[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Yep, you are right. France. And maybe Spain depending on if you consider money and not troops support. Quite a coalition.

Scoff if you want, but that's all it took.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by Capt Shane:
...AND I WOULD CALL DEMOCRACY PREFERABLE to anyother system, it is the government of the people by the people... Tell me one better than that and why democracy it is popular by so many prospering countries?... americans are the bravest and hardest working people in the world we fight so harshly over politics cause we care about our country not because we hate it.

well, you seem alien to the concept of peer to peer relations... which are by all means preferable to the hiearchal and authoritarian nature of democracy... and I don't mean to sound b|thchy, but if it weren't for the effort put forth by the various corperate states to surpress every anarchist revolution that has come about, democracy wouldn't be so popular... and you've no premisis for calling americans more brave, then anyone else... are americans more brave then the indians they butchered because they were to cowerdly/fascist/stupid to raise there voice against it? are americans more brave then the VC who resisted them so fiercly? are americans more brave then the Zapata's who the US continues to arm the Mexican Army against?

[Isaac]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Yep, you are right. France. And maybe Spain depending on if you consider money and not troops support. Quite a coalition.

considering that Britian, Spain and France composed the top four, with India (for army anyways, and I may be wrong about the time frame anyways) for strongest army, and strongest navy at the time... yea, support from France and Spain does count as alot... also considering that the US also had some Indian allies ontop of there European ones... it would be much like today, Russia and China aiding the breakaway state, of say California, in there fight against the US....

[Isaac]

Originally posted by Capt Shane:
lol france has been the problem with this world for centuries

thats funny, cause when I read this within the context of being a response to the quotes, it seems you said that you wish the US lost it's revolution from Britian...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Yep, we have quite the history of making sure freedom is given to everyone who wants it and tolerance and acceptance of others are the norm.

Sorta like trashing, vandalizing, burglarizing, and shooting Bush-Cheney campaign offices? That type of tolerance? Like saying conservatives are stupid because they have different views than you - that kind of acceptance and tolerance?

[goMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Sorta like trashing, vandalizing, burglarizing, and shooting Bush-Cheney campaign offices? That type of tolerance? Like saying conservatives are stupid because they have different views than you - that kind of acceptance and tolerance?

I'd reply to your comment, but I'm running late for my 9:00 Bush Office Burning. Afterwards I'm going to go bust some windows out in the Vancouver Republican Headquarters...

I might get a chance to reply tomorrow.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Isaac:
... it would be much like today, Russia and China aiding the breakaway state, of say California, in there fight against the US.

Geographically speaking, Hawaii would be a better choice because of it's detachment from the continental US.

However, there's no real comparison w/today. Powered ships, these things called airplanes and jets, and nukes. The weaponry of that day consisted of canons and single-shot muskets. And communications technology... heck, if I recall correctly, word of the British surrender in the War of 1812 (Treaty of Ghent - Belgium) took more than a month to reach soldiers and militiamen who were still fighting here in the states.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by goMac:
I'd reply to your comment, but I'm running late for my 9:00 Bush Office Burning. Afterwards I'm going to go bust some windows out in the Vancouver Republican Headquarters...

I might get a chance to reply tomorrow.

That's funny.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Isaac:
considering that Britian, Spain and France composed the top four, with India (for army anyways, and I may be wrong about the time frame anyways) for strongest army, and strongest navy at the time... yea, support from France and Spain does count as alot... also considering that the US also had some Indian allies ontop of there European ones... it would be much like today, Russia and China aiding the breakaway state, of say California, in there fight against the US....

Indian allies?

Man, this thread is awful, even by pol/war lounge standards.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
A bunch. ALL of em. Too damn many.

Ooops, KarlG your argument indicates you need to wash your FUZZY FILTER.

Fuzzy logic
Inability to face reality

That was then. This is now. No connection. So, unless you want to go back in your time machine and right all those wrongs, then there's nothing that can be done.

As far as what we're doing in Iraq, you choose to believe the good peace loving people over there WANT to live under Saddam's tyranny or the al Qaeda's.

You like it so much?

YOU go and try it!

now, it would be illogical to bring up the US's prior policy towards the Cherokee etc, if there was any reason to belive that US policy has changed significantly over the years... now considering the US strong arming of Cuba after the Spanish American war, it's backing of a dictator in Cuba for several years, it's strong arming of the Phillipines and it's support for a dictator there for many years, and the US's support of Pincot, and the US support of Pol-Pot for more then a decade, and the US support of Saddam Hussein for two decades, there really doesn't seem to be a point in which the US has significantly reversed it's policys... now, once again, as I said this somewere else, why do you think that the US is trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, while it activly trys over throwing one in Venizwalia?... is it possible that "installing a democracy" is just a cover for other intrest, like, I don't know... oil!

[Isaac]

Originally posted by itai195:
Indian allies?

Man, this thread is awful, even by pol/war lounge standards.

would you rather I say native americans, which implys that they had some sort of magical tie to the nation that would rape, pillage and murder them then impose superfical boundrys several millena before that nation even exsisted?

[itai195]

Originally posted by Isaac:
would you rather I say native americans, which implys that they had some sort of magical tie to the nation that would rape, pillage and murder them then impose superfical boundrys several millena before that nation even exsisted?

