And McCain&#039;s VP pick is...

Tsar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 15:02

good post Hugo

Beylerbeyi View Drop Down

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 15:19

Such enlightened language for a member of the intelligensia.

Sorry to hurt your feelings. American propaganda on Vietnam makes me angry. Keep your propaganda to yourself (I am not necessarily taling about you, I can't distinguish between plural and singular you because this language does not allow me to), and I will remain civil.

I was pointing out the naive idealism in thinking that once the terrible USA is knocked off its "imperial" pedestal that no other nation, capitalist or communist or whatever, would not then try to take its place.

In other words, 'there will always be empires who will rule the world'. This is the step before 'yes, but we are better than the nazis', in the American defence of their imperialism.

Like Graham observed you are setting up strawmen. Nobody said that after the US falls (which is a historical inevitability) nobody will try to become the next imperialist superpower. However, we have good reasons to believe that we are heading towards a multi-polar world political system in which many local powers keep each other's imperialist ambitions under control, with no single power or even region having sufficient military/economic power to dominate the globe. This system is more desirable for me as opposed to the two-polar system we had during the cold war or especially to the unipolar system we are currently living under.

I wonder what kind of reactions the world, after being downtrodden for so long under American imperialist domination, would react to a non-capitalist, non-western, country taking its place as the imperialist aggressor?

Here, he arrives at the inevitable conclusion with a slight difference: not 'yes, but we are better than the nazis', but 'we are better than commie (what you called 'non-capitalist') niggers (what you called 'non-western')', but it is the same argument essentially. Well, you are better than the nazis, but not better than the 'commie niggers', sorry about that.

I think this statement pretty much says it all: you surely are a deluded xenophobe. In fact, Graham has already correctly diagnosed your mindset as paranoid and I agree.

Graham,

I don't particularly line up with Beylerbeyi, as he at least is sharp enough to realise.

Must be the Soton connection. ;)

The only country that seems to have ambitions to 'rule the world' at the moment is the USA.

...

Why is it not naive to think they wouldn't? Some other nation might I suppose, but at the moment no other nation seems to be in a mind or a position to do so.

Exactly. Americans quite clearly state their ambition in their 'New American Century', 'Full Spectrum Dominance' etc. plans. Also they have the largest economy in the world and the largest and most technologically advanced military force by far, as they brag about all the time. They have hundreds of military bases scattered all around the world allowing them to keep the allies under control and attack any country anytime they like, and they do attack them whenever the profit margins of their armament and oil companies fall. They are 5% of the world's population but spend more on military than the rest of the world combined.

When the US falls, who will be able to threaten the world in this manner? The EU? Not even a country, can hardly agree on anything, populations too adverse to fight imperialist wars, would splinter at the first adventure, like it did in Iraq... Russia? Backward, dependent on oil, can hardly control the Caucasus... China? Backward, still too poor and geo-strategically confined to Eastern Asia... Brazil? With what, Samba troupes or football squads? India? Too backward, too poor, too everything... North Korea? Cannot even feed itself... Iran? Barely a regional power blown out of proportion by US propagandists... Taliban? A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan...

Not for nothing US invents imaginary threats such as 'islamic militants'.

US in 1945 had 50% of World's GDP and was the only nuclear power, a unique position it used to expand its imperial power to global scale. Soviets attempted to contain them but collapsed themselves due to military industrial complex taking over. Today America is going the Soviet way. It won't be missed.

That's why what is needed is collective security.

...

Nobody has to rule the world. That's the point. That's why your attitude is at bottom paranoiac: it equates to 'I've got to get him first before he gets me'.

All that's necessary is to be in a position to defend oneself, jointly and collectively.

Exactly, nobody has to rule the world. If global decisions need to be taken, we have the UN Global Assembly (NOT the Security Council which is a tool for Western world domination). Decisions can be enforced by collective security agreements within a legal frame. There are cases when world powers acted together for world stability (Iraq-Kuwait war for instance). This is not a perfect system, but better than the current American armed robbery whenever they want and you'd better like it or else system.

Beylerbeyi View Drop Down

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 15:39

Before the collapse of the USSR, there was Saddam's invasion of kuwait that came along

Small issue quickly dealt with by a broad coalition of powers.

and i remember terrorism among the radical fringe elements of Islam was rapidly gaining strength

Radical Islam and related terror was supported by USA and its ally Saudi Arabia all along, that was the principle reason why it was 'rapidly gaining strength'. Of course, Bin Ladin and Taliban was your friend back then. Only when they turned against the US, you started whining about 'Islamic radicalism'.

& then there was the issue of failed states from the eighties, which politicans never felt like they effectively dealt with the problem.

Dealt with the problem? Western politicans created the problem of failed states in the first place. At least they exacerbated the problem. How many markets were destroyed by the IMF and World Bank? How many African countries strong-armed to open their markets to the West to have subsidised Western agricultural produce dumped intp them? How many corrupt dictators installed and given outrageous loans to spend on weapons bought from Western arms-dealers? How many were forced to pay extra for AIDS drugs? Poorest nations of the world are paying 1 billion dollars a day to the rich Western nations today, as debt service. They will never be able to pay back the main debt, so this is bleeding them dry.

Oh... and then there was the worry of nuclear proliferation also! Somehow,...i think, if the peace dividend was even offered, then it was withdrawn rather quickly? Atleast, i don't remember it being offered?

You don't remember because it was not shown to you in your media. When the Soviets collapsed the Russians went bankrupt so they had a hard time maintaining their nuclear arsenal. They made an offer to the US to get rid of nuclear weapons in the world for once and all. This is what Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty says anyway, that nuclear states are forbidden to develop new nukes and they should work sincerely towards disarmament.

Do you know how the US replied to the Russian offer? You told them to f**k off. You refused even to discuss their offer.

good post Hugo

Indeed. I did not see it as I was writing mine.

King John

Chieftain

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 15:49

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

Could you show me where Byzantine uses or implies the n-word. He said nothing about it. That word has a specific meaning that is tied with the plight of black people in America and has nothing to do with non-capitalists, non-westerners, or commies. The term is a racial slur and has no place in this discussion and it certainly does not have a place in your response to Byzantine. The use of such a word actually detracts from any point that you might make. As a matter of fact your response was tangential and did not address what Byzantine was saying. He asked a specific rhetorical question about how the world would react to a "non-capitalist, non-western, country taking its place as the imperialist aggressor." You don't even attempt an answer you just go on about how Americans are better than Nazis but not better than "commie n****rs." In closing if you want to respond, respond with an actual substantive answer not ridiculous dreck about superiority.

Edited by King John - 11-Sep-2008 at 15:51

Beylerbeyi View Drop Down

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94332540

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 16:35

I never wrote that he used the 'n-word'. He implied that American supremacy is preferable to 'non-capitalist', 'non-Western' supremacy. I have encountered this argument many times in other places from less politically correct (or more racist) people, who wrote 'commie' instead of 'non-capitalist', and 'niggers' instead of 'non-Western'.

Now, AE is not Stormfront org, and people are civilised here. But the core argument is the same; 'western = good', 'non-western = bad'. You put lipstick on the pig and call it a 'domestic mammal', but it is still a pig. Sometimes people are duped by this so it is necessary to tell them that it is a pig.

As to the meaning of the word nigger, it does not just refer to the 'plight of the black people in America', it is a derogatory word used by whites for all non-whites. I wrote nigger because it is easier than writing 'niggers, wogs and gooks', referring to blacks, West Asians and east asians, respectively.

Btw, which words have a place in my responses and which words have not is none of your goddam business. It is also none of BE's business either, but he has a history of power trips, editing/deleting posts because he doesn't like them.

Seko

Emperor

Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 17:12

Originally posted by Panther

Panther the notion of the US being militaristic has entered into this discussion. Granted it's a far cry from the Palin vice-presidential candidacy (and McCain's VP pick is...)- on second thought maybe not so far fetched as I'll get to that in a minute. Of course China, militarily, hasn't shown the capability to take over the vaccum. However, you said that is what a lot of people want. Really? Being sarcastic or did I miss something? Yes many foreigners want Obama for president. Not a war monger nor a spend thirft. Is that so amusing?

King John and Bey. Now that the two of you have cleared your throats I will leave you with the suggestion to mind the p's and q's and n's. Other than that you both tend to provide good reading so please continue to do so.

Edited by Seko - 11-Sep-2008 at 17:53

Seko

Emperor

Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 17:41

Back to Palin. This news is abundant. How true or not is none of my business as I will report what I read.

I hinted at earlier in my last post that Palin is fitting for the discussion of vice presidency and the notion of the US being a militaristic country. Some thoughts based on a few snippets of her history.

- She is a vindictive lady. Shows spirit. Gumption, but also reckless abandon. Back when she was mayor of a small town called Wasilla, Alaska she had shown her meddle in the 'Librarian' incident. Palin and her cohorts (conservative Pentecostals at the time) told the town librarian to remove certain books from the shelves. "Go Ask Alice" and "Pastor, I am Gay". The librarian refused and felt they were controlling her and their request was a form of censorship. The librarian reminded Palin that books were purchased in accordance to national standards and professional guidelines and would not allow their removal. Palin fired that brave librarian. The community was in an uproar and the librarian was reinstated. She only lasted another two years as she found it difficult to work under Palin's thumb.

Hurray for law abiding Americans, even those in the wilderness where power hungry zealots can reek havoc. Down with 'religious' nutjobs of any stripe!!!

- Palin is not a fiscal conservative. She is a spend thrift. Alaska being one of the richest states in the union, Palin sought funds for the 'bridge to nowhere' and a 30 billion dollar pipeline. Her biggest boosters are big oil. Hows that for anti-lobby crusading? Entering as mayor she had a balanced budget. She left the town $20 million in debt.

- She isn't green. Wants drilling the Alaska's wildlife Refuge, which her boss, McCain, opposes

- She could care less about polar bears as she opposed a bill making them a threatened (protected) species.

- How's this for a typically conservative clan? Kids named Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig Paxson Van Palin. Alright the last one is a goot one!

- She loves to hunt as there isn't an animal, evidently, she would not shoot. Fitting perfectly her boss, John McCain. He, the one who, advocated neocon plans invading Iraq. Long wars against Islamic mililtants (nice, but how? By blowing up countries?) and singing of the Bombing of Iran (isn't that terror in and by itself - his singing?).

Palin agrees with US militarism. Though she calls herself non-denominational, she still views Islam as being a false religion. How grande! Who is to judge? Pentecostals of course thrown in with the occasional Catholic.

On Iraq Palin believes this is a holy war, or that Pentecostals think this is a holy war.

"Many times you hear it referred to as a kind of diabolical religion, and that comes from the idea of Christianity being the true religion, but also their support for Israel, because they contend that Israel [represents] God's chosen people and you dare not touch them.

There is more. Now it's someone elses turn though.

She is a biggot and not what I think the US needs. Bad judgement, ignorant, redneck, hippie chick, psuedo conservative. Yeah, she supports her daughter's marriage. Duh? But her daughter screwed around and got knocked up. Is this the leadership America is looking for?

Edited by Seko - 11-Sep-2008 at 19:22

Seko

Emperor

Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 18:55

I take it from the conservatives of AE that you don't approve of Palin either. Your silence is glaringly obvious.

Maharbbal

Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 19:08

Is there a strong militarism in the US? I don't know but I can tell you what they are: paranoid.

A few days back I decided to visit mygirlfriend in LA, at the Philadelphia airport customs I was put aside for secondary checking along with about 60 people who were for the most part EU citizens coming to visit Disneyland. After 3 hours my case was finally heard, I was treated like shit by some kind of morron with a gun as if the babies in the room represented an danger for his personal security. I got questionned for 30 minutes then left hanging. An hour later the guy came back with "my file", basically pictures of me for the last two years every single times I came in the country. He then shouted that if I did anything wrong they'd knew were to find me. I was finally sent free as all the other times I've been caught by the borders administration, I had missed my connection flight and had to spend the night on the floor of the airport of the city of brotherly love...

Meanwhile, they had harassed a US soldier coming back from Germany before realizing they had mistaken him with a druglord, they pevented a Libyan businessman to get into the country even though he had a visa, they let a guy from Congo wait for hours because there was no trnaslator whereas I had proposed to translate for him.

In comparison when I came back in France, in the file everybody was together those who were EU citizens and the foreign citizens, no special treatment, the unarmed police took a pick at everybody's passport in about 1 minutes, no pictures, no scan of finger digits and as far as I can tell nobody had been put aside for secondary checks.

One is open for business the other is not, one is rather welcomes tourists who come to spend their money the other is not....

I can't say that being greated by a pitbull without lipstick is exactly my kind of fancy. I am not sure Mc Cain and Palin would work to solve this type of issues. I love the US but really I am starting to think they don't deserve it.

I am a free donkey!

gcle2003

King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 20:56

Originally posted by Panther

Originally posted by gcle2003

And, as it happens, I don't really need to ask my grandparents

Sorry about that, wasn't trying too evoke a sense of sadness in anyone. My apologies!

No problem. And not a question of sadness, more of a joke. It's just that for many people in this forum I could be their grandparent.

Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down

Arch Duke

Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 22:25

Originally posted by Seko

I take it from the conservatives of AE that you don't approve of Palin either. Your silence is glaringly obvious.

Well, I guess I will attempt to answer this question.

*Puts on a full suit of kevlar AND sixteenth-century Maximillian plate armor*

First of all, I think George W. Bush has progressively (no pun intended) gone to the left of the spectrum since his re-election, especially with respect to illegal immigration and fiscal policies. Now, I am willing to agree on a wee bit of compromise here and there. However, he does not seem like the same president he made himself out to be in 2000. In short, he turned his back on the conservative (right-wing whackos, fundies, whatever) base who elected him in the first place.

Therefore, I like the fact that Palin seems to be standing for some core conservative principles: pro-life (yes, her daughter made the right decision, call me a hypocrite if you want), preservation of second amendment, supporter of a well-equipped and ready military, fiscal responsibility. However, I will agree that her ability to handle foreign policy and diplomacy is questionable based on what we know now - not much. As for McCain, I do not like his waffling between conservative and liberal. I question his intentions towards fiscal responsibility, limited government, and dealing with illegal immigration. He seems to be good in terms of national defense. In the end, however, he is not a traditional conservative or Republican even, but rather an old school moderate Democrat. Politicians are politicians.

Late Byzantine Military
Ottoman perceptions of the Americas

Seko

Emperor

Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595

Quote

Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 22:58

Nice. Good to hear your views on this ticket B.E.

I would like to take the time to say that the greatest benefit Republicans tend to offer is tax cuts for the affluent and, of course, family values. Presidents from both Democratic and Republican ilk have cut them (taxes that is) in times of need. This trickly down effect does have it's merit. Family values are a noble endeavor. Now to the point...

You mentioned: pro-life (yes, her daughter made the right decision, call me a hypocrite if you want)

How does keeping a baby fit the family values model? Because an abortion was not performed? Most likely! What about the overwhleming purpose of family values? That being to raise a responsible family where precautions are taught and illegitimate sex is admonished. Is there room for 'out of wedlock teen pregnancies' under a conservative belief system or did that just come into vogue with the Palin affair?

Any other conservative who would like to share an opinion or two on Palin? Otherwise if you leave it to us liberals we are bound to go over the edge and over dramatize her as a vp selection.

Maharbbal

Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120

Quote

Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 00:14

About Bush, according to the Wall Street Journal (not exactly dangerous liberals) the growth of the average real income from 2000 to 2007 was 0,3% over the period. I guess that is the best argument against the GOP.

I am a free donkey!

Constantine XI View Drop Down

Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711

Quote

Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 00:24

Originally posted by Maharbbal

About Bush, according to the Wall Street Journal (not exactly dangerous liberals) the growth of the average real income from 2000 to 2007 was 0,3% over the period. I guess that is the best argument against the GOP.

I wonder how much it would be for the median, a much better benchmark for typical American prosperity given the large concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 10%. If that were the measure, then for the vast bulk of the American population their real income and real purchasing power would likely have decreased significantly over this period.

Maharbbal