About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 9:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While enjoying the Constitutionally-defended freedom of expression, and the America-invented Internet, Mr. travesty --oops, I missed the capital letter-- is diligently parroting the stereotypical Leftist & Islamo-fascist, anti-American canard.

Of course, all that stuff vomited here and here is very similar to the one barked by those masked savages regularly aired on Al-Jazeeraa or Al-Manar. Don't ye think?

Mr. Travesty finally ranted:
Read the Atlas Shrugged sized The Great War For Civilization: The Conquest of The Middle East by Robert Fisk and LEARN something instead of robotically repeating the same old right-wing stupidities.
The main similarity with Atlas Shrugged is not the size, but the fact that is a novel; Fisk's nauseating pro-terrorist book is a propaganda treatise, perhaps financed by one of the Saudi princelet's oil money.

Robert Fisk is a fan of Bin Laden; my guess is that so are you, Mr. Travesty.

And now, Mr. Travesty, please do a favor to mankind, and go back to one of your beloved pesky holes, somewhere in Dar al-Islam or North Korea.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 5/12, 10:22am)


Post 21

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
US military was not necessary to stop Germany, the Russians did that.
 
Absolutely WRONG.  They only did it because of:
1)  US/UK bombing campaign (and eventual invasion, including the loss of Italy as an ally) sapping massive resources from them in the West
2)  Aid to the USSR, which while not THE cause was that extra % needed to take victory.  Especially, it allowed the Russian Army crucial mobility that without would have not allowed them to win.
3)  No US war w/Japan would add Japan to the enemies of Russia, meaning they would have had additional pressure from the East.

At Best, they would have stalemated, resulting in 2 brutal states to oppose. 

So here is what would have likely happened:

1)  US does not support UK, therefore UK accepts peace terms with Germany.
2)  Maybe NO war against Russia, but if it happened, victory for Germany with massive territorial loss by European Russia
3)  Advanced Weapons never developed by US because it is not at war.  No Jets, No Rockets, no Atomic Bomb.

100's of millions ethnically cleansed off the the face of the earth forever.

Real Nice. 

Rand was wrong, she didn't know enough to understand that at the time, and was upset about US support for Russia (whom she had good personal reason to despise) and Commie US propoganda that was rampant in the US at the time made it worse than it needed to be. 

(Edited by Kurt Eichert on 5/12, 9:54am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 10:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike-

I agree with a number of your points, and find it interesting as well that you say you've personally discussed foreign policy with Rand. One criticism I have to make though is style; your long, single paragraph with generally very short line lengths is unpleasant to read. Please leave normal line wrap on and just use carriage return/newline at the end of a paragraph. Thanks!


Post 23

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike Hardesty wrote:

Catala's comments are historically ignorant and outrageous, at no time was the Soviet
dictatorship a threat to the US.
How can you say that? The Soviets had nuclear weapons. Their idealogy's stated goal was to expand their empire and enslave the world. Kruschev said "we will bury you". Soviets sponsored leftist rebellions all over the world. Your ignorance to the once Soviet threat is astonishing.  There were communist spies in the state department under FDR and Truman, you don't consider that to be a threat?