Actually yes, as it certainly makes more sense than to call them Indians. But beyond that I'd prefer if you were factually accurate. Almost all Native Americans allied with the British during the American revolution.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Isaac:
would you rather I say native americans, which implys that they had some sort of magical tie to the nation that would rape, pillage and murder them then impose superfical boundrys several millena before that nation even exsisted?

Isaac, after reading some of your comments I conclude that YOU (of ALL people) should kiss the American Flag EVERY DAY you live here.

Your perception of the world reflects a melodramatic miasma of 1960's radical revolutionary (chic? no!) workers party propaganda.

Problem is, we're in the 21st Century. Patty Hearst was freed. Huey is dead. And your perceptions will continue to cause you to tilt at windmills, imaginary or not.

If you lived under ANY of the systems of government you seem to idolize and expressed those opinions, I could TRULY imagine your wishing you were back here in the good old US of A where your freedom of speech was PROTECTED.

I pray to GOD that He will watch over you and help you find love in your heart.

When you need a break from reading the collected sayings of Chairman Mao, try this book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

[OldManMac]

So that justified our massacres of the Indians in the western territories after the revolution?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Isaac:
... is it possible that "installing a democracy" is just a cover for other intrest, like, I don't know... oil!

And do you have a burro tied up outside for when you go to the store?

Do you have solar panels on the roof of your thatched hut?

We all need oil. What is the matter with making sure we have a continued supply of it?

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
If you consider THAT tripe eloquent, I feel sorry for your generation.

Forgive me if I don't bleed red, white, and blue.

Patriotism is fine in moderation. Unfortunately in excess it tends to produce a toxin that clouds judgement and rational thinking.

Is it illogical to think that the world would push on without a second thought if the U.S. were to cease to exist? Just as it would if any other country were to disappear?

[Rygar]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
And do you have a burro tied up outside for when you go to the store?

Do you have solar panels on the roof of your thatched hut?

We all need oil. What is the matter with making sure we have a continued supply of it?

It just sort of dissolves the altruistic facade that you parade around like our new flag.
"Hey who gave you your freedom? huh? huh b*tch who gave it to you?"

"....America...."

"Damn right America, now get those 100,000 barrels of the good stuff on my ship and get the hell outta my sight....oh and don't forget to vote."

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Myrkridia:
Forgive me if I don't bleed red, white, and blue.

Patriotism is fine in moderation. Unfortunately in excess it tends to produce a toxin that clouds judgement and rational thinking.

Is it illogical to think that the world would push on without a second thought if the U.S. were to cease to exist? Just as it would if any other country were to disappear?

Sure the world would push on. It would HAVE to.

BUT, the world would be worse off because of it.

There are also quite a few AMERICANS who would, seemingly, find ANY other country in the world a far more attractive place to live than anywhere in the USA. They HATE the USA and I say, MAKE EM LEAVE!

This is NOT to say a good, honest, patriotic American can't be critical. Far from it!

But the kind of criticism that comes from some people here is like a sickness, a kind of deep seated scary form of self-hatred turned outward.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Rygar:
It just sort of dissolves the altruistic facade that you parade around like our new flag.
"Hey who gave you your freedom? huh? huh b*tch who gave it to you?"

"....America...."

"Damn right America, now get those 100,000 barrels of the good stuff on my ship and get the hell outta my sight....oh and don't forget to vote."

No. That is a simplistic and cynical view.

You have a job, yes?

You get paid for your work, yes?

Can you enjoy your work? Yes.

Can you enjoy your co-workers? Yes.

Can you enjoy your clients/customers? Yes.

You can do something good and helpful and enjoy it even though you also have a monetary motivation.

It happens all the time. Nothing wrong with doing GOOD and doing WELL.

When you go out bar hopping next weekend and you pick up a girl, you CAN enjoy yourself while talking and drinking with her, and you CAN like her as a person AND you can enjoy having sex with her.

Try it. You might like it!

[goMac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
No. That is a simplistic and cynical view.

You have a job, yes?

You get paid for your work, yes?

Can you enjoy your work? Yes.

Can you enjoy your co-workers? Yes.

Can you enjoy your clients/customers? Yes.

You can do something good and helpful and enjoy it even though you also have a monetary motivation.

It happens all the time. Nothing wrong with doing GOOD and doing WELL.

When you go out bar hopping next weekend and you pick up a girl, you CAN enjoy yourself while talking and drinking with her, and you CAN like her as a person AND you can enjoy having sex with her.

Try it. You might like it!

You so badly missed his point...

[Mrjinglesusa]

"We are right. Our culture, our way of life and liberty is the RIGHT way. We are here to HELP you."

We honor the sacrifices our soldiers are making, they are dying EVERY DAY to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to a country that yearns to breathe free. Those people have never known God's gift of freedom and we are doing His work to help them receive GOD'S GIFT. Their future would NOT be free without our assistance.

Also, once freedom takes root in a country, people throughout the region see how it works and they want it for themselves. This will help bring peace and freedom to the world.

Let's revisit this change Abeerdeenwriter made to a post of mine. The above quote are his words. So, my question is this: Who's next? Since the original justifications for war have been blown out of the water, everyone who supports it, including Bush have changed their stance to the above. We are now bringing freedom and democracy to others. So, who do we help now? Let us look at the options:

1) North Korea - Part of the "Axis of Evil", clearly have WMDs, run by a dictator. They would be a good start.

