Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Can America be tamed?


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#21 Varangian

Varangian

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 788 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 09:14 PM

Why is it necessary to run another nation down that is not hurting you?

____________________________________________

That is a question others are asking of the US? (the words 'might', 'could', and even 'want to' are presumptive)
  • 0

#22 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 09:14 AM

Varangain, You wrote, "Why is it necessary to run another nation down that is not hurting you?" Think about it. The USA has been hurting a lot of countries for a lot of time, but the pain that is greatest is right here in the USA. There is more crime, more hunger and more suffering in the USA than any where else in the First World. We have more murder, rape, and other violent crimes than England, France, Germany, and Scandinavia. The USA executes more people than any civilized nation worldwide--with Texas executing the greatest number--and the highest percentage occured when George W was governor--I lived in Texas then--and for the previous 245 years. Donquiojte is not running down the USA--he is just stating fact--facts that I, as an American, admit with shame.

____________________________________________

That is a question others are asking of the US? (the words 'might', 'could', and even 'want to' are presumptive) [/B][/QUOTE]
  • 0

#23 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 09:16 AM

Sadly, donquijote, you are correct: Violence is the American Way" and it will get worse given our climate of intolerance, greed, and hatred. Hopefully this will change, but I see no sign of such a change in the immediate future.
  • 0

#24 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 10:37 AM

Mark7567, you sagely wrote, "You are right in my opinion about where America has got her wealth. She plundered the natives and is now doing it with other nations! But she also got her wealth in being isolated, lack of war with the great powers of the time." But when the USA was in its period of "splendid isolationism" from 1877-1941, America was becoming increasingly poorer in wealth, resources, and human compassion. During this time there was numerous depressions, evolving to the major black day when the Stock Market ultimately collapsed in 1929, and Al Capone was considered a folklore hero. We have returned to that Dark Age under George W. Bush who will strip the middle class of any wealth and give it to the rich through his unprincipled and wrongful tax cuts.
  • 0

#25 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Dr. Arthur Ide
Sadly, donquijote, you are correct: Violence is the American Way" and it will get worse given our climate of intolerance, greed, and hatred. Hopefully this will change, but I see no sign of such a change in the immediate future.



Thank you for your comments, Dr. Ide. It's a pity that America's is better known for her "Rambos" than for people like you --and many, many others-- who because they LOVE AMERICA, they want to see change.

America --and many other nations, chief among them Russia-- got all it takes to be truthfully #1: Resources, Scientific Know-How, Universities, Nature, willing people... and yet she chooses to maintain the priviledges of small elites at all costs...

Are they safe in their fortified citadels? I doubt it, for they are only dooming themselves... and everybody else in the process...

(BOOK REVIEW)

Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich
by Kevin Phillips

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Most American conservatives take it as an article of faith that the
less governmental involvement in affairs of the market and pocketbook
the better. The rich do not, whatever they might say--for much of
their wealth comes from the "power and preferment of government." So
writes Kevin Phillips, the accomplished historian and one-time
Washington insider, in this extraordinary survey of plutocracy,
excess, and reform. "Laissez-faire is a pretense," he argues; as the
wealth of the rich has grown, so has its control over government,
making politics a hostage of money. Examining cycles of economic
growth and decline from the founding days of the republic to the
recent collapse of technology stocks, Phillips dispels notions of
trickle-down wealth creation, *****s holes in speculative bubbles, and
decries the ever-increasing "financialization" of the economy--all of
which, he argues, have served to reduce the well-being of ordinary
Americans and government alike. Highly readable for all its charts and
graphs, Phillips's book offers a refreshing--and, of course,
controversial--blend of economic history and social criticism. His
conclusions won't please all readers, but just about everyone who
comes to his pages will feel hackles rising. --Gregory McNamee --This
text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Publishers Weekly
The influence of money on government is now, more then ever, a hot
political issue. With a grand historical sweep that covers more than
three centuries, Phillips's astute analysis of the effects of wealth
and capital upon democracy is both eye-opening and disturbing. While
his main thrust is an examination of "the increasing reliance of the
American economy on finance," Phillips weaves a far wider, nuanced
tapestry. Carefully building his arguments with telling detail (the
growth of investment capitalism in Elizabethan England was essentially
the result of privateering and piracy) and statistical evidence, he
charts a long, exceptionally complicated history of interplay between
governance and the accumulation of wealth. Explicating
late-20th-century U.S. capitalism, for instance, by drawing
comparisons to the technological advances and ensuing changes in
commerce in the Renaissance, he also discusses how 18th-century
Spanish colonialism is relevant to how "lending power began to
erode... broad prosperity" in 1960s and '70s America. Finding detailed
correspondences between the giddy greediness of America's Gilded Age
(complete with a surprising quote from Walt Whitman "my theory
includes riches and the getting of riches") and the "great technology
mania and bubble of the 1990s," Phillips (The Cousins' War, etc.),
noted NPR political analyst, notes that "the imbalance of wealth and
democracy in the United States is unsustainable," as it was in highly
nationalistic mid-18th-century Holland and late-19th-century Britain
both of which underwent major social and political upheaval from the
middle and underclasses. Lucidly written, scrupulously argued and
culturally wide-ranging, this is an important and deeply original
analysis of U.S. history and economics.
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc. --This text refers
to the Hardcover edition.

From Library Journal
Political analyst Phillips (The Politics of Rich and Poor) argues that
the accumulated wealth of America's best-off families is a challenge
to democracy.
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to
the Hardcover edition.

From Booklist
Phillips' The Politics of Rich and Poor (1990) detailed wealth
concentration and policy favoritism under the Reagan administration.
His new book takes a much broader approach by detailing the historical
account of the relationships between politics and wealth in the U.S.
He relates how the disparity between rich and poor correlates with our
propensity for speculative excess and technology manias and the
corruption of government throughout this nation's history. He points
out that real, after-tax income for average workers peaked in the late
1960s, while the amount of wealth concentrated in the upper one
precent has steadily increased. This trend reflects similar boom-time
eras as the Gilded Age (1870-90) and the 1920s. As this gap widens,
Phillips warns that we may be in a late-stage economic period similar
to that of three previous leading economic powers: Britain, the
Netherlands, and the earlier Spanish Hapsburg empire. The figures on
the financial worth of famous American aristocrats through the years
are impressive. David Siegfried
Copyright ? American Library Association. All rights reserved --This
text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Book Description
For more than thirty years, Kevin Phillips' insight into American
politics and economics has helped to make history as well as record
it. His bestselling books, including The Emerging Republican Majority
(1969) and The Politics of Rich and Poor (1990), have influenced
presidential campaigns and changed the way America sees itself. Widely
acknowledging Phillips as one of the nation's most perceptive
thinkers, reviewers have called him a latter-day Nostradamus and our
"modern Thomas Paine." Now, in the first major book of its kind since
the 1930s, he turns his attention to the United States' history of
great wealth and power, a sweeping cavalcade from the American
Revolution to what he calls "the Second Gilded Age" at the turn of the
twenty-first century.

The Second Gilded Age has been staggering enough in its concentration
of wealth to dwarf the original Gilded Age a hundred years earlier.
However, the tech crash and then the horrible events of September 11,
2001, pointed out that great riches are as vulnerable as they have
ever been. In Wealth and Democracy, Kevin Phillips charts the ongoing
American saga of great wealth-how it has been accumulated, its
shifting sources, and its ups and downs over more than two centuries.
He explores how the rich and politically powerful have frequently
worked together to create or perpetuate privilege, often at the
expense of the national interest and usually at the expense of the
middle and lower classes.

With intriguing chapters on history and bold analysis of present-day
America, Phillips illuminates the dangerous politics that go with
excessive concentration of wealth. Profiling wealthy Americans-from
Astor to Carnegie and Rockefeller to contemporary wealth
holders-Phillips provides fascinating details about the peculiarly
American ways of becoming and staying a multimillionaire. He exposes
the subtle corruption spawned by a money culture and financial power,
evident in economic philosophy, tax favoritism, and selective bailouts
in the name of free enterprise, economic stimulus, and national
security.

