VisorCentral.com - Now war is allmost over..

Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Now war is allmost over.. (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=33319)

Posted by BobbyMike on 04-15-2003 03:29 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by clulup

I'm impressed, BobbyMike. I'm sure you would also have called lot's of people paranoid before Nixon's "early retirement". And "Iran/Contra" does not ring a bell, does it?

Being patriotic is one thing, being naive is another.

Being smug (you're really not impressed) and throwing straw men out are "anothers" too.

Far from being naive I happen to be very skeptical. I tend to observe what people, governments do, not what they say.

For someone to believe that the USA would resort to fabricating WMD if they can't find any is a ludicrous and unsupportable position. It is paranoid. Paranoia is a type of naiveness in that it doesn't actually look at the facts as they stand, but views everything through a very simplistic worldview. Paranoids tend to be very gullible and will believe anything, regardless of how asinine, if it supports something that they already believe.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by BobbyMike on 04-15-2003 03:52 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

With the way Bush and Rumsfeld are running the place it does not surprize me people get paranoid...

Well, some people were paranoid about Reagan too. You might remember the Berlin wall falling. Lots of East Europeans are enjoying freedom now because of his actions. Just like the Iraqi people will get to chart their own paths now.

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
I disagree. The system can surely work, look at scandinavia. Sure they got very high taxes but they choose to run things that way because they feel the strong have the obligation to take care of the weak. Also it is a sort of insurance. If something bad happens to you, you know you will still have an income.. this goes for anybody, not just the ones that can afford a private insurance..
Also by keeping the gap by rich and poor smaller you can prevent (some) crime..

But in the US people have the mentality 'take care of yourself' mentality. Where a lot of people get in trouble due to bad luck and/or bad planning, leading to all kinds of social problems..

Both systems have their pro's and con's but SS sure can work if you all believe in it an fight abuse of the system...
It is a matter of choise and most european countries choose for a more social system, the US choose for their own system, to each their own...

I have to disagree with you. It can't work in a nation that's growing in size (and living longer). If you have less and less people putting in, and more and more people taking out (for longer and longer), it will fail. Just because it appears to be working in Scandanavia doesn't mean it can work in a nation as big as the US.
Believing in it can't make it work, that's very Peter Pannish. It's a non viable system.

I agree with your comment on bad planning. Too many people live for the day, buy things they don't need and then act surprised when they can't make it at the end. I still think people would do better if they invested that same money themselves instead of expecting someone else to. Raising people to believe that a governmental agency can plan for their financial future better then they can for themselves breeds sheep.

I can't agree with the comment about "keeping the gap ... smaller" as that's too socialistic for my blood.

, but it is interesting to note that Grand Cayman (my Dad's family is one of the four "founding" families) has a much lower crime rate than Jamaica does. Knowing a bit of the history of both I've felt that since everybody (in the Caymans) used to be about the same financially, and then were all able to take equal advantage of the money when it started becoming available (from real estate, tourism, banking jobs etc.) instead of having a history of landed gentry (like Jamaica does) helped to keep that gap from ever occurring.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by BobbyMike on 04-15-2003 04:33 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ilovedessert
1. soc sec was never designed to be solely self supporting, orginally it was supposed to draw $ from the general budget years ago. Congress raised fica taxes a number of times to continue soc sec from having to draw from public coffers.

My understanding is a little bit different, http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssb36.html
The funds come from working individuals no matter how you slice it., where do you think the General Fund comes from? Funding more peoples retirement with money coming from less working people is not going to work. As more and more Baby Boomers retire, we left working will carry a heavier load , one way or another. I have no desire to leave that kind of legacy to my wonderful kids.

quote:
Originally posted by ilovedessert
SO if you are unhappy of the plight of soc sec and medicare you apply just remember that Reagan and the republicans did this to us, at the time I suspected he was not of his right mind and he wasn't.

I'm not unhappy, I'm accepting, and I'm not going to blame any one party as the Dems and the Reps have both been screwed up in the way they handled this issue (and it's Congress you should be looking at, not a President). I've always had my own business (no employees) and I pay way more taxes than most people, so I tend to track how much money gets spent on what by our duly elected in Congress.

quote:
Originally posted by ilovedessert
For better or worse, I beleive supply side cannot work as it seems to me that only the rich get the tax breaks. Out of W's orgianl tax cuts across 10 year only 75% of us will ever see another cut, the percentage of people not gettting a cut is far higher here as the incomes are so much lower here in fla.