2) Iran - Another member of the "Axis of Evil", probably has WMDs (we don't need proof anyway), surely they yearn for God's gift of freedom.

3) Cuba - Communist, run by a dictator, yearn for freedom

4) Libya - Probably harbor terrorists, Middle East, need democracy

I think that would be a start in helping the world accept freedom and democracy. Once we are done with them, we can start on China. What do you think Abeerdeen? Is that a good list of countries you think we should bring "freedom and democracy" to? If not, why? You said yourself it is the job of the U.S. to bring freedom and democracy to countries who want it.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by itai195:
Actually yes, as it certainly makes more sense than to call them Indians. But beyond that I'd prefer if you were factually accurate. Almost all Native Americans allied with the British during the American revolution.

never said that all Indians, or more Indians only that there were some....

[Isaac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Isaac, after reading some of your comments I conclude that YOU (of ALL people) should kiss the American Flag EVERY DAY you live here.

Your perception of the world reflects a melodramatic miasma of 1960's radical revolutionary (chic? no!) workers party propaganda.

Problem is, we're in the 21st Century. Patty Hearst was freed. Huey is dead. And your perceptions will continue to cause you to tilt at windmills, imaginary or not.

If you lived under ANY of the systems of government you seem to idolize and expressed those opinions, I could TRULY imagine your wishing you were back here in the good old US of A where your freedom of speech was PROTECTED.

I pray to GOD that He will watch over you and help you find love in your heart.

When you need a break from reading the collected sayings of Chairman Mao, try this book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

it's really amazing that your post doesn't at all in any way address what you are quoting.

it's also really amazing that I've not expressed endorsement of any form of government, yet you say that I "idolize" some other form of government.

Then you wish to imply that I'm a state socialist, which is also incorrect and baseless

and you've further failed to refute anything I've posted, all you've done is use petty insult, it's really sad. And I don't think you've addressed anything that I've said the first time I said it either... that's all so funny...

[Isaac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
And do you have a burro tied up outside for when you go to the store?

Do you have solar panels on the roof of your thatched hut?

We all need oil. What is the matter with making sure we have a continued supply of it?

so you admit that US intrest in Iraq has nothing to do with democracy, it's just for oil?

[Isaac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Sure the world would push on. It would HAVE to.

BUT, the world would be worse off because of it.

There are also quite a few AMERICANS who would, seemingly, find ANY other country in the world a far more attractive place to live than anywhere in the USA. They HATE the USA and I say, MAKE EM LEAVE!

This is NOT to say a good, honest, patriotic American can't be critical. Far from it!

But the kind of criticism that comes from some people here is like a sickness, a kind of deep seated scary form of self-hatred turned outward.

first off, no one has a right to tell me what to do, only I do. It's my right to stay here if I want, or leave here if I want. and no, I don't hate the USA, I don't feel any hate, it doesn't do anything. and, buddy, you aren't honest, so why the **** don't you get out?... or maybe you really are as stupid as you seem...

you can't fight for freedom you can only fight to assert it.

[Dakar]

You need to learn to edit or condense your posts -- unless you really like Simey's stars.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by goMac:
You so badly missed his point...

Betcha I didn't, brainiac.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Sure they should, if they want them and want to fight for them LIKE WE DID. Anyone come to help us fight for OUR freedom? Didn't think so.

In the case of "American Freedom" the French helped us.
But we hate them now so they don't count ...

But I do agree with what you are saying, if they want it badly enough they can fight for it. If they are too scared, or too lazy then that's their own problem.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Sure the world would push on. It would HAVE to.

BUT, the world would be worse off because of it.

There are also quite a few AMERICANS who would, seemingly, find ANY other country in the world a far more attractive place to live than anywhere in the USA. They HATE the USA and I say, MAKE EM LEAVE!

This is NOT to say a good, honest, patriotic American can't be critical. Far from it!

But the kind of criticism that comes from some people here is like a sickness, a kind of deep seated scary form of self-hatred turned outward.

Your first part is speculation. There may be a brief period of chaos or unrest because America is a big contributer to commerce. However, the world is not now, nor has ever been so dependant on a SINGLE republic.

Do you honestly believe that Americans who leave the U.S. to start a family or life in another country hate America? How arrorgant and paranoid are you?

People have a right to criticize this nation. What is the first amendment for anyhow? Just because we don't do in YOUR fashion (which is see the glass more than half full, America is 99.9999999% AWESOME! with only tiny tiny minuscule flaws) you see it fit to wag your finger and say "Why can't you be a good patriotic apple pie loving American?"

[Rygar]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
No. That is a simplistic and cynical view.

You can do something good and helpful and enjoy it even though you also have a monetary motivation.

It happens all the time. Nothing wrong with doing GOOD and doing WELL.

It may be simple and cynical but it's accurate.

Doing something good for monetary motivation is called having an alterior motive. Which goes back to the whole facade thing.
A good deed that is motivated by self interest isn't a good deed at all. It's a deception.

If I help an old lady with her yard work because she's old and I want to do it, that's a good deed. If I help her with her yard work because she has money, and is known for generously tipping the help..does that cheapen my "good deed" in my opinion yes.

When you go out bar hopping next weekend and you pick up a girl, you CAN enjoy yourself while talking and drinking with her, and you CAN like her as a person AND you can enjoy having sex with her.

