[argod]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<STRONG>

My point exactly but clearly you have no intention of abiding by this principle. You've been showering the U.S. with stones pretty much nonstop.</STRONG>

WT, your point. your don't have a point. I asked you to give
examples of dishonest or unfair criticism. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Unlike you I can argue about a subject even though I don't agree with it. Obviously you have no clue about the quote and I won't bother explain it to you.

your only reference is sudan. I have not really look into it before so here goes. Is slavery the issue or is it that Islamic regime is persecuting christian minority. Why was it nothing done during the genocide in Rwanda because there was no US interest there. When the US bombed the only pharmaceutical factory, did they apologize when no evidence of chemical weapon was found.
If your only standing is that US is better than Sudan at the present time in history. Then you win one point but a very weak point.

But, what do you consider H1B visa, I call it slavery.
Who built the railroad in america, How was imported to work on the sugar fields of caribbean. Force labor imported from china and india after slavery was banned. US way of life is sustained through migrant worker who
pick all the fruits and vegetable, cleans the offices, washes the dishes. Look how Europe is having to people from other countries to do all the menial jobs and because they have a negative birth rate. American dream died in the 50's and was a figment of Hollywood imagination but it still fools people into coming to US.

you sound like typical american, what ever the US government does is
correct. Media feeds you drivel and you keep repeating it.
I have tried to show that US does not have moral high ground or truth, or virtue and any other platitude in order to dictate to others the US national interest.

UN is irrelevant because US has invented a new organization which it thinks it can control and spew their interest to the world. It is the WTO.

[osiris]

The new 'axis of evil', is chosen by Dubya himself.

Hmm, Axis of Evil - are we changing theatres again? Did I miss something that the US is on the verge of war with Iran, Iraq & Korea?

Apparently those country's embassies are as pissed as it gets for Dubya's broad generalization.

Any comments to shed some light on this new 'Axis of Evil' (ooooh, play scary music when you say Axis of Evil)
Personal feelings about Dubya aside, what is this man talking about?

[boots]

Originally posted by osiris:
<STRONG>The new 'axis of evil', is chosen by Dubya himself.

Hmm, Axis of Evil - are we changing theatres again? Did I miss something that the US is on the verge of war with Iran, Iraq & Korea?

Apparently those country's embassies are as pissed as it gets for Dubya's broad generalization.

Any comments to shed some light on this new 'Axis of Evil' (ooooh, play scary music when you say Axis of Evil)
Personal feelings about Dubya aside, what is this man talking about?</STRONG>

It's no secret that these countries in particular have been targeted my pretty much all the US administrations that I can remember (going back to the early 70's) and probably before that.

It's just one more step in the rhetoric. I was quite suprised that he named Iran and N. Korea, though. Politically, we've been making some progress with Iran, and only recently has the relationship with N. Korea gone back down the shitter. Iraq, of course, has been an itch that the US government has wanted to scratch since George Sr. pulled out.

From a staight thought analysis, he was trying to draw parallels to WWII. I'm not sure it works terribly well,though, 'cause we aren't "at war" with any particular nation. We've just declaired war on this ill defined thing called terrorism. But the language used was trying evoke memories of FDR. (War time/recession politics)

[daimoni]

.

[boots]

Not to sound like someone else who loves to make this kind of thread into a soapbox, but I have to agree that one of the bigger problems is our (USA) "plantation economy" both at home and exported to other countries like honduras, mexico, etc.

And yes, the Iranian administration is doing a pretty good job. It's a long uphill battle for them to get control back from the clerics, but they are making progress in a very impressive way.

[malvolio]

Since we no longer have Afghanistan to kick around, Dubya had to find new "enemies" to keep people's minds off the economy, tax cuts for billionaires, Enron, etc.

[driven]

Originally posted by boots:
<STRONG>

It's no secret that these countries in particular have been targeted my pretty much all the US administrations that I can remember (going back to the early 70's) and probably before that.

It's just one more step in the rhetoric. I was quite suprised that he named Iran and N. Korea, though. Politically, we've been making some progress with Iran, and only recently has the relationship with N. Korea gone back down the shitter. Iraq, of course, has been an itch that the US government has wanted to scratch since George Sr. pulled out.

From a staight thought analysis, he was trying to draw parallels to WWII. I'm not sure it works terribly well,though, 'cause we aren't "at war" with any particular nation. We've just declaired war on this ill defined thing called terrorism. But the language used was trying evoke memories of FDR. (War time/recession politics)</STRONG>

Well, apparently the thing with North Korea is that the previous administration promised them the world in money, nuclear power plants, etc. if they "behave".

