the major dailies—including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe and the Miami Herald —turned up empty. Web sites for ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News and CNN have likewise carried nothing on the film.

Repeated telephone calls by the WSWS to these news sources, inquiring why they have failed to cover the story, went unanswered. How is possible that not a single major US media outlet chose to cover such an important news event? There is no innocent or journalistic explanation.

This wholesale political censorship cannot be justified on the basis that Massacre in Mazar —or the events it depicts—are not “newsworthy.” The two screenings of the documentary in Germany prompted calls by a number of European parliamentary deputies and human rights advocates for an independent investigation into the atrocities exposed by the film. Calling for an inquiry, prominent human rights lawyer Andrew McEntee commented it was “clear there is prima facie evidence of serious war crimes committed not just under international law, but also under the laws of the United States itself.”

The film includes scenes of the aftermath of the massacre of hundreds of Taliban fighters who were taken prisoner outside Mazar-i-Sharif, at the Qala-i-Jangi prison, showing captured troops who were apparently shot with their hands tied. The filmmaker also interviewed eyewitnesses, who describe the torture and slaughter of 3,000 prisoners, who were allegedly driven to a desert area and massacred. These witnesses—who were not paid—have offered to provide testimony before any independent investigation into the events.

The film footage is so damning that both the Pentagon and the US State Department were compelled within days to issue statements denying the allegations of US complicity in the torture and murder of POWs, which are powerfully pointed to by the film. If the US government is so concerned over the implications of what the documentary exposes, why has the US media chosen not to report on it?

Since September 11, this same print and broadcast media has consistently toed the Bush administration’s propaganda line; and there has been no shortage of coverage on the Afghan war. The government’s flouting of international law and the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of Afghan war prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and proposals for secret military tribunals have gone virtually unchallenged. Assaults on the democratic rights of both immigrants and citizens—including secret detentions and suppression of protests—have been reported as legitimate aspects of the government’s “war on terrorism.”

One topic that has received short shrift in the American press is the civilian death toll in the US air raids in Afghanistan, which human rights advocates estimate at more than 3,500, not including the thousands facing death from starvation and displacement.

The well-known motto of the New York Times, “All the news that’s fit to print,” increasingly masks a practice by that newspaper and all the media of choosing to print only that which fits the war propaganda needs of the Pentagon and the White House.

The refusal of the press to report on the charges of US complicity in the torture and mass killings in Afghanistan shown in Massacre in Mazar —or even to acknowledge the existence of the film—serves one purpose: to keep the American people in the dark about the Bush administration’s military actions and human rights violations.

The media’s silence makes it complicit in what are horrific war crimes. It also provides an even more sinister service to the Bush administration. Filmmaker Jamie Doran decided to release a rough cut of his documentary before final editing because he feared Afghan forces were preparing to destroy evidence of the mass killings, scattering the remains of the victims. Self-censorship by the US media only facilitates such a grisly cover-up.

See Also:
Afghan war documentary charges US with mass killings of POWs
Showings in Europe spark demands for war crimes probe
[17 June 2002]
Interview with Jamie Doran, director of Massacre at Mazar
[17 June 2002]
New York Times whitewashes US torture
[19 June 2002]
Open-ended US bombing campaign results in further Afghan casualties
[4 January 2002]
More evidence of US war crimes in Afghanistan: Taliban POWs suffocated inside cargo containers
[13 December 2001]
The Geneva Convention and the US massacre of POWs in Afghanistan
[7 December 2001]

I wonder if I hit the message length limit?

Well incase I did'nt, those are the tip of the iceberg I have linked.

My point in posting this is; some of you assume the United States is not responsible for crimes, when infact the US is responsible--do you know how it classifies Prisoners of War? In this war on terrorism? As terrorists, and because their so--you can beat and shoot them because they don't fall into the Prisoner of War Categorey. Can we say...

NAZI ALERT!

See my next post for my opinion on the rest of issues the author brought up.

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by Sn7
Ah yes, the rewards of having a republican president.


Their philosophy: "Tax the poor, help the rich" (Because we all know how much the rich suffer in their every day lives.)

agreed....the republican philosophy is pretty much to appeal to the rich people in america and the stupid and racist people in america.........


While hanging the minorities and middle class out to dry......


people actually think that having republicans in control of the government will save them money or something......

I mean lets completely forget about bushes forighen(sp) policy for a minute.....and look at how bad he and his cronies are ****ing things up here at home......


as well as royaly pissing off the rest of the planet.......becuase they are not in control.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The United States currently operates the Prisoners Camp at Gauntanamo Bay outside the United States Jurisdicting borders--the reason for this is simple: The United States military, operating sanctions in another country that is not currently listed in the United Nations, and having operations existing outside of US Waters, CAN DO WHATEVER THE **** IT WANTS.