At least you don't have the heating bills we get up here

quote:
Originally posted by ilovedessert
So once agian, we are told you can get something for nothing and congress is eating it up, while they get richer.

BTWthey gave themselves a cost of livinga and a another raise the COLA was more than twice the soc raise that I got!

So think about it before you vote!

Don't forget that they will receive SS in addition to the very generous pension they voted themselves when they retire

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by ToolkiT on 04-15-2003 04:58 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now war is allmost over..

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Muahahaha, joke's on you! That implies half of everyone agreed. Hardly! Frankly, I could care less. I don't know why I felt like being a jerk and belaboring this point.

Well if you think of it only half of the people of the allies agreed with the attack so semi is right again

maybe it should be semi-ex-uni-now-multi-lateral

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by ToolkiT on 04-15-2003 05:03 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Being smug (you're really not impressed) and throwing straw men out are "anothers" too.

Far from being naive I happen to be very skeptical. I tend to observe what people, governments do, not what they say.

For someone to believe that the USA would resort to fabricating WMD if they can't find any is a ludicrous and unsupportable position. It is paranoid. Paranoia is a type of naiveness in that it doesn't actually look at the facts as they stand, but views everything through a very simplistic worldview. Paranoids tend to be very gullible and will believe anything, regardless of how asinine, if it supports something that they already believe.

What his point is, is that in the past people thought it was paranoia too to think the things we discovered later about watergate, Iran/contra, Panama etc...

If it is paranoia, why are so many people thinking about the posibility? (even 10% in this mostly US populated forum, imagine if you would ask the same thing in a european forum? Or an Arab forum?)

This is a sign a lot of people don't trust the Bush gov...
Which is a serious problem since they run (one of) the most powerfull countries in the world...

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by clulup on 04-15-2003 09:05 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Being smug (you're really not impressed) and throwing straw men out are "anothers" too.

Far from being naive I happen to be very skeptical. I tend to observe what people, governments do, not what they say.

For someone to believe that the USA would resort to fabricating WMD if they can't find any is a ludicrous and unsupportable position. It is paranoid. Paranoia is a type of naiveness in that it doesn't actually look at the facts as they stand, but views everything through a very simplistic worldview. Paranoids tend to be very gullible and will believe anything, regardless of how asinine, if it supports something that they already believe.

Come on BobbyMike... if indeed you have been observing (in an unbiased way, which is probably easier from an outside point of view), you have to admit that the US administrations have done far worse things than faking proof for WMD. Watergate, Iran/Contra (which violated US law) are some examples, their role in Chile, Argentina, and other countries are similar cases. Bush senior calling the Shiites in Iraq to rise against Saddam (I happend to hear his speach again on TV yesterday) after the war in Kuwait and then stopping all support, leading to the death of 300'000 caused by Saddams forces, is another.

And certainly there is no need for "fabricating" WMD, the US have plenty of them. All the CIA would have to do is bring over some of the stuff and then have it discovered by the Army. I'm not saying they will do it, I simply would not be surprised after knowing the past.

P.S.: Your remark on Social Security ("Just because it appears to be working in Scandanavia doesn't mean it can work in a nation as big as the US") in another posting is illogical: the absolute size of a population has no influence. It is "only" a question of age distribution, of how long and how much people pay, and of how much they take out (as you mention yourself).

Posted by clulup on 04-15-2003 09:29 AM:

Saddam dead!?

Regarding Saddam: What would be the best situation for the Bush administration? I guess even if they knew he is dead, they would not tell anybody, for very simple reasons: if he was killed by the US bombing, he would become a martyr for parts of the arabic population, that is certainly undesirable.

The worst situation would be that Saddam is caught somewhere (Syria?) and then handed over to the US. What would they do with him? Make a trial, sentence him to death and kill him? That would cause chaos and terrorist attacks. Certainly undesirable, too.

So the ideal situation is that he (and his sons) are dead, but no one knows. The same holds true for Osama, though maybe we are not that lucky in that case (either).

