It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll: Pakistanis Object To Bin Laden Killing!

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by nenothtu
 



He was a radical Islamic fundamentalist, that is why the CIA and other organizations conditioned him and trained followers to initiate the attacks on the US (this my speculative opinion).


Simply an opinion just based on actions committed by the CIA in the past no real evidence, I never presented this information as fact.


Okay, I can accept that.



It is not unlikely that a corrupt organization would destroy documentation that would implicate them in the mass murder of individuals and or training of terrorists. Not everything is documented especially if its highly illegal.


In movies, yes, but in the real world, bureaucracies NEVER destroy their paperwork without backing it up in some other form. That's like a sacrelidge to a bureaucrat. If there ever was any evidence for these alleged meetings with bin Laden, then it still exists - but it may be buried under 4 levels of classification. I personally doubt that any such events took place as presented, but I wouldn't doubt that they CIA sought bin Laden - just not for the reasons presented.



And this is one of the problems with the world. Cynicism has destroyed all forms of transcendental philosophy. I'm no Christian, but I do believe in many of Christs words (not the ones perverted by relegion) such as "Love one another" and "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,". Compassion given to enemies is the ultimate form of "good". One may say it is naive but I would rather live in a world where people attempt to conquer human nature rather than succumb to it because it is efficient.

To quote Immortal Technique "We can not change the past. But we can change the future and anyone who tells you different is a F#$%ing lethargic devil".


I can't qaurrel over whether or not I'm a hopeless cynic - I am, beyond doubt. It goes with the territory, I reckon. The words of Christ you list are fine and dandy, in a perfect world. When they get in the way of survival, they become problematic as dogma. He also said "I say unto you, sell your cloak and buy a sword", so I suppose he must have recognized that fact, and may not have intended it to be blanket dogma. Let's not forget the scene in the temple with the money changers, either. looks like there WERE some things he was willing to raise dust over.

There is a time and place for compassion to be given to your enemies, but the midst of battle is not one of those places. It will get you killed. On the other hand, mistreatment after they're captured, and entirely in your power, is unbecoming of any sort of true warrior. THAT is one of the places for compassion. Tecumseh himself killed one of his own men for mistreating captured prisoners.

THAT was a leader.



The entire western expansion of the United States was empirical. We butchered thousands of native Americans (innocent and violent). We instigated a war with Mexico and conquered their land and took it for ourselves.


Westward expansion: That was actually started by the British Empire, in 1607 (at the behest of a corporation, - British East India Company, I believe - no less! point to you!), and was largely built upon the efforts of France, Britain, and Spain by the Americans. Americans weren't the originators of that holocaust, nor were they in it by themselves, but they did end it.

War with Mexico - yup, we fought 'em and conquered territory. Then, like a bunch of dumb-asses, we turned around and paid them for the conquered territory. I've never figured that one out. That's right up there with blowing a country to bits for cause, then turning around and rebuilding it. I've never quite figured that out, either. looks to me like making them rebuild their own country would keep them busy - off the streets and out of trouble - and make them re-think jumping us again, but that's just me.

Iraq is a special case - we didn't go into Iraq for cause. I can see rebuilding Iraq, since we tore it up for no good reason. I was against that war from the beginning, just as I am the current Libyan debacle. I don't see Iraq as an "illegal" war, since no laws were broken, but I do see it as an unjust war, without cause. That's not to disparage the soldiers who served there, some of whom are very near and dear to me. They did what they were told to do, which is what soldiers do. I blame the higher-ups for that fiasco, the ones who made the decisions in the first place. That blood is upon THEIR heads, both Iraqi blood and American.



You are right, after the civil war the empire grew even more the conquering of Hawaii, the Spanish-American war which most nations that fell to the US after that war was over never wanted them there to begin with (just like they didnt want the Spanish). No not empirical at all...


I don't think Hawaii ever WAS properly annexed, and by rights it ought to be given back to the Hawaiians. Same for Puerto Rico, which I think is one of the last relics of the Spanish American War. Give 'em their sovereignty, and get out. Let 'em sink or swim under their own power. I've got all the faith in the world that the Puerto Ricans could do it.



The "Plutocratic Empire" is running really strong US culture has spread to almost every nation. WalMart McDonalds, every American based oil company + many many more. Dont forget the profiters at home, Boeing, Raytheon, Aerospace, Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Xe (aka Blackwater). Making tons of money for years off of blood.


Xe is vastly over-rated, and over-estimated. I reckon they come first to most folks' minds because they got so much press, but they aren't nearly as "bad" (as in "bad-asses") as most folks think. Most of the rest, as aerospace contractors, are going to make money, war or not, developing and selling the next "new and improved" gadget plane. Walmart and McDonalds, as takeover entities, are pretty weak. let's flood their markets with cheap stuff, and force feed 'em hamburgers! That'll teach 'em!

Seriously, they don't have to buy anything they don't want to, but I'd dearly love to see McDonalds develop and sell a good falafel over this incursion. I might start eating there again if they did. Hummus I can get any where, but a good falafel is hard to find around here.



But does your vote matter?


Individually, no. Sometimes, even collectively, no. That's one of the reasons I advocate for sharp term limits, so that no "bad guys" get irremovably entrenched into the system.



And even if it does how do you know that your elected officials do what is best for you and not to corporations with the veiled idea of "helping corporate America helps you".


Some times... MOST of the time these days... that's exactly what they do - work against us and FOR the corporations. When I catch them at it, no excuses will work. That's when I begin to actively work to overthrow them. Helping US helps us. "Helping" corporations, in the form of bailouts and such, just props up a weak and failing system, and that's no help to US at all. If corporate overlords mismanage their business, too bad. Let it cave in on their heads. Propping them up so they can mismanage FURTHER does US no good at all. Both Bush AND Obama are guilty as charged, which is one of the things that tells me that we aren't in a "two party" system any more, they've merged into one, and are only trying to keep up appearances for the electorate. the results of their actions are precisely the same, and not at all good for us.

That, too, is a function of a lack of term limits, where a particular ideology and culture gets intrenched in the government, regardless of the players.