Try it. You might like it!

Picking up an easy, slut of a woman in a bar for a one night stand so I can catch V.D... Wow, that sure sounds tempting, but I gotta say not really my idea of a good time. And it doesn't really explain how doing that would be a good deed

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Rygar:
It may be simple and cynical but it's accurate.

Doing something good for monetary motivation is called having an alterior motive. Which goes back to the whole facade thing.
A good deed that is motivated by self interest isn't a good deed at all. It's a deception.

If I help an old lady with her yard work because she's old and I want to do it, that's a good deed. If I help her with her yard work because she has money, and is known for generously tipping the help..does that cheapen my "good deed" in my opinion yes.



Picking up an easy, slut of a woman in a bar for a one night stand so I can catch V.D... Wow, that sure sounds tempting, but I gotta say not really my idea of a good time. And it doesn't really explain how doing that would be a good deed [/B]

You are doing what's called, "self-referencing." Ascribing to others your own thoughts, feelings, reasons and motivations.

Imagine a world where millions of people don't think the way you do. Millions do, but millions don't.

The first time I experienced this was in the Army. There, I met people from different parts of the country who thought quite differently than I.

BTW, it's called an ULTERIOR motive.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ulterior%20motive

Adj. 1. ulterior - lying beyond what is openly revealed or avowed (especially being kept in the background or deliberately concealed); "subterranean motives for murder"; "looked too closely for an ulterior purpose in all knowledge"- Bertrand Russell

covert - secret or hidden; not openly practiced or engaged in or shown or avowed; "covert actions by the CIA"; "covert funding for the rebels"

Another thing, science & philosophy agree that ANY AND EVERY good deed has an ulterior motive. It makes the giver feel good.

(Think of giving Christmas gifts.)

Is it wrong to derive pleasure from giving? No. Is it wrong for a doctor, who saves lives, to be paid? No. Is he/she doing good for his/her patients and doesn't the doctor genuinely want them to be healthy? Yes.

You seem to believe that you only have one reason for doing anything. I would assert there is seldom anything we do in life for only ONE reason.

Why do you get out of bed?
Or brush your teeth?
Eat?
Maintain or otherwise take care of your car?

Is a woman a slut just because she wants to enjoy your company and a night of passion?

If so, what would that make you if you wanted the same thing?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Myrkridia:
Your first part is speculation. There may be a brief period of chaos or unrest because America is a big contributer to commerce. However, the world is not now, nor has ever been so dependant on a SINGLE republic.

Do you honestly believe that Americans who leave the U.S. to start a family or life in another country hate America? How arrorgant and paranoid are you?

People have a right to criticize this nation. What is the first amendment for anyhow? Just because we don't do in YOUR fashion (which is see the glass more than half full, America is 99.9999999% AWESOME! with only tiny tiny minuscule flaws) you see it fit to wag your finger and say "Why can't you be a good patriotic apple pie loving American?"

I would LOVE to see the world better appreciate America's contribution. If we adopted an isolationist policy it would be funny to see the all the nations come begging to us. But this is very unlikely to happen.

As far as your next point, uh, I believe your Liberal Fuzzy Filter needs cleaning.

Inability to interpret accurately
Twisting opponents argument
Failure to read thoroughly

I never said: Americans who leave the U.S. to start a family or life in another country hate America...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Beewee:
In the case of "American Freedom" the French helped us.
But we hate them now so they don't count ...

But I do agree with what you are saying, if they want it badly enough they can fight for it. If they are too scared, or too lazy then that's their own problem.

The French had something to gain by helping the colonists break free from England. We have interests that are furthered by helping Iraq become a free sovereign nation.

There were several attempts to overthrow Saddam, which he crushed. It's in our interest and the world's interest, to help the people of Iraq form their government and rebuild their country.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Isaac:
first off, no one has a right to tell me what to do, only I do. It's my right to stay here if I want, or leave here if I want. and no, I don't hate the USA, I don't feel any hate, it doesn't do anything. and, buddy, you aren't honest, so why the **** don't you get out?... or maybe you really are as stupid as you seem...

you can't fight for freedom you can only fight to assert it.

Sorry, but I wasn't talking TO you or ABOUT you in that post.

And if I WERE stupid, I'd do my best to hide it (or change it) instead of calling attention to it to dozens of people on these pages.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Isaac:
so you admit that US intrest in Iraq has nothing to do with democracy, it's just for oil?

The oil is important. Democracy in the ME is important. Freeing the people is important. Denying the terrorists a safe haven is important. Eliminating the hate there for the US is important. Creating a new trading partner is important.

This is not a personal criticism but this argument reminds me of the reason they give BIG OL pencils and crayons to kids in elementary school.

Very Simple Ideas seem to be as much as you can handle at this point in your development. Black & White. Either/Or equations.

There's nothing wrong with that. Just recognize that complexity of thought will be a wonderful new world for you to explore someday, somewhere down the road.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Isaac:
it's really amazing that your post doesn't at all in any way address what you are quoting.

it's also really amazing that I've not expressed endorsement of any form of government, yet you say that I "idolize" some other form of government.

Then you wish to imply that I'm a state socialist, which is also incorrect and baseless

and you've further failed to refute anything I've posted, all you've done is use petty insult, it's really sad. And I don't think you've addressed anything that I've said the first time I said it either... that's all so funny...

