213374U

Stratified societies have always existed, and they always will. As a matter of fact, a stratified, pyramidal organization is necessary for the society to have any degree of stability as things are right now. That's how things work. Anything else is a proven failure. Sorry if you can't handle it, but that's how it is. As for the particular circumstances in Mexico, it's a democracy. If they don't like it, they are supposed to have the power to change it. If they can't change it because it's a flawed system, they have to bring down the system and start over. If they don't do either, they deserve what they have. I already explained this. No, I'm not going to make your research. You are making an argument, you bring the facts to back your claims. Why should the US act against Fox's corruption? It's beneficial to the US. It's the Mexicans who should do that. Sorry if the US isn't making all they can to make the world a better place. That's not the aim of any government. The US act just like the Roman, British, French, and Spanish empires did, only with today's means. You love to throw mud at your country (or the strategic ally of your country) while you dream of worlds in pink. But if it wasn't for the very policy you hate, you probably wouldn't even have the luxury of considering those thoughts. Inequality is a constant in human society. Give thanks you're part of the privileged part, and deal with it. And also, don't reply to yourself. I'm not a figment of your imagination.

For Wals' pleasure, here comes my marvel of a multi-volume post (as the quote limit doesn't allow me to put everything in a single post). It's not the same. In that case, there wasn't much choice but to cooperate, as the country had already been crushed militarily. It wasn't a civil war in which one of the factions was backed by the US. Not only you need to read more history, you also need to watch the news more often. It's happening in Iraq right now, buddy. Evidence, as in declassified documents, for instance. And what if Bush was planning Chavez' downfall? It looks like for whatever reasons, he didn't implement it. End of story. So what? Castro had, until '91, the support of the USSR, that offered Castro a lot of "preferential deals". Besides, the embargo only affects the US, not the rest of the world. So, no. It's not a very effective way of stopping a revolution, sorry. That's speculation, as nothing like that has ever come even close to happening. The US is in no shape right now, militarily, politically or diplomatically, to conduct "full scale retaliation" against Mexico in the event of a large scale revolution, or civil war. Really? then what's this? That sounds pretty goddamn apologetic to me. Is there even a reason to go against the US? It's not an hegemony for nothing, you know. But at any rate, Cuba is not a valid example. Despite all of the US efforts, Castro still stands. So it can be done. And no, crossing over a border is not more realistic than overthrowing the corrupt government that rules your country. It's easier. There's a difference. Right, because the US would be able to take over the whole Central and South America without batting an eyelash. Just like they took over Afghanistan, or Iraq. Now, who's turning a blind eye to military logistics and domestic political climate?

Well, if he gave Lehmann the red, he should have allowed for a penalty kick, instead of that free kick near the line, as the foul was right over the line. But yeah, the ref was pretty bad. The yellow card Henry got was out of place (as a matter of fact, he came out of the tackle worse than the other player), but the ref just saw Henry going in with both feet, and reached for his pocket automatically. What I still can't understand is how Eto'o was declared best player of the match. For most of the first half he was completely blocked by Eboue (which for some reason he insisted on trying to dribble), and he didn't really make a great second half. Henry should have been player of the match, even if he wasn't very lucky. Also, it sucks for Pires... the man probably had a hard time restraining himself from choking Lehmann...

Nope. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy that exists in a discourse blatantly apologetic of a regime that systematically suppresses basic freedoms, while at the same promptly taking the moral high ground and to down fire on the embargo. At any rate, it's irrelevant if the US has helped to overthrow governments, as in most cases, it was an internal affair, with external US help. If there weren't factions in those countries willing to sell their own people for money (as those governments are invariably corrupt), that kind of foreign policy would be unfeasible for the US. They couldn't do that in (western) Europe, for instance. Again, they are just not ready to have democracy. And it shows. Also, I'd like you to present evidence (actual evidence, not another of your pamphlets) to back your claims regarding those alleged schemes to overthrow or kill Chavez. Not really. But how is the US going to stop a civil war? Like in Iraq? Right. Who's arguing who is right and who is wrong? As I said before, it's a matter of interests. The US do the only thing anyone in their right mind would do, protect their interests. On the other hand, it's you who's apologetic of a dictatorship. That sounds like lame excuses. Also, I don't think the US have the manpower right now to occupy Mexico. There was some talk about reinstating the draft, and that's a no-no for any President that wants to even think of a second term. Are you talking about the military dictatorships of the 70's? Again, those people had the support of many within their own country. Neat. Next time you make an argument that's difficult to refute, I'm going to use that line as well. Not that that's going to happen anytime soon, though.

