maybe, just maybe... if people keep calling you a duck on a regular basis, you might wanna look in the mirror and see if you have a beak and webbed feet growing.
didn't really have me believing they were leaders.
perhaps a strike and a publicity to warn American youth that while it sounds romantic to travel the world taking up the cause, you can also end up dead.
This on the heels of the very public outing of the soldier who deserted his post to join the terrorists and ended up a prisoner of them for several years.
Not shortcomings, crimes. That’s a key difference.
Supporting Sadaam while he gassed kurds and Iranians and preventing the UN from acting is not a shortcoming. It’s a crime. There is a huge difference. SO are many of the others listed. Like overthrowing a sovereign government cause they nationalize their oil and putting in a dicator who kills ten thousand people.
That’s like saying Hitler shouldn’t have invaded Russia because it was an error. No it was also a crime.
As for listening, well I obviously read every post as to that’s what I am replying too. The numerous and varied sources I cited off the top of my head, including the US GOVERNMENT, clearly indicates I listen to plenty of sources.
The grammar is annoying but I work and rush to type these in. But hey if that’s the worse you guys can say Im going home pretty happy with what I wrote, albeit sad in its accuracy.
Cause the government calls them al qaeda leaders you guys take it as the bible.
Proving fact: drone strikes cause 20 terrorists for every one killed. Cause when you kill a kid playing soccer by accident it causes anger. Thats not my view its the cia and goverments.
Lets apply the golden rule. If any country who s7spects someone might be guilty of a crime can indisriminately bomb yhem what jind of chaos woukd ensue.
Should england randomly have bombed boston to target ira funding and members where many where?
If your answer is no your against drone strikes.
Something tells me we are going to be reading about you in one of these drone strikes some day. That will be the best Sunday reading of my life.
America has committed many, many crimes in the name of spreading democracy when in fact the reason for the crimes is to ensure stability in a region where the non-interrupted flow of oil is vital to keeping average joes all over the world fed, warm, clothed, etc... and getting any other essentials to average joe.
We get our hands dirty and bloody, no doubt. I have no problem admitting it.
You seem to attribute our bloodied hands to intentional malice.
I attribute them to making the tough decisions that no one else wants to make.
Now go ahead and misconstrue what I wrote...
OK, what fucking moron left the gate open at Paulie-World? Â
is killing that maniacal, bloodthirsty, hateful, old bastard Ayatollah Khomeini - the devil incarnate. He should have been terminated in France and never been allowed to get anywhere near Iran. That piece of excrement has been the cause of more deaths than the Shah ever did.
Cause the government calls them al qaeda leaders you guys take it as the bible.
Proving fact: drone strikes cause 20 terrorists for every one killed. Cause when you kill a kid playing soccer by accident it causes anger. Thats not my view its the cia and goverments.
Lets apply the golden rule. If any country who s7spects someone might be guilty of a crime can indisriminately bomb yhem what jind of chaos woukd ensue.
Should england randomly have bombed boston to target ira funding and members where many where?
If your answer is no your against drone strikes.
Something tells me we are going to be reading about you in one of these drone strikes some day. That will be the best Sunday reading of my life.
You just wished death upon me because I have a viewpoint that involves stopping certain behavior to lessen the likelihood of terrorism occurring. A viewpoint that has plenty of support among intelligence agencies, scholars, etc.
For this you want me to die?
Anyobdy who reads these words on this thread should immediately acknowledge that your comment is both anti-American and horrid.
America has committed many, many crimes in the name of spreading democracy when in fact the reason for the crimes is to ensure stability in a region where the non-interrupted flow of oil is vital to keeping average joes all over the world fed, warm, clothed, etc... and getting any other essentials to average joe.
We get our hands dirty and bloody, no doubt. I have no problem admitting it.
You seem to attribute our bloodied hands to intentional malice.
I attribute them to making the tough decisions that no one else wants to make.
Now go ahead and misconstrue what I wrote...
No, I respect you for discussing this with me.
I find your the view expressed here reasonable.
I do disagree with it. I dont see how supporting Hussein as a way of spreading democracy. Nor do I see how supporting dozens and dozens of dictators around the planet as doing so.
Certainly, overthrowing Iranian democracy in 1953 was not supporting democracy.
Keep this in mind....all powers always justify their behavior in the name of a greater good. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. The English did it when they were imperializing the world. Scumbag terrorists do it when they fly into building and kill innocent people.
I think in the cases I cited the US was acting in its perceived economic self-interest and our leaders felt that trumped the lives of innocent people.
I think your argument works in situations like Dresden, Hiroshima.
But there is no justification in blocking the UN from intervening in the US of chemical weapons by Sadamm, for example, against Kurds.
I've tried not to engage in intellectual discussion with you because your act is so transparent and it's a waste of time.
And I've thus tried to completely ignore you but your insistence to appear on any of these threads and derail discussions thanks to your agenda, makes me appear to point out how shitty of a troll you are.
Well, at least you're not a 9/11 truther I guess. You're not, right?
My predilection to suck donkey dick is not on trial here and is irreleveant.
As for the 9/11 truthers, I think I made it clear that their are terrorists who attack the United States in my writings.
9/11 happened and was carried out by dickwag Islamists who killed innocent people miles from my home.
I write what I write because to the best of my knowledge the best way to prevent another 9/11 is in part stopping the actions that lead to it.
on a football site, and it seems to be your only contribution to said football site. That's bizarre and a little sad. If you were a regular poster for awhile and you "knew" these guys and you did this while contributing to sports-themed threads maybe, but this is pretty much all you do.
on a football site, and it seems to be your only contribution to said football site. That's bizarre and a little sad. If you were a regular poster for awhile and you "knew" these guys and you did this while contributing to sports-themed threads maybe, but this is pretty much all you do.
Bold faced lie. I have not copied one thing from anywhere other then sources I cited.
I cant both be horrible at grammar and spelling while simultaneously cutting and pasting.
The US gov, CIA, etc,NYT, WSJ are not indymedia.(Of which all were referenced)
I also commented on at least three football threads today as well as a thread where a soldier was spit on in which I referred to the spitter as a scumbag.
Even if your allegation were true, which it as just demonstrated was not, it still wouldn't detract from its accuracy.