Yeah, you're right. I was hoping you'd respond by telling me what you actually DO believe.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Let's revisit this change Abeerdeenwriter made to a post of mine. The above quote are his words. So, my question is this: Who's next? Since the original justifications for war have been blown out of the water, everyone who supports it, including Bush have changed their stance to the above. We are now bringing freedom and democracy to others. So, who do we help now? Let us look at the options:

1) North Korea - Part of the "Axis of Evil", clearly have WMDs, run by a dictator. They would be a good start.

2) Iran - Another member of the "Axis of Evil", probably has WMDs (we don't need proof anyway), surely they yearn for God's gift of freedom.

3) Cuba - Communist, run by a dictator, yearn for freedom

4) Libya - Probably harbor terrorists, Middle East, need democracy

I think that would be a start in helping the world accept freedom and democracy. Once we are done with them, we can start on China. What do you think Abeerdeen? Is that a good list of countries you think we should bring "freedom and democracy" to? If not, why? You said yourself it is the job of the U.S. to bring freedom and democracy to countries who want it.

FUZZY FILTER ALERT!!!

Fuzzy Logic
Inability to interpret accurately
Twisting opponents argument
Failure to read thoroughly

Here's what I said:

"Just remember this. The United States of America is the leader of the FREE world. We are the ones who step in, when the other nations of the world won't or can't, to help ease misery and spread freedom globally.

We spend our money to help the oppressed in the world, we commit our might and power to oppose evil.

We fight and die so that others might also realize for themselves the ideals and principles that makes America the bright shining light to all.

We are not perfect. We never said we were. But, if America isn't around, strong and proud to lead the free world, who will help the weak? When there are droughts and floods, earthquakes and famines, who will be there to help? Who will oppose evil? Who will fight to spread freedom?

I thank God I'm an American."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said it was OUR JOB. I implied that no one else even bothers to fight for the freedoms of others without our leading the way.

The other point is that our efforts to help spread freedom is ALWAYS on a case by case basis. When we have other vital interests at stake (oil is a good one) and we can ALSO stand up for liberty, I maintain that we should.

Time will tell which of these countries MIGHT be next. It is naive for you to even think in these terms.

[Rygar]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You are doing what's called, "self-referencing." Ascribing to others your own thoughts, feelings, reasons and motivations.

Imagine a world where millions of people don't think the way you do. Millions do, but millions don't.

The first time I experienced this was in the Army. There, I met people from different parts of the country who thought quite differently than I.

BTW, it's called an ULTERIOR motive.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ulterior%20motive

Adj. 1. ulterior - lying beyond what is openly revealed or avowed (especially being kept in the background or deliberately concealed); "subterranean motives for murder"; "looked too closely for an ulterior purpose in all knowledge"- Bertrand Russell

covert - secret or hidden; not openly practiced or engaged in or shown or avowed; "covert actions by the CIA"; "covert funding for the rebels"

Another thing, science & philosophy agree that ANY AND EVERY good deed has an ulterior motive. It makes the giver feel good.

(Think of giving Christmas gifts.)

Is it wrong to derive pleasure from giving? No. Is it wrong for a doctor, who saves lives, to be paid? No. Is he/she doing good for his/her patients and doesn't the doctor genuinely want them to be healthy? Yes.

You seem to believe that you only have one reason for doing anything. I would assert there is seldom anything we do in life for only ONE reason.

Why do you get out of bed?
Or brush your teeth?
Eat?
Maintain or otherwise take care of your car?

Is a woman a slut just because she wants to enjoy your company and a night of passion?

If so, what would that make you if you wanted the same thing?

I have no idea what your service in the military has to do with what we're talking about, and I have no idea what other people having different points of view has to do with what we're talking about.

The only thing that philosophy proves is that you very rarely encounter a true good deed. What I mean by a true good deed, is an act that results in doing something that society considers "nice" and not only do you not get anything out of the act, but you sometimes get screwed in the process.

Here's a good example: It's labor day weekend. I'm riding with my family going home after seeing relatives. We see some motorists on the road and my mom stops the car to help them out. They had called a tow truck, but they had been waiting for a few hours, so she decides to drive the mother and father to a service station. We go 40 miles out of our way to get to the nearest station. The father offers to fill up our gas tank for our trouble, my mom refuses. We then proceed to drive the mother another 40 miles back to wait by the car with her kids. When we finally get near home, it's late, we're tired, angry, and hungry. There are no restaurants open because they all closed early due to the holiday. We get home to crappy leftovers, and if I could do it all over again and have my way, I'd have left them there.

If you want to continue to believe that America is this great, giving, benevolent nation that rights wrongs and triumphs over evil. Hey, knock yourself out. Just don't expect me on your side any time soon.

Is a woman a slut for having a one night stand, in my opinion yes she is. And what does that make me if I do it? Well I've never had sex for the sake of sex so I guess I wouldn't know.


Oh, and please forgive me for misspelling "ulterior" in my last post.
I'm sorry that I exposed you and the readers of Macnn to such grammatical incorrectness.

And if you want to keep throwing pointless crap into your argument in an attempt to make mine invalid, how about pointing out my low post count next time.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The oil is important. Democracy in the ME is important. Freeing the people is important. Denying the terrorists a safe haven is important. Eliminating the hate there for the US is important. Creating a new trading partner is important.