But these are only paranoid thoughts, no ?

Posted by BobbyMike on 04-15-2003 01:09 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by clulup

Come on BobbyMike... if indeed you have been observing (in an unbiased way, which is probably easier from an outside point of view), you have to admit that the US administrations have done far worse things than faking proof for WMD. Watergate, Iran/Contra (which violated US law) are some examples, their role in Chile, Argentina, and other countries are similar cases. Bush senior calling the Shiites in Iraq to rise against Saddam (I happend to hear his speach again on TV yesterday) after the war in Kuwait and then stopping all support, leading to the death of 300'000 caused by Saddams forces, is another.

And certainly there is no need for "fabricating" WMD, the US have plenty of them. All the CIA would have to do is bring over some of the stuff and then have it discovered by the Army. I'm not saying they will do it, I simply would not be surprised after knowing the past.

All countries do stupid things-

France and the Greenpeace ship

Russia and Chernynobel

etc., etc.

Your examples of misdeeds don't even approach the level of horridness that fabricating a finding of a WMD would.

The Watergate bungling was not an issue because of the burglery, but because Nixon knew about it (the Des and Reps have a long history of dirty tricks towards each other).

The Iran/Contra debacle was also unethical and illegal, but also did not approach the level we are discussing.

The Shiite/Bush fiasco was indeed horrible, but was it Bushs' intent before hand to have the Shiites killed, or was it a mistake in judgement? I worked around him for 3 1/2 years and can't see him doing that to intentionally start a purge.

Your examples are still strawmen. A better example would be to compare what happened to the mistaken story that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbour and let it happen so that public opinion would swing toward joining the ally effort in WW II.

quote:
Originally posted by clulup
P.S.: Your remark on Social Security ("Just because it appears to be working in Scandanavia doesn't mean it can work in a nation as big as the US") in another posting is illogical: the absolute size of a population has no influence. It is "only" a question of age distribution, of how long and how much people pay, and of how much they take out (as you mention yourself).

It is not illogical. when you see that Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and Norway) has approx. 24.3 Million people and estimated to rise to only 26.5 million by 2025, while the US has a population of approx. 287.4 million estimated to rise to 346 million by 2025 you can see the difference in size. Your mistake is to assume that these matters scale poportionately, when they don't. The US problems stem from the problems I mentioned and are excerbated by the sheer number of people involved. The two are also so disalike in so many other ways that trying to compare their SS systems is still like comparing apples and string beans.

Also I said "appears to work". Let those countries see a surge in population like the US has had to deal with and watch the cracks happen.

I also don't see how watching from outside lets you, or anyone, be unbiased. You just get a different bias.

gotta go to work - later

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by clulup on 04-15-2003 02:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Your examples of misdeeds don't even approach the level of horridness that fabricating a finding of a WMD would.

The Watergate bungling was not an issue because of the burglery, but because Nixon knew about it (the Des and Reps have a long history of dirty tricks towards each other).

The Iran/Contra debacle was also unethical and illegal, but also did not approach the level we are discussing.

The Shiite/Bush fiasco was indeed horrible, but was it Bushs' intent before hand to have the Shiites killed, or was it a mistake in judgement? I worked around him for 3 1/2 years and can't see him doing that to intentionally start a purge.

I do not find faking proof for WMD absolutely horrid. It would be simply cheating, not killing any additional people (fair enough, it would help in finding a reason for killing more people later, in case a reason for another war would needed again).

I do think my examples exceed the level of horridness of faking proof for WMD: Supporting South American dictators, being involved in the training of death squads, etc. is worse.

And also your excuse for Bush senior seems lame to me: I am not saying he wanted to have the Shiites killed. But it is clear that the Shiites started the revolution against Saddam because of what Bush said, and it is clear that they were killed because there was absolutely no support for them afterwards. The Sunnite Saudis (and others) had kindly informed Bush that they did not find support for the Shiites a good idea because of Shiite Iran. If Bush senior is too stupid or uneducated to know what his speeches may result in, and then does not stand up to his word, just saying "it was not his intention" is no excuse.

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

It is not illogical. when you see that Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and Norway) has approx. 24.3 Million people and estimated to rise to only 26.5 million by 2025, while the US has a population of approx. 287.4 million estimated to rise to 346 million by 2025 you can see the difference in size.

It is illogical. As you show, growth rates and even more age distribution are an important factor, not the absolute numbers. It makes no difference whether 10 Million pay and 20 Million take out, or 100 Million pay and 200 Million take out. In fact, it would even be slightly easier for the big country due to economies of scale. But it's ok, I don't expect you to admit it

Posted by clulup on 04-15-2003 03:37 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Well, some people were paranoid about Reagan too. You might remember the Berlin wall falling. Lots of East Europeans are enjoying freedom now because of his actions. Just like the Iraqi people will get to chart their own paths now.

You really think the Berlin wall fell and communism ended because of Reagan's action? That terribly simplistic.

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

[Social Security] can't work in a nation that's growing in size (and living longer). If you have less and less people putting in, and more and more people taking out (for longer and longer), it will fail.

That's wrong, too. "A nation is growing in size" means that more young people enter it - after all, people are not born at age 65, and also immigrants do not enter a nation after retirement, only to live from social security - I hope you can agree on that. Immigrants are additionally cool in the sense that they normally have more children, so that there are more payers. Which doesn't say anything about the social consequences. The problems start when a population STOPS growing, meaning the proportion of older (consuming, not paying) people rises.

The fact that people live longer is of course a problem. This has to be balanced by working (and hence paying) longer. That's the way we handle it here in Switzerland. Not that we don't have any problems, but most people think we can handle them.

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

....since everybody (in the Caymans) used to be about the same financially, and then were all able to take equal advantage of the money when it started becoming available (from real estate, tourism, banking jobs etc.) instead of having a history of landed gentry (like Jamaica does) helped to keep that gap from ever occurring [hence lower crime rate].

I really like this story. A while ago I read the results of some statistical survey (sorry, didn't find a referrence) saying that "how happy" people are on average quite strongly depends on the distribution of whealth, not so much on the absolute standard of living. This also seems true for the "rich" part of the population. If the distribution is bad, the rich are stressed out, too, because the crime rate is high and they are afraid of loosing their whealth.

However, I am aware of the fact that there are limits to how equal the distribution can be (I'm not a communist, not even socialist

). On the other hand, I am also sure the Bush administration is not doing a good job on keeping the balance. Definitely more on the Jamaica side.

Posted by K. Cannon on 04-15-2003 05:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
(even 10% in this mostly US populated forum, imagine if you would ask the same thing in a european forum? Or an Arab forum?)

You didn't give me the option to vote for "Planted there by the U.S. Government and good for them"

Posted by BobbyMike on 04-15-2003 10:23 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by clulup

I do not find faking proof for WMD absolutely horrid. It would be simply cheating, not killing any additional people (fair enough, it would help in finding a reason for killing more people later, in case a reason for another war would needed again).

I do think my examples exceed the level of horridness of faking proof for WMD: Supporting South American dictators, being involved in the training of death squads, etc. is worse.

You don't find it horrible? Interesting. As to your examples only one, the Iran-Contra affair approached it, but did not surpass it. Faking the WMD would be tatamount to admitting there never were any (WMD) and the US just went in because they could.

quote:
Originally posted by clulup
And also your excuse for Bush senior seems lame to me: I am not saying he wanted to have the Shiites killed. But it is clear that the Shiites started the revolution against Saddam because of what Bush said, and it is clear that they were killed because there was absolutely no support for them afterwards. The Sunnite Saudis (and others) had kindly informed Bush that they did not find support for the Shiites a good idea because of Shiite Iran. If Bush senior is too stupid or uneducated to know what his speeches may result in, and then does not stand up to his word, just saying "it was not his intention" is no excuse.

I wasn't offering an excuse I was illustrating two different things that could have happened. Making a mistake is different than purposely deceiving someone. The result was the same, but the proir intent is the moral difference.

quote:
Originally posted by clulup
It is illogical. As you show, growth rates and even more age distribution are an important factor, not the absolute numbers. It makes no difference whether 10 Million pay and 20 Million take out, or 100 Million pay and 200 Million take out. In fact, it would even be slightly easier for the big country due to economies of scale. But it's ok, I don't expect you to admit it .