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt, as usual you are wrong.
Read AJP Taylor's The Origins of
The Second World War which totally
demolished the myth that Hitler was bent
on world conquest. The war started because
of the untenable guarantee the UK & France
gave to Poland. Also check out Back Door To War by Charles Callan Tansill and Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace, edited
by Harry Elmer Barnes as well William
Henry Chamberlin's America's Second
Crusade. Hitler let the Brits escape at
Dunkirk, he was an Anglophile and noted
admirer of the British Empire.
Soviet military spending between 1930
and 1945 was around a trillion and a half
dollars, see David L. Hoggan's Myths
of The New History. Our paltry 11 billion
was nothing in the scheme of things which
is why Nixon settled the debt years later
at 800 million (or less) dollars,
There is no reality to your bizarre scenario
of a hundred million ethnically cleansed.
In fact there was no holocaust prior to the
summer of 1942 because Hitler wanted
emigration, not extermination. Only after
the war foreclosed the possibility of mass
Jewish emigration from Europe were any
mass murders possible. In fact thanks to
the anglophiles who urged on that unnecessary war, over 50 million people
were actually killed plus scores of millions
after the war, like 70 million under Mao
alone after the defeat of Japan left
the Nationalist regime in China tottering.
As bad as Hitler's domestic policies were,
his foreign policy was the same as the
Weimar Republic.
No atom bombs would have been a blessing, we unnessarily used them against Japan,
which had been trying to surrender for nine
months. See the May 10, 1958 National
Review piece by Harry Elmer Barnes in this
regard as well as the Alperowitz book on
same. Atomic and other weapons of mass destruction are per se immoral because they
can't  be pinpointed to kill only the bad guys.
We all would have been better off without
them.
Rand's ignorance was in the Middle East
arena, not Europe.
Joel, your post is simply a lunatic rant.
Fisk is no admirer or friend of Bin-Laden's
as you would know if you ever read his
books. I'm under far more danger from
this Bush crowd than I am from Iran as
far as my rights go.
Al Jazzera is the freest media in the Middle
East, including Israel and is far more reliable
than CNN or the other Pentagon mouthpieces
that you get your noninformation from.
Your comments on Fisk are actionable,
you have legally libelled him in print.
Aaron, thanks for your comments.
Let me ponder your editing suggestions.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I appreciate Mike's comments. WW2 wouldn't have happened without WW1. We didn't need to take sides in WW1, or carve up the post-war world in an imperial way. When we attacked Tripoli it was to stop piracy. We attacked Germany ostensibly because they were sinking our shipping - but we were aiding their enemy. What could the owners of those ships expect? What would the Brits have done if we shipped food and arms to Germany?

After seeing just a 1-hour documentary, it no wonder we're hated throughout the middle east. Its like we're selling guns and liquor to the savages - we know what they're going to do with them, and shouldn't marvel and blame their kids for hating us for the wars their parents fight. Let the fools make their own, or let the French & Russians poison them.

Joel,

Agreed, the Soviet Union was a malignant, subversive evil. That doesn't justify trying to beat them at their own imperialist, statist game.

Are you defending tribalism, e.g., the Aztec Empire, the Incas, and the other practitioners of human sacrifice?


Certainly not. By "tribalism" I was including not only native Americans, but the "tribes" of Brits, French, Spanish, Dutch, et. that warred among themselves.

American frogs, so to speak, are better off than European, Asian, or African frogs, you should bear in mind. That's because the gap between the ideals held by the President of America and the American people is narrower than in any other government in the world.


You're scaring me. Sorry, I go nuts every time I hear, "at least you're not as bad off as that other poor bastard". That's saying you're not free to choose a good, you're constrained to choose the lesser evil. You're a slave that can choose to work, or be beaten to death.

I'll not sanction American evil by saying some other hideous monster is worse! And as far as the American people go, most of them scare me too. They don't vote on principle, but on popularity or pragmatism, and we all suffer for it.

No: the existence of political freedom creates jihadis. They wanna kill us for what we are, not for what we do.


I've heard statistics that since we've gone to Iraq, Jihadi recruitment is well up.

Is Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran et. Free? There religious leaders, sanctioned by the state, re-direct the peoples indignation at injustice to the west. Because of things like our marketing, or our women are "immodest" by their standards, we are more evil by comparison, and justify their hatred, and attribute their pain to Allah's displeasure at their "sin" of tolerating our influence.

Like communists or racists, the "mean well" (towards one another, anyways) with their misguided idealism. If we got out of the way, they could hate noone but one-another.

Consider, our anti-theists have failed purging our culture of Christian influence. And being a recovering Christian, I know the indignation for anti-theists I thought were trying to purge a good, rather than an evil influence. I had to see inconsistancy and stupidity for myself, nobody could teach me anything, I had to learn.

So, if we're going to civilize the bastards, lets do it right, round up the illegals, give them guns, promise them 40 acres when they kill the savages. Lets not decieve ourselves with the lies Americans believed about slaves and indians - we're helping them by forcing our culture, beliefs, lifestyle and technology on them.

