Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: MAIA]
    #14428809 - 05/10/11 08:41 AM (13 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

MAIA said:
Quote:

OBL is bad because he targets civilians and non-military targets for death and destruction and fights amongst the civilian population without uniforms or marks allowing the combatants to be distinguished- endangering the surrounding population and using them as shields.  He also seems to lack any justification for his war even if we ignore the criminal means in which he carries them out.  He doesn't seek to minimize non-military targets nor ensure the military target is of proportionate value to the civilian harm.  He doesn't give notice to civilians to reduce casualties, et cet.




He's "bad" ? What's "bad" ? It seems rules may vary in war engagement depending on the conditions you're fighting. What rules are this ? Your rules ?




I believe there are some rules that seem to be fairly universally accepted.  Not included among them is acceptance of ObL's authority to protest Saudi or US policy with murder.
Quote:



I mean. Did the vietcongs break your conventional war rules in Nam when they choose a guerrilla type of confrontation and kicked your asses ?




Ummmmmmmmm that is not quite correct.  The VietCong were getting their asses kicked quite severely.  For all intents in purposes their strongest weapon was the American news media, Walter Cronkite in particular
Quote:



Is this a better allusion than the one about nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki or nothing applies as criticism to the way you do war ?




I think we do it pretty well including an exemplary efforts to avoid collateral damage.  Perfection is not possible but I thnk they do pretty well.  I don't know anybody else who does it better.  It would behoove you not to start a war with us.  Else you gon' get raped.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: Seuss]
    #14429575 - 05/10/11 12:15 PM (13 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> Roman, Muslim, Christian, CCCP and US empires are built upon this rules. Nothing new here. It's an historical fact. No need to argue.

I assume the above is a typo and that you meant UK empire?  If not, then perhaps our definition of empire is different.  I suppose one could argue that the US federal government is an empire of the individual states, using the US civil war as proof in point, but beyond that, I fail to see how the US is an empire, subjugating other countries to US rule.




The definition of "Empire" can differ from a certain age to another (Classical, post-classical, colonial, modern period). Nevertheless, those 3 main steps, which describes the process of colonization, always remain as the basis of expansion of any empire. Be it the romans, the ottomans, the mongols, the portuguese or the US.

By the way I understood your statement, it seems you're rather limited to one definition.

Anyway, playing around with the definition of "empire" won't take you anywhere. It is accepted by most scholars that the US is a contemporary empire and it makes perfect sense because all traits of an empire are there, you just don't call you President as The Emperor, but that's just a little detail.

a) The US has expansionist interests which are then protected by the use of force.
b) Wages wars to control resources (Iraq, Afghanistan).
c) Supports corrupted politicians taking them to power so US interests can be protected in those countries (central and south america, Pinochet et all).

I could go on forever with examples about the Empire. But one thing I notice is that Americans are the only ones not accepting this fact. The US behaves like an Empire, acts like an Empire then it must be ... pizza ? It doesn't make sense. It is an Empire. You guys just don't accept it ...


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: MAIA]
    #14429654 - 05/10/11 12:33 PM (13 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

MAIA said:
Quote:

Seuss said:
> Roman, Muslim, Christian, CCCP and US empires are built upon this rules. Nothing new here. It's an historical fact. No need to argue.

I assume the above is a typo and that you meant UK empire?  If not, then perhaps our definition of empire is different.  I suppose one could argue that the US federal government is an empire of the individual states, using the US civil war as proof in point, but beyond that, I fail to see how the US is an empire, subjugating other countries to US rule.




The definition of "Empire" can differ from a certain age to another (Classical, post-classical, colonial, modern period). Nevertheless, those 3 main steps, which describes the process of colonization, always remain as the basis of expansion of any empire. Be it the romans, the ottomans, the mongols, the portuguese or the US.

By the way I understood your statement, it seems you're rather limited to one definition.