Lobbyists pay loads of money to press there agenda. It wasn't until recently that they banned handing out lobbyists checks to congressmen on the house floor, but as long as it is not in public...sure why not, what does that say about this country?


it says we are all willing to be bought and sold. WE allow that mess. Lobbyists are another sore point with me. They should ALL be outlawed, as undue influences on the People's Business, from the NRA to the AARP. ANY lobbyist should be liable to 10 years breaking rocks. If a congress critter just can't figure out what his conscience dictates, or his constituents want, without the aid of a payment, well, they have these things called "Recall Elections"... and he probably really ought not to be in DC, since he's clearly out of his depth in matters of decision making and conscience.



I can tell that your a decent person and you want whats best for this country and you do not want your rights trampled on. But all i can say is that the world evolves, ideas evolve and forms of government die and are reborn into something new. Democracy worked for a long time but we need something new that is better and m,ore free than the democracy we have now. Everyone on this earth is human and we can have peace, but no one other than the counter culture has promoted it. No one has ever tried because all revolutions are founded on blood and as long as that keeps happening the "cycle of pain" will continue until we all finally kill eachother with nukes.


Thanks for the kind words.

I've never been a very strong proponent of Democracy, as I believe it to be utterly and completely WRONG for a majority to ride roughshod over a minority, thus negating their own personal sovereignty.

The way to more freedom, regardless of the political system involved, is to severely limit and curtail that system, keep it within the bounds that it was designed for. Letting government grow, unchecked, is what leads to problems, and always has. It causes the government to eventually, sooner or later, exist merely to make sure it exists, and any concern for the people goes right out the window. The "bread and circuses" handed out in ancient Rome - and modern America, among other countries - is not out of concern for those people, it's out of a sense of self-preservation on the part of the government, and a desire to maintain control by that government. You feed them, they do what you tell them to.

"Bread and circuses"... just another grand similarity between the ancient failing empires and the modern failing empires! What goes around comes around, and we've already allowed our government to transgress the limits of common sense. A fall is inevitable. it's only a matter of time now.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



In movies, yes, but in the real world, bureaucracies NEVER destroy their paperwork without backing it up in some other form. That's like a sacrelidge to a bureaucrat. If there ever was any evidence for these alleged meetings with bin Laden, then it still exists - but it may be buried under 4 levels of classification. I personally doubt that any such events took place as presented, but I wouldn't doubt that they CIA sought bin Laden - just not for the reasons presented.


I agree makes sense.


There is a time and place for compassion to be given to your enemies, but the midst of battle is not one of those places. It will get you killed. On the other hand, mistreatment after they're captured, and entirely in your power, is unbecoming of any sort of true warrior. THAT is one of the places for compassion. Tecumseh himself killed one of his own men for mistreating captured prisoners.

THAT was a leader.


I do not think that war will ever disappear. IMO "world peace" does not mean that we will be rid of evil, it just means that there is a world that wont kill each other over petty differences and material wealth. There will always be a time where Nazi like ideology arises, which is hell bent on causing suffering. This is a time where like you are saying above, where compassion does not exist on the battlefield. A force so powerful only violence can quell it. But rarely has a power like that threatened the very world in a long time (until now some might argue). Right now most of the blood we (as in the human race) are shedding is of innocent civilians and the blood of men suckered into war by the ideals of extremists and the power hungry.


I don't think Hawaii ever WAS properly annexed, and by rights it ought to be given back to the Hawaiians. Same for Puerto Rico, which I think is one of the last relics of the Spanish American War. Give 'em their sovereignty, and get out. Let 'em sink or swim under their own power. I've got all the faith in the world that the Puerto Ricans could do it.


I agree. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands all should have their sovereignty. I think they would do quite well they would have the vacation market almost cornered.



Xe is vastly over-rated, and over-estimated. I reckon they come first to most folks' minds because they got so much press, but they aren't nearly as "bad" (as in "bad-asses") as most folks think. Most of the rest, as aerospace contractors, are going to make money, war or not, developing and selling the next "new and improved" gadget plane. Walmart and McDonalds, as takeover entities, are pretty weak. let's flood their markets with cheap stuff, and force feed 'em hamburgers! That'll teach 'em!

Seriously, they don't have to buy anything they don't want to, but I'd dearly love to see McDonalds develop and sell a good falafel over this incursion. I might start eating there again if they did. Hummus I can get any where, but a good falafel is hard to find around here.


But Xe is still a mercenary force, that has committed what could be described as war crimes, then Erik Prince moved off to Abu Dhabi in the UAE to start another mercenary force.

McDonald's and WalMart were just examples of many other corporations spread across the world. Given they are all not even completely US companies anymore. The corporate world and the banking world are so embedded in the governments of the world that they have as much power as the politicians (some have their own armies
).

The aerospace companies are very important. But as long as they keep creating weapons of mass destruction (i.e. advanced combat craft, cruise missiles, etc..) for these governments to use, they will get no respect from me.


I've never been a very strong proponent of Democracy, as I believe it to be utterly and completely WRONG for a majority to ride roughshod over a minority, thus negating their own personal sovereignty.

The way to more freedom, regardless of the political system involved, is to severely limit and curtail that system, keep it within the bounds that it was designed for. Letting government grow, unchecked, is what leads to problems, and always has. It causes the government to eventually, sooner or later, exist merely to make sure it exists, and any concern for the people goes right out the window. The "bread and circuses" handed out in ancient Rome - and modern America, among other countries - is not out of concern for those people, it's out of a sense of self-preservation on the part of the government, and a desire to maintain control by that government. You feed them, they do what you tell them to.

"Bread and circuses"... just another grand similarity between the ancient failing empires and the modern failing empires!


"Bread and circuses" is exactly right.

I do think though that the only way for us to "truly" progress is to have no borders. I do not think it will happen anytime soon, but we need to progress to that point. But first we have to deal with the criminals that control the governments of the world and the mess they have left us with.

Thank you Nenothtu for the enlightening debate. I believe ideas and philosophies must mingle together to grow stronger. To be grey, not black and white.

Peace, Love, Tolerance and Compassion be with you.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Originally posted by nenothtu
I'd ask them what color they wanted the ribbon on their medal to be. God knows the US government isn't doing anything to tackle MS-13!

You are being remarkably cavalier about it, so you'll excuse me if I say I don't believe you
.
Even if YOU have no issue with this, it would be the kind of thing the government would start a war (or at least majorly change diplomatic relations).


Originally posted by nenothtu
And drugs being "nonexistent" before that? Have you ever heard of "Karachi"? There was a LOT of dope getting moved through Karachi long before the Soviets even cast a jaundiced eye towards the area.