I'm not sure if they weren't behaving or if the deal wasn't as good as Clinton made it out to be but this admin pulled that from the table. I'm sure they didn't do it lightly. And if they are still supporting terrorism in the North then this is the correct approach.

I would like to see the North and South unified as much as anyone. But there are issues: The south will end up supporting the north in a welfare state, the extent of which will totally wreck the south's economy. And all of this is assuming that the fragile politics on both sides of the 38th stay stable.

It's a tough situation. I defer judgement to those that know alot more about the details than any of us do.

[boots]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>

Well, apparently the thing with North Korea is that the previous administration promised them the world in money, nuclear power plants, etc. if they "behave".
</STRONG>

Yeah, I hadn't seen anything in the press (not that I searched) on this before this morning, though. That is why I said I was suprized. I knew tensions were hightening again, but I didn't know it was bad enough to walk away from the table as the current administration has done.

<STRONG>It's a tough situation. I defer judgement to those that know alot more about the details than any of us do.</STRONG>

Yes, but I wish I felt better about the motives of those who know more about the details. I'm not one to fly off the handle when I disagree with the government, but I have to admit the Bush administration has me perplexed. On one day they cater to Corporate America and the next day they come out with a "Join a service organization and help the country" statement. A lot of the service organizations will tell you the biggest hurdle they face is the prevailing "plantation economics" attitude of winner takes all. It's like saying "We want to make the rich richer and you should be pissed as hell about it." It kinda makes my head spin some days.


But my original point was that the SOTU address was just turning up the rhetoric a notch.

[zigzag]

My impression is that, for better or worse, the administration wants to use a tougher form of tough love with North Korea, which has a habit of reaching out, then acting badly whenever we give it any slack. North Korea is like a petulant but ultimately powerless child that needs us and will come around in time. Seems like the administration is giving it a long "time-out" until it stops playing games. I don't see us taking military action against it, but who knows. Maybe Bush wants North Korea to believe that we're considering it.

Iraq is more like an adult thug. There's no chance that he can be rehabilitated, so all anyone can do is keep the threat of severe physical harm over him. I think the administration just wants to remind Saddam that he will be toast if he tries anything. And of course everyone hopes that Saddam will be overthrown internally. I still don'[t think we'll take military action without a specific provocation, but who knows.

I think Iran is more complicated. Unlike North Korea and Iraq, there are actually good people in positions of power, and the general populace likes us, but the balance of power hasn't quite been tipped. I can only assume that the administration wants to put out the message that we're on the side of the reformers (for once), and encourage them. I can't imagine that we would take any direct military action there.

There is so much internal political and diplomatic stuff that goes on, we can only guess as to the real intent at any given time. Why Bush felt the need to link the three, I don't know, other than as a rhetorical device.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: zigzag ]

[lenkman]

Can't say I am terribly surprised by any of the "bad 3"

North Korea - as mentioned before - has recently had a breakdown in relations with the South (and hence the US) after a short upswing of promising relations. The real problem, though, is that NK is working on nukes, international agreements notwithstanding. US (and others) gave them nuclear reactors to get them to stop building nuclear weapons. Instead they took the reactors and continued building their nuke program. Also, they are exporting their ballistic missile technology to other not so friendly states.

Iraq - no surprise there. Looks like Bush is going to use the fact that they won't allow inspectors in as provocation for something big, and probably in the not to distant future.

Iran- yeah, they have good guys in the govt (their current President, some members of their Parliament). Only problem is that the Iranian President has only slightly more power than the American Vice President, and the reformist parliament members have recently been arrested by the clerics. Furthermore, even the reformers believe in the legitimacy of the current system, they just want it organized differently. The real power is in the hands of the (non-elected) clergy over there. The presence of reformers only indicates that the Iranian people don't really care for their government. Of course the real reason Iran made the list is that ship of weapons intercepted by Israel going from Iran to the PA. That little screwup just killed what was left of the (already comatose) peace process over there. Also, like NK, Iran is exporting missiles, which is in and of itself enough to be put on Dubya's naughty list.

The only real link between the 3 is that they are all "naughty." Trust me, there could never be an long-term alliance between Iran and Iraq (remember that little war they had a while back?)

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: lenkman ]

[m a d r a]

wonder when the US will pick a fight with china because of all their human rights abuses, lack of freedoms and [gasp!] communist government? .... oh. wait a minute..... china can hit back. silly me!

well then, surely grenada must be due another kicking soon?... bloody pointy stick toting threats to world security!