That being said, I take your point that I am farely knew and come on opinionated. But its easy to be that way when all I get is dupe, etc.
Someone on this thread just wished that I would die in a drone strike.
I will make an effort to me more respectful in the future.
the issue is that you are obtuse and dogmatic, accepting no nuance, no range of reasonable opinions. It is either "your" (or that of whomever you're stealing material from) way or nothing. The fact that "your" way blames America first and foremost for everything makes you anathema to most of us, even those who ascribe a fair amount of wrongdoing to our past and present, because most of us actually like this country and don't consider running it down to be a life's work. There are dozens of very intelligent posters here who contribute from a wide range of perspectives, but you show no interest in learning from any of them, in exploring where your opinions or your understandings of history converge or diverse, it is simply "your" take on things and fuck everyone else.
the issue is that you are obtuse and dogmatic, accepting no nuance, no range of reasonable opinions. It is either "your" (or that of whomever you're stealing material from) way or nothing. The fact that "your" way blames America first and foremost for everything makes you anathema to most of us, even those who ascribe a fair amount of wrongdoing to our past and present, because most of us actually like this country and don't consider running it down to be a life's work. There are dozens of very intelligent posters here who contribute from a wide range of perspectives, but you show no interest in learning from any of them, in exploring where your opinions or your understandings of history converge or diverse, it is simply "your" take on things and fuck everyone else.
I respectfully disagree. Any comment I have made has been a substantive response. In contrast, nobody here has made a comment on me other then wishing me death, dupes, etc.
Now you are calling me a plagiarizer, again without substance.
A little above I named 4 people by name, including you, who I referred to as smart. Literally.
As for the America first thing. I am an American. I believe it is elementary morality to focus on my own countries crimes before pointing fingers at others.
We understand this perfectly well when we talk about enemy states. So for example, when the Ayatollah calls us devils we rightly laugh and mock him. It would be like the Soviets in the 1980s criticizing Vietnam. What would we say? We would rightly point out that they are invading Afghanistan.
It is a basic principle of morality that one should focus on his own crimes before pointing out the crimes of others. Children know this.
I am not making up studies that are citing our behavior as prime causes of terrorism. These things are happening and scholarship is virtually universal in outlining them.
Iranian dissidents should focus on criticizing Irans regime. We should focus on ours. Its healthy to take an adversarial role with ones government.
To be clear, I do not for a second think we are responsible for every ill in the world. But we are responsible for a lot of it. I would feel like a hypocrite to talk about China's human rights abuses. Which by the way, is exactly what China does towards us. They tell their population all the bad things we do. Their hypocrites.
But we are responsible for the actions I mentioned and when discussing terrorism they are relevant here.
By the way, the government is very different then we as Americans. Governments are power centers. Thats what they are. Ours is no different. Its not an indictment of Americans, its an indictment of governments. To me that is the premise this country was founded on. In my view there is no patriotism in supporting ones government at the expense of its citizens.
There seem to me plenty of people here who support US atrocities no matter how awful they are. What makes the actions good is that we did it. Stories about how if use violence it must be for the general good because we are America. Yeah, thats the job for propagandists for power and violence and its the task of populations to free themselves from those types of doctrinal controls and constraints.
I love my country. But love isn't being blind in my view. Its honestly assessing whats going on and finding ways to fix it.
several other posters here disagree with you, as evidenced by their desire to talk to him. IMO, they fully share the blame for destroying any rational thread.
One gentle helpful hint that may make you be and sound credible...I have seen you post several times about Mossedegh. You need to do a lot more digging to understand Iranian history and that period. Sorry. You weaken many points when you quote but do not know.
Sophomores do that when it is revealed that the sanitized history and civic perspective they first learned is not the whole and complete story.
That's true of the second and third and fourth generation and decade of perspective one gains. Enjoy the journey and stay open to peeling the onion.
Ditto anything you have ever posted about oil. Not being mean...just either take a pounding or go do the work it takes to understand oil technology, facts, profit economics, pricing and how it works geopolitically. Or dont. Does not matter to me. But you do type really dopey stuff.
Love the idealism. Hope you chose to do the work to someday be effective, knowledgeable and useful.
Ditto anything you have ever posted about oil. Not being mean...just either take a pounding or go do the work it takes to understand oil technology, facts, profit economics, pricing and how it works geopolitically. Or dont. Does not matter to me. But you do type really dopey stuff.
Love the idealism. Hope you chose to do the work to someday be effective, knowledgeable and useful.
Good night.
Take care.
You'll notice again...the two posts of yours are simple generalites. You cite nothing specific.
Thats the thing here....everybody says how irrational everything I say is but nobody specifically makes a case for as to why its irrational.
My writing about the oil was taken right out the nyt and wsj this week.
One gentle helpful hint that may make you be and sound credible...I have seen you post several times about Mossedegh. You need to do a lot more digging to understand Iranian history and that period. Sorry. You weaken many points when you quote but do not know.
Sophomores do that when it is revealed that the sanitized history and civic perspective they first learned is not the whole and complete story.
That's true of the second and third and fourth generation and decade of perspective one gains. Enjoy the journey and stay open to peeling the onion.
I read 7 books on this topic, most recently "All the Shas Men."
Further, there is now ample interlan documents released available on the National Security Archive website. In these documents we can read our leaders motives in their own
words. In short, they nationalized their oil and we overthew them. Our leaders acknowledge they were part of the non-aligned movement and modeling their democracy off of Englands.
You tell me I need to know the history?
Really, cause I am the only one who brought up the shah, the coup, support for Hussein while he gassed them, shooting down their civilian airliner with George Bush declaring"I will never apologize I don't care what the facts are."
Who is leaving out history? Apparently these events are irrelevant to understanding Iran today. A shocking conclusion to draw.
30 people on this thread and not one substantive remark. I have been told that someone wants me to die and that I annoy other posters.
To me this would surely make someone want to put me in my place. Yet no body has. Just boring non-substantive generalities.
Conclusions? There is nothing to say to what I wrote and people here are simply mad because their beloved fake view of America is wrong.
