Thread: F**k the Troops

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Sounds a lot like America to me. But then again, wherever European man goes slavery, land-robbery, and culture-wrecking goes with him.

Is it really hard for you to see that humans are still living in colonial ages? America is just the current empire. I think it's kind of self-righteous to think that humans are out of their disgusting empire-building habits but the truth is, it just got more efficient. We're just better at it now.

Before I finish typing, I'd like to leave a definition:

Empire - a nation-state that dominates other nation-states and exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:

1) Exploits resources from the land it dominates
2) Consumes large quantities of resources- amounts disproportionate to the size of it's population, relative to those of other nations
3) Maintains a large military that enforces its policies when more subtle measures fail
4) Spreads it's language, literature, art, and various aspects of its culture throughout it's sphere of influence
5) Taxes not just its own citizens, but also people in other countries
6) Imposes it's own currency on the lands under its control.
7) An empire is ruled by an emperor or king who has control over the government and media, is not elected by the people, is not subject to their will, and whose term is not limited by law.

Points 1 and 2 : The US represents less than 5 percent of the world's population yet it consumes more than 25 percent of the world's resources. This is done mainly by exploiting developing countries resources.

Point 3: The US maintains the world's largest and most sophisticated military. Although empire building is done primarily through economics, it should be easy to understand that whenever other measures fail, the military will be deployed, as it has been done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Point 4: Hard to dispute that the English language and American culture dominates the world.

Point 5 and 6: The US doesn't tax other countries directly, and in a lot of cases currency in local markets have not been replaced by the dollar, but the dollar is in fact the standard currency for world commerce.

This process began after world war II when the gold standard was modified; individuals could no longer convert their dollars, only governments.

When international business men and other governments try to buy goods or services from America they find that inflation reduced their dollars worth, in effect taxing people all around the world that wish to trade with the worlds most powerful and influential country.

Point 7: At first glance, this might seem to set America apart from any other pre-existing empire, but the appearance is illusory. This empire is ruled by a group of people who collectively act very much like a king or emperor. They run our largest corporations and through them, our government too. Because they fund political campaigns and own the media (Or atleast control it through advertising and sponsoring) they control elected officials and the information we receive. Politicians, congress and the media have been long bought off.

These men and women are in control whether or not Republicans or Democrats are in the White House or Congress. They are not subject to the peoples will and their terms are not limited by law.

I think it's pretty clear that America is an empire. And empire-building is always dirty, nasty, brutal, and secretive. Don't you think so?

America classified as an empire is a stretch. A big stretch, at least in the classical sense. If anything it is a new kind of empire, one that doesn't foster fear, discontent, and oppression. You are taking most of your own points out of context, such as predominance of English language, American currency, disproportional resource consumption etc. While they may be true, the reasons for this are debatable. We do not conquer nations and force our language or currency upon them. The only countries that speak English as their first language are the countries that were once colonized by England. Other countries simply learn English as a second language because the world is dominated by English speaking countries, learning English puts them at an advantage business wise. English is the official language of aviation because America did and still is pinoeering the aviation industry. Our culture is popular in other countries, only because it's awesome. Asian countries like our movies and music because they kick the shit out of the local stuff, why do you think piracy is so popular over there? All of those Asian countries still have their own identity, they adopt certain western traits by choice. They like our currency because it is more valuable than theirs. They speak our language because it is advantageous to them. They adopt aspects of western culture because they like it. We aren't forcing it on anyone.

As for your description of point number 7, it is true that CEO's of large companies hold power. But they are all separate entities. They have separate personalities, separate goals, separate wants. They do not work together as a single dictating entity. And as proven by the events of the past two years, the government still reigns supreme.

When you compare America with historical empires, it may have certain traits in common, but it contrasts more than it compares. We have no single emperor, we do not conquer all of the lands around us (Canada and Mexico both still exist,) we do not destroy the cultures of our victims, we do not discourage opposition to our government, we do not threaten violence to those who speak out against the government, the list goes on.

em⋅pire  /ˈɛmpaɪər; for 8–10 also ɒmˈpɪər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [em-pahyuhr; for 8–10 also om-peer] Show IPA
–noun 1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
2. a government under an emperor or empress.
3. (often initial capital letter) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
5. supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.