This is not a personal criticism but this argument reminds me of the reason they give BIG OL pencils and crayons to kids in elementary school.

Very Simple Ideas seem to be as much as you can handle at this point in your development. Black & White. Either/Or equations.

There's nothing wrong with that. Just recognize that complexity of thought will be a wonderful new world for you to explore someday, somewhere down the road.

I asked you to explain why the US is trying to over throw a democracy in Venizwalia and why you belive it is at the same time sincearly trying to establish a democracy in Iraq... you responded with "we need oil"... which seemed to dismiss the whole "democracy building" thing....

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Yeah, you're right. I was hoping you'd respond by telling me what you actually DO believe.

I belive all people are equal, and I belive that all people are peers. I belive that force is not an acceptable tool in relations. taking this to it's logical conclusion, I belive in anarchy



anyways, it's really been fun (well, maybe not fun exactly), but I may have difficulty getting on-line again soon for reasons... I respond to all email I receive, even if just to tell you never to email me again; if you think I'm just using this as an excuse to not reply, email me and when you don't get a reply from there either, you'll know otherwise (assuming you belive that I reply to all email)...


this post probably contains alot of errors, I've edited it several times to get rid of them, but I'm guessing I'm tired, so that may be difficult...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Rygar:
I have no idea what your service in the military has to do with what we're talking about, and I have no idea what other people having different points of view has to do with what we're talking about.

The only thing that philosophy proves is that you very rarely encounter a true good deed. What I mean by a true good deed, is an act that results in doing something that society considers "nice" and not only do you not get anything out of the act, but you sometimes get screwed in the process.

Here's a good example: It's labor day weekend. I'm riding with my family going home after seeing relatives. We see some motorists on the road and my mom stops the car to help them out. They had called a tow truck, but they had been waiting for a few hours, so she decides to drive the mother and father to a service station. We go 40 miles out of our way to get to the nearest station. The father offers to fill up our gas tank for our trouble, my mom refuses. We then proceed to drive the mother another 40 miles back to wait by the car with her kids. When we finally get near home, it's late, we're tired, angry, and hungry. There are no restaurants open because they all closed early due to the holiday. We get home to crappy leftovers, and if I could do it all over again and have my way, I'd have left them there.

If you want to continue to believe that America is this great, giving, benevolent nation that rights wrongs and triumphs over evil. Hey, knock yourself out. Just don't expect me on your side any time soon.

Is a woman a slut for having a one night stand, in my opinion yes she is. And what does that make me if I do it? Well I've never had sex for the sake of sex so I guess I wouldn't know.


Oh, and please forgive me for misspelling "ulterior" in my last post.
I'm sorry that I exposed you and the readers of Macnn to such grammatical incorrectness.

And if you want to keep throwing pointless crap into your argument in an attempt to make mine invalid, how about pointing out my low post count next time.

Thanks for your reply.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Isaac:
I asked you to explain why the US is trying to over throw a democracy in Venizwalia and why you belive it is at the same time sincearly trying to establish a democracy in Iraq... you responded with "we need oil"... which seemed to dismiss the whole "democracy building" thing....




I belive all people are equal, and I belive that all people are peers. I belive that force is not an acceptable tool in relations. taking this to it's logical conclusion, I belive in anarchy



anyways, it's really been fun, but I may have difficulty getting on-line against soon for reasons... I respond to all email I receive, even if just to tell you never to email me again; if you think I'm just using this as an excuse to not reply, email me and when you don't get a reply from there either, you'll know otherwise (assuming you belive that I reply to all email)...

Please support your assertion that the US is trying to overthrow a democracy in Venezuela. Got links?

Noun 1. anarchy - a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)

Wouldn't a belief in anarchy contradict your stated belief that, "force is not an acceptable tool in relations?"

Unless you envision anarchy as millions of Americans playing hooky from school, loitering, jaywalking and spitting on the ground.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The French had something to gain by helping the colonists break free from England. We have interests that are furthered by helping Iraq become a free sovereign nation.

There were several attempts to overthrow Saddam, which he crushed. It's in our interest and the world's interest, to help the people of Iraq form their government and rebuild their country.

Ours not the worlds. We are the ones handing out big defense contracts without doing some kind of bidding process. This war has been about money from the start. All the crap about WMDs and Iraqi Freedom are just excuses that our leaders cooked up to get the world to ignore that we invaded another country, changed their government, put american troops in danger...for nothing other than money. The only reason we are their is BECAUSE we are getting something out of it. We wouldn't be delivering "freedom" to these people if they didn't have something we wanted.

France helped us only after Benjamin Franklin went over there as an American diplomat. He pleaded our case. We have yet to receive an Iraqi diplomat over here to ask for our help. They don't want our way of life. And for us to force it on them makes us no different than Hitler's 3rd Reich. They also believed to be doing God's work in killing Jews.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
FUZZY FILTER ALERT!!!

Fuzzy Logic
Inability to interpret accurately
Twisting opponents argument
Failure to read thoroughly

Here's what I said:

"Just remember this. The United States of America is the leader of the FREE world. We are the ones who step in, when the other nations of the world won't or can't, to help ease misery and spread freedom globally.

We spend our money to help the oppressed in the world, we commit our might and power to oppose evil.

We fight and die so that others might also realize for themselves the ideals and principles that makes America the bright shining light to all.