Pictures and audio recordings allow you to see and hear the abuse of the prisoners--that hunger strike led to the death of 13 prisoners of war, including a french photographer brought in assumed for colaberating with the "enemy".

Whats further sickening is now were up to arms in glory of the US Propagana here--its annoying. What furthers my point is the arrogance of US Citizens who've I've seen and heard, walk up to hispanics and middle-easterner's and question:

"Are you the enemy?"

"Do you know who the enemy is?"

The media is dragging us by the strings--it works with the goverment to censor any kind of crimes and this has been proven by countries other then Germany and France.

----

Communism is not a good idea.

----

As for the US involvement in Iraq justified--not entirely justified, they hav'nt attacked us. But, we've been at war with them for six years since the gulf war ended--nothing else has been declared of peace or treaty, so technically our sudden involvement is legal.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

A post I made to the DoD Forums about National Socialism and Hitler (how it worked)

------------------------------------------------------

============My Opinion (as of late)============

------------------------------------------------------

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ESSAY I WROTE ABOUT NATIONAL-SOCIALISM, HITLER, AND THE GERMAN PEOPLE. THEIR WILL BE FOUR POSTS TOTAL OF THIS AFTER THAT WHICH IT ENDS. TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS. (I POSTED THIS TO SHOW THAT SOME PARTS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM APPLY BY SOME DEMEANOR TO THE MENTALITY OF OUR NATIONAL STATES WE SEE HERE IN THE WEST)

In order for one to; "break down the whole german thing", during WWII one must have been there to observe the physcology of the people involved during that time period.

This not only includes the German People, who my argument will be based around (thus includes the physcology), but the people of other countries--wether a few miles apart or stretching kilometers accross whole seas. We have to awnser the question presented within ourselves:

"What defines guilty for more then 46 million people?"

"on this forum it is already concluded that germans are not nescessary nazis, nazis are not nescessary evil men. i think that is enough said..." -Letz

What defines guilt?

The lack of acceptance? Or the lack of falling under pressure TOO accept?

There are many different types of people out their who avoid being guilty but persecute others of having been guilty. These are the same people who use their power as influence over decisions and how life progresses in todays society; two of the most respective ones to be exact are:

*Those who use their title and profession to barter over the laws and rules set by people who make his paycheck;

*Others who would use their own tied emotion as one voice to twist written words and a whole history around all because "the disagree" or view "anything of difference" to be violent or attrocious.

These two people will definately have their own two opinions on guilt; I will try to interpret:

Option Number One: (Title Presiding Over Right):

These people will use claus and problem to over controversiate situations at hand by esclating them by his/her own pure presence. (Such as bobby farter--now the president is going to come tell him to stop). They make it loudly known they are clear of secrets and issues at hand that are prepared to make them look guilty, and are the first to address their fears by addressing the variables attempting to make them guilty first and foremost.

By using their presence to preside over right, they give the false interpretation they are the right and law; given their respective name. Throughout all of our educaiton, it is through society and social build we recognize people in suites or "names" so to speak, with some kind of decency or "having a job, money, and power", it is also by the same clause "given title; wether actually having it or not" makes the person by far much more socially powerfull then the others surrounding them.

In the same term, we can often relate. People of power in our minds become the hive mind--what they say we follow because we are virtually powerless to change the persons mind or physically uprise or bring about their fault. However, people like these in groups tend to disagree--their own worst enemy is someone like themselves, and though they might laugh it off for ten years, for the rest of their lives, a five minute conflict would rip them apart for enternity.

People of different or equal status debating in a term that renders them helpless automatically tells you of the simple state these other sort are in (by term of physcology):

They are helpless without helping hands but will use their own to strangle the ones who gave them power. We live because of the cells we have in us, just like these people in power have their positions because we aquate them for we are not their to manage all these problems all the time.

These such people end up developing educational standards or bidings to control students to follow in their footsteps so this position can use the same remark and control as it had when these others were in power. This is education now--were people have different professions to follow through in--but most of them are not entirely nessecary to the degree we see them as or entirely educational about life.

Again I restate the first option: uses his position to barter control over others rights--using education as a credential to persecute. But when they themselves are locked down in the same environment as their victims--their powerless and subside to a degree that leaves them in states of regret that they; will often repeat to themselves. Split personalities are often like this; a persons guilt split into three; and so they accuse thee.

These people or person(s) are very prominant in todays society--were social status makes more of a person then anything--but so long as it has official title; given they have official title, they use it to barter over people's rights then train others to be the same.

-----

The Second Option

The singularity; the people

These are the people who are decidely right or wrong by their position as standing citizens--not working in the same efforts as our above option; but because their recognized as having more power barter their options much better because their social status as "just human" or a "lone voice".