The difference between us and the Japanese Empire is the rape of Nanking. The difference between us and the Nazi Empire is the Holocaust. The difference between us and all other empires is that the only country that we technically have sovereign power over is ourselves. We are powerful, we could probably take over many nations, but we tend to let them govern themselves. The only meddling I see us doing is when something may threaten our way of life.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Have we taken over Canada or Mexico? No.

Well considering American corporations dominate our economy, they have taken us over in a sense. They support our political campaigns, fund our media, control the products we are sold...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why do we consume so much of the world's resources? Because we can afford to. Our economic system is extremely effective.

Well this is really an A+ attitude. This is the reason rainforests will continue to be clear-cut, ecosystems destroyed, cheap labour in third worlds exploited, the air and water polluted, the oceans over-fished, and the land raped for its ores and oils. All because we can, and I quote, "afford" to live like this.

Our well-being and the reason we can live like this in the West is based on the exploitation of poor people around the world. Don't believe me? Look at all your clothes, shoes, appliances, etc. Look at the tags; any money it says "Made in Indonesia", or something a long those lines. Millions of people slaving away for a dollar a day so that people like you, sitting comfortably at your computer, can preach about how our system "works", and others don't. The Oil you burn in your car has been reaped from third worlds by fat rich white businessmen, oil that's been inherited equally by every human on this planet, then sold back to our fat-asses.

Is this your idea of sustainable behaviour? We CANNOT afford to live like this contrary to what you say. Not much longer, anyway.

The American empire will crash and burn like every other empire preceding it, and there is one good reason for it: It's not built to last.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

America classified as an empire is a stretch. A big stretch, at least in the classical sense. If anything it is a new kind of empire, one that doesn't foster fear, discontent, and oppression. You are taking most of your own points out of context, such as predominance of English language, American currency, disproportional resource consumption etc. While they may be true, the reasons for this are debatable. We do not conquer nations and force our language or currency upon them. The only countries that speak English as their first language are the countries that were once colonized by England. Other countries simply learn English as a second language because the world is dominated by English speaking countries, learning English puts them at an advantage business wise. English is the official language of aviation because America did and still is pinoeering the aviation industry. Our culture is popular in other countries, only because it's awesome. Asian countries like our movies and music because they kick the shit out of the local stuff, why do you think piracy is so popular over there? All of those Asian countries still have their own identity, they adopt certain western traits by choice. They like our currency because it is more valuable than theirs. They speak our language because it is advantageous to them. They adopt aspects of western culture because they like it. We aren't forcing it on anyone.

As for your description of point number 7, it is true that CEO's of large companies hold power. But they are all separate entities. They have separate personalities, separate goals, separate wants. They do not work together as a single dictating entity. And as proven by the events of the past two years, the government still reigns supreme.

When you compare America with historical empires, it may have certain traits in common, but it contrasts more than it compares. We have no single emperor, we do not conquer all of the lands around us (Canada and Mexico both still exist,) we do not destroy the cultures of our victims, we do not discourage opposition to our government, we do not threaten violence to those who speak out against the government, the list goes on.

em⋅pire  /ˈɛmpaɪər; for 8–10 also ɒmˈpɪər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [em-pahyuhr; for 8–10 also om-peer] Show IPA
–noun 1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
2. a government under an emperor or empress.
3. (often initial capital letter) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
5. supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.


The difference between us and the Japanese Empire is the rape of Nanking. The difference between us and the Nazi Empire is the Holocaust. The difference between us and all other empires is that the only country that we technically have sovereign power over is ourselves. We are powerful, we could probably take over many nations, but we tend to let them govern themselves. The only meddling I see us doing is when something may threaten our way of life.

America was founded as an empire. Anyway, there seems to be a lot
you don't know about your country. It has a history of terrorism and
opression and support of the 'bad guys'. You can make a case, where
you call the leaders of other countries corrupt, deceptive, terroristic
and many more things, but you'd just have to apply the same to the
United States as well, otherwise you'd just be a major hypocrite.

