My BS rant of the day

[--Mac--]

They say the U.S. is a bully that picks on smaller countries. I say we don’t do enough the U.S. is like a parent watching a child smack another child in the leg with a stick. We take the stick away but don’t teach them it is wrong to try and hunt other people. Instead we try to be political correct, we take there stick away and when they began to protest and cry about us being mean and taking there stick, we just give them there way. I say we beat the crap out of them. It might not be the most PC thing to do but it might teach them a lesson. Take Iran building up its nuclear arsenal for (defensive reasons). This is a country that supports terrorism not only against Israel because they are Jewish but the whole western world just because they do not like our way of life. Allowing Iran to having nuclear weapons is like allowing an angry five year old to have a .45, (for defensive purposes) after they have already smacked another kid for looked at them funny. I agree that it is not the job of the U.S. to police the world, but allowing violent children to have weapons that could end life as we know it on the planet is not the safest thing to do. What has to happen before the politically correct world wakes up and realizes that turning your back on a problem is not always the best thing to do? I admit spending 15 months in Iraq is not always fun and games. Not only are our soldiers putting there lives at risk, but they are sacrificing time with there families to do it. One of the worst feelings you can have is not being sure of what grade your child is in because you just missed the last 11 months of there life. You get a bit depressed when you get back and see your child who was 12 months old when you left, is now 2yrs old running, talking and hardly knows you. Other than life, I believe that is a soldier’s biggest sacrifice, but at least they can feel better in the fact that they guarding the life of not only there own child but the life of a million others. Well thanks for reading my rant of the day.

[martinexsquaddie]

well if you hadn't helped put Saddam in power and the shah and then supply them with arms
refuse to hand the shah back when the people threw the tyrant out
and then blow up an Iranian airline
you might not have such a bad rep in iran
just saying

[Dasein]

The problem is, we're not dealing with children, we're dealing with states, and in the case of Iran and Iraq, states which are many millenia older than the US.

[cover2]

To the original poster, please familiarize yourself with the correct use of:

there
their
they're

It would make your silly rant a lot easier to read.

[Rifleman]

well if you hadn't helped put Saddam in power and the shah and then supply them with arms
refuse to hand the shah back when the people threw the tyrant out
and then blow up an Iranian airline
you might not have such a bad rep in iran
just saying


If one were to study history and understand the problems that date back to the 1700's, he could say that your very post is an example and endorsement of MAC's post....just saying.

[Dakota435]

The problem is, we're not dealing with children, we're dealing with states, and in the case of Iran and Iraq, states which are many millenia older than the US.

They may be old but they still act like children.

[Atlantic Friend]

They may be old but they still act like children.

How so ? Many of them seem to play the Great Power Game VERY seriously. I wish they could be so easily brushed aside as children.

[muck]

They say the U.S. is a bully that picks on smaller countries. I say we don’t do enough the U.S. is like a parent watching a child smack another child in the leg with a stick. We take the stick away but don’t teach them it is wrong to try and hunt other people. Instead we try to be political correct, we take there stick away and when they began to protest and cry about us being mean and taking there stick, we just give them there way. I say we beat the crap out of them. It might not be the most PC thing to do but it might teach them a lesson. Take Iran building up its nuclear arsenal for (defensive reasons). This is a country that supports terrorism not only against Israel because they are Jewish but the whole western world just because they do not like our way of life. Allowing Iran to having nuclear weapons is like allowing an angry five year old to have a .45, (for defensive purposes) after they have already smacked another kid for looked at them funny. I agree that it is not the job of the U.S. to police the world, but allowing violent children to have weapons that could end life as we know it on the planet is not the safest thing to do. What has to happen before the politically correct world wakes up and realizes that turning your back on a problem is not always the best thing to do? I admit spending 15 months in Iraq is not always fun and games. Not only are our soldiers putting there lives at risk, but they are sacrificing time with there families to do it. One of the worst feelings you can have is not being sure of what grade your child is in because you just missed the last 11 months of there life. You get a bit depressed when you get back and see your child who was 12 months old when you left, is now 2yrs old running, talking and hardly knows you. Other than life, I believe that is a soldier’s biggest sacrifice, but at least they can feel better in the fact that they guarding the life of not only there own child but the life of a million others. Well thanks for reading my rant of the day.

:cantbeli:

This is just historical, political, juridical and morally wrong, absolutely wrong. I mean, the United States are often a useful and well-liked ally, but just the feeling you would have the right to intervene just where you want to does not mean you actually have it, and we are talking here about countries that already had thousand years of history when the Pilgrim Fathers arrived in New England! Parents?! I had hoped, such an arrogant, haughty and authoritarian attitude was only a stereotype, a clichee, and not actually the point of view of a real American!

[Loken]

To the original poster, please familiarize yourself with the correct use of:

there
their
they're

It would make your silly rant a lot easier to read.


Seriously, Get over yourself. You're supposed to look at content and not be a grammar Nazi. You're being counter-productive like usual it seems, So hecan't spell at times? This isn't exactly a spelling/grammar forum is it?:bash:


As for the content given, the only thing i can see coming from post-war (GWOT) United States is isolationist politics. That's the feeling i get from most of the statements around my state anyway. I doubt the US military will ever be openly used again in the way President Bush has utilized it in a very long time. Sure we won't politically close ourselves but militarily we'll probably have to get a thousand checks and approvals from everybody and their cousin thrice over to deploy a major force.Nothing wrong with checks and approvals but whe it's tied up because people don't want to make decisions? Not so good.

Seem's like the US Military (under a Democrats presidency) might be only utilized as blue helmets from '08 and on. I'm not sure if it will be a bad thing or a good thing. We now have to walk a fine line from now on with the international community. Especially in the United Nations which isn't going away or being reformed anytime soon. So all we really can do against Iran short of launching a scorching(and ultimately useless) campaign or a series of costly(for both sides) air strikes is pursue a diplomatic ending with the UN as our mediator.

Time for the UN to be useful. Just my thoughts on it..

[name already taken]

They say the U.S. is a bully that picks on smaller countries. I say we don’t do enough the U.S. is like a parent watching a child smack another child in the leg with a stick. We take the stick away but don’t teach them it is wrong to try and hunt other people. Instead we try to be political correct, we take there stick away and when they began to protest and cry about us being mean and taking there stick, we just give them there way. I say we beat the crap out of them. It might not be the most PC thing to do but it might teach them a lesson. Take Iran building up its nuclear arsenal for (defensive reasons). This is a country that supports terrorism not only against Israel because they are Jewish but the whole western world just because they do not like our way of life. Allowing Iran to having nuclear weapons is like allowing an angry five year old to have a .45, (for defensive purposes) after they have already smacked another kid for looked at them funny. I agree that it is not the job of the U.S. to police the world, but allowing violent children to have weapons that could end life as we know it on the planet is not the safest thing to do. What has to happen before the politically correct world wakes up and realizes that turning your back on a problem is not always the best thing to do? I admit spending 15 months in Iraq is not always fun and games. Not only are our soldiers putting there lives at risk, but they are sacrificing time with there families to do it. One of the worst feelings you can have is not being sure of what grade your child is in because you just missed the last 11 months of there life. You get a bit depressed when you get back and see your child who was 12 months old when you left, is now 2yrs old running, talking and hardly knows you. Other than life, I believe that is a soldier’s biggest sacrifice, but at least they can feel better in the fact that they guarding the life of not only there own child but the life of a million others. Well thanks for reading my rant of the day.
How dare you come on this site and have a sensible, logical and intelligent rant. :grin:

Welcome to MP.net.

[Dakota435]

Seriously, Get over yourself. You're supposed to look at content and not be a grammar Nazi. You're being counter-productive like usual it seems, So hecan't spell at times? This isn't exactly a spelling/grammar forum is it?:bash:


As for the content given, the only thing i can see coming from post-war (GWOT) United States is isolationist politics. That's the feeling i get from most of the statements around my state anyway. I doubt the US military will ever be openly used again in the way President Bush has utilized it in a very long time. Sure we won't politically close ourselves but militarily we'll probably have to get a thousand checks and approvals from everybody and their cousin thrice over to deploy a major force.Nothing wrong with checks and approvals but whe it's tied up because people don't want to make decisions? Not so good.

Seem's like the US Military (under a Democrats presidency) might be only utilized as blue helmets from '08 and on. I'm not sure if it will be a bad thing or a good thing. We now have to walk a fine line from now on with the international community. Especially in the United Nations which isn't going away or being reformed anytime soon. So all we really can do against Iran short of launching a scorching(and ultimately useless) campaign or a series of costly(for both sides) air strikes is pursue a diplomatic ending with the UN as our mediator.

Time for the UN to be useful. Just my thoughts on it..

Unfortunately the entire world, either directly or indirectly, depends on the security of the Persian Gulf. The US military is the only entity in the world capable of ensuring that. The UN has no common purpose, is hopelessly corrupt, and is dominated by dictatorships and 3rd world kleptocrats.

If the US withdraws into isolationism the world is in big big trouble.

What I would like to see is a new organization of the world's democracies that excludes the dictatorships.

[Loken]

Unfortunately the entire world, either directly or indirectly, depends on the security of the Persian Gulf. The US military is the only entity in the world capable of ensuring that. The UN has no common purpose, is hopelessly corrupt, and is dominated by dictatorships and 3rd world kleptocrats.

If the US withdraws into isolationism the world is in big big trouble.

What I would like to see is a new organization of the world's democracies that excludes the dictatorships.

Very much agreed. If the US does fall into militarily cloistering itself then parts of the world where we have our fingers(or our entire hand) will be in trouble. What i see from the democrats though is a lack of care for those we said we would support in their time of need.

US soldiers would get to come home..for a little bit. Then fight the "Good war" in Darfur. One "civil war" to another! wootWonderous logic Democrats(No i'm not a republican)! All for humanitarian Aide but if you're gonna withdraw from Iraq and leave the new government high and dry atleast give us a detailed explination why Darfur is worth american lives and iraq isn't? The same thing will happen in Darfur, and the insurgency? Probably will follow us to africa. Not like they're tied down or anything.

[name already taken]

If the US withdraws into isolationism the world is in big big trouble.
US isolated itself before because it could afford to do so. Its large territory and low population made it possible and even easy to do.

But the days of US self-sufficiency ended somewhere in the beginning of the '70s with the beginning of the decline of oil production in US territory.

No more US isolationism is possible now.

[Dasein]

The US was never isolationist in practice. Even during the 20s, the US was involved quite a bit in Latin America and China. With the Spanish-American War and the Great White Fleet, the US became a global power and that has never changed. While our power has risen and fallen over the past 100 years or so, the US has operated at a global level despite any claims of isolationism.

[name already taken]

The US was never isolationist in practice. Even during the 20s, the US was involved quite a bit in Latin America and China. With the Spanish-American War and the Great White Fleet, the US became a global power and that has never changed. While our power has risen and fallen over the past 100 years or so, the US has operated at a global level despite any claims of isolationism.
US joined WW2 in 1941 only, for example.

[PPSH41]

US joined WW2 in 1941 only, for example.

yes indeed. There was staunch opposition to fighting "another war in Europe." Even as german U-boats began attacking US shipping, most people felt we shouldn't join the fight. Only after Pearl Harbor could FDR get support to go to war. Was kind of a policy of political engagement with military isolationism. Seeking to avoid conflict.

[Dakota435]

yes indeed. There was staunch opposition to fighting "another war in Europe." Even as german U-boats began attacking US shipping, most people felt we shouldn't join the fight. Only after Pearl Harbor could FDR get support to go to war. Was kind of a policy of political engagement with military isolationism. Seeking to avoid conflict.

My mother had friends in the Canadian Communist Party who were virulently anti-war (pro-Hitler in other words) until Operation Barbarossa started in '41, then they switched over. Lots of socialists etc were of the same mind. If the Soviets hadn't been attacked and had stayed out, it would've been much harder to go to war against Hitler.

[Dasein]

The US wanting to stay out of what it saw as a European conflict is not isolationism. The US did place an embargo on Japan after their invasion of Manchuria, for example.

[Flagg]

I have two young boys...as soon as I can figure out how to get them to stop smacking each other and plotting against my wife and I, I'll start providing decent advice on how to effectively discipline other sovereign nations.

I've got to go now...my oldest son is trying to rock climb up the fireplace

[Dakota435]

I have two young boys...as soon as I can figure out how to get them to stop smacking each other and plotting against my wife and I, I'll start providing decent advice on how to effectively discipline other sovereign nations.

I've got to go now...my oldest son is trying to rock climb up the fireplace

LOL Been there done that...

One thing you do learn from raising kids, is that rewarding bad behavior gets more if it, and this applies to most aspects of life including international relations.

[Flagg]

LOL Been there done that...

One thing you do learn from raising kids, is that rewarding bad behavior gets more if it, and this applies to most aspects of life including international relations.

So what you're saying is we should give Iran and North Korea a "timeout" by putting them in the "naughty chair"?

[Dakota435]

So what you're saying is we should give Iran and North Korea a "timeout" by putting them in the "naughty chair"?

And a smack upside the head if that doesn't work...

[bluffcove]

this all being based on the proviso that America is a responsible parent with the best interest of the child at heart.

and not at all like a capitalist trading nation keen to get his kids out working on a chain gang to keep himself in clover!

[Dakota435]

this all being based on the proviso that America is a responsible parent with the best interest of the child at heart.

and not at all like a capitalist trading nation keen to get his kids out working on a chain gang to keep himself in clover!

Not at all. It's just a case of keeping the problem child from making life hard for the adults and other children, when nobody else will do it.

[bluffcove]

So invading Iraq was to make life easier for iraqis?

[Pandy]

If anyone who never liked us in Iraq in the first place, you should have sent troops to Iraq to defend Saddam in 2003, and stop the invasion cold...

[Dakota435]

So invading Iraq was to make life easier for iraqis?

Invading Iraq was to finish the war in '91 that never really ended, and to do something about the 18 UN resolutions etc etc. Long term, it will also make life easier for Iraqis because they no longer live under a psychopath who made 40000 a year disappear into the night.

[Dakota435]

If anyone who never liked us in Iraq in the first place, you should have sent troops to Iraq to defend Saddam in 2003, and stop the invasion cold...

The Russians came close enough to doing that. A Russian spy penetrated CENTCOM and provided Saddam with the coalition order of battle and invasion plan a week or so before it started. The French were assuring Saddam up to the last minute that they'd stop the invasion from going ahead at the UN. Saddam had very good allies in the French and Russians, who were doing it mostly for oil.

[Pandy]

The Russians came close enough to doing that. A Russian spy penetrated CENTCOM and provided Saddam with the coalition order of battle and invasion plan a week or so before it started. The French were assuring Saddam up to the last minute that they'd stop the invasion from going ahead at the UN. Saddam had very good allies in the French and Russians, who were doing it mostly for oil.

Not like he could have done anything to stop it in the first place.

[--Mac--]

To the original poster, please familiarize yourself with the correct use of:

there
their
they're

It would make your silly rant a lot easier to read.


Honestly I truly do not care which form of the word I use. If it makes you feel all high and mighty to corect me have at it. The other 736 people had no problem reading it.

[Atlantic Friend]

The French were assuring Saddam up to the last minute that they'd stop the invasion from going ahead at the UN. Saddam had very good allies in the French and Russians, who were doing it mostly for oil.

Hardly so. For all the flamboyant rhetoric at the UN, any Frenchman with half a brain could have told you that the invasion was going to happen no matter what, if only because once somebody moves over 100,000 troops somewhere, it's usually not to have them pack for home a month later. Latest case in point : Turkey in Northern Iraq.

As for the motives of the French government, oil weighed far less in Paris' calculations than fears of seeing Iraq and the ME spiral down into chaos.

I mean, since it was obvious the Baathist regime was going down no matter what, why even bother make deals with it ? It lacks basic logic. If we had wanted oil that badly, then the first thing to do was to jump on the Operation Iraqi Freedom bandwagon and assure Washington of our undying support ever, the deployment of French troops there ensuring access to oilfields and juicy rebuilding contracts...

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Invading Iraq was to finish the war in '91 that never really ended, and to do something about the 18 UN resolutions etc etc. Long term, it will also make life easier for Iraqis because they no longer live under a psychopath who made 40000 a year disappear into the night.

Until the US decides they need to replace their psychopathic former protege with another one who will make 40000 a year disappear into the night in order to provide a buffer against Iran. :roll:

And so the wheel turns full circle.

[wilhelm]

What if, in 50 years time, there is a new superpower on the block. With the ability to nullify ICBMs. Say that nation was, for purposes of an example, China. Let's say they are, in 2050, much more powerful than the US.

Now lets say they don't think that the political situation in the US was fair according to their criteria. Also, they are not happy with certain weapons programmes being developed in the US.

Accordingly, they would be justified to go and effect a regime/political system change, according to the standards set down here...after all, might is right!! They would be saving the world from a rogue state/naughty child.p-)

PS: Mac, you really should do something about your grammar/spelling. People would take you a little more seriously...there, their and they're all mean completely different things.

[oldsoak]

What if, in 50 years time, there is a new superpower on the block. With the ability to nullify ICBMs. Say that nation was, for purposes of an example, China. Let's say they are, in 2050, much more powerful than the US.

Now lets say they don't think that the political situation in the US was fair according to their criteria. Also, they are not happy with certain weapons programmes being developed in the US.

Accordingly, they would be justified to go and effect a regime/political system change, according to the standards set down here...after all, might is right!! They would be saving the world from a rogue state/naughty child.p-)

PS: Mac, you really should do something about your grammar/spelling. People would take you a little more seriously...there, their and they're all mean completely different things.

- and guess what - Europe would still do f**k all.

[Durandal]

Seriously, Get over yourself. You're supposed to look at content and not be a grammar Nazi. You're being counter-productive like usual it seems, So hecan't spell at times? This isn't exactly a spelling/grammar forum is it?:bash:

*chuckle*

The irony of this statement amuses me.

We are supposed to ignore ignorance and laziness while attempting to decipher meaning in a person's post.

You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[wilhelm]

- and guess what - Europe would still do f**k all.

Maybe, maybe.....

Then again, there won't be anyone alive that fought in WWII so there might be the chance of a more hawkish Europe in 2050. Why, it might even be Europe instead of China in the above scenario..p-)

[Durandal]

This all being based on the proviso that America is a responsible parent with the best interest of the child at heart.

Quoted for truth.

[AK-Lover]

The problem is that your foreign policy is based exactly off of that retarded concept you stated, "Were the parents, your the children" Most nation-states don't like being treated like ****ing children. Maybe you should try changing your mindset so that then the world will have one less reason to be pissed of at you.

[CroWinner]

The problem is that your foreign policy is based exactly off of that retarded concept you stated, "Were the parents, your the children" Most nation-states don't like being treated like ****ing children. Maybe you should try changing your mindset so that then the world will have one less reason to be pissed of at you.

And look who is talking, jeezrofl

Most states are acting like kids. Very mean kids!

[oldsoak]

oooh, I do love playing the devils advocate...

- for a place that the ROW is pissed off at, the US has no shortage of immigrants from the EU, the former Yugoslavia, PRC, not to mention Latin America etc. I cant see quite the same stream heading for the ME or any of the countries that are the victims of US foreign poilicy. Indeed, theres quite a few Arabs that head for the great satan. Based on people voting with their feet, is the US as bad as she's painted ?

[AK-Lover]

oooh, I do love playing the devils advocate...

- for a place that the ROW is pissed off at, the US has no shortage of immigrants from the EU, the former Yugoslavia, PRC, not to mention Latin America etc. I cant see quite the same stream heading for the ME or any of the countries that are the victims of US foreign poilicy. Indeed, theres quite a few Arabs that head for the great satan. Based on people voting with their feet, is the US as bad as she's painted ?

Hey thats absolutely true, but it still doesn't change what I said.

[Henry's Fork]

Oh noes you didnt! You had to take it there Soak? Didnt you? ;)

[Atlantic Friend]

oooh, I do love playing the devils advocate...

- for a place that the ROW is pissed off at, the US has no shortage of immigrants from the EU, the former Yugoslavia, PRC, not to mention Latin America etc. I cant see quite the same stream heading for the ME or any of the countries that are the victims of US foreign poilicy. Indeed, theres quite a few Arabs that head for the great satan. Based on people voting with their feet, is the US as bad as she's painted ?

Well, dear Devil's Advocate, I think, for the sake of discussion, that the people who, in the ROW, are walking down some avenue or other protesting US policies are ALSO voting with their feet. If we want to be intellectually honest, we cannot ignore either group of these "Electopods" as befits our agenda. We have to take them both into account.

First of all, criticism of US policies is not a privilege of non-US citizens. Conversely, approval of US policies is not the sole domain of US citizens. YOu will find staunch opponents of said policies, within the US, and fierce partisans of the same policies in the ROW. So opposing the US and the ROW makes less sense than it may seem, and one should rather oppose proponents of said policies to opponents of said policies, regardless of what country they are in.

Now, the immigration question.

It is God's honest truth that the US is very successful at attracting people from other countries. It is also God's honest truth that the same can be told of any first-world country, regardless of his stance about US policies. I guess we can say France has been a most vocal opponent of militray operations in Iraq. Yet, we can also say France does attract a lot of immigrants itself, so there's no direct correlation between attraction and opposition or approval of US policies.

But do migrants come to either France or the US because of their stance over Iraq or foreign policy ? I'd like to think it is the case, because that would mean the whole human species feels concerned about what its members do or don't do, but I am afraid it has more to do with quality of life, ability to find a job, making money and basically satisfying individual yet essential needs. A realistic assessment of the situation should force us to consider that, at the same time and for largely different reasons, the US and France find themselves attracting and irritating large numbers of foreigners.

And once in-country, those immigrants hardly show any type of unity on either French or American policies either. Some will be fierce partisans of their adopted country's current conduct of affairs (like Hermannek should he come live in the US for example), while some will do their utmost to criticize it (like the jolly goodmullahs of Finley Park Mosque for example).

And, except for our true and common enemies, and our fearless political pundits, the whole show isn't about whether the US or France or the ROW is all bad. It is about whether we are doing the right thing or not. Thinking of it as a zero-sum game where one is all good and the other all bad only makes devising a working strategy uselessly difficult.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Calling other nations "children" really isn't accurate. They're more like retarded or mentally ill uncles or aunts. How else do you account for an ancient nation like Iran still executing people for being gay or disagreeing with their mystics? That being said - it's wonderful that we have other slightly less deranged relatives who will sell them weapons. The family has to stick together you know.

[muck]

The question is only, why you feel the urge to shine as the bright moral star to the blinded rest of the world ? No state, whatever it's size and political influence is - a little dwarf like Liechtenstein or a superpower like the USA - should be allowed to intervene into the affairs of anohter nation. If at all only an alliance of states should be allowed to do so because then at least the existing consensus grants a control of the own actions.
In addition, the West, also the Europeans but above all the USA, must accept that everything depends just on the point of view.

To use your example, the situation of the justice system in Iran and many other states of the same cultural circle is barbarian, for sure. But - if the death penalty is really a punishment and not only revenge, it is in my opinion based on humiliating the death candidate with his fear of death, and it does not matter which crime is threatened with death penalty. So, as being someone who already has been very critically ill and nearly died once I can assure you that it is not much less barbarian if the USA still execute the death penalty.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The question is only, why you feel the urge to shine as the bright moral star to the blinded rest of the world ? No state, whatever it's size and political influence is - a little dwarf like Liechtenstein or a superpower like the USA - should be allowed to intervene into the affairs of another nation. If at all only an alliance of states should be allowed to do so because then at least the existing consensus grants a control of the own actions.
In addition, the West, also the Europeans but above all the USA, must accept that everything depends just on the point of view.

To use your example, the situation of the justice system in Iran and many other states of the same cultural circle is barbarian, for sure. But - if the death penalty is really a punishment and not only revenge, it is in my opinion based on humiliating the death candidate with his fear of death, and it does not matter which crime is threatened with death penalty. So, as being someone who already has been very critically ill and nearly died once I can assure you that it is not much less barbarian if the USA still execute the death penalty.

Oh come on. Is moral relativism on sale at Wal Mart this week or what? You want me to believe that you see no difference between a state putting it's people to death for the deliberate murder of innocents vs. for disagreeing with the high priesthood? Seriously?

My desktop wallpaper is a picture taken by one of the Mars Explorers - from the surface of Mars at sunset, which shows Earth as a tiny dot...and it has a huge arrow and caption that reads "You Are Here". That's the thing - we're all here - this is it - we're stuck with each other. As such, most of humanity has risen from our barbarian history to forge a new reality based on individual self-determination, and individual responsibility. It is therefore up to us to recognize those nations which, tonight, are still partying like it's 1099. If that entails that we have the temerity to proclaim our collective morality as "better" than theirs, so be it.

If we as a society can't even bring ourselves to bear the intolerable agony of verbal criticism in defense of our ideology, it's hardly surprising that we're not willing to risk anything above and beyond that. In fact, for the most part, we've become a bunch of worthless cowards. And other folks have noticed that and seen opportunity.

Until fairly recently, we were content to let them butcher and oppress each other as they saw fit. But as masses of humanity have shifted, and technology has advanced, they are now able to begin to implement their backward worldview on us. These events happen so slowly that it's difficult for us to notice what's happening - but were we to view the last 300 years in time-lapse fast motion, it would be very clear what the last few moves on the playboard are indicating. And to put it bluntly, if we don't fight back, they will win. Every illustration from history says so. The side that's able to maintain it's will, it's effort, it's enthusiasm for it's fight - it's jihad, wins...plain and simple.

We in the West have raised a couple of generations of disaffected, pampered humans who have never known want, or need, or hardship, or had to fight for anything, and therefore are caught like deer in the headlights when reality comes down the road. Having been raised in something approaching an egalitarian wonderland, they are utterly unequipped to make proper decisions when faced with those who function entirely outside of their tidy, hand-holding reality.

What? It's a rant thread.

[praetorian6]

What? It's a rant thread.

Rant away. Your rants make more sense then most people's thought-out, concentrated efforts.

[name already taken]

...Until fairly recently, we were content to let them butcher and oppress each other as they saw fit. But as masses of humanity have shifted, and technology has advanced, they are now able to begin to implement their backward worldview on us. These events happen so slowly that it's difficult for us to notice what's happening - but were we to view the last 300 years in time-lapse fast motion, it would be very clear what the last few moves on the playboard are indicating. And to put it bluntly, if we don't fight back, they will win. Every illustration from history says so. The side that's able to maintain it's will, it's effort, it's enthusiasm for it's fight - it's jihad, wins...plain and simple.

We in the West have raised a couple of generations of disaffected, pampered humans who have never known want, or need, or hardship, or had to fight for anything, and therefore are caught like deer in the headlights when reality comes down the road. Having been raised in something approaching an egalitarian wonderland, they are utterly unequipped to make proper decisions when faced with those who function entirely outside of their tidy, hand-holding reality.

What? It's a rant thread.

"Until fairly recently, we were content to let them butcher and oppress each other as they saw fit."

Because we didn't yet have the means to intervene in a systematic way in their struggles.

" But as masses of humanity have shifted, and technology has advanced, they are now able to begin to implement their backward worldview on us."

Basically because our advantage in resources, mainly in energy (petroleum) resources is rapidly diminishing relatively with the rest of the world.

"And to put it bluntly, if we don't fight back, they will win. "

Fighting back means not depending anymore on oil resources for energy.

"We in the West have raised a couple of generations of disaffected, pampered humans who have never known want, or need, or hardship, or had to fight for anything, and therefore are caught like deer in the headlights when reality comes down the road."

Yes, the upper richest 1%. others always had to fight their way in life.

"Having been raised in something approaching an egalitarian wonderland, they are utterly unequipped to make proper decisions when faced with those who function entirely outside of their tidy, hand-holding reality."