One gentle helpful hint that may make you be and sound credible...I have seen you post several times about Mossedegh. You need to do a lot more digging to understand Iranian history and that period. Sorry. You weaken many points when you quote but do not know.
Sophomores do that when it is revealed that the sanitized history and civic perspective they first learned is not the whole and complete story.
That's true of the second and third and fourth generation and decade of perspective one gains. Enjoy the journey and stay open to peeling the onion.
I read 7 books on this topic, most recently "All the Shas Men."
Further, there is now ample interlan documents released available on the National Security Archive website. In these documents we can read our leaders motives in their own
words. In short, they nationalized their oil and we overthew them. Our leaders acknowledge they were part of the non-aligned movement and modeling their democracy off of Englands.
You tell me I need to know the history?
Really, cause I am the only one who brought up the shah, the coup, support for Hussein while he gassed them, shooting down their civilian airliner with George Bush declaring"I will never apologize I don't care what the facts are."
Who is leaving out history? Apparently these events are irrelevant to understanding Iran today. A shocking conclusion to draw.
30 people on this thread and not one substantive remark. I have been told that someone wants me to die and that I annoy other posters.
To me this would surely make someone want to put me in my place. Yet no body has. Just boring non-substantive generalities.
Conclusions? There is nothing to say to what I wrote and people here are simply mad because their beloved fake view of America is wrong.
I offer the above as evidence that you are a mad man - identifying 30 people who disagree with you - offering that reading the NYT and WSJ and 7 unidentified books on a subject somehow makes you knowledgable - and then drawing to the conclusion that everyone else can't substantiate anything and that you are the only person who has the correct viewpoint - and of course painting everyone else's belief's as "a fake view of America."
You are scary dude - very scary - and quite insane.
One gentle helpful hint that may make you be and sound credible...I have seen you post several times about Mossedegh. You need to do a lot more digging to understand Iranian history and that period. Sorry. You weaken many points when you quote but do not know.
Sophomores do that when it is revealed that the sanitized history and civic perspective they first learned is not the whole and complete story.
That's true of the second and third and fourth generation and decade of perspective one gains. Enjoy the journey and stay open to peeling the onion.
I read 7 books on this topic, most recently "All the Shas Men."
Further, there is now ample interlan documents released available on the National Security Archive website. In these documents we can read our leaders motives in their own
words. In short, they nationalized their oil and we overthew them. Our leaders acknowledge they were part of the non-aligned movement and modeling their democracy off of Englands.
You tell me I need to know the history?
Really, cause I am the only one who brought up the shah, the coup, support for Hussein while he gassed them, shooting down their civilian airliner with George Bush declaring"I will never apologize I don't care what the facts are."
Who is leaving out history? Apparently these events are irrelevant to understanding Iran today. A shocking conclusion to draw.
30 people on this thread and not one substantive remark. I have been told that someone wants me to die and that I annoy other posters.
To me this would surely make someone want to put me in my place. Yet no body has. Just boring non-substantive generalities.
Conclusions? There is nothing to say to what I wrote and people here are simply mad because their beloved fake view of America is wrong.
I offer the above as evidence that you are a mad man - identifying 30 people who disagree with you - offering that reading the NYT and WSJ and 7 unidentified books on a subject somehow makes you knowledgable - and then drawing to the conclusion that everyone else can't substantiate anything and that you are the only person who has the correct viewpoint - and of course painting everyone else's belief's as "a fake view of America."
You are scary dude - very scary - and quite insane.
You make 31.
I never said my opinion was right. I stated it thats all. What I did say is that nobody has offered a susbtatnive rebuttal for it while simultaneously telling me its wrong.
But you as well. Cannot logically and coherently reply and say "brownstone your wrong on this because of this...."
You call me a mad man. Yet you do not call a mad man the person who wished me to die in a drone strike.
The comment you made about the 7 books I read was completely misinterpreted by you, deliberately. Your willful distortion merely acts to reinforce the reality that you must resort to falsehoods to characterize my position.
Anybody can call someone a mad men. Look. Gidie, you are a mad man. Wow, that took a lot of brains. Best youc an think of Gidie with your remedial little pea brain of yours. "uh dud her Ill call him a mad man. A duh duh." Not everybody can back up with evidence viewpoints. Like generic minds like yours.
Anybody can call someone a mad men. Look. Gidie, you are a mad man. Wow, that took a lot of brains. Best youc an think of Gidie with your remedial little pea brain of yours. "uh dud her Ill call him a mad man. A duh duh." Not everybody can back up with evidence viewpoints. Like generic minds like yours.
RE: OK, what fucking moron left the gate open at Paulie-World? Â
No, this is the Bizarro Paulie-World type. It has to be a site populated with the extremists from the Left, whereas P-W is populated with extremists from the Right.
Just as Film gave conservatives a bad name and a skewed image, brownstain provides the same disservice to liberals.
this guy is no liberal - he views himself as a conservative patriot -- hs retoric is straight out of the fringe of the Tea Party -- I guarantee it - he is caught up in a conspiracy loop -- everyone and everything is plotting in a very coordinated fashion - through commercial and governmental entities - to undermine the core values of America --
this guy is no liberal - he views himself as a conservative patriot -- hs retoric is straight out of the fringe of the Tea Party -- I guarantee it - he is caught up in a conspiracy loop -- everyone and everything is plotting in a very coordinated fashion - through commercial and governmental entities - to undermine the core values of America --
gidie - I haven't seen any Tea Party groups espouse the version of American history that he does, though that's not to say you can't find just about any viewpoint you want to if you go far enough into the fringes of any group. And before you ask (or assume), I'm not a part of any Tea Party group. If anything, I find him more representative of the fringes of the Occupy movement.
stand up in Caucus meetings and pull a worn hanky from their pocket - that is filled with their scribbled notes and spew this stuff out -- with footnotes on several other rumpled hankies they pull out to support what they are feverishly saying
It's some of the scariest stuff I've ever witnessed -- and even scarier is that they have managed to build an audience of sympathizers that copy what they are saying on their own hankies, pages and ages of it with footnotes -- if you don't agree with them --- then they automatically classify you as part of the conspiracy
They back themselves into a corner at every opportunity
this guy is no liberal - he views himself as a conservative patriot -- hs retoric is straight out of the fringe of the Tea Party -- I guarantee it - he is caught up in a conspiracy loop -- everyone and everything is plotting in a very coordinated fashion - through commercial and governmental entities - to undermine the core values of America --
In part you are correct, but the liberal ideologue is very plain to me. The "America is solely and always at fault" shtick is pure Left Wingnut.