I was pointing out the difference in numbers because it's much easier to see the cracks when it's a bigger system. And no it's not easier to manage because of "economies of scales", because economies of scales don't work with bureaucracies. In fact the inverse happens and they work less efficeintly because there are more layers between the decision makers and the recipients.
But it's ok, I don't expect you to admit it.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by BobbyMike on 04-15-2003 10:49 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by clulup

You really think the Berlin wall fell and communism ended because of Reagan's action? That terribly simplistic.

Not if you look at the facts.

quote:
Originally posted by clulup
That's wrong, too. "A nation is growing in size" means that more young people enter it - after all, people are not born at age 65, and also immigrants do not enter a nation after retirement, only to live from social security - I hope you can agree on that. Immigrants are additionally cool in the sense that they normally have more children, so that there are more payers. Which doesn't say anything about the social consequences. The problems start when a population STOPS growing, meaning the proportion of older (consuming, not paying) people rises.

The fact that people live longer is of course a problem. This has to be balanced by working (and hence paying) longer. That's the way we handle it here in Switzerland. Not that we don't have any problems, but most people think we can handle them.

Our problems (the cracks) are showing now because while we are still growing quickly, we had a post WWII boom (the Baby Boomers) who are now retiring. Unfortunately they didn't have enough kids, hence slower growth for a while and they are surprised and dismayed to find out that they are in trouble because there aren't enough workers going to able to pay for them. This means that the country will have to push some of that debt forward and my kids will have to pay for the Baby Boomers AND people my age.

As to the immigration issue, sure we can use more taxpaying workers, the problem arise when you get an influx of immigrants who also need social services like medical care and welfare. Thats more money out of the mix. It's one of the reasons Switzerland has a very restrictive immigration policy. It's one of the ways you "handle them".

quote:
Originally posted by clulup
I really like this story. A while ago I read the results of some statistical survey (sorry, didn't find a referrence) saying that "how happy" people are on average quite strongly depends on the distribution of whealth, not so much on the absolute standard of living. This also seems true for the "rich" part of the population. If the distribution is bad, the rich are stressed out, too, because the crime rate is high and they are afraid of loosing their whealth.

However, I am aware of the fact that there are limits to how equal the distribution can be (I'm not a communist, not even socialist ). On the other hand, I am also sure the Bush administration is not doing a good job on keeping the balance. Definitely more on the Jamaica side.

I forgot to mention another reason that I think there isn't a great big disparity in incomes in Cayman. Most of the people are very closely related to each other (and can very quickly determine how closely) and look out for each other. I don't know if that kind of social awareness could be duplicated in a country bigger than Cayman.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by BobbyMike on 04-15-2003 10:51 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

You didn't give me the option to vote for "Planted there by the U.S. Government and good for them"

Hahaha You very funny lady....

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by KRamsauer on 04-15-2003 11:00 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Faking the WMD would be tatamount to admitting there never were any (WMD) and the US just went in because they could.

That's not true at all. That's equivalent to saying after a mastectomy for what turns out to be a benign growth, the doctor did it just because he could. Discoveries after the fact cannot change the past. Intents are as they are. If you believe the US went in there just because they could, such belief has to hold regardless of WMD presence.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by BobbyMike on 04-16-2003 12:22 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
That's not true at all. That's equivalent to saying after a mastectomy for what turns out to be a benign growth, the doctor did it just because he could. Discoveries after the fact cannot change the past. Intents are as they are. If you believe the US went in there just because they could, such belief has to hold regardless of WMD presence.

I stand corrected. People will believe what they want.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by clulup on 04-16-2003 10:24 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Faking the WMD would be tatamount to admitting there never were any (WMD) and the US just went in because they could.

Of course the US did not go in just because they could.

They went in because it allows them to increase their power and influence in the middle east, a region which is of prime importance because of the strategic oil resources, specially for a country which uses such enormous quantities like the US (an average citizen in the US uses roughly twice as much oil per year as an average Swiss, and that's not because our standard of living is lower).

