ill Rich
Now, this isn't to start a flame war or anything, but somehow, I bet it's inevitable, heh. Anyhow, I don't mean this as an attack Rich, just a little rant...
You claim to be a humanist, yet you are bent on competition as being the most important thing around. You support Bush. You support the Iraq war. (Maybe you don't support Bush, but you seem to, and you definitely support the war. Right? I hope I'm not fucking this up already, haha.)
Anyway, if you support those two things - okay, fine, great. That's your belief system and I don't intend to make any attempts to change that. However, I have a request - please stop parading around under the guise of a humanist. Of a moralist, or a liberator, or any other noble sounding title.
You've agreed before that we just went in to get the oil. Well, that at least that was a major factor. Okay. Fine. Moralism is a sticky subject, I'm not going to debate it. However, we did not do it because Saddam was a threat and we did not do it to liberate the Iraqi people. They are not liberated, it was not a bonus. Some Iraqis have even gone so far as to say that we Americans are [i]worse[/i] than Saddam. We've re-instated his Naziesque police force, as well as many of the Baathists. Nothing has changed except the name of the ruling party and now we've got the oil, a staging point for further aggression if necessary and a big 'fuck you' to the rest of the world. A demonstration. Defy the US and this is what happens.
I know you're aware of this, yet you still try to play the role of this benevolent humanist. It's ridiculous, really. You're not looking out for humans, you're looking out for yourself and your nation (to an extent). That's it. That makes you a self-serving nationalist. You could add imperialist to that, as well.
If you think it's fine to just go around and do whatever, as long as it benefits our government and keeps the rich rich, fine, okay, that's your opinion. I would just appreciate it if you would disabuse yourself of this notion that the invasion was an act of defense and liberation. It has not made us safer, if anything, it has made us less so. It has not made the Iraqi people free, all it has brought is chaos. As an Iraqi civilian said, "At least with Saddam, we had safety." In regards to the looting and rampant crime that has followed the collapse of the regime. And in the wake of that, all the brutal, oppressive forces that Saddam employed against his people have been reinstated by the US.
No liberation for the Iraqi people.
No safety for the American people.
It was an act of greed, an act to prolong the American Empire and project our might.
I've no qualms with your opinions on whether that is justified or not, I just ask, one last time, that you admit that you are only concerned with yourself, and that you are not a humanist, as you earlier proclaimed. You despise us 'filthy liberals' because we are 'weak', and unwilling to stand up and do what's right, as you see it. Afraid to come out and stand by our convictions. Well, you are so similar to what you hate. You're afraid to come out and declare that you are concerned with no one but yourself, and that you are simply trying to justify this self-serving nature with ridiculous rhetoric about humanism, defense, liberation, etc. Don't be afraid, Rich. Be proud of what you are - a self-centered nationalist. Or should I say [b]The Nationalist[/b]? 
*breaks out the popcorn*
goddamnit, I wish Ill Rich was here right now. Talk about waiting in suspense. This is worse then the season finale of Party of Five where they confronted Bailey about his drinking.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by D._Prest [/i]
[B]goddamnit, I wish Ill Rich was here right now. Talk about waiting in suspense. This is worse then the season finale of Party of Five where they confronted Bailey about his drinking. [/B][/QUOTE] Dude, no.
I hate you.
is ill rich still around? i haven't been here in a few weeks
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]You claim to be a humanist, yet you are bent on competition as being the most important thing around.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Competition furthers humanity. What led to the abolishment of slavery? Opressive governments? Medical breakthroughs? Man to the moon? Modern day luxuries?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]You support Bush.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Bush is an elite leader. He is doing whatever it takes to protect his people.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]You support the Iraq war.
[/B][/QUOTE]
The Citizen wants safety. The Citizen wants to be safe from terrorism, a troubling economy, and be safe from fossil fuels running out on them.