Anyway, playing around with the definition of "empire" won't take you anywhere. It is accepted by most scholars that the US is a contemporary empire and it makes perfect sense because all traits of an empire are there, you just don't call you President as The Emperor, but that's just a little detail.

a) The US has expansionist interests which are then protected by the use of force.
b) Wages wars to control resources (Iraq, Afghanistan).
c) Supports corrupted politicians taking them to power so US interests can be protected in those countries (central and south america, Pinochet et all).

I could go on forever with examples about the Empire. But one thing I notice is that Americans are the only ones not accepting this fact. The US behaves like an Empire, acts like an Empire then it must be ... pizza ? It doesn't make sense. It is an Empire. You guys just don't accept it ...



Quote:



a) The US has expansionist interests which are then protected by the use of force.




False.  If the US had expansionist interests it would be expanding.  It is not.  Unless you consider participating in global trade to be expansionism.  In which case all nations are expansionist.  Say, you know who really was an expansionist?  Saddam fucking Hussein.  WAKE THE FUCK UP!
Quote:


b) Wages wars to control resources (Iraq, Afghanistan).



:facepalm:

Afghanistan doesn't have any fucking resources to speak of, what are you babbling about?  And I don't believe any American companies got any Iraqi oil contracts.  Just:facepalm:
Quote:


c) Supports corrupted politicians taking them to power so US interests can be protected in those countries (central and south america, Pinochet et all).




As far as I can tell there aren't any non-corrupt politicians in South or Central America.  Who is more corrupt than the great Marxist hope Chavez, who jails offensive media and opposition politicians and recruits terror organizations from a neighboring country to kill both?

I'm quite sure you could go on forever.  You wouldn't be any more correct, accurate or lucid but I'm sure you could go on.  There is no US Empire outside of these 50 states.
Quote:



But one thing I notice is that Americans are the only ones not accepting this fact.




As the great trendal would say:

"You can stick that fact back in the ass you pulled it out of."


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: zappaisgod]
    #14429717 - 05/10/11 12:52 PM (13 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

I believe there are some rules that seem to be fairly universally accepted.  Not included among them is acceptance of ObL's authority to protest Saudi or US policy with murder.




Do you know what's the problem ? ROE are only applied to conventional war. Terrorists have no structural ROE on the field. No wonder, the ROE were created by the west, OBl and their buddies probably never heard of it before being trained by the CIA. Afterwards, they took advantage by not implementing the rules and exploiting them. See, they are intelligent guys. They wouldn't last a couple of days fighting a conventional war with you guys. Therefore it's naive to think they would follow the "conventional" route. They can be called as "martyrs" by their buddies but they are not stupid "martyrs".

How do you say: anything goes in love and war ... or something like that, is probably their main motto.

Anyway, OBl gave the middle finger to ROE, but the US were not better when they found him. Let's read the Geneva Convention Article 13, which includes the requirement that prisoners of war:

1) "be humanely treated."
2) must not be "subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind…"
3) "at all times be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

That's a big "fuck you" to ROE in the eyes of what's - how do you call it ? - "fairly universally accepted" .

IMHO, Osama got what he was asking for. A bullet in the head. But anyway, it regards to conventions and this single event. The US did no better than the terrorists ...


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: zappaisgod]
    #14429808 - 05/10/11 01:13 PM (13 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

False.  If the US had expansionist interests it would be expanding.  It is not.  Unless you consider participating in global trade to be expansionism.  In which case all nations are expansionist.  Say, you know who really was an expansionist?  Saddam fucking Hussein.  WAKE THE FUCK UP!




Please, oh enlightened one, tell me about what Bechtel did in Bolivia and other latin american countries when they were forced to privatize due to the World Bank and IMF imposition of "structural changes". I can come up with so many examples alike that I doubt the shroomery servers have enough space to store them.

Btw, do you know where the IMF and World Bank headquarters are located ? YOU WAKE THE FUCK UP ! Modern Empires only conquer territory if needed. Their main trait is political subjugation by economic exploitation. There's no need for bullets, "buying" their commanding politicians suffices.