A few spoiled rich kids in "Karachi" don't equate or even come near the MASSIVE jump in the drug trade after 1979.



Of course, the US didn't really care about any of this, until, predictably, it all came back to bite them in the ass in 2001 (and yes, the CIA financed WITH KNOWLEDGE groups that were known to have ties with foreign -in many cases arab- groups, including Osama and Al Qaeda).



Originally posted by nenothtu
I'd like to see the paperwork on the CIA financing of AQ and OBL, if you don't mind. I'll wait while you fetch it.

Perhaps you didn't read what I said. I didn't say that the CIA financed AQ and OBL (although they probably did, there is predictably no paperwork on the subject- not that there isn't accounts from ex-CIA officials, which the CIA of course deny). I said that they financed groups that were known to have ties with foreign (including OBL and AQ).

The Taliban, however, are definitely a product of the CIA. No one can deny that if the CIA had not meddled (or at least not meddled as badly and carelessly as they did), they would not exist. The Taliban (or the people and groups that later made up the Taliban) were made up of people that were trained by Pakistan WITH US approval, although the same US government later labelled them terrorists and war criminals (only after they switched sides, of course).



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Blaming the US for the formation and activities of The Taliban is simplistic and not exactly painting the 'whole' picture.

Sure the US, through their intelligence agencies etc, trained and funded Mujahideen fighters, some of whom went on to form core elements of The Taliban.
Yes, the US was very short sighted and naive and foolishly ignored advice not to do so.
However, laying the blame solely at their feet is ignorant, simplistic, inaccurate and shows a total unwillingness to either accept or apportion any blame whatsoever on The Taliban themselves and the belief system that governs their every act and deed.

The simple fact of the matter is that their US instigated training and funding merely enabled The Taliban to impose their brutal, repressive and unyielding interpretation of Sharia Law and Islamic teachings on a majority that didn't want it.

Their primary 'driver' was not their military training, which was an enabler, but rather their religious beliefs.

It's quite telling how the majority of apologists etc reserve their ire solely for the US rather than the belief system that drove them forward.....another case of a complete and utter unwillingness to accept any responsibility themselves and apportion blame on anyone and anything other than themselves and some followers of Islam.
edit on 24/6/11 by Freeborn because: .....



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

I didn't claim they were solely responsible. I don't think anyone or anything in today's socio-political world can be called "solely responsible" for anything. I said the Taliban were a PRODUCT of US behaviour in the Soviet-Afghan conflict.

Their brutal and (fairly crazy) interpretation of Islam is a fairly important component of the Taliban, yes, but once again, the US very happily bred, fostered and influenced this extremism as a weapon against the "atheist communists"- so they have their part to play in that as well.

The reason I am pointing these things out is because an element in this thread of supposition of complete US innocence in the matter, and supposition that their actions were totally justified and not in the wrong.
edit on 24-6-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I understand and to a certain extent agree with what you are saying.

It is naive, or bigotted, to the extreme to lay the blame solely on one doorstep.

Unfortunately far too many choose to do so.

And if anyone believes that all will be good and well when, or if, 'Western' forces leave Pakistan / Afghanistan then I fear they will be sadly mistaken.
Afghanistan has a history going back centuries of incessant tribal warfare and US / UK troop withdrawal will do nothing to alter that.
Pakistan is of key stategic importance and has a bitter and acrimonious relationship with it's burgeoning global power neighbour India and whilst China may enter into the expected political tit for tat rhetorical criticism of the US I suspect that behind closed doors they are actually quite supportive of them. China has it's own problem's with Muslim extremists and fears an increase in Taliban led and supported insurgencies.

That OBL could live so openly within Pakistan and the level of support he and his supporters etc had / has shows that Pakistan is a hotbed of Muslim extremism with significant support within both the ISI and the military.

Pakistan, China and India all have border disputes with each other and regularly exchange fire in these regions.

The whole region is a powder keg and any escalation could have serious repercussions throughout the world.

Whilst I understand the need for some sort of negotiated settlement with the interests, safety and concerns of the Afghani and Pakistani people being the paramount issue I suspect the current plan for withdrawal has been agreed with short term political expediency as it's primary concern and may not bode well for the long term stability of the region.

I hope I'm wrong; only time will tell.
edit on 24/6/11 by Freeborn because: d



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

Oh, I agree with you completely, and that might be a subtle difference that I have with many who otherwise share my viewpoints. Never mind that the US has an unfortunate habit of blindly charging in without peeking in the room first, it also has a habit of then caving in to pressure, and then abandoning or forgetting what they did (case in point: their previous "interference" in Afghanistan against the Soviets).

Of course, I can't really blame them, considering that much of the US population believes that the current operation in Afghanistan is "bad", and they should thus pull out, and of course, it is putting a drain on its already weak finances, and OBL being killed makes people think that that particular battle is kinda over.

It would be nice if the US properly planned its departure, and made sure that the infrastructure that they assisted to set up won't come back and again bite them in their butts in another decade or two (again). But that is probably too much to hope for.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I don't know for sure but we could hope for the worse. Also I don't trust the Afghan forces and police officers there. They always slacked off and kept firing their guns in the air then ended up getting bombed and killed by NATO forces. That's why the ISAF forces are still training them. I still think they need to man up and become tough guys when NATO gets out in 2014.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Exactly.

Any peace plan that has any realistic chance of being lasting and truly effective has some basic requirements; total and unconditional transparency and honesty and a willingness to put the interests and well being of the people before personal, political or religious belief, ambition or gain.

Unfortunately these are attributes which none of the concerned parties seem to possess in abundance, if at all.
edit on 24/6/11 by Freeborn because: .



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   


Now you've piqued my curiosity. WHY would anyone think it's "the right way to go" so subvert their own sovereignty and autonomy in favor of foreign masters? I'd really like to know, since that concept is so alien to me as to perhaps have originated off-world.


Those who are not consumed by nationalism can see that when you remove all the systems of control and manipulation, we are all the same. What religion you are, what color you are, what land you were born in, it doesn't matter, underneath, we are all the same. The world is bigger than one nation, why shouldn't there be a single government for the entire world, that is run by common sense, not religion?

Answer me this, did you choose to be born in the country you were born into?
Do you think anyone chooses to be born into the life and country they are?
Do you think anyone chooses to be born into extreme poverty?

I WISH to live in a world where everyone respects each other, where wars a thing of the past, where people have their own identities, where people make their own decisions and choices without being deceived and manipulated by their government.



