mr_crisper writes:
is this a fact or an opinion? if it is a fact please offer some evidence. such as bodycounts.
I don't have precise figures readily to hand, but Nigerians imprisoned, tortured, and killed more Nigerians than the US ever did. Insert any African country in place of "Nigeria" and the statement remains true. Likewise with Cambodia, the Philippines, and just about every other developing country in the world, with the possible exception of Viet Nam.
Has the US killed, imprisoned, and tortured more Africans than African leaders have? Have they seized more land than African leaders have? Have they extracted more "taxes" (read "robbed blind") from the populace than African leaders have? Or Cambodian, Yugoslavian, Philippino, etc. leaders have? No, they have given grants and loans and famine relief to those nations, participated in UN peacekeeping missions, and sent experts to assist in setting up infrastructure projects that their leaders are incapable of initiating or indifferent to completing.
Who has shown more respect to the people of those nations -- their leaders or the USA?
if it is an opinion please phrase it as such. y'know - 'it seems to me that...'
I will if you will. Up to now, you haven't bothered to do so.
can you tell me more about their whims? what kind of explanation is this? can we look back and chart the rise and fall of oil prices in accordance to the seizures of this whimsical cabal?
The spot price of crude is set exclusively by OPEC. The only OPEC country that makes a pretense at being a democratic country is Kuwait, where some of the members of the government are elected by men, since women are not allowed to vote. All the other member nations are run by despots in the literal sense of the word. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, "despot: absolute ruler", harems are not a prerequisite to becoming a despot.
There have been many, many examples over the years of OPEC raising and lowering the price of crude based not on availability or demand, but on how pissed off they happened to be with Israel at the time. The best-known instance was in the early Seventies.
the american way of life with caps! wow must be something special or is it just another meaningless phrase that people are taught to believe in.
Sigh. You have nothing of substance with which to rebut, so you sneer at my careful attempt to make clear what this part of the thread is all about -- the claim that the US tries to impose its values, ideals, etc. (The American Way of Life, for short) on the rest of the world.
what is the american way of life?
That which you despise, apparently. It is up to those who claim America is trying to force it on the rest of the world to provide a full definition -- I am not the one who authored that allegation. If I attempt to provide a definition, I'll be flamed for putting words in someone's mouth.
if i don't drink coke, would it mean that i have less life than someone who does drink it?
What has that got to do with the Islamists' well-documented hatred for the Great Satan's ungodly lifestyle? Do you intend to actually rebut my claims, or just dance around with pointless rhetorical nitpicking?
what country helped fund the taliban to fight the soviets?
No country helped the Taliban fight the Soviets. The Taliban was formed after the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan.
did this country act out of nobility and a desire to help the long suffering afghanis and oust the taliban, or were they less beautiful motivations such as greed and revenge?
Ah. I see. Not only must the actions be good, but the motivations BEHIND the actions must also be good. It is not impossible for two parties to desire the same outcome for different reasons. Did the US assist the Afghanis in ousting the Taliban or not?
still the same effort to present the sentence as factual. when it is essentially just the result of you being bombarded by years of terrorist dictator fear mongering propaganda and are now spouting it out here almost word for word.
I live in Latin America, and have had long conversations with many people from Columbia, Chile, Panama, etc. They all have given me many examples of situations where the written law and constitution of their countries is brushed aside whenever it suits the leader of the moment. I have also spoken to two teachers who spent most of their careers in various African countries who said the same thing. I doubt I'm the only one who is aware of this.
n the majority of the third world? c'mon give us a percentage.
More than fifty per cent.
despot? rather a loaded term, exactly how many third world leaders qualify for this title. and who is qualified to give it? or is it just your personal opinion...
See the Oxford Dictionary's definition of "despot", or crack open your own and look it up. Then do a search on how many third world countries are run by elected leaders versus how many have leaders who seized power by force. Draw your own conclusions from there.
what is the average term of office for a third world leader? what are we talking here? days? weeks? months? years?
In Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa, it can be any of the above. It depends on how much effective force the leader is willing to exert against those who would seize his power.
The point which you are so strenuously trying to evade is that in these countries there is no objective law unless the despot of the day decides it suits his purposes to obey it. If he chooses not to, there is little to be done.
thats nice. again, in what situations do you feel feeeeeel pity and/or compassion?
If you mean me as an individual, how is that relevant to your call for national governments to violate their constitutional obligations to serve their own citizens ahead of those of other countries?
pinky
--------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (10/24/02 05:40 PM)
|