There are two kinds of these people (everything you see here has a purpose to support my argument--this is to develop the imagery of were I come from in term to my belief):

The Misconceived or "Bad";

These people are often wrong in what they do--wether by lacking effort to work; or acceptance they need to try something different with their lifes. These people are the extremists that goto the voting poles and often put the most controversial bitch on the voting forms and often get recognized because the issue ties them down socially.

They also get recognized so suddenly because they're either a:

*Lower to Middle Class individual based in Democracy

*Because their right to being a person is thus higher then politicans who've lost gradual sense of society

*They're voicing more controversial issues then the topics in congress

These people we can classify (though blunt and rudely; and often dumb to say) the typical "non-working socialist(or facist)/racist". Or they, "Working lower/middle/upper class" citizens who uses again; their presiding evils specified above, to control a body of voice and opinion.

These kinds of people, often, working or not, use their own lack of will to accept and move on as a phenotype to control another man's will to work and accept.

They ask, "why can't I be given the same standards", but will not work for them. Instead; they use their position as a voice to barter control over subjects while personally, having no control over themselves. The Racist I mentioned above often are educated into racism through two means: Subordinate or Direct Response.

Subordination means the person has seen throughout his life; a specific color or type of person (whereby social standings or feature of body) commiting abuse unto him or others--through which he believes and grows with the opinions of others; hate for hate. "Subconscious Reactions"

He agree's that everyone of that feature is bad--and recognizes soley they must be responsible for his lack of "fitting in" or "growing". As long of a time that they've seen these actions happen to "his people", it would take for him to get over it. This is why some people out of the civil rights era have such difficulty getting comfortable around people of the same age of a different color.

They develop the mentality that for some reason; their being oppressed--there is a way to get out such states, but mostly, their mind chooses not to.

A victims mentality with extremes.

The Direct Contact Victim is one who hears and reacts.

"Jims an asshole." - "Yep he sure is dale" Now, granted our subject never agreed Jim was an asshole; but uses people's misconception or subordination as a focal point for their voicing and power. These people lack the most of research or reason for their hate; but use emotion and their educations as a reason to prove their broken as citizens are hereby, also oppressed, when in reality, their not. You see where I'am going with this. These people also sit around and ask "why can't I be given the same standards" without having worked for it.

====My Purpose for Explainaing the Above Two Personality Types, they above two social traits (good or bad) and the misconception involed with them, is to prove to you the mindset of the individuals quite possibly after WWI and even in today's society====

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Continuation from my above post (Why National Socialism and Hitler were so succesful)

----------

Classes : Cyclone of Connections

----------

These people use their liberties as people; though not oppressed always subordinately or directly; as means to support their own biddings, when in fact, some of either are paranoid or proven.

The Paranoid (sometimes the provne) sort often believe the most rediculous things and use the power of agreeance and pressure to control other peoples opinions just to gain number--again without having not researched it or proven it (They also don't care about the people supporting his or her ranks of belief). Wether right or wrong, these people use their positions first and foremost as a focal point for their grounds or standing:

Lower Class Citizens use their "Lower Class Title" to bid they either do not have enough money, rights, or understanding.

*Money meaning credentails or essentially currency to by the goods available to middle or upper class citizens.

*Rights meaning the middle and upper class citizens have more of a voice because of their more recognized and agreed political agendas (this is because they technically do not suffer as much as the lower class citizens--by being lower class you technically fail as a voice and these people realize this--wether paranoid or not.)

Authors Note before we proceed with the rest of the Classes:

[However, middle class and upper class citizens bear the mentality that lower class citizens should be heard more then the middle class--so whenever these people make their biddings, their often more recognized then others.]

*Understanding means middle and upper class contain people that use the lower class as puppets--to basically put it, use them as success stories or guide them along a path they feel is best for their lives.

The Lower Class sort knows it, and wants it stopped. But because they cannot tag the people responsible, they end up addressing the two most powerful classes; THEY THEN suppress the lower class, so they, do not fall apart. Its a sway, and you'll see it again. (The Middle Class before WWII dominated nearly 60 to 70% of Germanys population--1919 1935)

The Middle Class description is simple:

They, in the political world, are the least neutral of the two classes--whereby they are the most remarked in any political debate in talks of deservances. (Though they say they devote help to the lower classes...)

These people use that as an advantage.

They don't have to do much to gain their power or use manipulation: their manipulation is that the control agrees with them (and is them technically--see the above two personality types above).