Bush is serving The Citizen. Saddam has never served The Citizen. Why [i]not[/i] support the war?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]However, I have a request - please stop parading around under the guise of a humanist.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I am The Observer. I am The Ultimate Humanist.
As The Observer I see [i]why[/i] people do things. My recognition of that does not automatically mean I support it. I can understand why a murderer would kill witnesses, but I hardly think that is worthy of praise.
As The Ultimate Humanist I want change. I will change myself, as I have, to become Human. I regard [i]every[/i] human life with equal value. I become irritated with the greedy, the lustful, the vengeful, and the proud.
Not because it is a "sin", or because I want to have what they do - but because it demeans the Divine Human Rights.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]However, we did not do it because Saddam was a threat and we did not do it to liberate the Iraqi people.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Saddam was a military threat, an economic threat (by funding terrorism), and a threat in the way he wouldn't sell oil to the US.
The US wanted to liberate the Iraqi people without a doubt. The US wants to show them the free life so they might change their mindset. Middle Eastern approval of the US is extremely low. Inducting the Iraqi people into a "western" society would bring up the approval AND prevent future problems and calm current tensions.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Defy the US and this is what happens.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Hardly! What about China? North Korea?... FRANCE even!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]As an Iraqi civilian said, "At least with Saddam, we had safety."
[/B][/QUOTE]
Point being? Russia was safe under Stalin. The Eastern European countries had better economies under the USSR.
The people of Germany LOVED Hitler!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]I just ask, one last time, that you admit that you are only concerned with yourself, and that you are not a humanist, as you earlier proclaimed.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I want great civilizations to last. I want great civilizations to be built.
I value human life.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Or should I say The Nationalist?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Nationalism goes hand in hand with blind pride. I've yet to even mutter than "I'm proud to be an American" - or even state I am American.
yawn.
"Do you have 846 pounds of zinc? I don't!" -- The Laz.
"I was almost Six On Tha Dot. What a mistake that would have been." -- Six On The Dot
woah- hes doing that 'quote' thing again and again and again and....
life's pretty straight without vidalia :You_Rock_
yeah, can anyone tell me how to do that? Is that a copy/paste deal?
Yeah, it makes things boring. Of course, it makes it easier to win arguments, but oh well.
Bush is not out to defend the people, he is out to keep himself and his buddies rich and in power. He is not protecting the American people. We've gone over this a million times, Saddam was not a threat, not even in your 'he won't sell us oil' way. There are a million other ways to solve the energy crisis, but invading Iraq is the 'quick fix' and that's what politicians looking to get re-elected will almost always opt for.
The Iraqi people do NOT like us. Hundreds of thousands of them are protesting the occupation. Puppets we have designated as possible leaders have been assassinated. Suicide bombings continue. Protestors are murdererd. Oppressive forces re-instated.
It was a demonstration to other arab nations. Nations that can't defend themselves. Nations that don't have nuclear weapons as a detterent.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Bush is not out to defend the people, he is out to keep himself and his buddies rich and in power. He is not protecting the American people. We've gone over this a million times, Saddam was not a threat, not even in your 'he won't sell us oil' way. There are a million other ways to solve the energy crisis, but invading Iraq is the 'quick fix' and that's what politicians looking to get re-elected will almost always opt for.
[/B][/QUOTE]
It obviously isn't your fate to understand. You will [i]never[/i] see it, because you choose not to.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]The Iraqi people do NOT like us.
[/B][/QUOTE]
10 years from now Iraq will be on of the US's biggest allies.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Nations that can't defend themselves. Nations that don't have nuclear weapons as a detterent.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Cuba has none... Saudia Arabia has none... Syria has none... Somalia has none... Rwanda has none... Zimbabwe has none...
Know why the US doesn't invade them?
1) They're not an immediate threat
2) They have no interesting resources
Exactly, there's nothing to gain. You'll admit we're out to steal whatever we can get our hands on, but you insist on clinging to this belief that there is some sort of moral justification for it. See: liberation/defense.