His main complaint, that no one will engage him in his beliefs, reinforces his view that he is right and everyone else is wrong. He doesn't get the much plainer point, that no one engages with him because he's an irritant and sa completely misplaced entity on this board.
I suspect that this could be a former poster who wants to "get even" for having been roughly handled here in the past, or, alternatively, he's a refugee from a political board where he didn't have the mental horsepower to mix it up with those who are far more informed and adult in their views.
They talk their nonsense and never even hear what anyone else has to say. They walk around any reasonable reply and continue on with their POV as if it is the only opinion/fact that exists. They sight books articles and works known only to them.
If by some chance someone actually gets through, they just ignore that point and continue on with their drivel.
you maybe right -- and Wingnut being the operative word here -- when they foam at the mouth I try to steer clear -- but the danger always is that silence emboldens them
there is no winning in a direct confrontation with someone like this -- you can only hope to expose them
They talk their nonsense and never even hear what anyone else has to say. They walk around any reasonable reply and continue on with their POV as if it is the only opinion/fact that exists. They sight books articles and works known only to them.
If by some chance someone actually gets through, they just ignore that point and continue on with their drivel.
And then brags that since his comment was singled out by NYT, his point is somehow accurate and valid. I said this in another thread, he isn't interested in a constructive discussion or to learn anything. He is interested in being proven right and letting everyone know about his self-perceived expertise. We've all seen the type.
They talk their nonsense and never even hear what anyone else has to say. They walk around any reasonable reply and continue on with their POV as if it is the only opinion/fact that exists. They sight books articles and works known only to them.
If by some chance someone actually gets through, they just ignore that point and continue on with their drivel.
And then brags that since his comment was singled out by NYT, his point is somehow accurate and valid. I said this in another thread, he isn't interested in a constructive discussion or to learn anything. He is interested in being proven right and letting everyone know about his self-perceived expertise. We've all seen the type.
Haha - I just saw your post on the other thread and thought we said the same thing with different words.
I am not interested in you or engaging. Why would i help or interact with you? You are not serious about learning or engaging. And even when I agree with the conclusions I know that's accidental. You are empty. So you can do the work or stay kinda laughable. As to the NYT...if you actually knew anything you would know that it is calibrated to a sixth grade reading level. The WSJ is pitched to a 9th grade reading level. I was being nice to you.
Once you are on a thread I am off it from an effort point of view even if I comment here and there. You seriously think your posts on these threads deserve the time it takes to be thoughtful? Seriously? You are a patronizing dumb ass to people you don't know...pretty fucking useless poster
What's weird is that if you knew the history of most posters on the thread do and have a very critical view of the gap between what the US could be and has done ...and what it actually did do. They are actual critical thinkers. You are a spewer.
Now the board is full of posters who improved over time and became valuable contributors. But that outcome is for you to earn.
I hope that's enough specifics for you to look in the mirror and start over with some humility.
when you try to add to a conversation where you are trying to expand your knowledge on a subject and some asshole who adds very little to the conversation belittles everyone as he/she has the only view on the subject that is valid.
Brownstains' slick is everything you don't want when wish to participate in an informative conversation on a subject.
It's not fan worship. He is very learned and experienced in world affairs. He also relates views in a matter that the average lay person can comprehend.
You want to talk command and control of man made multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional events from onset to conclusion.
Something I can talk about so those not versed can understand.
I had part of this typed out from the thread a few days ago Â
but decided it may not be worth posting but I'll give it a go now. Credit to Bill2 for some of the verbiage and phrasing below, it's rubbed off through the years.
Let's start with some questions:
1. How does the world get the most amount of vital goods to the most amount of people in need of said goods, in the most efficient and expedient manner possible, so that the most amount of people get said good reliably on a regular basis with little interruption?
2. What threatens the world from accomplishing #1?
3. What country has done the most to make #1 possible?
Quick facile answers then moving on:
1. Keeping shipping lanes open and secure, ensuring security for energy supplies and resources, limiting chaos in resource heavy regions. When those 3 things are done, the average human does better. Goods get to where they need to be, at fair market prices, in a timely fashion, so average joes all over the world can put food on the table and heat or cool their homes. Or so businesses can run without interruption or radical price volatility. You get the point. World looks very different if those 3 things go wrong.
2. Chaos. Instability. War. Rogue nations. Irrational players in the world market. Put any of those near resource rich regions and you have a big problem for average folks everywhere. There's more but you get the point.
3. I'll leave that answer to you.
Now, here's where you really don't mesh well with people here. You continue to equate us with these examples of pure evil and this is where we deviate completely. Tell me which of Saddam, Stalin or Hitler, devoted never before seen resources to ensuring the maximum amount of goods get to the maximum amount of average people all over the world, thereby mitigating conflict that might otherwise arise due to shortages of resources and essential goods? When did those guys give a fuck about feeding the rest of the world? We do. And we contribute a significant amount of resources to this end. Regularly.
Do we do things in our self interest in the process? Of course we do, it's kind of a necessity when everyone else does. But we, as a nation, take on more burdens than any other nation out there or in history, in the name of improving things for the greatest amount of people. We do this because it benefits the rest of the world most. And we take necessary action when no else will. And we have made some mistakes in the process and killed many innocent people along the way. And we have benefitted. And millions around the world have benefited as well.
We don't live in a rosy world and to be perfectly frank, without the United States leading the world as it does, it gets a whole lot less rosier. There is nothing to suggest any other country would step up to the plate and risk their own interests to help ensure stability wherever possible and thus improve lives, not just in one's own nation, but wherever possible throughout the world. China's taken baby steps toward being trustworthy but they have their own internal issues that will cause them to seek their own interests over the world's when need be.
There are no easy answers. Keep to our own business and let innocent people suffer all over the world under unjust rulers? Try to do what we can to promote self governance by intervening where logistically possible? What if the self governance results in evil coming to power? I personally wish we could intervene anywhere when there are despots leading innocent people terribly, logistics be damned. Also not a reality.