Anything they lay out on the table; they often get. Whats worse--is they work above most of the classes in terms of ethic and money making. So when they ask for more jobs or more money, its only their "trial and error" evolution to become upper-class citizens. But this evolution still keeps them in the middle class selection. (heehee)

Thereby, with money and without recognition by the other two classes as having been an upper class citizen, this middle class selection is able to use its most remarked parts against the other two classes and get more of what it wants:

*Silencing of the Lower Class (this is because the Middle Class is viewed as being more intellectual then the lower class)

*Power, Money, Position

Social Class Standards:
Recognize Social Standings--and bid for power without control

Middle Class also:

Advocates Control where their is none (the lower/upper class)
Advocates Dominance where it can achieve it (voting poles, politicans, bills, and over the middle class)
Gains power from the upper class--but not being upper class (So the lower class doe'snt nessecarly blaim the middle class, or its own ranks)

Upper Class Descriptions will describe like this; in two areas: Non-Working Upper Class (Social) Working Upper Class (Money).

Social describes as people of lower class (to certain eyes) who don't work. These people can get money; get position, with or without manipulation of controlling standards to society. These people are the ones who control the vote--they control the drugs and they also control our lives wether we choose to accept or not.

Money describes as giving the social what it needs to control the two classes--while they strangle each other over rights, money, and position. The upper class types laugh because their seperate from the other two foolish classes.

[This class could run around naked and fart in public, but get away with it--however, noone would ever know it. The Upper Class is actually the lower class with more money the middle class--but money doe'snt make the class--APPEARANCE does. Hence, Class and Style are essentially one.]

However, the Upper Class (Money) citizens are the politicians--the ones who give others their bid for power, then silence it as if life had a mute button. These people make the money, then use the new mint dollars and coins to sell their products to middle class units, who then distribute it to the lower class.

Now: Keep in mind the Two Personality Types--or kinds of power

Power Presiding over Right

and

People

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Continuation from above post (Why National Socialism and Hitler Succeeded)

=================================

World War I left Germany in shambles due to the Versialle Treaty (which basically left Germany Naked and stripped of its rights)

This gave the lower class a voice--but it never needed power. Every Middle Class Citizen became a Lower Class Citizen--every Upper Class Citizen became Middle--and every Lower Class Citizen became Upper Class Social (not upper class money).

This gave the middle class the ear; and upper class the heart to follow. With the lower/upper class ranting and raving and outright persecuting the things thought responsible, (with or without fact); they became the upper class. (The Social Class as I discussed--the one technically between Upper and Lower Class.)

Communism or National Socialism? Will explain a little more...

Germany became classless once this crap hit the fan. Once the social balances had gone through the same traumatic ending--they all became the lower class. With or without large homes, or more money then your neighbor, you knew of the suffering at hand. This was the band wagon. All 46 million joined it.

The Middle Class during the Bandwagons ride for power:

These people were the ones to follow and amplify the voices of those in control--the propaganda speakers so to say. However, these good people are divided into two categories:

Those willing to follow

Those not willing to follow

Those willing to follow are intellectual and educated--and often use title over right to prisde their presences control over others. This happens in the lower class too, almost exclusively.

Those willing to follow however, only follow if the speaker has enough passion and emotion to make a teeny-bopper soap opera for six years straight--a six year war.

Those not willing to follow are'nt always intellectual or educated--but intelligent in the sense of:

If its something you don't agree with, like in democracy, you wait until the bigger fish comes along to get your view accross. However, with the classes essentially unified; (you take into account they were all mixed after WWI due to suffering), that they become essentially a socialsm at first.

But like a tornado--once the wind starts going, anything it touches will be ripped to shreads.

The Lower Class and the Upper Class are almost always going to be the base of the tornado--the mouth that touches down. The Middle Class is the thing that supports and helps "turn" the votes--but it also can stop the tornado should it choose to turn another way. But the passion was never lost until Germany lost.

Because the classes were unified BUT opposed Karl Marx, Lenin, and all the other good sort of communism and sought out the racists and their views as controlling and true factors they gave birth to the following:

National Socialism.

A Classless society bent under the control of a nation--a nation that controlled social means according to their problems as a whole. But what classes are their in a National Socialism?

Dun Dun! You guessed it!

The BAD SIDE of everything we discussed earlier.
I mentioned no Upper Class for the good--nor illiterated much of its ending because all of most of societies classes is bent on controversy, alliteration, sin and good clauses. This is were the two meet head on.

Now you realize that though it was admittedly classeless; their were classes.

The Middle Class is often viewed to being the only one to possibly resist Hitler's views--But what defines this?

Simple. A farmer who lives in a shack is considered Middle Class--because he works. He is also a pacifist. A person who lives in a toy box on the street corners, but works at a blockbuster is middle class because he works. Also a victim of pacifiscm. This illiterates. They don't resist the work--they need it. But people who are not willing to accept this become the voice of the people.

Pacifism--going along with life unless it obstructs you.

So when the armistice was commited...

Every class suffered on all levels--and made the illusion that a "certain" did'nt do enough. The Upper Class.

Communism targets the upperclass and tries to eliminate it, right? It can't. Without the Upper Class there is no Lower Class Standard.

