Real Life Mandarins

Originally posted by Excelsis
I'm only going to quote this last part, because I think it illustrates best what ridiculous ideas you have. If you were to be born in a communist country, they don't let you leave...ever. They don't let you travel around the country you're in, unless you're part of the "elite." They don't pay you real money, they pay money that you can only use in that country. They don't let you speak your mind. For instance if England was a communist country you'd be summarily executed for speaking out against Tony Blair. Why do you think there was a Berlin Wall, it wasn't to keep us out, it was to keep them in. But hey, if that's the kind of "freedom" you want, then go for it. Enjoy living in your hovel, with no heat, no food, and no say in how things get done.:rolleyes: The rest of us will enjoy the freedom that we have now. :) It ain't perfect but it's better than the alternative.
Click to expand...

Right on dude! and Madman, with that last post you are living up to your name
 
I'm glad you guys said what you did re: Madman's posts, because I wanted to be a civil as possible and respect his ideals. But you are certainly right in what you say. The way of life that the Western world offers is not perfect. But I ask those who protest the West and protest actions taken by the West what they see as a viable alternative. As for the conspiracy theories we've heard (it's all about the oil, the war will last as long as it generates revenue), I don't want to make too much of them. With that said, I don't want to make too little of them either. So, I ask those who believe in these theories whether they have any proof to what they say. Any solid, irefutible, take it to the bank and count it proof. Because if they do, I would love to see it, as I'm sure everyone else here would too, if we're all being played for fools by our respective governments.
 
Keneth who? I never heard of it, but this article you've provided is very interesting. You are right in what you say, in that just because there's no evidence doesn't mean there's no conspiracy. But, in America at least, suspects are innocent until proven guilty. People have a habit (and I've done this myself) of passing judgement, sometimes in a McCarthy like style, where declearations of innocence are taken as confessions, and only admissions are accepted. But on the other side of the McCarthism coin, governments can, and have done, told a lie loud enough and often enough that people believe it, even if it's utter crap. The conspiracies I'm referring to are things like "it's all about the oil", or "America are the Evil Empire wanting to rule\destroy the world", or "the war will go on as long as it creates revenue" and many others like this. But I think they've been gone over before.
 
Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.

AS for the oil one-The US economy is entirely dependent on said natural resource. Is it therefore unreasonable to assume that US companies and the government would want to get as much of it as possible? Then again there are Dick Cheney's connections with Halliburton, a company with a vested interest in natural resources. (Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton)

More on Halliburton:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm
 
No, of course it's not unreasonable to assume. You remember the old game Cluedo? Well, you can say you think such and such may have committed the murder all you want. But if you accuse, and you are wrong, game over. Same principles apply here. Sure, they may be after the oil (and it would be stupid if they were), and you have every right to assume that they are. You have every right to question whether they are. But I don't think it's reasonable to accuse and pass judgement.

And, I was discussing this topic with a friend, and a very good question came out, that I'll ask everyone here. If you are sucessful in protesting against war on Iraq, and on terrorism in general, and we no longer fight terrorism, would you be the first to say we should have done something if your family became victims of a terrorist attack?
 
many people would be. I for one fully support going to war with Iraq. we left the job unfinished back in '91. on the topic of the oil, hell we should take Iraq's oil and use it to pay for the war. as for the war on terrorism, I've been saying for that we should have been cracking down on it long before 9/11. course i'm just 18 and I don't have millions of dollars so the gov doesn't give a rat's ass about what I think.
 
I give a rusty you know what about what you think. I give a rusty you know what about what everyone thinks, and I can see what you're saying. The deal with the Gulf War, and Afghanistan, in my view, is that there are a lot less terrorists to bomb cities and such. Why is this so important, I hear you ask. Well, lets say that every terrorist killed means between five hundred and a thousand innocent folk like us get to live. Does that put a diffirent perspective on things, perhaps?

Originally posted by Ender
The antichrist bit, it was revealed several months ago that W has genetic links to the British crown.
Click to expand...

Wow, was it? Really? Wow. Bush looks a lot less than the portrayed AntiChrist than Binladen does the portrayed False Prophet, but it could be him. I cannot say for sure, nor, I believe, are we meant to until the end time.
 
Shrubs links to the British Empire: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/london001025.html

As for finishing what we started in '91- we should have done it in '91. When there was actually an opposition movement to Saddam Hussein that was bold enough to act openly. Unfortunatly, they got slaughtered without US support, and everyone else over there remembers it. By allowing those people to die we lost the trust of the Iraqi citizenry. Something we are not likely to get back. Further, with no one to take over after we "take out" Saddam, what then?

Can anyone think of an exit stratagy that does not leave the place in chaos, under the comtrol of another dictator, or taken over by another Gulf State? (A war waiting to happen.)

What does that leave us with? Occupation? Somehow I don't think the presence of armed troops in the street is a good way to foster goodwill and encourage democratic rule.
 
