Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 110
  1. #21  
    I don't really feel I should get involved in all this, but....

    Originally posted by Abid

    When a country like America owns un-quantifiably huge financial resources (which are the smartest weapons of mass destruction of all)
    I see it as the exact opposite. Weapons destroy. Wealth can save the world. Of course it can also destroy the world. Cases in point (obviously many more of each can be fabricated):

    If the US and Britain were poor countries, never would they have been able to stem the flow of Nazis across Europe (and the world?).

    If the US wants to, it can kill every last person on the face of the earth.

    Please consider the relative probability of similar events happening in the future when making broad statements of Pax Americana evil.
  2. #22  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Where would you have me move so that I can not be perceived as "responsible"? <snip> Your original comment was followed up by another potentially "flamey" post and I think that your initial post was perhaps judged by it.

    Kelley
    In looking at your attachment, apparently Hussein drives a Cadillac. A nice one at that.
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I don't really feel I should get involved in all this, but....


    I see it as the exact opposite. Weapons destroy. Wealth can save the world. Of course it can also destroy the world. Cases in point (obviously many more of each can be fabricated):
    Wealth can be used both ways.. It can be used for things like the Marschall plan, but it can also be used by the CIA to support 'rebels'...


    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    If the US wants to, it can kill every last person on the face of the earth.
    Not without killing themselfs too.. in the USSR North Korea, India, Pakistan etc. there are more then enough nukes to blow up the US too... let alone all the 'sleeping cells'
    Technically the US has that power, but it will not be unretaliated.. and they know that.. so, thank god they wouldnt use it. Not that I think the amercans want to do that in the first place.. but it only takes 1 fool at the wrong spot to trigger things..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by Digisane


    I'm sitting here somewhat worried about going to crowded areas like night clubs or similar places in fear of getting killed in a bomb blast by suicidal terrorist cells, I'm not at all worried about getting killed in a sudden suicidal attack by the American government .
    [devils advocate mode]
    You would if you lived say in Bagdad
    Or were a palastine in the gaza strip, where your house can be attacked by US funded israeli soldiers..

    What is the difference between Terrorist mastermind funded suicide attacks and political mastermind funded military attacks?
    [\devils advocate mode]
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Wealth can be used both ways.. It can be used for things like the Marschall plan, but it can also be used by the CIA to support 'rebels'...



    Not without killing themselfs too.. in the USSR North Korea, India, Pakistan etc. there are more then enough nukes to blow up the US too... let alone all the 'sleeping cells'
    Technically the US has that power, but it will not be unretaliated.. and they know that.. so, thank god they wouldnt use it. Not that I think the amercans want to do that in the first place.. but it only takes 1 fool at the wrong spot to trigger things..
    I think you totally missed the point of my reply. First, I wasn't saying the US would ever think of killing everyone. Just an example of wealth being used for worse. Arg. I don't know why I'm even responding to this. You agreed with every word I said...
  6. #26  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I disagree wholeheartedly! And I agree with much of what Abid had to say. Some Americans are wondering why they are targets by terrorists. What Abid had to say is one of the many reasons why.

    It is too easy for those in the West, especially in America, to say that the rest of the world is jealous -- on in Abid's case, a troll. Why not discuss the merit of Abid's arguement? I think it has merit.

    I never said that Abid was a troll. I said the post was troll bait, meaning that it was likely to invite other hot tempered remarks by trolls.

    And of course you think it has merit because you agree
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I think you totally missed the point of my reply. First, I wasn't saying the US would ever think of killing everyone.
    Neither was I...

    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Just an example of wealth being used for worse. Arg. I don't know why I'm even responding to this. You agreed with every word I said...
    I guess we are trying to say the same thing but are not clear enough to each other...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  8. #28  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT


    [devils advocate mode]
    You would if you lived say in Bagdad
    Or were a palastine in the gaza strip, where your house can be attacked by US funded israeli soldiers..

    What is the difference between Terrorist mastermind funded suicide attacks and political mastermind funded military attacks?
    [\devils advocate mode]
    There is not one country in the world that can make any semblence of a claim to be guilt free. It is always on which side you (meaning anyone who takes a side) choose to see as the underdog, righteous, etc that will be seen as right.