If you get your information on historical or political events from
intellectuals, not politicians, you just get a very different picture
altogether. That is not to be meant preachy, just an observation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ghoXQxdk6s

http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...chomsky&hl=de#

http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...chomsky&hl=de#

Edit:

I'd like to add that it is of course true that there is freedom of speech
by law and noone (or not many people) are persecuted for voicing their
opinions publicly - especially compared to some other countries. But
there is a way of diminishing 'unpopular opinions' by redicule for example,
or just plain disinformation in the mainstream, which just makes free
speech a very watery thing.

You can find many differences between the imperialism of the United States
and others, but just as well you can find many differences between country
X and Y. The thing is that tendencies (e.g. distribution of power) are similar,
but the way how they are played out might vary.

Also:
Whatever form of power you have, it very oftenly can be boiled down to
an oligarchy. Every dictatorship has advisors surrounding him, people with
similar amount of influence, it's just not in the publics eye. And even in a
democracy most decisions are in fact not decided by the people, but by
a small number of ..."representatives".

Another point I'd like to make is that history shows that every form of
government is merely a transitional stage into something else. So where
are we heading at this time? I think that is a crucial factor, when thinking
about global politics.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

As for your description of point number 7, it is true that CEO's of large companies hold power. But they are all separate entities. They have separate personalities, separate goals, separate wants. They do not work together as a single dictating entity. And as proven by the events of the past two years, the government still reigns supreme.

When you compare America with historical empires, it may have certain traits in common, but it contrasts more than it compares. We have no single emperor, we do not conquer all of the lands around us (Canada and Mexico both still exist,) we do not destroy the cultures of our victims, we do not discourage opposition to our government, we do not threaten violence to those who speak out against the government, the list goes on.

Like I said before, it's a group of people who collectively act as an emperor.

These people graduated from the same Universities, they are on the same board of directors, they're in the same country clubs, they have like interests.

They don't need to sit around with each other and conspire about doing illegal activities. They know what is best for them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Your argument is rooted in our success, not our evil.

Is it our military that brings us freedom, or our principles? I think we have success, we have freedom, because of our principles of freedom of speech and capitalism(freedom of trade).

Do you really believe that principles need to be defended with violence? Do they not stand on their own?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

we do not destroy the cultures of our victims,

LOL, our victims indeed.

Originally Posted by dajo

America was founded as an empire. Anyway, there seems to be a lot
you don't know about your country. It has a history of terrorism and
opression and support of the 'bad guys'. You can make a case, where
you call the leaders of other countries corrupt, deceptive, terroristic
and many more things, but you'd just have to apply the same to the
United States as well, otherwise you'd just be a major hypocrite.

If you get your information on historical or political events from
intellectuals, not politicians, you just get a very different picture
altogether. That is not to be meant preachy, just an observation.

I don't agree that America was founded as an empire. Some of the founding fathers may have had imperialistic aspirations, but it never was and never has been an empire in the classical sense. Im am not pretending that America is some sort of saintly nation. I understand that we have corrupt leaders, who doesn't? We may support bad people, Joeseph Stalin for example, because they can help us. We don't propagate such oppressive regimes ourselves. Entering a relationship with such nations for mutual gain is much different than actually employing their tactics in our own country. It is a very shady business, but it does not qualify us as an empire.

(I don't get my history from politicians by the way.)

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Like I said before, it's a group of people who collectively act as an emperor.

These people graduated from the same Universities, they are on the same board of directors, they're in the same country clubs, they have like interests.

They don't need to sit around with each other and conspire about doing illegal activities. They know what is best for them.

That contradicts the definition of an emperor. It is one person with one agenda. An emperor is the leader of a nation, they may be selfish but part of their selfishness is making sure their empire is the most powerful in the world. An emperor's concerns are very different than a CEO's concerns. A CEO doesn't give a shit about his country. An emperor's name on the other hand, is synoymous with his empire. It is therefore necessary for an emperor to be interested in more than just money. I have a hard time believing that CEO's are behind all of the major diplomatic decisions made by our country. They may have a limited influence, but that is all. I think claiming any more than that would be a breach of the conspiracy line, considering there is not a lot of evidence to support it, only hunches and heresay.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Is it our military that brings us freedom, or our principles? I think we have success, we have freedom, because of our principles of freedom of speech and capitalism(freedom of trade).

