American egocentrism and the war...

Conservative's won't check it out unless somebody reads it aloud on AM radio and interupts the text every few moments to tell somebody to shut up or call them a traitor!

Just kidding.

But, I'd say the odds of getting people to read Chomsky, Howard Zinn, or any of the other great and current liberal humanist writers is pretty slim. I've stated my opinon before that the type of personality that is attracted to the highly conservative (and I do mean the US variety of conservatism, as it's quite a bit different from conservative politics almost anywhere else) thrives on feeling correct and is if they are taking the common sense appraoch in the face of stupidity.

The success of pundits like O'Reilly, Anne Colttier, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Limbaugh, and the rest of the good squad is their repetitous balthering about how stupid anybody who doesn't see things their was is (liberals) and how people that don't agree with them politically are traitors or mentally disturbed. They don't debate issues or explore historical, social, and political questions like Chomsky or others might - they just shout down everything around them and repeat standard opinions they know their audiences already agree with.

Read a few chapters out of Chomsky

Bib said:

I care about all the citizens of the world. I hope that someday, they are all truly free, and have the right and ability of self determination.

Sadly, there are many in the world that wish to control, indeed enslave other people. Generally, these EVIL people are heavily armed, and control others by force.

Generally, the ONLY way to break the hold of these EVIL people, over the innocents, is by use of a greater force.

Thankfully, there are countries willing to sacrifice, and fight these forces. Yes, sometimes innocents are killed as a byproduct of this fight. But the successful end to the fight saves many more in the long run.

Please study history. Learn in depth. Realize the above is true, and that a noble force is sometimes required.

Generally, if you consider US actions to be wrong, then you are sadly misinformed. Learn the entire story of any event before you make conclusions.

Bigger

Click to expand...

Wouldn't letting a couple of planes slam into a pair of towers killing thousands be considered EVIL?

Swank,

>Perhaps I'm out of context again, but that strikes me as dogmatic patriotism.

One of the great cornerstones of our national ideal is the ability and willingness of the population to criticize and question their leadership. This is the very freedom that you express a desire for the rest of the world to experience.<

Yes, you missed my point. I am all for free thought and speech. In any form. What I am against is the obvious and false revision of history, attempting to paint the US in a bad light.

I was writing about the global actions of the US over the decades, and how generally they were all good. But then you can read some of the leftist revisionists, and come to a totally different conclusion.

>The US has done some very bad things and made some serious mistakes, in recent and older history. The ability to point this out is crucial to our national character, and relucatnce to admit any fault due to some nationalistic longing is something that has always aroused alarm in me, and I do believe the same sort of attitude that causes many in the states to devalue the lives of foreigners under Americans.<

I will be happy to debate any event in history involving the US. I am sure you can find many indictments of US actions.

But also, look at all that the US has been involved in, and make a solid, honest evaluation of where our hearts and minds are.

thefran,

>Wouldn't letting a couple of planes slam into a pair of towers killing thousands be considered EVIL?<

If you mean Al Queda, then yes. If you mean something else, let me get my tinfoil.

Bigger

BTW, when I was much younger, I did read, believe, and follow the writings of the leftist revisionist. It all sounded so right, honest, and made such good sense. But then I began to do my own research, and found too many inconsistancies. Then, I realized that the thoughts of many leftists left out some crucial factors, namely human tendencies and failures. Because of these reasons, I came to realize that the leftist Utopia is a figment of weak minds.

In the world of the past, as well as today, you can be peaceful, loving, just try to get along, provide for all, share and share alike, and then you and your family die a horrible death.

Bigger

Bib, if this is true, then how come Canada has never been attacked by terrorists? Canada has a huge Islamic population, gets along with everyone (even Cuba) and is as peaceful as they come, yet there has never been a single Islamist terrorist attack in the nation's history (knock wood). This reality should be impossible, according to your statement below.

Bib said:

In the world of the past, as well as today, you can be peaceful, loving, just try to get along, provide for all, share and share alike, and then you and your family die a horrible death.

Click to expand...

Baraka,

Geez man, you do try to stretch things out don't you?