    The Arab nations had many chances to construct an atmosphere in which the Palestines and the Israelis could live in peace. They choose to attack the Israelis numerous times, causing the Israelis to respond in an equally harsh manner. Blaming Israeli for Palestinians living in fear is not quite the full picture (nor saying it's the USAs fault). Man will never learn to live on this world without violence. As long as there is free choice you will have disagreement. As long as you have disagreement you will have violence.

    Europe (and much of the world) acts as if our present day circumstances are unique, but you can change the name of the countries and find nearly the same situations (lacking only perhaps in weapons of mass destruction). England, France, Spain, Portugel, the Ottoman Turks, the Dutch, etc. have all been at, or near the top at some time in the last 500-700 years and have had nearly identical complaints thrown against them, some even legitmate!

    America has power because it's cultural, military and economic might are unmatched in the world at present. Naturally we do many things to please ourselves because we don't feel we fell into the lead, we took it. Is America perfect, or even close? No, just on top right now. If China ever gets it together, we might not be. Can the EU ever hope to accomplish the feat of being number one? I doubt it, unless they can truly act as one instead of wasting so much energy rehashing ancient territorial feuds and playing superiority games with their neighbors. Our system, creaky and noisy as it is, works better than anyone elses. We are the top dog and we catch all the cr*p because people like to blame number one for the mess they are in. It's human nature.

    Should America stop putting it's interests first? Should any country?

    Originally posted by Abid

    Although not exactly the best site to put forward this discussion, there are some other non-relevant threads here with intelligent comments offered for discussion so I thought what the heck.
    Thank you for your second post. I think you made an excellent choice of a site to post this on, I can't think of many other sites that have such a wide range of people frequenting it.

    As to your remarks about terrorists, with the recent incident with the Red Brigade on Italy on my mind I am going to suggest that the true(r) motive of the terrorist is to violently force change through action because they (the terrorist) doesn't feel there is any chance of their goals being met otherwise. Terrorists always strike first and make demands later.

    How can a terrorist even think he can make the world a better place without killing everyone who disagrees with him?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    There is not one country in the world that can make any semblence of a claim to be guilt free. It is always on which side you (meaning anyone who takes a side) choose to see as the underdog, righteous, etc that will be seen as right.

    <snap>

    Should America stop putting it's interests first? Should any country?

    You have a very good point, the top dog never gets the nr1 position because of their nice blue eyes (or brown ones for that matter).
    However, being on top also gives you resposibilities and every action you take, wether big or small, has its reactions..

    Off course the US should have the US as its prime concern, however if your actions harm many others and/or in the furure will recochet back to yourself, you may want to reconsider...

    I don't blame the US for making mistakes.. hey they are only human, really! However I do blame them for the arrogant approach they sometimes take...failing to listen to others and see the big picture....

    Power comes with responsebility...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #30  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    You have a very good point, the top dog never gets the nr1 position because of their nice blue eyes (or brown ones for that matter).
    However, being on top also gives you resposibilities and every action you take, wether big or small, has its reactions..

    Off course the US should have the US as its prime concern, however if your actions harm many others and/or in the furure will recochet back to yourself, you may want to reconsider...

    I don't blame the US for making mistakes.. hey they are only human, really! However I do blame them for the arrogant approach they sometimes take...failing to listen to others and see the big picture....