But all of this misses the larger point glossed over up above. The world is a very dangerous place with a lot of actors at play and many of them do not worry about if their neighbor is suffering or not. We do. We do more good than harm. We take risks no one else will to ensure that stability rules in as much of the world as possible. Sometimes we benefit, sometimes we don't, sometimes we end up doing good for more people, sometimes we make things worse. Things aren't usually much better before we took the risk, though there are exceptions. Should we be world's police? I happen to think we should, and should do so more than we presently do. But my idealistic wants don't add up when the complexity comes into play.
There are several thousand layers of complexity. Not one or two. There are market forces. There are rogue forces. There are natural forces. There is a limited supply of goods because production is not a foregone conclusion. Something or someone needs to make things. Someone/something needs to ship those things to other geographic locations so average people everywhere can lead better lives than they did before. Right now, at this moment in history, oil makes it all happen.
You ask folks on here to get into specifics as if they're making shit up when they tell you your **facts** are not the whole story. None of it is made up. The made up part is your insistence that our hands not get dirty in the name of the greater good. It's a fantasy. There's no easy way to make this globalized world function most efficiently to the benefit of all. None.
That we are able to help make it function as it does today is a miracle in itself.
None of what I stated above is meant to condone our mistakes and inhumane actions, nor am I discounting any of the history that you outlined (I don't care if it's copy/pasted).
But if you believe you're really as smart as you think you are, you might consider looking at our actions through the lens of which I have laid out.
Because that's exactly the lens we look through when our government is making decisions of great magnitude.
Hopefully I didn't just waste part of my evening but your response will be the judge of that.
btw, Bill2, if you make it back to this thread, I never knew Yergin wrote another book back '01. I assume The Commanding Heights is well worth the read?
perhaps a strike and a publicity to warn American youth that while it sounds romantic to travel the world taking up the cause, you can also end up dead.
This on the heels of the very public outing of the soldier who deserted his post to join the terrorists and ended up a prisoner of them for several years.
Supporting Sadaam while he gassed kurds and Iranians and preventing the UN from acting is not a shortcoming. It’s a crime. There is a huge difference. SO are many of the others listed. Like overthrowing a sovereign government cause they nationalize their oil and putting in a dicator who kills ten thousand people.
That’s like saying Hitler shouldn’t have invaded Russia because it was an error. No it was also a crime.
As for listening, well I obviously read every post as to that’s what I am replying too. The numerous and varied sources I cited off the top of my head, including the US GOVERNMENT, clearly indicates I listen to plenty of sources.
The grammar is annoying but I work and rush to type these in. But hey if that’s the worse you guys can say Im going home pretty happy with what I wrote, albeit sad in its accuracy.
Proving fact: drone strikes cause 20 terrorists for every one killed. Cause when you kill a kid playing soccer by accident it causes anger. Thats not my view its the cia and goverments.
Lets apply the golden rule. If any country who s7spects someone might be guilty of a crime can indisriminately bomb yhem what jind of chaos woukd ensue.
Should england randomly have bombed boston to target ira funding and members where many where?
If your answer is no your against drone strikes.
Something tells me we are going to be reading about you in one of these drone strikes some day. That will be the best Sunday reading of my life.
Is this truth enough for you?
America has committed many, many crimes in the name of spreading democracy when in fact the reason for the crimes is to ensure stability in a region where the non-interrupted flow of oil is vital to keeping average joes all over the world fed, warm, clothed, etc... and getting any other essentials to average joe.
We get our hands dirty and bloody, no doubt. I have no problem admitting it.
You seem to attribute our bloodied hands to intentional malice.
I attribute them to making the tough decisions that no one else wants to make.
Now go ahead and misconstrue what I wrote...
Quote:
Cause the government calls them al qaeda leaders you guys take it as the bible.
Proving fact: drone strikes cause 20 terrorists for every one killed. Cause when you kill a kid playing soccer by accident it causes anger. Thats not my view its the cia and goverments.
Lets apply the golden rule. If any country who s7spects someone might be guilty of a crime can indisriminately bomb yhem what jind of chaos woukd ensue.
Should england randomly have bombed boston to target ira funding and members where many where?
If your answer is no your against drone strikes.
Something tells me we are going to be reading about you in one of these drone strikes some day. That will be the best Sunday reading of my life.
You just wished death upon me because I have a viewpoint that involves stopping certain behavior to lessen the likelihood of terrorism occurring. A viewpoint that has plenty of support among intelligence agencies, scholars, etc.
For this you want me to die?
Anyobdy who reads these words on this thread should immediately acknowledge that your comment is both anti-American and horrid.
“where did this clown come from?”
These aren’t exactly substantive rebuttals to what I wrote.
Please find where I respond to someone’s point by saying “you suck donkey dick?”
I don't provide a substantive rebuttal because I don't care what you write. I don't understand why you are here. And you are an awful poster.
Is this truth enough for you?
America has committed many, many crimes in the name of spreading democracy when in fact the reason for the crimes is to ensure stability in a region where the non-interrupted flow of oil is vital to keeping average joes all over the world fed, warm, clothed, etc... and getting any other essentials to average joe.
We get our hands dirty and bloody, no doubt. I have no problem admitting it.
You seem to attribute our bloodied hands to intentional malice.
I attribute them to making the tough decisions that no one else wants to make.
Now go ahead and misconstrue what I wrote...
No, I respect you for discussing this with me.
I find your the view expressed here reasonable.
I do disagree with it. I dont see how supporting Hussein as a way of spreading democracy. Nor do I see how supporting dozens and dozens of dictators around the planet as doing so.
Certainly, overthrowing Iranian democracy in 1953 was not supporting democracy.
Keep this in mind....all powers always justify their behavior in the name of a greater good. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. The English did it when they were imperializing the world. Scumbag terrorists do it when they fly into building and kill innocent people.
I think in the cases I cited the US was acting in its perceived economic self-interest and our leaders felt that trumped the lives of innocent people.
I think your argument works in situations like Dresden, Hiroshima.
But there is no justification in blocking the UN from intervening in the US of chemical weapons by Sadamm, for example, against Kurds.
