[Athens]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The Weapons have no good or bad about them. The countries and the leaders are whats good or bad. I say keep the weapons away from the nutcase countries. This would be all 3rd world nations, and the Chinese, who are just a 3rd world country with nukes anyway.

destroy the factories of the bad guys. Don't be afraid to use them.

weapons will progress at the same rate as the rest of teh technologies anyway, so whining about it is stupid and careless. If you had a high powered machine gun, and your neighbors had blunderbusses, do you think they'd use them against you? The next big push will be to have bio-weapons that single out specific races, and those with specific traits.

Any Country can have a Nut Case in power at some point in its time. Look at the current nut case in charge of the white house?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

your confusing understanding of the terrorists issues with condoning it. I understand why terrorists have a beef with the US, I don't condone it, but I believe the US brought upon itself, does that make me part of the radical movement or a terrorists nope.

No, you, sir are what's affectionately (or sumpthin) known as a "hoser." And watch how you talk about our President.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Darn it! You are making me reveal ALL my sources! AND the fact that I SOMETIMES just hear someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about and I'll just throw it into a post to see how it flies.

This guy, Howard Bloom, said the 'perfect weapon' thing last nite on C2C. I just repeated what he said.

http://www.howardbloom.net/
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/25.html

I don't know why you seem to have misunderstood my question but I'll explain it for you. My objection was to the "for Muslims" part you/he added. I don't care about the weapons part. So, are you willing to try to answer the question again?

AGAIN!!!??? Ok, here's the source for THAT info...

"Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic Of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert A. Pape

That isn't info. That's a lie. Everyone(who remember more than what was last said by the administration) knows that Catholics and Christians have conducted some serious terrorist campaigns during that period. Again, why do you always forget that?

Admitting feeling that kind of responsibility is, in a way, touching and endearing and noble. But, when I consider HOW the individual Muslim (multiplied by a billion or so) shouldering that responsibility might feel directed to act in order to save the world, I get ascared (afraid + scared).

I ask you, intelligent reader, to imagine the worst co-dependent person you know, who is also the 'GONZO liberal Democrat from hell,' someone who ABSOLUTELY knows what is best for you and doesn't need you to ask for anything because they would already be telling YOU what you need...without your permission or assent.

And they would automatically assume they were more intelligent and you were inferior or if you had some redeeming qualities you would be considered as one might consider a trained pet monkey.

But when time came for you to submit to the rules, or THE LAW, you'd better fall in line or they'll have to get stern with you. Submit or else.

Sorry, even though you may be well intentioned, I like free agency.

Liberals don't tell people what they can do. You seem to have the same misconceptions about liberals as many Americans(even US "liberals" do. Liberals don't want to interfere in what the individual wants to do. That is what the conservatives do.

And what is the difference between you worrying about what the individual Muslim feels like he has to do to save the world and between the average Muslim fearing what the individual American feels he needs to do to save the world(spreading plutocracy and capitalism and Christian ideals)? Do you have the right to fight for that but others do not have the right to fight for their ideals(remember that the word fight doesn't necessarily mean violently)?

The thing is that you don't like "free agency". You like what you consider best for everyone. You support a war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians because you want to spread your ideals. That has nothing to do with freedom. It has to do with you idea of freedom. A freedom also called a plutocracy.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Liberals don't tell people what they can do.

Yes they do. They tell everyone else that they've got to be liberal.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes they do. They tell everyone else that they've got to be liberal.

Every political idea does that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Every political idea does that.

No, conservatives don't tell everyone that they've got to be liberal.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, conservatives don't tell everyone that they've got to be liberal.

Got me

Let's try again. Every political ideology claims you should follow that particular political ideology.

Better?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Got me

Let's try again. Every political ideology claims you should follow that particular political ideology.

Better?

Heh.

Point is, every other political philosophy doesn't profess to it not telling everyone what to do. Liberalism does, which makes it hypocritical.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Heh.

Point is, every other political philosophy doesn't profess to it not telling everyone what to do. Liberalism does, which makes it hypocritical.

If you'd add "American" before the liberalism I would agree. The same doesn't apply elsewhere. Fortunately.