    Power comes with responsebility...
    Can it be that be that what your seeing as an "arrogant approach" is merely the view of someone feeling disenfranchised from the decison making? Meaning that the US may not be (as) arrogant as you see them, but this is just your viewpoint? Making someone else into an arrogant, overbearing, etc. is one way of dehumanizing them - reducing them so to speak. What is the "Big Picture"?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  11. #31  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Can it be that be that what your seeing as an "arrogant approach" is merely the view of someone feeling disenfranchised from the decison making? Meaning that the US may not be (as) arrogant as you see them, but this is just your viewpoint? Making someone else into an arrogant, overbearing, etc. is one way of dehumanizing them - reducing them so to speak. What is the "Big Picture"?
    Of course it is my view, but I am not alone with this view.
    I agree with you, from your perspective it must look different, no harm no foul.
    the ironic thing is the US boosts itself for being democratic, but from what you are saying the democratic principle only applies to internal issues, not worldwide ones... you are saying (simplisticly put): We are the biggest superpower, so we can do as we please.
    I dissagree with that attitude (correct me if I read you wrong).
    Yes, being bigger the US should have a bigger say in 'world issues' but no they cannot act alone.
    The attitude 'we are the biggest and most powerfull so we can act alone and do what we want' is the arrogance I'm talking about. This is not meant to dehumanize or reduce anybody. I'm merely pointing out a flaw in US politics. In general I like america, but like any country it has its flaws, some are mere funny (i.e. Jerry springer like trailer park people) but some are affecting the rest of the world (which includes me!). I'm merely using my freedom of speach to state what I find wrong... Ever since Bush came in office more things went wrong IMHO (kyoto, Iraq etc. etc.) this may make me look anti american, but trust me I am not...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    you are saying the democratic principle only applies to internal issues, not worldwide ones
    [slightly tongue in cheek]
    Are you suggesting that the US should force all other countries into democracy?? Our democratic system means "one wo/man, one vote." Do you suggest that we give a vote on the US's actions to non-citizens? Toolkt, are you advocating the US take-over of the world???
    [/slightly tongue in cheek]
  13. #33  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Our democratic system means "one wo/man, one vote."
    That's actually not true at all. Nowhere is it written down that every person gets a vote and nowhere does it say that all votes should count the same (marginal votes in Florida in 2000 were much more valuable than votes in California). I'm not saying either way is better (though I'm sure one of them is); just shooting for accurate representation here.
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    That's actually not true at all. Nowhere is it written down that every person gets a vote and nowhere does it say that all votes should count the same (marginal votes in Florida in 2000 were much more valuable than votes in California). I'm not saying either way is better (though I'm sure one of them is); just shooting for accurate representation here.
    My point was that the fact that we are a *Democracy* means, basically, that we have a democratic system of electing representatives here for the folks who are citizens of the United States. Not that we are supposed to allow everyone in the world to have a say in our actions.

    I suppose for purposes a quick blurb I should have said "Majority rules" instead of "one wo/man, one vote" but I think the difference is negligible for the point I was trying to make, albeit tongue in cheek.
  15. #35  
    Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
    Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
    Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
    Date: 1576
    1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
  16. #36  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
    Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
    Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
    Date: 1576
    1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
    Except, we're not a pure democracy at the national level. We're a representative republic. It's a subtle difference, but quite significant. As Al Gore has repeatedly stated, he won the majority of the popular vote. Unfortunately for him, that's irrelevant in our system for electing a President. Our legislature also bears this out, otherwise the Senate would not represent each state in equal numbers. It was a compromise over a pure 'majority rules' system to try and balance the will of the majority with protecting the rights of the minority.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #37  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Except, we're not a pure democracy at the national level. We're a representative republic.
    True, true, but Jesus, could you folks just read the post for it's meaning in toto?
    It's a subtle difference, but quite significant.
    It is not at all significant for my initial post that pointed out that democracy internally as a means to elect a government does not mean the world gets to vote on how that government then acts.
  18. #38  
    Conflicts helps everybody except, of course, the people affected and peace. In any case, the Presidents and Generals are more interested in oil and weapons. In the game concerning strategy, people have no place. They are as dispensable as pawns. From nation-republics, countries like the US are evolving into Corporate-Nations where people and their aspirations are secondary to the P2 (profit+power) objectives of military-(oil) industrial complexes that fuel avaricious, wasteful economies that are fast replacing small, self-reliant communities in the name of globalisation. For these corporate-nations, impoverished countries ruled by despots like Pakistan are essential to carry out the menial tasks of keeping the flames alive for the masters.
  19. #39  
    I suggest that the participants of this thread read today's column by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times.
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by boardoe
    I suggest that the participants of this thread read today's column by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times.
    Gladly. Link?
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions