I don't see the whole imposing values and beliefs lark though. Places like Iraq and Afghanistan are still allowed to practice what they always wanted, their religion hasn't been changed and neither have their traditions. Their lives have been expanded with influence from the west, clothing, buisness, computers, electronics, cars etc. But they still maintain their own ideas. Its similar to Japan, they used be heavily isolationist and xenophobic. But following WW2 they accepted elements of the west - in particular the US who had been their main enemy - and they have prospered enormously while still maintaing the same old traditions that they've always had (Maybe not the whole seppeku thing but they retain the bow and politeness).
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6996
Anthony Keidis is the man. He pledged to the funk.
What was Iraq? A Ba'athist dictatorship. What is it now? A US-styled democracy (for so long as it lasts). QED.
Similar example:
China sponsoring a communist regime in Albania. USSR building communist regimes in eastern Europe.
Your attitude is one that I disagree with completely. All you see is that 'we are good, our influence is good, western things are good, western values are good'. What's good for the goose isn't always what's good for the gander and the goose shouldn't be forcing it down the gander's throat. The gander should freely choose what it wants under zero duress. Taking military actions or engaging in underhand diplomacy to open markets for your products, to exploit other nations through 'free' trade, to have influence over natural resources (surprise, surprise Iraq's oil is no longer nationalised), to subvert or suppress democratic opinion on the ground in other nations that should be fully sovereign is sickening. It's just the same as communist imperialism. Exporting a political system by force.
PS Read up on Japan. The Japs, as equals with the US, adopted by their own choosing some western values and technolgies in the 1800s, well before WWII. Read up.
Similar example:
China sponsoring a communist regime in Albania. USSR building communist regimes in eastern Europe.
Your attitude is one that I disagree with completely. All you see is that 'we are good, our influence is good, western things are good, western values are good'. What's good for the goose isn't always what's good for the gander and the goose shouldn't be forcing it down the gander's throat. The gander should freely choose what it wants under zero duress. Taking military actions or engaging in underhand diplomacy to open markets for your products, to exploit other nations through 'free' trade, to have influence over natural resources (surprise, surprise Iraq's oil is no longer nationalised), to subvert or suppress democratic opinion on the ground in other nations that should be fully sovereign is sickening. It's just the same as communist imperialism. Exporting a political system by force.
PS Read up on Japan. The Japs, as equals with the US, adopted by their own choosing some western values and technolgies in the 1800s, well before WWII. Read up.
Iraq was operating under a dictator, one who lived like a king while the majority lived in crap conditions. Led by someone like him the country could not improve. People were afraid to do anything because of the backlash, death squads coming to round you up and whatnot, torturing you and then tossing your body in the Tigris. Iraq would not advance under Saddam and if it did, it wouldn't be for the best of its population by any rate. The Iraq war may have been poorly concieved, but Iraq is more open now, which provides more options and more directions to it and its population.CameronPoe wrote:
What was Iraq? A Ba'athist dictatorship. What is it now? A US-styled democracy (for so long as it lasts). QED.
Similar example:
China sponsoring a communist regime in Albania. USSR building communist regimes in eastern Europe.
Your attitude is one that I disagree with completely. All you see is that 'we are good, our influence is good, western things are good, western values are good'. What's good for the goose isn't always what's good for the gander and the goose shouldn't be forcing it down the gander's throat. The gander should freely choose what it wants under zero duress. Taking military actions or engaging in underhand diplomacy to open markets for your products, to exploit other nations through 'free' trade, to have influence over natural resources (surprise, surprise Iraq's oil is no longer nationalised), to subvert or suppress democratic opinion on the ground in other nations that should be fully sovereign is sickening. It's just the same as communist imperialism. Exporting a political system by force.
Eh I watched The Last Samurai, showed that pretty well. Generally refering to technology supplied from the US following WW2 as well as being an economical trading partner.CameronPoe wrote:
PS Read up on Japan. The Japs, as equals with the US, adopted by their own choosing some western values and technolgies in the 1800s, well before WWII. Read up.