>Bib, if this is true, then how come Canada has never been attacked by terrorists? Canada has a huge Islamic population, gets along with everyone (even Cuba) and is as peaceful as they come, yet there has never been a single Islamist terrorist attack in the nation's history (knock wood). This reality should be impossible, according to your statement below.<

Well, that would all go to the reasons for the terrorists actions, wouldn't it? The US is the greatest exporter of western culture to the middle east. Canada, nothing. The terrorists are going to hit the areas where they feel the most impact would be made. What would hitting Canada do?

Or perhaps I missed your point.

Are you saying that the terrorists are right, and that the west should not have anything to do with the middle east whatsoever? Although we are invited economically and culturally into almost every country of the middle east, to provide technology, investmenst, etc, by the governments of those countries?

Of course, that does not address the terrorist desire to kill all infidels. Therefore, according to them, Canada's time would eventually come.

Bigger

Bib said:

Swank,

thefran,

>Wouldn't letting a couple of planes slam into a pair of towers killing thousands be considered EVIL?<

If you mean Al Queda, then yes. If you mean something else, let me get my tinfoil.

Bigger

Click to expand...

Tinfoil hat? Let's be honost here. The greatest superpower in the world the one you are always praising. We have the greatest military force , and survaliance in the world. So 2 huge airliners somehow get off course and start heading towards NYC, you are telling me they didnt just let it happen. EVEN assuming they had no idea it was going to happen in the first place, which there has been tons of documentation showing that they did know. But even assuming they didn't. There was no attempt to bring down the planes? Even in a situation where theyd have to shoot up the planes, they would clearly take the lives of a few hundred over the lives of a few thousand. Lets get real here Bib . You can't be that dumb?

thefran,

>Tinfoil hat? Let's be honost here. The greatest superpower in the world the one you are always praising. We have the greatest military force , and survaliance in the world. So 2 huge airliners somehow get off course and start heading towards NYC, you are telling me they didnt just let it happen. EVEN assuming they had no idea it was going to happen in the first place, which there has been tons of documentation showing that they did know. But even assuming they didn't. There was no attempt to bring down the planes? Even in a situation where theyd have to shoot up the planes, they would clearly take the lives of a few hundred over the lives of a few thousand. Lets get real here Bib . You can't be that dumb?<

OK, I got my tinfoil.

You are correct, I am not that dumb. I do however discount your scenario, and your implication that the US government had anything to do with the acts.

The easiest way to do this is to simply point out that no ties have ever been found between the terroists involved, and the US government. Kind of hard to imagine the government hiring terrorists to kill themselves.

Second, it is easy to see that NORAD only would be looking outward for threats, and not inward.

Thirdly, it is easy to see that the FAA, which had control of the aircraft, would not think of the planes as threats, with absolutely no reason to do so.

Fourth, it is also easy to see that the FAA had nothing set up with NORAD to facilitate a shootdown of a domestic flight.

Hindsight is so easy. But to come to the conclusion the US government orchestrated this evil is nothing short of evil itself. You would have to be really fucked in the head to believe it.

Bigger

Hey Bib. Or might it just be because USA is the world leading international terrorist... Just think why would people fly planes on buildings killing thousands of innocent people? And why are palestinians and arabs revolting and doing suicidal assaults? Just because they are plain EVIL? Don't be so naive and believe all the propaganda. People do desperate and mindless acts when they are humiliated, their dignity and freedom is taken from them, and when their family members are being killed, when they are DRIVEN to it. If WTC killed about thousands of people, I can't even start to count how many innocent have died, killed by actions of the US (for wealth and power). And always for far less important things.Don't be simple minded, start to think with your own brain, read and learn about politics and power, and FIND SOME INDEPenis EnlargementNDENT SOURCE OF INFORMATION!!
Or read that fucking Chomsky. You'll find his arguments pretty damn waterproof... Or if not, maybe some of you might debate him, maybe on TV perhaps. People arguinging his views have tried many times, but with "very" little success..

Well Chomsky is a trained linguist!

I agree with the suggestion however; it seems many conservatives automatically right off any views of American history that don't jive with the "We're the best, everything we ever did as a nation was correct!" as leftist/anti-patriotic revisionism.

The truth of course lies somewhere in between. The US is neither inherently good nor bad. We've vertainly done some good things, but we also have an awful lot of blood on our hands, and our economic well-being is essentially propped up by the poverty and lack of resources available to the rest of the world (though this is true to many other developed countries as well, but generally to a far lesser extent).