No. It's really sad when you have to twist my arguments so you can attack them. What I said is that Castro's regime is the cause for the international isolation of Cuba (which the embargo is only a part of). Also, I wasn't referring specifically to the embargo, because even if the international community doesn't approve of it, that doesn't mean they are willing to deal with Cuba on the same level as if it was a democracy. Try again. Of course it's all politics. But if you want to assume a purely utilitarian stance, then your own arguments regarding the humanitarian crisis caused by the embargo aren't worth jack, as it's all a conflict of interests. Thanks for shooting down your own discourse. Finally. I was starting to get the impression you'd never get it. Has the vote changed anything? No. It only does when it's the powerful that gang up on someone else. Thus my point is proven. As for the US allies, everyone knew that supporting the embargo or not is of little consequence. But it looks bad to be on the US' side, these days. How the hell do you know what have I done for democracy? Tell you what, if we are to get along, you don't make random assumptions about me, and I won't assume you're talking out of your ass. How about it? Eh... yes. Those civilizations were replaced with a copy of our own, which was ruled over by criollos once the countries kicked the Spanish out. That was about... two hundred years ago. They have had more than enough time to get back on their feet. Why haven't they? No idea. Vietnam, maybe? Hardly without the consent of the local leaders. And in this case, local leaders are elected democratically. Sorry. Yeah. It's called hegemony, and imperialism. Again, welcome back to planet reality, "Bob". It has existed since there's a recorded History. And eventually, those empires have always been brought down. People fought them, though. For some reason, this doesn't seem to be the case. If they won't fight for their own future, I sure as hell won't. It seems it's you who needs to do some reading. There's no such "white elite" ruling in South America. In some cases it's the descendants from criollos (half-native, half-Spaniard), and in some other cases it's native folk. I don't know, Morales looks pretty native to me. Mind you, the descendants of criollos are full-fledged citizens of those countries. I hope you're not suggesting that anyone from Spanish heritage should be banned from the exercise of public functions. You also seem to need to read up on the amount of money invested in South America in the last 20-25 years, and how none of that has served to increase the life quality of the people there. Corruption is the word. On the other hand, we have the emergent economies in southeastern Asia.

-"Throw in a blowjob and you got yourselves a deal!"

sterilization plz

As a matter of fact, that is a lie, but I'm willing to grant you the benefit of doubt and assume you're just misinformed. The only thing that prevented the country from bursting into civil war before the war were Saddam's own totalitarian practices (including, but not limited to, genocide). Now with Saddam gone, and a foreign occupation force on their land, the violence is difficult to control. But the violence was latent. It wasn't created by the invasion. Yes, it's truly sad when a few people damage the image of a much larger group of people like that. But let us not forget that thanks to the media, every little detail gets blown out of proportion. And also, let us not forget that torture and executions of hostages are commonplace there. Not US soldiers, but people like doctors, journalists, and the like that have nothing to do with the occupation and are there only to help, or at worst, to make a living. I thought you were talking about the war in itself, and that is also a consequence of it. Why did you omit that part? Indeed. Or even the equivalent of stopping ritual genital mutilation! God forbid us from fighting barbaric practices when they are rooted in their culture!

Oh, of course. A brilliant article written by the world-renowned geopolitical expert Salim... who? Wait, did I say brilliant? I meant painfully tendentious. Yes, putting the US embargo against Cuba on the same level as the 11-S attacks (as he considers it terrorism) is a whole new perspective alright! Thanks for the laugh. Now, how does the embargo justify in any way Castro's regime? I'd like you to explain that. If possible, without another revolutionary pamphlet. The UN? You've got to be kidding me. The "United Nations" are only good as a lobby for the powerful to forward their interests behind a thin fa

Ah, yes. Poor, poor little Castro. I take it then that the fact that he refuses to adopt a democracy, and the fact that he systematically denies basic freedoms and rights to his people have nothing to do with Cuba's international (as opposed to US unilateral) isolation?Wow, that's a whole new perspective! What about the bunch of democratically elected snake oil salesmen that run those other countries in South America? I guess it's all part of some shadowy scheme orchestrated by the CIA to put imbeciles in office. They probably taught them their anti-US rhetoric as well, you know, for greater effect. Time to remove the blindfold. Hard, unpleasant reality, meet Azarkon.

Are you sure you don't mean hypocrisy? I see how you might confuse the two...

But is it? Why should immigrants be required to do something that the average US citizen would find difficult? You might as well refuse to let in those that fail to drag a truck with their ears. The thing is, immigrants will find it difficult to get a legal job in the US without an adequate grasp of English. But that is a different matter. You were just dodging the issue.