Why is that? Don't be afraid Rich, it's okay to be selfish. So drop the mask, already. 
cuba, syria and zimbabwe all have plenty of resources worth exploiting. all the countries you mention are potential markets for american goods and services.
still, i'm not pointing this out to punch holes in your argument, but because i'd like to visit old havana.
every nation on earth has 1 basic resource- it must- and thats PEOPLE.
see also: bodies
see also: labour workers
see also: minimum wage.
life's pretty straight without vidalia :You_Rock_
I'm tired of people telling everyone what they [i]think[/i] they know as George Bush's true motives.
There is a not a lot of evidence to support this "greed" theory. Firstly, think about what it's going to do to Bush in the 2004 election. If [b]Operation Iraqi Freedom[/b] was about personal gain, Bush would have backed out when America began to protest, knowing it would threaten his chances at re-election. By the way he speaks and how his actions speak, I believe the man's got integrity.
No, he saw a threat and went after it. So, maybe we're fucking up on reforming Irag...it's better than what most countries would do. Every one we've ever attacked we've helped rebuild. Look at goddamn Japan.
Lastly, I doubt any of us have gotten a true picture of any of this political shit, what with the slanted media and all.
Enjoy.
[CENTER]a million bucks[/CENTER]
Also, stop doggin' Ill Rich.
He also has integrity. I think he's done a damn good job at defending himself thus far.
[CENTER]a million bucks[/CENTER]
I think ill Rich should stop claiming absurd things about himself. (i.e. I am The Ultimate Humanist, I am The Observer. Um.. you understand why people do things, even if you disagree... isn't that just using global thinking? I mean, I can do that too, and I don't think "I am The Ultimate Humanist, worship me!") Anywho, I think he should stop talking about politics. It just isn't his foreplay. He was proven wrong again, and again, and again, yet he still responds with an agreence with his opponet, yet adds a little conservative twist to the end. Anyway, ill Righ, just stop. I don't hold anything against you, and I respect your opinion, but, it's not doing you any good to sit here and argue with us(Cult members). And your not helping us (refrence to the other thread) by spewing your stupidity in our faces. Please, stop talking politics. That will help us more than anything else you can do.
Bwahaha. The Child speaks!
[CENTER]a million bucks[/CENTER]
AC - Go take a shower, and rid yourself of Rich's plague.
XChuck - You're right, except I started this thread specifically to discuss this with Rich, so I don't see how he can be blamed for talking politics here. If you want to tell him not to do it elsewhere, go right ahead, but this thread is specifically designated for me and him to try to figure each other out. Of course, I'm sure he's already got me pegged. I'm just a dirty liberal, after all. :rolleyes:
AC (again):
There sure is a lot of evidence to support the 'greed' theory. First off, I'll point out how your evidence against it is flawed:
1.) Even if he does not remain president, he can still continue on living the good life and making lots of money. It is not necessary to stay president, it's just something he'd -like- to do. However, he has to keep the people who are in power, in positions of power, lest he lose favor with those who would help him continue living the good life. So getting re-elected is still a priority, I just had to point out that it's not a necessity.
2.) I'm sure the president and his advisors are quite confident in their propaganda system. They ought to be, it works exceedingly well. They've learned that they can do practically whatever they want, because by simply distracting the public or repeating lies over and over, they can keep us pacified. I often claim that our government is totalitarian, or getting there, and people cry that "well they can't just do whatever they want, so obviously they aren't totalitarian", which is absurd. Our leaders have learned from history. They know that if the populace gets mad enough, they can, and will, overthrow the government. So they are forced to walk a careful path between doing as much as they can to benefit themselves and keeping the public from finding out and getting upset about it.
3.) Elections are rigged, as Greg Palast of the BBC has discovered. Not to some un-defeatable degree, but to quite a large amount. Actually, it has gotten much worse now. During the 2000 election, it was dirty tricks to blacklist certain people, but as Kitty has said, if enough people had gone out and voted for Gore, he would have beaten the rigging, anyhow. However, during the '02 election, approximately a dozen republicans won by the exact same number of votes. I think it was 18,141, if I recall correctly. Coincidence? I think fucking not. It was all thanks to electronic voting machines. Still, it can be beaten, but when coupled with the all encompassing propaganda machine that beats down on us everyday, it makes for an extremely formidable tool to keep the powerful in power.
So - that's why he did it. Despite the fact that the CIA, FBI & NSA have all stated that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to link Saddam and Al Qaeda or Saddam and 9/11, polls show that a majority of Americans think Saddam had some sort of involvement in 9/11 and a large amount think there were actually Iraqis on the planes, which there were not.
That is how frighteningly effective the propaganda is today. As Hitler said, "The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over."
And that's exactly what the Bush administration has done.
Now, to continue to the item of reforming Iraq and past reconstruction of other nations we have invaded.
How do you know it's better than what most countries would do? Any evidence, whatsoever, to back that up? Seems absolutely baseless, to me.
Yeah, look at Japan, they're doing great, good for them. As is Germany. Why is that, do you think? Because we learned from the first World War. After the Great War, we fucked Germany up the asshole quite severely, and that made room for Hitler to come up and grab this disillusioned, impoverished people and ignite them into a patriotic and eventually nationalistic fervor. So we learned from that, and next time around, we actually helped rebuild their economies.
Now just look at all the other countries we've gone into and subverted elections, deposed democratically elected leaders and backed militant right-wing coups.
It is well known that German Fascists transformed their buffoonish leader, Hitler, from a national joke into der Fuhrer die Reich by means of a) securing moneys from large industrialists and financiers (they liked his extremely rightwing ideas on race, labor, religion, nationalism, capitalism, imperialism, etc) and 
by using multiple propaganda hoaxes in order to sway domestic opinion.
The Reichstag fire in 1933 allowed for Hitler to be proclaimed leader of the state as well as for the Night of the Long Knives the following year (violence against leftists) and all of the anti-jewish bullshit that came soon after. As we all know, the Reichstag was burned by fascist thugs and blamed on communists; they even got a disabled Dutch guy to “admit” to both arson and communism—smoking gun! woohoo!
In 1938, the Nazis claimed that they needed to perform a “humanitarian intervention” in the Sudetenland (in the modern Czech Republic) in order to stop “ethnic violence.” Of course, it was Nazi thugs carrying out the “ethnic violence” in the first place, but never mind that small detail.
In 1939, the fascists contrived Operation Canned Goods—a faked attack on a German border patrol, which was allegedly a surprise massacre, carried out by Polish military personnel. Evil Slavic Untermenschen Evildoer Terrorists! Too bad, however, that we now know those corpses in German uniform shown on Nazi TV to be dead Poles, kidnapped and murdered; the German public, though, went insane with jingoism, calling for invasions and genocide.
As we shall see, this is a technique learned by the Nazis from the masters of such things in the US (Hitler credited the development of the “Final Solution” to his study of US treatment of Native Americans), and something that was then perfected by the US after it recovered and reconciled with its mad dog Nazi assets during the Cold War.
The overall pattern is using irrelevant, misinterpreted, or completely fabricated events in order to convince all of the clarences (who had nothing to gain from militarism, but who were susceptible to jingoism, racism, ethnocentrism) that…war is a great fucking idea! NB that many of these propaganda hoaxes seem to be more effective now than they were when first produced. Also NB, these are the times that the state was forced, for whatever reasons, to consult with the public—either Congress or the people. Most US crimes are committed without recourse to either, or with only a general, vague acknowledgement: “Oh, that CIA is just protecting Freedom from Evil! We can’t tell you what they’re doing specifically, because that would compromise them to the Forces of Darkness!”
