No really it's art.
duck
>
> Q: Do you think that such paintings (murals) prolong the bitterness and
hatred?
*The political ones do. A childs earliest preconception in a Republican
areas is formed from those paintings which associate the Union Jack,
soldiers, police, Orange and Britain generally not only together as one
group but demonised as simply the evil enemy. Likewise the stomping on the
Irish tricolour in Loyalist areas, the notion that everything British is
just and Ulster is free with graffiti such as 'We will never sacrifice the
blue skys of Ulster for the grey misty clouds of an Irish Republic' In both
cases it conditions the mindset of those growing up within those areas.
The effect of such conditioning is far more important and real to the, even
slightly, blinkered person. A good demonstration comes from the many guys
I've worked with from different backgrounds in each case the Loyalist
thought (and really believed) that the Nationalist area we were in at the
time was a hole and accordingly so did the Nationalist about the Loyalists,
dragging either from their perception is next to impossible and even when
you think you are making headway it only takes a single event that might
seem to confirm their opinion that sucks them firmly back to their own
comfortable political armchair.
This in itself alienates the other long before any real evidence can be seen
and many a tall story has come from a witness's version of events which is
nearly always believed by those who are sold to it and likewise attacked,
despite the evidence, to the contrary because the other side always lie
don't they?
A good example is my Republican workmate which I've mentioned elsewhere
lately, and I'm not mentioning him to get up your nose he just was, anyway
part of our job was to service and install equipment into army barracks, not
surprisingly not a popular aspect with him. Normally people in our position
and indeed anybody who deals with the public daily isn't necessarily all
teeth and smiles but generally soldiers at the security checkpoint were
friendly and down to earth.....normal!
Normally to gain entrance to the place we had to be escorted to the
customers house. So a soldier normally just jumped in beside my assistant on
the double passenger seat. Both would sit uncomfortably squashed together,
you could cut the atmosphere with a knife, any approach at friendly chat
from the soldier would be answered with a one word answer or even a grunt.
It was awkward for me as well I could see the guy was a normal squaddy just
doing his job and was being polite more out of friendlyness than any orders
from the 'commandant'
Some however got the score right away and reacted with officialdom saying
no more than was necessary and simply escorted giving directions when
needed. Soldiers like that would then only heighten his perception, 'that
they were all bastards', no matter how I would point out he might've created
that situation by his own unfriendliness.
It was never admitted but was noticeably taken on board as we continued to
work throughout the province in both areas, which is different than your
approach of the 'Republican tourist' which is prevalent among zoo visitor
types. You stopped a few observations short of tapping the sectarian glass
and watching the Loyalist gorilla scowl or spring a boner without realizing
if he'd a pair of specs on he might just pass for Gerry Adams, I reckon if I
replaced it with a 6ft mirror you'd still be standing there waving and
tapping the glass shouting to the kids "look at the hairy man!" Excuse the
insult but it's meant more as a humourous point than than empty abuse.
So two years down the line and a lot more experience of all the different
parties here (mainly because I would always initiate conversations about
both areas in his presence) he was joking with both the soldiers and those
who in other circumstances would riot with in Belfast. He still see's
Loyalists as the enemy and to quote him even near the end before I left 'I
laugh when I hear a Protestant gets burned out of his home' that remark
itself caused a row between us but we both long past got used to pushing
each others buttons and both of us knew it, which is why, believe it or not,
we ended up close friends. Just for the sake of balance I'll add I've heard
the sentiment from certain moronic Loyalists 'We should've burnt them all
out when we had the chance'
It not the paintings themselves so much that could prolong the bitterness,
in fact hopefully the younger generation can see them with amusement as
'oldies' at it again, the problem is without the local population realizing
it they force an identity on the people without even realizing it might have
nothing to do with them.
duck
hippo
"duck" wrote in message
> "An mac tíre bán" wrote in message
A very fine post sir duck. Odd thing about propaganda is that it seldom
works the way it is intended. The intelligent see through it and the youth
rebel against it as a part of the 'old folk's' world. -the Troll
duck
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
> A very fine post sir duck. Odd thing about propaganda is that it seldom
> works the way it is intended. The intelligent see through it and the youth
> rebel against it as a part of the 'old folk's' world. -the Troll
>
>
*Good point, even China and some of the more repressive regimes in the
middle east supports a filtered internet, even though they are exposed to
western propaganda which they preach against so much, generally it simply
doesn't work anymore. As soon as someone makes a statement 10 others will
rise to it's inaccuracy. It seems the people that used to claim it was
better to have a free press within a dictatorship than vice a versa were
right. The more knowledge the less perception, even the selective knowledge
that is so easy to get today is better than being fed it by those in the
'know'
duck
duck
Paul Carr
<duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote the following:
The reason I find it difficult, if not impossible to engage in debate
with Conor Booze O'Brien and Ray and others is that I tend to view my
contributions to SCI as relationships. I relate to you, Duck. I put
on my particular mask when I relate to you. For someone else, it
would be a different mask.
To cut to the chase, I don't really want to hurt Ray. I think he is
out of line with his "lads" remarks. Well, that is obvious. And I
would have thought it wouldn't need to be commented upon or even
replied to.
The mask I don with Ray is Yitzhak Rabin, the moderate Israeli Labour
party leader. I relate with Rabin as a softly spoken person who
really couldn't be interested in flaming anyone, with hurting anyone,
regardless of their own opinions. (Not that I am implying that Mr
Rabin is indecisive)
Ray, despite his macho persona on SCI, is in fact a very vulnerable
person. That's as plain as day from reading his posts and his replies
to flames for example. He shuffs them off dismissively. I have no
doubt though that he is hurt by them.
Now, I know this post has nothing whatsoever, on face value, with what
you are saying on this thread, Duck.
My feeling about you is that obviously you are an intelligent person
who is applying his intelligence and common-sense and experience to
this newsgroup and this newsgroup is all the better for it. I suspect
though that you don't relate with this newsgroup in terms of
relationships with the individual posters in the way I do.
I mean, I would try to form a "relationship" even with someone I never
actually met and even if I didn't know what they looked like. Maybe,
that means that I take newsgroups too seriously. It has always been
that way, I think, since I first started posting to newsgroups 2 years
or so ago.
Duck, my feeling is that you post to this newsgroups principally
because you have something to say and you want to say it. Me, I don't
necessarily have anything to say, but I am interested in projecting a
persona and, perhaps, I am also trying to equate this persona as
closely as possible to my real life.
As I say I generally project a different persona to a different poster
on SCI, provided I get a grasp on them, I mean, provided I entertain
an imagination regarding what they are like, regardless of whether it
is true or not. I am sure I will divulge what my persona is with each
of the posters on SCI in a later post.
Paul
Be inspired with the belief that life is a great and noble
calling; not a mean grovelling thing that we are to shuffle
through as best we can, but an elevated and lofty destiny. - William Ewart Gladstone
Paul Carr a.k.a Occidental e-mail: carr...@iol.ie icq# 123796995
duck
"Paul Carr" <carr...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:ldaucuoqlcffknr7c...@4ax.com...
attention he deserves and is only a step away from returning to anarchy
despite what he says I can't help thinking if things don't go the way that
Sinn Fein want we can still find ourselves back at it, I would say no
different to a militant Loyalist or one of their supporters.
> The mask I don with Ray is Yitzhak Rabin, the moderate Israeli Labour
> party leader. I relate with Rabin as a softly spoken person who
> really couldn't be interested in flaming anyone, with hurting anyone,
> regardless of their own opinions. (Not that I am implying that Mr
> Rabin is indecisive)
>
> Ray, despite his macho persona on SCI, is in fact a very vulnerable
> person. That's as plain as day from reading his posts and his replies
> to flames for example. He shuffs them off dismissively. I have no
> doubt though that he is hurt by them.
>
*The hardest shells have the softest centers.
> Now, I know this post has nothing whatsoever, on face value, with what
> you are saying on this thread, Duck.
>
*Who cares it's interesting anyway. :)
> My feeling about you is that obviously you are an intelligent person
> who is applying his intelligence and common-sense and experience to
> this newsgroup and this newsgroup is all the better for it. I suspect
> though that you don't relate with this newsgroup in terms of
> relationships with the individual posters in the way I do.
>
*Hopefully I have many personas, it's easy to get dragged down with trolling
by others but sometimes it can be interesting too. But I won't think twice
about writing a post which some might see as cute either, I am just me.
> I mean, I would try to form a "relationship" even with someone I never
> actually met and even if I didn't know what they looked like. Maybe,
> that means that I take newsgroups too seriously. It has always been
> that way, I think, since I first started posting to newsgroups 2 years
> or so ago.
>
*You don't have to try, it happens anyway like it or not.
> Duck, my feeling is that you post to this newsgroups principally
> because you have something to say and you want to say it. Me, I don't
> necessarily have anything to say, but I am interested in projecting a
> persona and, perhaps, I am also trying to equate this persona as
> closely as possible to my real life.
>
*You live in heaven?
> As I say I generally project a different persona to a different poster
> on SCI, provided I get a grasp on them, I mean, provided I entertain
> an imagination regarding what they are like, regardless of whether it
> is true or not. I am sure I will divulge what my persona is with each
> of the posters on SCI in a later post.
>
>
*Ahh, the mystery man.
duck
hippo
"duck" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> duck
Right. The West is full of Chinese students who can see it all for
themselves. It has become too difficult to maintain a political lie these
days or cultural Xenophobia or fundamentalist religious dogma. The bad guys
hate our openness and technology more than anything else about us and it
isn't easy to transfer hate of something that is good. -the Troll
hippo
"Paul Carr" wrote in message
> "duck" wrote the following:
> The reason I find it difficult, if not impossible to engage in debate
> with Conor Booze O'Brien and Ray and others is that I tend to view my
> contributions to SCI as relationships. I relate to you, Duck. I put
> on my particular mask when I relate to you. For someone else, it
> would be a different mask.
One must understand Ray. He knows perfectly well this 'Lads' crap is
indefensible, but likes to argue now and again for the sake of it. Irish
Republicanism is cultural romanticism with him, which, as is usual with
expatriates, peaks when he is far from home as now. At base he is a good
soul and very easy to relate to if one tries. Conor, grumpy, bad tempered,
and prickly bastard that he can be, can also be a prince of princes at other
times. He is defensive of his opinion and Republicanism from which point one
must just deal. If you let him he will engage you endlessly with the toils
of his mind. I agree completely with your remark about relationships. It
isn't mentioned much, but it is a great strength of long term newsgroups
that it makes them possible. Often, as with other relationships, the most
difficult are frequently the most rewarding. -the Troll
Paul Carr
<duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote the following:
>> As I say I generally project a different persona to a different poster
>> on SCI, provided I get a grasp on them, I mean, provided I entertain
>> an imagination regarding what they are like, regardless of whether it
>> is true or not. I am sure I will divulge what my persona is with each
>> of the posters on SCI in a later post.
>>
>>
>*Ahh, the mystery man.
I'd much prefer to be the upfront man. But I find that to be upfront
and write the thoughts that are occurring in my brain is easier said
than than done.
Cat
> On Wed, 1 May 2002 01:48:31 +0100, "duck"
> <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote the following:
>
> >> As I say I generally project a different persona to a different poster
> >> on SCI, provided I get a grasp on them, I mean, provided I entertain
> >> an imagination regarding what they are like, regardless of whether it
> >> is true or not. I am sure I will divulge what my persona is with each
> >> of the posters on SCI in a later post.
> >>
> >>
> >*Ahh, the mystery man.
>
> I'd much prefer to be the upfront man. But I find that to be upfront
> and write the thoughts that are occurring in my brain is easier said
> than than done.
>
>
I hope your devoted disciple and biographer Bailey is listening. This is
prime paulcarrism, this.
Cat(h)
duck
> On Wed, 1 May 2002 01:48:31 +0100, "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
> >> out of line with his "lads" remarks. Well, that is obvious. And I
> >> would have thought it wouldn't need to be commented upon or even
> >> replied to.
> >>
> >*I don't believe in anyone beating the shit of anyone, Ray draws the
> >attention he deserves and is only a step away from returning to anarchy
> >despite what he says I can't help thinking if things don't go the way
that
> >Sinn Fein want we can still find ourselves back at it, I would say no
> >different to a militant Loyalist or one of their supporters.
> >
>
old were often
> time limited and conditional. However today's ceasefire is unconditional
and they have
> even destroyed weapons on more then on occassion. They have issued
statements that they
> are no longer interested in a return to "war" and at least I for one
believe that.. I do
> however understand Unionist scepticism with regard to the current status
of the IRA...
>
>
*On the whole I agree with you but if you agree with punishment beatings
then you still believe in mob rule, that was my point.
> >*The hardest shells have the softest centers.
> >
>
> Actually, you can really only get hurt on this newsgroup if your skin is
too thin and you
> take attacks too personally. I used to do so, believe me, there was a
time when I
> couldn't sleep at night for thinking about what was said to me on SCI...
It would effect
> me all day too... Unki in particular used to really troll me bad and at
times I wanted to
> kill the man for things he wrote... But then I sorta came to a moment in
time where I
> decided that either I get over this stuff and post anyway or I leave... I
wouldn't leave,
> I wouldn't as they say "let the bastards get you down" so I stayed, grew a
thicker skin
> and actually started to enjoy the newsgroup more...
>
>
*There is another option, take onboard what the other guy's saying.
> >> Now, I know this post has nothing whatsoever, on face value, with what
> >> you are saying on this thread, Duck.