Basically now, this upper class became the jews in Hitler's eyes.
But jews=upper class anyway--but because Communism was there already waging this war, what they were also opposing; is what they so vividly supported. Coined it NSDAP. Social Workers--not an old concept either.

=========The Crisis in Hitlers Mind=========

And how could one distinguish between the Upper Class Germans and Jews? Simple. You make the (jews) the Upper Class Social, the ones that make the drugs, deal the crap, responsible for bad stuff in life, become removed from your control. (Essentially dehumanize)

But they're all technically bad (in reguards to whats contained in the Upper Class Social)--so how can we blame people not responsible FOR being responsible.

Say they are!

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

And thats exaclty what they did. Herman Goerrings Quote is above. Lower Class/Upper Class makes the illusion they can control policy and rule out control and good law. It is a simple matter to drag people along--especially when they all suffered from the same ONE issue. The Armistice--but noone could exclaim why France did what it did. So...

The Upper Class Social is blaimed--and labeled jews. (Much like middle-easterner's are socially labeled as potentially being terrorists in some mind sets in the US)

So, what is the Upper Class Money always trying to fix? The Upper Class Social. So now that the Upper Class Social is being reassigned a new name and is being targeted; what do you think the populace will do? Ride the bandwagon!

Goerrings new classes had influence over the people--but he failed to see that he himself was an Upper Class Social; their was no higher power then that. He controlled the voice and advocated he had control and knowledge of what was best for the people--and hence once National Socialism, it became no class immediately, but soley "the people" as he remarks.

So how does Hitler solve an even bigger crisis?

National Socialism=No Classes. Again, they did'nt want to be labeled by their enemies name, so again, they chose the NSDAP.

Now Hitler, when all this rolled out, said they were being attacked. Just like our Police and Goverment say were being attacked by, or potentially carry the moment of being attacked by; terrorists or rather, criminals.

Hitlers Equivelant:

The Jews.

Now, how do you show them results the jews are attacking the populace and are responsible for their lack of support for the imperialist german goverment? Punch yourself in the face basically, since they hav'nt.

So then, they denounce the pacifists their right to life--a result of jewish bidding. A result of Communist attackers Don't say the democracy present before Hitler's rise did not like him--they did. And considering the upper-class can avocate its execution and elimination of Criminals, that when the people as a whole, knew the problem even by name, they slightly supported the viewpoint.

(Those two parts of Society at Work again)

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Last Part of Essay

And how could one distinguish between the Upper Class Germans and Jews? Simple. You make the (jews) the Upper Class Social, the ones that make the drugs, deal the crap, responsible for bad stuff in life, become removed from your control. (Essentially dehumanize)

But they're all technically bad (in reguards to whats contained in the Upper Class Social)--so how can we blame people not responsible FOR being responsible.

Say they are!

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

And thats exaclty what they did. Herman Goerrings Quote is above. Lower Class/Upper Class makes the illusion they can control policy and rule out control and good law. It is a simple matter to drag people along--especially when they all suffered from the same ONE issue. The Armistice--but noone could exclaim why France did what it did. So...

The Upper Class Social is blaimed--and labeled jews. (Much like middle-easterner's are socially labeled as potentially being terrorists in some mind sets in the US)

So, what is the Upper Class Money always trying to fix? The Upper Class Social. So now that the Upper Class Social is being reassigned a new name and is being targeted; what do you think the populace will do? Ride the bandwagon!

Goerrings new classes had influence over the people--but he failed to see that he himself was an Upper Class Social; their was no higher power then that. He controlled the voice and advocated he had control and knowledge of what was best for the people--and hence once National Socialism, it became no class immediately, but soley "the people" as he remarks.

So how does Hitler solve an even bigger crisis?

National Socialism=No Classes. Again, they did'nt want to be labeled by their enemies name, so again, they chose the NSDAP.

Now Hitler, when all this rolled out, said they were being attacked. Just like our Police and Goverment say were being attacked by, or potentially carry the moment of being attacked by; terrorists or rather, criminals.

Hitlers Equivelant:

The Jews.

Now, how do you show them results the jews are attacking the populace and are responsible for their lack of support for the imperialist german goverment? Punch yourself in the face basically, since they hav'nt.

So then, they denounce the pacifists their right to life--a result of jewish bidding. A result of Communist attackers Don't say the democracy present before Hitler's rise did not like him--they did. And considering the upper-class can avocate its execution and elimination of Criminals, that when the people as a whole, knew the problem even by name, they slightly supported the viewpoint.

(Those two parts of Society at Work again)

=======A Rally-A Call======

"Which part of the Upper Class? The Socials! The Enemies! The Criminals. The Thugs. The Wrong. The Jews."

Next you expose them to greater danger--the threat of war. Wether it be a race war or a war against other countries--Kristallnacht and Fall Weiss had the greatest influence in Hitler's Direlict Powers. With the classes unified mostly under the lower class designation, and the Upper Class the enemy, National Socialism was born. But again the Bad Classes mentioned way above still prevailed.