1775 – Britain: so it begins, and the story runs that Evildoer British imperialists took away Our Liberty, &c.; produced Evil Boston Massacres, Stamp Acts, Massachusetts Uprisings; and tried to import tea. While the British were certainly imperialistic, and tea is the mark of the ruling class in colonial times, we should take heed that the first offensive of the American War for Independence was a colonial invasion of Quebec. Huh? You mean, before they even signed the Declaration, the proto-United States was invading other countries? You bet. What’s at stake here is the Proclamation Line and the Quebec Act, both of which prevented the fledgling colonies from expanding. And be sure to recall that during the next US war, a conquest of Canada would again be attempted.
1812 – Britain: ah…tales of “naval impressments.” Too bad that this narrative, of war caused by US sailors being conscripted, like slaves, into the British privateering fleet, is a lie; too bad that the landowners all across the infant US wanted the British, French, Spanish, and natives off the continent so they could expand their holdings, import more slaves, and thereby make more money; too bad that plans for such expansion existed way before the declaration of hostilities. The keys here are Florida, the Caribbean, and the western frontier.
1846 – Mexico: the US is forced to retaliate against the Mexicans, since Mexican troops ruthlessly attacked US regiments, who just happened to be occupying slave-owning Texas. Why would the Evildoers in Mexico do that? Not, I hope, because Texas was part of Mexico? Not, I fear, because Mexicans were anti-slavery (abolished since 1829)? Not, I believe, because the US had aggressively assaulted Mexico multiple times already, including the original secessionist agitation in Texas? No, none of that matters; they’re just Evil.
1898 – Spain: the “Remember the Maine!” incident as well as Hearst newspapers proclaiming that Cuba needed a “humanitarian intervention”—both obvious lies—help sway people in the US to genocidal furor. Enter Empire, the subjugation of the people of Guam, Puerto Rico, and Cuba, and the Philippine genocide.
1917 – Central Powers: the Lusitania incident and the Zimmerman Telegram fire up US war fervor; too bad the Wilson administration provoked the Germans by aiding the British under a flag of “neutrality,” generated tons of anti-German racialist BS, and managed to invade every country in the Caribbean, including Mexico several times. Also, we needn’t forget that the Wilsonian declaration of War was timed perfectly with Lenin’s “April Theses.” All in the name of “protecting democracy,” from Evildoers, no doubt! An honest student of history will note that it’s more like “protecting certain segments of Kapital from others, whilst destroying genuine democratic resistance.”
1918 – USSR: “Communists eat babies!” “Bolsheviks seek to conquer world!’ “International Jewry grabs power in Russia!” “Reds to start war in India next!” “Socialism and incest: partners in Sin!” So ran the newspapers, every day, in every city, after Czarist absolutism was broken by popular resistance, no thanks to the US. Wilson’s administration used such imbecilic pretenses in a failed attempt to “strangle bolshevism in its cradle,” as one imperialist from a different genocidal nation put it. Of course, the real motives behind western intervention weren’t mentioned: Capital Capital Capital Capital.
1941 – Axis Powers: the Pearl Harbor attack was known in advance, no matter how “sudden” or how much “infamy” Roosevelt would later claim for it. NB FDR’s well-planned provocation strategy to ensure that Japan would attack the US, thus allowing the US to dictate terms to the rest of the world, which would be destroyed by war’s end. NB that the overrated Operation Overlord was delayed just long enough for the Soviet Union to be shattered by Kapital’s mad dog Hitler, but just timely enough to prevent the Soviets from taking out all of the fascists in Europe, from the Volga to Gibraltar.
1945 – Japan: event—nukes; propaganda lie—“saving Japanese and American lives”; bitter truth—self-serving genocide and terrorism to intimidate Stalin. Only assholes can believe the US story here.
1950 – DPRK: despite claims that “the Totalitarian North ruthlessly invaded the Free South,” it looks as though a communist North reacted to a long series of provocations carried out by a fascistic South, which included border skirmishes, coordinated raids, and artillery battery. But who cares? America to the rescue! Of fascism!