> >>
> >*Who cares it's interesting anyway. :)
>
> Strongly seconded! I hate the self appointed net-nazis that go about
issuing "it's not
> on topic" to everything that *they* alone decree to be off topic... My
philosophy is if I
> *really don't like* what someone is posting - ignore 'em or killfile 'em
and go quietly on
> your way enjoying reading the rest...
>
>
*Agreed.
> And the newsgroup is better for your presense... Coming from me, you
probably think I'm
> being sarcastic, but I'm not. I've read your cute stuff as well as your
more
> serious/political stuff and find both entertaining/thought-provoking.
>
>
*Thank you, shit Ray I'd love to return the compliment but so much of what
you type is inherently fascist and racist, in real life it winds people up
against each other and ultimately leads to violence. You yourself I don't
find offensive but the Nationalistic dictations you come out with certainly
are, don't get me wrong and I'll repeat myself, I don't have any ill
feelings for you but I see just how close the extremes are and it annoys me
that most of them can't see it.
duck
duck
> and write the thoughts that are occurring in my brain is easier said
> than than done.
>
>
duck
duck
"Conor Booze O'Brien" <conorboo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aap9qk$91k$3...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> On Wed, 01 May 2002 16:49:59 GMT, "hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote:
>
>
> Happy Labor day
>
>
*Geez, remember them?
duck
duck
*Sure, when you get somewhere.
duck
duck
about us and it
> isn't easy to transfer hate of something that is good. -the Troll
>
>
throughout the world has been 'bad' at some point. At the moment we sign an
X on a ticket every four or five years and call it democracy. Meanwhile the
real decisions are often made not in our name but those multi-nationals that
bought the leader much of his power.
People today seem to think we are miles apart from our barbarous past
whether it be Britain, Rome or Germany. We aren't, we're simply smarter, we
understand the power of the mind these days and social conditioning. In the
past Rome might've had to fight it's way across a continent, it would've had
an army at it's disposal which had to be trained and paid for. Paid for it
was, usually by subjugation of a people and if possible a draining of it's
resources, eventually the local population became part of the system and
culture. I could go on but I know you get the drift.
The only difference nowadays (and I'll use America as it has most of the
power at the moment) it has control over so many countries without any
invasion and not only avoids the cost of a world campaign but profits from
the lack of it. Best of all so many countries want to be part of it, why pay
an army when you can use other countries armies instead. All they have to do
is keep them sweet rather than down.
That might seem somewhat extreme and people will point me to free trade and
globalization, good point too, but other countries benefited from the Romans
as well, roads and drainage dug, trade links established not only with it's
invaded territories but others as well, look at the backward step Britain
took after they packed up and went home, we may point to the barbarity of
the Roman army but many countries aligned with the US are not a lot better
in many ways and that's to their own people,those who call America
imperialist have a point, except they use that point for attack rather than
to gain understanding of the problem it is.
America spends most of it's airtime talking freedom yet when a strategic
partner like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, decides not to have any
opposition on this particular election thank you very much, not a peep from
Bush, why? Well obviously being a nuclear power squeezed between
Afghanistan, China and Iran, principles of freedom come secondary. It's
chess on a massive scale and it does make sense even if it's hypocritical,
the people did have the option of saying no thus forcing a true election,
but always Musharraf knew he was never in any danger but if he was would he
still have been as keen and would America still have been as mute? Not while
the country needs the money and is useful.
So we have a world power with much of that world pretty much in it's pocket
or should that be a power that is in theirs? The US government has a sense
of freedom but it's not the same freedom that the people have, while the
people like to think of liberty the authorities think of a depowered
government and a individualistic population, just a couple of Reagans
election policies. The last thing big business needed was an interfering
government with silly notions like laws, unions and trade barriers when they
could have a free people to suck the life out of for now it was for the good
of themselves instead of their country.
So the benefits of this illusion of total freedom? An unrivalled crime rate,
a workaholic lifestyle in many cases just to survive or at least survive in
an increasingly competitive business, a country effectively controlled by
big business behind the politicians and now (with the help of Sept 11th)
instead of a mammoth bugetted space race with the Ruskies it has been
replaced with an unthinkable budget on arms and one Bush could never have
achieved without a fight before the twin towers.
If those same billions had been used to foster programs throughout those
poverty stricken nations, many of whom are in hopeless debt to the west not
only would they see the west as compassionate and would be far more likely
to follow by example but less likely to support terrorism. Aid of course
would be conditional (as the little aid that does leave America is) nobodys
suggesting throwing it to the winds, instead of armies with weapons we could
sponsor peace keepers with training and expertise to help build working
proven systems of economic and social freedom in their countries which
rising from their own poverty they too can run around with mobile phones
stuck to their ears and learn the new found joys of radiation cancer.
John Lennon was right except not love in the popular flower power sense,
though I know he meant it a little deeper than that, simply care and
attention to a global problem, the third world countries then instead of
draining funds or repaying debt to survive will then become trading partners
themselves, then true globalization works.
All we hear about today is the pressure of work, the strain on families,
alcoholism, drugs, crime, perverts and reduced in many cases to little more
than a number. All for what? The pretence of freedom that gives us the right
to say our piece and be ignored by a multi-national? Might the average
Chinese person have a better standard of life than many of us, in the middle
east some states have no crime worth talking of.
Imagine a world were your kid can get up in the middle of the night and
tell you they're going out for a walk and you could go back to sleep knowing
theres more chance of a stranger approaching them out of concern than for
any money they might have. Ok so maybe that is unlikely but there are many
places who don't have the restrictions that our free society have, in that
case who is really free? What seemingly benign invasions are happening at
the moment? When was the last time your right of freedom helped you in your
everyday life? and what freedoms do they take for granted that we couldn't
imagine anymore in some of our cities?
So now the flip side China can do what they like to it's citizens, if you
sign up with an ISP you must then sign up with the police bureau everything
is filtered, they want to modernize but at their pace, some of it's
guidelines from Human Rights Watch are as follows.
No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve,
or transmit the following kinds of information:
1. Inciting to resist or violate the Constitution or laws or the
implementation of administrative regulations;
2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the
unity of the nationalities;
5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying
the order of society;
6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling,
violence, murder,
7. Engaging in terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly
insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
8. Injuring the reputation of state organs;
There's no doubt that China is 'bad' but we're not so 'good' ourselves while
we prop up dictators that could write those rules above themselves and I do
understand the necessity for those politics but we don't have to actually
believe it too. If 'freedom' didn't suit capitalism in the west I might just
be arrested for sending this by now.
duck (I don't expect a lengthy reply to that post, excuse the rant, my
fingers were starting to look a bit chubby and were glad of the run)
duck
but replied this
> little line so as you wouldn't think you'd written it and I'd ignored it.
>
>
*Thanks Ray I couldn't think of anything to add to this either but I didn't
want to think I'd ignored your reply.................we could be here some
time...............33.3
duck
Falcon
"duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
:duck (I don't expect a lengthy reply to that post, excuse the rant, my
:fingers were starting to look a bit chubby and were glad of the run)
They must be pretty lean again by now. Good post.
-----------------
Falcon.
qui facit per alium facit per se (L.)
Jochen Lueg
<duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> "hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
> >
> > The bad guys hate our openness and technology more than anything else
> about us and it
> > isn't easy to transfer hate of something that is good. -the Troll
> >
> >
> *I'm not so sure bad is the best word to use, just about every major
> country throughout the world has been 'bad' at some point.
Even the minor ones haven't done too bad in that department.
> People today seem to think we are miles apart from our barbarous past
> whether it be Britain, Rome or Germany. We aren't, we're simply smarter,
As people we are just a stupid as always, but we have more recorded
accumulated knowledge and there are an lot more of us. We also have
machines!
> In the past Rome might've had to fight it's way across a continent, it
> would've had an army at it's disposal which had to be trained and paid
> for. Paid for it was, usually by subjugation of a people and if possible
> a draining of it's resources, eventually the local population became
> part of the system and culture.
It was more involved than that. After 30 years service soldiers were given
settlement grants and they settled in the border regions. It was a quite
deliberate policy of romanisation. The Romans knew quite well that they
were best.
> The only difference nowadays (and I'll use America as it has most of the
> power at the moment) it has control over so many countries without any
> invasion and not only avoids the cost of a world campaign but profits
> from the lack of it.
I can see a lot of parallels between The US and Rome - with Europe
providing the intellecual input that Greece supplied to Rome.
> That might seem somewhat extreme and people will point me to free trade
> and globalization, good point too, but other countries benefited from
> the Romans as well, roads and drainage dug, trade links established not
> only with it's invaded territories but others as well,
Yes, but what have the Romans ever done for /us/?
> America spends most of it's airtime talking freedom yet when a strategic
> partner like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, decides not to have any
> opposition on this particular election thank you very much, not a peep
> from Bush, why?
Standard political ploy. Also it is well know that Muslim countries have
trouble with democracy.
> So we have a world power with much of that world pretty much in it's
> pocket or should that be a power that is in theirs? The US government
> has a sense of freedom but it's not the same freedom that the people
> have,
I think they muddle along same as everyone else and try to get the
greatest advantage for themselves. That's what most other countries do as
well, it's just that they haven't as much clout.
> while the people like to think of liberty
I wonder just how often 'the people' think of liberty. Only when it is
taken away from them, in my experience.
> So the benefits of this illusion of total freedom? An unrivalled crime
> rate, a workaholic lifestyle in many cases just to survive or at least
> survive in an increasingly competitive business, a country effectively
> controlled by big business behind the politicians and now (with the help
> of Sept 11th) instead of a mammoth bugetted space race with the Ruskies
> it has been replaced with an unthinkable budget on arms and one Bush
> could never have achieved without a fight before the twin towers.
You are too pessimistic. This is a great age for the little man. If you
live in the West you can opt out at will - you don't have to work yourself
to a standstill, you can do your own thing without fear of prosecution.
You have access to medicines and a massive amount of education. I like
this age.
> All we hear about today is the pressure of work, the strain on families,
> alcoholism, drugs, crime, perverts and reduced in many cases to little
> more than a number. All for what?
I think you quite the things people complain about as if that was all
there was to their lives. People don't complain about the nice things.
I've lived on this planet for 58 years and I have enjoyed every minute of
it. There were some pains but that's life. One can get carried away with
pessimism. Like saying that John Lennon is all there is to music and
forgetting all about Beethoven.
> The pretence of freedom that gives us
> the right to say our piece and be ignored by a multi-national?
Well, the multi nationals are us - our pensions and our investments.
> Might the
> average Chinese person have a better standard of life than many of us,
> in the middle east some states have no crime worth talking of.
I don't believe that. People have committed crime since time immemorial.
They have no /reported crime/, which is a different thing.
> Imagine a world were your kid can get up in the middle of the night and
> tell you they're going out for a walk and you could go back to sleep
> knowing theres more chance of a stranger approaching them out of concern
> than for any money they might have.
There never was an age where that was possible. There were always wild
animals and wild people.
> There's no doubt that China is 'bad'
I dispute that. China is just China. We might think that they are bad but
they think the same of us. Why should they adopt out morality when it is
ill suited to their big country and their long history?
> duck (I don't expect a lengthy reply to that post, excuse the rant, my
> fingers were starting to look a bit chubby and were glad of the run)
Oh get away, you know you don't mean that.
Jochen
--
-----------------------------------------------
Jochen Lueg
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/tudor
hippo
"duck" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > "Paul Carr" wrote in message
> duck
It depends upon definitions and expectations doesn't it? Perfection ain't
human and it would be deadly dull if it were. -the Troll
hippo
"Conor Booze O'Brien" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote:
>
>
> Happy Labor day
>
>
> Conor
>
Rat bastard. I'm in mourning Maydays as you well know. Better lock your
door. I'll be over in a few weeks to torment the lot of you. -the Troll
duck
duck
duck
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2002050210050...@gacracker.org...
> In article <aaqkl5$d1lsa$1...@ID-122481.news.dfncis.de>
> "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :duck (I don't expect a lengthy reply to that post, excuse the rant, my
> :fingers were starting to look a bit chubby and were glad of the run)
>
> They must be pretty lean again by now. Good post.
>
>
duck
duck
> On Thu, 2 May 2002 07:02:40 +0100, "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
666?
>
>
*You miss the point. Infinitely.
duck
hippo
"duck" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > > > Often, as with other relationships, the most
> > > > difficult are frequently the most rewarding.
> > > *Sure, when you get somewhere.
> >
> > > duck
> >
> > It depends upon definitions and expectations doesn't it? Perfection
ain't
> > human and it would be deadly dull if it were. -the Troll
> >
> >
> *Sometimes though it's the imperfections that are very dull.
> duck
I manage to write them off as an inseparable part of humanness and that way
am seldom disappointed. -the Troll
hippo
"duck" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > The bad guys hate our openness and technology more than anything else
> about us and it
> > isn't easy to transfer hate of something that is good.
> *I'm not so sure bad is the best word to use,
It is 'Merican coloquial speach and means 'the other guys'.
just about every major country
> throughout the world has been 'bad' at some point. At the moment we sign
an
> X on a ticket every four or five years and call it democracy. Meanwhile
the
> real decisions are often made not in our name but those multi-nationals
that
> bought the leader much of his power.
Of course we were but gave up burning folk to save their souls about three
hundred fifty years ago. The Muslim fundamentalists are throwbacks to that
age of our own development. I wouldn't be putting up with us either. They
are not rational you know. Religious fundamentalism seldom is. The
'Internationals' as you call them, are not nearly as dangerous as you seem
to think. They are, in fact, quite brittle and vulnerable since they have no
army or large constituency. They survive as long as they make money. When
they don't, pffft.