Do you really believe that principles need to be defended with violence? Do they not stand on their own?

Do principles stand on their own? Is that a serious question? You can't kill invaders with your free speech.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

but it never was and never has been an empire in the classical sense.

This is semantics, who cares if it 'has never been an empire in the classical sense' it is still an empire. Our methods are just more sutble now. It does not matter that we are "better" or "worse", the fact of the matter is that we ARE. As for your statement that Corporations don't really effect legislation, that is ludicris. For example look at all the laws that have been passed in america simply to benefit insurance companies! Also, look at the law that recently passed that stated that every citizen had to purchase converter boxes for television sets, there was no real need for that except to line the pockets of the communications corporations! Also, look at what we are doing in Iraq! We invaded a soverign country that had NEVER attacked us, removed it's leader, and are currently controling it's territory. Isn't that virtually the same as what the spanish did to the aztecs in the 16th century! The only difference is that we havn't enslaved the local populace.

To deny that America is an Empire is to deny that the sky is Blue.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

This is semantics, who cares if it 'has never been an empire in the classical sense' it is still an empire. Our methods are just more sutble now. It does not matter that we are "better" or "worse", the fact of the matter is that we ARE. As for your statement that Corporations don't really effect legislation, that is ludicris. For example look at all the laws that have been passed in america simply to benefit insurance companies! Also, look at the law that recently passed that stated that every citizen had to purchase converter boxes for television sets, there was no real need for that except to line the pockets of the communications corporations! Also, look at what we are doing in Iraq! We invaded a soverign country that had NEVER attacked us, removed it's leader, and are currently controling it's territory. Isn't that virtually the same as what the spanish did to the aztecs in the 16th century! The only difference is that we havn't enslaved the local populace.

To deny that America is an Empire is to deny that the sky is Blue.

Semantics happens to be very important in this case. In order for America to be an empire, you would need to change the definition of empire.

As for laws being passed for corporations, I was talking about diplomacy. Emperors control more than domestic issues. And the conflict in Iraq does not constitute imperialism. Iraq is still Iraq, not "East America," and they still have their own government.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

This is semantics, who cares if it 'has never been an empire in the classical sense' it is still an empire. Our methods are just more sutble now. It does not matter that we are "better" or "worse", the fact of the matter is that we ARE. As for your statement that Corporations don't really effect legislation, that is ludicris. For example look at all the laws that have been passed in america simply to benefit insurance companies! Also, look at the law that recently passed that stated that every citizen had to purchase converter boxes for television sets, there was no real need for that except to line the pockets of the communications corporations! Also, look at what we are doing in Iraq! We invaded a soverign country that had NEVER attacked us, removed it's leader, and are currently controling it's territory. Isn't that virtually the same as what the spanish did to the aztecs in the 16th century! The only difference is that we havn't enslaved the local populace.

To deny that America is an Empire is to deny that the sky is Blue.

seriously? So many people keep forgetting that Iraq breached the cease fire agreements we had. You know, the one from the Gulf War when we kept them out of Kuwait? And they wouldnt let UN inspectors in to check out certain areas. Its not like we blindly ran in, we gave them plenty of opportunities to avoid war. (although I agree the war could have been handled better)

The US may be whats known as an economic empire, but that is not even close to the same as the empire you are describing. You know what happens to an economic empire? The exact thing that is happening to the US right now, it loses influence with the times, especially once its currency gets weaker.

Your statement about the cable boxes, I agree with though. That was stupid.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am not going to argue the Iraq War from scratch any more, so here is one of the many threads where I argued about it. I want to add here that the "civilians" you are talking about are not targetted by us unless they are insurgents. The insurgents, on the other hand, do target civilians. You might want to start a thread on how much you hate them. A high percentage of the insurgents are from other countries, and many of them are Iranians being trained and funded by the governent of Iran. Here is something I said in the past about the justification for the war.

http://dreamviews.com/community/show...%27s+ceasefire

I will add this also. I know people in Iraq, and I know people who have been to Iraq. Something the media will never tell you is just how loved Bush is in Iraq. He saved them from one of the most horrific governments of all time. The country is in a transition phase now, but their future is bright. They were liberated. Do you have anything at all good to say about that aspect of the picture? The liberation of Iraq should in at least that aspect be a liberal's wet dream.