We are not perfect. We never said we were. But, if America isn't around, strong and proud to lead the free world, who will help the weak? When there are droughts and floods, earthquakes and famines, who will be there to help? Who will oppose evil? Who will fight to spread freedom?

I thank God I'm an American."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said it was OUR JOB. I implied that no one else even bothers to fight for the freedoms of others without our leading the way.

The other point is that our efforts to help spread freedom is ALWAYS on a case by case basis. When we have other vital interests at stake (oil is a good one) and we can ALSO stand up for liberty, I maintain that we should.

Time will tell which of these countries MIGHT be next. It is naive for you to even think in these terms.

Nice try. What I quoted were your words. You changed my post to reflect your point of view and that is what I posted. It's naive of you to think this administration will not go after one of those countries next. It's just a matter of time.

[Spliffdaddy]

I hope we go after *all* those countries.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I hope we go after *all* those countries.

WWIII, I'm up for that...

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Ours not the worlds. We are the ones handing out big defense contracts without doing some kind of bidding process. This war has been about money from the start. All the crap about WMDs and Iraqi Freedom are just excuses that our leaders cooked up to get the world to ignore that we invaded another country, changed their government, put american troops in danger...for nothing other than money. The only reason we are their is BECAUSE we are getting something out of it. We wouldn't be delivering "freedom" to these people if they didn't have something we wanted.

France helped us only after Benjamin Franklin went over there as an American diplomat. He pleaded our case. We have yet to receive an Iraqi diplomat over here to ask for our help. They don't want our way of life. And for us to force it on them makes us no different than Hitler's 3rd Reich. They also believed to be doing God's work in killing Jews.

Wow, you really are making too much sense to be posting in here.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I would LOVE to see the world better appreciate America's contribution. If we adopted an isolationist policy it would be funny to see the all the nations come begging to us. But this is very unlikely to happen.

You're right it is unlikely that the nations of the world would start "begging." Quite frankly I believe the a major portion of the world is sick of us sticking our noses into the affairs of other nations with complete and total disregard for their culture, customs, government, and overall way of life.

As far as your next point, uh, I believe your Liberal Fuzzy Filter needs cleaning.

Inability to interpret accurately
Twisting opponents argument
Failure to read thoroughly

I never said: Americans who leave the U.S. to start a family or life in another country hate America...

I read your post very thoroughly. You said "There are also quite a few AMERICANS who would, seemingly, find ANY other country in the world a far more attractive place to live than anywhere in the USA. They HATE the USA and I say, MAKE EM LEAVE!"

Which to me sounds like if I say "Wow, Canada has a government controlled health care!" "Man I sure wish I lived there instead of getting screwed by the HMOs over here." that to YOU not only am I being a bad American, but I also hate this country and should therefore be removed from it by force.

I really don't see anything wrong with finding greener pastures else where.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Ours not the worlds. We are the ones handing out big defense contracts without doing some kind of bidding process. This war has been about money from the start. All the crap about WMDs and Iraqi Freedom are just excuses that our leaders cooked up to get the world to ignore that we invaded another country, changed their government, put american troops in danger...for nothing other than money. The only reason we are their is BECAUSE we are getting something out of it. We wouldn't be delivering "freedom" to these people if they didn't have something we wanted.

France helped us only after Benjamin Franklin went over there as an American diplomat. He pleaded our case. We have yet to receive an Iraqi diplomat over here to ask for our help. They don't want our way of life. And for us to force it on them makes us no different than Hitler's 3rd Reich. They also believed to be doing God's work in killing Jews.

Ok, all you liberals. Clean out your Fuzzy Filters so you can understand the following dose of CLEAR THINKING pragmatism.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15422


On Iraq, It's Important to Ask the Right Questions
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 8, 2004

A favorite slogan of the antiwar crowd is, �War is not the answer.� Yet everyone, except extreme pacifists would agree that whether war is in fact the answer depends on the question. In some contexts, war is the answer.