Perhaps, but I can guarantee that I'm not as eager to be just another cog in the machine of the New Masters as some here appear to be, not naming any names...

'New Masters'?
So you are saying you have old masters? Don't you find that sad that you view them as masters, people who are superior to you?

You should really try looking at this from a different perspective. They are your equal, everyone is your equal, they are no better than you, they are no worse than you.

You say you are not eager to be just another cog in the machine, yet you are willing to be just another cog in a smaller machine. Doesn't that strike you as hypocritical?
Why don't you choose to be your own awesome cog?



Actually, they're there to keep your own from being over-run by the alien - peoples who would subvert you, and force their way of living on YOU, in your own home, rather than the other way 'round, where they are expected to integrate into the local lifestyle if they plan to stay.

After you wrote that did you have a peek outside to see if there was any 'subverting' forces?




Taxation really has nothing to do with it at all, other than just which set of masters the taxes go to. Do you really fantasize that the One World Empire would be devoid of taxation? Dream on, little brother, dream on.

Taxation has everything to do with it. The monetary system is the main control system. Along time ago borders became what they were due to land grabbing, the more land, the more people, the more you could get from taxes.

I dream of a world without a monetary system. Where we provide and work for each other.
But its a pipe dream, it wont happen in my life-time, because in this world, people are selfish, the majority care not about others. In this day and age, people still have prejudices, they still can't see beyond the skin color of others, or beyond what religious book others hold in their hands.



It's a fact of life - people are different, and there simply IS no single government that fits all, nor can there be until all peoples are merely cogs in the same machine. It's not a matter of "superiority" or "inferiority", it's just a matter of differences, and how we see the world. What's good for one is abomination to another, and vice-versa. Believe it or not, I actually met a girl one time who refused to eat reptiles, like snakes and turtles! Can you think of anything less normal than that? Wouldn't want her running MY government, in MY nation - she might make my own culture illegal on my own turf!

People are the same, the traditions of their upbringings make them do things differently. But we are all the same. Government is still government, the difference is the rules and what those rules are based on. Currently they tend to be based on religion.

If you set up a government not based on religious ways, but based on common sense, based on the fact that we are all equal. Then would you have the beginnings of a government suitable for all?

Vegetarians must freak you out? They don't eat any animals.




Actually, not. I AM in the real world, not some kumbaya fantasy land where cultural differences vanish magically in favor of an invitation to foreign masters.

Cultural differences are reducing due to the march of capitalism. It's what the US has been doing to other nations for years. - 'You dont want socialism/communism/etc, that's evil, you want capitalism, here, have some of our McBurgers and a Coke'

Do you really think our creator cares about what nationality we are? Or what our skin color is? Or maybe even what religion we followed? How about what political party we voted for, it must care about that right?

Or maybe it cares more about our personal growth. How and what we have learned. How we interact with others, how we perceive others, how we supported and helped others. What we learned in this life.

Who knows my friend, who knows.

st.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye

I do not think that war will ever disappear. IMO "world peace" does not mean that we will be rid of evil, it just means that there is a world that wont kill each other over petty differences and material wealth. There will always be a time where Nazi like ideology arises, which is hell bent on causing suffering. This is a time where like you are saying above, where compassion does not exist on the battlefield. A force so powerful only violence can quell it. But rarely has a power like that threatened the very world in a long time (until now some might argue). Right now most of the blood we (as in the human race) are shedding is of innocent civilians and the blood of men suckered into war by the ideals of extremists and the power hungry.


Agreed, for the most part, but the cynic in me has to rear his ugly head and say that there are ALWAYS those in a given population who are willing to kill and take the "stuff" of others, rather than get their own. That is, in fact, probably the biggest reason for crime in my small city. I don't think we will ever rid ourselves of that aspect of human nature, either, in spite of the folks who think we're entering a "new era of peace, love and understanding". They aren't the first to think that, and more likely than not, they'll wind up being just as wrong as the rest.

As my police instructor put it lo those many years ago: "Some folks are just junkyard dog mean. They're born that way, and you can't do anything with them to make 'em productive. Those folks will always be with us, but thank God there ain't many of them!"

Yes, every now and then totalitarian ideologies will arise, and need to be put down, but there will always be those motivated by laziness and greed as well. Really, the best we can do is not foster that attitude and enable them.





But Xe is still a mercenary force, that has committed what could be described as war crimes, then Erik Prince moved off to Abu Dhabi in the UAE to start another mercenary force.


Aye, and that's what I was speaking to. Xe as a mercenary force is a joke. They're too high profile - a situation fostered by Prince and his promotional ethics - and they tend to attract too many "cowboys" these days, who want only to be associated with a brand name, thereby taking their "glory" by association rather than honest effort or professionalism. A fairly high proportion of them are not professional by any stretch of the imagination.

Let me explain what I mean by "cowboy". I once worked with a guy who bragged that he kept 600 rounds of ammo in his trunk. After a while of that, I got tired of hearing it, so I asked "What good is it doing you in your trunk?" See, he wanted folks to know how "bad" he was, and he wouldn't have made a pimple on a "bad" man's ass. He was the sort of fellow who wanted you to think he could write his name with an Uzi on full-auto, in cursive, and reality was that he'd never even seen the elephant, and would likely have peed all over himself when it came.

One more example: in 2004, I was in negotiations with DynCorp to do some contract work in Baghdad, at the (then) new Embassy there. When the talks got around to weaponry, I wanted to take my own, since I was already familiar with it. The guys says "Oh no! You can't do that! We supply what you need - brand new M4's and Sigs. All the bell and whistle attachments you want." I didn't go. I don't want "bells and whistles" on my tools, I want tools that WORK, and do what I tell them to. It's MY ass in the grass if they don't, so "sexy" stuff doesn't do anything for me, functional stuff does. That's a "cowboy" - he chooses to look "sexy" over being functional, every time. He wants the world to look at him and quake.

He ain't crap in the grand scheme of things, and Xe is overburdened with his type.



McDonald's and WalMart were just examples of many other corporations spread across the world. Given they are all not even completely US companies anymore. The corporate world and the banking world are so embedded in the governments of the world that they have as much power as the politicians (some have their own armies
).