The region is also of utmost importance for Israel (for obvious reasons), and few people would claim that the jewish community is not of utmost importance for Bush. Apart from the money, look at the some of the chief strategists behind the war, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith at the Defence Department, Elliott Abrams at the National Security Council (as well as Ari Fleisher, Bush's voice at the White House).

The problem with all the WMD and Al Qaeda link rhetoric is that Wolfowitz et al. have published their thoughts long before the war, during the Clinton administration. And there, they made no secret about the true reasons: Power, control of the Middle East. Why don't you just accept it and - as a US citizen - enjoy the increase of power for the US?

It won't make the rest of the world like the US more, but who cares, you don't need the rest of the world.

Posted by BobbyMike on 04-16-2003 12:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by clulup

Of course the US did not go in just because they could.

They went in because it allows them to increase their power and influence in the middle east, a region which is of prime importance because of the strategic oil resources, specially for a country which uses such enormous quantities like the US (an average citizen in the US uses roughly twice as much oil per year as an average Swiss, and that's not because our standard of living is lower).

The region is also of utmost importance for Israel (for obvious reasons), and few people would claim that the jewish community is not of utmost importance for Bush. Apart from the money, look at the some of the chief strategists behind the war, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith at the Defence Department, Elliott Abrams at the National Security Council (as well as Ari Fleisher, Bush's voice at the White House).

The problem with all the WMD and Al Qaeda link rhetoric is that Wolfowitz et al. have published their thoughts long before the war, during the Clinton administration. And there, they made no secret about the true reasons: Power, control of the Middle East. Why don't you just accept it and - as a US citizen - enjoy the increase of power for the US?

It won't make the rest of the world like the US more, but who cares, you don't need the rest of the world.

Why don't you just admit that you hate and fear the US (and it appears Jews)? As you've pointed out who cares, the US don't need the rest of the world.

Your flaw in this "logic" is that we are already the most influential nation in the world. The problem with your blood for oil rhetoric is that it's just that, empty rhetoric, but now at least you've outed yourself as a paranoid racist.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by clulup on 04-16-2003 03:31 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Why don't you just admit that you hate and fear the US (and it appears Jews)? As you've pointed out who cares, the US don't need the rest of the world.

Don't start being silly.

I grew up in the US partly, it was a very enjoyable experience, and I am nowhere near hating the US. And why on earth should I fear them? I even agree with most things US governments have done so far, even with things Bush did, like invading Afghanistan (with UN mandate or not, who cares - it was the right thing to do).

I also lived and worked in a Kibbuz in Israel for a while. That was a very enjoyable experience, too, with lot's of jewish friends. That was in 1986, when most arab countries denied the right of existence to Israel. I was entirely on the side of Israel then. But things changed, the situation of Israel and the arabic world is completely different now. The way Israel acts since Rabin was killed is extremely unjust to the Palestinian people. Any people put in the situation the Palestinians are in would start suicide bombing sooner or later - that's no excuse for it, I am just saying: what else do you expect?

But feeling bad about the way the current Israeli government handles the situation certainly has nothing to do with hating Jews. It seems to be a frequent reaction: start saying something against the politics of Israel, and lot's of people will start shouting "you anit-Semitic racist, how dare you?". That's very easy.

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Your flaw in this "logic" is that we are already the most influential nation in the world. The problem with your blood for oil rhetoric is that it's just that, empty rhetoric, but now at least you've outed yourself as a paranoid racist.

Even the most infuential nation in the world can try becoming more influential, as it is currently the case. It is simply the Monroe Doctrine applied not only to the Americas, but to the whole world. Why don't you just read the stuff Wolfowitz et al. have written about what the US should do and why?

Calling me a paranoid racist is a very, very, very stupid statement since there is not a single racist remark in any of my postings. I guess it tells us more about yourself than about me.

Posted by yardie on 04-17-2003 02:15 AM:

Well the U.S. has secret agents and special forces all over the world doingc"weird" things (for lack of a better word). People are "paranpid" for a reason.

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

So you know him well enough to make that judgement?

How do we know if he didn't make that call and was ignored by the military.

How do we know that he's still alive?

The interesting thing, I think, about this issue is that there are actually people who think the US would "pull a rabbit" out of it's sleeve if proof isn't found.

Lot's of closed, paranoid, minds out there....

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:40 PM.

Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page