The Bible gives a maligned account of God ordering the genocide of the natives the Israelis were displacing. A close look reveals a lot of wisdom in those instructions.

The (Philistines?) were practicing human sacrifice - not merely religious, but a sanction, celebration, of the strong sacrificing the weak to their whim. Israelis had the most just, tolerant and objective law in that context. By destroying all the animals and property, Israel was demonstrating they were destroying evil-doers for moral reasons, not plunder, not using a corrupt excuse.

If we want to fight a moral war of retribution, lets destroy the property and salt their Earth with radio-isotopes so nothing ever lives there again, and the world will know and fear us for justice, and have no cause to attribute our wars to plunder.

Scott

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Soviets were never a MILITARY threat
to the US. Nor did they have any program
of military world conquest. Rothbard's essay
on The Myths of The Cold War demolishes
that thesis but he's far from the only source
here. The US entry into WW1 made possible
the Bolshevik consolidation of power because
the greatest factor of discontent in Russia was
with its disastrous participation in WW1.
Lenin's main rallying point was the promise
to pull Russia out of the war.
Our WW2 "victory" made possible the Communist takeovers in eastern Europe
and China. Sure they had spies here, we
had spies there too.
Khrushchev was speaking purely in economic when he predicted socialism would bury capitalism. Contrary to conservative hysteria the whole Soviet bloc folded with a whimper.
They lost because of the unworkability of
central planning, not the trillions in Pentagon
socialism spent by idiots from Truman to
Reagan.


Post 27

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, another nut case with a wishy-whooshy "it would have been" historical view.

Post 28

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Soviets were never a MILITARY threat
to the US. Nor did they have any program
of military world conquest.


That's ridiculous. Their idealogy was Marxism. The logical conclusion of which was the conversion of the world to a communist state. That was the idealogy's stated goal. And how can a country with nuclear weapons with an idealogical stated goal of spreading communism, not be a military threat? I don't care what conventional weapons the west had, it can't stop a nuclear strike which the Soviets were capable of.

Communists had no program of world conquest? What was Eastern Europe? Greece? Turkey? Korea? Vietnam? Tibet? Afghanistan? Cambodia? Laos? And the still more dozens of countries with leftist rebels receiving Soviet financing? What would you propose? The west wait until the entire world was consumed by communism before they act? To not take a stand against communism meant you empowered them to spread their vile idealogy. You are an appeaser.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike - please try to change how your post somehow crams on the page it is hard to read.

Meanwhile, I could site 10 books to your 1 that say otherwise.  The books you cite are bullshit revisionist history and in either case don't constitute an argument.  How far back do you want to go as to this if that or the other thing?

Oh I see the murdered people were REALLY the fault of Churchill and Roosevelt. 

Now that I see this, don't bother, you are clearly not worth talking to:
Al Jazzera is the freest media in the Middle East, including Israel and is far more reliable than CNN or the other Pentagon mouthpieces that you get your noninformation from.  Your comments on Fisk are actionable, you have legally libelled him in print.



Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, namecalling never substitutes for
reasonable argumentation. Are you really
trying to tell us that the disastrous policies
we have understand since WW1 were
inevitable ??????!!!!!!
John, I've already rebutted your thesis
but one more time. The ONLY reason
the Soviets militarily conquered eastern
Europe was in the course of defeating
Hitler, who had invaded them with the
help of several fascist state allies in eastern
Europe. When Stalin exiled Trotsky in
favor of socialism in one country it was
the end of any grandiose world conquest
plans. Marxism is no more imperialistic
than capitalism, which under the British
Empire took over 60% of the world, a
figure never remotely reached by the Reds.
Every ideology dreams of worldwide conversions to its viewpoint but no one
in modern times has tried anything remotely
resembling world conquest. There was a far
greater growth of big government under both
world wars and the subsequent cold war
than in all the welfare programs combined.
We invaded Vietnam to forestall a Ho Chi
Minh victory in 1956 elections as Ike
admitted in his memoirs.
The opposition in Greece was directed
against the fascist collaborationist government
that WE backed. There was never a Red
threat in Turkey, we had nukes there aimed
against the Soviets. Read Bruce Cummings
two volume history of the Korean War.
We started that by trying to salvage
another rotten fascist regime in the South
to prevent unification.
Tibet was wrong but EVERY Chinese
government considered part of China.
We brought communism to power in Laos
and Cambodia by overthrowing neutralist
regimes. Nixon and Kissinger killed at least
half a million people in Cambodia and that
was instrumental in bringing Pol Pot to power.
And we backed the killing of 200,000 people
in East Timor at the same time Pol Pot was
killing in Cambodia.
We gave thirty times more money and arms
to South Vietnam than the entire Soviet bloc
did to north Vietnam.
Read David Horowitz's The Free World
Colossus.
Your right on one thing, a country with a
stated goal of converting the whole world
to corporate capitalist statism, as the US,
is a serious threat to everyone.
We have to stop the Evil Empire here.
By the way, we would have been better off
backing the Soviets in Afghanistan, 9-11
showed us the alternative.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 1:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt, Roosevelt and Churchill were mass
murderers, they in fact killed millions of
civilians during WW2. As did their great
ally, Stalin. Dresden, Hamburg and Berlin
as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
war crimes as much as Coventry and Dachau.
As far my last sentence goes, Joel did libel
Fisk as you can find out by reading anything
Fisk has ever written.
By all means cite your books, you will find that every single one of them has been refuted\by revisionist historians. That you don't like their conclusions does not refute them, pal.
You may prefer Court Historians who write
the standard hagiography that doesn't settle
anything, anymore than foul-mouthed obscenities refute an author.
I'll try fooling around with posting style.


Post 32

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In line four of my message #31, I meant to
say "undertaken" instead of "understand."
In my line on Tibet, I left out the word
"it" as in every Chinese government
considered it a part of China.
When I post here, it appears ok.
Then when it's published some sentences
go way out.


Post 33

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Hardesty:

I don't like your poetry.

Peter


Post 34

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 3:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong-

Playing 'What if?' is a lot of fun - but, yes, neither the drastically utopian or dystopian counterfactual scenarios for 'no US in WWII' can be meaningfully supported. Entertaining, but too many variables to truly say.

Mike-

Some of what you say is true and valuable - but you aren't doing it a service by mixing it with other crap.

Quick list-
- Hitler was bent on Russian conquest; who knows about elsewhere
- $1.5T vs $11B for USSR vs US military spending in 15 years?? Sorry, doesn't compute.
- Final solution was shipping out instead of killing until 1942 - true. Why they changed that policy sure doesn't excuse any Nazis though.
- Mao was a murderous bastard and at least partially enabled by the US (more after WWII than during), but 70m is high for death toll
- Japan had been conditionally trying to surrender for nine months. There is some legitimate concern about their surrender attempts via Russia in summer '45 being ignored - but it's not as if they simply waved a white flag in Dec '44.
- Soviets had >10,000 nuclear warheads at peak, targetted primarily in the US (and vice-versa). Whether they had any realistic plans to do a 'Red Dawn' invasion or not, that sure seems like a threatening situation.
- US entry in WWI ultimately helped Bolsheviks - OK, that seems likely
- Japan could have occupied China to less detriment than Mao - possibly, but that's one of those complex, utilitarian and hard-to-support counterfactuals though
- Khruschchev's 'we will bury you' comment - true
- Stalin already invaded Poland, it was a joint venture with Hitler. He also sure didn't seem to want to leave Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia or any of the other eastern European nations he conquered 'only in the course of defeating Hitler'.
- Marxism/capitalism/British empire. at best you show mercantilism is pretty imperialistic, which I won't argue.
- wars leading to massive govt growth - true. outstripping welfare? debatable in the long term.
- you're right on Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia; I have no idea on Greece.
- Nuking or firebombing innocents is immoral - well, of course. Unfortunately many here won't agree on that one.
- would we have been better off backing USSR against Afghanistan? that's actually an interesting and disturbing 'what if?' hmm..


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
First off, Mike could you please not break up your sentences. You can just keep typing, you don't have to press enter when you get to the edge of the text window. It's difficult to read your posts.