[Thunderbird]

Originally posted by malvolio:
<STRONG>Since we no longer have Afghanistan to kick around, Dubya had to find new "enemies" to keep people's minds off the economy, tax cuts for billionaires, Enron, etc.</STRONG>

Uh, malvolio, I'm not a billionaire, but I did get a tax cut. That makes me happy. Why didn't you say "tax cuts for everybody." Why single out just the billionaires? Furthermore, I got a tax cut, you got a tax cut, so why should you care if somebody else who already pays a LOT more in taxes than you do also gets a tax cut. Do you think you are better than the billionaires of the world and somehow more deserving of a tax cut?

If you don't think you are paying enough in taxes, well then just volunteer to send in a little extra. I won't complain.

[KellyHogan]

Rape! Rape! She can't fight the powerful brut back so it's not rape. She wanted to get ****ed.

[argod]

How is US going to attack China, when it did not have balls to attack
Pakistan. It is pakistan who created the Taliban.
As long as US can buy them off everything else is secondary.
Weapons of mass destruction, was it not a pakistani scientist who gave
away secrets to Taliban.

Did anyone read the article on NewYorker last week about secret
air lift from kunduz of Pakistani military, Taliban and El-Quida leadership
with the approval of GWB.

[argod]

Iraq

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Thunderbird:
<STRONG>

Uh, malvolio, I'm not a billionaire, but I did get a tax cut. That makes me happy. Why didn't you say "tax cuts for everybody." Why single out just the billionaires? Furthermore, I got a tax cut, you got a tax cut, so why should you care if somebody else who already pays a LOT more in taxes than you do also gets a tax cut. Do you think you are better than the billionaires of the world and somehow more deserving of a tax cut?

If you don't think you are paying enough in taxes, well then just volunteer to send in a little extra. I won't complain.</STRONG>

I didn't get any tax cut. I got a nice letter just like everyone else, only mine said "Fuck you, you don't get a tax cut because you don't make enought money." Well, not in so many words...

[boots]

Ok, so I'm not so crazy. Today, Arie Fleicher told the press that the lumping of these three together under the title "axis" of evil was simply a rhetorical thing, and that we shouldn't read anything into it about expanding the military action. He tried to down play the importance of naming these three specifically and tried to downplay the imminent expansion of military action.

In another room, Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that if he were in Iraq or Iran and he heard the president talk about them like that, he'd take notice.

It's not just me, the administration really is schizophrenic.

You'll also note that "Pretzel Boy" didn't utter the word "axis" in public today. Apparently he's trying to back-track a little and soften his stance in the face of the world criticism.

[osiris]

Originally posted by boots:
<STRONG>Ok, so I'm not so crazy. Today, Arie Fleicher told the press that the lumping of these three together under the title "axis" of evil was simply a rhetorical thing, and that we shouldn't read anything into it about expanding the military action. He tried to down play the importance of naming these three specifically and tried to downplay the imminent expansion of military action.

In another room, Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that if he were in Iraq or Iran and he heard the president talk about them like that, he'd take notice.

It's not just me, the administration really is schizophrenic.

You'll also note that "Pretzel Boy" didn't utter the word "axis" in public today. Apparently he's trying to back-track a little and soften his stance in the face of the world criticism.</STRONG>

When did you ever see a military coup not go schizo? security, security, security LOL

I laughed my ass off watching the speech last night, really. It was a spectacular performance worthy of an Academy Award. Too bad it's real life.

[Thunderbird]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>

I didn't get any tax cut. I got a nice letter just like everyone else, only mine said "Fuck you, you don't get a tax cut because you don't make enought money." Well, not in so many words...</STRONG>

It's hard to cut your taxes when you don't make enough money to pay taxes.

[Face Ache]

I think you ought to see this.
http://www.contractwiththeplanet.org/sotu/sotu1.html

Rather funny.

[boots]

"I know my daddy's gunna kick the shit outta me for all this, but...."


That was some funny sh*t! One can dream, though. One can always dream.

[osiris]

Originally posted by Thunderbird:
<STRONG>

It's hard to cut your taxes when you don't make enough money to pay taxes.</STRONG>

I didn't get a bonus check either and I make over 60K, but under 100K. That bonus tax relief was BS . Who the hell got those checks? No one I know - rich or poor.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: osiris ]

[boots]

Originally posted by osiris:
<STRONG>


I didn't get a bonus check either and I make over 60K, but under 100K. That bonus tax relief was BS . Who the hell got those checks? No one I know - rich or poor.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: osiris ]</STRONG>

If you're talking about the "tax rebate" checks, my wife and I got one. We made just under 40K combined.

