Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Offlinezahudulallah
Sexual Heretic

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 10,579
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3358094 - 11/13/04 11:47 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Yes - in the incident they propped up a puppet.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: zahudulallah]
    #3358315 - 11/14/04 12:33 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The US was never a puppet of the British though. Colonies and "puppets" are different things entirely. The US is not taxing the Afghans or Iraqis nor are they taking thier resources for profit (although im sure you would argue to the contrary, sans evidence).

Elections will go on in Afghanistan every 5 years with the population able to choose thier leader. I know you will argue that its all rigged in some massive conspiracy but how am i supposed to argue against that? The US shouldnt have the burden of proof in an alleged conspiracy. If the majority of Afghans (including women) want women to be oppressed, then they can get that done. All the US has done is given the oppressed a voice in the matter. If you think that women and minority religions should continue to oppressed without a voice, i say fuck that.

The whole US interest in this matter is not money, land, or power. The US simply doesnt want people staging attacks from these countries, thats all it is. The US has enough money and it doesnt need more 3rd world countries to provide its world-leading aid to.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezahudulallah
Sexual Heretic

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 10,579
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Catalysis]
    #3358409 - 11/14/04 01:01 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


The US was never a puppet of the British though. Colonies and "puppets" are different things entirely.




Explain how - either way, both sound exploitive, don't they? Do you normally dig yourself into holes?

Quote:

The US is not taxing the Afghans or Iraqis nor are they taking thier resources for profit (although im sure you would argue to the contrary, sans evidence).




No, the Karzai Administration taxes Afghans. Hamid Karzai, who has had long connections to American oil in his Unical days, is simply a guardsmen for the Caspien pipeline - which ultimately has to run through Pakistan, hence Gen. Pervez doesn't have that many fans. Don't get me started on Bloated Iraq.

Quote:

Elections will go on in Afghanistan every 5 years with the population able to choose thier leader. I know you will argue that its all rigged in some massive conspiracy but how am i supposed to argue against that? The US shouldnt have the burden of proof in an alleged conspiracy. If the majority of Afghans (including women) want women to be oppressed, then they can get that done. All the US has done is given the oppressed a voice in the matter. If you think that women and minority religions should continue to oppressed without a voice, i say fuck that.




Did I ever say that? What you fail to understand is that Afghanistan has a conservative Sunni Muslim culture. It's been a few years since the Taliban fled - and guess what! Women still wear burqas - they did before 1996 when the Taliban came to power, and they still do after the Taliban was driven out. Why? Because it's culture.

Quote:

The whole US interest in this matter is not money, land, or power. The US simply doesnt want people staging attacks from these countries, thats all it is. The US has enough money and it doesnt need more 3rd world countries to provide its world-leading aid to.




It's not about land or power. It's about Money. It's about money that is to be made from resources. If Saudi Arabia didn't have a drop of oil, do you think the U.S. would have a troop presence and friendship with the only country that routinely beheads people? Doesn't work that way.

The sad reality is that Americans have roads to drive and fuel to burn, and it doesn't matter who has to die to ensure it; be it some kid in the U.S. army or a family in Iraq.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Catalysis]
    #3358829 - 11/14/04 04:10 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The US is not taxing the Afghans or Iraqis nor are they taking thier resources for profit

Nah, they're privatising everything they can and robbing Iraq blind awarding "reconstruction" costs to american companies and overcharging by millions.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Catalysis]
    #3358834 - 11/14/04 04:16 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Contrary to apparently popular belief, the US is not colonizing Iraq.

Bomb before you buy

What is being planned in Iraq is not reconstruction but robbery

On April 6, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz spelled it out: there will be no role for the UN in setting up an interim government in Iraq. The US-run regime will last at least six months, "probably longer than that". And by the time the Iraqi people have a say in choosing a government, the key economic decisions about their country's future will have been made by their occupiers. "There has to be an effective administration from day one," Wolfowitz said. "People need water and food and medicine, and the sewers have to work, the electricity has to work. And that's coalition responsibility."
The process of how they will get all this infrastructure to work is usually called "reconstruction". But American plans for Iraq's future economy go well beyond that. Rather than rebuilding, the country is being treated as a blank slate on which the most ideological Washington neo-liberals can design their dream economy: fully privatised, foreign-owned and open for business.