I would like to say send in Navy SEALS or Delta Force to take out Saddam, but because of Bill Clinton, or someone during his time as President (of what, I wonder sometimes), it looks like those sort of things arn't allowed anymore. So it seems the only option to get rid of someone like Hussain is overt war, as opposed to covert operations. :mad: Maybe Britain could use it's Special Air Service, or Germany it's GSC-9, or, in light of the Moscow terrorist act, Russia's Spetznaz.
 
The thing you refer to is an executive order put in place by President Ford. As an executive order, the chief executive can draft himself a new one to countermand it.

"or, in light of the Moscow terrorist act, Russia's Spetznaz."

Funny, I thought those were Chechan seperatists, not Iraqis.
 
Hahahahahahahahaha! Love your new sig!

The Moscow terrorists, if I remember correctly, were supporters of the Taliban, going back to that link between Binladen and Saddam we've been hearing about. As I just read, they seem to be similar to the Taliban. http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000121.html

As a side note, how many of you play video games? Most, I would assume. How many of you enjoy killing terrorists and waging war in games? I know I do. How many of you protest the same thing in real life? I know that I'm against war, but will support it, and sure, real life and video games are diffirent, but I thought it might be a point for you all to ponder.
 
Actually, Phillip, they had on the news about how that ban on killing foreign leaders (for military units, and the CIA I believe) was removed after Sept. 11. In responce to your taking out Saddam thing.


~Hey! I'm finally back, you all can tell me how you missed me, it's ok. :D ~
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
The Moscow terrorists, if I remember correctly, were supporters of the Taliban, going back to that link between Binladen and Saddam we've been hearing about. As I just read, they seem to be similar to the Taliban. http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000121.html
Click to expand...
Don't put too much faith in these "connections". I mean, Panama had links with the US which had links with Iraq, but I don't hear anybody in the US calling for an attack on Panama... oh, sorry, bad example :p.
 
How do Chechan rebels not link to the Taliban? Lets see, they both are Muslim, they both were bombed into the stone age by technologically advanced military, and they both stubbornly refuse to die. Oh, and having thier homes destroyed has not made them cower in the corner.

Also, the Chechans were forcibly relocated to Siberia by Stalin in the 40's, in the last 20 years they were allowed to return, and with the breakup of the USSR decided they didn't want to get hosed by the Russians anymore so they broke off. In order to prevent this Russia has gotten itself into an Afghanistan style (think USSR in the 80's) conflict which will no doubt bite the whole world on the ass in ten or twenty years.

Quarto- I LIKE that analogy.

Lastly, can we please change the title of this thread. I do not like being compared to even a fictional traitor. I have already explained how much I love my country. It can be summed up like this:

Nationalism: My country, right or wrong.
Patriotism: My country, right its wrongs.

Not to be confused with:
Jingoism
jin·go·ism Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
 
anyone who the US doesnt have as a friend is a taliban supporter or terrorist or 'threatens to be a terrorist at some point in time'.

makes me wish the cold war was on to keep the us in check.

-scheherazade
 
Originally posted by Ender
How do Chechan rebels not link to the Taliban? Lets see, they both are Muslim, they both were bombed into the stone age by technologically advanced military, and they both stubbornly refuse to die. Oh, and having thier homes destroyed has not made them cower in the corner.

Also, the Chechans were forcibly relocated to Siberia by Stalin in the 40's, in the last 20 years they were allowed to return, and with the breakup of the USSR decided they didn't want to get hosed by the Russians anymore so they broke off. In order to prevent this Russia has gotten itself into an Afghanistan style (think USSR in the 80's) conflict which will no doubt bite the whole world on the ass in ten or twenty years.

Quarto- I LIKE that analogy.

Lastly, can we please change the title of this thread. I do not like being compared to even a fictional traitor. I have already explained how much I love my country. It can be summed up like this:

Nationalism: My country, right or wrong.
Patriotism: My country, right its wrongs.

Not to be confused with:
Jingoism
jin·go·ism Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
Click to expand...

Change the thread title? Hmmmm, I'm not sure if I can or not. Most of you are nothing like cockbreath Colson, so I'll see what can be done. Anyway, the Moscow assholes committed their act with the intent to kill innocent people. They deserve to be shot, the same with any criminal whose actions puts the lives of innocent people in imminent danger. Or, as Spirit might say, malevolent acts committed with the sole intent to take lives and spread terror can simply not be allowed to go on unchecked.
 
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Moscow assholes committed their act with the intent to kill innocent people. They deserve to be shot, the same with any criminal whose actions puts the lives of innocent people in imminent danger. Or, as Spirit might say, malevolent acts committed with the sole intent to take lives and spread terror can simply not be allowed to go on unchecked.
Click to expand...

Ah c´mon don´t come with that, you expected an arrangement between the Russians and the terrorists, that is the first law, you never make an arrangement, and i didn´t saw that russians made a ¨malevolant acts committed with the sole intent to take lives and spread terror can simply not be allowed to go on unchecked¨
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top