I botched my previous post, but I intended to end with the comment "Read some Chomsky, then hold the prose against Anne Coultier or Hannity, or any of the other fashionable conservative opinion mongers of the moment - see for yourself which is more factual, insightful, and more even-handed in its examination of the ultimate and proximate consequences of history."

Bib said:

thefran,

>Tinfoil hat? Let's be honost here. The greatest superpower in the world the one you are always praising. We have the greatest military force , and survaliance in the world. So 2 huge airliners somehow get off course and start heading towards NYC, you are telling me they didnt just let it happen. EVEN assuming they had no idea it was going to happen in the first place, which there has been tons of documentation showing that they did know. But even assuming they didn't. There was no attempt to bring down the planes? Even in a situation where theyd have to shoot up the planes, they would clearly take the lives of a few hundred over the lives of a few thousand. Lets get real here Bib . You can't be that dumb?<

OK, I got my tinfoil.

You are correct, I am not that dumb. I do however discount your scenario, and your implication that the US government had anything to do with the acts.

The easiest way to do this is to simply point out that no ties have ever been found between the terroists involved, and the US government. Kind of hard to imagine the government hiring terrorists to kill themselves.

Second, it is easy to see that NORAD only would be looking outward for threats, and not inward.

Thirdly, it is easy to see that the FAA, which had control of the aircraft, would not think of the planes as threats, with absolutely no reason to do so.

Fourth, it is also easy to see that the FAA had nothing set up with NORAD to facilitate a shootdown of a domestic flight.>

How do you explain the delayed response from the FAA when there are standard procedures to hijacked airliners? Once the first tower went down wouldn't the other planes that were off course be immediately intercepted by fighter planes? It's procedure for this happen once an aircraft goes that far off it's course. You'd think it'd be known where the second plane that hit the other tower was heading at the least and considering where the other planes ended up and were heading it'd appear that it couldn't have just been a big mistake/mixup.

I don't want to get into a conspiracy theory BS thread because it won't do any good. However, it's not difficult to see the people of PNAC and its proponents have the power to make something like 9/11 a reality. 9/11 happened and there are reasons on this side of the pond as well as on the attackers side as to why it happened. Lucky PNAC guys...they'd been waiting for Clinton to do so much more in Iraq and once 2001 rolls around everything they ever wanted for the U.S. position abroad took form. Lucky them.


<Hindsight is so easy. But to come to the conclusion the US government orchestrated this evil is nothing short of evil itself. You would have to be really fucked in the head to believe it.>

Pointing out facts that were known at the time of the attacks is not fucked up at all. You're fucked up for not being able to see that this most likely was more than coincidence and misfortune happened by chance/evil men.

Bigger

Click to expand...

Now here's a video that'll get anyone's blood boiling.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/august2004/082604alexwarned.htm

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html#article_continue

I've looked up and down PNAC's site and for this information and it's there. I had to check again and find it myself but I eventually did so I'm posting it with confidence in the accuracy of the material used. The story's portrayal of the events on 9/11 might not be something pleasing to everyone, but why not read it. You can have yourself a chuckle, but Hey I've never seen someone find evidence like this funny though.

Just answer one fucking question about this bullshit:

Exactly who in the fuck would have given the fucking order to shoot down loaded American airliners before 9/11, when there was no precedent for what the terrorists did?

Now that would have been a popular decision, huh?

But please, believe whatever you want. However absurd it might be.

Bigger

Wow, Bib, that's very out of character for you.

Don't let debates like this get to you, it's really not worth the aggrivation. Conspiracy theories are always going to be around. The same ones would probably be cropping up no matter who was president at the time.

I always liked that you moderated the profanity and kept your diction formal in tone even if I do disagree with you on most things.

Swank,

>Don't let debates like this get to you, it's really not worth the aggrivation. Conspiracy theories are always going to be around. The same ones would probably be cropping up no matter who was president at the time.

I always liked that you moderated the profanity and kept your diction formal in tone even if I do disagree with you on most things.<

I love profanity. Nothing quite gets across the point from time to time. These conspiracy theories do not bother me. I usually find them funny. Except perhaps when the consequences are so high.

Seemed like the "fuckings" just made the point a bit better.