The same may be said for the two questions that dominate the current presidential campaign. Are we safer now than we were on 9/11? Was the war in Iraq a mistake? Supporters of President Bush will answer yes to the first and no to the second; supporters of Senator Kerry will take the opposite view.
As a supporter of the war and of the president, I have noticed a common omission in the arguments of the naysayers: This is their failure to look at the side of the equation that our enemies control.
_
Defending Senator Kerry�s contention that this was �the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,� William Saletan writes in a recent Slate.com: �How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? That�s what it all comes down to � this debate, this war, this election.�
_
As Saletan shows, it�s easy to argue � if one looks simply at the costs of the war and at its present status � that it was. The war has not been won. A thousand Americans, and many more Iraqis have died. Iraq is a mess. The price tag for the mess is $200 billion. How can it not have been a mistake?
_
This calculation, however, omits two crucial ledger columns: the cost of having not fought the war at all and the gains that can be achieved by continuing the war until it is won.
_
If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would be in command of an al-Qaeda army in northern Iraq; the UN�s, 17th resolution ordering Saddam to comply or else would have been successfully defied, the largest chemical weapons factory in the Third World, in Libya, would still be humming along with an advanced nuclear weapons plant (both now shut down). And what would the forces of terror � the Zarqawis and Zawahiris � be doing in the face of another toothless appeasement by the world community? That, of course, is the question that Saletan and Kerry � and those who agree with them � cannot answer.
_
To be fair, they have made a stab at one. In the first presidential debate Kerry said that the Iraq war was a �diversion� from the War on Terror (though he did not explain how Zarqawi, who is based in Iraq, could be hunted down by a war in Afghanistan). As for Iraq, �We would have had sanctions. We would have had the UN inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.� But the only reason there were UN inspectors in Iraq was because the Bush administration put 200,000 troops on the Iraqi border in preparation for a showdown and that forced Saddam to allow them in. Does anyone really imagine that we could have kept 200,000 American soldiers in the desert indefinitely while Saddam Hussein played the same cat-and-mouse game with the inspectors that he had been playing since in 1991? Or that he would have been weakened by our failure to act on a deadline the Security Council had unanimously endorsed? Can anyone really believe that sanctions were a feasible stick with which to weaken Saddam Hussein when he was able to breach them by getting the UN to support a $50 billion �Oil-for-Food� program that undercut the sanctions� effect while allowing him to illegally skim 20 percent of the entire program for his personal uses, including the bribing of French, Russian and German politicians to protect his deadly assets?
_
Was the Iraq war a diversion? Senator Kerry thinks we should have put all our troops into the effort to hunt down Osama bin Laden. But bin Laden is probably dead, and three quarters of his top leadership has been decapitated. Bin Laden hasn�t been visible since his alleged escape from the caves of Tora Bora. He hasn�t been able to mount an attack inside the United States in three years. The most recent al-Qaeda threat comes in the name of Al-Zawahiri his second in command. The most important and destructive terrorist alive today is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And he�s in Iraq.
_
Yes, we are safer today because of the wars conducted by the Bush administration than we would have been had our troops stayed home or only in Afghanistan. It is true as the opponents of the president point out, that there is a lot of mayhem in Iraq, and there are a lot of threats in the world. But the mayhem in Iraq is the disarray of the terrorist forces, which is good, and the war itself is the only language they understand. The Shi�ite imam, Moqtada al-Sadr, is now seeking to lay down his arms and become a candidate in the upcoming elections. That is the victory we seek. That is the persuasive power of military force, and the argument for staying the course, and for keeping this president in office.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Ok, all you liberals. Clean out your Fuzzy Filters so you can understand the following dose of CLEAR THINKING pragmatism.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15422

Oh, my God.. Now THAT was tripe!

Here's why:
First it's the writtings of a man who clearly states in the beginning
his bias toward the "War on Terror" Bush, and Kerry. If I have an Adam Sandler movie that needs to be reviewed, I don't stick someone on it who can't stand Adam Sandler, nor do I get a review from someone who loves Adam Sandler. You need someone objective, which this guy ain't.

The same may be said for the two questions that dominate the current presidential campaign. Are we safer now than we were on 9/11? Was the war in Iraq a mistake? Supporters of President Bush will answer yes to the first and no to the second; supporters of Senator Kerry will take the opposite view.

Now he's labelling Bush and Kerry supporters into two groups. He obviously sees things in black and white. I'm sure there are Bush supporters who don't think the war was all that great, just as I believe there are Kerry supporters who believe it was necessary.

As Saletan shows, it�s easy to argue � if one looks simply at the costs of the war and at its present status � that it was. The war has not been won. A thousand Americans, and many more Iraqis have died. Iraq is a mess. The price tag for the mess is $200 billion. How can it not have been a mistake?

This calculation, however, omits two crucial ledger columns: the cost of having not fought the war at all and the gains that can be achieved by continuing the war until it is won.

If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would be in command of an al-Qaeda army in northern Iraq; the UN�s, 17th resolution ordering Saddam to comply or else would have been successfully defied, the largest chemical weapons factory in the Third World, in Libya, would still be humming along with an advanced nuclear weapons plant (both now shut down). And what would the forces of terror � the Zarqawis and Zawahiris � be doing in the face of another toothless appeasement by the world community? That, of course, is the question that Saletan and Kerry � and those who agree with them � cannot answer.

The only thing that makes sense in this statement is "If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power"
I don't know David Horowitz. I don't know what kind of credentials he has. I don't know his connections, nor do I know what sources he used for the information above. Because he didn't post any.
I particularly love this line: "another toothless appeasement by the world community?" once again propagating his love for America and contempt for the rest of world because they're spineless cowards. He even has the nerve to accuse nameless politicians of other nations for aiding Saddam Hussein in concealing his WMDs. Once again with no proof what so ever.

In his conclusion it would have saved time if he just wrote, "And that's why I like Bush."
Yet he says, "It is true as the opponents of the president point out, that there is a lot of mayhem in Iraq, and there are a lot of threats in the world. But the mayhem in Iraq is the disarray of the terrorist forces, which is good, and the war itself is the only language they understand."

What he neglects to even touch on is that the mayhem in Iraq is what's killing our troops to begin with.
So all this is, is an opinionated article from an ardent Bush supporter. An opinionated paper is fine so long as it has facts to back up the opinion, and sources to back up the facts, which this does not.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Myrkridia:
I don't know David Horowitz. I don't know what kind of credentials he has. I don't know his connections, nor do I know what sources he used for information above. Because he didn't post any

One thing is for sure: David Horowitz is no clear-thinking pragmatist! He's a well-known ultra-conservative 'journalist' and author.