The problem is not the egalitarian society we've been creating along our evolution. The problem is the the top richest 1% of our society, the very generations of disaffected, pampered humans who have never known want, or need, or hardship, or had to fight for anything, and therefore are caught like deer in the headlights when reality comes down the road and are utterly unequipped to make proper decisions when faced with those who function entirely outside of their tidy, hand-holding reality, who want to roll back the egalitarian progresses recently made to have most people to fight the (wrong) battle of consolidating their old supremacy for the foreseable future instead of having these people to look instead for alternatives to oil dependency as a way to solve the uncertainities of our future.

Don't be surprised to find only disaffected people when you're trying to get them in a battle they know to be leading nowhere and fought only for the benefit of a small minority.

It's something called common sense.

[Calanen]

"We in the West have raised a couple of generations of disaffected, pampered humans who have never known want, or need, or hardship, or had to fight for anything, and therefore are caught like deer in the headlights when reality comes down the road."

Yes, the upper richest 1%. others always had to fight their way in life.

Are you kidding - what exactly do you mean by fight their way in life - most people in the USA have a place to live, a job, and a motor vehicle. They have enough to eat, and many are overweight. How is that fighting their way in life. Go and live in Asia for a while, or Africa, and you will see what fighting for life really means.

[remo williams]

2Shed's and NAT, you both make very good points. What if you were both right? Much of what you both said I see in how things are now. As well you've both given some creedence in many of the things I've seen evolve to their present state. Basically the passification of a nation, our nation. Sure we have our random acts of senseless carnage as we had earlier (R.I.P.), but as stated, when faced with a real outside threat, we've forgotten how to handle ourselves. We are like a deer in headlights, because some of the things I've heard suggested, much less seen done are indicative of that.Instead of the best, most qualified candidates to fill and undertake important undertakings, we've made it a gold standard, to go with the most loyal , or subservient person. We'd rather bicker, smear, fight , and kill each other instead of the ones who plan on doing that very same thing to us. No BS, just TCOB and get it done in such a way that our long term security is firmly secured. I'd like to see people like these two, who despite having different view points, agree that our nation is fcuking up. Instead we'll just bicker and backstep ourselves into a jihadian donkey punch session. Anyway good points fellas.

Oh and if common sense were common ,everyone would have it. And most people don't.

[remo williams]

Are you kidding - what exactly do you mean by fight their way in life - most people in the USA have a place to live, a job, and a motor vehicle. They have enough to eat, and many are overweight. How is that fighting their way in life. Go and live in Asia for a while, or Africa, and you will see what fighting for life really means.


I can't speak for all Americans, only myself and a few close persons. The US is by no means Africa,Sudan,A-Stan, or what ever spot where the GDP is outpaced by the death count. but there are people here who do have to scrape and fight for just to live day to day. By hook or crook, we have them like every country in the world. Just look to your local hood, or industry based city. Where there's been mass outsourcing leaving college grads and career people out of work. All for the shareholders of that company's benefit, but try going from 62k to $8.50hr and live on 35-40 hrs on that. It's hard and is getting harder. If you've gone through it you'll know. As for having enough to eat, there are people who do starve. The homeless, the elderly who refuse o eat cat food bacause that's all they can afford after paying rent and expenses. Their pension hasn't risen past maybe 300-600 since they retired some twenty yrs ago. Reason being is that their employer who has a pension fund totaling some 900 billion or so, cannot/will not justify raising the rate. Many of the Katrina/ Rita survivors, what do some of them have left after the Ins co's fcuked them on the claim? Recently laid off people, children especially children. We've got alot of them who go without food , and only eat at lunch at school. Yeah we've got fat fcuks, but they are the only ones, besides the uber beautiful you'd probably see in a news segment or TV show. Our media tends to hide the down trodden from public view pretty well, except for those knee jerk feel good segments where we just have to remember there are poor people around for one day. I take it you're not stateside making such general statements. At the end of the day it's everyday life, and it's the same to some degree ,the world over.

[muck]

Are you kidding - what exactly do you mean by fight their way in life - most people in the USA have a place to live, a job, and a motor vehicle. They have enough to eat, and many are overweight. How is that fighting their way in life. Go and live in Asia for a while, or Africa, and you will see what fighting for life really means.

He did not mean that. But there are enough people who live in fear to lose their job, milions depend on welfare and today, nothing is given to you for free. It is not that easy anymore. Of course that's not 99% of all people, but still many.


Oh come on. Is moral relativism on sale at Wal Mart this week or what? You want me to believe that you see no difference between a state putting it's people to death for the deliberate murder of innocents vs. for disagreeing with the high priesthood? Seriously?

Without doubt there is a difference. What I wanted to express is that the difference is not so completely big that the Americans would have leased the prerogative on right and morality. Nevertheless, in addition, the reasons do not stand for the American foreign affairs to the debate. We know the reasons, and to me is clear that from militant Islam danger threatens. To the debate stands the approach. If I hear what here is said - concern somewhat of parents itself around silly, arguing children or even better around spiritually handicapped relatives - I can only surprise. And nobody still could explain to me, where from the USA the authorisation take to act everywhere in the world what they want. Nevertheless, there are enough examples of it. Pananama, Nicaragua, the fall Salvador Allende's et cetera.

[--Mac--]

It’s not about the political situation in Iran. It’s about countries that have the philosophy that all non believers should die. I would have no problem with Iran having any weapon they wanted if they did not support terrorism. I guess I have just been spoiled growing up in a country were congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Instead of a country who uses a peaceful religion to motivate its people toward violence.

[praetorian6]

"Until fairly recently, we were content to let them butcher and oppress each other as they saw fit."

Because we didn't yet have the means to intervene in a systematic way in their struggles.

" But as masses of humanity have shifted, and technology has advanced, they are now able to begin to implement their backward worldview on us."

Basically because our advantage in resources, mainly in energy (petroleum) resources is rapidly diminishing relatively with the rest of the world.

"And to put it bluntly, if we don't fight back, they will win. "

Fighting back means not depending anymore on oil resources for energy.

"We in the West have raised a couple of generations of disaffected, pampered humans who have never known want, or need, or hardship, or had to fight for anything, and therefore are caught like deer in the headlights when reality comes down the road."

Yes, the upper richest 1%. others always had to fight their way in life.


It's something called common sense.

When, exactly, did we discover the "means" to intervene with their struggles? More to the point, when didn't we have the means to intervene? We won a war with the British Empire at our birth, I think it may have been possible for us to "intervene" along the way since.

Ummm, what? They are able to implement their backwards view on us because we don't have as much oil, is that what you are saying? I think the point made was that these people (I'll type slowly) n o w h a v e t h e t e c h n o l o g y to f o r c e t h e i r b a c k w a r d w o r l d v i e w o n u s. Meaning there is more technology readily available to help these people spread their ways.

Fighting back means not being so damn touchy-feely and stop the PC hysteria and aquire the testicular fortitude necessary to deal with the issue.

The upper 1%? Are you from Earth? That statement you made is the most laughable thing I have read in a long time. There are welfare recipients and homeless in America that eat better than most people in third world countries. Try the bottom poorest 5% Most people don't have to "fight their way in life" in America, they had to get off their ass and do something.:roll:

Last part QFT.


Hey --Mac--, two posts in one month? You must really be bored.

[name already taken]

When, exactly, did we discover the "means" to intervene with their struggles? More to the point, when didn't we have the means to intervene? We won a war with the British Empire at our birth, I think it may have been possible for us to "intervene" along the way since.

Ummm, what? They are able to implement their backwards view on us because we don't have as much oil, is that what you are saying? I think the point made was that these people (I'll type slowly) n o w h a v e t h e t e c h n o l o g y to f o r c e t h e i r b a c k w a r d w o r l d v i e w o n u s. Meaning there is more technology readily available to help these people spread their ways.

Fighting back means not being so damn touchy-feely and stop the PC hysteria and aquire the testicular fortitude necessary to deal with the issue.

The upper 1%? Are you from Earth? That statement you made is the most laughable thing I have read in a long time. There are welfare recipients and homeless in America that eat better than most people in third world countries. Try the bottom poorest 5% Most people don't have to "fight their way in life" in America, they had to get off their ass and do something.:roll:

Last part QFT.


Hey --Mac--, two posts in one month? You must really be bored.
You feel compelled to lecture me about what I should think.

While I am lecturing you on changing you're way of thinking while you still can.

After reading your post I still think you should change your way of thinking while you still can.

[praetorian6]

You feel compelled to lecture me about what I should think.

While I am lecturing you on changing you're way of thinking while you still can.

After reading your post I still think you should change your way of thinking while you still can.

I don't feel compelled to lecture you on anything, least of all what you should think.

What, pray tell, is it I am thinking that is wrong?

See what I did with my first response to you? I took what you said and responded with something that made more sense. If you disagree, counter with something intelligent. Quoting it and adding three vague sentences irrelevent to the post doesn't constitute a debate.

[name already taken]

I don't feel compelled to lecture you on anything, least of all what you should think.

What, pray tell, is it I am thinking that is wrong?

See what I did with my first response to you? I took what you said and responded with something that made more sense. If you disagree, counter with something intelligent. Quoting it and adding three vague sentences irrelevent to the post doesn't constitute a debate.
That's still lecturing me about what I should think.

[praetorian6]

That's still lecturing me about what I should think.

No, that's lecturing you on how to submit relevant posts.

We'll work on reading comprehension next week.

[name already taken]

Rant away. Your rants make more sense then most people's thought-out, concentrated efforts.
That's your original post.

Not very original.

The rest is lecturing.

[praetorian6]

LOL

See what I mean?

[name already taken]

LOL

See what I mean?
No I don't see.

[praetorian6]

That's ok.

[name already taken]

Fine.















.