Bigger

some things about the war that i disagree with is, as of now there is no point. we captured sadam and found no WMDs. that was the goal. i thought the original reason we were going to war for was to stop al queda and osama, but when is the last time you heard anything about our advancements in afghanstan? we shouldnt have gone into iraq before finishing our business with osama)although i still believe that we should have never gone into irap at all)and then a while ago bush flew out there to one of our battle ships and there was a banner that said "mission accomplished" if it was accomplished, why are we still there? was it really accomplished?

the second thing that bothers me about the war is the debt that bush is running up on the US credit card. billions of dollars a month just to occupy iraq. and who is buying that debt? china. and if china ever felt so inclined to cash in on all of the debt they hold, it would bankrupt the US, destroy the US economy, and reset the world powers of the world. but that not only affects the US, it affects a whole lot of other countries(china being one of them seeing as how we buy so many products from them, but other countries like england and canada would be greatly affected)

and my final point for the night would be that bush just allows history to repeat itself. this is another vietnam, we will be there for at least 10 years, probably more. but that means 10 years in iraq, we are still in bosnia, korea, and if we ever get around to it, afghanistan, which would be at least another 10 years. he is spreading our military out thin like butter on toast, but not only that buy he is just sending little bits at a time. iraq could have been over and done with a long time ago if we had just sent enough troops in all at the same time. that was one of the mistakes of vietnam, and again its a mistake in iraq. same thing will be said about afghanistan if bush gets around to it before his term is up.


and people are surprised about this. i have been saying this since day one that if we elect this moron, bad things will happen. gore wasnt much of a better choice at the time, but at least when he makes a speech he can sound like an intellegent person(unlike bush with his southern accent which makes everyone sound stupid. combine that with made up words and all of the other mishaps of his speeches)

Bib said:

Swank,

>Don't let debates like this get to you, it's really not worth the aggrivation. Conspiracy theories are always going to be around. The same ones would probably be cropping up no matter who was president at the time.

I always liked that you moderated the profanity and kept your diction formal in tone even if I do disagree with you on most things.<

I love profanity. Nothing quite gets across the point from time to time. These conspiracy theories do not bother me. I usually find them funny. Except perhaps when the consequences are so high.

Seemed like the "fuckings" just made the point a bit better.
Bigger

Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not a conspiracy theorist especially not on 9/11, but questions remain about what happened that day. If there aren't any answers given then people will try to find them. I've never been able to grasp how the towers came down the way they did and how fast. Just questions. I hate the guys at PNAC and I like poking fun of them. They are very arrogant bastards if you ask me.

I just love the american governments inhability to think ahead in these matters. It's seems kinda thougtless to send an "invation army" to Iraq, without ever considering what they would do when they eventually got Saddams army to surrender.

Cause Iraq's a pretty big country, and without a decent OCCUPANT army, there was no way they were going to keep law and order. And the result: a whole lot of sivilian casualties every day. I dunno know if they expected the UN to come bail them out or what that thoughtprosses was, but there is no way the US troups are going to settle the chaos at present.

I've always found it rather interesting that some (not all of course) Americans are very fond of using the term "bad guys" whenever a war is concerned. I even saw in mention in this thread. It's buried pretty deep in the culture, and I think it represents a very dangerous way of simplifying the how people look at the world and life in general. Personally, I don't believe in "evil" as an expression. I find it missleading. I do believe in "hate", "desperation" and "ignorance". And there's always an explanation as to why people do what they do. You only have to look hard enough.

So you say that their acts was just because they (islamics) are just plain evil?
Your opinions tell lot about your history lessons at school and how great your leaders are with propaganda. In "free" country it's all about that...
Try to get some backround details and information from INDEPenis EnlargementNDENT & FREE MEDIA!!!

I don't think you really understood my post... i meant that the term "evil" is often missused because i believe that nobody is really "evil". There is always an explanation for a person/people's actions...

Originally posted by lamplight
I don't think you really understood my post... i meant that the term "evil" is often missused because i believe that nobody is really "evil". There is always an explanation for a person/people's actions...

Click to expand...

Correct, for example, if you watched a young child laughing, and crawling, you would smile... what if someone where to tell you that child is Adolf Hitler? Nobody is born angry and monsterous, over years time they develope these traits.