Yup, how well I know that some of them have their own private armies, and others contract out to hire other private armies. There's more to life than money, and, while I don't fault a man for making a living the best way he can, I have nothing but contempt for those who hire out SOLELY for money. If a man will sell his arms for money alone, regardless of "right" or "wrong", he'll do other wrong stuff, too, and several of these "big name" mercenary outfits are overburdened with that type. Fortunately, they're not terribly effective at what they do. Just another sort of "cowboy", they generally drop like flies when the lead gets thrown.

That's why I hold no special awe of "hollywood" outfits like Xe. There truly ARE some formiddable outfits out there, but the likes of Xe hog the limelight, and the quiet professionals are damned glad of it. Xe best hope they never get pitted against the real deal.



The aerospace companies are very important. But as long as they keep creating weapons of mass destruction (i.e. advanced combat craft, cruise missiles, etc..) for these governments to use, they will get no respect from me.


"Weapons of mass destruction" evidently has a mutable definition. It used to mean nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, now (thanks, Patriot Act!
) it can mean nearly anything. Imagine my surprise at discovering that a lowly shotgun I own is now classified in some circles as a "weapon of mass destruction", and you'll understand why I'm not surprised that Cruise Missiles are now considered as such in some circles. To me, the phrase "weapon of mass destruction" has lost all meaning now that ANY weapon is or can be considered as such, and as far as I'm concerned they're all back to being just "weapons". Even a knife can now be a "weapon of mass destruction", even though it only destroys one mass at a time...

I suppose someone has to produce weapons, but the application of them is what I call into question. You mentioned Raytheon. I didn't know they made weapons - as far as I knew, they only made guidance systems for missile, not missiles themselves. Maybe that's how they get over - by compartmentalizing everything.



"Bread and circuses" is exactly right.

I do think though that the only way for us to "truly" progress is to have no borders. I do not think it will happen anytime soon, but we need to progress to that point. But first we have to deal with the criminals that control the governments of the world and the mess they have left us with.


Agreed about dealing with the criminals in control of governments currently, disagree about borders. Everyone needs somewhere they can be secure. Borders are supposed to provide that, assuming they are enforced, which the US has a terrible time doing. I currently live in a "mixed" neighborhood, where I am the minority. It's mostly black and hispanic, and I'm the only injun around, probably for miles. A fair proportion of the hispanics are "paperless", and so "borderless". I can look out my front door every day and see the results of a "borderless" world, and can guarantee that nearly NO ONE will be happy with it - other than the land grabbers, that is.

You know, I can speak Spanish well enough to make myself understood, but if someone INSISTS that I speak Spanish, in my own native land, I balk real quick, and suddenly they may as well be talking to a Martian. I guess I'm a prick like that. You come to MY turf, you better be prepared to speak MY language if you expect to get by. Back when I was on THEIR turf, I had to speak THEIR language, and so I see it as only fair.

I can't see "borderlessness" as any sort of progress. From my front door, it looks a lot more like anarchy.



Thank you Nenothtu for the enlightening debate. I believe ideas and philosophies must mingle together to grow stronger. To be grey, not black and white.

Peace, Love, Tolerance and Compassion be with you.



Likewise to you. When I was a young man, everything could be seen in black and white. the older I get, the grayer the world gets. I think I may have grown!



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Originally posted by nenothtu
I'd ask them what color they wanted the ribbon on their medal to be. God knows the US government isn't doing anything to tackle MS-13!

You are being remarkably cavalier about it, so you'll excuse me if I say I don't believe you
.
Even if YOU have no issue with this, it would be the kind of thing the government would start a war (or at least majorly change diplomatic relations).


Oh, you don't have to believe me, but that makes it no less true. Agreed about the government getting IT'S panties in a wad over such activity, though. Governments do that when someone shows them up, and does the job they ought to have been doing.

You may be surprised to learn that there are OTHER things I disagree with the government about, as well!




Originally posted by nenothtu
And drugs being "nonexistent" before that? Have you ever heard of "Karachi"? There was a LOT of dope getting moved through Karachi long before the Soviets even cast a jaundiced eye towards the area.

A few spoiled rich kids in "Karachi" don't equate or even come near the MASSIVE jump in the drug trade after 1979.


"Spoiled rich kids"? I'm taking about the bulk dealers and smugglers that were found there back then, not the end users. A lot of the end users were in the US, not Karachi, and oddly enough much of the drugs came out of Afghanistan (opiates and hashish, primarily), and that was long before the Soviet invasion, much less CIA involvement. Are you old enough to recall what Afghani cannebinoid products fetched in the US in the early 70's? I am, and nearly all of them were routed through Karachi. It's not a recent thing, nor is it a CIA thing.

It's true that back then Southwest Asia couldn't hold a candle to the Golden Triangle for opiates, but that doesn't mean the drug trade was non-existent or trivial.



Of course, the US didn't really care about any of this, until, predictably, it all came back to bite them in the ass in 2001 (and yes, the CIA financed WITH KNOWLEDGE groups that were known to have ties with foreign -in many cases arab- groups, including Osama and Al Qaeda).


No, the CIA never financed Osama. I'm not going to fork over classified documents to prove that, so believe as you will. I know better, and won't fall for that. They didn't fund AQ after it's formation, either. As a matter of fact, OBL REFUSED any "assistance" that he thought MIGHT have originated in the US, even during the Soviet War, as a matter of principle. He didn't want those particular strings that would likely be attached. He brought his own (family) money, and financed himself beyond that through various Arab networks. Perhaps to his credit, he also refused ISI funding, probably on the (correct) theory that it likely originated in the US, via Saudi money laundering.

Agreed, though, that the US screwed the pooch and dropped the ball when we precipitously left Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. What we did then was leave a power vacuum in place, and nature abhors a vacuum, as they say. Pakistani ISI saw that as an ideal opportunity to seize defacto power and control in Afghanistan, something they've always pined away for (many of the border tribes, like the Pashtuns, are found in both countries), and the Taliban was created by ISI just for that purpose. Between 1994 and 1996, they set about doing the bidding of ISI, and seizing that power.

There were those in the CIA at the time who strenuously argued against pulling out without further stabilization aid, and leaving the place in ruins, but they were over-ridden by the higher-ups (I believe Bush Sr. had a hand in that decision making process), and we got what we got.



Originally posted by nenothtu
I'd like to see the paperwork on the CIA financing of AQ and OBL, if you don't mind. I'll wait while you fetch it.

Perhaps you didn't read what I said. I didn't say that the CIA financed AQ and OBL (although they probably did, there is predictably no paperwork on the subject- not that there isn't accounts from ex-CIA officials, which the CIA of course deny). I said that they financed groups that were known to have ties with foreign (including OBL and AQ).


I'll say it again: there is ALWAYS paperwork behind EVERY government action. ALWAYS. If you don't mean to say that "the CIA funded Bin Laden", then you shouldn't say that. Perhaps restructure your sentence so that these organizations are the object of funding, rather than OBL and AQ, as it currently reads. At least then, I couldn't argue with it. Who knows which organizations other organizations have ties to? Such discoveries are what caused me to stop donating to the Untied Way here!



The Taliban, however, are definitely a product of the CIA. No one can deny that if the CIA had not meddled (or at least not meddled as badly and carelessly as they did), they would not exist. The Taliban (or the people and groups that later made up the Taliban) were made up of people that were trained by Pakistan WITH US approval, although the same US government later labelled them terrorists and war criminals (only after they switched sides, of course).


The Taliban is a "product" of the CIA in the same way that the Northern Alliance was a "product" of the CIA, but proponents of "the CIA made the Taliban" are oddly reluctant to bring up the corollaries. I guess it might hurt their case to admit that, eh? They are a "product" of the CIA in the same way that pennies are a "product" of copper mines. Copper mines don't make pennies, they just provide raw materials, What the rest of the world does with those materials is beyond the scope or control of the copper mine - whether the material goes into pennies, or whether it goes into wire for houses, or a PCB for your computer, is under someone else's control.

Are you proposing that the CIA should have destroyed all that raw material to keep it from falling into enemy hands before they left Afghanistan, on the theory that it MIGHT go bad? That's sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water, isn't it?

edit on 2011/6/24 by nenothtu because: I needed to fix the tags



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by babloyi
 


I don't know for sure but we could hope for the worse. Also I don't trust the Afghan forces and police officers there. They always slacked off and kept firing their guns in the air then ended up getting bombed and killed by NATO forces. That's why the ISAF forces are still training them. I still think they need to man up and become tough guys when NATO gets out in 2014.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)


I don't believe that will ever happen, honestly. Afghans have their own notions of how to accomplish such things, and are very resistant to foreign "training". Some might call it hard-headedness, but whatever the root cause, the training isn't likely to take. Part of the problem is that the trainers aren't generally trained to take cultural differences into account, and build their training plan around them.

What you have to remember is that the trainers are training these folks in THEIR country, in THEIR culture, and so-called "western ideals" are just not going to stick, or even go over very well.

Probably the best we can do is provide the infrastructure, raise the median quality of life, then get the hell out and let them do with it what they will. If they are truly that resistant to the Taliban, then the Taliban will never have a serious resurgence. They key is that AFGHANS have to make those decisions, on Afghan terms, and within their own cultural frame of reference.

I've said it thousands of times, and few people ever hear me - you CAN NOT force "democracy" on folks who simply want no part of it. Just give 'em upgraded infrastructure, improve life for the average Afghan (on their own terms, within their own frame of reference as to what constitutes "improved"), and THEN get the hell out and let them do with it what they will, but with the understanding that if the Taliban wants to have at us, then we stand ready for it, and can always entertain them some more if they're froggy.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SatoriTheory


Now you've piqued my curiosity. WHY would anyone think it's "the right way to go" so subvert their own sovereignty and autonomy in favor of foreign masters? I'd really like to know, since that concept is so alien to me as to perhaps have originated off-world.


Those who are not consumed by nationalism can see that when you remove all the systems of control and manipulation, we are all the same. What religion you are, what color you are, what land you were born in, it doesn't matter, underneath, we are all the same. The world is bigger than one nation, why shouldn't there be a single government for the entire world, that is run by common sense, not religion?


No such thing as a "government run by common sense". Common sense is inimical to government. If you believe otherwise, show me a government that you think is run by "common sense".

There shouldn't be a government over the entire world simply because of the nature of government. Over time, all governments cease responsiveness to the governed, and begin to exist solely to propagate themselves. A single government, for an entire planet, is an open invitation to centralization of power, with NO recourse but to move to another planet - which, last time I checked, would be an exceedingly difficult effort for any individual, and indeed any group of people that I know of.

In EVERY case of centralized government, it has become totalitarian. EVERY case. One centralized world government just puts the whole world under the same yoke.

Of course religion, skin color, or area of birth don't matter! I find it awfully odd that there are folks around who would kill me over any of those reasons, but there are, and there always will be. They have to be dealt with, and poking flowers into their gun barrels won't get that done.

Sorry, YOU can just lay down and let them steamroll you if you like, I'm not going to. It's not in my makeup.



Answer me this, did you choose to be born in the country you were born into?


I guess my answer to that would depend on your belief system. Maybe.



Do you think anyone chooses to be born into the life and country they are?


See above.



Do you think anyone chooses to be born into extreme poverty?


Again, maybe. In my case it was a real learning experience - both learning how to deal with the poverty, then learning how to overcome it. I grew up with no indoor plumbing, sporadic electricity, and the whole nine yards of what you would consider "living in poverty". I lived in a shack that had wind blowing in through cracks in the walls. I can't count the times I was awakened by snow falling in my face through the roof. I had to hunt and farm to eat as a kid, no quick trips to the grocery stores like my kids have now. I made it, and I think I'm better for it. If I had it to do over again, I'd do it in the exact same way.

So, yeah, I may have chosen that. If I get another chance, I'll choose it again.



I WISH to live in a world where everyone respects each other, where wars a thing of the past, where people have their own identities, where people make their own decisions and choices without being deceived and manipulated by their government.


I WISH that, too, but am pragmatic enough to know it's never gonna happen. Ever.




Perhaps, but I can guarantee that I'm not as eager to be just another cog in the machine of the New Masters as some here appear to be, not naming any names...

'New Masters'?
So you are saying you have old masters? Don't you find that sad that you view them as masters, people who are superior to you?


I was being facetious. It's akin to sarcasm.


I acknowledge no masters, neither do I want any, and I don't care if they're a "One World Government" based in Bern, Geneva, Brussels, or New York. They're ALL "foreign masters" to me, and I want nothing to do with any of them.



You should really try looking at this from a different perspective. They are your equal, everyone is your equal, they are no better than you, they are no worse than you.