You are far too gullable. The load of shit they made you believe. You and masses of the world's populace.
You should have nicknamed yourself Universal MindLESSNESS instead.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Well considering American corporations dominate our economy, they have taken us over in a sense. They support our political campaigns, fund our media, control the products we are sold...

That is not taking over. That is having strong influence. Your business people are still free to do what they want to do with their lives, and your consumers are free to shop where they want to shop. They have freedom of religion and lots of other freedoms, and they do not fall under our laws. Taking over is what Nazi Germany did to Poland and what the Soviet Union did to Eastern Europe. They stepped in and said, "This land is my land. Do as we say from now on, or else."

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Well this is really an A+ attitude. This is the reason rainforests will continue to be clear-cut, ecosystems destroyed, cheap labour in third worlds exploited, the air and water polluted, the oceans over-fished, and the land raped for its ores and oils. All because we can, and I quote, "afford" to live like this.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying we should be able to do whatever we feel like as long as we can do it. I was pointing out the economic effectiveness of capitalism. Understand?

There should be limits on taking endangered resources, but I don't trust left wing propaganda too much.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Our well-being and the reason we can live like this in the West is based on the exploitation of poor people around the world. Don't believe me? Look at all your clothes, shoes, appliances, etc. Look at the tags; any money it says "Made in Indonesia", or something a long those lines. Millions of people slaving away for a dollar a day so that people like you, sitting comfortably at your computer, can preach about how our system "works", and others don't. The Oil you burn in your car has been reaped from third worlds by fat rich white businessmen, oil that's been inherited equally by every human on this planet, then sold back to our fat-asses.

Some of our businesses have foreign workers, and some don't. This "exploitation" thing gets thrown around by socialists all the time, and it is very misleading. It is true that some businesses pay shitty wages to third world workers, but those workers are not pulled down by our businesses. They are given slightly better alternatives that are still shitty. That is a matter of a business not doing as much as a it could, not a matter of a business fucking up a country.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

The American empire will crash and burn like every other empire preceding it, and there is one good reason for it: It's not built to last.

I know you dream of that. Your dream speaks volumes about how you really feel about others.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests (in another thread)

I really hope something happens in 2012, although my intuition tells me it's superstitious bullshit.

Maybe Yellowstone in Wyoming will erupt and cover 1/2 of America in burning hot pyroclastic debris. That would be kinda cool...

I don't know about anyone else, but bad news is my favourite news.

There we have it.

I would like to have a great world with healthy people who are happy, free, and safe. I can see where you stand.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Is it our military that brings us freedom, or our principles? I think we have success, we have freedom, because of our principles of freedom of speech and capitalism(freedom of trade).

Do you really believe that principles need to be defended with violence? Do they not stand on their own?

No, there are plenty of countries that have had those freedoms and lost them. It could happen here too. We need to do our best to make sure it doesn't.

Originally Posted by SKA

You are far too gullable. The load of shit they made you believe. You and masses of the world's populace.
You should have nicknamed yourself Universal MindLESSNESS instead.

Oh no, SKA. Did you really leave that pathetic post? Did your roommate get a hold of your account or something? That is pitiful. I thought you could do better than that. You know I love a good debate, but you gave me nothing except name calling. Is that really the best you can do? What a sad sight. I thought you were much smarter than that. Would you like to try again? Come on, explain to me where the missteps in my reasoning processes are. Give me counterarguments. Debate me instead of leaving mindless posts. Show me something. What you posted is worthless.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying we should be able to do whatever we feel like as long as we can do it. I was pointing out the economic effectiveness of capitalism. Understand?

No. How can "we can afford to live like this" be misinterpreted? It's totally unambiguous. It's pretty clear that you think we can afford to live like this, or else you would have said otherwise. Understand?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know you dream of that. Your dream speaks volumes about how you really feel about others.

Even a half-retard can understand that our way of life is unsustainable. Jesus, even other people with your silly, cultish, anti-communist beliefs can see this.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There we have it.