Finally, Wealth and Democracy turns to the history of Britain and
other leading world economic powers to examine the symptoms that
signaled their declines-speculative finance, mounting international
debt, record wealth, income polarization, and disgruntled
politics-signs that we recognize in America at the start of the
twenty-first century. In a time of national crisis, Phillips worries
that the growing parallels suggest the tide may already be turning for
us all.

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#26 the jack attack

the jack attack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 06:54 PM

So many issues here... this could be divided into many threads.

Here is a thought for the board to consider:

America is an enormous superpower. That is a fact that cannot be denied. America maintains this great power with a relatively small military. It is a known fact that America could support an incredibly LARGE military, that would dwarf the power that currently exists. America could be a great empire, should she wish to pursue such a path...

The truth is, that is NOT a course America is following. Regardless of the numberless skeptics, America is VERY TAME. Okay, the lion will swat the pesty bugs that sting it's feet... Who can really argue that Iraq was something more that a wealthy bug that was ripe to be swatted? Would any of you thoughtful posters choose Iraq as your home of choice? Can any of you argue that Iraq was a place that respected the most base human rights, or that one had any measure of freedom to climb their own personal ladders of success? Maybe there are other bugs out there like Iraq that need to be swatted?

Why should America NOT swipe the bugs? One thing is CERTAIN. Any nation with the power the USA has would be swiping as they saw fit. They would swat any bug that stung them or had the potential to sting. Maybe they would also go after the rabbits? The deer?

Another important note: Why does a superpower even need a reason to swipe? The USA CAN swipe, and that is enough. The fact that the US tried to get a world concensus was admirable. Study the past, you will see that all the superpowers have build or tried to build for themselves mighty empires. America has yet to do this. America has been meek, swatting only the bugs.

Perhaps the world would be a better place if America was MORE ambitious? Perhaps an American empire will be good for the world? I can guarantee that living in the US is MUCH better than living in most of the world. Would 90% of the African countries be better off if they were "Americanized"? What about many Asian countries? South American countries? You do the math... They would be so much better off... they don't know it though. They are countries of bitter stuggle and horrible corruption. Yes, America is corrupt too... but on a scale not comparible to most of the third world (first world too?).

I hear a jealous world screaming anti American slogans. It is just like the rich family on the corner getting hated by all those who "have less". It is jealousy. It is pathetic.

Commend America for holding back! They have very big teeth, and very big claws. The teeth and claws are so big, most may not comprehend it... including most Americans. Yet they, for the most part, sit in the shade and eat their veggies rather than the steak that they might deserve. Yes, I said deserve. Why not? Shouldn't the lion eat whatever it can catch? The fact that the lion is diplomatic... well, that is the lions choosing.

Be greatful that America's ambition is not empire. If the world keeps pushing and belittling the superpower, they might change their mind. The lion might decide he wants his steak after all... the only thing that stops this lion is it's desire to "please", to be diplomatic. Don't ever forget, the lion does not NEED to please. The lion does not NEED to be diplomatic.

Peace.
  • 0

#27 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 08:28 PM

Originally posted by the jack attack
So many issues here... this could be divided into many threads.

Here is a thought for the board to consider:

America is an enormous superpower. That is a fact that cannot be denied. America maintains this great power with a relatively small military. It is a known fact that America could support an incredibly LARGE military, that would dwarf the power that currently exists. America could be a great empire, should she wish to pursue such a path...

The truth is, that is NOT a course America is following. Regardless of the numberless skeptics, America is VERY TAME. Okay, the lion will swat the pesty bugs that sting it's feet... Who can really argue that Iraq was something more that a wealthy bug that was ripe to be swatted? Would any of you thoughtful posters choose Iraq as your home of choice? Can any of you argue that Iraq was a place that respected the most base human rights, or that one had any measure of freedom to climb their own personal ladders of success? Maybe there are other bugs out there like Iraq that need to be swatted?