Is this "global trade" ? The fuck it is ! Ever read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" ? No ? Good read. Maybe it will give some insight about some truth you either don't want to hear, or it's dismissed as lefty propaganda. Because my friend, "righty" propaganda tastes much better ... :tongue:


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Edited by MAIA (05/10/11 01:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: MAIA]
    #14429870 - 05/10/11 01:31 PM (13 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Afghanistan doesn't have any fucking resources to speak of, what are you babbling about?  And I don't believe any American companies got any Iraqi oil contracts.  Just




- Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline :facepalm:
- Vast mineral wealth – more than $1 trillion :facepalm:
- An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries :facepalm:

No fucking resources huh ?

For god sake. You only invade a country if you can gain something out of it. It's easy, the taxpayer gets fucked because he's the one paying the war - to the war industry - and then the corporations take the natural resources of invaded countries. There must be definitely something wrong with you eyes and hears ....

Then there's naive people wondering why the US doesn't invade Darfur or other African, "lacking resources" countries. I mean, it fucking obvious !

No plata, no invasion !


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: MAIA]
    #14430024 - 05/10/11 02:15 PM (13 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

MAIA said:
Quote:

I believe there are some rules that seem to be fairly universally accepted.  Not included among them is acceptance of ObL's authority to protest Saudi or US policy with murder.




Do you know what's the problem ? ROE are only applied to conventional war. Terrorists have no structural ROE on the field. No wonder, the ROE were created by the west, OBl and their buddies probably never heard of it before being trained by the CIA. Afterwards, they took advantage by not implementing the rules and exploiting them. See, they are intelligent guys. They wouldn't last a couple of days fighting a conventional war with you guys. Therefore it's naive to think they would follow the "conventional" route. They can be called as "martyrs" by their buddies but they are not stupid "martyrs".




So?  We kill them.  All good.  By the way, I was most certainly not referring to ROEs.  Not at all.
Quote:



How do you say: anything goes in love and war ... or something like that, is probably their main motto.




OK.  You still haven't made any case at all that ObL is anything other than a mass murderer.  Shot during a capture operation.  Happens all the time.
Quote:





Anyway, OBl gave the middle finger to ROE, but the US were not better when they found him. Let's read the Geneva Convention Article 13, which includes the requirement that prisoners of war:

1) "be humanely treated."
2) must not be "subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind…"
3) "at all times be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

That's a big "fuck you" to ROE in the eyes of what's - how do you call it ? - "fairly universally accepted" .




Do you know what quarter non-uniformed personnel are granted in the ROE?  NONE.  They may be shot on sight as spies.
Quote:

 

IMHO, Osama got what he was asking for. A bullet in the head. But anyway, it regards to conventions and this single event. The US did no better than the terrorists ...




Bullshit.  You might have a case if we had bombed the whole town to the ground but we didn't so you don't.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecommuneart
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 1,021
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: zappaisgod]
    #14436413 - 05/11/11 07:01 PM (13 years, 11 days ago)

They need to follow protocol. only people like hitler don't follow the protocols and it is part of their ideology. Neo-Cons respect nothing , them and israel both defy international law without any care. they are planning and orchestrating operations in a legal vacuum.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: communeart]
    #14437944 - 05/11/11 11:38 PM (13 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

communeart said:
They need to follow protocol. only people like hitler don't follow the protocols and it is part of their ideology.


It was a kill-or-capture operation, and they didn't break any international laws; what protocol didn't they follow? :confused:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: Poid]
    #14438662 - 05/12/11 04:48 AM (13 years, 10 days ago)

> It was a kill-or-capture operation, and they didn't break any international laws; what protocol didn't they follow? :confused:

The part where they killed an unarmed man that was stunned and disoriented due to flash bangs being used, rather than giving him a day in court to prove his innocence.  (Speaking for the tards that are crying over his death.  My personal belief is good riddance.)


