9-11 attacks utterly legal!

[My Final Heaven]

FDR was dead when the A-bomb was completted.

[Honest Abel]

He was only doing what he knew that FDR would have written in his will.

[Obsidian Tides]

er, lol?
did you see the words "foreign aid" in my post and just go from there? you ought to reread it, because i think you entirely missed the point.

also, i'm not sure what that first line is even trying to say, but i can tell you right now that countries who do not produce enough domestic oil have virtually no say in the oil market. only the Middle East does, because that's where it all is. they set the price. you may think that they should obviously raise prices if this were true, but you see, that would be foolish. Saudi Arabia is glad to sell us our oil at low prices, because they know that if it was too high, we'd start to invest in other fuels and sources of power. it's in their best interest to make sure they keep other countries happy with the prices, because it's the only resource they really have, and they have to milk every last drop.

as for Europe, you seem to completely overlook the fact that the entire continent of Africa was taken over and split into colonies for the sole purpose of producing raw materials to meet the demands of European industrialization. the only reason they eventually allowed those colonies to declare freedom was because the WW's were draining funds, and they couldn't bother with the overhead costs. however, they still have the benefit of raw materials because those countries were left in no condition to do anything except continue exporting them. this is why they are still impoverished, Third-World, and barely developing to this day.

the point is, this doesn't have nearly as much to do with morals and such as you make it sound. go take a few basic history and geography courses, it might become a little more clear.

[My Final Heaven]

Oil produced by a country with **** all econnomy is cheaper because you don't have to pay your workers much salary and you don't have to give them benefits and you don't have pay thier families when the mining rig explodes and kills them. It's more profitable to get oil from a tyranical dictatorship than it is from a democracy which cares about it's people because it's people have a say in how the country is run.

More clear? And I'm not wrong about that.

I don't honestly know how you could mis-construe my comment about foriegn aid so I'll rephrase it.

The U.S. uses much of it's foriegn aid to fund state terror in the countries it wants to keep poor. As a result, you can hardly call it 'aid', nor can you call it 'good', as in, 'all the good the U.S. does by spending all that money on foreign aid'. Is that more clear? Did you get my point now? Does it make sense? Foreign aid is a euphamism for 'ensuring the status quo of terrorist states'.

Fair enough about europe and the industrialisation and all that, but you know what? Europe stopped raping africa (That's the US's job now) and absolutely nothing bad happened to the average european's quality of life, thusly I think the example I was trying to get at was that it isn't required that one be ruthless and tyranical in order to produce results. In point of fact, I would be willing to bet that in past years the Average european income has increased more than the average american's, that they get more benefits, have better schools and oh yes, there was one more thing too, they can travel all over the world without getting killed by angry muslims too. Thats a plus. Unless of course they happen to be standing perilously close to an American. That lat point is no longer one that I can boast mind you, guilt by association, Americans a while ago started sewing canadian flags to themselves when they traveled and went and ruined it for the rest of us.

[Obsidian Tides]

lmao, this doesn't seem like you at all. you're making no sense while failing to realize even the most simple observations, even as they're pointed out to you. you're even blatantly ignoring the very simple oil outline i made and imposing your own, while claiming you're absolutely right? what a joke. you really need to give it a rest for a while.

[My Final Heaven]

Yes, I know how the market works. A barel is worth a certain amount and that amount is fixed by a global consortium. What you seem to fail to acknowledge is that each barrel does not have a fixed production price, and if you control the country and control it's means to produce oil and can keep those production costs very low, then you will make much more money per barrel than if you did not control the country and did not control it's means of production.

Now am I being at all clear about what I'm talking about? The U.S. pays foreign aid in order to better control the means of production, thus getting oil at bargin basement prices and turning around and selling it to thier own population and a huge profit margin, then using the taxes from those gas sales to perpetuate the system.

[Obsidian Tides]

this is what i mean, as well as others who said the same in here; you're just ranting. i never even said anything specific about any of the topics in that last post, yet you continue on, oblivious to reason or discussion. if you want to bitch about things without consequence, i believe there's another section of the forum dedicated to that.