[osiris]

Originally posted by boots:
<STRONG>

If you're talking about the "tax rebate" checks, my wife and I got one. We made just under 40K combined.</STRONG>

Good for you boots, I'm glad someone got the money AND a mac user too- I just thought the rebate applied to all US citizens who weren't rich and making less than 100k. sorry for being off topic

[boots]

Originally posted by osiris:
<STRONG>

Good for you boots, I'm glad someone got the money AND a mac user too- I just thought the rebate applied to all US citizens who weren't rich and making less than 100k. sorry for being off topic</STRONG>

I guess you're the first person whom I've talked to that has complained. Then again, I don't usually talk finances. But the people I know who have incomes between $25-50K have gotten checks.


Back the the topic of schizophreic government.....

[Face Ache]

All comes back to money doesn't it.

[osiris]

BBC World News

&
Here's BBC dissecting Dubya's speech:

Speech Analysis

[KellyHogan]

You got a 'cheque' in the post to keep you happy like when the Romans bought their people's miseries off with 'bread and games' yet continued to loot the rest of the world.

[gopwak]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by argod:
It is pakistan who created the Taliban.

Pakistan did not create the Taliban. Actually, it was pretty much the workings of a little old peanut farmer from Georgia. Oh yes, our very own Jimmy Carter. The man had a good heart, but unfortunately, in the real world of power politics and aggressive foreign policy, a good heart ain't good enough. So concerned with fighting off the Communists in Afghanistan, because it was our "manifest destiny" to spread the seeds of Democracy, Jimmy Carter aided the Afghan rebels. You know them now as the Taliban. He thought that if we helped them, they could help us fight our battle against the Soviets. They did, and we won. Unfortunately, they have a funny way of showing their appreciation.

And Bush definitely didn't coin the term "Axis of Evil," as I'm sure everyone is well aware. In my opinion, he is very afraid of losing support for this war on terrorism. Phrases like that are supposed to get us all pumped and ready for action. Anyone thinking about enlisting now?

[Face Ache]

Well the main thing is: You have an enemy.

That's all that's really important, isn't it?

[gopwak]

It's no surprise to me that the British press is so critical of Bush. He is talking war, and GB is our long-time ally. So, from the perspective of a British citizen (or at least this is how I would think if I was one, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong because you are a British citizen and don't agree), when GW talks war, Blair might as well be. And the towers didn't go down in GB. Their Pentagon wasn't hit. Sure they sympathize, but it's not as personal. My guess is they're scared they're going to find themselves in a middle of a war they didn't sign up to fight.

[KellyHogan]

[quote]Originally posted by gopwak:
<STRONG>

Originally posted by argod:Afghanistan, because it was our "manifest destiny" to spread the seeds of Democracy, Jimmy Carter aided the Afghan rebels. You know them now as the Taliban. He thought that if we helped them, they could help us fight our battle against the Soviets. They did, and we won. Unfortunately, they have a funny way of showing their appreciation.

</STRONG>

That's because a lot of Afghans prefered life under the Russians. There was work, modernisation, equal rights for women, secularism and labor unions. The US could not allow a Muslim or third world nation to have any of these. Who made the Taliban? USA, Opus Dei via William Casey, Pakistan under ul-Huq and the Saudis. All selfish bastards.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by gopwak:
<STRONG> My guess is they're scared they're going to find themselves in a middle of a war they didn't sign up to fight.</STRONG>

Not very democratic is it? The US never came to help Britain when Irish-Americans were funding the IRA.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
<STRONG>I think you ought to see this.
http://www.contractwiththeplanet.org/sotu/sotu1.html

Rather funny. </STRONG>

The link is now denied. Would you be so kind as to summarize?

