ThePenciledOne Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Don't worry everyone! The government knows what it's doing!!!!!!
AudreyGrace Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 [quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1300755144' post='2222201'] Don't worry everyone! The government knows what it's doing!!!!!! [/quote] Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Tony Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 I'm so happy Obama is living up to his word.... no more wars... bringing our troops home.. "Change".. so so happy
4588686 Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 [quote name='Tony' timestamp='1300767852' post='2222248'] I'm so happy Obama is living up to his word.... no more wars... bringing our troops home.. "Change".. so so happy [/quote] Obama never said he was opposed to wars he said he was opposed to 'stupid' wars. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for without holding him accountable for promises he never made.
Winchester Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 This is quite possibly a stupid war. Everyone screwed around and delayed until Kadafi had the upper hand against the rebels. If they wanted to aid the rebels then they should have joined in early. I hope they have someone in mind, already. Either way, the US will still end up footing the bill. We foot the bill with the UN, but Dear Leader thinks that by letting France strike first suddenly the other nations won't turn out their empty pockets and make all sad facey.
Lilllabettt Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 You know for some people, its always going to be darned if you do, darned if you don't. Remember Rwanda? That happened right after Somalia, so none of the western powers wanted to get involved. There was a lot of shame and blame and pointed fingers when all the white people left and the stronger side used machetes on civilians. Because it was a civil war and none of our business. Yeah, they even made a movie about it. Hotel Rwanda, check it out, it will make you angry at Belgians especially. Belgian waffles +10 , Belgians in Rwanda -1000000 People are STILL pointing fingers at the west for its inaction in Darfur. So here we have another African country led by a bonafide psychopathic dictator who personally ordered the bombing of a US civilian airplane and is now "punishing" residents of cities that happen to have fallen into rebel hands. Whether or not you are a rebel yourself, if you live in these areas you are guilty and belong in one of the mass graves they have been showing on PBS. So here's the million dollar questions: Are the American pigs going to sit on their selfish hands and let another massacre go down in Africa because they don't want to risk their assets where they have no mercenary interest? Or are the American pigs going to intervene and force their imperial lusts on a vulnerable country as it struggles to determine its own future? Darned if you do, darned if you dont.
Sternhauser Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Chamomile' timestamp='1300752134' post='2222188'] I know the UN was started with good intentions, but it seems strange that an autonomous - and now very liberal - political entity can sort of hijack a bunch of nations' military forces... Edited to say, if this sounds stupid and uneducated, it probably is because I don't know much about politics. And really try not to get too involved because it gives me a headache [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/brickwall.gif[/img] [/quote] Now, now, Chamomile. You're right. It's very uneducated. Power sanctifies the officeholder. And coercive power is the same thing as "authority." There's really no reason for two different terms. "Authority" is really just a silly old outmoded and redundant word for "power." You shouldn't worry about concentrating power, which [i]some [/i]people say "corrupts the holder," in the hands of a very few people. It's very safe to do that. After all, they have incredible amounts of power, and almost zero effective checks on that power. What could possibly go wrong?! ~Sternhauser Edited March 22, 2011 by Sternhauser
ThePenciledOne Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1300826126' post='2222408'] [b]They have incredible amounts of power, and almost zero effective checks on that power. What could possibly go wrong?! [/b] ~Sternhauser [/quote]
Sternhauser Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1300819956' post='2222369'] You know for some people, its always going to be darned if you do, darned if you don't. Remember Rwanda? That happened right after Somalia, so none of the western powers wanted to get involved. There was a lot of shame and blame and pointed fingers when all the white people left and the stronger side used machetes on civilians. Because it was a civil war and none of our business. Yeah, they even made a movie about it. Hotel Rwanda, check it out, it will make you angry at Belgians especially. Belgian waffles +10 , Belgians in Rwanda -1000000 People are STILL pointing fingers at the west for its inaction in Darfur. So here we have another African country led by a bonafide psychopathic dictator who personally ordered the bombing of a US civilian airplane and is now "punishing" residents of cities that happen to have fallen into rebel hands. Whether or not you are a rebel yourself, if you live in these areas you are guilty and belong in one of the mass graves they have been showing on PBS. So here's the million dollar questions: Are the American pigs going to sit on their selfish hands and let another massacre go down in Africa because they don't want to risk their assets where they have no mercenary interest? Or are the American pigs going to intervene and force their imperial lusts on a vulnerable country as it struggles to determine its own future? Darned if you do, darned if you dont. [/quote] Surely you understand that Rwanda has almost zero oil. Massacres? The United State doesn't care about stopping massacres. [i]Americans[/i] do. Americans are also very gullible. So they always support these "humanitarian" (snicker) missions run by the United State, which always has its own motives. To the United State, giving humanitarian aid is only as desirable as it is useful in terms of whatever suasion and international prestige it can buy them. It's easier to take someone else's stuff when they support your doing so. When hungry people see these fall out of the sky, replete with American flag and "USA" on them, it's like God himself raining down quail from heaven. God was pretty popular when he was raining down quail. The United State can easily switch out these meals for clusterbombs, when the meals no longer suit their purposes. [img]http://www.mreinfo.com/images/us/hdr-41.jpg[/img] The United State is just damned, period. Its agents cannot do the right thing, because the State's motives are always corrupted by its nature, despite the best intentions of the agents. All institutions of immoral violence are damned. ~Sternhauser Edited March 22, 2011 by Sternhauser
4588686 Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1300819956' post='2222369'] You know for some people, its always going to be darned if you do, darned if you don't. Remember Rwanda? That happened right after Somalia, so none of the western powers wanted to get involved. There was a lot of shame and blame and pointed fingers when all the white people left and the stronger side used machetes on civilians. Because it was a civil war and none of our business. Yeah, they even made a movie about it. Hotel Rwanda, check it out, it will make you angry at Belgians especially. Belgian waffles +10 , Belgians in Rwanda -1000000 People are STILL pointing fingers at the west for its inaction in Darfur. So here we have another African country led by a bonafide psychopathic dictator who personally ordered the bombing of a US civilian airplane and is now "punishing" residents of cities that happen to have fallen into rebel hands. Whether or not you are a rebel yourself, if you live in these areas you are guilty and belong in one of the mass graves they have been showing on PBS. So here's the million dollar questions: Are the American pigs going to sit on their selfish hands and let another massacre go down in Africa because they don't want to risk their assets where they have no mercenary interest? Or are the American pigs going to intervene and force their imperial lusts on a vulnerable country as it struggles to determine its own future? Darned if you do, darned if you dont. [/quote] Well said.