[My Final Heaven]

The implication of your statment was such that my understanding of how the oil market worked was in error. It is not. Not so greviously in error that I can't see that when you absolutely control the means of production, your profits go through the roof.

What was not implied but state was that you said I was 'ignoring all the good the U.S. does for the world, like providing billions in foreign aid' to which my above replies pointed out that infact, that is more accurately the evil for which the U.S. is responsible and not the good.

Yes, this thread started out as ranting with intent to outrage because it's outrageous that this kind of **** has been going on so long and outrageous that it's continued under the selectively blind eye of the american public which, if not directly responsible for it lifts not so much as a finger to stop it.

[ECCENTRICHOCOBO]

I really have nothing to contribute to what's currently being discussed, but I would like to point out that the only people the American citizens actually elect are the members of the House of Representatives. We don't even get to put the entire Congress into office!

As far as voting for the president and whatnot, I know you know about the electoral college and all that. So we don't directly elect our main leader (otherwise it would have been Gore in 2000), either. In fact, we don't even know who the electors are! All I know about it is that each state has as many electors as it sends representatives to the House. So the argument that the U.S. citizens had it coming because of the people we elect simply doesn't hold water.

The actions which were listed in your first post were all presidential initiatives and never approved by Congress (which, may I remind you, we only directly elect half of). Even still, the Senate is the half that can counter the president...and we didn't even put them in office.

And citizens protest their own government all the time; we try to impeach our presidents (as has been attempted with Bush); and individuals send pleas, comments, petitions, letters and other such things to Representatives or Congressmen trying to persuade them to do something to keep the Executive Branch in check. That's the only thing we as citizens can legitimately do short of revolution. The government is designed so that people get support in Congress, and hope to influence the president in that way. Average citizens have no direct contact with the people in the Executive Branch. The system itself--as an idea--is fine...it's the corrupt leaders who manipulate it that makes it bad.

But the bit about the protests, petitions and impeachment is what I really want to stress...Americans do try to stop things they see as unjust. It is VERY hard to get anything accomplished, since we have to go through so many people to affect the Executive.

[The Man]

We’ve elected senators directly since the mid-19th century thanks to a constitutional amendment, but other than that I agree with you, Kirstin

[My Final Heaven]

But, what would you say to the assertion that those who fund terrorist acts are as culpable for the terrorist acts commited as those who undertake them? (Doesn't that sound like Bush Jargon? Oh I do believe it is? Except I didn't go YeHAW when I said it of course...)

[The Man]

I think even the bush administration would agree with that given the way they treat muslim charities. Except they have this odd double standard that any terrorist acts funded by the u.s. government don’t count as terrorist acts. I wonder why that could be.

[ECCENTRICHOCOBO]

You are most correct, Aaron. Forgive me, everyone xD

[My Final Heaven]

So then, funders of terrorists (american tax payers) are as terrorists themselves, and as such legitimate targets for attack on the justification of... (Let me grab one of my old quotes here)


"Violence against the perpatrators of repeat violence is justified as an act of self defense." -Anthony Lewis, New york times legal analist, 1986.


The U.S. sponsors terrorism, the tax payers pay the government (However unwittingly and impotent to the contrary)... Is there a discontinuity in my logic here? American tax payers are a legitimate military target under UN laws.

Now for the Taxpayers unable to change the course of thier own government. That's totally true, in the same manner that a missile is unable to change it's own trajectory, it's still wrong if it blows up a bus full of children instead of a bus full of explosives is it not? Doesn't matter who fired the missle, or why, the fact is, somebody ****ed up and you wouldn't fault someone on the ground from shooting down a plane carrying another missile like it in the future now would you?

[The Man]

By applying the U.S. government’s logic to its own people, then yes, the people of America are all supporters of terrorism. But the U.S. government’s logic is a bunch of self-serving pseudo-intellectual horse****, so we should all disregard it

As for me, I’d kind of like to see a full-fledged revolution against the American government, from the ground up. Unfortunately Americans are too apathetic to carry one out, and even if they weren’t, the government has so much weaponry and machinery and **** that it’d be a one-sided slaughter. This was exactly what the Founding Fathers feared against when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution; if the government ever became so powerful that there was no way for the people to overthrow it, then it could descend into out-and-out tyranny. Some will argue that this is what has already happened; others will argue that anyone who argues that must be ****ing crazy. But whatever. The point is that James Madison must be rolling in his grave, given the state of national “defense” today.

edit: ...But also, of course, given the mentality of the average American, I’d probably shudder to see what kind of bat**** insane theocracy they’d replace our current government with. In other words, the country’s ****ed either way and my dream of a libertarian socialist revolution will never happen here, so I should stop dreaming and go [s]make sexy time with Kirstin[/s] to bed [s]with Kirstin[/s]. And preferably get laid sometime within the next six months as well

[My Final Heaven]

Well, revolution would not be totally pointless, if it were done right. I always think of what Ghandi acomplished using weakness as his only weapon. I mean, he took down the british government without so much as a pointed stick. I'm not for a second suggesting the same thing could work here, it worked because it effectively shut down huge portions of the british textile industry, but a way exsists my friend, granted it won't look like an ordinary revolution. If, for instance, enough people could be convinced to stop using cars, planes and generally seeking ways to divorce themselves, in small ways, from government control, then revolution could be achieved, because large buisnesses would crumble. You'd be left with anarchy of course and many many years of hardship before things recovered and only then might you be able to start new.

[The Man]

That’s a fair point, and it is one of the few hopes I have left, really. Although it is a preposterously slim hope, but really, it’s more realistic than anything else I can think of right now.

Anyway, to bed with me, as the sort of rambling displayed in my edit to my previous post is a clear sign of sleep deprivation and/or insanity.

[YopY]

(only read the first post, btw)

Saying the US is randomly attacking countries because they fear that raw materials will rise in price is, in my opinion, retarded. I mean, you can buy at least a ton of sugar from a well-developed country for the price of a single bomb or a soldier's monthly wage. The US spent hundreds of billions of dollars on war, weapons development, international intelligence, and stuff like that. The amount of money they save from being able to keep importing raw goods from abroad seems highly unlikely to surpass their military expenses, in my opinion. I'd say bring in some numbers, prognoses, military expenses, and compare those with each other. As in: Is the income of Iraqi oil towards the US more then the cost of 100.000+ soldiers, equipment, high-tech fighter jets, training, transport, etcetera? (And that's the US only btw). If there's finally peace in any form in Iraq, how many years will it take until the US gets a profit from 'freeing' Iraq?

I severely doubt that only raw materials or finances are the only motivation the US has to go to war with Iraq. If you ask me, they'd be better off concentrating the enormous amounts of cash they spend on their military force on national development, proper / cheaper health care, new jobs, fight poverty, and all that other stuff.

[My Final Heaven]

You're right, it is retarted, but it has to be the reason, because how on earth could anyone call Cuba, Guatemala or any of the others I mentioned a legitimate national security threat?

But thing thing is, they don't actually use the U.S. military, they pay terrorists to fight the wars for them. (Like they funded Al Queada in Afgahnistan to fight the Russians. Yeah, the U.S. made Bin Laden, cept they liked him when he was a freedom fighter)

As you said, the U.S.'s money would be much better spent on social programs than on thier military supremacy of the world, so why then would they persist in this manner if thier goal was not simply to keep thier own richest 1% of the population rich and everybody else in the world poor as muck? In my oppinion, it's a lesser evil that they are greedy than it is that they actually believe that thier actions are somehow for the greater good, that the uncivilized latin american needs a 'strong hand' to lead them as they are too uncivilised to rule themselves responisbly and obviously need U.S. intervention. Saying the U.S. administration is a bunch of greedy sons of bitches is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[ECCENTRICHOCOBO]

Originally Posted by YopY

I severely doubt that only raw materials or finances are the only motivation the US has to go to war with Iraq. If you ask me, they'd be better off concentrating the enormous amounts of cash they spend on their military force on national development, proper / cheaper health care, new jobs, fight poverty, and all that other stuff.

Heh. I'm with you there! I can think of approximately eleventy billion other things to spend $50 Billion a month on other than defense and military