metadigital Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Well, there's going to be a showdown between China and the US, it's just a matter of when and where. China is not stupid: there has been a civlization there for ten thousand years or more; I'm still reading through "1421", the story of how the Chinese sent out huge (even by todays standards) ships to trade and explore the entire world, then the Emperor decided (about ten years later, when they returned) that the rest of the world had nothing to offer China and destroyed all evidence of the trips. (The only surviving evidence is from those the Chinese fleets visited.) At the coronation of the Emperor in 1418 (IIRC) all the most powerful rulers in the world were invited and attended: none from Europe, because it was an inconsequential backwater, at the time. (Arabs, Persians, etc). Not to mention the Mongolians had an empire twice the size of the Romans at its peak. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Well, there's going to be a showdown between China and the US, it's just a matter of when and where. China is not stupid: there has been a civlization there for ten thousand years or more; I'm still reading through "1421", the story of how the Chinese sent out huge (even by todays standards) ships to trade and explore the entire world, then the Emperor decided (about ten years later, when they returned) that the rest of the world had nothing to offer China and destroyed all evidence of the trips. (The only surviving evidence is from those the Chinese fleets visited.) At the coronation of the Emperor in 1418 (IIRC) all the most powerful rulers in the world were invited and attended: none from Europe, because it was an inconsequential backwater, at the time. (Arabs, Persians, etc). Not to mention the Mongolians had an empire twice the size of the Romans at its peak. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've only been interested in China seriously for about a year, since I started reading Stratfor.com (really excellent material, if anyone is interested, if completely amoral); so I'll take a bit of a back seat here. I was under the impression that China wanted Taiwan partly because they have a more dogmatic political culture and Taiwan is 'Chinese' Goshtarnit. I suppose it can't hurt that Taiwan is also in possession of much of our small missile technology and even at a similar level in many aspects of component design. Which would be a boon to their burgeoning electronics industry and also their airforce. But That's just my personal view. I haven't seen it anywhere else. I have a copy of 1421 on my bookshelf waiting to get read. But i have to say it sounds rather peculiar. I can cope with the notion of the Chinese circumnavigating the globe; more things in heaven and earth and all that. but I can't cope with the engineering issues I have with ships of that size and construction being able to do it. Nor do I understand why they would use single slabs of carved stone as ballast as has been suggested, rather than gravel. It just makes no bloody sense. At least to me. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cantousent Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 China has been far more inept than you concede. With the wealth of human and natural resources to be found in China, one would assume that they would already be in the driver's seat. Of course, it's popular to sell the west short in these threads, which is fair enough. Still, Japan and Germany were closing pretty damned fast on the United States at one time. The Chinese are certainly a rival, and only a fool would believe otherwise. Are they an enemy? Probably not at this point, but they certainly act in their own interests and against ours. Makes sense, we return favor. Still, the Chinese are far from the shining example of culture that some would have us believe. Are they predictable? I suppose the students at Tianamen square should have predicted that they would be murdered. Undoubtedly Christians in China can predict persecution. It's easy to sit in the comfort one's home and rail against the United States for its success, and it's all but a waste of time to argue with folks who have it set in their minds to see every action the United States takes, Bush in particular, in the worst possible light. Metadigital writes, "[w]ell, there's going to be a showdown between China and the US, it's just a matter of when and where." This showdown will undoubtedly follow the "showdown" that is inevitable between the Soviet Union and the United States. After all, the showdown between the USSR and US has been much longer in coming, has it not? Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 ... Metadigital writes, "[w]ell, there's going to be a showdown between China and the US, it's just a matter of when and where." This showdown will undoubtedly follow the "showdown" that is inevitable between the Soviet Union and the United States. After all, the showdown between the USSR and US has been much longer in coming, has it not? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmm, Russia (not much left of the USSR now) is certainly escalating up the charts with a bullet, with Putin eagerly taking over the mantle of Tsar handed to him by the crime cartels that rule Russia, but I don't see them making land grabs or commercially hostile takeovers anytime soon. I would expect the Chinese to sit back and attack the US on commercial grounds, not a flat-out military fight (Sun-Tzu and all that). International currency exchange and futures could kill the US as dead as a nuclear weapon. Sure, they've made mistakes (can you say "Hong Kong" and "Opium Wars", boys and girls?) but you must admit they certainly have both the intellectual prowess and the human captial to do potentially anything. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11XHooah Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 It's all about money and oil......not just for pro-war countries ( like the US, just a tip - at the present situation America is by her goverment and oil companies under control, direct or indirect, of almost around 80-85% oil reserves in the world - Nigeria, countries around the Caspian sea, american allies in the Persian Gulf, when Hugo Chavez is gone they'll over run Venezuela and when Gadafi is out of the picture they'll over run Libia - economicly speaking)....this is just a simple fight for resources , a totaly normal development in nature......but other major countries that were against the war aren't so rosy - for instant France, China and Russia were the biggest opponents just because Saddam owed them money big time (around 100 milion $ each), and they all knew if Iraq is liberated of Saddam there is going to be a widespread debt "forgiving" as a boost for a country troubled by war and they knew if they refused that, they would seem as "inappropriate" in the eyes of the world public.....that is just it.....in this world there isn't good vs. bad on a state level anymore....there are just countries eagrly fighting for resources - politicly, economicly and even militarily (as Iraq) that are running out and with their whole talks on moral and justice, (on the pro and against the war sides) that's just their attempt to justify their cause in the eyes of every day people like you and me so they can run their various operations then seen as -legitimate-. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So if we're currently pumping oil out of Iraq, why are gas prices so high? War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random evil guy Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 It's all about money and oil......not just for pro-war countries ( like the US, just a tip - at the present situation America is by her goverment and oil companies under control, direct or indirect, of almost around 80-85% oil reserves in the world - Nigeria, countries around the Caspian sea, american allies in the Persian Gulf, when Hugo Chavez is gone they'll over run Venezuela and when Gadafi is out of the picture they'll over run Libia - economicly speaking)....this is just a simple fight for resources , a totaly normal development in nature......but other major countries that were against the war aren't so rosy - for instant France, China and Russia were the biggest opponents just because Saddam owed them money big time (around 100 milion $ each), and they all knew if Iraq is liberated of Saddam there is going to be a widespread debt "forgiving" as a boost for a country troubled by war and they knew if they refused that, they would seem as "inappropriate" in the eyes of the world public.....that is just it.....in this world there isn't good vs. bad on a state level anymore....there are just countries eagrly fighting for resources - politicly, economicly and even militarily (as Iraq) that are running out and with their whole talks on moral and justice, (on the pro and against the war sides) that's just their attempt to justify their cause in the eyes of every day people like you and me so they can run their various operations then seen as -legitimate-. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So if we're currently pumping oil out of Iraq, why are gas prices so high? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> because americans are in general d*cks who like to drive big ass cars and don't give a damn about the environment... " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11XHooah Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 It's all about money and oil......not just for pro-war countries ( like the US, just a tip - at the present situation America is by her goverment and oil companies under control, direct or indirect, of almost around 80-85% oil reserves in the world - Nigeria, countries around the Caspian sea, american allies in the Persian Gulf, when Hugo Chavez is gone they'll over run Venezuela and when Gadafi is out of the picture they'll over run Libia - economicly speaking)....this is just a simple fight for resources , a totaly normal development in nature......but other major countries that were against the war aren't so rosy - for instant France, China and Russia were the biggest opponents just because Saddam owed them money big time (around 100 milion $ each), and they all knew if Iraq is liberated of Saddam there is going to be a widespread debt "forgiving" as a boost for a country troubled by war and they knew if they refused that, they would seem as "inappropriate" in the eyes of the world public.....that is just it.....in this world there isn't good vs. bad on a state level anymore....there are just countries eagrly fighting for resources - politicly, economicly and even militarily (as Iraq) that are running out and with their whole talks on moral and justice, (on the pro and against the war sides) that's just their attempt to justify their cause in the eyes of every day people like you and me so they can run their various operations then seen as -legitimate-. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So if we're currently pumping oil out of Iraq, why are gas prices so high? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> because americans are in general d*cks who like to drive big ass cars and don't give a damn about the environment... " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ugh, insults aren't really helping to support your side. Give me a good reason why gas prices are at a record high right now. You accuse us of going in for oil. If that were the case, gas prices would be low as hell right now. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Isn't there something like 8.8 billion of Iraqs oil wealth missing? DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Isn't there something like 8.8 billion of Iraqs oil wealth missing? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> George Galloway has the vouchers under his bed. I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random evil guy Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 i never accused the us of going in for oil. i think it was much more complicated than that. bush wanted to remove saddam, because it was an ebarrassment(after the first gulf war) to the us that he was still in charge. i actually believe bush thought he could bring peace and democracy to iraq by invading. in addition, several companies and people made a lot of money from the war. haliburton is just one of them. oil prices are high due to the rules of supply and demand. the us consumes way too much oil, ergo the expensive oil... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Isn't there something like 8.8 billion of Iraqs oil wealth missing? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> George Galloway has the vouchers under his bed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thought so. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11XHooah Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 i never accused the us of going in for oil. i think it was much more complicated than that. bush wanted to remove saddam, because it was an ebarrassment(after the first gulf war) to the us that he was still in charge. i actually believe bush thought he could bring peace and democracy to iraq by invading. in addition, several companies and people made a lot of money from the war. haliburton is just one of them. oil prices are high due to the rules of supply and demand. the us consumes way too much oil, ergo the expensive oil... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure sounded like it to me. And I think we can bring democracy to Iraq. The problem is that they are having trouble adjusting because they have been under a dictatorship for so long. They are not used to having the abilty to make their own decisions. Plus we have insurgents that are further hampering our efforts. They don't understand that if they stop, we will be out sooner. They want us out, but by causing instability in the region, they are only keeping us in there longer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 And the prices stay up because the demand for petroleum products is always high, as such it would only mean losses if they would lower the price since the amount of oil needed stays at pretty much the same level(Im talking about all petroleum based products now, not just gas) What Im saying is that lowering oil prices will not make the world purchase more oil since the rate of consumption stays the same regardless. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random evil guy Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 i never accused the us of going in for oil. i think it was much more complicated than that. bush wanted to remove saddam, because it was an ebarrassment(after the first gulf war) to the us that he was still in charge. i actually believe bush thought he could bring peace and democracy to iraq by invading. in addition, several companies and people made a lot of money from the war. haliburton is just one of them. oil prices are high due to the rules of supply and demand. the us consumes way too much oil, ergo the expensive oil... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure sounded like it to me. And I think we can bring democracy to Iraq. The problem is that they are having trouble adjusting because they have been under a dictatorship for so long. They are not used to having the abilty to make their own decisions. Plus we have insurgents that are further hampering our efforts. They don't understand that if they stop, we will be out sooner. They want us out, but by causing instability in the region, they are only keeping us in there longer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you can't force democracy on someone. it has to be a product of their own free will. do you really think iraq will turn into some shining example of freedom and democracy? that is just naive; recent polls suggest that the majority of the people prefer an islamic state like iran... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nur Ab Sal Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 It is funny that morons from military think that they guard anyone's freedom - while they guard dirty interests of giant corporations that don't care about ordinary american or anyone else. HERMOCRATES: Nur Ab Sal was one such king. He it was, say the wise men of Egypt, who first put men in the colossus, making many freaks of nature at times when the celestial spheres were well aligned. SOCRATES: This I doubt. We are hearing a child's tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 ... And I think we can bring democracy to Iraq. The problem is that they are having trouble adjusting because they have been under a dictatorship for so long. They are not used to having the abilty to make their own decisions. Plus we have insurgents that are further hampering our efforts. They don't understand that if they stop, we will be out sooner. They want us out, but by causing instability in the region, they are only keeping us in there longer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a tad condescending. The Iraqi issues are more about the power politics struggle of the formerly-dominant Sunni Muslims, versus the numerically superior Shi'ite Muslims, and the independantly-minded Kurds in the North. (Iraq is just another British colonial hangover of a country; there is no historical reason to group all these peoples together except for expediency. Think of the poor Mash Arabs.) The foreign insurgents are certainly a problem, but as soon as the Iraqi police are more in control, this should be manageable (like it is in Pakistan, Syria and Beirut ). Trivia question: what was the first democratic event for Saudi Arabia? OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11XHooah Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 i never accused the us of going in for oil. i think it was much more complicated than that. bush wanted to remove saddam, because it was an ebarrassment(after the first gulf war) to the us that he was still in charge. i actually believe bush thought he could bring peace and democracy to iraq by invading. in addition, several companies and people made a lot of money from the war. haliburton is just one of them. oil prices are high due to the rules of supply and demand. the us consumes way too much oil, ergo the expensive oil... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure sounded like it to me. And I think we can bring democracy to Iraq. The problem is that they are having trouble adjusting because they have been under a dictatorship for so long. They are not used to having the abilty to make their own decisions. Plus we have insurgents that are further hampering our efforts. They don't understand that if they stop, we will be out sooner. They want us out, but by causing instability in the region, they are only keeping us in there longer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you can't force democracy on someone. it has to be a product of their own free will. do you really think iraq will turn into some shining example of freedom and democracy? that is just naive; recent polls suggest that the majority of the people prefer an islamic state like iran... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can see where you are coming from, but the Iraqi's are happy that we are there. But the insurgent attacks have been an obstacle that is making some question the price of democracy. I know Soldiers who have been deployed to Iraq, and they told me that all they saw was a positive response by the Iraqi people. They were genuinely happy that we are there.The media however likes to cloud the truth of the operation in Iraq. They like to make it look like nothing good is happening in Iraq. They forget to mention that we have built schools to provide education for the children their, that we are restoring Iraq and making it a better place to live. You want to know why the media does not concentrate on the rebuilding of Iraq? Because the stories won't sell. It's all about the money. What would they rather post: A story about some Soldiers dying, or a story about the improvements being made in Iraq such as education? Of course they will go with the deaths because lets face it, death sells. The media only provides half the story about Iraq. Thus, they provide an image that makes many believe that nothing good is happening. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11XHooah Posted May 30, 2005 Author Share Posted May 30, 2005 (edited) ... And I think we can bring democracy to Iraq. The problem is that they are having trouble adjusting because they have been under a dictatorship for so long. They are not used to having the abilty to make their own decisions. Plus we have insurgents that are further hampering our efforts. They don't understand that if they stop, we will be out sooner. They want us out, but by causing instability in the region, they are only keeping us in there longer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a tad condescending. The Iraqi issues are more about the power politics struggle of the formerly-dominant Sunni Muslims, versus the numerically superior Shi'ite Muslims, and the independantly-minded Kurds in the North. (Iraq is just another British colonial hangover of a country; there is no historical reason to group all these peoples together except for expediency. Think of the poor Mash Arabs.) The foreign insurgents are certainly a problem, but as soon as the Iraqi police are more in control, this should be manageable (like it is in Pakistan, Syria and Beirut ). Trivia question: what was the first democratic event for Saudi Arabia? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't mean to sound condescending, but it's true. These people are not used to having freedoms, and most importantly, a voice. And now that they have been given one, they have to adjust and learn to get used to it. It would be like living in a democracy all your life, and then suddenly being placed under a dictatorship. You were so used to having a voice, and now you are silenced. Wouldn't you have trouble adjusting? I sure as hell would. And I'm sorry you have such a lack of faith in the Iraqi security forces. These people want freedom, and despite a risk of getting killed, hundreds of Iraqis line up in front of recruiting offices to sign up to defend it. I think that shows how dedicated they are to fighting these insurgents and bringing peace to their country. Edited May 30, 2005 by 11XHooah War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I didn't mean to sound condescending, but it's true. These people are not used to not having freedoms, and most importantly, a voice. And now that they have been given one, they have to adjust and learn to get used to it. It would be like living in a democracy all your life, and then suddenly being placed under a dictatorship. You were so used to having a voice, and now you are silenced. Wouldn't you have trouble adjusting? I sure as hell would. And I'm sorry you have such a lack of faith in the Iraqi security forces. These people want freedom, and despite a risk of getting killed, hundreds of Iraqis line up in front of recruiting offices to sign up to defend it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's kind of amusing when you think about just how much blood and effort went into our democracy. And yet people expect a totally sanitised solution these days without any problems. It's true that the people have very little concept of what democracy actually means. Compromise and fundamentalism are not what you would call bedfellows. I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 ... Trivia question: what was the first democratic event for Saudi Arabia? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't mean to sound condescending, but it's true. These people are not used to having freedoms, and most importantly, a voice. And now that they have been given one, they have to adjust and learn to get used to it. It would be like living in a democracy all your life, and then suddenly being placed under a dictatorship. You were so used to having a voice, and now you are silenced. Wouldn't you have trouble adjusting? I sure as hell would. And I'm sorry you have such a lack of faith in the Iraqi security forces. These people want freedom, and despite a risk of getting killed, hundreds of Iraqis line up in front of recruiting offices to sign up to defend it. I think that shows how dedicated they are to fighting these insurgents and bringing peace to their country. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have every faith in the Iraqi security forces. I just fear for the hand that holds the leash ... (like Napoleon the Pig in Animal Farm). No one wants to answer my trivia question? Okay, unless I am mistaken, the first democratic election was for Arab Idol, the Pop Idol competition. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 It is funny that morons from military think that they guard anyone's freedom - while they guard dirty interests of giant corporations that don't care about ordinary american or anyone else. You never cease to amaze me with the products of your ever increasing stupidity. It's kind of amusing when you think about just how much blood and effort went into our democracy. And yet people expect a totally sanitised solution these days without any problems. It's true that the people have very little concept of what democracy actually means. Compromise and fundamentalism are not what you would call bedfellows. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11XHooah Posted May 31, 2005 Author Share Posted May 31, 2005 It's kind of amusing when you think about just how much blood and effort went into our democracy. And yet people expect a totally sanitised solution these days without any problems. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Drabek Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 The media however likes to cloud the truth of the operation in Iraq. They like to make it look like nothing good is happening in Iraq. They forget to mention that we have built schools to provide education for the children their, that we are restoring Iraq and making it a better place to live. You want to know why the media does not concentrate on the rebuilding of Iraq? Because the stories won't sell. It's all about the money. What would they rather post: A story about some Soldiers dying, or a story about the improvements being made in Iraq such as education? Of course they will go with the deaths because lets face it, death sells. The media only provides half the story about Iraq. Thus, they provide an image that makes many believe that nothing good is happening. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There goes that bloodthirsty liberal media again. Do you think reporters enjoy dealing with death? Are they sadistic people who feed on human suffering? How do you speak with a family that has lost a loved one? What do you say? When people get killed, people want to know why it happened. There's never a good reason, and it's a damn hard thing to do, but the journalist has to at least try to find out why. It's his/her duty to the public. Now I know you're advocating for both sides of the news from the front and not simply propaganda about how things are going swimmingly over there. You know that as distasteful as it may seem, it's a responsibility to cover the "bad news." If the amount of stories appears unbalanced, it might be because the American people care more about their own people being kidnapped by insurgents or attacked by suicide bombers than the advances toward democracy and a better way of life for the Iraqis. baby, take off your beret everyone's a critic and most people are DJs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 There goes that bloodthirsty liberal media again. Do you think reporters enjoy dealing with death? Are they sadistic people who feed on human suffering? How do you speak with a family that has lost a loved one? What do you say? When people get killed, people want to know why it happened. There's never a good reason, and it's a damn hard thing to do, but the journalist has to at least try to find out why. It's his/her duty to the public. Now I know you're advocating for both sides of the news from the front and not simply propaganda about how things are going swimmingly over there. You know that as distasteful as it may seem, it's a responsibility to cover the "bad news." If the amount of stories appears unbalanced, it might be because the American people care more about their own people being kidnapped by insurgents or attacked by suicide bombers than the advances toward democracy and a better way of life for the Iraqis. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The media is a servant to ratings. They don't have a conscience; they have shareholders. A favourite trick in the societies I have lived in over the last couple of decades is to build someone up in the media, so that they can be cut down in a most delightfully tragic manner: perfect copy for the media as they feed the cult of celebrity with sensationalism on the way up and down. War is not a pleasant thing. But don't think that there isn't going to be a lot of it: you can't expect to sit at your computer sucking 300+ watts of coal fired power out of the grid whilst people in Egypt will be going to war with the people in Ethiopia because they want to damn the Blue Nile and cut off some of Egypt's water supply. The only way the West's "democracy" meme will survive is by leading by example. I see plenty of examples of hypocritical "do as I say" governments out there. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aponez Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 It is funny that morons from military think that they guard anyone's freedom - while they guard dirty interests of giant corporations that don't care about ordinary american or anyone else. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1.- The military don't guard the "dirty interests of giant corporations". 2.- The military only obey the orders of the political power of his country. 3.- What "dirty intersts of giant corporations" protected in May 1945 the soldiers of General's Busse IX Armee or the soldiers of General's Wenck XII Armee? Between the 2 armies they lost almost 150.000 soldiers but they got send to the west and save from the russians 200.000 german civilians, don't forget that, and the Kriegsmarine between February and May of that year send from East Prussia to Denmark almost 2 million of civilians. 4.- What were the interests of France and the military they send to Chad to help the refugees from Darfur? 5.- What were the interests of the giant corporations in the Tsunami? Not bad to protect "dirty interests of giant corporations" Don't say more stupid things <_< PRIUS FLAMMIS COMBUSTA QUAM ARMIS NUMANCIA VICTA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now