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: Seuss]
    #14440329 - 05/12/11 01:55 PM (13 years, 10 days ago)

I read that he was killed because he was making threatening advancements towards the SEALs, and because he appeared to be non-compliant with his capture/arrest.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: MAIA]
    #14441055 - 05/12/11 05:05 PM (13 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

MAIA said:
Quote:

OBL is bad because he targets civilians and non-military targets for death and destruction and fights amongst the civilian population without uniforms or marks allowing the combatants to be distinguished- endangering the surrounding population and using them as shields.  He also seems to lack any justification for his war even if we ignore the criminal means in which he carries them out.  He doesn't seek to minimize non-military targets nor ensure the military target is of proportionate value to the civilian harm.  He doesn't give notice to civilians to reduce casualties, et cet.




He's "bad" ? What's "bad" ?




Bad is a negative qualitative assesment of the person in question- it seems doubtful that you really don't know the answer to this question.  If you asking why he's bad, I provided some reasons in the very post you quote.  I don't understand what the issue is here unless you just have some semantic objection to the terms I've used.


Quote:

It seems rules may vary in war engagement depending on the conditions you're fighting. What rules are this ? Your rules ?




Yes, they are my rules, but more relevant is the fact that this is what international law has to say on the matter as well: including treaties to which the sovereign powers of relevance are signatories.

Quote:


I mean. Did the vietcongs break your conventional war rules in Nam when they choose a guerrilla type of confrontation and kicked your asses ?




What is it with this possesive pronoun use?  I didn't get my ass kicked in vietnam.

Why have you described these 'rules' as mine?  Previously you were asking what the basis for these rules are, and now you apparently have decided to charecterize them as mine, which is irrelevant.

Further, you charecterize this law as "conventional war rules" which seems dishonest given I've never claimed any asssociation with 'conventional war' and you've not shown any.  No, the vietcong's conduct was not illegal vis a vis their unconventional tactics, except to the extent they violated specific prohibitions: such as fighting S Vietnam without wearing distinctive uniforms/emblems and using the civilian population as a screen/ violating the neturality of neighboring states, et cet.  I fail to see what any of this matters.


Quote:

Is this a better allusion than the one about nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki or nothing applies as criticism to the way you do war ?





Your question does not appear to be well-written: I don't know what your saying, except the part about asking if its a better 'allusion'.  No, I don't see how this is a better example: nothing you've suggested shows inconsistancy (you don't even assert any, so I'm not sure how you think it relevant).

The allied bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, seemed much more questionable than the bombing of Hiroshima (especially) and Nagasaki.  I can only presume people keep bringing up the atomic bombs because of their notoriety rather than any particular relevance to questionable acts/ flexible legal interpretations.

Quote:

MAIA said:
Quote:

Imperialistic?  Are you kidding? 

How do you justify that?  This seems to be common slur used by people of a certain politial persuasion, but I can never figure out what they define the term to be.




State exploitation over another state based in domination and subordination.

Step 1 - Political, religious or economic excuse (any) to invade/control and conquer.
Step 2 - Economic and political domination and subordination of the conquered state and its people.
Step 3 - Exploitation of natural resources.

Roman, Muslim, Christian, CCCP and US empires are built upon this rules. Nothing new here. It's an historical fact. No need to argue.




I am not interested in your bare conclusions.  Please substantiate your claims and cite your factual assertions: you've done neither.

Quote:

The argument that follows in your assertion is just an "excuse". It's inserted as valid by your culture and seen as natural. That's why you can't see damn thing beyond what's your social and cultural frame of reality.




This seems irrelevant: an ad hominem argument.  Further, you don't seem to have any identifiable basis for asserting these things: the reasons for my views are not particularly relevant.  You've made claims: back them up.


Quote:

Either that or millions and millions are delusional mofos that can't understand the "we" (you I mean). Is rampant mass paranoia an explanation that fits ? Guess it doesn't ...




I have no idea what your talking about

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: MAIA]
    #14441210 - 05/12/11 05:38 PM (13 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

MAIA said:
Quote:

I believe there are some rules that seem to be fairly universally accepted.  Not included among them is acceptance of ObL's authority to protest Saudi or US policy with murder.




Do you know what's the problem ? ROE are only applied to conventional war. Terrorists have no structural ROE on the field. No wonder, the ROE were created by the west, OBl and their buddies probably never heard of it before being trained by the CIA.




Please back up your claim that OBL was trained by the CIA.  This claim and related ones that he was a CIA asset and so forth seem to be made all the time- yet never backed up.  What do you have to support this claim?

What is the relevance of "ROE" (rules of engagement?)  It has been asserted that OBL violates international law- what does ROEs have to do with anything?  What does it matter whether he's heard of them or uses them or doesn't?  You just assert these things without showing any relevance at all.


Quote:

Afterwards, they took advantage by not implementing the rules and exploiting them. See, they are intelligent guys. They wouldn't last a couple of days fighting a conventional war with you guys. Therefore it's naive to think they would follow the "conventional" route. They can be called as "martyrs" by their buddies but they are not stupid "martyrs".

How do you say: anything goes in love and war ... or something like that, is probably their main motto.




What is the relevance here?

Quote:

Anyway, OBl gave the middle finger to ROE,




Again, what is the relevance of rules of engagement?  You keep saying this and never explain what you mean and what the releance is.  It seems you may be confused here.

Quote:

but the US were not better when they found him. Let's read the Geneva Convention Article 13, which includes the requirement that prisoners of war:

1) "be humanely treated."
2) must not be "subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind…"
3) "at all times be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

That's a big "fuck you" to ROE in the eyes of what's - how do you call it ? - "fairly universally accepted" .


.


Huh? 

First, you don't need to copy-paste stuff here, just cite your authorities- which you've not even done: that is the third Geneva Convention, Art 13, not "Geneva Convetion Article 13".

Second, you fail to establish that OBL was due the protections of Art 13- namely that he was of the class to which those duties of protection are owed: Prisoner's of war as therein defined.

Third, you seem to again conflate rules of engagement with international law.  I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but it seems pretty clear you've been misusing the term "rules of engagement" to refer to international law- or something like that.  If your not familiar with a term, please just explain what you mean rather than guessing and obfuscating the conversation- your incorrect use of terms has just muddled your posts even more.



Quote:

IMHO, Osama got what he was asking for. A bullet in the head. But anyway, it regards to conventions and this single event. The US did no better than the terrorists ...




You have not established this, at all.  You simply cite (miscite) one article that grants certain protections to a class of people yet fail to eastablish the individual (OBL) was amongst that class of people and that the conduct which occured was in contravention to the treaty. 

This is not helpful: Go read the convention again and establish that the individual was amongst the classes article 13 gave protections to.  Your point seems to be based on unsupported assumptions and faulty conclusions.





Quote:

MAIA said:
Quote:

False.  If the US had expansionist interests it would be expanding.  It is not.  Unless you consider participating in global trade to be expansionism.  In which case all nations are expansionist.  Say, you know who really was an expansionist?  Saddam fucking Hussein.  WAKE THE FUCK UP!




Please, oh enlightened one, tell me about what Bechtel did in Bolivia and other latin american countries when they were forced to privatize due to the World Bank and IMF imposition of "structural changes". I can come up with so many examples alike that I doubt the shroomery servers have enough space to store them.

Btw, do you know where the IMF and World Bank headquarters are located ? YOU WAKE THE FUCK UP ! Modern Empires only conquer territory if needed. Their main trait is political subjugation by economic exploitation. There's no need for bullets, "buying" their commanding politicians suffices.

Is this "global trade" ? The fuck it is ! Ever read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" ? No ? Good read. Maybe it will give some insight about some truth you either don't want to hear, or it's dismissed as lefty propaganda. Because my friend, "righty" propaganda tastes much better ... :tongue:





What is all this about?

