Villages Refuse Hugo's Free Oil, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 10-10-2006 @ 02:04 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
you just dont get it do you? ....


Apparently a few times more clearly than you.

They would rather freeze their asses off than take oil from a guy who thinks your country is scum and insults the leader of your country!


Actually i believe Hugo Chavez reserved his rude comments for the top leadership of America and not it's citizens. Any person who will risk their children's health ( or their own for that matter) in defense of the criminal activity of their government deserves far worse than they are likely to get.

its called LOYALTY,


Loyal to a president who sends hundreds of thousand of young men ( and women ) to get shot at in a foreign country that was no threat or the USA is not deserving of loyalty or even much justice.

PATRIOTISM


The only thing a person should ever be patriotic about is the community, he lives in, and institutions in that treats him justly and ensures that he may contribute towards making the community better . Democracy is all about NOT trusting the president or anyone else with power over your destiny.

and HONOR! a concept which a few of the yuppy types in this country scoff at. Of course do they really care?


What is honourable about dying for a country that will bill you for the ruined body armor ( that was badly manufactured so did not stop the bullet) and all the days of the month you were not alive to earn your pay in? You are confusing honourable conduct in civil society with militaristic imperial 'honor' where you only feel good when your country is carpet bombing people who still reside in mud huts.

one of the things you discover about those americans that are in hardship is that many would gladly be cold and proud than warm and shamed.



With this type of thinking you will end up face down in a rice paddy in South East Asia. Anyone who must choose the cold over warmth, in protection of their ego, is not deserving of much sympathy.

Stellar


reply posted on 11-10-2006 @ 03:22 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by super70
The protection of our country (USA) is our number one priority, thus requiring the most funds.


Then why did the Pentagon misplace 2-3 trillion dollars? I am pretty sure some of it went to black projects but how much of it just disappeared into corporate pockets? Defending America has not been the primary doctrine of the last half dozen US administrations as Russia's superior strategic forces points out quite clearly.

And frankly as bad as its been in the Katrina damaged areas of our great country, I have yet to hear of one person jumping the fence to Mexico.


If America can not even deal with a little hurricane how will it protect it's citizens in a nuclear war? The Russians is still constructing large shelters and building up their nuclear and ballistic missile defense forces with nothing like that happening in the USA; at least not for the average civilian.

I do not dispute the claim that a huge amount of fraud and mismanagement plagued the Katrina relief effort, but I do dispute your claim of "complete lack of government aid."


It's well know that the federal government actively took part in preventing aid from reaching NO; ask people like Senator Cynthia Mckinney.

www.house.gov...

This statement is false. The US government has spent BILLIONS now on the cleanup and relief effort.


They have spent BILLIONS on paying contractors 10 times what it would cost local firms to repaid the same damage. It's just another way for the government to subsidize their corporate friends by nice little contracts.

And let us not forget before we point fingers or ask why this is such a mess...
"The storm devastated a 90,000 square-mile area, which is roughly the size of Great Britain."


You know what will happen when nuclear weapons start going off? A country CAN protect itself to a great extent against such eventualities but not the in the US apparently.

Stellar


reply posted on 11-10-2006 @ 04:13 PM by BitRaiser
Originally posted by super70
I have yet to hear of one person jumping the fence to Mexico.

No, but I've been noticing more and more American's "jumping" the northren fence and moving into my area.


Canada's official immigration website is receiving a record number of visits since Bush won a second term, and most of the hits are from the U.S.

Within hours of Bush's acceptance speech Wednesday, six times more Americans than usual surfed the site.

There were about 179,000 visitors to the site Wednesday, almost twice the previous one-day record set last year. About 64 per cent of those visitors were Americans.

Source

I was wondering if some hard figures could be turned up on this issue, so I did a little digging. Check out the trend:

Canada – Permanent Residents by Age and Source Area
Source area 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
United States 1,527 1,570 1,430 1,902 1,979 1,819 1,549 1,612 2,275 3,279

Source
If you look at that source page, it's interesting to note that the highest increase in American immagration to Canada is amoungst the 14 to 25 year old group... ie, young people getting ready to start their lives for real.

I thought you might find this information interesting.


reply posted on 12-10-2006 @ 08:58 AM by super70
StellarX, I know you just didn't quote Cynthia McKinney

Cynthia McKinney

She just lost her seat in congress, and apparently her mind the way she attacked a guard doing his sworn duty to protect any unauthorized access into an official government building.


If America can not even deal with a little hurricane how will it protect it's citizens in a nuclear war? The Russians is still constructing large shelters and building up their nuclear and ballistic missile defense forces with nothing like that happening in the USA; at least not for the average civilian.


Little hurricane? That's like calling the recent tsunami in Asia a 'little wave.'
You made several references to Russia, so tell me, who lives in Chernobyl? Hows that cleanup project working out?

Chernobyl 20 years later

[edit on 12-10-2006 by super70]


reply posted on 12-10-2006 @ 02:12 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by super70
StellarX, I know you just didn't quote Cynthia McKinney


I did yes.

She just lost her seat in congress, and apparently her mind the way she attacked a guard doing his sworn duty to protect any unauthorized access into an official government building.


Sworn duty to protect official government buildings from representatives of the American public? This is a interesting reason to fire someone over and it shows how badly they want here to shut up.

Little hurricane? That's like calling the recent tsunami in Asia a 'little wave.'
You made several references to Russia, so tell me, who lives in Chernobyl? Hows that cleanup project working out?


Well the official death toll of Chernobyl stands at around 37 last i checked and what the Tsunami and Katrina did is in fact insignificant compared to what would happen in nuclear exchange even if both sides avoided targeting cities. The reality is that people were EVICTED from the area directly around the reactor and it's likely that many would have stayed had they been given that option. As it stands many people still live where they really should not but since their not dying or getting sick one should suppose that the clean up was in fact very successful.

Currently about five million people live in areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine with levels of radioactive caesium deposition more than 37 kBq/m2 1 . Among them, about 270 000 people continue to live in areas classified by Soviet authorities as strictly controlled zones (SCZs), where radioactive caesium contamination exceeds 555 kBq/m2.

www.who.int...


Stellar
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^