WTF war with Syria??!
09-06-2013, 10:26 AM
#81
Elite Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 2,826
Total Cats: 67
It's hard when humans in general are so god damned stupid, but you American citizens should do something already, I mean, down under its corrupt but not at the same level you guys have it.
Dann
Dann
Reply
0
0
09-06-2013, 10:34 AM
#83
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,659
Total Cats: 3,011
Having a large military is not a problem. Deciding that swatting some tin-pot dictator's dick is important or smart politically is astounding. If there were Republicans in the executive branch these same douches would be telling us to stay out of it. I'm certainly not seeing where we have any business involving ourselves beyond eating popcorn and watching what happens.
Reply
0
0
09-06-2013, 10:50 AM
#86
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Right there is the inherent problem with democracy. Letting the average voter impose their will on you over most aspects of your life. They are easily propagandized by the ruling elite; even if not, why should the majority rule over you on things that don't violate their individual rights? For example, if the majority think gayness is wrong, why should they have the power to tell the minority they can't buttfuck in private?
Democracy is "soft authoritarianism", aka mob rule. On any issue, the minority can be forced, against their will, to do something the "majority" want. Any bad law can be justified as being "the will of the majority".
And it's no coincidence that the 20th century, which saw the rise of mass democracies, is also the century of huge wars, because said democracies had the power to tax the average citizen, most of whom didn't want war, to fund said wars.
What's the alternative? Freedom:
Democracy is "soft authoritarianism", aka mob rule. On any issue, the minority can be forced, against their will, to do something the "majority" want. Any bad law can be justified as being "the will of the majority".
And it's no coincidence that the 20th century, which saw the rise of mass democracies, is also the century of huge wars, because said democracies had the power to tax the average citizen, most of whom didn't want war, to fund said wars.
What's the alternative? Freedom:
Reply
0
0
09-06-2013, 10:56 AM
#88
Elite Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 2,826
Total Cats: 67
As surely as it was inevitable we would all discover that the earth is round and that the sun does not revolve around it, we will all understand that authority is just an idea, whos power disappears as soon as we ignore it.
Until then.
Dann
Until then.
Dann
Reply
0
0
09-06-2013, 11:01 AM
#90
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
I had a realization that the "anti-war left" is a myth. The left is not generally anti-war. Not in this country, not in general. Leftism has its roots in Marx and his ideas of violent revolution. Many of their heroes were violent, such as Che Guevara.
The myth arose with the Vietnam war; I suspect that faction appeared not so much because they were anti-war as pro-communism, and wanted to see the communists win by getting the US out. Despite the fact that that war was started or extended by presidents from both parties.
Today the "left" is nothing but a bunch of useful idiots who cling to the notion that "their team" (the Democrats, are morally correct and the "other team", are wrong. That's why they support Obama despite the fact that he has demonstrated to be no better than Bush on civil liberties and war, things the Dems are supposedly better than the Reps on.
This human tendency to stick to "your team" allows both Reps and Dems to do things the opposite party is vilified for, over and over again.
The myth arose with the Vietnam war; I suspect that faction appeared not so much because they were anti-war as pro-communism, and wanted to see the communists win by getting the US out. Despite the fact that that war was started or extended by presidents from both parties.
Today the "left" is nothing but a bunch of useful idiots who cling to the notion that "their team" (the Democrats, are morally correct and the "other team", are wrong. That's why they support Obama despite the fact that he has demonstrated to be no better than Bush on civil liberties and war, things the Dems are supposedly better than the Reps on.
This human tendency to stick to "your team" allows both Reps and Dems to do things the opposite party is vilified for, over and over again.
Reply
0
0
09-06-2013, 11:16 AM
#91
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
My impression is that just 5 years ago the majority of the American public was way more gullible than they are today. 5 years ago I didn't see people speaking out against gov't propaganda the way they are in this thread.
See what one of the great living insider ******** Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat, said:
Brzezinski: 'Global Political Awakening' Making Syrian War Difficult
That is the same ******* who wrote in a 1999 book about American Supremacy:
Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard
"It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book." (p. xiv)
"How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
"Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being.
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
"How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
"Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being.
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Megalomanic ******** want to wield power and when they do, they want to expand it with any means they have, such as by imperialism justified by "humanitarian" reasons, "democracy", or "terror".
Last edited by JasonC SBB; 09-06-2013 at 11:28 AM.
Reply
0
0
09-06-2013, 11:24 AM
#92
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
After Brzezinski, a Democrat, wrote his book on US hegemony, the PNAC, a Neocon think-tank, published at 80-page white paper, saying the same thing - US military dominance:
Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It included a similar line to Brzezinski's book:
9/11, anyone? Never let a crisis go to waste.
General Wesley Clark in a 2007 interview admitted that he was told, right after 9/11, that the US was gonna invade several countries, Iran, Libya, and Syria included, even though they had nothing to do with the attacks:
Syria has been in the crosshairs of the Neocons for over a decade now.
Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It included a similar line to Brzezinski's book:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51)"
General Wesley Clark in a 2007 interview admitted that he was told, right after 9/11, that the US was gonna invade several countries, Iran, Libya, and Syria included, even though they had nothing to do with the attacks:
Syria has been in the crosshairs of the Neocons for over a decade now.
Reply
0
0
09-06-2013, 11:55 AM
#93
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
But for the most part you are right. Although I don't post often in the political threads, when I do it's usually a biased position based on no cited facts. I also usually post sarcastically or ironically. I never said I was perfect.
I'd love for anyone to post a news agency that is unbiased and uses their own verified sources.
Reply
0
0
