Printable View
Clean up your own country. You have 20 thousand gun deaths a year while whining about some amendment written in ancient times and are a living breathing footprint for Einsteins definition of insanity. 40 million homeless.That is more then my country's population. Tell your clerics in political robes to quit saying you are exceptional. You are a failing State like Rome. Shit happens. Get your face out of other peoples business. Rake your own lawn.
Come on man at least know what you are talking about. The CDC has 11k homicides that were gun related in 2010. You can get over 20k if you add suicides but that isn't a gun control issue. More importantly the 40 million homeless is laughable. The number is obviously changing constantly but most professionals in the area say that there are 600-700k homeless at any given time with 1.5 million being homeless at one point or another annually. All that being said most of the US posters on the thread stated we should stay out of Syria so I'm not really sure who this rant is even addressing.
Firstly, I don't think anybody takes seriously the notion of America as a democratic nation. Sure, it has a voting system and you can vote every half decade, but to pretend that it is democratic is silly. It has the illusion of democracy, but fewer and fewer buy into the notion that politicians (aside from an obvious few) are anything more than corrupt careerists who are bought and paid for by corporations. You only have to look at the schism between what people want in polls and contrast that with the system that exists. What ordinary Americans want is largely ignored, a single payer health care system is an obvious case in point.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Secondly, the rogue elements are obvious domestically with mass surveillance of the population (Internet and phones), bailing out corrupt institutions, TSA thugs etc. Then of course you have overseas terrorism committed using US taxpayer money which is the real crime as tens of thousands die yearly because of US foreign policy. Those numbers include people killed in countries that the US sponsors, through nations invaded (Iraq recently saw 800 killed in a month and the US is clearly why Iraq is in a mess), through drone attacks on Pakistan. The list can go on, and then of course we have torture, detention without trial.
The latest is that America exchanges information about US citizens with Israel. Now what jurisdiction Israel has over America is beyond me. If that isn't a rogue state, then I am clearly living in the world of Winston Smith.
I'd argue that we have democracy but a facade of a constitutional republic. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule and I'd say that is a fair represention of our political system. I'm not really sure why you think there is a majority of American's that desire a single payer system for healthcare.
How did Obama lose face? Because he didn't get to bomb yet another country? And Obama unfortunately isn't a strong leader like Jimmy Carter.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Israel is a rogue nation because it ignores the will of international community in perpetuating a near half-century illegal military occupation of lands that are not theirs. They also refuse to abide by international standards and treaties over nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and so on. They've consistently ignored various comprehensive Arab peace settlements over the years so they can continue their slow-motion ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza.
A rogue nation is a nation that ignores the will of the international community and continues to do something the international community considers illegal. Like invading Iraq for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Here's Vladimir Putin's take on international law and America's illegal acts. Regardless of what you think about Putin it's hard not to agree with what he has to say, right?
Sidebar. Fucking google is garbage now that they've tweaked their algorithms to make more advertising dollars. I looked for this op-ed for the previous post, gave up and then had another go. A couple of years ago it would have been the first hit.
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op....html?hp&_r=1&
http://meter-svc.nytimes.com/meter.gif
Here's Bill Maher putting it another way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoRX3euPcco
So when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I got a chuckle out of this.
https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...16319082_n.jpg
America is rogue because of its foreign policy shockers largely executed in the past 50 years. You could argue that America is acting in its own interests and of course any nation would argue that. However, going off to Vietnam for instance and slaughtering 2 million people based upon lies is clearly leaning towards not only rogue, but plain demented. You see it in dozens of countries right across the globe be it invasion, leader assassination, arming of terrorists etc etc. America being a rogue state is putting it nicely, it is far worse than a rogue state I am sure in the eyes of the vast bulk of the world that has suffered at its hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlieSo when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Does Denmark behave like America? Does Switzerland? Does Canada? America is completely out of synch with relatively normal nations. Also you seem to understand the term rogue due to the types of nations you listed. Countries like Syria and Iran are nothing compared to the genocide nations like North Korea, America or those who still think concentration camps and apartheid are fashionable. There are plenty of rogue nations, but the leader is obviously America. I would imagine the numbers of people killed either directly or indirectly by America is greater than all those other countries you suggested combined. It is numerically even worse when you factor in how the place was created too. North Korea kills millions domestically, but the US did the same in its early years and then it went on to carry out the murder spree internationally. North Korea is relatively benign except for the occasional missile launch. Now the same could not in a million years be suggested of America.
America being angry with Syria or Iran is an absurdity considering everything that it is. It chooses to be rogue, it could always choose to be a normal nation, but instead it chooses exceptionalism, which is another word to describe an out of control psychopath.
Not an international popularity contest, an international treaty. Like the UN treaty. If you sign the UN treaty and then go off invading another country without agreement from the UN Security Council then you're going against the will of the international community and breaking the treaty you signed up to.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlieSo when a nation does what it thinks is in its best interest regardless of a international popularity contest its "rogue". Got it. Rogue nation is a dumb term. Iran, NK, Israel, Syria, China, US, UK and Russia aren't "rogue". They (or I should say their leaders) do what they think is in their best interests. Iran/NK think they should have nuclear capabilities, frankly I don't care nor do I blame them. Israel is surrounded by nations that would and have previously attacked them so I don't blame them for ensuring their own continued existance. China/US/Russia are all world powers that whether correctly or not believe they need to have hegemony over their proxies in order to prosper. There is nothing rogue about doing what we all do as humans every day and that is look out for #1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Or if you don't sign treaties that everybody else has signed up to like the chemical weapons treaty. Look at the small list of countries that haven't signed and you see the usual suspects when it comes to ignoring international law.
All of western Europe was sitting with their hands out post WWII and was pretty happy for a US policy that supported intervention. They were pretty happy to let their defense capabilities atrophy and have the US do the heavy lifting for 50 years during the cold war and still depend on US military support. Again when the European nations wanted to intervene in Libya they were sitting hat in hand for US assistance b/c even the UK didn't have the capability to neutralize out of date Libyan air defense w/o a large loss of life. The world has been very grateful when there have been humanitarian disasters and US service men and women are the first their to provide support. Personally I'd let the world go it alone and not lift a finger to help but for 60+ years American presidents have more than obliged the world to be its police. The world doesn't get to have it both ways. You can't ask for a nation to fund the rebuilding of your continent, secure it for half century, settle your internal conflicts and be the #1 contributor to humanitarian assistance then bitch and complain b/c you don't always like the way they go about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Please name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I'll leave it to one of the world's foremost international lawyers to answer this :Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharliePlease name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
Yeah Mr. "Food for Oil" is well beyond reproach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
You're an ignorant cunt, Saddam didn't abide by the rules and guidelines laid out for him by the UN post-Persian Gulf War, you know it, I know it, Kofi dumbass Annan knows it....ergo the war was good to go based on that alone. Go be a jackass elsewhere, I'm tired of your constant bellyaching you stupid twat
Agreed, the UN is useless. What they did in Rwanda alone should discredit them. Slavery still goes on in parts of Africa, Christians being killed all over the Middle East and what has the UN done. All you America bashers should get down on yours knees and kiss Old Glory, if not, we are going to invade your country then give you billions of dollars to rebuild, so there.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharliePlease name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I got good laugh from this one. Just for you Miles.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...57533607_n.jpg
""Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." Annan
So the senior member of the biggest joke in the international community is upset no one asked his opinion first. Color me shocked but if you look at the quote, being in conformity with the charter is not a basis to call a military action illegal. The charter isn't binding international law. He also said "there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections" so while I don't believe the invasion right or necessary nor do I think a UN resolution amounts to squat but W did actually have a UN resolution to hang his hat on.
It's funny how Saddam could be placed under UN sanctions resulting in the tremendous suffering of people who had done no wrong and yet Israel has never had to endure UN sanctions. The main problem with the UN is the United States itself who exercises the veto and bullies to get its way more than any other nation. For America to then lie and go in and invade a pathetically weakened nation was the act of a despicable coward and bully. I think you are one of the few still defending the Iraq war, Lyle. Most were right all along and others have revised their views. Almost nobody believes it was a just war and the fall out largely proves it.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongYeah Mr. "Food for Oil" is well beyond reproach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
You're an ignorant cunt, Saddam didn't abide by the rules and guidelines laid out for him by the UN post-Persian Gulf War, you know it, I know it, Kofi dumbass Annan knows it....ergo the war was good to go based on that alone. Go be a jackass elsewhere, I'm tired of your constant bellyaching you stupid twat
The fact that the war criminals still walk free speaks volumes and which unknown African is being tried in the Hague this week? What a joke.
Miles, that statement is pretty indicative of why I think the UN is a sham. The US/China/Russia are going to vote against anything not in their own interests or even anything in favor of the other. They have no real authority or moral consistency to objectively say this is good, this is bad much less some false pretense of legality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Gandalf, May I inquire as to what country you reside in. You could even be American, many of us are anti-American. By the way, the UN has been all over Israel for years with more than 60 resolutions. I would say, if you want to make this discussion astute you should avoid sourcing one of the more corrupt and useless organizations in the world, the UN and their Blue Helmet troops who allow genocide to occur under their watch. The US should put a sanction on the UN and have them set up camp in some shithole like France.
Gandalf is a British-expat who has lived in S. Korea for many years now. Don't bother pointing out some of his mother country's missteps in the past. He holds them in contempt almost as much as he does the US.
It is the closest we have to law. However, it is clearly open to abuse and needs reforming. As I say, China and Russia are on the whole pretty small fry abusers as compared to the US and its notorious veto on anything concerning Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlieMiles, that statement is pretty indicative of why I think the UN is a sham. The US/China/Russia are going to vote against anything not in their own interests or even anything in favor of the other. They have no real authority or moral consistency to objectively say this is good, this is bad much less some false pretense of legality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Where one resides is irrelevant to any argument. My nationality is likewise irrelevant. I don't give my country a free pass and neither the one where I live either. Anything goes with me, I speak it as I see. However, Korea is pretty dull politically. There are internal things of interest, but nobody on here would be interested. Property prices fell 4% last year. Captivating, I know. Things occasionally get more interesting when former Presidents jump off mountains or North Korea throws a wobbler, but certainly nothing on the scale of countries like America, Britain, or Israel which could really do with a few former leaders jumping off of mountains.
Where one resides has everything to do with it, I now understand and feel bad for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfIt is the closest we have to law. However, it is clearly open to abuse and needs reforming. As I say, China and Russia are on the whole pretty small fry abusers as compared to the US and its notorious veto on anything concerning Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlieMiles, that statement is pretty indicative of why I think the UN is a sham. The US/China/Russia are going to vote against anything not in their own interests or even anything in favor of the other. They have no real authority or moral consistency to objectively say this is good, this is bad much less some false pretense of legality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Where one resides is irrelevant to any argument. My nationality is likewise irrelevant. I don't give my country a free pass and neither the one where I live either. Anything goes with me, I speak it as I see. However, Korea is pretty dull politically. There are internal things of interest, but nobody on here would be interested. Property prices fell 4% last year. Captivating, I know. Things occasionally get more interesting when former Presidents jump off mountains or North Korea throws a wobbler, but certainly nothing on the scale of countries like America, Britain, or Israel which could really do with a few former leaders jumping off of mountains.
miles has 0 credibility in these debates because he stands for nothing. He lives in the haze of anarchy and academia where things look brilliant in practice but somehow :rolleyes: never pan out in "the real world" but he of course pays that no mind at all. miles would like the world to end because humans are inherently evil is what it all boils down to. If there were only 2 people left on earth and one of them was miles, he'd be certain to destroy both humans thinking it would be better for the earth he's THAT delusionalQuote:
Originally Posted by walrusWhere one resides has everything to do with it, I now understand and feel bad for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfIt is the closest we have to law. However, it is clearly open to abuse and needs reforming. As I say, China and Russia are on the whole pretty small fry abusers as compared to the US and its notorious veto on anything concerning Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlieMiles, that statement is pretty indicative of why I think the UN is a sham. The US/China/Russia are going to vote against anything not in their own interests or even anything in favor of the other. They have no real authority or moral consistency to objectively say this is good, this is bad much less some false pretense of legality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Where one resides is irrelevant to any argument. My nationality is likewise irrelevant. I don't give my country a free pass and neither the one where I live either. Anything goes with me, I speak it as I see. However, Korea is pretty dull politically. There are internal things of interest, but nobody on here would be interested. Property prices fell 4% last year. Captivating, I know. Things occasionally get more interesting when former Presidents jump off mountains or North Korea throws a wobbler, but certainly nothing on the scale of countries like America, Britain, or Israel which could really do with a few former leaders jumping off of mountains.
I see it has become personal again, Lyle. :rolleyes:
Where I live has nothing to do with the crisis in Syria. If I was living in England my views would be the same as you well know. Likewise, the work that I do has nothing to do with having views on international political affairs. I do a job, a peaceful job, and that is all that there is to that. It has nothing to do with Syria. I do well, but that doesn't mean that I have no values. If I don't enjoy what I do then I will look for another teaching job because teaching is what I do. My rebellion is living overseas as a sojourner, but I have studied to teach and teach I shall. You say I stand for nothing, but what the heck do you stand for? I live for my family and the faint hope that the homeland can improve itself. I want good things for the UK, it angers me that it isn't what it should be.
The Christian faith is that humans are inherently evil, but I don't adhere to that. I don't do evil things and most people don't do evil things. However, concentrations of power are very prone to doing evil things and I just point out where the leading concentrations of power do just that. US foreign policy of 50 years has shown it repeatedly, revelations about your secret services are likewise showing a pull towards wrongdoing, those are just the facts.
I don't want the world to end, I just want people to aspire to be better people and to care for one another more. The politics has to lead that from the front as society has shown it can't level the playing field. I don't think the West practices caring very well with broken families being the norm rather than the exception, with governments hell bent on privatising everything they can, with jobs being outsourced in their millions, with state pensions being funneled into hedge funds, with 12 million Americans relying on tips to top up their 2 dollars and 14 cents per hour. It is a sick, sick, state of affairs and I feel little regard for any of the people that have caused it. Would I like to see those responsible brought to account for their crimes against society? Sure, I would. However, I am not advocating nuclear apocalypse or anything so drastic.
As for Walrus, this is a decent place to live and with the right skills and qualifications, you can do well and I do. That however has nothing to do with politics nor Syria. I could be doing the work that I do in 4 dozen countries and my political views would be the same. It is an asinine argument.
It's not personal it's the truth. You're an anarchist, anarchy is chaos, and with chaos you get MORE suffering not less. You don't even like humans let alone certain groups of humans, so why should anyone listen to you drone on about an entire species that your despise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
When the United States helps anyone does miles give any credit???? No, it's 100% evil...and as per usual I'm tired of your bullshit classroom preaching. You teach English to Koreans you're not solving jack shit with world problems, you don't live in reality which is why when you're faced with reality you're a drunken lunatic.
Where you live and what you do has everything to do with your world view. You have not been talking about Syria, I really don't think you give a shit about them, you have been talking about America, against whom you are biased. Also, Christianity does not view humans as evil as evidenced by John 3:16. Stop spouting bias in your head as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
I believe anarchy is needed in places where totalitarianism has taken over. Whence I am all for the Korean freedom fighters who gave their lives against the Japanese. Likewise, it is why I am in favour of people like Manning and Snowden who are clearly proud Americans. If you don't break the rules then nothing will ever change, rules can and should be broken in the face of overwhelming oppression. In that regard I don't blame people overseas attacking American troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongIt's not personal it's the truth. You're an anarchist, anarchy is chaos, and with chaos you get MORE suffering not less. You don't even like humans let alone certain groups of humans, so why should anyone listen to you drone on about an entire species that your despise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
When the United States helps anyone does miles give any credit???? No, it's 100% evil...and as per usual I'm tired of your bullshit classroom preaching. You teach English to Koreans you're not solving jack shit with world problems, you don't live in reality which is why when you're faced with reality you're a drunken lunatic.
The argument that I don't live in reality is also ludicrous. How do you think I survive and live a decent middle class life? I don't do it by being completely insane and off my head waltzing around like Alice in Wonderland. I do it by working hard and trying to do my job better than anyone else. I have off days and doubts, but I get through it and persevere. Unlike all too many I use my rationality to survive. It's the genuinely insane who marry and have 3 kids, buy a home that is too big for them to afford and never plan for the future. I am far from insane in that regard, Lyle.
Also, what do you think I do for a living? My ability is based in the work that I do and that is how I run my life. I am a master of pedagogic grammar and preach it well. I think you have a warped perspective of me. I do a job and it has nothing to do with the me who talks about things on here. I live in reality and thus prepare and act around it. I think all too many of you are not living in reality with the TV obsession and ignorance of what your governments are doing.
I am well aware of everything and in that sense am completely in tune with reality. I think your posts reek of sour grapes because everything that has been said has turned out to be true. This isn't classroom preaching in the slightest, this stuff goes nowhere near my classrooms. It is transmitted to people like you. So stick it up your bra, you big nancy.
You forgot to read the Old Testament.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusWhere you live and what you do has everything to do with your world view. You have not been talking about Syria, I really don't think you give a shit about them, you have been talking about America, against whom you are biased. Also, Christianity does not view humans as evil as evidenced by John 3:16. Stop spouting bias in your head as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Again you fail to back up your argument and so it is pretty asinine. If there is anything I say about America that is untrue then say it, otherwise it isn't biased and must be true. Also, you clearly know very little about me if you think I wouldn't hold the same views in the UK or in dozens of other countries. My views will only change with concrete policy changes and they haven't materialised which is something that even Lyle recognises in the case of Obama.
Anarchy doesn't work and you are a fool to believe in it. Why did the Republicans lose in the Spanish Civil War? Because they allied with the anarchists! The pigs. Anarchists are the scum of the Earth and true anarchists don't believe in peace they are just habitual boat rockers, they don't follow authority no matter who is in charge. If they were in charge and made rules for everyone, they'd break their own rules because it is their lot in life to fight against the establishment no matter who that establishment is. THAT is why I say you don't live in reality, you're hoping for something to happen but it will never happen, never ever...the anarchists always lose, because they fight against themselves just as much as they fight against the enemy. Anarchy is self destructive and THAT is why you like it, it reminds you of yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
There were dirtbags in the Spanish Civil War who refused to salute officers citing this as a reason "We figured the bullets and bombs couldn't tell the difference between a General and a Private so why should we?".....they had a fundamental lack of respect which was but a shadow of the fundamental flaw in their personalities, it is only a shame that all Anarchists aren't dead because though they will never achieve their dreams they'll sacrifice themselves to destroy yours.
Anarchists are a reason to believe in abortion they offer society nothing but trouble
I will share a little anecdote just to show how I don't connect with reality. I was reading Lyle's post with an incredulous expression, and it bugged me. Then I said to my wife, 'Listen to what this Lyle person has said about me and tell me what you think'. And so I read out that vindictive attacking post and shrugged my shoulders, 'What do you make of that?'. Her immediate reply was that it was 'Nonsense' and that he has 'no idea how good you are'. Then she gave me a hug and went to bed as she has to drive early to see her sister. See Lyle, not my words, but the words of my wife. That is reality and life as I live it.
All in all Lyle, you are a cunt and should be called as such for attacking me as usual for no good reason. You do it to Kirkland all the time too and really you should be reprimanded. You contribute nothing, but have a go at individuals and as usual ignore the bigger picture which is your fascist government.
Abortion? Maybe the solution is not to breed as led by the Catholic church.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongAnarchy doesn't work and you are a fool to believe in it. Why did the Republicans lose in the Spanish Civil War? Because they allied with the anarchists! The pigs. Anarchists are the scum of the Earth and true anarchists don't believe in peace they are just habitual boat rockers, they don't follow authority no matter who is in charge. If they were in charge and made rules for everyone, they'd break their own rules because it is their lot in life to fight against the establishment no matter who that establishment is. THAT is why I say you don't live in reality, you're hoping for something to happen but it will never happen, never ever...the anarchists always lose, because they fight against themselves just as much as they fight against the enemy. Anarchy is self destructive and THAT is why you like it, it reminds you of yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
There were dirtbags in the Spanish Civil War who refused to salute officers citing this as a reason "We figured the bullets and bombs couldn't tell the difference between a General and a Private so why should we?".....they had a fundamental lack of respect which was but a shadow of the fundamental flaw in their personalities, it is only a shame that all Anarchists aren't dead because though they will never achieve their dreams they'll sacrifice themselves to destroy yours.
Anarchists are a reason to believe in abortion they offer society nothing but trouble
Anarchy is to stop a system from functioning and in that sense abortion is anarchy. I am all for it. Nobody asked to be born and the sooner adults realise that there can be more anarchy. However, it isn't just anarchy, it is an intelligent approach to living.
I'm an anarchist for sure, but I believe it is an intelligent approach to living. I like society having values, motivation, and a means to better oneself. However, when those things are gone anarchy is needed. If you don't think your children will inherit a fair chance then you need anarchy.
It isn't a dirty word. A society of people not producing children is a quiet form of serious anarchy.
Is this the same wife you complain about constantly or is there a new one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Do I complain about my wife constantly? Again, no I don't. She is one of a few people that know who I am to the core. That's what I was trying to say, if I was acting like Charlie Sheen then clearly there could be no normalcy. If I was Michael Jackson, then things would be weird. My life is not in the slightest as you tried to paint it in that post and so it was you projecting more than anything else. I am not stomping the streets inciting revolution. In fact, you are no less political than I am and you argue your case on a forum just as I do.
Basically what it all means is that people who will hide in shadows and lash out when they feel like it, but reveal nothing are poison. Lyle for example is against any involvement in Syria and yet will find any moment to lash out at me and talk all kinds of shite.
And yet does Lyle have a girlfriend? Has he ever picked up a girl without a gun aimed at her head? Has he failed to realise that by insulting Obama he is an obvious racist?
Anyone can make arguments like that, but it is pathetic and that is what the last few pages are.
What's up, brother cousin? What's this food for oil thing you're on about? And let me guess, in between multitasking you're now a qualified lawyer who's become an internationally famous expert in international law? Oh wait, no, you're a Neo-Confederate manchild ranting away in his mother's basement.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongYeah Mr. "Food for Oil" is well beyond reproach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
You're an ignorant cunt, Saddam didn't abide by the rules and guidelines laid out for him by the UN post-Persian Gulf War, you know it, I know it, Kofi dumbass Annan knows it....ergo the war was good to go based on that alone. Go be a jackass elsewhere, I'm tired of your constant bellyaching you stupid twat
When America pays out billions of dollars in reconstruction money who gets the billions of dollars? Who do they pay those billions to?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusAgreed, the UN is useless. What they did in Rwanda alone should discredit them. Slavery still goes on in parts of Africa, Christians being killed all over the Middle East and what has the UN done. All you America bashers should get down on yours knees and kiss Old Glory, if not, we are going to invade your country then give you billions of dollars to rebuild, so there.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharliePlease name the specific treaty that the US signed that stipulates what makes a military action legal. Mind you we've previously pointed out that the UN Charter is not binding international law. Outside of the US Congress and President there isn't any other legal process for American military action. End of story. Call it immoral, unpopular, etc but trying to apply a legal basis to war is plain absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
The UN is only ineffective because the member with the biggest military and the longest history of military aggression routinely ignores the rules it signed up to. Bush spent two months trying to get a UN resolution authorising the invasion, failed, and gave up.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of "working the phones," it quickly became clear that as many as 11 of 15 council members remained opposed and the effort was abandoned by 10 a.m.
The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome.
[...]
Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."
War looms as Bush issues final warning | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's Newspaper