Hilarious. What do you think would be the proportion of native US citizens that would actually pass an English Proficiency exam? Right. That's an excuse, and an old one at that. There have been armed revolutions in the past in South America. And when one triumphs, they just overthrow one gang of thieves, and replace it with another one. They have what they deserve. Just take a look at Chavez, Morales, and their fellow Castro. But of course, it's so much easier to place the blame on someone, else instead of looking at one's own faults.

Pablo (Atl

Right, right. So they are going to allow the military to curb illegal immigration by doing... what exactly? I live in a country where illegal immigration is a very serious problem, and I understand where all this is coming from. At some point, we had literally tides of illegals overrunning the 2,5 meter-high fences, hundreds of people at a time. So, eventually, a few army units were deployed. I don't know exactly what were they supposed to do, but I know they were not authorized to fire on trespassers. The next week, the fences were overrun again. The only difference: a few injured soldiers. So now, what I'd like to know is, how good is the military at controlling (as opposed to shooting at) groups of unarmed civilians?

You are mixing things. There is this little wonderful thing called Separation of Powers. No matter what Dubya says, if he's done something illegal, the Courts will sort it out. For a US soldier, it's only the US Courts that matter. But anyway, I don't think I have heard any international Court declare the war on Iraq "illegal". I might be wrong, though. By the way, the UN doesn't count, so don't bother. They are just a bunch of fat, hypocritical lobbysts. I doubt it. In a high stress situation like that there's no time for high moral disquisitions, and instinct takes over. Before and after? Probably. Not during, though. Well, I'm not sure but I don't think everyone who joins the military is a natural born killer. The military is not used only to shoot people up.It might come down to that, though. And you know, sometimes, you have to do things that are not too appealing. And when somebody is able to overcome their own selfishness and do things they don't find too appealing, it's a commendable thing, and they are right to be proud of it. Trying to depict proud soldiers as merry, bloodthirsty killers is a gross simplification. Why not? It's fun to! )

Depends on who you ask. So far, I haven't heard of any US court that has ruled that the war was illegal. Again, illegal and immoral aren't necessarily the same thing. If an order is illegal, then the only real decision to make is, want you be outside the law or not?Otherwise, there's no reason to second guess any orders given to you, as you put in jeopardy your life and that of those who may depend on you. Pretty simple, really. Why? A schoolbus is just a regular bus painted in yellow. Also, I doubt you'd be so reluctant after you'd seen a schoolbus used as delivery vehicle for half a ton of dynamite against a checkpoint, for instance. At any rate, not everyone is accepted in the military. There are screening tests, and all that. If you are so sure you couldn't live like that, you probably wouldn't pass those tests. Nah, just being a bit cynical. But you know I don't need an excuse to use it!

Funny you'd put it that way. If politicians were to "stfu", they wouldn't be doing their job, now would they? "

That's why they call it "chain of command", you know. It all comes down to efficiency, and quickness of response. Debating stuff takes up an awful amount of time, time that in the situations a military force is expected to operate in, cannot be wasted convincing soldiers. The military is not a democracy, and with good reason. "Inappropriate" isn't good enough a reason. "Illegal", on the other hand, is probably enough to refuse obeying an order. That is all theory, however. I doubt anyone would be court-martialed for refusing to take a shower. They'd just be discharged, I guess.

(w00t) :D Eh... wait. I'm on dialup right now and i'll probably be for a few weeks more now. I'll take you up on it when I get broadband again, though.

Freelancer SFC3 Fallout Tactics I need new games.

A fine example of doublethink, if I ever saw one. Ignorance is strength, alright. You think so? I'd say the state is right. If the state takes away some random right or freedom (in this case outlawing certain recreational substances), the state is effectively refusing to acknowledge that adults are precisely that, adults, and is treating them as immature children. But if these adults just go along with it, it is in fact proven that the state is right in suppressing a liberty that most people are unaware of, or don't care about, since chances are that that particular freedom would be misused and/or abused. When people let others make this sort of decisions for them, they aren't reduced to the level of children (as children are usually not prepared to make important decisions), they are reduced to the level of cattle.

Oh, crap. And now I can't edit it to fix the quote, which means I'll have to delete the post and make a few replies completely out of place, lest I want to be accused of purposeful and malicious misquoting. ...whatever.

And since morality itself isn't something set in stone by any means... where does that lead us? Indeed. Funny thing is, if Germany had won, everyone would now acknowledge how right the mighty Aryans were... or some crap along those lines. In the end, the only factor that decides what's right and what's wrong, is superior might. Those who wield it, define the rules by which the rest must live, or die.

That's okay. You don't like the military. Nothing wrong with that, really. And those are much more solid reasons than the one you gave originally for not signing up. Well, sometimes you die for freedom and stuff, sometimes you die for the interests of a few smarter than yourself, and if not, you just die for absolutely no reason. Sucks, don't it?