46 million guilty? Whats 77% of 46 million? I'm not equating the lower classes are guilty; but though Hitler got a 29% of his vote from the populace--and was able to easy fall into power we can easily assume 77% of the population was excited to his rise to power--that he had a new and different solution to the problem.

The Final Solution

Thats why so many followed Hitler. Because they were a dispirited country that had to forge on unification for justice and Hitler was that unifying light--but what solution could we make of our main problem to make the light brighter? Blind ourselves!

"But what Justice? German Justice. Against the enemy. What enemy? The Upper Class! What part of the Upper Class--I support Hitler and am in the Upper Class? The Jews!"

Why do you think Upper Class jews were stripped of their rights first?

They had their rights removed before the entire race as a whole was ripped of their rights in Germany. You take the Upper Class jews rights--then you take the Lower Classes without effort; then the middle class has no way of advocating problems or creating them.

You take the money--then you take the voters power--then you take the pacifists rights. Boomdiva!! Manuchan! Instant Dictatorship!

No jews with no money cannot...

Influence the vote or people, nor advocate the problem at hand or fix it...

So...

People don't agree--but only agree more your apart of the problem.

I still believe to this day that some people were responsible for crime--and others simply were not. But the point I'am trying to get here is--for every attrocity commited, their is not one link to Hitler having actually commited it.

This is why Patton got off so easy when a detachment of his was able to execute 23 PoW's. Because he never did it.

Hitler was not responsible for the following...

Attrocities...
War...

He was responsible for...

National-Socialism...
Advocating Racism and Facism...
Begiling a people in their second downfalling...
Creating environments were no classes existed...
Making National Socialism much more succesful then Communism...
Wrighting laws that degraded human rights...

His followers were responsible for...

War...
Attrocities...
Meeting up for how to handle the "final solution"...
Executing laws that degraded human rights...
Showing the world hell is on earth--and it comes by number...

"Behold Jesus for we are legion--we are as many as we are as one..."

Not all 46 million of the people can be held responsible--but their again, nethire can Hitler.

Not all 46 million of the people can be held responsible--but their again, nethire can Hitler.

So whats to blame then? (Well lets not act like a dispirited country here! Lets find out who the criminals were!)

The thing of National Socialism, is everyone became one class. The Lower Class. This is were people develope the: Blaim the people complex...

The Lower Class Owns the Middle Class while the Upper Class displays for the Lower Class Control. But control is an illusion--so when the lower class finds out, the lower class revolts and the middle class supports--but so the upper class again advocates new control and order with new bodies and the whole damn thing restarts.

Hitlers mind: The Fix? Remove the Upper Class--then you remove the lower and middle classes. Then you have absolute power.

Hitlers Mistake: He had absolute power--his blaim now.

So then theres people who are responsible:

THE

GUILTY.

Then there are the people who were victims of:

MANIPULATION

Hard to determine who's right and wrong right?

A Summary:

A Society Raped themselves and others of intellectual thought through the direct manipulation of our controls. So in essence, we should blaim the Society of. A Society DOES NOT MEAN PEOPLE--it means the rules that contain the class; in other words Morales. When a country falls apart--as a lesson, so does its morales. Individuals can carry those Morales, but the country does not agree as a whole--nethire do the classes. So Social downfall is to blame--not Hitler for every attrocity, Not all of the People for either not or being a NAZI, but only Societies Strings. It plays us like puppets.

For as we know about society...

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in groups

 

[Dedalus]

i think you killed it man.

 

[bastard_loud]

Lol, I think so too, even though i agree with the man.

I do hope more people read all that, like i did, because there's a lot of good stuff in there.

 

[Element Alpha]

Even tho Kerberos really did kill this thread, I'd like to add a little short notes to the debate.

I don't think people around the world hate american ideals(or way of life). What I do feel is that most don't like the general arrogant attitude America as a nation sends to the world.

It can be found in little things, like an american movie showing the actor taking a trip to northern europe(let's say Norvegia), showing poor farmers wearing middle-age clothes, while they have real cities over there, with all the stuff in them you'd find in any city in the world.

Americans aren't "the best". You know why? Because there is no "the best". I can see why it's hard to admit it when you've been brought up on "we are the champions" as if it was your national song.

What makes a country great?

-the technological advancement?
I don't think so. And even if it was, the US certainly isn't on top of the list. (Japan, Hong Kong)
-the social environment?
You just know the US isn't the best social environment. Even a country like Switzerland beats the US. Just think of guns, crimerate, censorship, drugs, povrety, ineducation, etc.
-freedom of speech? No country beats the Netherlands in that cathegory, sorry US.
-the military power?
Most remember vietnam or Cuba, so the US isn't unbeatable. Also, there is a little place called Israel, with quite a military power too. It's true that the US force has the most advance equipment, but it also lacks the experience required to claim the title.
-maybe the ability to seduce women?
don't make me laugh.

and the list goes on...