> People today seem to think we are miles apart from our barbarous past
> whether it be Britain, Rome or Germany. We aren't, we're simply smarter,
we
> understand the power of the mind these days and social conditioning. In
the
> past Rome might've had to fight it's way across a continent, it would've
had
> an army at it's disposal which had to be trained and paid for. Paid for it
> was, usually by subjugation of a people and if possible a draining of it's
> resources, eventually the local population became part of the system and
> culture. I could go on but I know you get the drift.
I think we are far from our barbarous selves, at least our society is. We
are smarter only because we are free to teach and learn. Our Western
governments and society encourage this in contrast to many who do not.
> The only difference nowadays (and I'll use America as it has most of the
> power at the moment) it has control over so many countries without any
> invasion and not only avoids the cost of a world campaign but profits from
> the lack of it. Best of all so many countries want to be part of it, why
pay
> an army when you can use other countries armies instead. All they have to
do
> is keep them sweet rather than down.
You make it sound intentional. I assure you that since the end of the Cold
War, most American administrations have been isolationist. We got dragged
into the Balkans and now Palestine by getting crimed for neglecting our
international responsibilities and damned when we do as bullies. Why they
like our movies and music, clothing styles and culture is a complete mystery
to me. We are no more in the 'world conquest through cultural absorption'
business than Britain was with the Beatles, and I, for one, am getting
damned tired of getting blamed for other people's bad taste. We do not
intentionally project power except when other people crash aircraft into our
buildings.
Moshariff is a modern secularist who's desire to control his religious
fundamentalists coincided with our need to project power into Afghanistan.
There hasn't been a fair election in Pakistan since the Indo-European
invasions four thousand years ago. If there ever is one it will be because
of brave thinking men like Perves Moshariff.
> So we have a world power with much of that world pretty much in it's
pocket
> or should that be a power that is in theirs? The US government has a sense
> of freedom but it's not the same freedom that the people have, while the
> people like to think of liberty the authorities think of a depowered
> government and a individualistic population, just a couple of Reagans
> election policies. The last thing big business needed was an interfering
> government with silly notions like laws, unions and trade barriers when
they
> could have a free people to suck the life out of for now it was for the
good
> of themselves instead of their country.
Trade Unions have been on the decline here for half a century mostly because
of their own corruption and control by organized crime syndicates. What
industries they did control have long departed to less expensive climes.
These days people are better educated and don't fall for their line as
easily. In the old industrial states of the North one is forced to join a
union in order to get a job. Where I live there are right-to-work laws which
make it illegal to force a worker to join a Union against his will. We
remain a nation of laws.
It does suit democratic capitalism which is the best thing one can say about
a system of government and an economic system except that it works. There is
less crime in rural villages in China and in Singapore but there you
are. -the Troll
duck
"An mac tíre bán" <r...@eirefirst.com> wrote in message
> I'm actually a strong believer in law and order...
*Fierce I would say, it's strange they way generally the Republican
community are thought to be soft on crime, lower sentences and more
prevention yet when it comes to having any responsibility themselves they
think nothing of barbaric measures, suddenly reality hits them.
> I do understand why some people
> believe that punishment beatings are right...
*Never......
> I still contend that if the cops did the
> job, and locked these juvenile criminals away for their crimes rather than
giving them a
> slap on the wrist and leaving them out early and free to prey on their
neighbors again
> there would be no punishment beatings...
>
>
*Leave the GFA outta this.
> >*There is another option, take onboard what the other guy's saying.
>
> That's a truism... I do - believe it or not - do this.. I've been
persuaded by arguments
> presented to me before that were convincing and which addressed my
concerns...
>
>
*Until one simple incident which confirms all your fears and sends you
snapping back as if on elastic to your original position.
> I'm neither a fascist nor a racist. I am right of center politically for
sure. I'm a
> Nationalist though not a fascist. I wonder what it is I've written that
makes you say
> that...
>
*Your believe in rhetoric maybe, your belief that your beliefs are
gospel.......literally, your love of emblems etc etc.....the usual.
> Time for a little story: I was still in Ireland... I was Conservative
and sought out
> other like minded conservatives to correspond with... I found some, but
they were not
> just conservative, but right-wing racists... Now they presented me with
"facts" to
> support their beliefs. One of the greatest lies I've ever fallen for
happened then... I
> was lead to believe that American blacks were all racist curds with chips
on their
> shoulder, and most of all they hated whites...
*So you blame someone else because you were racist, a missed chance at
insight.
> Now at that time Limerick wasn't exactly
> littered with different races so I could judge for myself, so I took the
word of my
> "friends" that what they say was true - after all, they were living here
and must be in a
> position to know...
*I've never been to America nor have I any Black friends yet I could never
come to the same decisions you did, you need to question that. Surpressing
your racism doesn't solve it understanding at worst tempers it, your racism
is like a fireworks display when you expouse your opinions of the North and
especially your 'enemy'
> When I argued that the media didn't collaborate their "facts" they
> told me how the media was controlled by jews and they were in league with
the blacks
> against the whites and wouldn't print "the truth" I was sucked in....
>
*I don't believe it!
> This was shortly followed by betrayal of myself and my friends by the so
called
> "leadership" and a death threat being issued to my friend.. Who really
was/is a friend.
> He and I (and a couple of others) left the movement and swore off every
joining such a
> group again... Of course some of our "friends" cursed us and our email
accounts were mail
> bombed and any webpages that any of us had up were pulled... I took a
closer look and
> learned the truth about race-relations in America... Nothing like I'd
been told... I had
> a change of heart and swore off racist groups or having anything to do
with them in any
> way...
>
*Great so you create your own website which is a virtual walk down
Republican history and dress it as Ireland when it has little to do with
Ireland today.
> Now fast forward a bit... Lee and I met on SCI and we married (happily!).
I came over
> here to live for a while, and looked around a lot... Now much more exposed
to the
> different races... I saw **THE** truth. Blacks/Mexicans/whatever were
no more likely to
> hate me as like me than any other white fella... I saw it every day I
was here... I
> felt those "friends" betrayed my friendship by lying to me... I have met
many blacks and
> others in my time here and found them to be very friendly and as down to
earth as
> myself... In fact I don't judge anyone here by their race, but by whether
they are a jerk
> or not...
>
>
*Ray your trip round N.Ireland proved to me how little has changed in your
mind, your talk was the equal of any 'Whitey' travelling round a black
neighbourhood passing off your own insecurities and negatives as somehow
logical.
duck
duck
"Jochen Lueg" <tu...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> In article>, duck
> <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
> > The only difference nowadays (and I'll use America as it has most of the
> > power at the moment) it has control over so many countries without any
> > invasion and not only avoids the cost of a world campaign but profits
> > from the lack of it.
>
> I can see a lot of parallels between The US and Rome - with Europe
>
>
*In what way?
> > That might seem somewhat extreme and people will point me to free trade
> > and globalization, good point too, but other countries benefited from
> > the Romans as well, roads and drainage dug, trade links established not
> > only with it's invaded territories but others as well,
>
> Yes, but what have the Romans ever done for /us/?
>
>
*Wolf Nipple Chips?
>
> > America spends most of it's airtime talking freedom yet when a strategic
> > partner like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, decides not to have any
> > opposition on this particular election thank you very much, not a peep
> > from Bush, why?
>
> Standard political ploy. Also it is well know that Muslim countries have
> trouble with democracy.
>
>
*They do but even Iran is beginning to see some advantages to the western
democracys and has been for some time now, despite the 'evil axis' speech.
Which is ironic considering we had a fingers in that pie too.
>
> > So we have a world power with much of that world pretty much in it's
> > pocket or should that be a power that is in theirs? The US government
> > has a sense of freedom but it's not the same freedom that the people
> > have,
>
> I think they muddle along same as everyone else and try to get the
> greatest advantage for themselves. That's what most other countries do as
> well, it's just that they haven't as much clout.
>
*
> > while the people like to think of liberty
>
*Damn Liberals!!!
> I wonder just how often 'the people' think of liberty. Only when it is
> taken away from them, in my experience.
>
>
*Which comes back to my main point, if your lack of freedom doesn't affect
you but your free society does, in that, the murderer has more rights than
your child, if say your child is murdered, maybe free societys haven't much
to boast about. I'm not saying we aren't on the right path but I would've
thought many a large city at night in the western democracys have less
freedom than in the middle east and I'm not saying for that matter we should
be less liberal with our rights but we haven't yet the right to look down on
others.
> You are too pessimistic. This is a great age for the little man. If you
> live in the West you can opt out at will - you don't have to work yourself
> to a standstill, you can do your own thing without fear of prosecution.
> You have access to medicines and a massive amount of education. I like
> this age.
>
>
*Yes but we still have some of the benefits of socialism, the future is very
different.
> > All we hear about today is the pressure of work, the strain on families,
> > alcoholism, drugs, crime, perverts and reduced in many cases to little
> > more than a number. All for what?
>
> I think you quite the things people complain about as if that was all
> there was to their lives. People don't complain about the nice things.
> I've lived on this planet for 58 years and I have enjoyed every minute of
> it. There were some pains but that's life. One can get carried away with
> pessimism. Like saying that John Lennon is all there is to music and
> forgetting all about Beethoven.
>
*What would be the point in complaining about the nice things?
> > The pretence of freedom that gives us
> > the right to say our piece and be ignored by a multi-national?
>
> Well, the multi nationals are us - our pensions and our investments.
>
*That's insurance companies you're thinking of.
> > Might the
> > average Chinese person have a better standard of life than many of us,
> > in the middle east some states have no crime worth talking of.
>
> I don't believe that. People have committed crime since time immemorial.
> They have no /reported crime/, which is a different thing.
>
>
*No doubt that's true but generally it's thought to be a lot lower than
elsewhere.
>
> > Imagine a world were your kid can get up in the middle of the night and
> > tell you they're going out for a walk and you could go back to sleep
> > knowing theres more chance of a stranger approaching them out of concern
> > than for any money they might have.
>
> There never was an age where that was possible. There were always wild
> animals and wild people.
>
>
*That's true but the above isn't simply an ideal to shove on someone else,
it's a standard to aspire to, real freedom.
>
> > There's no doubt that China is 'bad'
>
> I dispute that. China is just China. We might think that they are bad but
> they think the same of us. Why should they adopt out morality when it is
> ill suited to their big country and their long history?
>
>
*and the reason I put it in the quotes to signify what many might term as
'bad.' You seem to agree with me on this, with regards our perception.
Freedom though is more than a morality.
duck
duck
>
> "duck" wrote in message
>
> > "hippo" wrote in message
>
> > > The bad guys hate our openness and technology more than anything else
> > about us and it
> > > isn't easy to transfer hate of something that is good.
>
>
> > *I'm not so sure bad is the best word to use,
>
> It is 'Merican coloquial speach and means 'the other guys'.
>
> Of course we were but gave up burning folk to save their souls about three
> hundred fifty years ago. The Muslim fundamentalists are throwbacks to that
> age of our own development. I wouldn't be putting up with us either. They
> are not rational you know. Religious fundamentalism seldom is.
*Burning folks? India? Religion might separate them but it's more to do with
the effects of the separation than any religious beliefs either have.
> The
> 'Internationals' as you call them, are not nearly as dangerous as you seem
> to think. They are, in fact, quite brittle and vulnerable since they have
no
> army or large constituency. They survive as long as they make money. When
> they don't, pffft.
>
*But what if they are in the same bed as Bush? What if after generous
payouts to his laughable election campaign they expect a little back. Over
here we have a nightly news program on the BBC called Newsnight one of their
investigative journalists is a guy called George Palast (American) who does
some of the most revealing research into Globalization and especially Bush's
contribution. Grab a cup of coffee, sit back and watch one of his reports.
(Real Player required)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1315000/video/_1319141_payback_vi.ram
>
> I think we are far from our barbarous selves, at least our society is. We
> are smarter only because we are free to teach and learn. Our Western
> governments and society encourage this in contrast to many who do not.
>
*The trick is not to show how barbaric we are, need I ask you to name the
only country in the world that has a judgement from the world court against
them, calling them a terrorist state? Too slow, the US of course, the easy
way to avoid that of course is to avoid justice and courts altogether as
they are doing at the moment, unless you're either going to agree or better
still own it. AFAIK the only two states preventing the UN General assembly
from passing a law forcing all countries to abide by international law with
regards terrorism is the USofA and the nation of the moment (take a bow)
Israel and the only government in the world rejecting the UN security
resolution asking the same is again the US, in fact both Britain and Ireland
chose not to follow their line.
>
> You make it sound intentional. I assure you that since the end of the Cold
> War, most American administrations have been isolationist. We got dragged
> into the Balkans and now Palestine by getting crimed for neglecting our
> international responsibilities and damned when we do as bullies.
*But Israel is bought and paid for, that's what brought the US gov into it,
not some code of ethics that the world was looking to the US for. AFAIK the
US condemned the killing of a war criminal in Kosovo by the SAS as the guy
went for his pistol as he was being arrested. Yet when it comes to hunting
down the ring leaders of war crimes which is the right way to do it (and
backed by Human Rights Watch surprisingly enough) the US gov says it will
only deal with them if they come cross them and not actively hunt them.
So clearly it seems it's better to equip and supply small armies that
without any accountability or system of justice themselves can murder
thousands, than go for those responsible at the top. So for the greater good
we form alliances with Russia, so long as we overlook what is happening in
Chechenya. During Bush's election campaign he thought the war in Chenchenya
was wrong and demanded that international aid be stopped.
China still one of the worst human rights violators in the world and every
American Airmans nightmare. Despite millions of Dollars worth of
surveillance
equipment they miss the smiling Chinaman on their wing tip 30ft away,
presumably the same blindness applys to their own internal policy.
Saudia Arabia, apparently hated by it's own people and the closest we have
today to the Taliban today, religious police and all. If it's good enough to
supply rebels in other countries why not here?
If there ever was state terrorism this is it, backed by the west, US
soldiers and foreign aid.
Slipping neatly by Pakistan and the change in views of a presidency that
went from threat of sanctions to 'good guy.'
Egypt's not a model society either by any means. Human Rights Watch warns
that "if the U.S. ignores Egypt's human right problems, that will not have a
moderating effect on people in the region who are hostile to U.S. policies."
Israel while having genuine security concerns blatantly ignores
international law and continually refuels the terrorism within it's own
borders with attacks on civilians, their property and the press in
Palestine.
I could go on and on with the list and the hypocrisy from all the players,
but unless we stop supporting terrorism it simply isn't going to stop. If
Pakistan wants an aid package on condition for it's support on terror, then
you lay down your own conditions, you get it when you see child raping, homo
and genocidal maniacs that think little of skinning people as exactly that
and not some government you 'recognize.' You get it when you understand why
freedom is important, but if the west hasn't grasped that themselves despite
the fine words, who's going to listen to us?
> We do not intentionally project power except when other people crash
aircraft into
> our buildings.
>
*From a talk by Noam Chomsky who summed one case up well...
'Well, in 1984, [Turkey] launched a major terrorist war against Kurds in
southeastern Turkey. And that's when US aid went up, military aid. And this
was not pistols. This was jet planes, tanks, military training, and so on.
And it stayed high as the atrocities escalated through the 1990’s. Aid
followed it. The peak year was 1997. In 1997, US military aid to Turkey was
more than in the entire period 1950 to 1983, that is the cold war period,
which is an indication of how much the cold war has affected policy. And the
results were awesome. This led to 2-3 million refugees. Some of the worst
ethnic cleansing of the late 1990’s. Tens of thousands of people killed,
3500 towns and villages destroyed, way more than Kosovo, even under NATO
bombs. And the United States was providing 80% of the arms, increasing as
the atrocities increased, peaking in 1997. It declined in 1999 because, once
again, terror worked as it usually does when carried out by its major
agents, mainly the powerful. So by 1999, Turkish terror, called of course
counter-terror, but as I said, that's universal, it worked. Therefore Turkey
was replaced by Colombia which had not yet succeeded in its terrorist war.
And therefore had to move into first place as recipient of US arms.'
>
> Moshariff is a modern secularist who's desire to control his religious
> fundamentalists coincided with our need to project power into Afghanistan.
> There hasn't been a fair election in Pakistan since the Indo-European
> invasions four thousand years ago. If there ever is one it will be because
> of brave thinking men like Perves Moshariff.
>
*He is one of the few exceptions where I would agree with you, despite what
I've said above. At least he seems to be talking the talk, it's a first step
but then again he has the novelty of his new government, self preservation
of power often takes over from novelty through time.
> Trade Unions have been on the decline here for half a century mostly
because
> of their own corruption and control by organized crime syndicates. What
> industries they did control have long departed to less expensive climes.
> These days people are better educated and don't fall for their line as
> easily. In the old industrial states of the North one is forced to join a
> union in order to get a job. Where I live there are right-to-work laws
which
> make it illegal to force a worker to join a Union against his will. We
> remain a nation of laws.
>
*A law might help you win a court case but it won't help you keep your job
when it's over, there's no doubt the Union's power bloc had to be stilted
but they're still needed.
>
> It does suit democratic capitalism which is the best thing one can say
> about a system of government and an economic system except that it works.
There
> is less crime in rural villages in China and in Singapore but there you
> are. -the Troll
>
>
*Here's an interview with a radio show host and Greg Palast again, the guy,
being a journalist knows how to sensationalize but in one statement he says
within 3 months the President of Venezuela will either be shot or put out of
office, could be a lucky guess on his part. Read it anyway and keep your
mind open to the fact that greedy capitalists might just be bigger than you
think.
http://www.infowars.com/palast.htm
As superpowers go the US is still one of the best in history, simply because
the people have a belief in freedom.....even if the government have long
forgotten the principles behind it. As long as the people are willing to
challenge their leaders and can effectively, then it does make that huge
difference. But waving flags is often a bad sign, when people equate
Nationalism to a cause it makes speaking out all the harder or be damned as
an Anti-American. Probably the only reason the US hasn't went the way of
just about every powerhouse before them is ironically enough capitalism, you
can make money and power out of war but not civil war, at least not your
own.
duck
hippo
"duck" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > > > The bad guys hate our openness and technology more than anything
else
> > > about us and it
> > > > isn't easy to transfer hate of something that is good.
> >
> >
> > > *I'm not so sure bad is the best word to use,
> >
> > It is 'Merican coloquial speach and means 'the other guys'.
> >
> *Should that not be 'evil' then?
Certainly not. It could as well be the team from the town over. We call evil
evil.
> > Of course we were but gave up burning folk to save their souls about
three
> > hundred fifty years ago. The Muslim fundamentalists are throwbacks to
that
> > age of our own development. I wouldn't be putting up with us either.
They
> > are not rational you know. Religious fundamentalism seldom is.
> *Burning folks? India? Religion might separate them but it's more to do
with
> the effects of the separation than any religious beliefs either have.
By 'we' I mean Christians. Societies progress out of superstition or they
don't. The Moslem fundamentalists clearly have not, in part because their
beliefs resist progress.
> > The
> > 'Internationals' as you call them, are not nearly as dangerous as you
seem
> > to think. They are, in fact, quite brittle and vulnerable since they
have
> no
> > army or large constituency. They survive as long as they make money.
When
> > they don't, pffft.
> *But what if they are in the same bed as Bush? What if after generous
> payouts to his laughable election campaign they expect a little back. Over
> here we have a nightly news program on the BBC called Newsnight one of
their
> investigative journalists is a guy called George Palast (American) who
does
> some of the most revealing research into Globalization and especially
Bush's
> contribution. Grab a cup of coffee, sit back and watch one of his reports.
> (Real Player required)
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1315000/video/_1319141_payback_vi.ram>
I would be instantly suspicious of any reporter focusing on Globalization or
any other single topic. Presumably he chose the topic to research which
means he almost certainly has a venue. Politicians are never without
'friends' (common interests). Business generally favors Conservatives as
they tend to maintain social and economic stability and are themselves from
business. Huge corporations have, as I said, built in problems caused by
their very size. They are not usually very responsive which makes them
vulnerable to competition from smaller, faster moving, companies. They have
been put up by the Left as a target for their own purposes which has lttle
to do with actual danger. Here they are disliked because they support
Conservatism while organized labor and trial lawyers support the other side.
> > I think we are far from our barbarous selves, at least our society is.
We
> > are smarter only because we are free to teach and learn. Our Western
> > governments and society encourage this in contrast to many who do not.
> *The trick is not to show how barbaric we are, need I ask you to name the
> only country in the world that has a judgement from the world court
against
> them, calling them a terrorist state? Too slow, the US of course, the easy
> way to avoid that of course is to avoid justice and courts altogether as
> they are doing at the moment, unless you're either going to agree or
better
> still own it. AFAIK the only two states preventing the UN General assembly
> from passing a law forcing all countries to abide by international law
with
> regards terrorism is the USofA and the nation of the moment (take a bow)
> Israel and the only government in the world rejecting the UN security
> resolution asking the same is again the US, in fact both Britain and
Ireland
> chose not to follow their line.
You can do that because you are not the target for these bastards. We are.
Look at the makeup of the 'investigators' set up to go to Jenin. I wouldn't
have let them in either. The UN was stupid to make the whole thing so
blatant. Our constitution, which is the corpus of laws by which we are
governed, does not recognize any external power over US citizens. Exposing
them to some external jurisdiction would require a change to the
Constitution which is rightly a very difficult thing to do. Neither the UN
nor the World Court are sovereign so may not fall under extradition treaties
which in any case only cover laws broken in a treaty state, not 'the world'.
I got one if these Internationals in another NG to admit their
'International Laws' were largely put in place to be enforced on US citizens
and not on peasant revolutionaries in Central America, for example. Do you
think we are fools or suicidal?
> > You make it sound intentional. I assure you that since the end of the
Cold
> > War, most American administrations have been isolationist. We got
dragged
> > into the Balkans and now Palestine by getting crimed for neglecting our
> > international responsibilities and damned when we do as bullies.
> *But Israel is bought and paid for, that's what brought the US gov into
it,
No it isn't. That's your read. We have other fish to fry at the moment and
the last thing we wanted was to be dragged into the quagmire of Palestine.
We got told by the 'World' to do something about it so as not to abrogate
our 'international responsibilities'. Like I said we get damned if we do and
damned if we don't and are getting rightly tired of it.
> not some code of ethics that the world was looking to the US for. AFAIK
the
> US condemned the killing of a war criminal in Kosovo by the SAS as the guy
> went for his pistol as he was being arrested. Yet when it comes to hunting
> down the ring leaders of war crimes which is the right way to do it (and
> backed by Human Rights Watch surprisingly enough) the US gov says it will
> only deal with them if they come cross them and not actively hunt them.
I know nothing of the incident so can not comment on it.
> So clearly it seems it's better to equip and supply small armies that
> without any accountability or system of justice themselves can murder
> thousands, than go for those responsible at the top. So for the greater
good
> we form alliances with Russia, so long as we overlook what is happening in
> Chechenya. During Bush's election campaign he thought the war in
Chenchenya
> was wrong and demanded that international aid be stopped.
In fact we were very understanding of the Russian position and paid little
but lip service to international opposition even before 9/11. As far as I am
concerned the Chechens bought and paid for everything they are getting by
butchering their Russian minority population, and invading a neighboring
state to spread their 'revolution'. The mistake you and many make is not
understanding these Islamic fundamentalists are not nice people.
> China still one of the worst human rights violators in the world and every
> American Airmans nightmare. Despite millions of Dollars worth of
> surveillance
> equipment they miss the smiling Chinaman on their wing tip 30ft away,
> presumably the same blindness applys to their own internal policy.
We didn't miss anything. The incident has everything to do with an internal
power struggle within China between the civil government and military and
nothing to do with failed sensors. China is moving quite satisfactorily
towards a Western culture within limits wisely imposed by their government.
Unlike Russia, the Chinese Government knows perfectly well that their people
lack the political sophistication to function as a democracy. They are
shifting to a Capitalist economic system and making democratic reforms on
the village level so as to prepare their people. Making the jump all at once
would get them into the same problems as Russia which would be extremely
irresponsible.
> Saudia Arabia, apparently hated by it's own people and the closest we have
> today to the Taliban today, religious police and all. If it's good enough
to
> supply rebels in other countries why not here?
Most of the Saudis elsewhere are wanted men in Saudi Arabia. We are not
concerned with internal arrangements inside other states so long as they do
not cause instability outside their borders. We don't like to be told how to
govern ourselves and try to remember that when dealing with other countries
as long as we are not attacked. In fact Saudi Arabia is being severely
criticized here lately, not so much for their form of government, but
because of the teaching in their religious schools.
> If there ever was state terrorism this is it, backed by the west, US
> soldiers and foreign aid.
>
> Slipping neatly by Pakistan and the change in views of a presidency that
> went from threat of sanctions to 'good guy.'
Moshariff is a secular reformer and the best choice for a modern Pakistan.
The sanctions were for nuclear weapons.
> Egypt's not a model society either by any means. Human Rights Watch warns
> that "if the U.S. ignores Egypt's human right problems, that will not have
a
> moderating effect on people in the region who are hostile to U.S.
policies."
See above.
> Israel while having genuine security concerns blatantly ignores
> international law and continually refuels the terrorism within it's own
> borders with attacks on civilians, their property and the press in
> Palestine.
They have little choice.
> I could go on and on with the list and the hypocrisy from all the players,
> but unless we stop supporting terrorism it simply isn't going to stop. If
> Pakistan wants an aid package on condition for it's support on terror,
then
> you lay down your own conditions, you get it when you see child raping,
homo
> and genocidal maniacs that think little of skinning people as exactly that
> and not some government you 'recognize.' You get it when you understand
why
> freedom is important, but if the west hasn't grasped that themselves
despite
> the fine words, who's going to listen to us?
How about let's think positively. We assassinate Moshariff and Mobarik
because they are dictators? Alternatively we let them crash and take moral
responsibility for the chaos resulting? Geopolitics is not as simple as you
seem to think.
Turkey is the only relatively modern, secular Moslem state. The Turks were
responding to Kurdish terrorist attacks. If the Kurds hadn't undertaken a
coordinated terrorist campaign, there wouldn't have been one of them killed.
The deaths are on the heads of the Kurds and their 'liberation' movement, no
one else. Jet aircraft, FYI, are not ideal for anti-terrorist ops.
> > Moshariff is a modern secularist who's desire to control his religious
> > fundamentalists coincided with our need to project power into
Afghanistan.
> > There hasn't been a fair election in Pakistan since the Indo-European
> > invasions four thousand years ago. If there ever is one it will be
because
> > of brave thinking men like Perves Moshariff.
> *He is one of the few exceptions where I would agree with you, despite
what
> I've said above. At least he seems to be talking the talk, it's a first
step
> but then again he has the novelty of his new government, self preservation
> of power often takes over from novelty through time.
I agree, We are not in the position to choose heads of state for other
countries. He is doing far more than 'talking the talk'. If he can manage to
stay alive, Pakistan has a real chance to survive and become a viable
secular modern state.
> > Trade Unions have been on the decline here for half a century mostly
> because
> > of their own corruption and control by organized crime syndicates. What
> > industries they did control have long departed to less expensive climes.
