• @alamein:

    russia was not stalanist, the revolution was under lenin-

    TG already covered that by mentioneing Trotsky.

    ask f_alk about the name of the cars they drove- trebbies or troglodytes something like that- they had the same make model and style for 20 years.

    Trabant 601 …called “Trabbies”

    i would like to know why somehow the eastern block slowed down so much in its development in the seventies… they were keeping up well enough up to then.

    you go to your work like an automoton. it sounds pretty miserable to me. that’s all.

    It sounds like you don’t believe the above to happen in a western society…. which happens, just ask the people in the cubicles.

    I want goals, I want adventure, excitement… you know, all the things boys and girls grow up dreaming about. a chance for an even better life for my kid, where he has every oportunity to be anything from a rock star to a rocket scientist. no limits… that’s all.

    Probably you are white…. correct?

    and I also wanted one more responce to F_ALK:

    the thing about the worker bees was just a frustrated attempt to show that I don’t hold rich people in contempt just because they are rich.

    I don’t do that either.
    I hold contempt against people:
    who are rich without having done anything for it and not taking up the responsibilites that come up with being rich.
    If anyone for example steals a patent and becomes rich with it, and gives a *hit about charity, then i would deny him any rights.

    judging by most of the grammar and fancy words many of you use, :wink: I’d guess that most of you come from at least upper middle class families. don’t resent your parent’s struggles or hold them in contempt because there are impoverished people in the word. communism isn’t the answer- social programs that take away my money aren’t the answer either.

    My parents are middle class, true. My girlfriends parents are not. I do not resent my or any parents struggle to give their children morce choices…
    But: My parents could have afforded to send me to Uni, and they supported me. My girlfriends parents gave what they could to, but that would never have been enough for her to study… that’s were “social programs” work, and they work well. To be as blunt as you are: they are the answer, especially if the rich to not care about other than themselves.

    if you feel something must be done for the good of all, use your resources to make it happen. this is america- you can be as rich or poor as you want.

    I agree with the first, and appeal to anyone to do it, but still there are some who just can’t.
    Second, there are people in the world who do not live in the US, who don’t want to live there…
    This is Europe, you can be as rich or poor as you want.

    and F_alk the queen bee is the most important bee, she organizes the hive, grows the hive, delegates roles for the various bee jobs (GUARDS< DRONES< ECT) she works- cleetus however was just a ficticious bee representation of my neighbor who soaks up disability for a supposed back injury. DOES ANYONE ELSE understand what I mean? the bee thing has now officially lost any hope of striking a cord.

    I understand what you want to say…
    To tell you my points:
    (1)Why does everybody think that the head is more important than the hands, or the digesting system, or whatever part.
    The best manager can’t work without workers (or workers using machines, or programmers controlling robots etc.). The best manager can’t live without customers who can afford the product.
    (2) I do not believe that ourt current economic system is stable to the end, unless someone shows me that there is no case of more-than-exponential growth. Unfortunately, all economic theories so far assuem that to simplify enough so they can work with it. But (as a friend who studied with me and now does her PhD in an economics related thing told me) there are problems with the models. “Old indsutries”, like farming, are covered well, but it seems there is more-than-exponential growth in newer industries.
    And if you have a look at game theory: Over-exponential growth inevitably leads to monopolism (say Micro$oft), which cannot be broken except by massive catastrophies. Therefore, this neo-liberalism that is emerging everywhere for me is the worst thing to do. (next to that they totally neglect the people, but only think of their shareholders (which are of course not the rich ones, but you and me cough))


  • f_alk why do you always post like 5 posts in a row instead of making it one or two posts?


  • Because i reply to different posts…. and sometimes i cut them together…
    plus: how else can i get my count up without falling back to massively posting one-liners ;) :)


  • In capitalism you work in order to get ahead of others, in communism you work so all of mankind can move forward together. Which would you choose?

    Do you actually think people care about moving “mankind” foward together? Of course not; they’re only concerned with themselves and what they can get. It’s human nature.


  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    Do you actually think people care about moving “mankind” foward together? Of course not; they’re only concerned with themselves and what they can get. It’s human nature.

    Some do care about mankind. People tend not be concerned only with themselves: they are concerned about their families…. some about their friends as well, some about their tribe, village, city… some about their people… and some about mankind as a whole.
    If you are not, you are anti-social, something that doesn’t fit to the humans being social animals. Therefore, why don’t you go and leave the rest of us, who care about all of us, alone and stick to those who don’t… and have fun in bashing each others heads in.
    It is human nature to care for more than themselves only, and with our capabilities comes bigger responsibilities (just as someone richer has more responsibilites)…


  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    In capitalism you work in order to get ahead of others, in communism you work so all of mankind can move forward together. Which would you choose?

    Do you actually think people care about moving “mankind” foward together? Of course not; they’re only concerned with themselves and what they can get. It’s human nature.

    When the Iron curtain came down, the countries behind it were no farther ahead than when it went up. They were pretty much in the same economic state as they post WW2. Than does not sound like mankind moving forward to me.
    Communism breeds one to a total lack of motavation and innovation, with out which, evolution suffers.

    In a perfect world, which its never going to be, Communism would be fine.
    However, humans, by nature, are selfish.
    Nearly everything you do is, in a sense, selfish.
    Even when you do things for other people, giving present, time, money whatever is done because it makes you feel good. Which is, again, selfish.


  • The above was me.

    “economic state as they post WW2.”
    This should read “as they were”


  • They were ahead compared to “end-of-the-war”, and quite a bit. Remember: the Russians were the first to land a probe on the Moon and the Venus. But somehow they got stuck (overall) in the mid-70s… one idea i could think of is the armament race, which started short after…


  • @F_alk:

    They were ahead compared to “end-of-the-war”, and quite a bit. Remember: the Russians were the first to land a probe on the Moon and the Venus. But somehow they got stuck (overall) in the mid-70s… one idea i could think of is the armament race, which started short after…

    I agree, Russia was ahead.
    I am no expert here.
    However, they were many other counties, besides Russia, in the Soviet Union, which were way behind the capitalistic nations. Again, not much better of then pre WW2.


  • Fuck, thats me again.


  • F_alk I’ll grant you the meddling with the contra’s. I was focusing on europe. And not to be pro american- or pro capitalist, but I think we have a right to directly invovle ourselves in the affairs of other countries. most countries recieve aid from either the USA or Russia in some way, be it money or food or natural resources, why not demand that they at least be agreeable. to me it’s like asking someone to take off their shoes at the door to your house. now I don’t consider russia an enemy, and they have simulair polocies. we are the most needed nations- especially the usa. if our economy was to cataclysmically explode we would have complete anarchy in the word. -I’ll respond for you - unimaginably inflated sense of self importance- yep that’s me. :D

    this kind of leads me to an interseting thing I heard on the radio today. mandella said that we were basically terrorists and that we don’t care about humanity- and what was that crack about that if koffie anon was white we’d listen to the un? PLEASE-

    the tactics we tried against Iraq (the economic embargo) was the same tactics that helped free mandella’s people. but the white south africans yielded to the economic pressure to change (even though it meant a power shift) while I still argue that sadam used osomma to give us a black eye for trying to force him out of power.
    and it doesn’t matter what color the un is, if they were all britts we still wouldn’t listen until they started making sense. which in my terms means agreeing with me.

    F_ALK - I agree that capitalism does have some drawbacks if left unchecked. obviously monoplies can be bad- and a workplace without labor laws is bad. but I want the bare minimum (in regulation).

    social programs in general are bad. and not only are the unnecessary they are inefficient. Both my sets of grandparents are poor (less than $10,000/yr) - one side works for money (part time) the other side is fed by the gov. my fathers family are all working poor- who probably could not survive without government handouts, while my mother’s side are all on welfare (of one form or another). my dad didn’t want to live like that- so he joined the army and took us away to germany. my own family was poor until I was in high school. but the poor performance of the german currency helped to get us by (not a shot at you F_alk),
    my dad had no education past high school- but he now makes a hundred grand a year. I myself had only one year of college- I own my own home and do quite well enough for myself- although not nearly like my dad- both of my younger brothers are college boys- although one wasted his degree.
    and we rose from poverty without one drop of government assistance. Yeah I’m white- but that’s not the reason. I excell - despite the ODDS being stacked against me because of two things- first- because I will not accept failure, and secondly because here I was given an opportunity and I seized it.
    I feel very badly for poor children- children are the only true good in this world- however I have total and utter contempt for poor starving adults. EXCEPTION- poor nations where poverty is the norm.


  • Reasons to attack Iraq, according to you guys:

    1. Human rights abuses. Iraq is a totalitarian, facist country. Not a fun place to live to say the least.

    2. The never proven Iraq-Al Quaeda collaboration theory.

    3. Weapons of Mass Destruction, Not abiding by treaty to disarm.

    Human Rights Abusers:

    1. Saudi Arabia
    2. Pakistan
    3. Libya
    4. North Korea
    5. China
    6. Sierra Leon
    7. Somalia
    8. Sudan
    9. Israel

    Countries proven to collaborate with Al-Quaeda and similar groups

    1. Saudi Arabia
    2. Pakistan
    3. Sudan
    4. Indonesia (certain members of their Government only)
    5. Iran

    Rogue Nations with weapons of mass destruction and/or developing them and/or refusal to abide by Security council resolutions.

    1. Israel
    2. Pakistan
    3. Iran
    4. North Korea
    5. Libya
    6. Syria

    Iraq, by no means, tops any of those lists. But lets look at some of the countries.

    Pakistan - Nuclear weapons. Extremely Oppresive Government. Failing to help hunt down Osama and Al Quaeda.

    Iran - Working on Nuclear Weapons. Sponsors Al Quaeda and has a history of terrorism against the US. Oppressive Government, with tens of millions of people wanting a Democracy, but need help.

    North Korea - Most oppresive Government on the planet. Has prohibited Nuclear Weapons. Has means of delivering the Nuclear Weapons. International arms supplier. Sociopath leader. Threw out weapons inspector. Using US money intended for energy aid to fund Nuke program.

    Saudi Arabia - Extreme supporter of terrorism. Most oppresive Government in the Middle East.

    Iraq - Very oppressive Government. No links to Al Quaeda. Kicked out Inspectors 5 years ago. Has a handful of Bio and Chemical weapons. Violated 14 UN resolutions.

    Israel - Democracy which only applies to half the population. Kills innocents on live TV. Uses US weapons. Refuses to live up to promises to UN and US. Has broken scores of UN resolutions, including treaties signed by Israel itself.

    Now, heres why we aren’t focuses on those other countries.

    Israel - Too much public sympathy. We give them over 3,000,000 dollars in weapons each year.

    Saudi Arabia - We already get oil from them. Bush has oil interests in Saudi Arabia.

    Iran - No real finicial gain for the US. Bush is unwilling to see the huge democratic, western friendly movement going on.

    North Korea/Pakistan - Too much of a fight for Bush. Not easy targets. No real economic gain.

    So, what sets Iraq apart from all those countries listed above?


  • You want to know what makes Iraq stand out from those other countries? Well, first of all, nothing from which you said makes Iraq any less of a threat; the longer we wait, it’s only going to get worse.

    But anyways, here goes:
    1.) Iraq has violated 16 UN resolutions aimed at preventing him from destabilizing the region. (I’d be skeptical of any of those countries listed above that have violated as many UN mandates as Iraq has.)
    2.) He openly admits to funding terrorist organizations and supports any attacks against Israel. (These come directly from Saddam Hussein; I’m not pulling this from thin air.)
    3.) They still hold captured POW’s from the Gulf War, which were ordered to be returned; which the cease-fire agreement was contingent upon.

    Those are just a couple of the main reasons I support the war. Furthermore, I do believe that the only way that we are ever going to know that Saddam is completely disarmed is to go into Iraq using military force. Any rational thinking person has to know that it’s near-impossible for 100 inspectors to scour that country and expect to find something as small as a beaker. In fact, it’s illogical. Yanny, if you want to know what the inspectors point of view on this entire situation is, go read Hans Blix’s report to the UN. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html )

    Now that we’ve argued this back any forth; Yanny, why do you not want to go to war? If we do not take the hard-line with Saddam, every other irrational country out there will know that they can get away with the same crap that Saddam is pulling. We need to make an example out of someone, so why not do it with a guy that nobody likes in the first place (and that has given us good reason to)?


  • those are some great reasons, i entirely agree. i don’t know a whole lot about the enitre Iraq issue, but i do know that they still have POW’s from the gulf war, and i know that they haven’t shown us any evidence that they have gotten rid of the chemical/biological weapons that they DID have when the gassed the Kurds in '91. and who knows? saddam might have even developed nuclear weapons by now. in times of doubt… Lower taxes and go to war!!! :P


  • ? Well, first of all, nothing from which you said makes Iraq any less of a threat; the longer we wait, it’s only going to get worse.

    The longer we wait for every single country I listed there, the more Americans which will be killed.

    1.) Iraq has violated 16 UN resolutions aimed at preventing him from destabilizing the region. (I’d be skeptical of any of those countries listed above that have violated as many UN mandates as Iraq has.)

    And you think attacking Iraq will stabilize the region? Without Iraq theres a huge power void to fill.

    2.) He openly admits to funding terrorist organizations and supports any attacks against Israel. (These come directly from Saddam Hussein; I’m not pulling this from thin air.)

    a) For all I’m concerned, Israel can defend itself. We probably would not be in this terrorist mess if it wasn’t for them.

    b) Terrorism vs Israel is not terrorism vs Americans. Under your logic, we should help the Russians go in and destroy Chechnya.

    3.) They still hold captured POW’s from the Gulf War, which were ordered to be returned; which the cease-fire agreement was contingent upon.

    I’m assuming your refering to the 1 Gulf War pilot who was shot down and never found. He was offically declared MIA in the 90s, and just last year Bush decided to change that rating to POW without any proof backing him up. Another one of his lies unless he can back it up.

    Those are just a couple of the main reasons I support the war. Furthermore, I do believe that the only way that we are ever going to know that Saddam is completely disarmed is to go into Iraq using military force. Any rational thinking person has to know that it’s near-impossible for 100 inspectors to scour that country and expect to find something as small as a beaker. In fact, it’s illogical. Yanny, if you want to know what the inspectors point of view on this entire situation is, go read Hans Blix’s report to the UN.

    As I’ve said countless times, I could care less if he disarms or not. He’s already down to 2% of his arsenal, not enough to do much of anything against us, more likely used to fend off any potential invaders. We can successfully contain Iraq, as we have done countless other times in history to other countries.

    Now that we’ve argued this back any forth; Yanny, why do you not want to go to war? If we do not take the hard-line with Saddam, every other irrational country out there will know that they can get away with the same crap that Saddam is pulling. We need to make an example out of someone, so why not do it with a guy that nobody likes in the first place (and that has given us good reason to)?

    Here are my three main points (since you also supplied three)

    1. Iraq is not a threat. It is not in Iraq’s best interest to attack us. Saddam may be a murderer, but he is also rational. He doesn’t want to die, so he won’t do anything. There has never been any verifiable evidence that Iraq supported any terrorism outside of Israel.

    2. Our efforts must be placed elsewhere before Al Quaeda regroups, which they are doing now. They are comfortably resting inside Saudi Arabia right now, planning another attack. I would not be opposed to an attack on Saudi Arabia, provided a proper Last chance was given to them.

    3. An attack on Iraq would not bring about a true democracy. Iraq would just become a puppet of the US, it’s oil sold to Bush’s oil friends. The Iraqi people need to decide for themselves their fate, like the Iranians are doing now. I would not have any problems with supporting Democratic groups inside Iraq.


  • @Yanny:

    Reasons to attack Iraq, according to you guys:

    1. Human rights abuses. Iraq is a totalitarian, facist country. Not a fun place to live to say the least.

    2. The never proven Iraq-Al Quaeda collaboration theory.

    3. Weapons of Mass Destruction, Not abiding by treaty to disarm.

    Human Rights Abusers:

    1. Saudi Arabia
    2. Pakistan
    3. Libya
    4. North Korea
    5. China
    6. Sierra Leon
    7. Somalia
    8. Sudan
    9. Israel

    Countries proven to collaborate with Al-Quaeda and similar groups

    1. Saudi Arabia
    2. Pakistan
    3. Sudan
    4. Indonesia (certain members of their Government only)
    5. Iran

    Rogue Nations with weapons of mass destruction and/or developing them and/or refusal to abide by Security council resolutions.

    1. Israel
    2. Pakistan
    3. Iran
    4. North Korea
    5. Libya
    6. Syria

    Iraq, by no means, tops any of those lists. But lets look at some of the countries.

    Pakistan - Nuclear weapons. Extremely Oppresive Government. Failing to help hunt down Osama and Al Quaeda.

    Iran - Working on Nuclear Weapons. Sponsors Al Quaeda and has a history of terrorism against the US. Oppressive Government, with tens of millions of people wanting a Democracy, but need help.

    North Korea - Most oppresive Government on the planet. Has prohibited Nuclear Weapons. Has means of delivering the Nuclear Weapons. International arms supplier. Sociopath leader. Threw out weapons inspector. Using US money intended for energy aid to fund Nuke program.

    Saudi Arabia - Extreme supporter of terrorism. Most oppresive Government in the Middle East.

    Iraq - Very oppressive Government. No links to Al Quaeda. Kicked out Inspectors 5 years ago. Has a handful of Bio and Chemical weapons. Violated 14 UN resolutions.

    Israel - Democracy which only applies to half the population. Kills innocents on live TV. Uses US weapons. Refuses to live up to promises to UN and US. Has broken scores of UN resolutions, including treaties signed by Israel itself.

    Now, heres why we aren’t focuses on those other countries.

    Israel - Too much public sympathy. We give them over 3,000,000 dollars in weapons each year.

    Saudi Arabia - We already get oil from them. Bush has oil interests in Saudi Arabia.

    Iran - No real finicial gain for the US. Bush is unwilling to see the huge democratic, western friendly movement going on.

    North Korea/Pakistan - Too much of a fight for Bush. Not easy targets. No real economic gain.

    So, what sets Iraq apart from all those countries listed above?

    No country is obligated to obey UN resolutions because all countries are sovreign over themselves. But Iraq is obligated for losing the Gulf War. Israel is a democracy and the population is allowed to vote. In the last elections, the Arab parties won a total of 9 seats in the Israeli parliament. They are allowed to vote. Remember that Palestinians are Jordanian citizens that are autonomous. What treaties has Israel broken that it has signed? Israel has not broken the Oslo Accords nor any other treaty it has signed. The PA was given authority over the Palestinians and they continue to have it. If anyone is a supporter of Al-Qaeda, there’s one for you to look at. The Palestinians were celebrating after 9/11, giving candy out to the children. Though Arafat claimed that only a few children were celebrating and thaning Allah, adults were clearly seen also doing so. Do not forget which country was the one who turloy saved Kuwait. Israel was the one who knocked out the Iraqi nuclear reactor before it made hundreds of nuclear weapons operational. Imagine how the Persian Gulf War would have turned out if that had not happened. If you believe the pcitures that the mdeia, shows you, then you seriously have a problem differentiating between what is true and what is made to look true. For example, the New York Times once put in their newspaper a pciture of a severely beaten and bleeding boy with an ISraeli officer with a club behind him pointing it in his direction and yelling. The caption said that the ISraeli officer was beating up the Palestinian boy. When an American family saw this, they sent in a formal complaint saying that it was an Israeli boy, their son, who had been beaten up by Palestinians at the start of the intifada. He was in critical condition. The police officer was yelling at the Palestinians to back off and saved the boy. So the Times made a correction in next week’s newspaper, in a very small font atthe bottom of the page telling that they had made a mistake so it would not be seen.

    Then we have the time where the newspapers said that the IDF killed some Palestinians who left hand print marks on the western wall. Now when you look at the pictures of the handmarks, you would notice how neat and itdy they look. Any person who was shot would not just start putting nice neat hand prints on a wall but would more likely make a handprint and drag the blood to the floor has he fell to the ground. The camera does not lie, but it can be MADE to lie.

    Be careful of what the media feeds you, there is always the attempt to increase ratings by twisting the truth and facts, particularly on the Israeli issue but also on the Iraq issue. The point of this post is just to warn you, Yanny, find credible sources on which to base your work. The best book on the Arab-Israeli conflict is “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters. She spent 7 years researching it and drew her conclusions based on that. A third of the book is her references and bibliography. I strongly recommend it. I personally have only read a bit of it, but I intend to finish it.

    BTW, you forgot to mention that Sudan still has an illegal slave trade there.And if you are following breakers of UN resolutions, maybe Spain should be on that list for 35 years of Fascism, keeping the Basque province as part of Spain against their will and making only token reforms despite demands by the western world. Morocco should also be there for occupying Western Sahara, and China for occupying Sinkiang and tibet. Even Manchurians want independence from China. Do not forget Russia for Chechnya, and the USA for California, Arizona and New Mexico ;). The British in Northern Ireland is also a military occupation, like Israel of the territories. According to your criteria of aggressors and human rights abusers, there should be many more being added to your list. It is convenient to have some and not others there.


  • Remember that Palestinians are Jordanian citizens that are autonomous.

    Then Israel is murdering Jordanian citizens in cold blooded murder, and illegially occupying Jordanian lands.

    Palestine is no longer part of Jordan, and has not been part of Jordan since 1967. Israel either needs to give the lands back to Jordan, which it won’t do, or admit the West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel. Palestinian citizens either a) Need to be given the right to vote or b) Cannot be taxed by the Israeli Government. Else, Israel is not a Democracy.

    Israel did not follow the Oslo according. They failed to turn Palestinian lands over to Palestinians. They failed to give the Palestinian Authority any funding or power to enforce the law which they were obligated to do.

    The PA is unable to Govern Palestine because Israel has destroyed millions of dollars of infrastructure purely to retaliate against terrorists, who have nothing to do with the infrastructure which is being destroyed. Israel has again and again tried to take out leaders of terrorist organizations in public, killing many innocent bistanders. In the US, that would be grounds for a murder charge.

    Israel destroying Iraq’s Nuclear reactor in 1981 was not a bad thing. It solved a problem.

    Yes, some of the Israeli violence toward Palestinians has been exaggerated. But so has much of the Palestinian violence. For example, you actually believed a few threads back that Palestinian kids learn math via counting dead Israelis. The pure facts are this, more Palestinian innocents die than Israeli innocents.

    BTW, you forgot to mention that Sudan still has an illegal slave trade there.

    Sudan, after Saudi Arabia, is on my list of nations we need to deal with now, for they harbor terrorism.


