We went to war because GB wanted to walk like a cowboy? Bush derangement syndrome strikes again. Sometimes I envy the simple world.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I for one am glad we're taking the cheaper solution on this one... nothing like blowing another trillion dollars out your ass because you wanna walk like a cowboy. And at least we're not going to get the pitch of a lying door to door salesman on this one.... After all we've learned a bit since the run up to the Iraq war and it goes like this.
[url](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A)[/url]
This.JohnG@lt wrote:
One world government... Yikes. Let me guess, a representative democracy where everyone gets along and butterflies flap in the breeze every time an angel gets its wings? Yes, I want to live in a world where I have no choice of the type of government I wish to live under. I want to live in a world where if indeed it is democracy, my vote counts for nothing against the billions of idiots which inhabit this planet. I wish to live in a world that WILL entrench the rich and powerful and create a permanent aristocracy. I wish for all these things.ATG wrote:
I just believe that national interest have been superceeded by corporate interests, and because of that America is doomed to be engaged in endless wars.
You gotta remember; both Hugo Chavez and Iminadinnerjacket ( who is not the big cheese, but a spokeshole ) and the governments they claim to lead will see their revenues increase when oil goes to $200.00 a barrel when war breaks out.
I am so cynical I believe that assholes from our nation get together with other assholes from other nations and agree to have controlled low level conflicts that keep the bulk of the masses in fear, paranoia and poverty.
That is why there is a need for a World Wide Revolution.
It will happen. It may be ten years, or five hundred years from now. But, eventually there will be a one world government for the people, by the people and of the people that curtails mass murder for the sake of profit.
That's all modern conflicts are.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Or an even better quote since you seem to be embracing 1984:And you wish to turn over all the power in the world to these people. Wake up.Orson Wells wrote:
‘The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’
inb4 war of the worlds?Ty wrote:
Also John, I think you're confusing Orson Wells and George Orwell which, considering their names, is a pretty easy mistake to make.
I did indeed. I claim it's the cold I have and the nyquil I took stopping my brain functionsKmarion wrote:
inb4 war of the worlds?Ty wrote:
Also John, I think you're confusing Orson Wells and George Orwell which, considering their names, is a pretty easy mistake to make.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-28 19:09:41)
And you think having a single world government would improve that? Really?ATG wrote:
I'm just saying, we need professional politicians just like we need professional jurors.
Currently we have whore in the former, and wannabe book authors in the later, or the unemployed.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-28 19:20:17)
Last edited by Red Forman (2009-09-28 19:18:23)
Last edited by Reciprocity (2009-09-28 19:20:16)
Reciprocity wrote:
I don't think atg is advocating for a one-world government. he's saying it's the inevitable conclusion.
he's simply a pessimarxist.
He 100% did advocate it.ATG wrote:
That is why there is a need for a World Wide Revolution.
It will happen. It may be ten years, or five hundred years from now. But, eventually there will be a one world government for the people, by the people and of the people that curtails mass murder for the sake of profit.
I read it more as his cynical resolution for an unfixable system. Not something he necessarily wants.JohnG@lt wrote:
Reciprocity wrote:
I don't think atg is advocating for a one-world government. he's saying it's the inevitable conclusion.
he's simply a pessimarxist.He 100% did advocate it.ATG wrote:
That is why there is a need for a World Wide Revolution.
It will happen. It may be ten years, or five hundred years from now. But, eventually there will be a one world government for the people, by the people and of the people that curtails mass murder for the sake of profit.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2009-09-28 19:50:20)
I did.JohnG@lt wrote:
Reciprocity wrote:
I don't think atg is advocating for a one-world government. he's saying it's the inevitable conclusion.
he's simply a pessimarxist.He 100% did advocate it.ATG wrote:
That is why there is a need for a World Wide Revolution.
It will happen. It may be ten years, or five hundred years from now. But, eventually there will be a one world government for the people, by the people and of the people that curtails mass murder for the sake of profit.
I was referring the way we set terms and limit how long people can hold high office. Unlike nations that have kings and queens and centuries on entrenched royalty. The world without money is my vision, and you will thank me when I am dictaor and make this happen post haste.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
HAHA because the forefathers envisioned a nation without money. That is where we have gone astray.
okay okay now I'm really going to stay away
Monetary policy can be interjected in nearly every topic here.ATG wrote:
I disagree sir.
My thoughts on how money effects U.S. policy and imo defines Obamas choices in regards to Iran came before his thread. My posts were in fact, on topic.I was referring the way we set terms and limit how long people can hold high office. Unlike nations that have kings and queens and centuries on entrenched royalty. The world without money is my vision, and you will thank me when I am dictaor and make this happen post haste.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
HAHA because the forefathers envisioned a nation without money. That is where we have gone astray.
okay okay now I'm really going to stay away
It does too, you just can't grasp it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The forefathers didn't even put a Presidential term limit.
Your Utopia you keep describing has nothing to do with what we should do here and now in the next year about Iran.
Hey if you want to go fight a war then fight away... the rest of us prefer not to.Bradt3hleader wrote:
I don't know what to think about this stuff.
I think the U.S. should be in Pakistan and Afghanistan now, they don't really need us in Iraq now or do they?
I mean it's so stupid, the US invades Iraq, and wonder why it's not over when Iraq's neighbor is shipping stuff into Iraq by the truckloads to continue the fighting. Then you've got Afghanistan where the exact same thing is happening, but through Pakistan.
But for some reason we haven't touched Pakistan or Iran.
Can somebody explain all this to me please?
Only in response to western meddling.ATG wrote:
They threaten to shut the Straits of Hormuz constantly.
Supposedly, no actual evidence was actually put forward. Still, the US paid Iraq to kill Iranians, what do you expect?They were assisting the resistance in Iraq and building devices that killed our soldiers.
Not our problem.They openly say that Israel should be wiped off the map.
Who doesn't?They have a history of violations of international arms laws and treaties.
And the US has a fanatical leadership (on and off) which believes in a biblical clash and doomsday rewards - hence the unquestioning support for Israel.They have a fanatical leadership that believes in a Biblical clash with the West and dooms day rewards.