Why should America NOT swipe the bugs? One thing is CERTAIN. Any nation with the power the USA has would be swiping as they saw fit. They would swat any bug that stung them or had the potential to sting. Maybe they would also go after the rabbits? The deer?

Another important note: Why does a superpower even need a reason to swipe? The USA CAN swipe, and that is enough. The fact that the US tried to get a world concensus was admirable. Study the past, you will see that all the superpowers have build or tried to build for themselves mighty empires. America has yet to do this. America has been meek, swatting only the bugs.

Perhaps the world would be a better place if America was MORE ambitious? Perhaps an American empire will be good for the world? I can guarantee that living in the US is MUCH better than living in most of the world. Would 90% of the African countries be better off if they were "Americanized"? What about many Asian countries? South American countries? You do the math... They would be so much better off... they don't know it though. They are countries of bitter stuggle and horrible corruption. Yes, America is corrupt too... but on a scale not comparible to most of the third world (first world too?).

I hear a jealous world screaming anti American slogans. It is just like the rich family on the corner getting hated by all those who "have less". It is jealousy. It is pathetic.

Commend America for holding back! They have very big teeth, and very big claws. The teeth and claws are so big, most may not comprehend it... including most Americans. Yet they, for the most part, sit in the shade and eat their veggies rather than the steak that they might deserve. Yes, I said deserve. Why not? Shouldn't the lion eat whatever it can catch? The fact that the lion is diplomatic... well, that is the lions choosing.

Be greatful that America's ambition is not empire. If the world keeps pushing and belittling the superpower, they might change their mind. The lion might decide he wants his steak after all... the only thing that stops this lion is it's desire to "please", to be diplomatic. Don't ever forget, the lion does not NEED to please. The lion does not NEED to be diplomatic.

Peace.



THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE

Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always getting the lion share, and seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the species of the jungle, demanded justice... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said: "You would have to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a lion...

When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for him, and fearing competion, killed him on the spot... before the indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time...

NOTE: Other monkeys survived him...

THE END

Yeah, sure the Lion could be much worse... but could also choose to be good, real good. He could have chosen to kill the Monkey the minute he complained (which would have certainly happened in the former USSR), but he could have chosen to SHARE, something he's unwilling to do...

True it hasn't put together a great empire like others have, but what's the need? It's chosen instead to make other little nations work for him, while they keep their own pretty flags... It's called NEOCOLONIALISM.

The problem with that is the imbalances created in those little countries --as well as within his own jungle-- imbalances that threaten the stability of all... lion, monkey or little animals.
  • 0

#28 the jack attack

the jack attack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 08:35 PM

You said that the lion should "share". Share what? Money? Power?

That is a very idealistic notion. What is your social strata? Do you share personally? To what extent?

What makes you think American is NOT sharing? By not choosing to eat the deer... is that not a form of sharing? The lion must eat to survive. Are you going to ask the lion to get skinny and weak for the deer's sake?

I must ask again... share what? And to what extent? To the detriment of the lion?

Just because we may not all be lions does not mean that we should ignore the lion's right to survive as a lion... just as the rabbits will struggle to survive, as rabbits... and the monkeys...

Peace.
  • 0

#29 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 08:55 PM

Originally posted by the jack attack
You said that the lion should "share". Share what? Money? Power?

That is a very idealistic notion. What is your social strata? Do you share personally? To what extent?

What makes you think American is NOT sharing? By not choosing to eat the deer... is that not a form of sharing? The lion must eat to survive. Are you going to ask the lion to get skinny and weak for the deer's sake?

I must ask again... share what? And to what extent? To the detriment of the lion?

Just because we may not all be lions does not mean that we should ignore the lion's right to survive as a lion... just as the rabbits will struggle to survive, as rabbits... and the monkeys...

Peace.



I --unlike some revolutionaries-- would grant you the right of the lion to survive, so long as he doesn't go around bullying and killing just for the hell of it...