The $4.8m management contract for the port in Umm Qasr has already gone to a US company, Stevedoring Services, and there are similar deals for airport administration on the auction block. The United States Agency for International Development has invited US multinationals to bid on everything from rebuilding roads and bridges to distributing textbooks. The length of time these contracts will last is left unspecified. How long before they meld into long-term contracts for water services, transit systems, roads, schools and phones? When does reconstruction turn into privatisation in disguise?

Republican congressman Darrel Issa has introduced a bill that would require the defence department to build a CDMA cellphone system in postwar Iraq in order to benefit "US patent holders". As Farhad Manjoo noted in the internet magazine Salon, CDMA is the system used in the US, not in Europe, and was developed by Qualcomm, one of Issa's most generous donors.

Then there's oil. The Bush administration knows it can't talk openly about selling Iraq's oil resources to ExxonMobil and Shell. It leaves that to people like Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraqi petroleum minister and executive director of the Center for Global Energy Studies. "We need to have a huge amount of money coming into the country. The only way is to partially privatise the industry," Chalabi says.

He is part of a group of Iraqi exiles that has been advising the state department on how to implement privatisation in such a way that it isn't seen to be coming from the US. Helpfully, the group held a conference in London on April 6 and called on Iraq to open itself up to oil multinationals shortly after the war. The Bush administration has shown its gratitude by promising that there will plenty of posts for Iraqi exiles in the interim government.

Some argue that it's too simplistic to say this war is about oil. They're right. It's about oil, water, roads, trains, phones, ports and drugs. And if this process isn't halted, "free Iraq" will be the most sold country on earth.

It's no surprise that so many multinationals are lunging for Iraq's untapped market. It's not just that the reconstruction will be worth as much as $100bn; it's also that "free trade" by less violent means hasn't been going that well lately. More and more developing countries are rejecting privatisation, while the Free Trade Area of the Americas, Bush's top trade priority, is wildly unpopular across Latin America. World Trade Organisation talks on intellectual property, agriculture and services have all got bogged down amid accusations that the US and Europe have yet to make good on past promises.

So what is a recessionary, growth-addicted superpower to do? How about upgrading from Free Trade Lite, which wrestles market access through backroom bullying at the WTO, to Free Trade Supercharged, which seizes new markets on the battlefields of pre-emptive wars? After all, negotiations with sovereign countries can be hard. Far easier to just tear up the country, occupy it, then rebuild it the way you want. Bush hasn't abandoned free trade, as some have claimed, he just has a new doctrine: "Bomb before you buy".

It goes much further than one unlucky country. Investors are openly predicting that once privatisation takes root in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will all be forced to compete by privatising their oil. "In Iran, it would just catch like wildfire," S Rob Sobhani, an energy consultant, told the Wall Street Journal. Pretty soon, the US may have bombed its way into a whole new free trade zone.

So far, the press debate over the reconstruction of Iraq has focused on fair play: it is "exceptionally maladroit", in the words of the European Union's commissioner for external relations, Chris Patten, for the US to keep all the juicy contracts for itself. It has to learn to share: Exxon should invite France's TotalFinaElf to the most lucrative oil fields; Bechtel should give Britain's Thames Water a shot at the sewer contracts.

But while Patten may find US unilateralism galling, and Tony Blair may be calling for UN oversight, on this matter it's beside the point. Who cares which multinationals get the best deals in Iraq's pre-democracy, post-Saddam liquidation sale? What does it matter if the privatising is done unilaterally by the US, or multilaterally by the US, Europe, Russia and China?

Entirely absent from this debate are the Iraqi people, who might - who knows? - want to hold on to a few of their assets. Iraq will be owed massive reparations after the bombing stops, but in the absence of any kind of democratic process, what is being planned is not reparations, reconstruction or rehabilitation. It is robbery: mass theft disguised as charity; privatisation without representation.

A people, starved and sickened by sanctions, then pulverised by war, is going to emerge from this trauma to find that their country had been sold out from under them. They will also discover that their new-found "freedom" - for which so many of their loved ones perished - comes pre-shackled by irreversible economic decisions that were made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling. They will then be told to vote for their new leaders, and welcomed to the wonderful world of democracy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,936203,00.html


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Xlea321]
    #3359297 - 11/14/04 09:59 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Your link is incorrect. It's http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,936158,00.html
( I can't get this to read past the first comma either so you can either trust me about the date or you can go to the moonbat rag homepage and search for "bomb before you buy". That's how I found it}
Nice source. An opinion article from April 14,2003 in the anti-American mothership in the UK. This is what you cite as evidence that the US is colonizing Iraq. You're awesome Alex. Never change.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3362444 - 11/15/04 12:17 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I know it's a waste of time asking but..do you actually have any information disproving anything in the article?