I don't care about the dictatorship. Not our business. Not our right to interfere. Iraq's responsibility to sort out. When are your beloved US invading Zimbabwe? Your logic doesn't wash in the least. It doesn't pass even the most cursory of tests. Iraq was a PNAC project about exporting a political system and hopefully producing a servile nation that serves western economic and political interests by force. Doing it at the cost of 100s of 1000s of Iraqis. Morally repugnant. No better than the USSR. Period.M.O.A.B wrote:
Iraq was operating under a dictator, one who lived like a king while the majority lived in crap conditions. Led by someone like him the country could not improve. People were afraid to do anything because of the backlash, death squads coming to round you up and whatnot, torturing you and then tossing your body in the Tigris. Iraq would not advance under Saddam and if it did, it wouldn't be for the best of its population by any rate. The Iraq war may have been poorly concieved, but Iraq is more open now, which provides more options and more directions to it and its population.
Japan attacked the US as part of an imperialist adventure. The US had every right use all its might to repel and defeat Japan. Not a war of choice.M.O.A.B. wrote:
Eh I watched The Last Samurai, showed that pretty well. Generally refering to technology supplied from the US following WW2 as well as being an economical trading partner.
Agree to disagree. I don't like the idea of sitting back and watching bad events take place, hoping that maybe the money I give to Oxfam will make it all better. As for Zimbabwe, how should I know? Its not my call. If it were I would have sent someone to nail the bastard years ago. But Zimbabwe is a classic example of how the population cannot impose change, even when they do it politically. Countries like these cannot sort themselves out, they're owned by people with total control and all the power.
Giving to Oxfam: AOK. Killing and maiming thousands of people for some political or strategic goal in a nation that is patently not an issue of national defence? Repugnant. You're being disingenuous when it comes to giving America a pass on Zimbabwe. They haven't said/done anything because: it doesn't serve any political, economic or strategic goal serving America's interest. Simple as that. Your attitude towards developing nations is unbelievable snooty and patronising. Similar to the UK elitist attitude that they were 'civilising' Ireland and that the Republic wouldn't last and was destined to fail.M.O.A.B wrote:
Agree to disagree. I don't like the idea of sitting back and watching bad events take place, hoping that maybe the money I give to Oxfam will make it all better. As for Zimbabwe, how should I know? Its not my call. If it were I would have sent someone to nail the bastard years ago. But Zimbabwe is a classic example of how the population cannot impose change, even when they do it politically. Countries like these cannot sort themselves out, they're owned by people with total control and all the power.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-01-21 13:05:56)
lol @ people who think the PNAC is some sort of manifesto laying out a diabolical plan for world domination.
It was an idealistic 'think tank' aimed at improving and increasing American "leadership" , not domination and hegemony.
If it was really a conspiracy, and an evil 'plan' why was it all laid out at a nice website for us ? Kinda stupid to tip everyone off that way..
It was an idealistic 'think tank' aimed at improving and increasing American "leadership" , not domination and hegemony.
PNAC wrote:
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.
ooo so scary..statement of principles wrote:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
If it was really a conspiracy, and an evil 'plan' why was it all laid out at a nice website for us ? Kinda stupid to tip everyone off that way..
Its not snooty or patronising, its realistic. Iraq was not a pleasant place to be, Zimbabwe almost certainly isn't. As far as I'm aware, no aid charity has changed the situation of Zimbabwe either and its not just the US who hasn't acted, why haven't other African nations? Negotiations clearly don't work, South Africa gets influxes of refugees that it keeps sending back while everyone inside the borders suffers continously. People like Mugabe and Saddam only understand one thing, force and the best way to topple people like that is with force whether you like it or not.