I would like to have a great world with healthy people who are happy, free, and safe. I can see where you stand.

Are you really that stumped that you need to bring in posts from other discussions in an attempt to make yourself look better?

This world will never achieve what you speak of with mindless people conforming to this system.

The more bad news there is the quicker this system fails. FINE BY ME. The seems will begin to rip, and I'll be sitting on the edge of my chair waiting for this filthy, deprived, disgusting system to collapse. Whilst waiting for this event to occur, I totally withdraw my support and faith in our political system, be careful what corporations I support, and try to enlighten other people about our current predicament.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

No. How can "we can afford to live like this" be misinterpreted? It's totally unambiguous. It's pretty clear that you think we can afford to live like this, or else you would have said otherwise. Understand?

You're still not getting it, or at least not admitting you are getting it. I am talking about the economic effectiveness of capitalism. Concentrate on that variable. Concentrate. Now, with that in mind, we are wealthy enough to use so many resources. Wealthy. Capitalism creates wealth. Get it?

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Even a half-retard can understand that our way of life is unsustainable. Jesus, even other people with your silly, cultish, anti-communist beliefs can see this.

Pure ad hominems are always effective in a debate. Nice work. You should be proud.

Yes, we will eventually run out of oil and other unrenewable resources. We are working on alternative forms.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Are you really that stumped that you need to bring in posts from other discussions in an attempt to make yourself look better?

That does not qualify as a counterargument. You gave away what you are really about, and all you can do is throw hollow insults at me for doing it. The truth is obvious because of that post. You don't give a happy damn about this world. Very few socialists do.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

This world will never achieve what you speak of with mindless people conforming to this system.

Could you be a little more vague?

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

The more bad news there is the quicker this system fails. FINE BY ME. The seems will begin to rip, and I'll be sitting on the edge of my chair waiting for this filthy, deprived, disgusting system to collapse. Whilst waiting for this event to occur, I totally withdraw my support and faith in our political system, be careful what corporations I support, and try to enlighten other people about our current predicament.

Why would you want to "enlighten" anybody? You love tragedy and bad news. That's why you support socialism.

sure is an awful lot of name calling going on, and they seem to be coming from one source....hum...

Originally Posted by tkdyo

seriously? So many people keep forgetting that Iraq breached the cease fire agreements we had. You know, the one from the Gulf War when we kept them out of Kuwait? And they wouldnt let UN inspectors in to check out certain areas. Its not like we blindly ran in, we gave them plenty of opportunities to avoid war. (although I agree the war could have been handled better)

Do you know John Perkins?

I'm not so sure John Perkins is the most trustworthy person.

And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying.
A good motivation to lie would be to cover up a corporation's immorality and corruption so you and your corporation can proceed with making huge profits and living large.
I don't see why someone would lie to run a smear campaign against the entire corporate world and the corrupt political system. Do you?



Universal Mind.
You have been lied to and you are far too gullable.
I find this Mindless of a person I've allways deemed pretty Mindfull on many other subjects.
How is it you find my post pathetic? Is it because I don't agree with you?

You were one of the people that I've witnessed speak alot of wisdom on many subjects: Too bad Politics isn't one of them.

Don't get me wrong when I get raw. It's passion. Passion for the truth. It frustrates me to see how many otherwise bright people are still fooled into thinking Iraq was invaded to "bring democracy".

No hard feelings. Well perhaps semi-hard. But hey this is a very emotionally loaded topic of great political/moral significance. You can't expect such a discussion to be a picknick.

Let me repeat once more:
America > Run by corporations > greedy> Immoral> Needed a reason to invade and mass raid Iraq > Orchestrated a series of sloppily carried out atrocities> Blaimed it on Islam> Connected it to Iraq > Got the American peoples to back the Invasional plan = KaCHING!. Lots of free oil to sell for a high price. It's grandscale robery. Resource robbery. Nothing we haven't seen before throughout history.
American Corporations use "Economical Hitmen" to stage events that influence public opinion and dispose of leaders that cannot be corrupted. Dajo posted movies about that; You should check em out. It will clarify alot.