So how come there is this attitude of superiority? Because I think that's what bothers most. Since there are a lot of americans on these boards, I'd really appreciate an a few honest responses to this one.

FYI: I'm a french guy living in Belgium. I've travelled some. I meet a lot of people from everywhere(not on the internet). I do know there's no 'perfect personality', and I'm not asking for it.

Sincerly,

me

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Element Alpha
What makes a country great?

One word: ABBA! BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

On another note, I'm actually GLAD its US that has envisioned itself as leader and allmighty. Because no matter how you see it and how you twist it, its a relativly free country. Remove US and you get a quite fearfull line up of powerfull nations...
Pff... Let the big boys fight if that is what they wish. I dont care. After studying Swedish history, I'm glad we havent had an armed conflict for 200 years. Maybe someday they will learn. I mean, they've only had 1 lousy civil war... Hell, they've never even invaded Russia! And darn it if they havent invaded Canada or Mexico yet?! We have had some 130 wars with our dear neighbour Norway!

 

[Tr0n]

I just woke up....and I really don't feel like readin all those damn post.So here it plain and simple.Reason why we are great is because of war.Why do you guys even bitch about are goverment???There not a damn thing any of you can do about it.Hell even if our war was illegal what are you going to do about it???NOTHING!!!Why???Because we trade with all the countries in the world.Heck most countries live off the food we give them.Another is the UN is filled up with a bunch of pussies that won't do shit.So basically stop your bitching and go about your daily lives, because theres not a damn thing you can do about it.

 

[Maskirovka]

Originally posted by Kadayi Polokov
The Iraq war was about taking control of the country in order to build up a comprehensive infrastructure to take advantage of Iraqs vast untapped Oil reserves (something Saddam never had resources to carry out) nothing more.

The actual cost of the war operation is being passed onto the Iraqi people in a similar manner to how the league of nations expected Germany to pay renumeration after the first world war.

where's your proof?

Originally posted by GhostValkyrie
I really don't care what Bush's intentions were, but I do care about the people of Iraq. Whether you believe it or not, they are free from tyranny. And we can't touch that oil without permission, anyway; The world would come down us, if we did. So what if Iraq starts trading oil freely. I'd rather the people of Iraq get the money, than Saddam.

agree

Originally posted by GhostValkyrie
How are they footing the bill again? I could've swore my tax dollars were a part of this 87 billion dollar plan.

yes, i also just heard a speech by the president, who said that he doesn't think the reconstruction money should be loaned to Iraq. He thinks it should be a one time expendature for the taxpayers, which is exactly what that 87 billion dollar plan thingy is.

 

[DimitriPopov]

Ive only read the first few posts , but Ill start the refuting with your post rec , not because you have bad arguments because you posted in such a way that it wont take 30 minutes to refute.

- Only two countries in the world have refused to ratify the Convention on the Rights of a Child human rights treaty... Somalia and the US.

- Find the reasons for this , its most likely abortion. I dont see sweatshops or anything in the US , there are plenty of child labor laws , if you want to talk to someone about the 'rights of a child' give China a call.

- The Internation Criminal Court is an historic achievment in human rights, the court's aim is to bring to justice prepetrators of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. The court aims to prevent a repeat of some of the greatest crimes and atrocities commited in the 20th century including the Holocaust, the Khmer Rogue genocide in Cambodia, and the Rwanda genocide.
US took unprecedented steps to undermine the new court, including planning to "unsign" the ICC treaty and pressuring other countries to sign bilateral immunity agreements.

- I suppose by posting all this you are hinting at the US intends to commit war crimes in the future , which is a laughable notion , it deserves no argument.

- The US stands to this day, the only country to use a nuclear weapon.

- Another overused arguemnt , this Nuclear Weapon SAVED lives on both sides of the conflict. Japan would have never given up unless it was threatened with continued nuclear attacks. now there is MADD

- Over half a million children under the age of 5 have died from US imposed economic sanctions on Iraq since the Gulf War. As many as 1.5 millions have died in total thanks to this sanctions.

- One way to solve this would have been for Saddam to obey the demands of these sanctions , but noone blames Saddam for that. Another thing is that food and medicine was being imported to Iraq , Saddam had vast warehouses full oof the stuff that never got to the people.

- As many as 5000 Afghan civilians were killed in the campaign against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime.

- Wars cannot have zero civilian casualties. The rate at which these numbers have been reduced should be what youre gawking at. Not to mention the 'as many as' , one could say 'as many as 100 gazillion died'. People should certainly think about these numbers , but they should not be examined without proper historical perspective.