And I've thus tried to completely ignore you but your insistence to appear on any of these threads and derail discussions thanks to your agenda, makes me appear to point out how shitty of a troll you are.
Well, at least you're not a 9/11 truther I guess. You're not, right?
As for the 9/11 truthers, I think I made it clear that their are terrorists who attack the United States in my writings.
9/11 happened and was carried out by dickwag Islamists who killed innocent people miles from my home.
I write what I write because to the best of my knowledge the best way to prevent another 9/11 is in part stopping the actions that lead to it.
You can never justify and attack like 9/11. Ever.
Quote:
See two above comments….”I suck donkey dick”
“where did this clown come from?”
These aren’t exactly substantive rebuttals to what I wrote.
Please find where I respond to someone’s point by saying “you suck donkey dick?”
I don't provide a substantive rebuttal because I don't care what you write. I don't understand why you are here. And you are an awful poster.
That is your right.
But neverthless, it is factually not a rebuttal. Perhaps you can or perhaps you cant. Makes as little difference to me as it does to you.
Bold faced lie. I have not copied one thing from anywhere other then sources I cited.
I cant both be horrible at grammar and spelling while simultaneously cutting and pasting.
The US gov, CIA, etc,NYT, WSJ are not indymedia.(Of which all were referenced)
I also commented on at least three football threads today as well as a thread where a soldier was spit on in which I referred to the spitter as a scumbag.
Even if your allegation were true, which it as just demonstrated was not, it still wouldn't detract from its accuracy.
That being said, I take your point that I am farely knew and come on opinionated. But its easy to be that way when all I get is dupe, etc.
Someone on this thread just wished that I would die in a drone strike.
I will make an effort to me more respectful in the future.
Quote:
In comment 12247835 brownstone said:
Quote:
See two above comments….”I suck donkey dick”
“where did this clown come from?”
These aren’t exactly substantive rebuttals to what I wrote.
Please find where I respond to someone’s point by saying “you suck donkey dick?”
I don't provide a substantive rebuttal because I don't care what you write. I don't understand why you are here. And you are an awful poster.
That is your right.
But neverthless, it is factually not a rebuttal. Perhaps you can or perhaps you cant. Makes as little difference to me as it does to you.
It was never supposed to be a rebuttal, you fucking idiot.
I respectfully disagree. Any comment I have made has been a substantive response. In contrast, nobody here has made a comment on me other then wishing me death, dupes, etc.
Now you are calling me a plagiarizer, again without substance.
A little above I named 4 people by name, including you, who I referred to as smart. Literally.
As for the America first thing. I am an American. I believe it is elementary morality to focus on my own countries crimes before pointing fingers at others.
We understand this perfectly well when we talk about enemy states. So for example, when the Ayatollah calls us devils we rightly laugh and mock him. It would be like the Soviets in the 1980s criticizing Vietnam. What would we say? We would rightly point out that they are invading Afghanistan.
It is a basic principle of morality that one should focus on his own crimes before pointing out the crimes of others. Children know this.
I am not making up studies that are citing our behavior as prime causes of terrorism. These things are happening and scholarship is virtually universal in outlining them.
Iranian dissidents should focus on criticizing Irans regime. We should focus on ours. Its healthy to take an adversarial role with ones government.
To be clear, I do not for a second think we are responsible for every ill in the world. But we are responsible for a lot of it. I would feel like a hypocrite to talk about China's human rights abuses. Which by the way, is exactly what China does towards us. They tell their population all the bad things we do. Their hypocrites.
But we are responsible for the actions I mentioned and when discussing terrorism they are relevant here.
By the way, the government is very different then we as Americans. Governments are power centers. Thats what they are. Ours is no different. Its not an indictment of Americans, its an indictment of governments. To me that is the premise this country was founded on. In my view there is no patriotism in supporting ones government at the expense of its citizens.
There seem to me plenty of people here who support US atrocities no matter how awful they are. What makes the actions good is that we did it. Stories about how if use violence it must be for the general good because we are America. Yeah, thats the job for propagandists for power and violence and its the task of populations to free themselves from those types of doctrinal controls and constraints.
I love my country. But love isn't being blind in my view. Its honestly assessing whats going on and finding ways to fix it.
I'm so glad I stay away from these threads
several other posters here disagree with you, as evidenced by their desire to talk to him. IMO, they fully share the blame for destroying any rational thread.
Sophomores do that when it is revealed that the sanitized history and civic perspective they first learned is not the whole and complete story.
That's true of the second and third and fourth generation and decade of perspective one gains. Enjoy the journey and stay open to peeling the onion.
Love the idealism. Hope you chose to do the work to someday be effective, knowledgeable and useful.
Good night.
Take care.
Love the idealism. Hope you chose to do the work to someday be effective, knowledgeable and useful.
Good night.
Take care.
You'll notice again...the two posts of yours are simple generalites. You cite nothing specific.
Thats the thing here....everybody says how irrational everything I say is but nobody specifically makes a case for as to why its irrational.
My writing about the oil was taken right out the nyt and wsj this week.
So, yeah I guess they are sophmoric.
Well and thats the entire point. The if.
We have given people sitting in a command room in Nevada the right to choose who dies without trial.
Further, the civilian causalities are apparently irreleveant.
If a hijacker takes over a school in nyc. Do we bomb the school to the ground just to kill the hijacker?
No, we do not.
Sophomores do that when it is revealed that the sanitized history and civic perspective they first learned is not the whole and complete story.
That's true of the second and third and fourth generation and decade of perspective one gains. Enjoy the journey and stay open to peeling the onion.
I read 7 books on this topic, most recently "All the Shas Men."
Further, there is now ample interlan documents released available on the National Security Archive website. In these documents we can read our leaders motives in their own
words. In short, they nationalized their oil and we overthew them. Our leaders acknowledge they were part of the non-aligned movement and modeling their democracy off of Englands.
You tell me I need to know the history?
Really, cause I am the only one who brought up the shah, the coup, support for Hussein while he gassed them, shooting down their civilian airliner with George Bush declaring"I will never apologize I don't care what the facts are."
Who is leaving out history? Apparently these events are irrelevant to understanding Iran today. A shocking conclusion to draw.
30 people on this thread and not one substantive remark. I have been told that someone wants me to die and that I annoy other posters.
To me this would surely make someone want to put me in my place. Yet no body has. Just boring non-substantive generalities.
Conclusions? There is nothing to say to what I wrote and people here are simply mad because their beloved fake view of America is wrong.
Quote:
One gentle helpful hint that may make you be and sound credible...I have seen you post several times about Mossedegh. You need to do a lot more digging to understand Iranian history and that period. Sorry. You weaken many points when you quote but do not know.
Sophomores do that when it is revealed that the sanitized history and civic perspective they first learned is not the whole and complete story.
That's true of the second and third and fourth generation and decade of perspective one gains. Enjoy the journey and stay open to peeling the onion.
I read 7 books on this topic, most recently "All the Shas Men."
Further, there is now ample interlan documents released available on the National Security Archive website. In these documents we can read our leaders motives in their own
words. In short, they nationalized their oil and we overthew them. Our leaders acknowledge they were part of the non-aligned movement and modeling their democracy off of Englands.
You tell me I need to know the history?
Really, cause I am the only one who brought up the shah, the coup, support for Hussein while he gassed them, shooting down their civilian airliner with George Bush declaring"I will never apologize I don't care what the facts are."
Who is leaving out history? Apparently these events are irrelevant to understanding Iran today. A shocking conclusion to draw.
30 people on this thread and not one substantive remark. I have been told that someone wants me to die and that I annoy other posters.
To me this would surely make someone want to put me in my place. Yet no body has. Just boring non-substantive generalities.
Conclusions? There is nothing to say to what I wrote and people here are simply mad because their beloved fake view of America is wrong.
I offer the above as evidence that you are a mad man - identifying 30 people who disagree with you - offering that reading the NYT and WSJ and 7 unidentified books on a subject somehow makes you knowledgable - and then drawing to the conclusion that everyone else can't substantiate anything and that you are the only person who has the correct viewpoint - and of course painting everyone else's belief's as "a fake view of America."
You are scary dude - very scary - and quite insane.
Quote:
In comment 12248360 Bill2 said:
Quote:
One gentle helpful hint that may make you be and sound credible...I have seen you post several times about Mossedegh. You need to do a lot more digging to understand Iranian history and that period. Sorry. You weaken many points when you quote but do not know.
Sophomores do that when it is revealed that the sanitized history and civic perspective they first learned is not the whole and complete story.
That's true of the second and third and fourth generation and decade of perspective one gains. Enjoy the journey and stay open to peeling the onion.
I read 7 books on this topic, most recently "All the Shas Men."
Further, there is now ample interlan documents released available on the National Security Archive website. In these documents we can read our leaders motives in their own
words. In short, they nationalized their oil and we overthew them. Our leaders acknowledge they were part of the non-aligned movement and modeling their democracy off of Englands.
You tell me I need to know the history?
Really, cause I am the only one who brought up the shah, the coup, support for Hussein while he gassed them, shooting down their civilian airliner with George Bush declaring"I will never apologize I don't care what the facts are."
Who is leaving out history? Apparently these events are irrelevant to understanding Iran today. A shocking conclusion to draw.
30 people on this thread and not one substantive remark. I have been told that someone wants me to die and that I annoy other posters.
To me this would surely make someone want to put me in my place. Yet no body has. Just boring non-substantive generalities.
Conclusions? There is nothing to say to what I wrote and people here are simply mad because their beloved fake view of America is wrong.
I offer the above as evidence that you are a mad man - identifying 30 people who disagree with you - offering that reading the NYT and WSJ and 7 unidentified books on a subject somehow makes you knowledgable - and then drawing to the conclusion that everyone else can't substantiate anything and that you are the only person who has the correct viewpoint - and of course painting everyone else's belief's as "a fake view of America."
You are scary dude - very scary - and quite insane.
You make 31.
I never said my opinion was right. I stated it thats all. What I did say is that nobody has offered a susbtatnive rebuttal for it while simultaneously telling me its wrong.
But you as well. Cannot logically and coherently reply and say "brownstone your wrong on this because of this...."
You call me a mad man. Yet you do not call a mad man the person who wished me to die in a drone strike.
The comment you made about the 7 books I read was completely misinterpreted by you, deliberately. Your willful distortion merely acts to reinforce the reality that you must resort to falsehoods to characterize my position.
Anybody can call someone a mad men. Look. Gidie, you are a mad man. Wow, that took a lot of brains. Best youc an think of Gidie with your remedial little pea brain of yours. "uh dud her Ill call him a mad man. A duh duh." Not everybody can back up with evidence viewpoints. Like generic minds like yours.
No, this is the Bizarro Paulie-World type. It has to be a site populated with the extremists from the Left, whereas P-W is populated with extremists from the Right.
Just as Film gave conservatives a bad name and a skewed image, brownstain provides the same disservice to liberals.
gidie - I haven't seen any Tea Party groups espouse the version of American history that he does, though that's not to say you can't find just about any viewpoint you want to if you go far enough into the fringes of any group. And before you ask (or assume), I'm not a part of any Tea Party group. If anything, I find him more representative of the fringes of the Occupy movement.
Perhaps the operating word is fringe.
Otay?
It's some of the scariest stuff I've ever witnessed -- and even scarier is that they have managed to build an audience of sympathizers that copy what they are saying on their own hankies, pages and ages of it with footnotes -- if you don't agree with them --- then they automatically classify you as part of the conspiracy
They back themselves into a corner at every opportunity
In part you are correct, but the liberal ideologue is very plain to me. The "America is solely and always at fault" shtick is pure Left Wingnut.
His main complaint, that no one will engage him in his beliefs, reinforces his view that he is right and everyone else is wrong. He doesn't get the much plainer point, that no one engages with him because he's an irritant and sa completely misplaced entity on this board.
I suspect that this could be a former poster who wants to "get even" for having been roughly handled here in the past, or, alternatively, he's a refugee from a political board where he didn't have the mental horsepower to mix it up with those who are far more informed and adult in their views.
If by some chance someone actually gets through, they just ignore that point and continue on with their drivel.
there is no winning in a direct confrontation with someone like this -- you can only hope to expose them
If by some chance someone actually gets through, they just ignore that point and continue on with their drivel.
And then brags that since his comment was singled out by NYT, his point is somehow accurate and valid. I said this in another thread, he isn't interested in a constructive discussion or to learn anything. He is interested in being proven right and letting everyone know about his self-perceived expertise. We've all seen the type.
Quote:
They talk their nonsense and never even hear what anyone else has to say. They walk around any reasonable reply and continue on with their POV as if it is the only opinion/fact that exists. They sight books articles and works known only to them.
If by some chance someone actually gets through, they just ignore that point and continue on with their drivel.
And then brags that since his comment was singled out by NYT, his point is somehow accurate and valid. I said this in another thread, he isn't interested in a constructive discussion or to learn anything. He is interested in being proven right and letting everyone know about his self-perceived expertise. We've all seen the type.
Haha - I just saw your post on the other thread and thought we said the same thing with different words.
Once you are on a thread I am off it from an effort point of view even if I comment here and there. You seriously think your posts on these threads deserve the time it takes to be thoughtful? Seriously? You are a patronizing dumb ass to people you don't know...pretty fucking useless poster
What's weird is that if you knew the history of most posters on the thread do and have a very critical view of the gap between what the US could be and has done ...and what it actually did do. They are actual critical thinkers. You are a spewer.
Now the board is full of posters who improved over time and became valuable contributors. But that outcome is for you to earn.
I hope that's enough specifics for you to look in the mirror and start over with some humility.
All the best
I'm so glad I stay away from these threads
That's a little unfair. He's not a Tea Partier and there are many on the left that are just as crazy.
I still say he's Hansi. And we're the Illumaniati.
+1
Brownstains' slick is everything you don't want when wish to participate in an informative conversation on a subject.
It's not fan worship. He is very learned and experienced in world affairs. He also relates views in a matter that the average lay person can comprehend.
You want to talk command and control of man made multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional events from onset to conclusion.
Something I can talk about so those not versed can understand.
Let's start with some questions:
1. How does the world get the most amount of vital goods to the most amount of people in need of said goods, in the most efficient and expedient manner possible, so that the most amount of people get said good reliably on a regular basis with little interruption?
2. What threatens the world from accomplishing #1?
3. What country has done the most to make #1 possible?
Quick facile answers then moving on:
1. Keeping shipping lanes open and secure, ensuring security for energy supplies and resources, limiting chaos in resource heavy regions. When those 3 things are done, the average human does better. Goods get to where they need to be, at fair market prices, in a timely fashion, so average joes all over the world can put food on the table and heat or cool their homes. Or so businesses can run without interruption or radical price volatility. You get the point. World looks very different if those 3 things go wrong.
2. Chaos. Instability. War. Rogue nations. Irrational players in the world market. Put any of those near resource rich regions and you have a big problem for average folks everywhere. There's more but you get the point.
3. I'll leave that answer to you.
Now, here's where you really don't mesh well with people here. You continue to equate us with these examples of pure evil and this is where we deviate completely. Tell me which of Saddam, Stalin or Hitler, devoted never before seen resources to ensuring the maximum amount of goods get to the maximum amount of average people all over the world, thereby mitigating conflict that might otherwise arise due to shortages of resources and essential goods? When did those guys give a fuck about feeding the rest of the world? We do. And we contribute a significant amount of resources to this end. Regularly.
Do we do things in our self interest in the process? Of course we do, it's kind of a necessity when everyone else does. But we, as a nation, take on more burdens than any other nation out there or in history, in the name of improving things for the greatest amount of people. We do this because it benefits the rest of the world most. And we take necessary action when no else will. And we have made some mistakes in the process and killed many innocent people along the way. And we have benefitted. And millions around the world have benefited as well.
We don't live in a rosy world and to be perfectly frank, without the United States leading the world as it does, it gets a whole lot less rosier. There is nothing to suggest any other country would step up to the plate and risk their own interests to help ensure stability wherever possible and thus improve lives, not just in one's own nation, but wherever possible throughout the world. China's taken baby steps toward being trustworthy but they have their own internal issues that will cause them to seek their own interests over the world's when need be.
There are no easy answers. Keep to our own business and let innocent people suffer all over the world under unjust rulers? Try to do what we can to promote self governance by intervening where logistically possible? What if the self governance results in evil coming to power? I personally wish we could intervene anywhere when there are despots leading innocent people terribly, logistics be damned. Also not a reality.
But all of this misses the larger point glossed over up above. The world is a very dangerous place with a lot of actors at play and many of them do not worry about if their neighbor is suffering or not. We do. We do more good than harm. We take risks no one else will to ensure that stability rules in as much of the world as possible. Sometimes we benefit, sometimes we don't, sometimes we end up doing good for more people, sometimes we make things worse. Things aren't usually much better before we took the risk, though there are exceptions. Should we be world's police? I happen to think we should, and should do so more than we presently do. But my idealistic wants don't add up when the complexity comes into play.
There are several thousand layers of complexity. Not one or two. There are market forces. There are rogue forces. There are natural forces. There is a limited supply of goods because production is not a foregone conclusion. Something or someone needs to make things. Someone/something needs to ship those things to other geographic locations so average people everywhere can lead better lives than they did before. Right now, at this moment in history, oil makes it all happen.
You ask folks on here to get into specifics as if they're making shit up when they tell you your **facts** are not the whole story. None of it is made up. The made up part is your insistence that our hands not get dirty in the name of the greater good. It's a fantasy. There's no easy way to make this globalized world function most efficiently to the benefit of all. None.
That we are able to help make it function as it does today is a miracle in itself.
None of what I stated above is meant to condone our mistakes and inhumane actions, nor am I discounting any of the history that you outlined (I don't care if it's copy/pasted).
But if you believe you're really as smart as you think you are, you might consider looking at our actions through the lens of which I have laid out.
Because that's exactly the lens we look through when our government is making decisions of great magnitude.
Hopefully I didn't just waste part of my evening but your response will be the judge of that.
btw, Bill2, if you make it back to this thread, I never knew Yergin wrote another book back '01. I assume The Commanding Heights is well worth the read?