Capiche? It had nothing to do with democracy or morality at all.
Off course that's what they dressed it up to look like. How many Americans would have agreed with going to Iraq "to steal their resources, let grand oil corporations profit from it and leave the Iraqi people in a devastation, violence and poverty"? Not much. So they dressed it up as a moral quest. And all of you buy it.

Be more vigilant. It happend so many times before throughout history.

Hitler came with the weak excuse that "our German brothers" in Polland are being harrassed and attacked by Polish soldiers. He put some German soldiers in Polish Militairy uniforms, let them act and make it appear as though Polish Soldiers were harrassing and attacking Germans in Sudetenland(Polland).
He publicised the movie and it worked like a Charm; He got all Germany on the bandwagon to invade Polland.

Same shit different coat. And we follow into such lies just as easily today.

Originally Posted by SKA

I'll repeat it for you Universal Mind;

You have been lied to and you are far too gullable.
I find this Mindless of a person I've allways deemed pretty Mindfull on many other subjects.
How is it you find my post pathetic? Is it because I don't agree with you?

You were one of the people that I've witnessed speak alot of wisdom on many subjects: Too bad Politics isn't one of them.

Don't get me wrong when I get raw. It's passion. Passion for the truth. It frustrates me to see how many otherwise bright people are still fooled into thinking Iraq was invaded to "bring democracy".

No hard feelings. Well perhaps semi-hard. But hey this is a very emotionally loaded topic of great political/moral significance. You can't expect such a discussion to be a picknick.

Let me repeat once more:
America > Run by corporations > greedy> Immoral> Needed a reason to invade and mass raid Iraq > Orchestrated a series of sloppily carried out atrocities> Blaimed it on Islam> Connected it to Iraq > Got the American peoples to back this plan = KaCHING!. Lots of free oil to sell for a high price. It's grandscale robery. Resource robbery. Nothing we haven't seen before throughout history.
American Corporations use "Economical Hitmen" to stage events that influence public opinion and dispose of leaders that cannot be corrupted. Dajo posted movies about that; You should check em out. It will clarify alot.

Capiche? It had nothing to do with democracy or morality at all.

Be more vigilant. It happend so many times before throughout history.

Hitler came with the weak excuse that "our German brothers" in Polland are being harrassed and attacked by Polish soldiers. He put some German soldiers in Polish Militairy uniforms, let them act and make it appear as though Polish Soldiers were harrassing and attacking Germans in Sudetenland(Polland).
He publicised the movie and it worked like a Charm; He got all Germany on the bandwagon to invade Polland.

Same shit different coat. And we follow into such lies just as easily today.

I think your passion may be clouding your logical mind. Corporations do not run this country, corporations do not send this country to war. All that has been presented in this thread by your viewpoint amounts to nothing more than heresay, rumors, gut feelings, and hunches. That's what happens when you let emotions do the debating for you.

nope! corporations sure don't run our country. they do it indirectly

what in the fuck are you waiting for?

"the supreme court's decision... coming up next - brought to you by PFIZER!"

"this fucked up LA traffic and lack of public transportation... brought to you by THE OIL AND AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRIES" hooray!

Originally Posted by cygnus

nope! corporations sure don't run our country. they do it indirectly

what in the fuck are you waiting for?

"the supreme court's decision... coming up next - brought to you by PFIZER!"

"this fucked up LA traffic and lack of public transportation... brought to you by THE OIL AND AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRIES" hooray!

Good argument. Very compelling.

Caprisun,
Nice of you to simply redicule my arguments; A clever way to avoiding having to bring good, solid counter arguements. However that's not what discussion is about is it? It's all about arguements.
So where are yours? Let me urge you a little.


Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?
Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?
Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?


Are you here to participate in a political discussion? Or are you merely here to pass your judgement on other people's opinions?
If you TRUELY wan't to redicule me, for whatever reason that makes you feel good, then bring good counter arguements that disprove mine.

Originally Posted by SKA

Do you believe Governments run nations in the interrest of it's people's wellbeing?
Do you believe large corporations and cartels are no more than "politically quite influential"?
Do you believe the world news you are presented through the mainstream media channels at least TRY to be any kind of objective and truthfull?

Ill have a go as well.

1. I do not believe most governments do so, which is why they need checks such as constant re-election and educated citizens

2. I dont think they are anymore than very influential, but that is still too much for me

3. Mainstream media is full of bias, but if you havnt noticed, it has all been against the war for the past 4 or so years.

tkdyo

Concerning 1.
That would off course only secure the people's interrests if they were given the choice between actual ideological politicians representing their opinions, rather than corrupted puppets. So I guess you're saying you believe in truthfull, unmanipulated, honoust politics. Am I right? I guess the 2 of us couldn't possibly disagree more than on this one.

Concerning 2. Have you noticed how most people are easily corrupted? How they whore themselves for money? How are politicians any less vurnerable for such corruption? I mean they have such power, they could get away with alot more than you and me.
Who do you think help them to power? Who do you think finances their campaigns?
What chance does a Politician stand without a good PR machine and campaign?


Concerning 3. There is no longer any need for Corporations to have the people's support for the war: The damage's been done. So as not to raise unnececairy suspisions their Media channels speak along with public opinion against the war.
All the corporate governing system desires is to be able to stay in Iraq and continue stealing the Resources from the Iraqi people to make profits.

Well the new excuse to stay there and continue the robbery is to tell people through the Media: "Oh well we landed the country in total Anarchy. We can't just abbandon the Iraqi people? We need to help them rebuild their country and protect them against terrorist insurgients" Don't forget that rebuilding a destroyed nation is million dollar business to Energy-corporations, Infrastructure and construction corporations. It is a nice side-profit to the main goal: The Oil.

Sure. Why would they care what we think of the war? As long as the public thinks that "Our troops should stay there" for whatever reason, they can continue plundering the country's resources.


Let me add another question for you, caprisun and others who disagree with me:

4. Do you really think the series of plane attacks on 9/11 were unforeseen by american intelligence and carried out by anti-american terrorists?

Originally Posted by SKA

tkdyo

Concerning 1.
That would off course only secure the people's interrests if they were given the choice between actual ideological politicians representing their opinions, rather than corrupted puppets. So I guess you're saying you believe in truthfull, unmanipulated, honoust politics. Am I right? I guess the 2 of us couldn't possibly disagree more than on this one.

actually we agree quite a bit. I know almost all politicians have their own reasons and means for running, which is why there has to be elections so often, so that they are forced to keep the people happy. This, of course will work must easier if the populace is better educated...

Originally Posted by SKA

Concerning 2. Have you noticed how most people are easily corrupted? How they whore themselves for money? How are politicians any less vurnerable for such corruption? I mean they have such power, they could get away with alot more than you and me.
Who do you think help them to power? Who do you think finances their campaigns?
What chance does a Politician stand without a good PR machine and campaign?

exactly why I believe companies have more influence then they should, you are preaching to the choir on this one. I only say influence because in the end it is still the politicians decision.

Originally Posted by SKA

Concerning 3. There is no longer any need for Corporations to have the people's support for the war: The damage's been done. So as not to raise unnececairy suspisions their Media channels speak along with public opinion against the war.
All the corporate governing system desires is to be able to stay in Iraq and continue stealing the Resources from the Iraqi people to make profits.

Well the new excuse to stay there and continue the robbery is to tell people through the Media: "Oh well we landed the country in total Anarchy. We can't just abbandon the Iraqi people? We need to help them rebuild their country and protect them against terrorist insurgients" Don't forget that rebuilding a destroyed nation is million dollar business to Energy-corporations, Infrastructure and construction corporations. It is a nice side-profit to the main goal: The Oil.

Sure. Why would they care what we think of the war? As long as the public thinks that "Our troops should stay there" for whatever reason, they can continue plundering the country's resources.

but the majority of our people DONT think they should stay there, and the media encourages this. I have a great disdain for mainstream media. One great example is Glen Beck, he flips on a dime depending on the network hes on. Also...well if we did leave right now, just pulled out what do you think WOULD happen?

Edit: 4th question that wasnt in there before Obviously, there is evidence that they had wind of the plot, but I blame the general ego trip that our government was on as well as the ridiculous bureaucracy in our government for the fail to stop it. Also, I still cant believe 3 planes full of people really were intimidated by friggin box knifes, thats just pathetic.