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Xlea321]
    #3362601 - 11/15/04 01:22 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You apparently believe the editorializing you cut and pasted from the Guardian is some sort of evidence that the US is "colonizing" Iraq. It is therefore up to you to support that position, not up to anyone else to disprove your position. Burden of proof.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that everything in the editorial is factual it has nothing to do with the US "colonizing" Iraq.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinericyjo
I'm a teapot

Registered: 07/22/02
Posts: 1,516
Loc: -53.121600, 73.763943
Last seen: 25 days, 20 hours
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Phred]
    #3362791 - 11/15/04 03:21 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The bottom line of every argument regarding Iraq:

Militants/insurgents/terrorists... do not want democracy in Iraq because they know it will shift power away from them totally. The beauty of fair elections is that THE PEOPLE get to choose who has the power. Iraqi citizens can't openly speak about their hopes of a democratically elected government for fear of execution of not only themselves but entire families. The people of Iraq will curse the U.S. in public until their votes can speak accurately for them in private.

Elections rob militants of being able to identify and kill "traders".
The ballot is cast and that's it. No one knows who votes for who.

This is why militants forced sunni clerics to declare the boycott of the January elections. This makes an "infidel" out of anyone simply showing up in the first place to cast a vote... and this is why we are there. The majority of the Iraqi people want us there and elections will prove it.

Support of the U.S. and coalition forces have grown tremendously as the nations of the world witnessed (and experienced) atrocities commited by terrorists.
This is especially evident in foreign investments in the U.S. economy. Rarely does a nations' economy flourish while it simultaneously fights a war.

Most of the worlds nations back the U.S. efforts in Iraq. I know what your thinking and those nations support us as well, but, for the purpose of international security....











Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBeefytheButerfly
newbie
Registered: 03/30/01
Posts: 30
Loc: BC,Canada
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: deafpanda]
    #3444305 - 12/04/04 12:07 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

It looks like I spurred on some debate here. So I'll reply to you, because you have interesting questions I want to address.

First you need to divest yourself of the tendency to confuse morals and war. Attacking civilians has very little to do with any moral authority. It is wrong in that contect, but it is the context of winning that matters. Depressing, but none-the-less true. The US was fully justified in using nuclear fission bombs on Japan even though they would've fallen through conventional means. Japan would never had surrendered without a thoroughly bloody invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives (both military and civilian), this is a society that praises the warrior that sacrifices his life to damage the enemy (sound familiar?). When you get into a fight, the gloves are off, geneva be damned. You can worry about the legality and the morality of your actions after you are the winner. By then you have a suitable justification for your actions, not necessarily right or moral, but history is written by the winner.


--------------------
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."
-Mitch Ratliffe
Looking to sell? I'm looking to buy, PM me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Ravus]
    #3444515 - 12/04/04 02:04 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

fuck war
fuck both sides
and fuck the sytem they have setup to make us take sides and argue about this shit so we ignore the shit thats going on right under our noses in america. stop taking sides and start taking the side of americans not the government. fuck the sytem deny it your soul

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHendostan
I'm a teapot

Registered: 07/18/04
Posts: 4,444
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: BeefytheButerfly]
    #3444645 - 12/04/04 04:37 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

BeefytheButerfly said:
It looks like I spurred on some debate here. So I'll reply to you, because you have interesting questions I want to address.

First you need to divest yourself of the tendency to confuse morals and war. Attacking civilians has very little to do with any moral authority. It is wrong in that contect, but it is the context of winning that matters. Depressing, but none-the-less true. The US was fully justified in using nuclear fission bombs on Japan even though they would've fallen through conventional means. Japan would never had surrendered without a thoroughly bloody invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives (both military and civilian), this is a society that praises the warrior that sacrifices his life to damage the enemy (sound familiar?). When you get into a fight, the gloves are off, geneva be damned. You can worry about the legality and the morality of your actions after you are the winner. By then you have a suitable justification for your actions, not necessarily right or moral, but history is written by the winner.




This is not true at all..there was sufficient evidence that Japan was on the verge of surrendering before Nagasaki. They had accepted all but one of our terms for surrender..I need to look a couple things up, but I will post what I find...No one is EVER justified in killing that many innocent people, instantaneously. That is the strategy of coward.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Catalysis]
    #3444659 - 12/04/04 04:52 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Elections will go on in Afghanistan every 5 years with the population able to choose thier leader

They'll be able to choose someone to sit in an office in Kabul who'se power extends to the front door (as long as he has plenty of American bodyguards). However the unelected warlords the US armed and funded will still rule the country.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Phred]
    #3444664 - 12/04/04 04:56 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Even assuming for the sake of argument that everything in the editorial

It wasn't an editorial.

it has nothing to do with the US "colonizing" Iraq.

I never said it was "colonizing" Iraq. That's something you made up. I said it was privatising everything, robbing the country blind and overcharging "reconstruction" costs.

I know this is a waste of time asking, but can you show any statement in the article isn't accurate?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHendostan
I'm a teapot

Registered: 07/18/04
Posts: 4,444
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Xlea321]
    #3447621 - 12/04/04 09:01 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." also in that same report - "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

from Howard Zinn's a People's History of the United States:
"If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender - this is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emporer, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place - the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.
Why did the U.S. not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it?"

We were not justified in using those weapons, killing civilians as a scientific experiment. It was obviously not necessary to victory. American POW's were among those killed in Nagasaki...Facism was not defeated in World War II, it's ideals - militarism, racism, imperialism - were absorbed by the already poisoned bones of the victors. Now we just call it nation building, or spreading freedom.

Edited by Hendostan (12/04/04 09:02 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBeefytheButerfly
newbie
Registered: 03/30/01
Posts: 30
Loc: BC,Canada
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: Founding Fathers and Terrorism? [Re: Hendostan]
    #3476969 - 12/10/04 03:22 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Let's say for a moment that what you say is true, and I'm not saying it's not. I have read as well that Japan was on the verge of capitulation. However, Japan would not give an unconditional surrender. Even though that might seem a small concession from the US, when you hold the big stick you always get what you ask for, no compromise. War is supposed to be terrible. When you fight a war, you go all out. Even if you are on the losing side, you make the winner pay dearly for it's victory. The purpose of the terrible nature of war is to make all participants think twice the next time they want to get into it. If war was easily fought with few casualties, nations would use it all the time without consequence. Bombing the japanese, without a doubt, demonstrated to them and to the world who held the big stick, and there wsa to be no compromise and no negotiation accompanying the surrender. Japan has a rich military history full of aggression towards her neighbours. You have to admit after WW2 that attitude changed quite a bit.

If the US hadn't used the bomb and still demanded an unconditioal surrender and fought for victory the conventional way, it would always be int the back of the Japanese collective conciousness that maybe if they'd done something different they would have won. The bombs made that question a non-issue.

Germany, for example was plagued by that question, Hitler was of firm belief if the military leaders had held firm in WW1, then Germany would've been victorious. But they hadn't and Hitler and much of the german population felt stabbed in the back by their leaders. Thus WW2, which was many times more terrible.

Had a few german cities been nuked early on, then that conflict would've been nipped in the bud.

Keep in mind also, that regardless of any other fact, the Japanese were the aggressors, they started it and the US finished it. It is doubtful that the US would've even gone to war if the Japanese hadn't attacked.

So sometimes the callous use of overwhelming power can save lives and make countries open their eyes to the folly of war. I would say that both Germany and Japan are much more humble and productive nations now.


--------------------
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."
-Mitch Ratliffe
Looking to sell? I'm looking to buy, PM me.

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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
trendalM 16,675 133 09/28/09 11:34 AM
by Phred
* The Founding Fathers all grew hemp mabus 836 3 03/02/04 01:58 PM
by MAIA
* The Founding Fathers and Christianity TheOneYouKnow 1,112 9 03/15/04 11:09 AM
by afoaf
* USA Founding Fathers were: (quiz)
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 2,576 43 07/18/04 02:29 AM
by Swami
* Our founding fathers sat here. pics inside timetravel 886 1 01/11/04 12:11 AM
by HagbardCeline
* Bush Suggests War on Terror Can't be Won
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
KingOftheThing 9,397 125 09/04/04 10:22 AM
by Phred
* Rumsfeld: No rush to try terror suspects
( 1 2 3 all )
Edame 2,931 49 09/15/03 01:14 PM
by shakta
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,887 20 03/14/04 12:45 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,938 topic views. 0 members, 8 guests and 5 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 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.