Leave Saddam and Mugabe to their own devices and they will eventually fall on their own swords. Bringing death and destruction on other nations (selectively - i.e., exclusively in your own national interest - e.g. Iraq but not Zimbabwe/Tibet/Burma/Sudan/etc.) and engaging in patronising 'statecraft' in your own image is imperialism and immoral pure and simple. It's like intervening directly in an abusive relationship: none of your business. Mugabe and Saddam will/would have faced the sword of their own people at some point, if their own people had some balls (like the Cubans against Batista, etc.).M.O.A.B wrote:
Its not snooty or patronising, its realistic. Iraq was not a pleasant place to be, Zimbabwe almost certainly isn't. As far as I'm aware, no aid charity has changed the situation of Zimbabwe either and its not just the US who hasn't acted, why haven't other African nations? Negotiations clearly don't work, South Africa gets influxes of refugees that it keeps sending back while everyone inside the borders suffers continously. People like Mugabe and Saddam only understand one thing, force and the best way to topple people like that is with force whether you like it or not.
Not really a response but I just had to say, Saddam fell on his own neck
propaganda =/= conspiracy theoryVax wrote:
lol @ people who think the PNAC is some sort of manifesto laying out a diabolical plan for world domination.
It was an idealistic 'think tank' aimed at improving and increasing American "leadership" , not domination and hegemony.
PNAC wrote:
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.ooo so scary..statement of principles wrote:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
If it was really a conspiracy, and an evil 'plan' why was it all laid out at a nice website for us ? Kinda stupid to tip everyone off that way..
you listed their main objectives, good job. now go read about who's in it, what they've said, etc. A "think tank". lmfao
now go read about who's in it, what they've said, etc. A "think tank". lmfao
I'm pretty familiar with who was in it and things they have said. It is/was a think tank.
I'm well aware they advocated for the removal of Saddam, as well as using american power to attempt to rehsape the mid east.
They did NOT advocate for nazi-esque, imperialistic "world domination" as Cam and others seem to think.
Did you have a point to make or just childish snark ?
I'm pretty familiar with who was in it and things they have said. It is/was a think tank.
I'm well aware they advocated for the removal of Saddam, as well as using american power to attempt to rehsape the mid east.
They did NOT advocate for nazi-esque, imperialistic "world domination" as Cam and others seem to think.
Did you have a point to make or just childish snark ?
You're hilarious... I think you actually believe what you write... that's the scary part... So world domination by the US ends with Obama taking office... come on dude... I held you in higher regard than that... Bush the supposed idiot almost achieved world domination...lmao... he's an idiot... remember? PNACs website looks like it stopped updating in 2006... So much for taking over the world... lolCameronPoe wrote:
Leave Saddam and Mugabe to their own devices and they will eventually fall on their own swords. Bringing death and destruction on other nations (selectively - i.e., exclusively in your own national interest - e.g. Iraq but not Zimbabwe/Tibet/Burma/Sudan/etc.) and engaging in patronising 'statecraft' in your own image is imperialism and immoral pure and simple. It's like intervening directly in an abusive relationship: none of your business. Mugabe and Saddam will/would have faced the sword of their own people at some point, if their own people had some balls (like the Cubans against Batista, etc.).M.O.A.B wrote:
Its not snooty or patronising, its realistic. Iraq was not a pleasant place to be, Zimbabwe almost certainly isn't. As far as I'm aware, no aid charity has changed the situation of Zimbabwe either and its not just the US who hasn't acted, why haven't other African nations? Negotiations clearly don't work, South Africa gets influxes of refugees that it keeps sending back while everyone inside the borders suffers continously. People like Mugabe and Saddam only understand one thing, force and the best way to topple people like that is with force whether you like it or not.
Love is the answer
kill everyone who has more than one box office hit
one more reason to have lala land secede from the USA. oh but they cant because they are broke lulz.
PNAC bit the dust along with Bush's popularity and the Iraq war fuckup. Of course the US won't stop trying to extend their tentacles further under Obama, but hopefully they don't. He has promised to erase the unilateral heavy-handed patronising policies of the previous administration after all. I never said Bush 'almost achieved world domination'. If anything the influence of the US took a massive hit over the past 8 years.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
You're hilarious... I think you actually believe what you write... that's the scary part... So world domination by the US ends with Obama taking office... come on dude... I held you in higher regard than that... Bush the supposed idiot almost achieved world domination...lmao... he's an idiot... remember? PNACs website looks like it stopped updating in 2006... So much for taking over the world... lol
Vax wrote:
now go read about who's in it, what they've said, etc. A "think tank". lmfao
I'm pretty familiar with who was in it and things they have said. It is/was a think tank.
I'm well aware they advocated for the removal of Saddam, as well as using american power to attempt to rehsape the mid east.
They did NOT advocate for nazi-esque, imperialistic "world domination" as Cam and others seem to think.
Did you have a point to make or just childish snark ?
Fuck them. 'American leadership'? 'Unique role in preserving international order friendly to our prosperity and principles'? 'Challenge regimes hostile to our values'? Same attitude the USSR had. Cunts.PNAC wrote:
The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
I guess you forgot the part where a nation's military is for defence. That's why the minister in charge is called the 'Minister for Defence'....
And ftr these guys were the guys running the show until the wheels came off Bush's presidency. Or did the fact that cabinet members being signatories pass you by........?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-01-22 00:36:31)
Because he's 12.Switch wrote:
Why the fuck is Ashton Kutcher so excited all the time.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Actually the USSR method was more like:CameronPoe wrote:
Vax wrote:
now go read about who's in it, what they've said, etc. A "think tank". lmfao
I'm pretty familiar with who was in it and things they have said. It is/was a think tank.
I'm well aware they advocated for the removal of Saddam, as well as using american power to attempt to rehsape the mid east.
They did NOT advocate for nazi-esque, imperialistic "world domination" as Cam and others seem to think.
Did you have a point to make or just childish snark ?Fuck them. 'American leadership'? 'Unique role in preserving international order friendly to our prosperity and principles'? 'Challenge regimes hostile to our values'? Same attitude the USSR had. Cunts.PNAC wrote:
The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
I guess you forgot the part where a nation's military is for defence. That's why the minister in charge is called the 'Minister for Defence'....
And ftr these guys were the guys running the show until the wheels came off Bush's presidency. Or did the fact that cabinet members being signatories pass you by........?
Massive artillery strike,
Thousands upon thousands of troops,
Assassination of main leaders,
More Artillery,
Massacres of many groups,
More Artillery,
Bombing campaign,
More artillery,
Install a communist friendly dictator ruled by Moscow no questions asked.
When Russia hit a place, it rarely considered much for targets. Militaries aren't primarily for defence either. Some are, i.e IDF, JGSDF, but they are designed for defence and offence. Cruise missiles, longe range artillery and bomber aircraft are more of an offensive strategy.
The west hasn't used artillery? **Disbelief** The west hasn't used thousands of troops? **Iraq**Vietnam**Korea** The west hasn't been responsible for any massacres? **Hiroshima**Nagasaki**My Lai** The west hasn't engaged in bombing campaigns? **Iraq**Vietnam**Korea**Cambodia**Laos** The west hasn't ousted or attempted to oust democratically elected leaders? **Mossadeq**Chavez**Duarte**Castro**Latin America in general** The west hasn't tried to assassinate main leaders? **Castro** The west didn't install or support any friendly dictators? **Saddam Hussein**General Pinochet**General Suharto**Batista**Manuel Noriega**Musharraf**Reza Shah Pahlavi**King Fahd**Trujillo**Ferdinand Marcos**Somoza (until Carter)**M.O.A.B wrote:
Actually the USSR method was more like:
Massive artillery strike,
Thousands upon thousands of troops,
Assassination of main leaders,
More Artillery,
Massacres of many groups,
More Artillery,
Bombing campaign,
More artillery,
Install a communist friendly dictator ruled by Moscow no questions asked.
When Russia hit a place, it rarely considered much for targets. Militaries aren't primarily for defence either. Some are, i.e IDF, JGSDF, but they are designed for defence and offence. Cruise missiles, longe range artillery and bomber aircraft are more of an offensive strategy.
You can't smell your own shit MOAB. Militaries are for defence or response to threat - existential threat, not material/political/economic threat.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-01-22 13:06:40)
Your words speak for themselves... doublethink ftlVax wrote:
american power to attempt to rehsape the mid east.
They did NOT advocate for nazi-esque, imperialistic "world domination"
its very hypocritical to say its any countries fucking business to reshape an entire region of the world and then deny its imperialistic. BTW, the Nazis did reshape the middle east. And we're seeing the results of them today.
ps- anyone who thinks a think tank is anything but an innocent organization of do-gooders has their heads up their ass. How are they any better than lobbyists? Oh right, because they're non-profit research based organizations... rofl
Last edited by Spearhead (2009-01-22 13:47:08)
Did one of them actually say "I pledge to smile more"? Fuck that shit, make a damned change you fool.
Proud to say I did some community service on MLK day and have volunteered for the past two summers at a program that helps the needy straighten out their lives.
Proud to say I did some community service on MLK day and have volunteered for the past two summers at a program that helps the needy straighten out their lives.
Take a look at Chechnya and the state of Grozny and then comapre that to say Iraq or Afghanistan's cities.CameronPoe wrote:
The west hasn't used artillery? **Disbelief** The west hasn't used thousands of troops? **Iraq**Vietnam**Korea** The west hasn't been responsible for any massacres? **Hiroshima**Nagasaki**My Lai** The west hasn't engaged in bombing campaigns? **Iraq**Vietnam**Korea**Cambodia**Laos** The west hasn't ousted or attempted to oust democratically elected leaders? **Mossadeq**Chavez**Duarte**Castro**Latin America in general** The west hasn't tried to assassinate main leaders? **Castro** The west didn't install or support any friendly dictators? **Saddam Hussein**General Pinochet**General Suharto**Batista**Manuel Noriega**Musharraf**Reza Shah Pahlavi**King Fahd**Trujillo**Ferdinand Marcos**Somoza (until Carter)**M.O.A.B wrote:
Actually the USSR method was more like:
Massive artillery strike,
Thousands upon thousands of troops,
Assassination of main leaders,
More Artillery,
Massacres of many groups,
More Artillery,
Bombing campaign,
More artillery,
Install a communist friendly dictator ruled by Moscow no questions asked.
When Russia hit a place, it rarely considered much for targets. Militaries aren't primarily for defence either. Some are, i.e IDF, JGSDF, but they are designed for defence and offence. Cruise missiles, longe range artillery and bomber aircraft are more of an offensive strategy.
You can't smell your own shit MOAB. Militaries are for defence or response to threat - existential threat, not material/political/economic threat.
A response to threat is also know as offence and military personnel train primarily to fight. Militaries are not primarily for defence and they are not primarily for offence, both fall under their banner of operation. A defence force like I said, such as the IDF or JSDF, is a force primarily aimed at defence rather than offence. Militaries will generally move more toward offence than defence.
I also ask, if you owned factories in one country and they were suddenly attacked, making an impact on your economy, are you not allowed to use your military? Considering the threat to your country would be economically based.
A military is designed for offence and defence, not primarily defence.
an isolationist attitude has helped a great deal in causing the world's largest conflicts Cam, you should know that. Sadly, in our world, noone wants to mind their own business, and it's pointless to try and create such a situation. The act of prevention is better than waiting to get struck.
The militaries of countries are built for both offence and defense.
(and why do you say that dictatorship in other countries isn't our business, while you are all over the Israel-Palestine conflict? By that same logic, that conflict shouldn't be any of our business anymore either.)
The militaries of countries are built for both offence and defense.
(and why do you say that dictatorship in other countries isn't our business, while you are all over the Israel-Palestine conflict? By that same logic, that conflict shouldn't be any of our business anymore either.)
Last edited by dayarath (2009-01-22 14:14:15)
inane little opines