It seems pretty clear that you've used a term "empire" and knowingly used some strange alternative definition without disclosing the fact (see: your post in reply to Seuss where you bitch about him using "just one defini9tion of the word).  If you want to call the US a lizzard, that's fine, just let us in on what your arbitrarily defined terms mean up front, k?  As far as I can tell, you tried to apply the negative properties attached to imperialism to the US yet used a definition that is so different from that in common use that it had no connection at all.  This seems manifestly dishonest

Quote:

MAIA said:
Quote:

Afghanistan doesn't have any fucking resources to speak of, what are you babbling about?  And I don't believe any American companies got any Iraqi oil contracts.  Just




- Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline :facepalm:
- Vast mineral wealth – more than $1 trillion :facepalm:
- An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries :facepalm:

No fucking resources huh ?

For god sake. You only invade a country if you can gain something out of it. It's easy, the taxpayer gets fucked because he's the one paying the war - to the war industry - and then the corporations take the natural resources of invaded countries. There must be definitely something wrong with you eyes and hears ....

Then there's naive people wondering why the US doesn't invade Darfur or other African, "lacking resources" countries. I mean, it fucking obvious !

No plata, no invasion !





Have you established that the US has gained these resources from its invasions?  Zappa has, some posts back, very clearly asserted that this has not occured, that the US has not seized oil and that the even US-resident entities have not recieved any contracts for the the resources, either.

You've made all sorts of claims, yet failed to establish the premise upon which your entire point was built: that the US invaded to gain the resources held in the country.

(your Darfur refrence seems ridiculous on its face.  First: Darfur isn't a country and thus has no soverign territory to be invaded.  Second: Darfur isn't invading allied countries and toppling their governments/seizing their property, and building up huge militaries.  Given that the US intervention in Iraq followed internationally recognized violations of law and aggressive wars against neighboring states, I fail to see how your comparison makes any damn sense at all.  Is there any merit to this at all?  Or did you just pull this out of your hat in the way you apparently selected Hiroshima and Nagasaki- as I recall, you've still not justified the relevance of that comparison at all, other than the straw man that civilian deaths are the reason OBL is bad or that they are a violation of law)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillar
Stranger
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 54
Loc: Canada
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: johnm214]
    #14442138 - 05/12/11 08:36 PM (13 years, 9 days ago)

First of all, I can't be bothered to go find the quote but someone referred to those out of uniform being subject to summary execution - um, that only applies if you catch him acting as a soldier (etc) in the war zone. To give an example, if the US declares war on say China, China can't decide to just shoot a bunch of off-duty soldiers who have rotated back stateside after a tour of duty, just because some sino-seal operation catches them out of uniform.

So, just because ObL was not in uniform, is not sufficient reason to shoot him. I would say that if he was clearly surrendering ( I'm not saying that's what happened...) they legally should have taken him prisoner. But come on, we've been told how much of an evil motherfucker this guy is for years. No soldier is going to take the slightest chance that he might be reaching for a weapon. They have to think of their safety first, and we have to respect that.

Anyone who thinks that war is not a huge moneymaker for the truly influential in the US is fucking nuts. That doesn't mean wars are never justified, but it means you have to look at every decision through that lens, knowing what the entrenched interests stand to gain.

Edited by millar (05/12/11 08:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlphaFalfa
imagine


Registered: 06/16/08
Posts: 3,857
Loc: 3 Seconds Ago. Flag
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: Seuss]
    #14442329 - 05/12/11 09:17 PM (13 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
From al Reuters:

Quote:

U.N. human rights investigators called on the United States on Friday to disclose whether there had been any plan to capture Osama bin Laden and if he was offered any "meaningful prospect of surrender and arrest."




Oh, the irony... a Nobel Peace Prize winner under investigation by the UN for violating the human rights of a mass murderer that had admitted to killing thousands of civilians in acts of terrorism.

Quote:

Principles of engagement in such operations require the possibility of surrender, firing warning shots and if necessary wounding a suspect, rather than killing him, they said.