Era Might Posted March 22, 2011 Author Posted March 22, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1300793064' post='2222286'] This is quite possibly a stupid war. Everyone screwed around and delayed until Kadafi had the upper hand against the rebels. If they wanted to aid the rebels then they should have joined in early. I hope they have someone in mind, already. Either way, the US will still end up footing the bill. We foot the bill with the UN, but Dear Leader thinks that by letting France strike first suddenly the other nations won't turn out their empty pockets and make all sad facey. [/quote] Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. If only President Obama had paid a little more attention to a prophetic movie from 1994: [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/eremite_85/Poster.jpg[/IMG]
Lilllabettt Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Cynicism is boring. The "its all about the oil" thing is stale and boring too. If it was all about the oil, the easy thing to do would be to cut a deal with whatever dictator is in charge (like say the shah), and then enjoy the price stability offered by the iron grip he has over his country. If it was all about the oil, the easy thing to do would be to attack and destroy any populist leadership aspiring to establish a new, unpredictable government (like say Mossadeq) The oil thing is just out of date. You should watch the news. The Pentagon complains in public, that we have no strategic interest in Libya. Obama then has to make up something about how we do. This operation is about western guilt. And well it should be, we are guilty.
kujo Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1300819956' post='2222369'] You know for some people, its always going to be darned if you do, darned if you don't. Remember Rwanda? That happened right after Somalia, so none of the western powers wanted to get involved. There was a lot of shame and blame and pointed fingers when all the white people left and the stronger side used machetes on civilians. Because it was a civil war and none of our business. Yeah, they even made a movie about it. Hotel Rwanda, check it out, it will make you angry at Belgians especially. Belgian waffles +10 , Belgians in Rwanda -1000000 People are STILL pointing fingers at the west for its inaction in Darfur. So here we have another African country led by a bonafide psychopathic dictator who personally ordered the bombing of a US civilian airplane and is now "punishing" residents of cities that happen to have fallen into rebel hands. Whether or not you are a rebel yourself, if you live in these areas you are guilty and belong in one of the mass graves they have been showing on PBS.[/quote] Hotel Rwanda is lame, as is "Sometimes in April." Both are just works of fiction excreted by Hollywood. Don't believe me, ask Jean Pierre Rucogoza, a 47-year-old university lecturer and genocide survivor. [quote]So here's the million dollar questions: Are the American pigs going to sit on their selfish hands and let another massacre go down in Africa because they don't want to risk their assets where they have no mercenary interest? Or are the American pigs going to intervene and force their imperial lusts on a vulnerable country as it struggles to determine its own future? Darned if you do, darned if you dont. [/quote] I don't think your oversimplification holds much water.
kujo Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1300826585' post='2222411'] Surely you understand that Rwanda has almost zero oil. [/quote] You do realize that the U.S. imports about 44,000 barrels of oil a day to the U.S., or less than 1% of its total oil imports, right? The Chinese, French and British all import WAY more than that. And the oil in Libya is "owned" accordingly, with European and Asian companies owning most of the refineries. And while Libya is certainly the most oil-rich country in Africa, our financial stakes are not currently embedded there, to a large degree. So you can keep your cynical, Michael Moore-nonsense in your fat head, mmk?
kujo Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2011-03-10-libyaoil10_ST_N.htm
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1300826585' post='2222411'] [img]http://www.mreinfo.com/images/us/hdr-41.jpg[/img] [/quote] Dude, they have pop-tarts?
Nihil Obstat Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1300835736' post='2222463'] So you can keep your cynical, Michael Moore-nonsense in your fat head, mmk? [/quote] That's pretty inappropriate. Is being against war that utterly unacceptable to your worldview?
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1300838191' post='2222474'] That's pretty inappropriate. Is being against war that utterly unacceptable to your worldview? [/quote] iawtc. I hereby diss you for being mean. pop-tarts? Edited March 23, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum
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