Second, you say "John, I've already rebutted your thesis
but one more time. The ONLY reason the Soviets militarily conquered eastern Europe was in the course of defeating
Hitler"

Yet you seem to put a moral relativistic spin on this with America and the West. Did America conquer Western Europe? Did America enslave millions of people in France, Italy, Belgium? For you to morally equate the West with the Soviets is vile and disgusting. The West did not summarily execute people for excercising their natural born right to free speech, the West did not impose an evil idealogy of totalitarianism and institutionalized slavery on Western Europe. Whatever faults the West had tremendously paled in comparison to the evil, vile and disgusting idealogy of communism.

You say "We invaded Vietnam" no we did not. America was defending the South Vietnamese from the communist invaders. Vietnam was invaded by the communists. Albeit America did so in an intellectual way that was set up for failure, America is a far better alternative to the South Vietnamese than their communist masters.

You also say "Marxism is no more imperialistic than capitalism, which under the British Empire took over 60% of the world"

This illustrates your complete failure to understand what Capitalism is. The British Empire in past centuries, although certainly no where near as bad as the Soviet Empire, was not acting in accordance with the the ideals of Capitalism. Not to mention, the British did far more to bring the rule of law, to bring the idea of individual rights to places in the world that were previously wrought with constant tribal war. Your idealogy is nothing more than moral relativism. And I reject it.



Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron, actually he attacked before Stalin
was going to attack him. Stalin's War is
a book worth checking out.
Your second comment makes no sense,
according to the Soviets 'own figures they
spent 1.5 Trillion on their military from 1930-
1945, Stalin said in 1930 he expected to be
invaded by 1940. Our 11 billion lendlease
was comparative chumpchange, the Russians
lost over 27 million people, we delayed the
second front for two years and they paid
in their blood for that. Your right that it
doesn't compute that our lendlease aid was
a major factor in their defeat of Germany.
I never made any excuses for the change in
Nazi policy, I said we did not go to war to
stop the murder of Jews and our entrance
did not stop it. Our own ally Stalin had already killed 30-40 million by then, so
we don't need to get too self-righteous
on atrocities.
Mao: The Untold Story gives the 70 million
figure as a conservative figure. At least
38 million were killed during the great leap
forward from 1958-61 and the rest in
various purges. However they only give
a figure of three million for the great proletarian cultural revolution and many
scholars believe at least as many people
died in that period (1966-76) as did in
the great leap forward.
We accepted conditional surrender from
Japan, unlike Germany. They were permitted
to keep the Emperor.
We had as many or more nuclear warheads
targeted at the Soviets. So what ?
Were we threatening to invade them after
our 1918-20 invasion failed ?
Red Dawn was a crackpot movie written
by a crackpot writer, we were never in
any danger of invasion by Nicaragua or
Cuba or Libya, rather the other way around !
Nor were we ever in danger of any Soviet invasion. They couldn't even control their
own satellites next door or Afghanistan.
Stalin got only eastern Poland and the small
Baltic countries from the alliance with Hitler.
He got the rest of eastern Europe as a result
of WW2. Why should he have been in a hurry
to leave after being invaded through those
countries ?
I was a little tongue in cheek on Afghanistan but it does make you wonder after we saw 9-11 about the wisdom of arming Islamic fundamentalists.
John, I'll try in future posts to adopt your style
suggestions.
We did invade South Vietnam, we voided the
1954 Geneva Agreements that we signed because we knew Ho was going to win the 1956 election in a landslide as Ike noted. We
set up a puppet government and helped it rig
elections and murder opponents. 90% of our
military action was opponents on South Vietnamese territory, not North Vietnam.
We invited ourselves in until the Vietnamese
kicked us out in 1975. See Marilyn Young's
book The Vietnam Wars, also Gabriel Kolko's book on same (spacing on his title).
As far as western Europe goes we rigged the elections in France, Italy and Greece to keep
the very popular Communist Party out of power.I can get you refs on this one if you
want. Although our imperialism in western Europe is very mild compared to our imperialism in Latin America, Soviet rule
in eastern Europe was also very mild compared to our rule in all of the third
world, Pol Pot would be the better analogy
here, just on Indonesia, East Timor and
Guatemala alone.
I know what capitalism is, have read all of Rand, Reisman, Mises, Rothbard, etc., but
we never anything approaching capitalism here, it's a govt-business alliance right from
the get-go. See William Novak's The People's Welfare for the story of US statism
in the 19th century. Actually the Brits may
have killed more people through deindustrialization in India than Stalin did
through forced industrialization in Russia.
Your benign view of rightist rule does not
square with the historical record. Tariq Ali is a
Pakistani scholar you might want to check out.
US supported regimes in Asia, Africa and
Latin America have murdered many millions
of people and violated more rights than
any Communist except Mao & Pol Pot,
maybe Stalin.
Peter, I'm devastated that you don't like my
poetry.............but I guess I'll live.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron, I spent a good 40 minutes doing a point by point response to your reasonable questions and also to John's more arguable assertions. So far it hasn't shown up here after
an hour but maybe it will be here tomorrow.
I'll try to repost again if it doesn't but after that
I have to give up. Too time consuming, only the importance of the issues has kept me going. 