Bullshit.  Warning shots?  Shooting to wound?  What are these idiots smoking?  If you shoot, you shoot to kill.  No warning shots.  No wounding.  This is war, not play doh time.  Bin Laden had ten years to surrender, yet he chose to continue terrorizing others instead.

Quote:

"We've raised a question mark about what happened precisely, more details are needed at this point," her spokesman Rupert Colville told a briefing in Geneva on Friday.




Rather than obsessing over the death of a mass murderer by a country that had every right in the world to string him up, why don't they focus on Syria, or Darfur, or some of the other hellholes where innocent civilians are being murdered by their governments every day.  I'm not sure which is the bigger joke... the UN or the the Nobel Peace Prize.

If anybody wants the full article, it can be found here.




OPINION CONCERNING BOLD QUESTION



Specifically they seek to make the USA seem like MORE of a victim, by showing how unfair and biased the world can be. Its a way to build patriotism.

Obviously it is Ludacris to focus on such a stupid issue. Thats exactly what they want you to notice!!!!

It's called manufacturing dissent!! Read up.

This can occur because the UN and the US are controlled by the same Authority.


--------------------
if you ever feel lost, just remember, life is not a journey, it is entertainment, all 4 fun...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: UN vs US on Osama [Re: millar]
    #14442420 - 05/12/11 09:31 PM (13 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

millar said:

Anyone who thinks that war is not a huge moneymaker for the truly influential in the US is fucking nuts.





Thanks, but we don't need these straw man arguments against ridiculous positions that nobody would support- who exactly doubts that an undertaking as large as war will result in commerce being conducted and a consequent increase in wealth amongst those voluntarily participating?    Nobody. 

Quote:

First of all, I can't be bothered to go find the quote but someone referred to those out of uniform being subject to summary execution - um, that only applies if you catch him acting as a soldier (etc) in the war zone.




Zappa was referring to the silly rules of engagement nonsense that MAIA brought up- apparently without knowing what they are or conflating them with international law.  Whether something violates the ROE for a particular mission really has nothing to do with anything whatsoever- whatever it may imply about the intent and consideration the commanders gave the situation, aside.


Quote:

So, just because ObL was not in uniform, is not sufficient reason to shoot him.




agreed in principle

Quote:


I would say that if he was clearly surrendering ( I'm not saying that's what happened...) they legally should have taken him prisoner. But come on, we've been told how much of an evil motherfucker this guy is for years. No soldier is going to take the slightest chance that he might be reaching for a weapon. They have to think of their safety first, and we have to respect that.




Eh, I don't really buy that they have to think of their safety first and we must respect this.  Thinking of your safety and putting the mission first are incompatible stances.  A soldier by neccesity can not put safety first because his needs must be subordinant to the mission.  However silly it is to expect someone to sign up for service with a military and to comply with dangerous orders regardless of the merits, that is in effect what they do currently.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Osama's letter to the west. Larrythescaryrex 956 9 12/02/02 06:12 PM
by johnnyfive
* President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on 60 Minutes Tonight
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Dexter_Morgan 6,339 99 08/16/06 01:25 AM
by Hank, FTW
* So, about that Osama bin Laden Tape..
( 1 2 all )
Catalysis 4,490 36 01/21/06 02:06 PM
by Cubenisseur
* Bush may bypass Senate and appoint Bolton to UN lonestar2004 1,522 13 07/27/05 12:43 AM
by Kalix
* The US is being evil and imperialistic again cybrbeast 672 5 07/25/05 11:06 PM
by Redstorm
* It's driving me crazy that the UN scandal is exploding all over the papers and no-one here has click
( 1 2 all )
zappaisgod 2,333 36 11/18/04 03:57 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Iran's Ahmadinejad looks to export 'new Islamic revolution' lonestar2004 1,588 10 08/17/05 04:56 PM
by Los_Pepes
* Eco-Imperialist Awards at Cancun Phred 807 7 10/26/03 01:18 AM
by PsiloKitten

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,043 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.