  • BTW, you forgot to mention that Sudan still has an illegal slave trade there.And if you are following breakers of UN resolutions, maybe Spain should be on that list for 35 years of Fascism, keeping the Basque province as part of Spain against their will and making only token reforms despite demands by the western world. Morocco should also be there for occupying Western Sahara, and China for occupying Sinkiang and tibet. Even Manchurians want independence from China. Do not forget Russia for Chechnya, and the USA for California, Arizona and New Mexico icon_wink.gif. The British in Northern Ireland is also a military occupation, like Israel of the territories. According to your criteria of aggressors and human rights abusers, there should be many more being added to your list. It is convenient to have some and not others there.

    Spain - No longer a facist state, and is a member of the world community. They don’t move in and destroy Basque on a daily basis.

    Morocco - Does anyone actually live in the Westenr Sahara? And Morocco doesn’t claim to be a Democracy.

    China - Too many problems to name.

    Russia - Chechnya is a situation which needs to be resolved by Russia, in as peaceful a manor as possible.

    US - We bought California, Arizona, and New Mexico :)

    Northern Ireland - Britain probably shouldn’t be there.

    Israel is on that list because they claim to be a Democracy yet commit atrocities akin to Genocide. Russia should be on the list, yes. I can’t include every single country, just the countries which are major centers of conflict today.


  • @alamein:

    F_alk I’ll grant you the meddling with the contra’s. I was focusing on europe. … but I think we have a right to directly invovle ourselves in the affairs of other countries. most countries recieve aid from either the USA or Russia in some way, be it money or food or natural resources, why not demand that they at least be agreeable. to me it’s like asking someone to take off their shoes at the door to your house. now I don’t consider russia an enemy, and they have simulair polocies.

    Then, if you grant the Soviets the same rights, and admit they had a asmiliar policy… why do you bring up that point that they supported terrorists in countries they had an interest in, just as the US did (of course the nomenclature was opposite but using similar phrases)?

    we are the most needed nations- especially the usa. if our economy was to cataclysmically explode we would have complete anarchy in the word. -

    We would have a major depression, anarchy is something else.
    And it is not overestimating the at least psychological power of the US economy. You should have a look at the share prices here, stock market doesn’t really move when you have a holiday, even if a company publishes its bilances that day…. maybe a total american crash would bring the europeans to recongnize their own power, which in total is comparable to the US. That could help us decouple from you, so feel free to crash :)

    this kind of leads me to an interseting thing I heard on the radio today. mandella said that we were basically terrorists and that we don’t care about humanity- and what was that crack about that if koffie anon was white we’d listen to the un? PLEASE-

    Well, i suspect that someone who suffered under racism can see hidden racism better than the ones who unconsciously (sp?) are showing racist behavior.

    the tactics we tried against Iraq (the economic embargo) was the same tactics that helped free mandella’s people. but the white south africans yielded to the economic pressure to change (even though it meant a power shift) while I still argue that sadam used osomma to give us a black eye for trying to force him out of power.

    If it was not for a visionary leader in south africa, we would have had a major civil war there. The economical pressure was part of the reason, but it was more the leader caring for his whole nation and all of its inhabitants than just to support his lobbies and feed them first of all.

    social programs in general are bad. and not only are the unnecessary they are inefficient. Both my sets of grandparents are poor
    … my fathers family are all working poor… my dad didn’t want to live like that- so he joined the army and took us away to germany…

    So, a social program might have allowed your father to take his chances without the need of joining the army.
    Social programs are necessary and useful.

    I feel very badly for poor children- children are the only true good in this world- however I have total and utter contempt for poor starving adults. EXCEPTION- poor nations where poverty is the norm.

    I can agree here, that’S why i support social programs: to give the children chances they otherwise would never have!


  • sadam used osomma

    Saddam and Osama have no connection. They are enemies.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 59
  • 12
  • 53
  • 41
  • 609
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

42

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts