This guy is my new hero.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bob, Aug 29, 2003.

  1. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    By "coverage" do you mean pictures and all that or just mentioning them?

    But that wasn't the point he was trying to make (I think) when printing the war record. It was more that the US has always acted aggressively, not that it is a young nation in terms of the world.
  2. DÛke Memento Mori


    I don't give a damn the point he was trying to make. The point I'm making is that American is younger, yet with a war record.

    As for "coverage," concerning Israel vs Palestine, the coverage is always with pictures, whether of Israelis or Palestines. Always. U.S./U.K. vs Iraq, however, it's not always - but they show all types of pictures which if seen by Americans would make them squirm; they also show live coverage of the war (that's right, live coverage of bullets flying everywhere, bombs falling, explosions, crimson skies, flames all over the place), which surpasses any Hollywood flick you have seen. Most of the war in Iraq was covered live, as the war took place...which left no room for "objectivity." It all became personal.
  3. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Name a country that is "Older" that you can say much for... besides China...
  4. DÛke Memento Mori


    What? I didn't get that. Let me clarify my point: look at the United State's action across about one century.

    Besides, if we were to zoom in at some highlights:
    Almost reminiscent of a holocaust, isn't it? In the United States' case, however, it is understood in one sense or another as the Holy Cause instead.
    Yes, your eyes didn't deceive you. That's another 2 million.
    Getting boring, isn't it? The millions seems silly now. One man's death a tragedy, right? and this many millions is merely a statistic!
    At this point, it is safe to say: "What Hitler?"
    Really, now. It's kind of offensive when you put 3000 innocent victims of 9/11 with all these mere statistics. We shouldn't have even brought the civilians of 9/11 into the picture, they are, once again - a statistic. They of all people are the least to matter. And these are just the highlights anyway. I didn't even mention with emphasis the following:
    ...I guess I did mention it now. Let me emphasize:
    Ah! the fresh air of an atomic threat!

    But, you know, it's awfully rude of us to mention these - all of it is surely for a good cause, I'm quite sure about it. The holocaust did one thing, this holycause is doing another - it's completely different...dude.

    Should we judge by numbers? If we do, first we must address a question: who really is the tyrant? who really is extreme? who really is fanatical? Second, we must completely overlook and even laugh at any silly number of American causalities, whether civilians or good ol'troops. When the number of such American causalities transcends at least a million within one century, then we'll consider feeling a little sympathetic. But as it is now, my friends, your case is a comedy. And the plea for sympathy is even more comical, especially after 9/11, a plea which the world actually even noticed, considered, until at last the United States was being sympathized with...which completely beats me. Have we lost our dignity?
  5. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant


    Whoopdee freakin do. A) You're taking a list someone else put up and taking it of context for your own reasons, and B) the only reason why America has such a "mature war record" in the last century with so many casualities is because weapons have gotten more efficient. Don't play games with the numbers. Use them in context, as in what was the current population when the casualties happened.

    Korea: Aww, somehow no one mentioned that NORTH KOREA ATTACKED FIRST or lists the South Korean casualties that resulted.

    Vietnam: Same deal with the N. Vietnamese and VietCong.

    Cambodia: And Pol Pot (I think that was the dictator) sat around and improved the lot of his countrymen?

    Japan: No mention of casualties caused by Japanese aggression in WWII? In all of the Pacific, let alone their Pearl Harbor sneak attack? And um, this was a WAR, we were trying to WIN, not pussyfoot around civilians.

    There is almost NO WAY in "modern times" that a war has occurred without civilian casualties. Only in the last decade or so has technology improved to in fact DIMINISH those casualties. So don't blather about numbers in the past with a different set of rules - they're meaningless in today's context.
  6. train The Wildcard!!!...

    And it has kept us at the top of the heap...

    That's why everyone wanted to come here - or have what we have in the first place...
  7. DÛke Memento Mori


    I'm not taking anything out of context. Those are facts, I'm simply stating them again. And I will state them as often I like too...

    N.K. attacked first? Well. Tell me how many innocent members your United States lost. In any case, let's hope the number is in millions, because what we know is that America reacted that far.
    And I suppose you all are Godsend Angels with a Holycause, meant to out of purity of heart and ONLY purity of heart, to liberate the tear-inspiring, poor Cambodians which you just felt sooooo much sympathy for. Does anyone believe this anymore? that there is a such thing as "purity of heart"? The matter seems laughable. We're not in Lord of the Rings or some fantasy world where such feelings exist...and please, we're talking politics here! Leave such sentimentality out of it.
    No. Nothing is different. Those are facts of lives that were lost. Why should they be dismissed? why should we dismiss history?

    This is out of curiosity, but can anyone bring me another country, warlord, hero, cause, or whatever matter with this much blood written all over its history? I want to hear about numbers.
  8. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    What was that quote? "Statistics are what anyone makes of them"?

    Please. You're telling me this is news to you? Why are you even attempting to reply to this? And the better question would be what was the ratio of casualties in the beginning of the war before the US got their counterattack together.

    "total numbers" is meaningless when you factor in training and equipment. If you want to count by numbers alone, China and Russia should have the best army because hey, they've got the biggest armies (probably followed by N. Korea).

    Again, you miss the point. The first quote leads to the second and I was about to ask the same thing: Why doesn't someone post ALL the world's countries war activities in the last century for comparison? And I can answer your question: Stalin's USSR, with 20 million lost.
  9. DÛke Memento Mori


    What, my Stalin!?

    Oh well.

    Who's next on the tyrannical list? Germany or America? or someone else?

    Why shouldn't we count by numbers? America employs "democracy" and "right by numbers" whenever in want to make a decision. Perhaps we shouldn't just count the numbers of the living, but also of the dead: the democracy of the dead can speak too you know.
  10. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    "A million deaths is a statistic. A single death is a tragedy" - V.I. Lenin

    People die every day that have nothing to do w/ wars. They die in traffic accidents - should we ban cars? People die from cancer - should we ban anything w/ carcinogens (He says while taking a drag from his cigarette:D) People die in random violent crimes - should we stiffen the law to make it harder for this to occur? People die in wars. Should we ban war? Hell yeah!

    But, we live in the real world filled w/ people w/ their own agendas - or too stupid to have one of their own, so they follow the one that suits their purposes...and the worst part is that people will willingly go to their deaths as a result of it. Sure, it would be nice if people started thinking for themselves and started thinking about mankind as a whole...Marx had some great ideas. Unfortunately, all good ideas have to be exercised through people and most of these people would rather just exploit these ideas to control people (such as the way Stalin and Lening used Marx's ideas to improve/control/terrorise their populace). Politicians are crummy people. I accept this. People that follow them mindlessly are even worse because they all have the power to change things, but they would rather just be mindless drones controlled by the politicians and their media mouthpieces.

    Speaking of media: Durring the war, I avoided all the American network guys - mostly, because I was getting tired of seeing guys running in around tanks trying hard to not reveal the positions of the guys they're hanging out with. Since, I don't speak Arabic (probably should learn - it would be a great way to learn what they're REALLY saying on Tee Vee instead of what the voiceover guys are saying) I couldn't watch Al-Jazeera - there's a coffeehouse in town that shows it 24/7. Instead, I watched the BBC's news (on BBC America). Since the BBC is owned by their government instead of major corporations, there's a chance the reports wouldn't be as skewed - or at least, not skewed toward the American POV. But, even that got boring after awhile.

    I think that in future wars, we should prohibit the media from being involved. Bring back newsreals. They might have been nothing more than propoganda films, but at least they didn't just show the same boring footage over and over again filled w/ annoying soundbites...


    "There is no happy medium - just disgruntled media"

    Dead? Speaking? Does this mean that John Edward might become a political analyst on CNN?


    "I'm getting something from Private Bob - he says 'This bites! I'm just here for the college money!'"
  11. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Because numbers without any context have no meaning. For instance, comparing just the Korean War vs. the Vietnam war, each had 2 million casualties. However, one lasted 3 years while one lasted 15 years. Basically, one could infer instead that the US had done a much better job keeping down casualties if it took 15 years to equal what 3 years did in a previous time.

    I thought you quit? :)

    That wasn't the quote I was thinking of; I think mine is more recent (like in the 80's?)
  12. Astranbrulth New Member

    In general -- I don't see why the US has to choose between the lesser of the two evils. (Saddam / Iran) Personally I would ask : Why are you concerned about what happens in a country thousands of kilometres away anyway? Why does the US insist on meddling in other countries' internal affairs in the first place? How would you feel if the position were reversed and your country destabilised because someone didn't like the stance of your government?

    Why, again, do I ask myself, if "DEMOCRACY" is such a sacred concept to the USA, did it not bow to the overwhelming majority of nations and people in the world who did not want a war in Iraq? Why does it support and defend totalitarian regimes which are very far from the ideals of its own constitution?

    I'll tell you why.

    Because the American Dream is only for Americans, every one else is just a n1gger.

    Train, you are wrong. "Everybody" does not want to come to America, nor does everyone want what you have. Mainly other people just want to be left alone. But, the problem is, the USA has discovered that one does not actually have to occupy a country in order to rape it.

    All it takes is a friendly government that is happy to suppress its own people in return for various kickbacks to the elite ruling class. Then you can keep your hands nice 'n clean because it will just be the natives killing each other, nope, nothing to do with me. Just keep sending over the oil, the bananas, the 10 million T shirts made in sweatshops....

    If you want blood on your hands, count the mountains of dead Indian Americans, on whose bones the country is built on. Count the German, Japanese and Italian civilians incinerated in 1000 bomber raids on cities in WW2. Etc....

    Hold it! I can hear you reply - Hitler killed innocent lives, Stalin killed innocent people, the Japanese started what you are saying is that your morality is on a par with Hitler and Stalin? A strange attitude to take for a country with such lofty ideals.

    With your wonderfully isolated position, your rich resources, your advanced technology - why are you still fighting over oil? Why do you want to be "the top of the heap" if the heap is composed of lies and rotting corpses? Instead of spending billions of dollars on a defence budget, spend them to explore alternative fuel sources, to educate your ignorant (you'll need plenty for that) and to lead by shining example.

    Bush can triple his military, and attack every country he wants, it still won't stop single, determined terrorists from infiltrating the USA and hijacking planes or derailing trains or poisoning letters or assassinating leaders.

    But just maybe, if you worry about yourself, and leave alone what does not belong to you, you will find that the "terror" magically dries up.

    -- Astranbrulth --
  13. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Obviously because one is a greater threat than the other, and it makes sense to help a rival of that threat fight that threat, rather than do it themselves. Then both countries are weakened.

    Every country does this (at least, the ones that can afford to). The US just happens to be slightly different in that it is a bit more powerful and it can do it openly and since it is the most powerful, it is under the microscope more. But that's what "spies" are all about.

    It's "democracy" to the US, not to the world.

    Most likely because they are still "friendly" to the US and help its interests.

    That is generally true. However, a good majority DO want to come, eitherwise there wouldn't be an immigration problem here.

    True. But let's not forget the French, Polish, Belgian, British, and all the other country's civilians who were killed/incinerated by the above countries who wanted to control the world...

    Hitler and Stalin took the idea of "cleansing" to a whole new level, in a different era as opposed to the American Indian policies. Like DUke wants to say, look at the numbers...

    It's the unfortunate fact that everything runs on oil. And though I dispute claims that the war was primarily over oil, obviously the US with its position, resources (which don't include a lot of oil in the large scheme of things) and technology doesn't have a lot of oil.

    Alternative solutions ARE being developed. But until the oil runs out in the world, it's going to take a long time before it gets accepted. Look how long it took for oil-using technology became mainstream...
  14. DÛke Memento Mori


    The war is not about oil. That claim has become naive even today.

    The war is about capitalism. They want to sell goods to more people - they want more to come under the illusion of democracy, only to have them really entrapped in the "American" Dream. They want to build businesses in the Middle East. Iraq is a good business outlet. With the right freedom offered to the lusty Iraqi people, and with the businesses, amongst which Western education stands (because offering education, in America, is business) - they could have that many more customers.

    The oil is just a support used to "rebuild" Iraq - exactly to rebuild it: to rebuild it in an American fashion. for an American market.. My dad is in Iraq - he says they already have plans to displace the university and education system in there with a more "modern" feel - meaning, a more pathetic feel. You guys realize that college education in Iraq is 100% free of charge? and that there is in Iraq one college recognized full its European system of teaching, that it is heavily recognized in Europe? In fact, all education in Iraq is FREE of charge. They evaluate students on their grades: if you show any promise, you're allowed to attend, if you're pathetic - then, well, you could come to America. It is a misfortune for me to have to pay around $20,000 a year to get education in here - it is misfortunate that my dad rebelled against Saddam.

    The war is not about the oil. The war is least about the oil. The war is about marketing, capitalism, converting-to-sheep, converting-to-Americanism, brainwashing, displacing education, un-educating more persons to have them obey the new "democratic" system - inflicting materialism, creating "necessities," making life difficult without these necessities, harassing people with mail, telemarketers, cell phones...

    ...that's what the war is about.
  15. Lotus Mox New Member


    Capitalism automatically leads to wars* That's a direct result of some fairly simple economic laws. But I'm not linguistically capable to explain or discuss this in english, sorry.

    *the only alternatives are reforms or revolutions, but war is, from a capitalistic standpoint, the optimal resolution.
  16. DÛke Memento Mori


    I can read your mind, so let me do it for you. ;)

    Capitalism, basically, hungers after customers. Without constant base of customers - it ends. The American customer base, which is the American population as a whole, has already been struck by the sales pitch (called "American Dream," "freedom," amongst other things). The American population, today, cannot be sold anything - they already have every unnecessary "necessity." In order to thrive economically, a new customer base must necessarily, by the law of capitalism, be founded. Who should be this new customer?

    Let's look, Korea isn't a rich country by any means, and hasn't the means or resources to be rich. Not immediately anyway. So, if America would have taken them, the market would have to be created from America's pocket. But America doesn't do business like that. It wants to build a business, but not spend much money on it. So Korea isn't good.

    Sadie Arabia? Well, they are already a good customer of America. Not the best customer, but a customer nevertheless.

    Iran? The same problem as Korea.

    America wants a "ready-to-use" construction kit - it comes ready with the money, resources, and customer that at the end, all that becomes of it is the money made out of this new market base, without much money spent from their own pocket.

    So what fulfills these attributes?


    It has the "ready-to-get-rid-of-our-government" motto written all over it.

    It's easy to justify going to war with Iraq. Very easy. So easy, in fact, it worked. Especially on Americans.

    It has the grand customer base.

    But most importantly - it has...oil. That's where we can begin to talk business. The Iraqi oil can be used to "rebuild" Iraq, to reinvent it. There is no debate that the Iraqi oil will be used primarily for the aid of Iraq. Of course it will! That's the whole point why America went after Iraq!

    The Iraqi oil will be used to set up the new business foundation (homes, services, highways...etc...all part of the "reconstruction"), which will, in the beginning and at large, be an American foundation. Finally, it gains control of the market, and starts its beautiful sales pitch: "democracy! democracy!" "freedom!" "happiness!" "follow your dreams!" etc. "buy your happiness here!" while another tells you "no! your happiness is right here, for so and so money..."

    This is also good, of course, because later down the line, America will have gained so much more control and established so deep of roots in that area, that the only possible move would be to make another customer base, using some of the Iraqi oil, and some of the capital generated from their own business, they could now widen their business – Iran sounds good, Syria sounds delicious too. As for the reasons to invade them? That comes in last in the formula.
  17. Astranbrulth New Member

    DUke --- I am ambivalent about the statements you have made. On the one hand I cannot dispute what you said about the remaking of Iraq in America's image. In fact, I agree completely with the majority of what you are saying. It is just another way of extending the US cultural hegemony further, and obviously to have nice friendly countries that buy buy buy.

    However, the war is ENTIRELY about the oil. That is the reason that the USA has been meddling in the Mideast since god knows when. Do you think, for example, that Israel would receive such support from the States if it were situated in any other place? No, it is the curse of Iraq that it has so much to steal.

    I mean, just look at the system that we have: the Americans are in martial control of Iraq. The "Council" that is "running" Iraq is a band of American appointed puppets. The companies that have reconstruction contracts are American. Obviously they are not going to repair the US - caused war damage for free. So, Bechtel etc. charge what they want, the Council rubber stamps it, and since Iraq obviously has no money, they'll take it in oil, thanks a lot. Naturally, it will not be at the standard international price for oil, since the Iraqis, nobly represented by the Council, can charge what they - I mean, their American masters - want. So the oil will be "sold" for a pittance, obviously. Believe me when I say the Iraqi debt will be astronomical.

    Naturally the Council and someone in Washington will get handsome "contributions" for their efforts at facilitating the whole transaction. Meanwhile the Iraqis must bend over and take it.

    DUke, and anyone else who cares, go take a look at and to get a view from the ground as to just how the occupation is going. They are 2 Iraqi women who happen to keep blogs on the web. But let me paste an excerpt from Riverbend's blog, to demonstrate what I am saying :

    Riverbend :
    Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent engineering company in Baghdad- we’ll call the company H. This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who’ll listen.

    As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn’t too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put forward- $300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc.

    Let’s pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let’s pretend he hasn’t been working with bridges for over 17 years. Let’s pretend he didn’t work on replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first Gulf War. Let’s pretend he’s wrong and the cost of rebuilding this bridge is four times the number they estimated- let’s pretend it will actually cost $1,200,000. Let’s just use our imagination.

    A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!

    The fact is, as long as cheap oil keeps flowing, the country from whence it came can go to the Dark Ages, for all the USA cares. Look at how Iran was manipulated. There is an excellent article on this subject (that makes me want to vomit) on an old edition of Time magazine, entitled "The Oily Americans". I can post the exact edition if anyone wants me to. No wonder the US is the "Great Satan" in those parts.

    Saddam's big mistake was NOT HAVING his WMD. If you have the Nuke, people leave you alone. Full Stop. Until then, the guerilla war that is now occurring is the only way forward....

    -- Astranbrulth --
  18. Rooser Thread Necromancer

    Believe it or not, foreign journalism has far more integrity. There will always be biases and agendas, yes, but our tendency to question the integrity of foreign media reveals two things about we Americans:

    1) We really are that ignorant of the outside world. We don't know for ourselves what foreign media is like, we just offer guesses.

    2) Subconciously we know our media does in fact lack integrity. Why else would we be so quick to condemn mediums we have not experienced first hand? Much like Saruman didn't trust Gandalf's offer to join the fight against Sauron. Not becuase Gandalf wasn't trustworthy, but because Saruman wasn't trustworthy. If you lack integrity, you suspect everybody does also.


    "It's amazing how much freedom people will trade for a quieter life."

    Let me tell you a story. My girlfriend goes to a coffeehouse with one of her friends and her friend's mom. An employee of this coffee house has a large amount of tatooes all over her body. After some ribbing, the friends' mother concedes, "I guess they look pretty, but it really limits what you can do," meaning, of course, that the tatooed woman could never work at Dillard's.

    This sentiment is very typical among we Americans. Yes, we do have souls, we do have an intrinsic sense of morality, and therefore we understand that the tatooed woman can follow her own paradigm. We recognize the flaws of an imagistic society, the immaturity of judging her by appearance - "but it really limits what you can do." - but we're too lazy or too scared or too rushed to do anything but concede to it. It's so much easier, much "quieter" to just kick back and accept things as they are.

    To go further, at a gathering of sorts there was this fellow who really quite pissed me off. I won't go into details, but let's just say I found him to be a loudmouth, egocentric, jerk. The next night I was at a small party and his character came up and I started going of about him, about how much of a loudmouth egocentric jerk he was and my friend, get this, replied, "Yeah, but that's just the way he is." Oh, I see. He's just a jerk-off. I didn't know. I guess he's magically exempt from being a jack-ass then.

    My Dad, in response to my sister's complaint that she had to dress up, that keeping up appaearances was stupid, said, "That's just the way the world works. It may not be right, but that's how things are." Oh, I see. The world's just a jerk-off. I didn't know...

    In America our government spoils us rotten so that we will never question its actions, lest we appear to be ingrates. Subconciously we know it does a lot of awful things, but it's just much simpler to go along with it.

    It's the most genius form of oppression ever invented.
  19. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Makes sense to me. Lull people into complacency and they won't be likely to stand against any form of tyrany...for fun, let's looks at politics: In this country we have two major political parties that are supposed to be diametrically opposed to each other. One is supposed to stand for big business and the rich (Republicans) and the other is supposed to stand for the lower classes (Democrats). Of course, neither party really cares about the middle class. As the rich get richer, the middle class gets poorer. As the lower class gets hand-outs, they become as "rich" as the Middle Class. End result: no more Middle Class. You just have the rich masters, and the poor slaves. The worst part is that everyone just keeps electing these guys expecting them to look out for their "best interests"...but, in the end both parties consist of the same people: Rich, Old White Guys only looking to keep themselves in positions of absolute power...


    "Of course, other countries do it to, but they're not as 'subtle' as us :)"
  20. DÛke Memento Mori


    The U.S. has been meddling in the Middle East for a far more important reason than oil: to slowly convert each and every soul there is into a potential customer. The thirst for oil is just a secondary side-effect of the entire situation of the Middle East. It's secondary because oil is not as important as oil-used-to-build-the-business-itself. Oil isn't the biggest deal. Reforming the area, however, is the deal. Think of the oil issue as a the cherry on top of the ice cream: it just makes building business there that much more attractive. Imagine you wanting to start business, where would you go? You perhaps would need a loan. But why take a loan when you can make tons of excuses to the customers you've already bought, like Americans and Europeans, and some of the Arabs? Sure, you could buy your customers again! Just like you erased their spirits, dignity, and vision from the beginning. So, you could actually start your business fairly easily: convince them that you're starting the business for them, i.e, "war on terrorism," "liberation of oppressed people," "general good of man," "your rights," "your dreams matter to us," "God wants you to believe," "war against evil," "war for good" etc. Once you establish these mottos - once you advertise, you then can start your business without paying much for it, since the business location (the Middle East) will fund the resources, while you gain most of the profits. Oil is the major resource here, because it's the major fund that these people have to offer.

    Finally, I must say that it's a storm of fresh air to hear someone like Rooser, who's brave enough to admit what every American in these boards feels in one form or another, yet conceals...

Share This Page