Haven't I already said that I have no superiors, nor inferiors? Might have been another thread, but I could have sworn it was this one. I have interacted with royalty, politicians, Phd "rocket scientists", and ditch diggers and trash haulers. I have yet to finds a superior or an inferior among any of them. Different talents and abilities, perhaps, different world views certainly, but nary an inferior or superior in the bunch.



You say you are not eager to be just another cog in the machine, yet you are willing to be just another cog in a smaller machine. Doesn't that strike you as hypocritical?
Why don't you choose to be your own awesome cog?


Because I'm not "awesome", of course! The fact is, I'm not a cog in ANY machine, large or small, so I can't very well be a "stand alone" cog. A stand alone cog wouldn't get much accomplished anyhow, would it?




Actually, they're there to keep your own from being over-run by the alien - peoples who would subvert you, and force their way of living on YOU, in your own home, rather than the other way 'round, where they are expected to integrate into the local lifestyle if they plan to stay.

After you wrote that did you have a peek outside to see if there was any 'subverting' forces?



See my post above concerning my neighborhood. I don't have to "peek", I interact with it, every day.




Taxation really has nothing to do with it at all, other than just which set of masters the taxes go to. Do you really fantasize that the One World Empire would be devoid of taxation? Dream on, little brother, dream on.

Taxation has everything to do with it. The monetary system is the main control system. Along time ago borders became what they were due to land grabbing, the more land, the more people, the more you could get from taxes.


If the monetary system can control you, your priorities are all wrong. You perhaps could benefit then from an education in the poverty I spoke of above?



I dream of a world without a monetary system. Where we provide and work for each other.
But its a pipe dream, it wont happen in my life-time, because in this world, people are selfish, the majority care not about others. In this day and age, people still have prejudices, they still can't see beyond the skin color of others, or beyond what religious book others hold in their hands.


I work and provide for my own. There's only so much one man can do, and it all begins at home. Of what use is "providing" for strangers half way around the world if your own are suffering for it? Perhaps they could benefit from learning how to provide for themselves? That would sure ease the burden on the rest of us!



People are the same, the traditions of their upbringings make them do things differently. But we are all the same. Government is still government, the difference is the rules and what those rules are based on. Currently they tend to be based on religion.

If you set up a government not based on religious ways, but based on common sense, based on the fact that we are all equal. Then would you have the beginnings of a government suitable for all?


If you truly believe people are the same, you must not have traveled much, or interacted with other cultures. We are NOT the same, which does not imply any sort of hierarchy. As a matter of fact, a hierarchy requires a framework of "sameness" within which to organize.

variety is the spice of life, and it is the differences which make the world go 'round. I'd truly hate to see the bland "sameness" you seem to espouse.



Vegetarians must freak you out? They don't eat any animals.



Nah, they don't freak me out. Most of those I've interacted with are pretty sickly types, but I just pity them, I don't get freaked out at the prospect. that's their own individual choice, and none of my business. Long as they aren't trying to force me to eat tofu, and I'm not trying to force them to eat steak, we're good.




Actually, not. I AM in the real world, not some kumbaya fantasy land where cultural differences vanish magically in favor of an invitation to foreign masters.

Cultural differences are reducing due to the march of capitalism. It's what the US has been doing to other nations for years. - 'You dont want socialism/communism/etc, that's evil, you want capitalism, here, have some of our McBurgers and a Coke'


I won't get into the "captalist/marxist" debate, that's a dead horse to me. I finished with those wars long ago. If it's any consolation, I've been preaching for years that you can't force "democracy" on people who just want nothing to do with it, and are entirely unsuited to it, and I've been against such attempts by the US and others for years. By the same token, you can't force any other "ism" on folks that just want nothing to do with it, either, and I resent any and all attempts at such, wherever they originate, and whoever they target.

That's my long winded way of saying that there is NO "one size fits all" government.



Do you really think our creator cares about what nationality we are? Or what our skin color is? Or maybe even what religion we followed? How about what political party we voted for, it must care about that right?


Maybe. Are we to get into matters of religion? You might find mine to be rather odd, and decide I ought to die for it. It's not standard, I'll tell you that much.



Or maybe it cares more about our personal growth. How and what we have learned. How we interact with others, how we perceive others, how we supported and helped others. What we learned in this life.


Again, maybe.

And maybe it concerns itself with other things altogether.



Who knows my friend, who knows.

st.


As a guess, only the Creator?

Be well.



edit on 2011/6/24 by nenothtu because: Fixed tags. I'm not very goods as "taggers" go




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
"Spoiled rich kids"? I'm taking about the bulk dealers and smugglers that were found there back then, not the end users. A lot of the end users were in the US, not Karachi, and oddly enough much of the drugs came out of Afghanistan (opiates and hashish, primarily), and that was long before the Soviet invasion, much less CIA involvement. Are you old enough to recall what Afghani cannebinoid products fetched in the US in the early 70's? I am, and nearly all of them were routed through Karachi. It's not a recent thing, nor is it a CIA thing.

It's true that back then Southwest Asia couldn't hold a candle to the Golden Triangle for opiates, but that doesn't mean the drug trade was non-existent or trivial.

Errr...history (and reality) kinda disagree with you there. Opium may have always been produced in Afghanistan, but it was originally quite negligible. Then when the Soviets started weakening the Afghanistan govt., the druglords started gaining power, and financing themselves with the stuff (agreed, not the US OR the CIA's fault), and then the US started involving itself, and backing certain druglords to the point where they (later) openly admitted to favouring winning the Cold War at the expense of the War on Drugs (anyone remember that?
)- And it's certainly not any better now. Heck...you know Hamid Karzai's origin story? Yup, druglord.
You know the point when Opium production was at it's minimum since 1979? When the Taliban banned it
. And today, under the auspices of the US and its friends, it's a 4 billion dollar industry.

Anyhow, since the point was about Pakistan, sorry, I never asked the price of Afghani cannebinoid[sic] products in the US in the early 70s, but every single study done shows that Opium processed through (or produced in) Pakistan in the early 70s was negligible, and then it jumped to something like 800 MT in 1980, then when down to negligible again in 2000-2001 (I guess the opium farmers were under the same control of the Taliban in Pakistan as they were in Afghanistan), and after that, it went up again.

Again, as a quantifiable comparison, (you can't really make a quantifiable comparison of Afghani-originated opium in the US in the early 70s, but if you have an actual study as opposed to hearsay, I'd be glad to see it), although it isn't talking about export from Pakistan, in 1979, the number of drug addicts in Pakistan were negligible. In 2006 there were 5 million, of which 1.5 million were heroin addicts.



