Thread: F**k the Troops

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 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.

Originally Posted by SKA

How is it you find my post pathetic? Is it because I don't agree with you?

I already explained that. Your post was nothing but a personal insult with no backing. That is no way to have a debate. I was surprised to see that from you.

I said this in another thread and linked it early in this thread...

What does Iraq have to do with terrorism? You say nothing? Well, let me inform you of the truth. First of all, saying Iraq has something to do with terrorism is not to say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No, the Hussein regime was not involved in the 9/11 attacks as far as we know. But, the Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that supported Hamas and Hezballah and provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, took over Kuwait without any justification, used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds, and used terror to control their own masses. They were also having meetings with Al Qaeda representatives and harboring Al Qaeda members. Plus, our 1991 ceasefire with them required that they had to follow certain provisions regarding terrorism and their WMD's, which they did in fact have. They violated that ceasefire for 12 years. After 9/11, the U.S. made policy changes. We formed the Bush Doctrine, which was a policy regarding all international terrorist groups, not just the terrorist group that inspired it. (Make sure you caught that very important point which the leftist fanatics always overlook.) Under it, the Taliban of Afghanistan was the first government we went after. Due to everything I said about the Hussein regime, they were second. In addition to that, democracy in the heart of the Middle East is a great weapon against terrorism in the long run. So is making Islamofascist terrorists come out of the Middle Eastern woodwork so we can kill them like flies. Also, five ally governments and the United Nations, in addition to our own intelligence, reported that the regime currently had stockpiles of WMD's before the war started. Consider that entire picture, and you will see what Iraq has to do with terrorism and the justification for the lifting of the ceasefire and overthrowing the Hussein regime.

You need to consider all of it at the same time. It's about a big picture, not just any one thing.

Those are most of the justifications for the Iraq War. Even IF what you claim about corporate greed and how it relates to the war is true (I don't think you can prove that it is. Your point is pure speculation.), those justifications are still justifications.

First off I must admit I got too personal and insultive. Let me apologise for that. It was uncalled for and I let my emotions get too much in the way.
Let's say I'm having a not-so-enjoyable-time in my life right now.
So. Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I said this in another thread and linked it early in this thread...

What does Iraq have to do with terrorism? You say nothing? Well, let me inform you of the truth. First of all, saying Iraq has something to do with terrorism is not to say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No, the Hussein regime was not involved in the 9/11 attacks as far as we know. But, the Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that supported Hamas and Hezballah and provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, took over Kuwait without any justification, used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds, and used terror to control their own masses. They were also having meetings with Al Qaeda representatives and harboring Al Qaeda members. Plus, our 1991 ceasefire with them required that they had to follow certain provisions regarding terrorism and their WMD's, which they did in fact have. They violated that ceasefire for 12 years. After 9/11, the U.S. made policy changes. We formed the Bush Doctrine, which was a policy regarding all international terrorist groups, not just the terrorist group that inspired it. (Make sure you caught that very important point which the leftist fanatics always overlook.) Under it, the Taliban of Afghanistan was the first government we went after. Due to everything I said about the Hussein regime, they were second. In addition to that, democracy in the heart of the Middle East is a great weapon against terrorism in the long run. So is making Islamofascist terrorists come out of the Middle Eastern woodwork so we can kill them like flies. Also, five ally governments and the United Nations, in addition to our own intelligence, reported that the regime currently had stockpiles of WMD's before the war started. Consider that entire picture, and you will see what Iraq has to do with terrorism and the justification for the lifting of the ceasefire and overthrowing the Hussein regime.

You need to consider all of it at the same time. It's about a big picture, not just any one thing.

Those are most of the justifications for the Iraq War. Even IF what you claim about corporate greed and how it relates to the war is true (I don't think you can prove that it is. Your point is pure speculation.), those justifications are still justifications.

I never said Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism. Where exactly did you get that?

Also not once did I say Iraq didn't have WMD. But then again doesn't the USA have a grand arsenal of nukes? What kind of weapons would you call nukes? A nuclear warhead makes a nervegas bomb seem like an innocent toy.

Also I have never been a fan of Hussein's regime( to make the understatement of the century ), but Universal Mind; Who helped Saddam Hussein to power in the first place? .... Everyone knows the USA did.

And I'm sure you'll remember the 1st Gulf War. 100ds of Iraqis fought alongside the american and UN soldiers to end Saddam's terror regime. However just as our combined troops were zero-ing in on Baghdad, they left again. Needless to say those 100ds of Iraqis fighting alongside our soldiers were brutally slain by Saddam for treason. This goes to show the "charitable intentions" with which the US invaded Iraq.

So why didn't they just release Iraq of Saddams terror right there? They had encircled Baghdad and were closing in on Saddam's palace. They could've easily done it.

Instead they let it serve as a warning for Saddam, hoping that after this threat he would be corrupted and sell out his oil for cheap to western oil corporations. When he refused..... well that's where the 2nd Gulfwar started. The reason for invading Iraq was a weak excuse amounting basically to: "A Saudi Arabian Terrorist leader operating from Afghanistan attacked America, Yeah lets invade Iraq". It makes absolutely no sense.

First comes the Economical hitman that tries to corrupt leaders, if that fails they send CIA jackalls to either cause a revolution or assassinate the incorruptable leader to reinstate a corrupt leader who rules in their favor. If even that fails they send the militairy. Just listen to John Perkins.

Originally Posted by SKA

First off I must admit I got too personal and insultive. Let me apologise for that. It was uncalled for and I let my emotions get too much in the way.
Let's say I'm having a not-so-enjoyable-time in my life right now.
So. Sorry about that.

All right, no big deal. Cool beans.

Originally Posted by SKA

I never said Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism. Where exactly did you get that?

That was just how I started out a post addressed to Wendylove a while back. I quoted it here so I wouldn't have to type out my entire argument again. But since you agree Iraq was involved in terrorism, wouldn't you say there was some degree of legitimacy in overthrowing the government?

Originally Posted by SKA

Also not once did I say Iraq didn't have WMD. But then again doesn't the USA have a grand arsenal of nukes? What kind of weapons would you call nukes? A nuclear warhead makes a nervegas bomb seem like an innocent toy.

Okay, you just implied that you agree Iraq was involved in terrorism. You also implied you agree that Iraq had WMD's when Hussein was in power. Those two factors existing together created a huge problem. Terrorist governments with WMD's are out of the question, especially for us when they are our enemies. Remember what I said at the bottom of the quote. The war is not about any one thing. It is about the big picture of all of those factors existing together.

Originally Posted by SKA

Also I have never been a fan of Hussein's regime( to make the understatement of the century ), but Universal Mind; Who helped Saddam Hussein to power in the first place? .... Everyone knows the USA did.

They were an alliance gone bad. I think giving WMD's to any third world government is insane, but I don't think what all Hussein became was completely forseeable.

Originally Posted by SKA

And I'm sure you'll remember the 1st Gulf War. 100ds of Iraqis fought alongside the american and UN soldiers to end Saddam's terror regime. However just as our combined troops were zero-ing in on Baghdad, they left again. Needless to say those 100ds of Iraqis fighting alongside our soldiers were brutally slain by Saddam for treason. This goes to show the "charitable intentions" with which the US invaded Iraq.

I have a charitable view of the situation in the way that I see the good that was created, but that does not mean I think my country is run by saints with hearts of gold. I think politicians are scuzz in practically all cases. However, they do what they think will make them look good so they can keep their power, at least in a democratic republic. That is what has me giving more credibility to government actions than a lot of people give. They can only get away with so much under the right kind of system.

There is a video of Dick Cheney in 1994 saying we didn't go into Baghdad in 1991 because the Bush 41 Administration knew what would happen. Cheney described perfectly what ended up happening in 2003, and he said it in 1994. Big Bush was against it, at least before 9/11. After 9/11, Little Bush decided to go through with it.

Originally Posted by SKA

Instead they let it serve as a warning for Saddam, hoping that after this threat he would be corrupted and sell out his oil for cheap to western oil corporations. When he refused..... well that's where the 2nd Gulfwar started.

First comes the Economical hitman that tries to corrupt leaders, if that fails they send CIA jackalls to either cause a revolution or assassinate the incorruptable leader to reinstate a corrupt leader who rules in their favor. If even that fails they send the militairy. Just listen to John Perkins.

As I have said before, I don't rule that impossible. However, what is the proof of it? What makes you so sure, especially considering the other variables involved in the decision to go to war? Like I said, the justifications are still justifications no matter what kind of corrupt money scheming might have been also involved.

With all of that said, even though you disagree with the war, do you sort of see where the pro-war side is coming from? Do you see even a trace of understandability to the view although you think it is wrong? Also, do you think anything at all good has resulted from the overthrowing of the Hussein regime and replacing it with a democracy?

Originally Posted by SKA

And why is it you're not sure John Perkins is to be trusted? I see nothing that suggests he would be lying.

He goes on the radio and claims he was an economic hit man. If he was an economic hit man, he can't be trusted. If he wasn't an economic hit man, he can't be trusted.

Hehe, I typed in google 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman Debunk' and got this:

http://subversivechurch.wordpress.co...onomic-hitman/



So, do any here maybe have a serious article to refute what he's saying?
His book was quite a while on the NY Times Bestseller list and therefore I'd
think that if what he's proposing is complete garbage, some believable
source would pick up on it. But he seems quite well recieved.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He goes on the radio and claims he was an economic hit man. If he was an economic hit man, he can't be trusted. If he wasn't an economic hit man, he can't be trusted.

It's also a book tour, though. And I don't think you get the
whistleblower status for nothing at all, or am I mistaken?

-> Edit:
Ok, found something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confess..._and_criticism

Are you saying crackpots and con artists don't get big book deals and sales? I can name many who have.