Say, in the real world, many people want automobiles to get around and that fills a more or less real need. That happens in Europe. People drive small efficient cars, but also they get good public transportation as well as, in place like Holland, they get bike lanes to move around. Do they need oil, do the lion needs to eat? Absolutely, but that much...

Take, on the other hand, the US: NO public transportation worth it of its name, NO alternative transportation, FORCING THE PEOPLE INTO THE BIGGEST F. SUV they can possibly make. And guess what they burn... That's right they burn OIL, and plenty of it. So much that the lion got to go on a rampage into other jungles and get it at whatever price...

That's what I call a MIGHTY STUPID HUNGRY LION...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#30 the jack attack

the jack attack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 09:08 PM

The countries of the world are happy to feed our hungers... it makes them rich. They might even encourage it... for their own gain.

But, be clear about this point. The military machine of the USA and every other country in the world NEEDS oil to operate. As it happens, our needs extent to the civilian populace as well... we have made the middle east very rich as a result. If the time comes that another country can threaten us by holding back a vital resource... then we will have to take drastic measures to secure it. That should not be a surprise. Oil for the military is like food for the public. We won't let our people starve, nor will we allow our military to starve.

Now, you must know that there is more oil in the ground in the middle east to supply increased consumption for over hundred years? What is wrong with consuming oil? Why not? Will it run out eventually...? Maybe. That is a strong maybe.

My guess is we are working feverishly to create alternatives. I doubt the US enjoys having to secure oil a half a world away.

Why don't we walk or bike in America? Why don't you crawl? Why don't you roll on your belly? Slither? We do what seems best. Right now, our habits seems to work well. There will come a time when the US will have to change (maybe). When that time comes, they will.

In the meantime, we'll continue consuming. An act that is making many other peoples of the world VERY rich. If I owned a restaurant, I would be sure to cater to the fat guy. Wouldn't you?

Hehe... but if the fat guy started starving... and you threatened to stop feeding him? Or bilking him with crazy prices... He might crack you in the jaw.
  • 0

#31 GORDILL

GORDILL

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 09:23 PM

Poor Ide sounds like a classic loser. A person that never made it by himself, so he turns to communism to find the life he would like to be accustomed to: Living off someone else's labors.

He should get a job!
  • 0

#32 Gaddock

Gaddock

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2960 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 10:00 PM

If he is a Dr. it is obvious that he is an academic. One who teaches but never does. Tenure is perfect for him as he can never be fired. Instead of giving 100% at his job he can spend endless hours spewing his flawed logic here. Ahh yes tenure, his little piece of communism here stateside. Dr. I would and have fought for YOUR FREEDOM! (you burn your card?) I would also slap you around like a red headed stepchild were you to confront me in person with your anti American sentiment.
  • 0

#33 Guest_Sal_*

Guest_Sal_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2003 - 01:10 AM

Isolate America?? LOL well how about this? How about we stop subsudizing foreign aid to all the lazy, ingrate countries around the world, and kick the UN out of New York. The UN, why the US could have saved Billions of $$$ over the years by not underwriting that useless organization. Hey france can move it to paris and start paying all the bills..let's see how they like it. Of I am sure that russia and china will help with plenty of $$$..LOL

Sal
  • 0

#34 Varangian

Varangian

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 788 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 01:39 AM

Sal,
'foreign aid' is merely the carrot of foreign policy. In addition, since military aid is included in this category, eliminating aid would be a blow to the largest arms industry in the world. Also, I'm sure Israel might complain.
In addition, getting out of the UN (and moving it to France), would be contradiction of the Bush doctrine. The objective is to maintain military superiority indefinitely. A UN, minus the US, would provide a forum for US bashing. Part of the US strategy is to weaken the EU by using NATO as a wedge between 'old' europe and 'new'europe. An alternative military pact between europe, and ,say, Russia could challenge US world hegemony. Is this really what you propose?
  • 0

#35 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:28 AM

Originally posted by the jack attack
So many issues here... this could be divided into many threads.