Originally posted by nenothtu
As a matter of fact, OBL REFUSED any "assistance" that he thought MIGHT have originated in the US, even during the Soviet War, as a matter of principle. He didn't want those particular strings that would likely be attached. He brought his own (family) money, and financed himself beyond that through various Arab networks. Perhaps to his credit, he also refused ISI funding, probably on the (correct) theory that it likely originated in the US, via Saudi money laundering.

Errrr....again, reality and history kinda disagrees with you there. The group that Osama started for the Afghanistan conflict obtained funds from dozens of countries, INCLUDING the US. Osama's hatred for the US only came about after the House of Saud brought in the US military for protection against Saddam. Before that, he was recorded as being thankful for the US assistance against the "atheists".

And you're "not going to fork over classified documents that prove your point"?!




Originally posted by nenothtu
If you don't mean to say that "the CIA funded Bin Laden", then you shouldn't say that. Perhaps restructure your sentence so that these organizations are the object of funding, rather than OBL and AQ, as it currently reads. At least then, I couldn't argue with it. Who knows which organizations other organizations have ties to? Such discoveries are what caused me to stop donating to the Untied Way here!

Not wishing to insult your reading comprehension, but I didn't say that. AFTER you brought it up in your previous post, I again mentioned I didn't say that, but that they may possibly have (there is "evidence" either way). What IS known is that the US funded groups that were KNOWN to have connections to Osama (and other arab groups and "arab afghanis"), and that they knew this, and that the CIA was very favourable towards these arab groups. It is also known that many of the "mujahideen" who later went on to form the taliban and al qaeda were trained and supplied by the CIA.
And hey, I'd say the same about the Northern Alliance, except, unfortunately, the Northern Alliance, as it was set up originally, doesn't really exist any more. What we have now is a former shell of itself, headed by a former druglord, that could possibly be almost as bad as the Taliban.

Besides, your mention of the Northern Alliance doesn't really hold up, because the group the CIA funded -to the detriment of the other, less extremist-islam related groups such as those that went on to later form the original Northern Alliance- was the Hizb-e-Islami, whose leadership was KNOWN to be friendly with the arabs, including Osama, and were eager to involve them. Those other groups didn't get much funding from the CIA at all.



Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you proposing that the CIA should have destroyed all that raw material to keep it from falling into enemy hands before they left Afghanistan, on the theory that it MIGHT go bad? That's sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water, isn't it?

I am proposing that the US should have handled their exit MUCH better, should have handled their choice of opposition to the Soviets much better, and should've stopped trumping up policies that would lead to short-term success, and long-term implosion.
edit on 26-6-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

No such thing as a "government run by common sense". Common sense is inimical to government. If you believe otherwise, show me a government that you think is run by "common sense".

That doesn't mean it's not possible, does it? If you have the negative view point, then things will never be possible. Only way to know for sure, is to try.


There shouldn't be a government over the entire world simply because of the nature of government. Over time, all governments cease responsiveness to the governed, and begin to exist solely to propagate themselves.

There shouldn't be large separate governments, as we end up in the situation we have now, constant wars, agression, disparity of living.


Of course religion, skin color, or area of birth don't matter! I find it awfully odd that there are folks around who would kill me over any of those reasons, but there are, and there always will be. They have to be dealt with, and poking flowers into their gun barrels won't get that done.

And eliminating people off the face of the planet isn't the answer either. The rest of the world will look upon you with suspicious eyes if you were to do that. What trust there once was, would vanish, yet more tensions, more wars.


Again, maybe. In my case it was a real learning experience - both learning how to deal with the poverty, then learning how to overcome it. I grew up with no indoor plumbing, sporadic electricity, and the whole nine yards of what you would consider "living in poverty". I lived in a shack that had wind blowing in through cracks in the walls. I can't count the times I was awakened by snow falling in my face through the roof. I had to hunt and farm to eat as a kid, no quick trips to the grocery stores like my kids have now. I made it, and I think I'm better for it. If I had it to do over again, I'd do it in the exact same way.

So, yeah, I may have chosen that. If I get another chance, I'll choose it again.

So you believe people choose to be born deformed?
You believe people choose to born into molestation?
You believe people choose to be born into a life of sex trafficking?

Strange, very strange viewpoint you have.


I WISH that, too, but am pragmatic enough to know it's never gonna happen. Ever.

People are capable of making anything happen if they apply themselves.


I was being facetious. It's akin to sarcasm.


Of course you were!




I acknowledge no masters, neither do I want any, and I don't care if they're a "One World Government" based in Bern, Geneva, Brussels, or New York. They're ALL "foreign masters" to me, and I want nothing to do with any of them.

By being so nationalistic you are acknowledging you have masters, those who are responsible for your nation.


Haven't I already said that I have no superiors, nor inferiors? Might have been another thread, but I could have sworn it was this one. I have interacted with royalty, politicians, Phd "rocket scientists", and ditch diggers and trash haulers. I have yet to finds a superior or an inferior among any of them. Different talents and abilities, perhaps, different world views certainly, but nary an inferior or superior in the bunch.

You said you would wipe a group of people off the face of the planet, the Taleban. Are you now saying you view them as your equal?



Because I'm not "awesome", of course! The fact is, I'm not a cog in ANY machine, large or small, so I can't very well be a "stand alone" cog. A stand alone cog wouldn't get much accomplished anyhow, would it?

Everyone is awesome. We are all gods and goddess'. We are all capable of true greatness. A stand alone cog is able to choose which machine they want to work within.


Perhaps they could benefit from learning how to provide for themselves? That would sure ease the burden on the rest of us!

That is what they want. Unfortunately they don't have the education systems in place that the western world has.


If you truly believe people are the same, you must not have traveled much, or interacted with other cultures. We are NOT the same, which does not imply any sort of hierarchy. As a matter of fact, a hierarchy requires a framework of "sameness" within which to organize.

We are the same. Our traditions are different.


variety is the spice of life, and it is the differences which make the world go 'round. I'd truly hate to see the bland "sameness" you seem to espouse.

I see, so you don't want to see everyone treated as equals?
You don't want to see everyone given the same chances in life?
You want people to be starving in some parts of the world?
You want people to be mistreated?
You want wealth to be disproportionally distributed?

Why would anyone truly hate that 'sameness'?

st.







 
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join