> > These days people are better educated and don't fall for their line as
> > easily. In the old industrial states of the North one is forced to join
a
> > union in order to get a job. Where I live there are right-to-work laws
> which
> > make it illegal to force a worker to join a Union against his will. We
> > remain a nation of laws.
> *A law might help you win a court case but it won't help you keep your job
> when it's over, there's no doubt the Union's power bloc had to be stilted
> but they're still needed.
I agree, shed of their connections to organized crime, corrupt, self serving
leadership, and violent tactics.
> > It does suit democratic capitalism which is the best thing one can say
> > about a system of government and an economic system except that it
works.
> There
> > is less crime in rural villages in China and in Singapore but there you
> > are.
> *Here's an interview with a radio show host and Greg Palast again, the
guy,
> being a journalist knows how to sensationalize but in one statement he
says
> within 3 months the President of Venezuela will either be shot or put out
of
> office, could be a lucky guess on his part. Read it anyway and keep your
> mind open to the fact that greedy capitalists might just be bigger than
you
> think.
>
> http://www.infowars.com/palast.htm
The Prez of Venezuela is a nut case and has, in spite of near all time high
oil prices, nearly destroyed the economy of his country. If he gets himself
shot it will be because of that, not some plot by international business
interests. Communism is not a viable economic/political system and never has
been. Like all invented Utopian schemes, it does not have the flexibility or
human component to function in a real world. Idealism is fine until it tries
to impose itself as a political system by force.
> As superpowers go the US is still one of the best in history, simply
because
> the people have a belief in freedom.....even if the government have long
> forgotten the principles behind it. As long as the people are willing to
> challenge their leaders and can effectively, then it does make that huge
> difference. But waving flags is often a bad sign, when people equate
> Nationalism to a cause it makes speaking out all the harder or be damned
as
> an Anti-American. Probably the only reason the US hasn't went the way of
> just about every powerhouse before them is ironically enough capitalism,
you
> can make money and power out of war but not civil war, at least not your
> own.
> duck
We survive because we were founded on granite with sensible laws and
guaranteed rights from the outset, and our system has evolved to maintain
stability, not jog and bounce all over the political landscape to satisfy
political idealist minorities. Our government is constrained by it's own
organization and highly restrictive laws under which it is obliged to
govern. About the rest you are very wrong. Capitalism creates wealth which,
in the end, will be our undoing as it was with Rome. That knowledge does not
mean there is a better way. -the Troll
Jochen Lueg
duck <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> *and the reason I put it in the quotes to signify what many might term as
> 'bad.' You seem to agree with me on this, with regards our perception.
> Freedom though is more than a morality.
What is freedom? If you can define it in a universally applicable way you
deserve a prize - nobel or other. I feel that the idea of freedom is as
flexible and ill definable as morality. If people weren't such liars and
if they had less self interest standard freedom and morals might be
possible, but I won't hold my breath for the great day. Personally I'm
happy if people notice me as little as possible and let me get on with my
own little life without forcing their religion and/or politics down my
throat.
This has worked - surprisingly - very well around here. As a perceived
foreigner it is understood by everyone that Northern Ireland's problems
are beyond my understanding and Germans are allowed to be atheists,
apparently.
duck
> In article <abatbn$gjfft$1...@ID-122481.news.dfncis.de>,
> duck <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > *and the reason I put it in the quotes to signify what many might term
as
> > 'bad.' You seem to agree with me on this, with regards our perception.
> > Freedom though is more than a morality.
>
>
>
> What is freedom? If you can define it in a universally applicable way you
> deserve a prize - nobel or other. I feel that the idea of freedom is as
> flexible and ill definable as morality. If people weren't such liars and
> if they had less self interest standard freedom and morals might be
> possible, but I won't hold my breath for the great day. Personally I'm
> happy if people notice me as little as possible and let me get on with my
> own little life without forcing their religion and/or politics down my
> throat.
>
'right' of freedom which might be slightly different- the right to do what
you like without impinging other peoples rights. Though there's probably a
far better word.
> This has worked - surprisingly - very well around here. As a perceived
> foreigner it is understood by everyone that Northern Ireland's problems
> are beyond my understanding and Germans are allowed to be atheists,
> apparently.
>
> Jochen
>
*Ahh A Lutheran atheist!
duck
duck
> evil.
>
that are still the closest to evil...... you remember, that dynasty hated by
their own people but supported by the west.
> I would be instantly suspicious of any reporter focusing on Globalization or
> any other single topic. Presumably he chose the topic to research which
> means he almost certainly has a venue.
*He's actually an award winning reporter and started out years ago by
investigating company fraud by big business and there isn't much bigger than
the Globalists, so it seems only natural he should be the one writing the
books, columns and making the news reports, who better?
> Politicians are never without
> 'friends' (common interests). Business generally favors Conservatives as
> they tend to maintain social and economic stability and are themselves from
> business.
*According to Palast, Globalization was Margaret Thatchers baby supported and
championed then by the power of Reagan. You see it goes back to my original
post on the subject, when I said give the needy countries money but make
conditions on the way they spent it and don't simply go on a shopping spree, I
meant it. What I didn't say was rip the arse out of their economy on a free
for all like the Global sharks have done.
When Thatcher was in power here she did just that, except the network didn't
exist in the same way then and Socialism still meant something, she could only
take it so far and so fast. But suddenly the Conservatives were telling us all
'that we've never had it so good' and the policy's were proving themselves.
What she was actually doing was selling Britains assets,'selling the silver'
as it was called. She of course shouted free trade at the anti-privatization
lobby and claimed the railroads, hospitals, telecommunications, postal
service, power and even the water system would benefit in the long run (to
name a few)
Well some scratched their heads at that one, while many could see the
benefits of competition in some of those markets, in the cases like British
Telecom though, how can anyone really compete when BT still hold the network.
If people look elsewhere for their choice of phone company BT still won, they
still have to use their lines, they can overcharge and in the worst scenario
still bring in revenue from renting out their lines (ours actually, paid for
by us) As far as cable goes it will be years before they can truly compete
since they have to dig up most of the UK to lay their cables.
Anyway today Britain falls behind quite a few other countries with regards
the internet and has been accused of consistently overcharging but
comparative
to Globalization that's not a problem. At the time to calm the fears of the
protests at the privatization of it's industry, watchdogs with power were set
up. Common knowledge that but the countries that fall for the Globalization
trap have absolutely no back up what so ever.
Countries looking for aid where told by the 'International Monetary Fund'
(IMF) to go through them, but to go through them they had to follow their
guidelines, to follow their guidelines they had to slice their wrists on the
open market and put their country up for sale. So they would sell of their
water, power, transport anything that moved to the main western players.
They might run about flush for a time, as you do but then the knife is turned,
the
country is now owned by the banks and multi-nationals, now they hike up their
prices for 'their' services. The long and the short of it is collapse and
social unrest, in documents obtained from the IMF and the World Bank they
actually accept that their policies would result in riots, they didn't care.
Argentina was their only success story, now look at it, people searching food
in the garbage. You didn't really believe a government could be that bad at
running their economy? At one time Argentina fed Latin America, it was it's
main rancher, it's now a riot zone. The people want their money but they
aren't getting it, the banks have ran dry. When Argentina approached the US
treasury they borrowed at rates up to 30% percent whereas even a large
cooperations could expect to get the same for under 10.
Who really owns the World Bank btw? The US gov, 51% that extra 1% makes all
the difference.
> Huge corporations have, as I said, built in problems caused by
> their very size. They are not usually very responsive which makes them
> vulnerable to competition from smaller, faster moving, companies.
*This goes with your reference to the Alpha male apes and the size of the
troop that can be controlled before it fragments. I've seen those studies but
what you're missing is that apes can't delegate responsibility, apes can't
split it's colony without losing it's hierarchy, co-operations can and do.
Usually trading under a different name but the money still goes to the top,
with Globalization it's not an ape but a Bushbaby.
>They have
> been put up by the Left as a target for their own purposes which has little
> to do with actual danger. Here they are disliked because they support
> Conservatism while organized labor and trial lawyers support the other side.
>
*It's not just the Third World, one of Enron's many fingers bought Wessex
water
in England, which was big news here. They hiked the prices by 250% and blamed
the need on inherited old waterpipes, a 1/3 of the water was seeping below yet
the profits were up by 35%, when Conservatives get the reputation of being
self serving bastards this is just one of the reasons why.
duck
duck
> > AFAIK the only two states preventing the UN General assembly
> > from passing a law forcing all countries to abide by international law
> > with regards terrorism is the USofA and the nation of the moment (take a
bow)
> > Israel and the only government in the world rejecting the UN security
> > resolution asking the same is again the US, in fact both Britain and
> > Ireland chose not to follow their line.
>
> You can do that because you are not the target for these bastards. We are.
*Now you're using the arguments of those people in flashpoint areas here who
committed attacks on the other saying if you knew what it was like you would
be a bigot too. So an emotional involvement through personal experience
entitles you a better grasp on a situation? No offense but I would say it
hopelessly colours your perception.
Besides that it's simply not true and I'm surprised you could state
something like that to someone who's lived through a conflict for all of my
life. If the scale of N.Ireland and the impact on the community was taken to
the US it would equal half a million people dead and I wouldn't even dare
think how many would've been injured or affected in some way by not one
attack but life as many of us have ever known.
Sept 9 was one of the most shocking events in history and I don't seek to
degrade it in any way but while you were experiencing checks at airports we
were being frisked and even having our shopping searched with every visit to
another store, it was that bad. Not forgetting the impact of the twin towers
affected the many people that had loved ones there from Britain and Ireland
but like yourself most of us watched from the safety of our television.
There is few in N.Ireland that don't know what it is like to feel a bomb, I
can remember as a ten year old watching the seawater in the rock pools by
the beach dancing as bombs hit, that was just a part of growing up here.
Every innocent person here was a potential target, how many people there
experienced even occasional fear because of Nicaragua?
> Look at the makeup of the 'investigators' set up to go to Jenin. I
wouldn't
> have let them in either. The UN was stupid to make the whole thing so
> blatant.
*That's an excuse.
> Our constitution, which is the corpus of laws by which we are
> governed, does not recognize any external power over US citizens. Exposing
> them to some external jurisdiction would require a change to the
> Constitution which is rightly a very difficult thing to do. Neither the UN
> nor the World Court are sovereign so may not fall under extradition
treaties
> which in any case only cover laws broken in a treaty state, not 'the
world'.
*What it boils down to is the US gov can do as they please, anyway from the
World Court which they have an aversion to.........
'[the world court] Rejects the justification of collective self-defence
maintained by the
United States of America in connection with the military and paramilitary
activities in and against Nicaragua the subject of this case'
'Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping,
financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging,
supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against
Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its
obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs
of another State'
'Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan
territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and
14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on
Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7
March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March
1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by
those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which
involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in
breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force
against another State'
'Decides that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing over
Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United
States referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, has acted, against the
Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary
international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State'
'Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the
Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of
America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its
obligations under customary international law'
'Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the
existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph
(6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary
international law in this respect'
.......and 9 more. How can we ask Osama to respect international law when we
disregard it ourselves.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inussummary860627.htm
> I got one if these Internationals in another NG to admit their
> 'International Laws' were largely put in place to be enforced on US
citizens
> and not on peasant revolutionaries in Central America, for example. Do you
> think we are fools or suicidal?
>
>
*The powerful usually don't need laws to protect them quite as much as the
weak, besides suicidal against a peasant revoluntionary?
>
> > *But Israel is bought and paid for, that's what brought the US gov into
> it,
>
> No it isn't. That's your read.
*From 1949 to 1998, the US government gave Israel USD 84.8 billion in
foreign aid, while the US also give some to the Palestinians it doesn't come
anywhere near that figure. Just because some Palestinians maybe nuts doesn't
entitle a supposedly professional army to attack reporters, drive over cars
and generally kill whenever and whatever they like.
We have other fish to fry at the moment and
> the last thing we wanted was to be dragged into the quagmire of Palestine.
> We got told by the 'World' to do something about it so as not to abrogate
> our 'international responsibilities'. Like I said we get damned if we do
> and damned if we don't and are getting rightly tired of it.
>
>
*The US is hopelessly biased with the Israelis thats when they draw
criticism and can't simply be blamed on Anti-Americanism.
> The mistake you and many make is not
> understanding these Islamic fundamentalists are not nice people.
>
>
*Not nice is an understatement, the Islamics are bastards in Chechnya and
don't have support generally with the civilian population. Which makes it all
the harder to understand when the Russians by far cause the most civilian
deaths, rocketing markets isn't a civilized standard. Russia though isn't the
worst and conflicts are very different to the likes of abuses caused by the
Saudis but they still count.
'Leaflets dropped over Grozny by Russian Federal aircraft on 6 December warn
residents to leave within five days: "Only in this way will you be able to
avoid death and save your city." Another leaflet reportedly states that
Russian Federal armed forces will consider all those remaining in Grozny after
the deadline to be "terrorists and bandits. They will be destroyed by
artillery and aviation."
Estimates of the number of civilians remaining in Grozny range from 10,000 to
50,000.'
http://www.amnesty.ie/act/Chechnya/grozny.shtml
> > China still one of the worst human rights violators in the world and every
> > American Airmans nightmare. Despite millions of Dollars worth of
surveillance
> > equipment they miss the smiling Chinaman on their wing tip 30ft away,
> > presumably the same blindness applys to their own internal policy.
>
> We didn't miss anything. The incident has everything to do with an internal
> power struggle within China between the civil government and military and
> nothing to do with failed sensors. China is moving quite satisfactorily
> towards a Western culture within limits wisely imposed by their government.
> Unlike Russia, the Chinese Government knows perfectly well that their
> people lack the political sophistication to function as a democracy. They
are
> shifting to a Capitalist economic system and making democratic reforms on
> the village level so as to prepare their people. Making the jump all at
> once would get them into the same problems as Russia which would be
extremely
> irresponsible.
>
*I was winding you with the plane but I wouldn't like to choose which is the
most oppressive between Iran and China but Iran has at least some slight form
of democracy and a helluva lot less weapons yet they get the Evil axis speech
despite their own reforms while China gets to be a 'buddie.' If anything it
hinders the reformers.
> Most of the Saudis elsewhere are wanted men in Saudi Arabia. We are not
> concerned with internal arrangements inside other states so long as they do
> not cause instability outside their borders. We don't like to be told how to
> govern ourselves and try to remember that when dealing with other countries
> as long as we are not attacked. In fact Saudi Arabia is being severely
> criticized here lately, not so much for their form of government, but
> because of the teaching in their religious schools.
>
*They have a religious police, same as the Taliban, public executions,
oppressive to other religions, women and dissenters. Most of the hijackers
originated from there, including Ossy himself yet the west supports this
dictatorship because it suits their purpose with military aid and their own
soldiers. One of the best ways to stop oppression is not to oppress or support
it.
> > If there ever was state terrorism this is it, backed by the west, US
> > soldiers and foreign aid.
> >
> > Slipping neatly by Pakistan and the change in views of a presidency that
> > went from threat of sanctions to 'good guy.'
>
> Moshariff is a secular reformer and the best choice for a modern Pakistan.
> The sanctions were for nuclear weapons.
>
*Oh that's Ok then as long as they were only nuclear......
>
> > Israel while having genuine security concerns blatantly ignores
> > international law and continually refuels the terrorism within it's own
> > borders with attacks on civilians, their property and the press in
> > Palestine.
>
> They have little choice.
>
*The choice they took was to use terror themselves, the choice they're taking
is counterproductive as the whole world knows except them. Violent reactions
to terrorism might be understandable but to support it is another matter, if
innocent people are shot dead it matters little which side they come from.
> > You get it when you understand why
> > freedom is important, but if the west hasn't grasped that themselves
> > despite the fine words, who's going to listen to us?
>
> How about let's think positively. We assassinate Moshariff and Mobarik
> because they are dictators?
*Nope we take them to the world court if they are guilty of war crimes,
believe me if they know they won't get away with the crime they won't do it,
if the military has to used then it has to be an accountable international
one.
> Alternatively we let them crash and take moral
> responsibility for the chaos resulting?
*Moshariff was the example I used and did say at least he seemed to be genuine
about his talk of future democracy, Mobarik doesn't seem genuine about
anything. But we need a world police force that isn't simple going to
terrorise themselves when it suits.
> Geopolitics is not as simple as you seem to think.
>
>
*I don't think it's that simple, I think your attitude that cannot believe
that we are as capable of war crimes as anyone else is simplistic. All it says
to me is you believe whatever is told to you from people who have their own
self interests to indulge, I'm not saying fight your own corrupt government,
I'm saying watch yourself because there's clearly corruption within it.
>
> Turkey is the only relatively modern, secular Moslem state. The Turks were
> responding to Kurdish terrorist attacks. If the Kurds hadn't undertaken a
> coordinated terrorist campaign, there wouldn't have been one of them
> killed. The deaths are on the heads of the Kurds and their 'liberation'
movement,
> no one else. Jet aircraft, FYI, are not ideal for anti-terrorist ops.
>
>
*In Turkey, education and broadcasts in the Kurdish language are banned, in
all between Iraq(remember the mass gassings?), Iran?, Syria and Turkey they
number approx 20 million, in fact one of the largest ethnic groups in the
world without a country, yet even their culture is suppressed, what did we
fight Hitler for, did we use violence? I suspect Turkey is as two sided as any
conflict but when a government such as Turkeys has absolute power it
unbalances things. No matter what struggle you look at in the world you
usually find a small band of fighters with the innocent just wanting to raise
their kids, when 3500 villages are destroyed how many people do you think fall
into what category?
> > in one statement he says
> > within 3 months the President of Venezuela will either be shot or put
> >out of office, could be a lucky guess on his part. Read it anyway and keep
your
> > mind open to the fact that greedy capitalists might just be bigger than
> you think.
> >
> > http://www.infowars.com/palast.htm
>
> The Prez of Venezuela is a nut case
> and has, in spite of near all time
> high oil prices, nearly destroyed the economy of his country.
> If he gets himself shot it will be because of that, not some plot by
> international business interests.
*The guy got 60% of the vote, Bush wasn't even elected by the people, in fact
corruption got him into government in the first place. Besides Charez was a
reformer himself and unlike Moshariff was elected.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=136&row=1
> Communism is not a viable economic/political
> system and never has been. Like all invented Utopian schemes, it does not
> have the flexibility or human component to function in a real world.
> Idealism is fine until it tries to impose itself as a political system by
force.
>
*I agree with quite a bit of capitalism, but what makes you think ultimately
it isn't idealistic as well?
>
> We survive because we were founded on granite with sensible laws and
> guaranteed rights from the outset, and our system has evolved to maintain
> stability,
*That's dandy for internal affairs but what happens when Bush steps out onto
the world arena, laws don't affect him or at least he just ignores them.
> not jog and bounce all over the political landscape to satisfy
> political idealist minorities.
*You make it sound like minority groups run around thinking up new ideas for
the thrill, if they get support, you listen, simple.
> Our government is constrained by it's own
> organization and highly restrictive laws under which it is obliged to
> govern.
*I know little about US law so I'll not argue about that point.
> About the rest you are very wrong. Capitalism creates wealth
> which, in the end, will be our undoing as it was with Rome. That knowledge
does
> not mean there is a better way. -the Troll
>
>
*The wealth won't be the undoing but the power and the fear of losing it. The
problem with Globalisation is in the acquisition of both. If we agree that
laws are needed to prevent corporate greed within America (and yet corruption
still exists) why can't you agree the Globalists need them too. It's one thing
to await the next arrival of a power hungry managing director and know the law
will halt him, it's another to have a network of corrupt companies with their
hands up the most powerful man in the world's back with nothing or nobody to
stop them. They have the media, the politicians, the military, the police and
with all that projected onto other nations, the power.
When you look at the world before Bush and the world now do you never think to
yourself, WTF??? Is something not driving this? Or would you rather just wait
until you're dragging yourself out of line of sight from a tank in some desert
you can't pronounce? With the Cold War we had balance, that was a good
deterrent, the US is now spending on it's military the same as the top ten
other nations put together, or to put it another way the deterrent to war has
gone.
All the best.
duck
hippo
"duck" wrote in message
You misread me. I am not talking about 9/11 here but the lack of partiality
in the 'International Laws' you are talking about. The people making these
laws are not elected by us nor are they a part of our contractual system of
government. We may be willing to listen to weeks of anti-US diatribes in the
UN but we don't have to put our citizens, soldiers and military pilots at
their mercy. There is a not inconsiderable movement in this country calling
for our withdrawal from the UN.
> Sept 9 was one of the most shocking events in history and I don't seek to
> degrade it in any way but while you were experiencing checks at airports
we
> were being frisked and even having our shopping searched with every visit
to
> another store, it was that bad. Not forgetting the impact of the twin
towers
> affected the many people that had loved ones there from Britain and
Ireland
> but like yourself most of us watched from the safety of our television.
> There is few in N.Ireland that don't know what it is like to feel a bomb,
I
> can remember as a ten year old watching the seawater in the rock pools by
> the beach dancing as bombs hit, that was just a part of growing up here.
>
> Every innocent person here was a potential target, how many people there
> experienced even occasional fear because of Nicaragua?
see abv.
> > Look at the makeup of the 'investigators' set up to go to Jenin. I
> wouldn't
> > have let them in either. The UN was stupid to make the whole thing so
> > blatant.
>
> *That's an excuse.
No it damned well isn't. Why pull down your trousers when the other guy has
telegraphed in advance he is going to work you over with a cricket bat?
Liberal and permissive ideas and ideals are fine as long as enemies are not
blowing up your women and children. Make no mistake the UN is neither
impartial nor just. The Moslem countries form a power voting block within
the UN which has no problem out voting the single Jewish State.
> > Our constitution, which is the corpus of laws by which we are
> > governed, does not recognize any external power over US citizens.
Exposing
> > them to some external jurisdiction would require a change to the
> > Constitution which is rightly a very difficult thing to do. Neither the
UN
> > nor the World Court are sovereign so may not fall under extradition
> treaties
> > which in any case only cover laws broken in a treaty state, not 'the
> world'.
> *What it boils down to is the US gov can do as they please, anyway from
the
> World Court which they have an aversion to.........
I remind you we are reactive here. If any World body had had the sense of
justice to act impartially we wouldn't have developed the 'aversion' we now
have towards them. Who are these people anyway who claim jurisdiction over
you and me? Do we choose them? Are they democratically elected? Do they work
from a corpus of laws in which either of us has had a hand in making? No
they bloody well are/do not! Very few of the member nations of the UN are
even true democracies. If you want to put yourself and your children under a
legal system aproved by the likes of Zhang Zhemin, Gadaffi, and Fidel Castro
that is your decision and your choice. The US government is more considerate
of me and mine which is why I choose to support it and the US position. One
thing I learned long ago about government is that the closer to home it is
the more likely it is to be just and representative. You are going to find
that out with the EU. Any hypothetical World government and system of
justice it creates will be even more removed.
What a pile of reeking crap. The USSR was running terrorist organizations
(including the IRA) all over the world for half a century without censure.
If you can't see the hypocrisy in that we can. Nicaragua was a part of the
Reagan Doctrine to put an end to the USSR. It, Afghanistan, Mozambique,
Angola, Ethiopia, Cuba, and a half dozen others were paying them back for
this in their own coin. It worked which is why your kids don't have to
practice 'duck and cover' in their classrooms as we did. We harbor no ill
will or cynical designs for/towards the Islamic world. They can do as they
please so long as they keep to themselves and don't develop weapons to get
at us.
> > I got one if these Internationals in another NG to admit their
> > 'International Laws' were largely put in place to be enforced on US
> citizens
> > and not on peasant revolutionaries in Central America, for example. Do
you
> > think we are fools or suicidal?
> >
> >
> *The powerful usually don't need laws to protect them quite as much as the
> weak, besides suicidal against a peasant revoluntionary?
The discussion was mines. He admitted our use of mines would be charged in
his International Courts where their use by a Central American revolutionary
movement would not. Well he and his International Courts can perform a
sexual act upon themselves.
> > > *But Israel is bought and paid for, that's what brought the US gov
into
> > it,
> >
> > No it isn't. That's your read.
>
> *From 1949 to 1998, the US government gave Israel USD 84.8 billion in
> foreign aid, while the US also give some to the Palestinians it doesn't
come
> anywhere near that figure. Just because some Palestinians maybe nuts
doesn't
> entitle a supposedly professional army to attack reporters, drive over
cars
> and generally kill whenever and whatever they like.
We've paid Egypt nearly as much each year and have cut off money to the
Palestinians altogether because it wasn't being spent on houses,
desalinization plants, and health care as agreed, but for Arafat's army and
weapons. Reporters in a war zone have no right to complain. There were over
50 killed in Vietnam. The Israelis exercised considerable constraint, far
more than the Palestinians would have. That you can't see that is your
problem. There was no 'massacre' in Jenin, a fact acknowledged by the
Palestinian Authority itself.
> We have other fish to fry at the moment and
> > the last thing we wanted was to be dragged into the quagmire of
Palestine.
> > We got told by the 'World' to do something about it so as not to
abrogate
> > our 'international responsibilities'. Like I said we get damned if we do
> > and damned if we don't and are getting rightly tired of it.
> *The US is hopelessly biased with the Israelis thats when they draw
> criticism and can't simply be blamed on Anti-Americanism.
We are. Many Israelis are also US citizens. Israel is a long time and
faithful ally, a true democracy in a region of Dictatorships and corrupt
Monarchies. The Conservatives in power in the US now have no Jewish voters
to appease. Almost all American Jews are Liberals or Socialists, and Israel
itself is a Socialist state. That Bush is standing by Israel has nothing to
do with politics but rather loyalty and I salute him for it. If the rest of
the world can justfiy betrayal for political-economic reasons that's their
problem.
> > The mistake you and many make is not
> > understanding these Islamic fundamentalists are not nice people.
> >
> >
> *Not nice is an understatement, the Islamics are bastards in Chechnya and
> don't have support generally with the civilian population. Which makes it
all
> the harder to understand when the Russians by far cause the most civilian
> deaths, rocketing markets isn't a civilized standard. Russia though isn't
the
> worst and conflicts are very different to the likes of abuses caused by
the
> Saudis but they still count.
The Russians lack the wealth and sophisticated weaponry to fight the
Chechins any other way.
> 'Leaflets dropped over Grozny by Russian Federal aircraft on 6 December
warn
> residents to leave within five days: "Only in this way will you be able to
> avoid death and save your city." Another leaflet reportedly states that
> Russian Federal armed forces will consider all those remaining in Grozny
after
> the deadline to be "terrorists and bandits. They will be destroyed by
> artillery and aviation."
>
> Estimates of the number of civilians remaining in Grozny range from 10,000
to
> 50,000.'
>
> http://www.amnesty.ie/act/Chechnya/grozny.shtml
That doesn't surprise me.
We are doing nothing against Iran precisely because of its reformers. I
wouldn't actually describe China as a 'buddy'. We have common interests and
understand what they are doing.
> > Most of the Saudis elsewhere are wanted men in Saudi Arabia. We are not
> > concerned with internal arrangements inside other states so long as they
do
> > not cause instability outside their borders. We don't like to be told
how to
> > govern ourselves and try to remember that when dealing with other
countries
> > as long as we are not attacked. In fact Saudi Arabia is being severely
> > criticized here lately, not so much for their form of government, but
> > because of the teaching in their religious schools.
> *They have a religious police, same as the Taliban, public executions,
> oppressive to other religions, women and dissenters. Most of the hijackers
> originated from there, including Ossy himself yet the west supports this
> dictatorship because it suits their purpose with military aid and their
own
> soldiers. One of the best ways to stop oppression is not to oppress or
support
> it.
Ossi and his mates left Saudi Arabia for health reasons. If a country makes
executions public that is their concern as is their religion and its
political and social ramifications. It becomes our concern when they export
it by force or threaten other countries.
> > > If there ever was state terrorism this is it, backed by the west, US
> > > soldiers and foreign aid.
> > >
> > > Slipping neatly by Pakistan and the change in views of a presidency
that
> > > went from threat of sanctions to 'good guy.'
> >
> > Moshariff is a secular reformer and the best choice for a modern
Pakistan.
> > The sanctions were for nuclear weapons.
> *Oh that's Ok then as long as they were only nuclear......
What in hell is wrong with you? Mossarif was not in power when Pakistan
developed nuclear weapons and is, as I said, a secularist and modernist.
> > > Israel while having genuine security concerns blatantly ignores
> > > international law and continually refuels the terrorism within it's
own
> > > borders with attacks on civilians, their property and the press in
> > > Palestine.
> >
> > They have little choice.
> >
> *The choice they took was to use terror themselves, the choice they're
taking
> is counterproductive as the whole world knows except them. Violent
reactions
> to terrorism might be understandable but to support it is another matter,
if
> innocent people are shot dead it matters little which side they come from.
The situations are not comparable. Israel's actions have been reactive, not
offensive. They target the Palestinian Authority and extremist parties *not*
civilians. They even try to take terrorists alive for trial when possible.
If Arafat had wanted to control his extremists, not one Palestinian would
have died. Period. If Israel had the same mindset, there would not be a
single Palestinian alive west of the Jordan.
> > > You get it when you understand why
> > > freedom is important, but if the west hasn't grasped that themselves
> > > despite the fine words, who's going to listen to us?
> >
> > How about let's think positively. We assassinate Moshariff and Mobarik
> > because they are dictators?
>
> *Nope we take them to the world court if they are guilty of war crimes,
> believe me if they know they won't get away with the crime they won't do
it,
> if the military has to used then it has to be an accountable international
> one.
Do you think for one second the freaking World court could bring either to
trial? Do you really think their successors would be as sane or reasonable?
What do you suppose the reactions of either would be if they were accused?
Don't make the mistake of thinking these people are anything like as
socially advanced as even the Serbs. The same thing would happed as is
ongoing in Iraq. We are going to have to go to war go get that bastard out
with not a whole lot of help. Who do you propose will go in and try to
establish order once one of your World Court plans results in anarchy inside
one of your target countries, the UN? World societies and cultures are not
equal. You cannot expect an instant appreciation of Liberal ideals from a
culture just emerging from Feudalism. It will take a long period of world
peace and stability for these societies and cultures to mature.
> > Alternatively we let them crash and take moral
> > responsibility for the chaos resulting?
> *Moshariff was the example I used and did say at least he seemed to be
genuine
> about his talk of future democracy, Mobarik doesn't seem genuine about
> anything. But we need a world police force that isn't simple going to
> terrorise themselves when it suits.
Mobarik is no democrat because he understands, as you do not, that it would
be impossible to govern Egypt that way. The notion is as ludicrous as trying
to convince King Alfred of the idea. In order for your International Police
Force to work it would have to be an army of half a million and the world
would have to be able to absorb the ethical and moral consequences of any
chaos it generated. There are true bad guys who threaten their neighbors
where action may be the only resort. Just now being un-democratic is not in
that category thank God.
> > Geopolitics is not as simple as you seem to think.
> >
> >
> *I don't think it's that simple, I think your attitude that cannot believe
> that we are as capable of war crimes as anyone else is simplistic. All it
says
> to me is you believe whatever is told to you from people who have their
own
> self interests to indulge, I'm not saying fight your own corrupt
government,
> I'm saying watch yourself because there's clearly corruption within it.
Of course there is. I am a Conservative just because I do not trust any
government, not even my local council. We are less corrupt than most which
is all I will ever claim. Neither do I believe anything I am told. I am far
too pragmatic for that kind of foolishness. I will believe someone who gives
examples and tries to be even handed in a discussion such as is your usual
practice over someone who is/does not.
> > Turkey is the only relatively modern, secular Moslem state. The Turks
were
> > responding to Kurdish terrorist attacks. If the Kurds hadn't undertaken
a
> > coordinated terrorist campaign, there wouldn't have been one of them
> > killed. The deaths are on the heads of the Kurds and their 'liberation'
> movement,
> > no one else. Jet aircraft, FYI, are not ideal for anti-terrorist ops.
> >
> >
> *In Turkey, education and broadcasts in the Kurdish language are banned,
in
> all between Iraq(remember the mass gassings?), Iran?, Syria and Turkey
they
> number approx 20 million, in fact one of the largest ethnic groups in the
> world without a country, yet even their culture is suppressed, what did we
> fight Hitler for, did we use violence? I suspect Turkey is as two sided as
any
> conflict but when a government such as Turkeys has absolute power it
> unbalances things. No matter what struggle you look at in the world you
> usually find a small band of fighters with the innocent just wanting to
raise
> their kids, when 3500 villages are destroyed how many people do you think
fall
> into what category?
The Kurds struck out for self determination and failed. For it they got
butchered. It isn't my fault or yours or the Turks. We understand their
plight and would like to do something about it such as to create an
independent state in northern Iraq. The problem is they have made such
horses asses of themselves in the past, none trusts them. That is a
reputation they have earned. The Turks, Iranians and Syrians know they would
not be content with their new state but would start at once to expand using
the new state as a base. They are as Xenophobic and ruthless as any of the
states now oppressing them.
> > > in one statement he says
> > > within 3 months the President of Venezuela will either be shot or put
> > >out of office, could be a lucky guess on his part. Read it anyway and
keep
> your
> > > mind open to the fact that greedy capitalists might just be bigger
than
> > you think.
> > >
> > > http://www.infowars.com/palast.htm
> >
> > The Prez of Venezuela is a nut case
> > and has, in spite of near all time
> > high oil prices, nearly destroyed the economy of his country.
> > If he gets himself shot it will be because of that, not some plot by
> > international business interests.
> *The guy got 60% of the vote, Bush wasn't even elected by the people, in
fact
> corruption got him into government in the first place. Besides Charez was
a
> reformer himself and unlike Moshariff was elected.
>
> http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=136&row=1
Nut case populists get themselves elected all the time. Your observations of
our election is crap. Six recounts of the Florida vote since the election
have all come out substantially the same. Besides every single one of the
complaining districts had Democrat controlled election committees. It is
they who chose the voting system in use, not the State Governor or Bush. In
this country it is a purely local issue. In each case the local governments
decide how much to spend on services of that kind. It is not the fault of
anyone else if the local Democrats decided to do it on the cheap by keeping
an old system when there are far more modern systems in use elsewhere.
> > Communism is not a viable economic/political
> > system and never has been. Like all invented Utopian schemes, it does
not
> > have the flexibility or human component to function in a real world.
> > Idealism is fine until it tries to impose itself as a political system
by
> force.
> *I agree with quite a bit of capitalism, but what makes you think
ultimately
> it isn't idealistic as well?
Because it has been with us since the Paleolithic. It was never 'invinted'
but is what we do naturally and always have.
> > We survive because we were founded on granite with sensible laws and
> > guaranteed rights from the outset, and our system has evolved to
maintain
> > stability,
> *That's dandy for internal affairs but what happens when Bush steps out
onto
> the world arena, laws don't affect him or at least he just ignores them.
Bush is an isolationist by ideology and personal inclination. We get pushed
into international involvements when attacked and when asked by others who
are unwilling to do the work themselves. It is because of the EU and NATO we
got ourselves into the Balkans and the UN and 'world opinion' in Palestine.
We should learn you babies are going to criticize us regardless and just
stay home. When attacked there are no rules.
> > not jog and bounce all over the political landscape to satisfy
> > political idealist minorities.
>
> *You make it sound like minority groups run around thinking up new ideas
for
> the thrill, if they get support, you listen, simple.
Minority groups have an interest in advancing themselves. When they fail to
get public support using democratic means, and take un-democratic shortcuts
like revolutions, coups, and terrorist campaigns, they have no legitimate
complaint about the consequences of what they themselves created.
I do not say huge international corporations should not be controlled. We
control their US end, you control their EU end, the Japanese control their J
apanese end, and there is nothing wrong with us working together to do it.
The people who do not like them because they do not like Capitalism have no
right to destroy property in Genoa, Seattle or Prague just to make their
point. If you think the world is somehow more prone to warfare than during
the Cold War you know nothing of history. This time is probably the least
violent period in our blood drenched sojourn on earth. It may not last too
long, but just now it is. -the Troll
duck
> in the 'International Laws' you are talking about.
*What lack of partiality? The laws are made and enforced with respect to and
for human rights. These aren't a bunch of commies wanting to destroy any
country, they are made by intelligent rational people that can objectively
judge on a situation where a local government would be biased.
>The people making these
> laws are not elected by us nor are they a part of our contractual system of
> government.
*Isn't that the first thing other governments say when those same standards
are
levelled on them by the US?
> We may be willing to listen to weeks of anti-US diatribes in the
> UN but we don't have to put our citizens, soldiers and military pilots at
> their mercy. There is a not inconsiderable movement in this country calling
> for our withdrawal from the UN.
>
>
*You put them at more mercy by not becoming part of the world community.
>
> > > Look at the makeup of the 'investigators' set up to go to Jenin. I
> > wouldn't
> > > have let them in either. The UN was stupid to make the whole thing so
> > > blatant.
> >
> > *That's an excuse.
>
> No it damned well isn't. Why pull down your trousers when the other guy has
> telegraphed in advance he is going to work you over with a cricket bat?
*The alternative is of course to kill with impunity knowing you're only going
to get worked over with a feather afterwards.
> Liberal and permissive ideas and ideals are fine as long as enemies are not
> blowing up your women and children.
*So what you're saying is your standards of law change according to how
outrageous the
enemy decide to be?
> Make no mistake the UN is neither impartial nor just.
*For example?
> The Moslem countries form a power voting block within
> the UN which has no problem out voting the single Jewish State.
>
*They aren't the only other countries in the UN if something is thought to be
unfair the rest can vote with or against them as well, that's the beauty of
elections, you don't always get your way.
>
> > *What it boils down to is the US gov can do as they please, anyway from
> > the World Court which they have an aversion to.........
>
> I remind you we are reactive here. If any World body had had the sense of
> justice to act impartially we wouldn't have developed the 'aversion' we now
> have towards them.
*Just about every human rights organisation in the world agrees not only with
that particular case but much much more. The US isn't being singled out by the
way every country comes in for criticism but the rest can agree that we need
standards.
> Who are these people anyway who claim jurisdiction over
> you and me?
*Intelligent people that aren't swayed by emotive arguments or Nationalism.
> Do we choose them?
*Ask your UN representative.
> Are they democratically elected?
*All nations take part.
> Do they work
> from a corpus of laws in which either of us has had a hand in making?
*We are the United Nations, all of us.
> No they bloody well are/do not!
*Steady....
> Very few of the member nations of the UN are
> even true democracies. If you want to put yourself and your children under a
> legal system approved by the likes of Zhang Zhemin, Gadaffi, and Fidel
Castro
> that is your decision and your choice.
*If they follow those laws too is it not a good thing?
> The US government is more considerate
> of me and mine which is why I choose to support it and the US position. One
> thing I learned long ago about government is that the closer to home it is
> the more likely it is to be just and representative.
*So what of the case of the defectors the other day at the Japanese embassy,
where the Chinese say they were invited in? The Japanese say they violated
international law, the Chinese say they saw a different version of events.
What stops your own government taking such a stance? Will the press back them
if they do?
If it's in the 'National interest' they will and that then colours the
argument for the average American. If Bush and corporate powers are linked
then effectively the media becomes state media. The fact others have a voice
is made irrelevant or at least unfairly outgunned by the power of Bush. You're
either for or against us, if more attacks happen that can (and does) easily
translate to dissent is unamerican and should be put down..........damn
commies. Remember war usually originates lower down before some or someone
takes advantage of a situation and leads from the front 'their' view twisted
by fear.
> You are going to find that out with the EU. Any hypothetical World
> government and system of justice it creates will be even more removed.
>
>
*So then investigating yourself is expected to reveal anything?
> How can we ask Osama to respect international law when
> we disregard it ourselves.
>
> What a pile of reeking crap.
*You really think that's a fair assessment?
> The USSR was running terrorist organizations
> (including the IRA) all over the world for half a century without censure.
> If you can't see the hypocrisy in that we can.
> Nicaragua was a part of the
> Reagan Doctrine to put an end to the USSR. It, Afghanistan, Mozambique,
> Angola, Ethiopia, Cuba, and a half dozen others were paying them back for
> this in their own coin. It worked which is why your kids don't have to
> practice 'duck and cover' in their classrooms as we did.
*So was the US but you're talking in the past now, the fact is the USSR just
doesn't exist
anymore, those excuses are gone now.
> We harbor no ill will or cynical designs for/towards the Islamic world. They
can do as they
> please so long as they keep to themselves and don't develop weapons to get
at us.
>
>
*If anything is haboured who's to know? Britain and the US have dirty hands in
the past in that region, if we don't have laws, what's stopping them?
> > > I got one if these Internationals in another NG to admit their
> > > 'International Laws' were largely put in place to be enforced on US
> > citizens
> > > and not on peasant revolutionaries in Central America, for example. Do
> you
> > > think we are fools or suicidal?
> > >
> > >
> > *The powerful usually don't need laws to protect them quite as much as the
> > weak, besides suicidal against a peasant revolutionary?
>
> The discussion was mines. He admitted our use of mines would be charged in
> his International Courts where their use by a Central American revolutionary
> movement would not. Well he and his International Courts can perform a
> sexual act upon themselves.
>
>
*Hey we're supposed to be the good guys aren't we?
>
> > > > *But Israel is bought and paid for, that's what brought the US gov
> into
> > > it,
> > >
> > > No it isn't. That's your read.
> >
> > *From 1949 to 1998, the US government gave Israel USD 84.8 billion in
> > foreign aid, while the US also give some to the Palestinians it doesn't
> come
> > anywhere near that figure. Just because some Palestinians maybe nuts
> doesn't
> > entitle a supposedly professional army to attack reporters, drive over
> cars
> > and generally kill whenever and whatever they like.
>
> We've paid Egypt nearly as much each year and have cut off money to the
> Palestinians altogether because it wasn't being spent on houses,
> desalinization plants, and health care as agreed, but for Arafat's army and
> weapons.
*Have you any links for those facts...that aren't Jewish of course.
> Reporters in a war zone have no right to complain. There were over
> 50 killed in Vietnam. The Israelis exercised considerable constraint, far
> more than the Palestinians would have. That you can't see that is your
> problem. There was no 'massacre' in Jenin, a fact acknowledged by the
> Palestinian Authority itself.
>
>
*I've no argument with that, but prosperity tends to moderate and armies tend
to follow more rules than headers with explosive backpacks. I don't need
however to rely on a human rights organisation to see the brutality of Israel,
I've seen it with my own eyes. I seen an unarmed man and his child cowering
from the bullets of Israeli soldiers who were toying with him, he was
constantly
waving that he was unarmed while trying to protect his son. The soldiers kept
shooting, unaware of the camera, until the guy had that many holes in him his
eyes began to roll and he couldn't hold himself up anymore and he died.
That was murder from soldiers who were supposed to defend justice, instead all
they did was kill one and bred a few more, not just from just his son who no
doubt
turned himself but from that story of how his father was murdered. A few weeks
ago I watched reporters run from blast grenades and watch two more hide behind
their car as one was shot through the mouth, I watched another dance as a
soldier inside a tank shot at the ground at her feet. Not to mention the many
other we've watched over time.
The Palestinians are worse but few western organisations actively supports
them,
apart from Sinn Fein that is. But just because one side are sick doesn't
excuse the other to get down with them no matter how understandable it may
seem, especially when it simply doesn't work.
> That Bush is standing by Israel has nothing to
> do with politics but rather loyalty and I salute him for it. If the rest of
> the world can justify betrayal for political-economic reasons that's their
> problem.
>
*So then you admit Bush rules with bias and why we need world courts, that
makes sense doesn't it?
> > rocketing markets isn't a civilized standard. Russia though isn't
> > the worst and conflicts are very different to the likes of abuses caused
by
> > the Saudis but they still count.
>
> The Russians lack the wealth and sophisticated weaponry to fight the
> Chechins any other way.
>
*Give them autonomy then, if the US could do it from Britain why not them?
> > 'Leaflets dropped over Grozny by Russian Federal aircraft on 6 December
> warn
> > residents to leave within five days: "Only in this way will you be able to
> > avoid death and save your city." Another leaflet reportedly states that
> > Russian Federal armed forces will consider all those remaining in Grozny
> after the deadline to be "terrorists and bandits. They will be destroyed by
> > artillery and aviation."
> > Estimates of the number of civilians remaining in Grozny range from 10,000
> to 50,000.'
> >
> > http://www.amnesty.ie/act/Chechnya/grozny.shtml
>
> That doesn't surprise me.
>
*Why's that?
>
> We are doing nothing against Iran precisely because of its reformers. I
> wouldn't actually describe China as a 'buddy'. We have common interests and
> understand what they are doing.
>
>
*Then why the evil axis speech yet not China?
> > *They have a religious police, same as the Taliban, public executions,
> > oppressive to other religions, women and dissenters. Most of the hijackers
> > originated from there, including Ossy himself yet the west supports this
> > dictatorship because it suits their purpose with military aid and their
> own soldiers. One of the best ways to stop oppression is not to oppress or
> support it.
>
> Ossi and his mates left Saudi Arabia for health reasons. If a country makes
> executions public that is their concern as is their religion and its
> political and social ramifications. It becomes our concern when they export
> it by force or threaten other countries.
>
>
*It's your concern if you support it financially, militarily and morally.
>
> What in hell is wrong with you? Mossarif was not in power when Pakistan
> developed nuclear weapons and is, as I said, a secularist and modernist.
>
*So they stopped testing when he came along then? As long as he stays friendly
we're alright then, better a friendly dictator than an enemy I suppose.
> > *The choice they took was to use terror themselves, the choice they're
> taking is counterproductive as the whole world knows except them. Violent
> reactions to terrorism might be understandable but to support it is another
matter,
> if innocent people are shot dead it matters little which side they come
from.
>
> The situations are not comparable. Israel's actions have been reactive, not
> offensive. They target the Palestinian Authority and extremist parties *not*
> civilians. They even try to take terrorists alive for trial when possible.
*See above.
> If Arafat had wanted to control his extremists, not one Palestinian would
> have died. Period. If Israel had the same mindset, there would not be a
> single Palestinian alive west of the Jordan.
>
>
*Rabin was a reformer for the rights of the Palestinians on the Israeli side
he was shot dead by his own extremists, what chance do you think Arafat had?
> >
> > *Nope we take them to the world court if they are guilty of war crimes,
> > believe me if they know they won't get away with the crime they won't do
> it, if the military has to used then it has to be an accountable
international
> > one.
>
> Do you think for one second the freaking World court could bring either to
> trial?
*If they are guilty and the international community get it together, yes.
> Do you really think their successors would be as sane or reasonable?
*If they see what's happened to their predecessor they be a lot more sensible
knowing they'll be held accountable.
> What do you suppose the reactions of either would be if they were accused?
*Who cares? If there's evidence, you lift them, what you don't do is fund a
terrorist organisation to do the dirty work for you or overthrow them like
Iran, which was a democracy before the west got at it.
> Don't make the mistake of thinking these people are anything like as
> socially advanced as even the Serbs. The same thing would happed as is
> ongoing in Iraq. We are going to have to go to war go get that bastard out
> with not a whole lot of help. Who do you propose will go in and try to
> establish order once one of your World Court plans results in anarchy inside
> one of your target countries, the UN?
*How much anarchy is created round the world with US money?
> World societies and cultures are not
> equal. You cannot expect an instant appreciation of Liberal ideals from a
> culture just emerging from Feudalism. It will take a long period of world
> peace and stability for these societies and cultures to mature.
>
*True but I'm not demanding instant anything, I know it's complex and it takes
time. When corporate sharks move in though they can do it in a day, ruin a
country and only leave with inner conflict on their tail, but they aren't
required to rebuild when they do......'Take the money and run.' Which brings
me back to my original post, who needs an army to bring down a country these
days?
> In order for your International Police
> Force to work it would have to be an army of half a million and the world
> would have to be able to absorb the ethical and moral consequences of any
> chaos it generated.
*What ethical and moral consequences are you on about? If you were concerned
about ethical and moral responsibilities you would be agreeing with me, this
isn't hypothetical, this is present, now, because of us, led mainly under the
control of the US under Bush.
> There are true bad guys who threaten their neighbors
> where action may be the only resort. Just now being un-democratic is not in
> that category thank God.
>
*unless your name is Bush.
> >* I'm saying watch yourself because there's clearly corruption within it.
>
> Of course there is. I am a Conservative just because I do not trust any
> government, not even my local council. We are less corrupt than most which
> is all I will ever claim. Neither do I believe anything I am told. I am far
> too pragmatic for that kind of foolishness. I will believe someone who gives
> examples and tries to be even handed in a discussion such as is your usual
> practice over someone who is/does not.
>
*Well thank you but the UN strives to be honest and non profit making, that's
what separates most western governments, more so Britain and the US.
> No matter what struggle you look at in the world you
> > usually find a small band of fighters with the innocent just wanting to
> raise their kids, when 3500 villages are destroyed how many people do you
think
> fall into what category?
>
> The Kurds struck out for self determination and failed. For it they got
> butchered. It isn't my fault or yours or the Turks. We understand their
> plight and would like to do something about it such as to create an
> independent state in northern Iraq. The problem is they have made such
> horses asses of themselves in the past, none trusts them. That is a
> reputation they have earned. The Turks, Iranians and Syrians know they would
> not be content with their new state but would start at once to expand using
> the new state as a base. They are as Xenophobic and ruthless as any of the
> states now oppressing them.
>
>
*They didn't necessarily want a new state just autonomy.
duck
duck
> In
> this country it is a purely local issue. In each case the local
governments
> decide how much to spend on services of that kind. It is not the fault of
> anyone else if the local Democrats decided to do it on the cheap by
keeping
> an old system when there are far more modern systems in use elsewhere.
>
*You didn't even look at those links I gave you, what is the point?
>
> > *I agree with quite a bit of capitalism, but what makes you think
> ultimately it isn't idealistic as well?
>
> Because it has been with us since the Paleolithic. It was never 'invented
> but is what we do naturally and always have.
>
>
*That's true but then if it sold you sold it, we have rules today which
favour one nation (rich) against a developing or simply protectionist
policies protecting your own, Steel!
AFAIK, WTO rules state that you can't subsidize except under certain
circumstances, the steel industry in the US has received in the last couple
of decades over 20 Billion dollars and now they tax imports because their
own isn't profitable enough, yet despite it all, 21 producers have filed
for bankruptcy.They're doing exactly what the unions tried to do in
supporting industries that clearly can't cut it, production these days is
exceeding demand. Either you believe in capitalism or you don't.
Currently Europe has the choice to appeal which can take years, which suits
Bush and is long enough to give him the advantage he needs. If Europe
retaliates we start a real trade war, considering Europe is nowhere near
it's potential we need the rules now, because before very long Europe will
be twisting the rules too.
> > *That's dandy for internal affairs but what happens when Bush steps out
> > onto the world arena, laws don't affect him or at least he just ignores
them.
>
> Bush is an isolationist by ideology and personal inclination.
*That sounds like a doctors terminology to describe 'odd'
> We get pushed
> into international involvements when attacked and when asked by others
who
> are unwilling to do the work themselves. It is because of the EU and NATO
we
> got ourselves into the Balkans and the UN and 'world opinion' in
Palestine.
> We should learn you babies are going to criticize us regardless and just
> stay home. When attacked there are no rules.
>
*That's a cop out, you have to accept sooner or later that imperialism
takes many forms and the only way to stop it is by having just rules that
everyone has to live by.
> > > not jog and bounce all over the political landscape to satisfy
> > > political idealist minorities.
> >
> > *You make it sound like minority groups run around thinking up new
ideas
> for the thrill, if they get support, you listen, simple.
>
> Minority groups have an interest in advancing themselves. When they fail
to
> get public support using democratic means, and take un-democratic
shortcuts
> like revolutions, coups, and terrorist campaigns, they have no legitimate
> complaint about the consequences of what they themselves created.
>
>
*Can I remind you Nicaragua didn't bomb Washington, they didn't attempt to
run a violent underground movement or subvert the US, they simply took you
to court, just the way you say they should. The US laughed. What do you do
when all other avenues have failed or if any responsibilities are denied?
If you look over the history of N.Ireland you can clearly see it wasn't
simply a case of organized riots, you can see civil disobedience rise and
fall in response to events, no organization could've sustained it. If they
could they would've had riots every night throughout it's history since
instability was their aim. Today most of the anger has gone and even though
many of the riots maybe organized to an extent they are only the equivalent
of football hooligans and nothing like the past.
> With the Cold War we had balance, that was a good
> > deterrent, the US is now spending on it's military the same as the top
ten
> > other nations put together, or to put it another way the deterrent to
war
> has gone.
>
> I do not say huge international corporations should not be controlled. We
> control their US end, you control their EU end, the Japanese control
their
> Japanese end, and there is nothing wrong with us working together to do
it.
*Controlling your own is not free trade, in fact supporting and controlling
your own is socialism on a global scale. The difference is with national
industry you get your money back when the company does well. At the moment
the government subsidizes when the company is in trouble, with our money,
and pockets it when it does well.
> The people who do not like them because they do not like Capitalism have
no
> right to destroy property in Genoa, Seattle or Prague just to make their
> point.
*It's a lesson handed down from government, violence works. Besides,
fighting the rape of the environment for profit isn't simply
anti-capitalist. Fighting for the rape of the developing countries for
profit isn't simply anti-capitalist and the word rape isn't an emotive one
in this context, what can be more evil than rape not out of sickness, a
cause or even a religion but for greed, think about it, how do fight
something like that when governments not only don't listen but support it.
Why because it the corporate trade off for getting them elected in the
first place.
If you think the world is somehow more prone to warfare than during
> the Cold War you know nothing of history. This time is probably the least
> violent period in our blood drenched sojourn on earth. It may not last
too
> long, but just now it is. -the Troll
>
>
*I'm not a fortune teller but I can tell our future from looking at
history.
duck