[Joshua]

[boots]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>

The link is now denied. Would you be so kind as to summarize?</STRONG>

It was a very well done peace and juctice sound track merged with a hacked video of the state of the union. In essence, "Pretzel Boy" says he wants a concerted effort to stop world hunger, to educate all children (not just the rich ones) and to use the money we spend on extraneous military intervention to fund these initiatives. It was truly the SOTU address I would love to have heard. Alas, it was just in parody.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>


Not very democratic is it? The US never came to help Britain when Irish-Americans were funding the IRA.</STRONG>

Were you not already spanked heartiliy for that rather absurd generalization in another thread? Not to mention, there are, as you are so fond of pointing out, TWO sides to every story. The other side of that story has Protestants tossing pipe bombs at primary schoolers. Oooo. Those DANGEROUS and INSIDIOUS 8 year olds... who will remember the event their whole lives and probably jOIN the IRA as a result. Nice, huh? So. Who's better? You seem to have a hard lock on judgement passing. Who's right there? The folks blowing up bombs in a crowded Picadilly or the brave souls fighting the tyrrany of Catholicsicm embodied in 8 year olds?
You have your opinions and that's just fine. But PLEASE don't start waving flags yourself. You only like, it seems, to tell HALF of any given story. Or perhaps you do not know or CARE about the other half.
Really, it is true. Your little tirades do SO piss me off.

[chris v]

Europa has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia...

)literary reference)

CV

[maxelson]

Originally posted by boots:
<STRONG>

It was a very well done peace and juctice sound track merged with a hacked video of the state of the union. In essence, "Pretzel Boy" says he wants a concerted effort to stop world hunger, to educate all children (not just the rich ones) and to use the money we spend on extraneous military intervention to fund these initiatives. It was truly the SOTU address I would love to have heard. Alas, it was just in parody.</STRONG>

THanks. Actually, I really like this site. Sadly, it is a pipe dream, but DAMN! Their heart is in the right place.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by chris v:
<STRONG>Europa has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia...

)literary reference)

CV</STRONG>

Goldstein sucks! Get him!

[daimoni]

.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>

Were you not already spanked heartiliy for that rather absurd generalization in another thread? </STRONG>

No. The US Government never did anything to stop the funding of Irish terrorists from the US. Nuff said. No excuses, mate.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>

Ah, yer old sophomoric game of "You can't possibly understand as much as I, because I'm still in school."



:: whack! ::</STRONG>

Why is it whenever anyone suggests that an argument might be fallacious, you start hurling ivory tower insults? Talk about "sophomoric."

Believe it or not, individuals with strong political agenda's aren't typically in the best position to make objective statements about history and/or politics, and yet they invariably are the most likely to do so.

But I suppose it's much easier to rely on "witty" one-liners and sarcastic smilies than to present actual objective facts, right?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

No. The US Government never did anything to stop the funding of Irish terrorists from the US. Nuff said. No excuses, mate.</STRONG>

Didn't feel like tackling that other part of the argument, huh? Don't blame you. It IS a tough one...
Oh, and what is it the government should do? Hands IN, hands OFF- you cannot seem to make up your mind on that.

[daimoni]

.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by maxelson:
<STRONG>
Didn't feel like tackling that other part of the argument, huh? Don't blame you. It IS a tough one...
Oh, and what is it the government should do? Hands IN, hands OFF- you cannot seem to make up your mind on that.</STRONG>

We're talking about stopping funding terrorism from the States. That's all that needed or needs to be done and the rest of the peace process is something that can only be cured with continuous dialogue and referendum. But apparently some people don't know anything about dialogue. The only thing the US knows is bombing and ****ing and eating.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>


We're talking about stopping funding terrorism from the States. That's all that needed or needs to be done and the rest of the peace process is something that can only be cured with continuous dialogue and referendum. But apparently some people don't know anything about dialogue. The only thing the US knows is bombing and ****ing and eating.</STRONG>

And the rest of the argument? I am veeeery sorry, but to blame the US for the continued issues reigning in N. Ireland is both hidebound and specious. Of course, there's still that nasty generalization thing you keep pushing.
Here's what you want to hear: "I'm sorry, we have our own issues. You'll need to take care of that yourself." Be careful what you wish for...

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Thunderbird:
<STRONG>

It's hard to cut your taxes when you don't make enough money to pay taxes.</STRONG>

I pay taxes, plenty of taxes Just not enough that I got any back.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by boots:

<STRONG>... We've just declaired war on this ill defined thing called terrorism...</STRONG>

And he was sharpening the definition.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by boots:
<STRONG>Ok, so I'm not so crazy. Today, Arie Fleicher told the press that the lumping of these three together under the title "axis" of evil was simply a rhetorical thing, and that we shouldn't read anything into it about expanding the military action. He tried to down play the importance of naming these three specifically and tried to downplay the imminent expansion of military action.

In another room, Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that if he were in Iraq or Iran and he heard the president talk about them like that, he'd take notice.

It's not just me, the administration really is schizophrenic.</STRONG>

No, it's called good cop, bad cop.