- 45 million Americans have no health care.

- Know not much about the healthcare system , cant refute

- Americans women are still earning onaverage 30% less than males.

- This is a political issue , what are the numbers for other countries , and overall , what is the big deal? This can be solved through policy and politics

- 35 millions Americans still live in poverty.

- Examine the numbers from other countries as percentages , to eliminate population differences , other than that dont know enough to refute

- US refuses to hold open trials for 'non-combatants' in camp X-ray, breaking the Geneva Convention.

- Criminals , let them sit

You can pick and discriminate all you want, every country has its flaws. This is democracy, the best system in the world... disturbing, isn't it.

- Not really if you think about all the problems you could have and the relative few youve found

PS- Someone band Kerberroseeee , if youc ant sum your goddamn post up , dont post a whole friggin book kthnx.

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by Tr0n
I just woke up....and I really don't feel like readin all those damn post.So here it plain and simple.Reason why we are great is because of war.Why do you guys even bitch about are goverment???There not a damn thing any of you can do about it.Hell even if our war was illegal what are you going to do about it???NOTHING!!!Why???Because we trade with all the countries in the world.Heck most countries live off the food we give them.Another is the UN is filled up with a bunch of pussies that won't do shit.So basically stop your bitching and go about your daily lives, because theres not a damn thing you can do about it.

how old are you tr0n?

edit: your just as bad as all the america bashers....

 

[Maskirovka]

Originally posted by DimitriPopov
PS- Someone band Kerberroseeee , if youc ant sum your goddamn post up , dont post a whole friggin book kthnx.

lmao...yea i didn't read any of that. if i want to find essays and articles about the situation, i can go pick up a book or a magazine or use the internet...i didn't come to a forum to read some guy's essay he wrote :\

 

[Tr0n]

Originally posted by crabcakes66
how old are you tr0n?

edit: your just as bad as all the america bashers....

You got a problem with my post????Please don't break my heart.Also I was just stating a point you idiot, by saying the other goverments out there can't do nothing.Now if you got a problem with that go bitch about it like everyone else.

 

[Maskirovka]

lol tr0n...at least use spaces between sentences...it's hard to read

 

[Tr0n]

Originally posted by Maskirovka
lol tr0n...at least use spaces between sentences...it's hard to read

Sorry about that man.....just woke up.Pretty sick today so I'm kinda in a bad attitude and to lazy to do anything.I was trying to prove a point by saying IF we did something ilegal no other govement would stand up and do anything about it.

 

[Murray_H]

Jesus who the hell has time to read all of that?

Was there really a point to writing so much?

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by Tr0n
You got a problem with my post????Please don't break my heart.Also I was just stating a point you idiot, by saying the other goverments out there can't do nothing.Now if you got a problem with that go bitch about it like everyone else.

Yes i do......you represent what is wrong with our country.

 

[Tr0n]

Originally posted by crabcakes66
Yes i do......you represent what is wrong with our country.

Tell me how do I "represent" what is wrong with are country???Please tell me.

 

[Element Alpha]

Hello, very intellectual person named tron, here's a few for you to choke on:

Originally posted by Tr0n
The Iraq war was about taking control of the country in order to build up a comprehensive infrastructure to take advantage of Iraqs vast untapped Oil reserves (something Saddam never had resources to carry out) nothing more.

The actual cost of the war operation is being passed onto the Iraqi people in a similar manner to how the league of nations expected Germany to pay renumeration after the first world war.



where's your proof?

funny you should say that proof thing. I never saw proof of the weapons of mass destruction. Are you saying the US governament lied, or are you saying their information service see things that aren't there? Wich one is it?

Also:

Originally posted by Tr0n
I just woke up....and I really don't feel like readin all those damn post.So here it plain and simple.Reason why we are great is because of war.Why do you guys even bitch about are goverment???There not a damn thing any of you can do about it.Hell even if our war was illegal what are you going to do about it???NOTHING!!!Why???Because we trade with all the countries in the world.Heck most countries live off the food we give them.Another is the UN is filled up with a bunch of pussies that won't do shit.So basically stop your bitching and go about your daily lives, because theres not a damn thing you can do about it.

Let me tell you something, it's kind of a secret:
THERE'S NOT A DAMN THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT EITHER!
So, are you still in control now??? If you would want to stop this war, could you??? In a few years, you'll be ready for the army, what if you donn't wan't to go? Have you ever seen an actual bomb explode a few of your buddies? What if you didn't want that??? You're as much part of the US governament as I am, since nobody will listen to you anyway. A president that's been put in place by congress, to avoid recounting votes? HAHAHAHA!!!! And you even support those wise guys at the top of your country?? You're a funny person. No, really. You can come at my house and f^ck my sister anytime.

 

[king John I]

there was no real reason to go to war with iraq, propaganda.