But that's a good point though, I'll give you that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

If you'd add "American" before the liberalism I would agree. The same doesn't apply elsewhere. Fortunately.

Oh, but it does. Try Britain and the New Labour / Lib Dem folks.
Not forgetting Ireland and all the other "pub smoking ban" places (heh - I knew you'd like that one).

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Oh, but it does. Try Britain and the New Labour / Lib Dem folks.
Not forgetting Ireland and all the other "pub smoking ban" places (heh - I knew you'd like that one).

Labour aren't liberals. And Liberal Democrats aren't liberals.

Want another try?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I don't know why you seem to have misunderstood my question but I'll explain it for you. My objection was to the "for Muslims" part you/he added. I don't care about the weapons part. So, are you willing to try to answer the question again?

Can't speak for him, but it sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

That isn't info. That's a lie. Everyone(who remember more than what was last said by the administration) knows that Catholics and Christians have conducted some serious terrorist campaigns during that period. Again, why do you always forget that?

Well, maybe I should have included ALL of the table as it didn't actually qualify any other religions I didn't think it was important. OK, on page 15:

TABLE 1. SUICIDE TERRORIST CAMPAIGNS, 1980 -2003
Completed Campaigns

Ok, I need a scanner. I'm not going to input this whole table.

However, the part left out without identifying the religion of the attackers is as follows:

Attacks Not Part of Organized Campaigns = 14

Total incidents = 315

You don't agree with Pape? Take it up with him.

Liberals don't tell people what they can do. You seem to have the same misconceptions about liberals as many Americans(even US "liberals" do. Liberals don't want to interfere in what the individual wants to do. That is what the conservatives do.

Well, Wrangell, that major misconception about the differences between the dems and repubs may be one shared by many of your liberal friends across the pond and may help explain your collective angst last November. Liberals REALLY are people who think they know what's best for you and do their best to remove free will from your hands so THEY can have it. They want the Federal gov't to get LARGER and tax us more so they can provide everything for us and fix all our problems.

But, of course they tried that in the 60's and 70's and it didn't work. Problems just got worse and worse. And they keep thinking that if we just tax MORE or assume MORE control from the average Joe, that things will be better for all! Think Nurse Ratched in "...Cuckoo's Nest!"

She is a soul sapping, power mad, MONSTER!

And what is the difference between you worrying about what the individual Muslim feels like he has to do to save the world and between the average Muslim fearing what the individual American feels he needs to do to save the world(spreading plutocracy and capitalism and Christian ideals)? Do you have the right to fight for that but others do not have the right to fight for their ideals(remember that the word fight doesn't necessarily mean violently)?

Yes, I/we have the right to return to people their balls if/when their balls are being threatened by anyone, but in this case it happens to be radical Muslims. If the people prefer to be ball-less then let them vote to give their balls away without any coercion from anyone and if they vote that way, then so be it. They lose their balls. Forever. I just can't believe there are people who WANT to be told they can't listen to the Beach Boys or Alice Cooper. If I want to listen to Good Vibrations I would hate some humorless bearded guy coming in my room taking my iPod and reprogramming it with songs of the "Jihad 5"

The thing is that you don't like "free agency". You like what you consider best for everyone. You support a war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians because you want to spread your ideals. That has nothing to do with freedom. It has to do with you idea of freedom. A freedom also called a plutocracy.

I think you mistake my (our) certainty that men everywhere like, want and prefer freedom for a perverted liberal-like desire to spread our ideals everywhere. There's a part in almost EVERY American which feels, SCREW EM! We have OUR freedom. Let them get theirs if they want it. But that is a small part of our make up. Whenever people are given the freedom to choose without being influenced people choose to be free. We KNOW that. We are doing a favor to help others secure their freedom from a group who will kill themselves AND their would be subjects trying to prevent the subjects from being free.

Guarantee you if there were no US or no al Qaeda or OBL guys blowing up bombs and stuff over there that the people would vote themselves a democracy every time.

In the Simple Life's thread does she list how many people want to live in the US? Whereas the Soviets erected a wall to keep people IN, we have a problem preventing EVERYONE coming to live here.

We have what the world wants. Plutocracy, freedom, I don't care what you call it, we're not pushing it down ANYONE'S throat, not like your buddy's are trying to force THEIR idea of Govt. onto an unwilling Iraqi population.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Labour aren't liberals. And Liberal Democrats aren't liberals.

They profess to be.

So who are the real liberals?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Liberals don't tell people what they can do. You seem to have the same misconceptions about liberals as many Americans(even US "liberals" do. Liberals don't want to interfere in what the individual wants to do. That is what the conservatives do.

This is a priceless statement!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Can't speak for him, but it sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

You just did. I hope you realise that. Next time try to think a bit before you copy paste from someone else.

Well, maybe I should have included ALL of the table as it didn't actually qualify any other religions I didn't think it was important. OK, on page 15:

TABLE 1. SUICIDE TERRORIST CAMPAIGNS, 1980 -2003
Completed Campaigns

Ok, I need a scanner. I'm not going to input this whole table.

However, the part left out without identifying the religion of the attackers is as follows:

And what does that tell us? Nothing.

You don't agree with Pape? Take it up with him.

You are bringing up his argument in this thread. I'm taking it up with you because of that. If you can't defend something you copy paste don't post it. It's easy.

Well, Wrangell, that major misconception about the differences between the dems and repubs may be one shared by many of your liberal friends across the pond and may help explain your collective angst last November. Liberals REALLY are people who think they know what's best for you and do their best to remove free will from your hands so THEY can have it. They want the Federal gov't to get LARGER and tax us more so they can provide everything for us and fix all our problems.

ummm, no. You are talking about American Liberalism. Not liberalism.

But, of course they tried that in the 60's and 70's and it didn't work. Problems just got worse and worse. And they keep thinking that if we just tax MORE or assume MORE control from the average Joe, that things will be better for all! Think Nurse Ratched in "...Cuckoo's Nest!"

She is a soul sapping, power mad, MONSTER!

Your rants are becoming less and less amusing and instead causes me to worry about you. AW, are you alright?

Yes, I/we have the right to return to people their balls if/when their balls have been taken away by Muslims. If the people prefer to be ball-less then let them vote to give their balls away without any coercion from anyone and if they vote that way, then so be it. They lose their balls. Forever. I just can't believe there are people who WANT to be told they can't listen to the Beach Boys or Alice Cooper. If I want to listen to Good Vibrations I would hate some humorless bearded guy coming in my room taking my iPod and reprogramming it with songs of the "Jihad 5"

Again, are you alright? Hit something hard with you head?(probably not a book though) Please end the nonsensical rants so it's possible to have a decent debate with you. Nothing above makes sense.

I think you mistake my (our) certainty that men everywhere like, want and prefer freedom for a perverted liberal-like desire to spread our ideals everywhere. There's a part in almost EVERY American which feels, SCREW EM! We have OUR freedom. Let them get theirs if they want it. But that is a small part of our make up. Whenever people are given the freedom to choose without being influenced people choose to be free. We KNOW that. We are doing a favor to help others secure their freedom from a group who will kill themselves AND their would be subjects trying to prevent the subjects from being free.

And if they just don't want your kind of freedom? What if they want to make their own destiny? Or do you think that Arabs/Muslims are somehow lesser people than Westerners and aren't able to take their own decisions and fight for what they believe in?

Guarantee you if there were no US or no al Qaeda or OBL guys blowing up bombs and stuff over there that the people would vote themselves a democracy every time.

In the Simple Life's thread does she list how many people want to live in the US? Whereas the Soviets erected a wall to keep people IN, we have a problem preventing EVERYONE coming to live here.

We have what the world wants. Plutocracy, freedom, I don't care what you call it, we're not pushing it down ANYONE'S throat, not like your buddy's are trying to force THEIR idea of Govt. onto an unwilling Iraqi population.

"vote themselves a democracy"

You aren't pushing it down anyone's throat!?! Are you completely oblivious about your countries past??? Check out most of the South American countries just for a start. You've been forcing your plutocracy down everybodies throat for way too long and unfortunately you are paying for it now and will continue to pay for it until you stop. The problem is that you are so stubborn(certain?) that you really believe you are doing the world a favour when all you are doing is causing more suffering.

Again, please stop the nonsensical rants.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

They profess to be.

So who are the real liberals?

Labour professes to be for a socialist democracy. Liberal democrats claim to be like the name itself says: Liberal Democrats.

The real liberals? There are few real parties that are true liberals as liberalism doesn't fit into todays polarised politics.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

This is a priceless statement!

What's so priceless about it?(and try to use your own words and thoughts this time)

And again it is important to point out that US "liberals" aren't true liberals. Don't confuse the two.

[bikes]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Labour professes to be for a socialist democracy. Liberal democrats claim to be like the name itself says: Liberal Democrats.

The real liberals? There are few real parties that are true liberals as liberalism doesn't fit into todays polarised politics.

yeah, most "liberal" parties as i see them are either pretty far to the right of the spectrum.

[Y3a]

<< Any Country can have a Nut Case in power at some point in its time. Look at the current nut case in charge of the white house? >>

I know you're jealous of the US because we are at least considered a world power , not a scared little cousin of them. Canada has been very liberal for a while, so I'm not suprised at your labels/namecalling, or lack of understanding of world politics, but the Libs probably ruined your public schools too.

[NaplesX]

Originally Posted by bikes

I think war in terrorism are inseparable, what difference does it make if killing is committed by powerful people, or desperate people? A pilot drops bombs for a powerful empire, and a desperate suicide bomber explodes inside a restaurant. It all ends in death, and destruction.

I think you mean "War and Terror" are often inseparable. Bombs and guns and explosions all are things that can cause terror. Much like a story of a boogieman living under your bed.

The difference between terror and terrorism is that the "terrorists" attack the people that are the most easily terrorized, namely unarmed innocents.

I know a lot of vets from Vietnam and even WWII that went out of their way to help the innocents that seem to always get caught in the middle of any conflict. The same is true of the soldiers that are in Iraq right now.

Another thing that terrorists do is meld with the population, use it for cover, for the sole purpose of making it harder to target them. Typically US soldiers walk down the middle of the street in easily identifiable vehicles, there bases are away from civilian infrastructure, and you will see countless times before during and after a battle the soldiers put in every effort to spare unneeded casualties.

I am sure you see the difference, no?

[bikes]

Originally Posted by NaplesX

I think you mean "War and Terror" are often inseparable. Bombs and guns and explosions all are things that can cause terror. Much like a story of a boogieman living under your bed.

The difference between terror and terrorism is that the "terrorists" attack the people that are the most easily terrorized, namely unarmed innocents.

I know a lot of vets from Vietnam and even WWII that went out of their way to help the innocents that seem to always get caught in the middle of any conflict. The same is true of the soldiers that are in Iraq right now.

Another thing that terrorists do is meld with the population, use it for cover, for the sole purpose of making it harder to target them. Typically US soldiers walk down the middle of the street in easily identifiable vehicles, there bases are away from civilian infrastructure, and you will see countless times before during and after a battle the soldiers put in every effort to spare unneeded casualties.

I am sure you see the difference, no?

yeah i meant 'war and terror'. However i still believe that a soldier or insurgents life is just as valuable as a civilians. I may not agree what either of them are doing but they do not deserve to die, neither of them.

[NaplesX]

Originally Posted by bikes

yeah i meant 'war and terror'. However i still believe that a soldier or insurgents life is just as valuable as a civilians.

Sure, from a purely human standpoint. However, you have soldiers that are protecting civilians and "insurgents" that are aiming to kill civilians. These are not morally equivalent endeavors.

I may not agree what either of them are doing but they do not deserve to die, neither of them.

This may be a truthful statement, however both have volunteered to die if necessary. The soldier to protect his fellow man and the terrorist to strap a bomb on his chest and walk through the marketplace. Once again, two endeavors that could not be more morally opposite.

You seem to equate the terrorist with the honorable soldier. Sure, they both fight to kill, but I am sure you can see the difference in objective.

Correct me if I am wrong in assuming that.

[SimpleLife]

Some artistic rendering

http://simnuke.org/home.html

Commemorating 60 years of the bomb
19 July 2005
A group of artists, engineers and pyrotechnicians who want to raise awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons have simulated the detonation of a nuclear device in the Nevada desert. Using an environmentally friendly bio-diesel fuel, they generated a flame effect that rose over 120 metres into the dawn sky. The flame was created at 5.29.45 a.m. on Saurday 16 July -- exactly 60 years since members of the Manhattan Project detonated the first nuclear weapon in the "Trinity" test.