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 3:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is an elephant in this hypothetical room, and that is how people and nations should behave towards one another, in contrast to who is fit to impose order with the violence monopoly, and collect taxes to support it.

Dominate or be dominated, conquer or be conquered, must men be either predators or prey? Isn't that the nature of the "great game"? Real politique?

Rand and Libertarian philosophy, and I could go on to quote Americas founders, as asserting definitely not - men should deal with one another as traders, and there won't be conflicts over who collects taxes and gets to keep guns. America was suppose to be different, better at trading and respecting rights, not fighting, than Europe. The world also became radically different with with nuclear technology.

Rand hardly dealt with the issue of men that only think in terms of winners and losers, dominators and the dominated. Such cannot resist pressing an advantage to dominate, but in so doing, become locked in un-ending cycles of violence.

What can heal cynicism, a militant plundered and plunder-bent nations poisoned sense-of-life, into idealism?

A blood-sacrifice. Stoke up the reactors!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game

Scott

Post 39

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike - My eyes didnt deserve that! Not one bit!

Where to start...

"Rand specifically branded Theodore Roosevelt as an example
of imperialistic collectivism."

Yes, but did she mention that Roosevelt was the lesser of two evils? If you're going to slate the US, at least have a different country that you believe run things better than the US does. If you can't think of one, then what makes you think that Rand was directly attacking the US, as opposed to the style of leadership Roosevelt was using?

"The US has supported dictatorships from Chile to South Korea, from Singapore to Saudi Arabia, from Egypt to Indonesia that are responsible for millions of deaths since 1945 alone."

Most of the foreign policy adopted by America since 1945 I tahnk my lucky stars for... Superpowers aren' perfect, deal with it. When superpowers form, they consistently oppress countries. It's a case of picking the lesser of two evils; Are you prepared to put foward a country who (If becoming a superpower)would run things better than the US?

"It was the US intervention in WW1 that brought about the Versailles Treaty, Hitler, the Bolshevik takeover and all the conditions that led to WW2."

Oh right... so it wasn't the German electorate voting for Hitler that bought Hitler to power? I thought the Bolsheviks seized power from the Tzar? Oh no, it was America...

"The people in the Middle East hate us for very good, SPECIFIC reasons, one for our insane one-sided support of Israel ant two for our support for the corrupt
rightwing dictatorships that rule them. Your very racist premise that mindless Arabs simply hate us because we (whose
is the "we" here ?) because we are "good" is BS. PERIOD."

Oh my goodness me, where to begin on this paragraph...

Aside from being attacked for 6 decades constantly from all size by every single one of it's neighbours despite being allowed it's existance under international law, being targetted regardless of whether it's done something wrong or not, Israel hasn't done a damn thing wrong. It needs the wall, it needs to be able to defend itself, and it needs our support. If not, we're on for the second holocaust.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Arab states don't look for excuses to hate Israel and the West, the citizens fed BS by the terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Arab politicians?

"One evil empire is gone, we still have one more to go, US."

Nonsense. Go read Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal and come back and tell me that the US is the least of all the evils in this world.

(Please tell me I'm not the only one worrying about this clown?)

Andy.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.