1952 – East Germany: despite Soviet attempts to get out of Berlin, requiring only assurances from the US that Germany would be a) democratic, demilitarized, c) united, and d) neutral, the US insisted on the precarious, ignorant status quo, obviously preferring it to the just Soviet proposal. Up, then, went the Berlin Wall in 1961, which was called an act of tyranny by moronic US commentators, but was intended by the Soviet Union to keep fascists, CIA operatives, saboteurs, assassins, and other agents of Kapital away. This event is largely responsible for much escalation of the Cold War during 50s, which would predictably and wrongly be blamed on the USSR.
1953 – Iran: Commies are gonna get us! Or so it was said by flag-waving retards. The unfortunate truth: a democratic regime thought it was allowed to use its own resources for its own benefit. The US disagreed with Mossadegh.
1954 – Guatemala: Commies are gonna get us! Or so it was said by flag-waving retards. The unfortunate truth: a democratic regime thought it was allowed to use its own resources for its own benefit. The US disagreed with Arbenz.
1964 – Vietnam: the USS Maddox got hit by some lightning, but LBJ thought it’d be a good idea to bow before the banking cartels, the Seven Sisters, the Pentagon, and crusty McCarthyoids, thereby inventing the notion that the (repeat the old script) Red North ruthlessly invaded the Free South—or, at least they ruthlessly attacked an innocent US naval vessel in international waters. Turns out that there was no attack, that the ship was in Hanoi’s waters, and was not-at-all-innocently deploying special forces and other anti-communist swine into the North for the normal roster of Kapitalist Karnage.
1973 – Chile: Commies are gonna get us! Or so it was said by flag-waving retards. The unfortunate truth: a democratic regime thought it was allowed to use its own resources for its own benefit. The US disagreed with Allende.
1981 – Nicaragua: Commies are gonna get us! Or so it was said by flag-waving retards. The unfortunate truth: a democratic regime thought it was allowed to use its own resources for its own benefit. The US disagreed with Ortega.
1983 – Grenada: Commies are gonna get us! Or so it was said by flag-waving retards. The unfortunate truth: a democratic regime thought it was allowed to use its own resources for its own benefit. The US disagreed with Bishop.
1986 – Libya: Evil Terrorist Nation! Quit doing Terrorist things! We will bomb you! Turns out that the Libyans weren’t responsible, after all, for the acts of “terror” of which they’d been accused. Hmm…a high publicity bombing mission right in the middle of the Iran-Contra Affair? What a coincidence! And at a time when Gorbachev was making peaceful overtures and the US was in danger of having no enemies? Amazingly coincidental!
1989 – Panama: They said that Noriega was an Evildoer Drugdealer! You must go Evil Doper! USA All The Way! Humanitarian Intervention! We should mention that Noriega was attempting to institute some democratic reforms and social services, had been a CIA asset, and largely oversaw US drug smuggling—and could document his and US involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair. But why trouble anyone with the facts? Especially the fact that the true meaning of the words “Operation Just Cause” is that US Delta Force teams secretly attacked US Army units so that the US could claim “Panamanian terrorists are shooting us!”
1991 – Kuwait: the famous “dead babies” hoax, which was revealed to be a lie. Other tidbits: Kuwait had provoked Iraq in numerous ways; Iraq got approval from its imperial master, the US, before invading; Bush had personal investments in the region; and US strategy had long called for a way to control the Gulf States directly. With the USSR gone and the Kuwait-Iraq border dispute, the US now had both pretext and opportunity.
1992 – Bosnia: never mind all of the dead Serbs. Instead, check out this photo! The Evil Serb Evildoers have Evilly put some guy in a concentration camp at Trnopolje! Look at the barbed wire! Look at how starved he is! Oh…wait a minute…looks like that the barbed wire is around someone’s shed, that the photographer is in the shed, that the starving guy is a refugee on the outside of the barbed fence, that the headline “Belsen 92” is a lie, that there were no concentration camps, and that the entire series of US operations in the early 1990s were resurrected Nazi policies on Yugoslavia, which still maintained some socialistic economic policies. Well, I’ll be damned: another “humanitarian intervention” for Kapitalism.
1993 – Somalia: Yet another “Humanitarian intervention!” Thing is, the famine was nearly over, the US wasn’t anywhere near where it had been, the Somalis already hated the US for thrusting Barre on them, and the US was only there now for 1) oil prospecting, 2) uranium mining, 3) military basing, 4) public relations, and 5) a “paid advertisement” for the Pentagon, in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell’s cynical phrase..
1998 – Sudan: Evil terrorists are making VX nerve gas in that big factory! Tomahawk it! Turns out, though, that the plant manufactured antibiotics for half the country. Given that the Sudan was in the midst of a disease crisis, the destruction of their medical infrastructure only served to exacerbate the problem. How many died as a result? Who knows—the US, as is typical, doesn’t care to investigate, apologize, or acknowledge.
1999 – Kosovo: “Humanitarian intervention!” Now for something completely different. Racak, Srebrenica, Izbica, Trepca—all more complicated than they seem, as according to numerous international organizations, the FBI, and so on. Ethnic cleansing? Only if we are talking about the cleansing of Serbs by NATO. And the banner hoax here: the “Serbian MIG,” allegedly attacking civilians, is revealed as a fraud in state-press photos, which obviously display English writing on the alleged fuselage.
2001 – Afghanistan: Evil Terrorists got us! We will get them back! Of course, the true story is much more complicated, involving US complicity, deception, and strategic planning at all levels, as noted in the recent historical record (cf. “the complete 9/11 timeline”).
2002 – Iraq?: Evil! Smite Evil! Get oil! Did I say oil? I meant that Evildoer tried to kill my daddy! One excellent hoax, besides the manufactured general “threat” rhetoric, is the alleged 15 kg of “weapons-grade uranium” recovered in Turkey in mid 2002, allegedly bound for Iraq from “Eastern Europe.” Too bad that this “weapons-grade uranium” has “Made in West Germany” written on it—in English.
Yeah, go USA.
Blah blah blah.
I am bored.
[CENTER]a million bucks[/CENTER]
holy shit disx- how close was THAT post to reaching word limit ?
life's pretty straight without vidalia :You_Rock_
The post was 18444 characters long. The total amount for a post count is 1000000 characters.
oh, its that many.
well, either way, 18k is pretty damn impressive.
life's pretty straight without vidalia :You_Rock_
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Aurelius Caulfield [/i]
[B]Blah blah blah.
I am bored. [/B][/QUOTE]
Of course you are. Its certainly easier than exerting yourself or thinking. Blah Blah Blah yourself little boy.
disx:
You have some very, very good point. I'd like to see where you got these interpretations of events, from, and where you got the historical references from. Do you have any particular resources that you visit regularly for these?
Well, my favorite little site is [url=www.whatreallyhappened.com]What Really Happened[/url], but I must admit, some of the stuff he posts is not so great, a little -too- 'out there' and some of it is merely speculation. As with anything, it requires that you sift through it carefully for stuff that's really useful. In Rivero's defense, though, he posts a LOT of stuff, so I woudl assume he certainly doesn't have the time to comb through everything, so I'm sure he gets sent stuff and then just links it up, without carefully going over it. But overall, a pretty good site, and the viewpoints he expresses himself are typically sound.
Thanks. Reading, now. 
where would any of us be without the cut and paste function?
i think ill rich is the ultimate reactionary seeker. he posts, we respond, he riposts, we retort, etc. we're feeding his ego, folks.
that is, we've created a monster. *staggers slowly forward with arms astretch, hands grabbing at air*
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by mirkah [/i]
[B]Of course you are. Its certainly easier than exerting yourself or thinking. Blah Blah Blah yourself little boy. [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly.
::cock slap::
[CENTER]a million bucks[/CENTER]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Exactly, there's nothing to gain. You'll admit we're out to steal whatever we can get our hands on, but you insist on clinging to this belief that there is some sort of moral justification for it.[/B][/QUOTE]
Where did I [i]morally[/i] justify it? QUOTE ME ON IT!
I'm simply explaining WHY these things are happeneing - it's been the same since the beginning of civilization.
100 posts!
Yay!
Give me a shovel!
to hit you with!?! *actually becoming excited at the idea of assault and battery*
I am scared for two major reasons:
1. I mostly agree with Ill Rich, but that might be because the conservatives on the forum (him, framstedt, & me) seem to all kind of blend together in the face of liberalism--don't kill me, disx!!
2. Ever since we started that whole "who is Chuck" thread, I have had the creeping fear that Chuck is Ill Rich. Which really really frightens me.
As Kitty said once, I don't think it's the things that he says that bug us (except maybe for disx 
) it's the attitude and the tone he uses when he says them. The way he kind of proclaims to be right. But I still have to reluctantly give him the fact that he defends himself will, much better than I could if I were faced with the same kind of challenges.
I am caught in a quagmire of ambiguity. Crap.
There is hope, but not for us.
I try to stay out of those kind of conversations, but not because I think Ill Rich is Chuck
Are you sure that caffeine isn't having bad effects on you, Jane?
Well, since it's like 11:00 in the morning and I haven't had any yet--I'm going to say no.
But I promise to drink a whole ton when I'm at work tonight! I have discovered the joys of coffee with cocoa mix in it!!
There is hope, but not for us.
How good's the coffee machine at work, though?
Good enough that you'll start hallucinating that Ill Rich is in fact one of the people at work and neither of you know?
No, since my coffee machine doesn't have acid in it. Plus American coffee is notoriously weak and bad, kind of like American beer. We like to pretend our beverages are tough shit but it's all an act.
There is hope, but not for us.
Mmm. We're lucky.
Our coffee mostly comes from Kenya or Brazil, our Tea from England or China, and our beer from Australia
My work has a $1900 coffeemaker. I quite like it here for that reason alone.
$1900?!!? Oh my. Well, maybe I don't know the price of the average coffeemakerk, since I just started drinking it like a week ago. The whole thing is still confusing and frightening to me. *looks back over shoulder nervously*
There is hope, but not for us.
We're aiming for a $3000 one for my friends and I when we all get a house together.
Twin boilers.
I cower in awe of your caffeine addiction. I could never hope to be as great as the Mighty Rohan in the field of coffee consumption. I should just give up now like a looser.
There is hope, but not for us.
Ha ha, our posts are 666 and 888.
But I guess I'm going to fuck it up with this post. Oh well.
There is hope, but not for us.
Actually, I'm more a coffee maker than a drinker.
I just enjoy the cafe subculture.
Hmm...cafe subculture...like how?
But I'm the same, I just like the smell. Right now I think the stuff tastes like crap, which is why I put so much extraneous milk and cocoa and stuff in it.
There is hope, but not for us.
You know you're addicted when you find yourself ordering triple Macchiatos from Starbucks. I'm not at that stage yet.
Of course, I also dislike almost everything on the Starbucks menu, so that doesn't help. They over-roast their beans.
Gucci, we're trying to change the topic to go back to once again ignoring his existance
Yeah, I mostly drink their cocoa and Italian sodas. Then I can claim I drink coffee at Starbucks and it's not 100% a lie.
Over-roast their beans?! You can do that?! I have so much to learn...
There is hope, but not for us.
Sodas.
Sodas.
You have no idea how weird it is to get used to that term.
They make up for the strength by making them fucking huge.
ouch. this is going to be amusing & taxing for one and all. joy.
life's pretty straight without vidalia :You_Rock_