The simulation, which mimicked the look and feel of the Trinity explosion, was watched by over 100 spectators. It was organized by the San Francisco-based Simnuke Project as part of a memorial to the atomic age. Other events include a nuclear-related art show that runs at the Rx gallery in the city until 10 August. Members of the project also plan to plant 60 trees -- one for every year since 1945 -- near the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico, where the first atomic weapons were built.

"Bringing together the events of 60 years ago into the present can be a tool for protest and healing," says project director Camron Asadi. "By creating a close connection with the destructive nature and history of nuclear weapons, we aim to make peace the higher option."

About the author

Matin Durrani is Deputy Editor of Physics World

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You just did. I hope you realise that.

Actually, that's a pretty clever observation.

Next time try to think a bit before you copy paste from someone else.

I know you are trying to get that liberal "I'm the adult and you're the child and so I know better than you but I'm trying to be patient with you..." thing down pat, but I think you need to be slightly more menacing and maniacal. ( )

You are bringing up his argument in this thread. I'm taking it up with you because of that. If you can't defend something you copy paste don't post it. It's easy.

Ok, I'll defend it. He is correct. You are not. He was on the O'Reilly Report or whatever it's called and he wrote a book. You weren't and haven't. There. It's done. You're right it was REALLY easy!

ummm, no. You are talking about American Liberalism. Not liberalism.

See, you have good Islamic suicide terrorist instincts. What they are doing in Iraq, bombing the people they would depend on for support is the exact same thing you just did, in principle anyway. You are so smug that you would insult your liberal supporters here in the US by saying they can't even get the whole liberal thing right! Only YOU know how to REALLY be a liberal!

Haaawwwwww!

Your rants are becoming less and less amusing and instead causes me to worry about you. AW, are you alright?

Actually, you are right I am sick. And I am tired. THHHHAAAAT'S RIGHT! I'm sick and tired of the freakin azzole suicide terrorists and those who support them in word, thought or deed.
Anything you can do to help me out on that one, L? No, none of the remedies should involve my injury or demise.

And if they just don't want your kind of freedom? What if they want to make their own destiny? Or do you think that Arabs/Muslims are somehow lesser people than Westerners and aren't able to take their own decisions and fight for what they believe in?

Yes, I'm ready to confess. We want eveyone the world over to worship us and exist ONLY for
OUR benefit and the type of freedom we allow them will be the variety that isn't real freedom and we will be their masters forever and those countries will be oppressed and live enslaved to our mad capitalist hegemony.

Germany and Japan and South Korea don't count. We'll do it differently THIS time!

By the way only a true Muslim, dedicated to the proposition that the ruling holy men (like the Grand Mufti???) are the ones who determine what KIND or how MUCH freedom the people should have. Only somone like YOU would propose a certain KIND of freedom! And then not even realize how much of an abberation that whole concept is to the real thing.

See, here in THE land of the free we think it's kinda like being preggers. Either you is or you ain't with child. Either you IS or you AIN'T free! There are no levels of freedom.

You aren't pushing it down anyone's throat!?! Are you completely oblivious about your countries past??? Check out most of the South American countries just for a start. You've been forcing your plutocracy down everybodies throat for way too long and unfortunately you are paying for it now and will continue to pay for it until you stop. The problem is that you are so stubborn(certain?) that you really believe you are doing the world a favour when all you are doing is causing more suffering.

I'm glad you spouted this myth here as I think it's time we retire another LIE being foisted upon the innocent American "youts" who know no better.

When America looks to do business with an entity in a part of the world we want that business to be done in a manner that benefits the partner in that country and also benefit or at least not be hostile to the people or environment of that region. We want that region to be stable so that our business people and economic interests are not endangered.

We do business in countries with leaders who are NOT communist as communism is diametrically opposed to our ideals and business interests and philosophy. Sometimes these leaders got into office in the same way that a communist dictator like Castro in Cuba became Premier, through violent revolution.

We want to do business with whomever can effectively rule those countries and not promote Communism or terrorism. If you've got TWO groups in, let's say Wrangelmania who are fighting each other for leadership of the country; the communist Logicians and a group led by former General Saf Maniac who has questionable ethics and may or may not be a popular choice to lead the country id an election were held. But the issue is FAR from being decided democratically. It's being decided with bullets and the communists are as likely to win as General Maniac.

The US knows that the rampant poverty and lack of education of the people in that whole region, of which Wrangelmania is just one nation, makes the possibility of Communism taking root in that region and spreading everywhere on the continent a real danger.

We decide the best thing for all concerned is to get the general to start suckling from Uncle's sugar teat. We give him support with conditions that he behave in a certain way towards his people and with us.

He defeats the Commie rebels. But after a while he falls victim to greed and excess and the people revolt and the MSM reveals our involvement in his assuming power and we're the bad guy.

And people like YOU just throw these accusations around when it serves YOUR Muslim plans for world domination to attack the supposed immoral past US behavior. The problem with these accusations is that because no one bothers to explore, much less adequately explain them to the average 20 year old he/she goes around thinking the US Govt. is completely morally bankrupt. When, in reality, we're just choosing from a set of choices we often have no control over and just want to make the best of a bad situation. Sometimes we pick the right solution and it stays good for a long time. Other times it's a temporary fix and that's the case with every country more than not. And then sometimes the choice we make is a disaster from day one. And with a pile of crap we attempt to turn it to fertilizer.

It's more difficult being the leader of the free world than you know.

Again, please stop the nonsensical rants.

NO!!!!! I refuse. This is NOT a Muslim controlled country yet!

I am FREE, dammit!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Actually, that's a pretty clever observation.

I don't see anything clever about that as it's pretty obvious.

I know you are trying to get that liberal "I'm the adult and you're the child and so I know better than you but I'm trying to be patient with you..." thing down pat, but I think you need to be slightly more menacing and maniacal. ( )

I'm not trying that. I'm just pointing out the serious flaws in how you argue and what you argue about.

Ok, I'll defend it. He is correct. You are not. He was on the O'Reilly Report or whatever it's called and he wrote a book. You weren't and haven't. There. It's done. You're right it was REALLY easy!

Great argumentation as usual

See, you have good Islamic suicide terrorist instincts. What they are doing in Iraq, bombing the people they would depend on for support is the exact same thing you just did, in principle anyway. You are so smug that you would insult your liberal supporters here in the US by saying they can't even get the whole liberal thing right! Only YOU know how to REALLY be a liberal!

Haaawwwwww!

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just pointing out the fact that American liberalism isn't the same as Liberalism in the rest of the world.

Actually, you are right I am sick. And I am tired. THHHHAAAAT'S RIGHT! I'm sick and tired of the freakin azzole suicide terrorists and those who support them in word, thought or deed.
Anything you can do to help me out on that one, L? No, none of the remedies should involve my injury or demise.

Yes, you could just calm down and try to travel the world. Getting your opinions on these matters using the media for information is a certain way to start to panic like you are doing right now.

And stop trying to label me a terrorist or insinuating that I'm a terrorist supporter. It's disrespectful and false.

Yes, I'm ready to confess. We want eveyone the world over to worship us and exist ONLY for OUR benefit and the type of freedom we allow them will be the variety that isn't real freedom and we will be their masters forever and those countries will be oppressed and live enslaved to our mad capitalist hegemony.

Germany and Japan and South Korea don't count. We'll do it differently THIS time!

Nothing different about it. Like then you are forcing your plutocracy and mercantilism upon foreign cultures. You did it then and you do it now.

By the way only a true Muslim, dedicated to the proposition that the ruling holy men (like the Grand Mufti???) are the ones who determine what KIND or how MUCH freedom the people should have. Only somone like YOU would propose a certain KIND of freedom! And then not even realize how much of an abberation that whole concept is to the real thing.

See, here in THE land of the free we think it's kinda like being preggers. Either you is or you ain't with child. Either you IS or you AIN'T free! There are no levels of freedom.

You don't understand. What if people don't consider your version of freedom to be true freedom?

I'm glad you spouted this myth here as I think it's time we retire another LIE being foisted upon the innocent American "youts" who know no better.

When America looks to do business with an entity in a part of the world we want that business to be done in a manner that benefits the partner in that country and also benefit or at least not be hostile to the people or environment of that region. We want that region to be stable so that our business people and economic interests are not endangered.

We do business in countries with leaders who are NOT communist as communism is diametrically opposed to our ideals and business interests and philosophy. Sometimes these leaders got into office in the same way that a communist dictator like Castro in Cuba became Premier, through violent revolution.

We want to do business with whomever can effectively rule those countries and not promote Communism or terrorism. If you've got TWO groups in, let's say Wrangelmania who are fighting each other for leadership of the country; the communist Logicians and a group led by former General Saf Maniac who has questionable ethics and may or may not be a popular choice to lead the country id an election were held. But the issue is FAR from being decided democratically. It's being decided with bullets and the communists are as likely to win as General Maniac.

The US knows that the rampant poverty and lack of education of the people in that whole region, of which Wrangelmania is just one nation, makes the possibility of Communism taking root in that region and spreading everywhere on the continent a real danger.

We decide the best thing for all concerned is to get the general to start suckling from Uncle's sugar teat. We give him support with conditions that he behave in a certain way towards his people and with us.

He defeats the Commie rebels. But after a while he falls victim to greed and excess and the people revolt and the MSM reveals our involvement in his assuming power and we're the bad guy.

And people like YOU just throw these accusations around when it serves YOUR Muslim plans for world domination to attack the supposed immoral past US behavior. The problem with these accusations is that because no one bothers to explore, much less adequately explain them to the average 20 year old he/she goes around thinking the US Govt. is completely morally bankrupt. When, in reality, we're just choosing from a set of choices we often have no control over and just want to make the best of a bad situation. Sometimes we pick the right solution and it stays good for a long time. Other times it's a temporary fix and that's the case with every country more than not. And then sometimes the choice we make is a disaster from day one. And with a pile of crap we attempt to turn it to fertilizer.

It's more difficult being the leader of the free world than you know.

Wow, just wow. You just admitted that you force your own ideals upon other nations. You just admitted that you are allowed to decide what is best for other countries and what leaders you consider beneficial to other countries. I'm pretty sure that people in Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Indonesia and the list goes on disagree with you. The US government has sponsored terrorism and dictators around the world just to be able to continue your worship of money. You new "true" God.

NO!!!!! I refuse. This is NOT a Muslim controlled country yet!

I am FREE, dammit!

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Athens

Guess over population and climate doesn’t get taking into account, lets look at it from the its a super hot desert and is over crowded as possible reasons why some move away as well. Others are interested in being bombs, others interested in Money, others interested in Travel, others interested in a safe home for there family. Funny how after they move they don't dump there religion. If western ways where more appealing as you suggest why don’t they convert to christens as well when they move here. Your statement is really flawed.

It's not an 'all or nothing at all' move. the number of people fro mthat part of the world migrating to the 'western nations' is much much larger than the number of 'westerners' migrating there. it's not about religion...it's about everything...lifestyle, politics, tolerance, etc,etc. They obviously think it's worth making the move because there's something in the west thats better than what they have. After all thats why anyone moves imo.

It just so happens that the way we have our political, economics and social structures set up is far better for the common man(domestically) than the way they do. (just my observation from living there of course).

As far as climate goes....babylon was the cradel of civilization as was the entire mediterranean. If climate was an excuse..... why are so many fro mthe middle east moving to Canada of all places ?

I dont think my statement is flawed. People are moving, and its obvious in which direction. i didnt claim the reason to be religion, but judging from the fundamental differences in society, its not unreasonable to make the claim that things such as lifestyle, politics, economics,etc... are major advantages that draw people here.

Cheers

[Millennium]

It's a shame that they were ever developed. Now that they exist, the only safe way to disarm is for everyone who has them to disarm at the same time. Even if only one country is left who has them (in fact, especially in that case), that country can rule the world with an iron fist, and given enough time it probably will; all it takes is one corrupt ruler. Mutually-assured destruction is a poor deterrent, but it does get the job done.

This is also why it's important to not let anyone else develop the capability. Too many nations have it already, and the process of disarming them is delicate at best.