What do you want me to say? That America is perfect? Or that we are at fault of these third world nations plight? Think again. We don't have that power and we honor their governments to govern their own people. But.. We go in were tyranny rears it's ugly head and defend against oppression. We do have to think of our own security first though. After all if we fell who would help them? France? We can't be everywhere and there are greater threats than say cleaning up Du fur or some hell hole that needs our support. We are not perfect but we are the best. We have the tech. and weapons that can keep the world as safe as possible but you have rouge nations with the ability to create and Armageddon. Nuclear ****ing weapons! I'm very proud of America and how we far we've come. I'm proud of America and the hand outs we do to just about every third world country. I'm especially proud of our fighting forces that protect you and I even though we might think a small cabin in the woods would suffice better than their protection. Mechanisim destruction. Pffff... Where the **** have we ever marched in and oppressed a nation?
The world is not safe and we are the best defense to it's sanctity. That stealth fighter just might safe millions of life's.
Why do people still belive we can get everybody in the world to hold hands and sing Kumbaya My Lord and everythings gonna be honky dory?
Couldn't tell you, I'm not one of those people. But I do not limit my thinking to "Your either a state supporting war monger or your a trippy hippy whose judgement is clouded by The the Devil Weed". I'm referring to the need for both the destruction of the inherently oppressive economic systems and forms of political organization. Individual Self Determination is key in this (Self-determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). We must dramatically scale down our range of resource consumption and work with what is local, and in local/ autonomous forms of organizing ourselves. Admittedly a silly dream, as people suck. So far as our economic system being violent is concerned, consider the following (though I do feel somewhat limited in that I feel the need to work within the confines of established stereotypes, le sigh {Aren't I an arrogant fcuk}): SO, I buy a pair of shoes, giving my support to this company and and essentially saying "I agree with this". Those shoes were made by some generically other-place kid with relatively dark skin who not only is beaten and abuse in all kinds of sick ways, but soon dies from the toxens they ingest daily. Though I didn't commit the acts themselves, can I truly say that I did not take part in a violent process? Extending this beyond such simplistic, and I assume, familiar examples would require a bit more work then I want to put in right now. Suffice to say that the information I assume you are using to form your picture of our western role in international relations is the shallow-ghost version provided by those who benefit from these deceptions. One such example would be "Canada provides money to Haitian NGOs", considered international support. Deeper analysis would show that those organizations financially supported were against, and work as such, the then democratically elected government of Aristide who planned on instituting workers rights laws, minimum wage and such silly things, that would interfere with North American business interests. FYI he was then kidnapped in the middle of the night by American special forces and flown/ exiled from the country by 'us', after which 'we' installed a leader of our choosing and sent in some friendly death-squad trainers (trainers don't comit the actual act though, so I guess they're innocent). Unfortunately that last one leaked out, but don't worry, the 'Individuals Responsible' were slapped on the wrist for their crimes. The below videos might go a bit further, I do recommend watching them. (Note: I am no Chomsky cultist, I've not so much as read one of his books, but that does not make what he says here any less legit). Particularly the last few minutes of the second video might give you and idea of the kind of world view I have. [ame= - A MUST SEE Interview by Noam Chomsky[/ame] [ame= - A MUST SEE interview by Noam Chomsky 2[/ame] PS: I wasn't trying to attack you specially by requesting a response. You just seemed active on the thread and I am discouraged when posting and getting no response in return. Nor do I think of you as some jerk for taking a stance in opposition to mine. That said I do trust the validity of position and as such see you as misled and ignorant.
The US supported Aristide and even helped him return to Haiti after being ousted and spent several years in the US in exhile. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/haiti/aristide.html
False, liberalized trade agreements among nations actually promote peace through creating common shared interests. Relying too heavily on local sources is inefficient and therefore actually increases "exploitation" of the earth's resources. Individual self-determination will certainly not reduce resource consumption. Actually, it is the Western world's resource comsumption that has dramatically improved conditions for millions of individuals throughout the third world (think China and India). There are a lower percentage of children worldwide engaged in poor working conditions due to increased wealth due to our economic system. The world's wealth is being redistributed, and the pie growing, through liberalized trade, Ricardo was right on. I must confess Malthus may eventually be right also if technology cannot keep up with man's demand for resources. There was an era, in Europe, where everything was controlled locally, it is referred to as the Dark Ages. Sorry, I have read Chomsky, wasted enough of my life already on Chomsky. The problem with the Chomsky's of this world is they do not understand the nearly universal human condition of greed and that the coercive economic sysytems they wish to impose simply leads to gulags and mass poverty. Some of these socialists actually try to argue they favor less government but when you look at the things they expect man to do "voluntarily" you realize they have a great misunderstanding of human nature or they are simply engaging in deception. Life is unfair, government simply lays another level of unfairness. There is nothing preventing like minded individuals from forming self-sufficient communes. Except they ain't got no rich people to leech off of. My favorite video amongst those that do not have scantily clad women: [ame=""]YouTube - Milton Friedman - Greed[/ame] Milton Friedman was an economist, Chomsky is out of his field he should stay in linguistics. The term socialist libertarian is an oxymoron.
Appears Noam Chomsky, me, and Jesus have the same definition of a hypocrite.. Unlike Websters, eddo, and everyone else who doesn't practice poor form..
I'd say ole Noam, who makes millions selling his anti-capitalist crap to fools, fits the definition of a hypocrite to a tee. Karl Popper
hahahaha... I wasn't talking about any anti capitalist-crap, sold to fools.. Just his definition of a hypocrite.. A hypocrite is a person who focuses on the other fellow's crime and refuses to look at his own ~ Noam Chomsky, anti-capitalist crap seller How about we call em projectocrites? Besides, I didn't hear any anti-capitalist crap in his interview.. just a perception that's based on honesty, human dignity and the belief that might doesn't = right and hypocrisy stinks. Sounded pretty reasonable to me..
I really like this one too.. Perfect.. Hypocrisy is the act of condemning or calling for the condemnation of another person when the critic is guilty of the act for which he demands that the accused be condemned. ~ Some Wikapedia user who practices poor form.
I started this thread because I believe in honoring those who served. I could only get into the first few minutes of this crap and had to stop. I might go back and try again. He's calling sanctions terrorism. What a moron. They've gone way to far with the term terrorism. My definition of terrorism is when armies or groups of people attack and kill innocent people with the intent to intimidate. PS: This is a debate forum and any response is cool with me. It's not like you can burn my flag over the net.
Hahahahaha..... never listen to fools ~ wez I didn't even know who the guy was til I saw those vids.. I woulda guessed a Russian figure skater..