Here is a thought for the board to consider:

America is an enormous superpower. That is a fact that cannot be denied. America maintains this great power with a relatively small military. It is a known fact that America could support an incredibly LARGE military, that would dwarf the power that currently exists. America could be a great empire, should she wish to pursue such a path...

The truth is, that is NOT a course America is following. Regardless of the numberless skeptics, America is VERY TAME. Okay, the lion will swat the pesty bugs that sting it's feet... Who can really argue that Iraq was something more that a wealthy bug that was ripe to be swatted? Would any of you thoughtful posters choose Iraq as your home of choice? Can any of you argue that Iraq was a place that respected the most base human rights, or that one had any measure of freedom to climb their own personal ladders of success? Maybe there are other bugs out there like Iraq that need to be swatted?

Why should America NOT swipe the bugs? One thing is CERTAIN. Any nation with the power the USA has would be swiping as they saw fit. They would swat any bug that stung them or had the potential to sting. Maybe they would also go after the rabbits? The deer?

Another important note: Why does a superpower even need a reason to swipe? The USA CAN swipe, and that is enough. The fact that the US tried to get a world concensus was admirable. Study the past, you will see that all the superpowers have build or tried to build for themselves mighty empires. America has yet to do this. America has been meek, swatting only the bugs.

Perhaps the world would be a better place if America was MORE ambitious? Perhaps an American empire will be good for the world? I can guarantee that living in the US is MUCH better than living in most of the world. Would 90% of the African countries be better off if they were "Americanized"? What about many Asian countries? South American countries? You do the math... They would be so much better off... they don't know it though. They are countries of bitter stuggle and horrible corruption. Yes, America is corrupt too... but on a scale not comparible to most of the third world (first world too?).

I hear a jealous world screaming anti American slogans. It is just like the rich family on the corner getting hated by all those who "have less". It is jealousy. It is pathetic.

Commend America for holding back! They have very big teeth, and very big claws. The teeth and claws are so big, most may not comprehend it... including most Americans. Yet they, for the most part, sit in the shade and eat their veggies rather than the steak that they might deserve. Yes, I said deserve. Why not? Shouldn't the lion eat whatever it can catch? The fact that the lion is diplomatic... well, that is the lions choosing.

Be greatful that America's ambition is not empire. If the world keeps pushing and belittling the superpower, they might change their mind. The lion might decide he wants his steak after all... the only thing that stops this lion is it's desire to "please", to be diplomatic. Don't ever forget, the lion does not NEED to please. The lion does not NEED to be diplomatic.

Peace.



The definition of empire is succinct: A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. The territory included in such a unit. It is an extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire. It is also defined as "Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: 'There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the... Americans' It is from the [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin imperium, from imperre, to command.

The USA is an empire. It is a crass power that dictates who shall govern whom, and it openly interferes with sovereign nations out of a dislike or distrust for that nation's sovereign leader(s). The tragedy is that the USA is already surpassing the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler by invading other nations (Germany invaded Poland, yet the USA in its land grab and power hunger has invaded Panama, Afghanistan, Granada, Iraq, and other nations in the last twenty years). There is neither justification nor excuse for these wanton acts of war.

The USA is headed towards world domination. George W has neither scruples nor a world concept as he sees himself, as did Mussolinni, Bao Dai, Napoleon, and Hitler, as having a destiny to fulfill. With madmen such as these in office, the world remains unsafe.
  • 0

#36 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:34 AM

GORDILL, without knowing any facts about me, you have the audacity to write, "Poor Ide sounds like a classic loser. A person that never made it by himself, so he turns to communism to find the life he would like to be accustomed to: Living off someone else's labors.

He should get a job"--I have several jobs and own several businesses, employing over 100 people. But in my professional world, unlike your private world, I do not discriminate for any reason: politics, religion, social standing, sexual orientation, etc. And I am not judgmental. I would probably hire you even if it meant holding my nose.

As for being a communist--I am one of those who pays more than 50% of my income in taxes--and I do so happily as I enjoy good roads, public libraries, public schools, public utilities, and such. If that makes me a communist, great. I like that lifestyle better than what you find in the hills of New Hampshire where there is no state tax and the roads are abysmal.

You sir, lighten up, and return to a civil discussion of issues--not of personalities of which you are sadly lacking all knowledged./QUOTE]
  • 0

#37 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:39 AM

Varangian, thank you for your insight. Your comment that "getting out of the UN (and moving it to France), would be contradiction of the Bush doctrine. The objective is to maintain military superiority indefinitely. A UN, minus the US, would provide a forum for US bashing. Part of the US strategy is to weaken the EU by using NATO as a wedge between 'old' europe and 'new'europe. An alternative military pact between europe, and ,say, Russia could challenge US world hegemony."

The UN should and MUST get out of the USA as the USA is neither impartial nor neutral but a warmongering evil empire intent on taking over all civilization. Until the rest of the world boycotts the rogue regime of W Bush there will be no peace nor the opportunity for advancement in any field. The jingoism of the super patriots in this nation is such that it gives rise to such atrocities as the Khristian Knights of the Klu Klux Klan, the American Party for the Destruction of Black People, and other nefarious groups.

America is smug in thinking it is isolated, but this smugness may change if North Korea sends a missile into an American city--they they halleluiah boys jubiliating in the massiveness of America will realize that the USA is like the largest dinosaur--big, yes, but with little brain power, and it will come crashing down--rightfully. I love my nation, but it is on a collision course toward the mythical gates of hell being prone to war and not peace, intent on ruling all when it can not rule itself, and where logic is bypassed for emotionalism.
  • 0

#38 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:43 AM

Sal speaks like the average American, wanting to "stop subsudizing foreign aid to all the lazy, ingrate countries around the world, and kick the UN out of New York." Then he lies blatantly in comment contrary to fact, that the USA could "have saved Billions of $$$ over the years by not underwriting that useless organization." Yet it is the USA that has NOT paid its dues to the UN, it is the USA that is in arears of capital obligations, and it is the USA that has hampered the UN in ever way as it sees the UN as a puppet of the USA.

Sal degrades ones of the greatest and most honest nations on earth: France -- because this nation will not bow before the imperialism of the W Bush rogue regime. It is time that the rest of the world boycott the USA so that it crumbles in the wasteheap of the world that Sal believes is nonexistent. Hopefully OPEC and other oil producing states will boycott the USA of George W Bush and Sal and stop selling all oil so that this nation realize it cannot exist without the rest of the world. If OPEC and other nations boycott the USA then the USA will come begging and crawling to France and others for succor.
  • 0

#39 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2003 - 10:22 AM

Yes, everything is the fault of W Bush and his evil regime. (keep telling yourself that...) His next plot is to throw out the constitution and remain in office indefinitely.

As for dropping a nuke on an American city, perhaps your narrow minded point of view would change should that city be your own or one where you have lots of family and friends.
  • 0

#40 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 10:31 AM

dwood, opins, that :Yes, everything is the fault of W Bush and his evil regime. (keep telling yourself that...) His next plot is to throw out the constitution and remain in office indefinitely."

Actually there are several Congressional representatives seeking to throw out the term limits on presidents currently in the Amendments of the Constitution for just that purpose. As for W Bush you should read a little more about him.

As for "dropping a nuke on an American city, perhaps your narrow minded point of view would change should that city be your own or one where you have lots of family and friends." I never advocated that. Instead I said such action would make America think twice before bombing other cities. And, sadly, I am sure it will happen. I have lived through bombings when not in the USA, and I have had family members killed in Israel when Iraq was shelling Jerusalem. I have lost over 40 friends, and 11 relatives to terrorist attacks. Is that enough for you--it made an impression that I will always live with and thus I am opposed to war and against any shelling of any city by any power. What the USA did the Iraq and especially Baghdad was and is criminal and W Bush should be tried for war crimes in the World Court--and if found guilty, he should be executed.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru