Wow, nice little rant, but way off base. You might believe that, but there are plenty of others that don't. And in this country, everyone's opionion counts, except when deciding elections.
Anyway, just because we have money and manpower does NOT mean that we should be going around invading every country and putting things 'right' the way we see fit. That view is an old altruistic notion that does not fit in today's world, considering the corrupt and self-interested nature of our current administration.
If you don't believe THAT, then let me ask you this: Why is it that we've only invaded a couple of countries to remove regimes that we didn't like? There are countries around the world with worse dictatorships that commit much worse crimes against their people. I'll go ahead and answer it for you: It's because these other countries are of no interest to us, because they have nothing to offer our greedy and imperialistic administration.
While I think that your idea of helping our fellow man, and sharing the wealth is a great and noble thing, the way that an egotistical, bloated, and corrupt government goes about it is not helping anyone. Just look at Iraq. Our troops don't want to be there. Over 50% of Americans don't want us to be there. Iraqis don't want us to be there. What are we doing? Breeding the kind of America-hating sentiment that will get us a new generation of terrorists, and for good reason as well. We killed their brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. Meanwhile getting our own people killed. And for what? So they can hate us more, and yet Bush can feel all warm and fuzzy that he completed his daddy's work, and get control of an area that will serve our economic best interests. But not really OUR best interests, more like the best interests of huge corporations like Halliburton that control the federal government. Meanwhile Bush gives the finger to the UN and the rest of the world and just rides his big horse where ever the hell he pleases. As you say, we are the de facto powerhouse of money and power, so who the hell is going to stop it? I saw a quote somewhere that summed up how government in this country has changed: Bush Sr. went to war with Iraq to show the world that you can't just unilaterally invade another country. Bush Jr. went to war to prove that you could.
Oh, and BTW, that little "if you don't like it, you can GET OUT" sentiment at the end of your post is exactly why people like myself won't take you seriously. See, because it's an ignorant thing to say. I might as well end my post with "this is my view, and if you don't like it, you can GET OUT." Just as valid as your point.
The best part about this Cop Killer thing by Ice-T is that Ice-T plays a cop on some TV show. Last week I was flipping channels and saw that his character got shot in the chest. I couldn't help but start rappin' some cop killa...
Immortal means: infinite length of life. There could have been thousands of millions of billions of years between the command and the act. But it *would* have happened eventually, because in infinity, all possible things happen. It was *inevitable* that they eat the fruit, it was only a matter of time.
Whoa there... You're trying to use "scientific" number-theory type arguments to assert that imaginary characters would inevitably commit an act. It should read this way: "It was *inevitable* that they eat the fruit, because Stanley Ancientguy, the writer of that portion of the Bible, would have inevitably written that part had he gone on writing indefinitely."
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, nice little rant, but way off base. You might believe that, but there are plenty of others that don't. And in this country, everyone's opionion counts, except when deciding elections.
Anyway, just because we have money and manpower does NOT mean that we should be going around invading every country and putting things 'right' the way we see fit. That view is an old altruistic notion that does not fit in today's world, considering the corrupt and self-interested nature of our current administration.
If you don't believe THAT, then let me ask you this: Why is it that we've only invaded a couple of countries to remove regimes that we didn't like? There are countries around the world with worse dictatorships that commit much worse crimes against their people. I'll go ahead and answer it for you: It's because these other countries are of no interest to us, because they have nothing to offer our greedy and imperialistic administration.
While I think that your idea of helping our fellow man, and sharing the wealth is a great and noble thing, the way that an egotistical, bloated, and corrupt government goes about it is not helping anyone. Just look at Iraq. Our troops don't want to be there. Over 50% of Americans don't want us to be there. Iraqis don't want us to be there. What are we doing? Breeding the kind of America-hating sentiment that will get us a new generation of terrorists, and for good reason as well. We killed their brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. Meanwhile getting our own people killed. And for what? So they can hate us more, and yet Bush can feel all warm and fuzzy that he completed his daddy's work, and get control of an area that will serve our economic best interests. But not really OUR best interests, more like the best interests of huge corporations like Halliburton that control the federal government. Meanwhile Bush gives the finger to the UN and the rest of the world and just rides his big horse where ever the hell he pleases. As you say, we are the de facto powerhouse of money and power, so who the hell is going to stop it? I saw a quote somewhere that summed up how government in this country has changed: Bush Sr. went to war with Iraq to show the world that you can't just unilaterally invade another country. Bush Jr. went to war to prove that you could.
Oh, and BTW, that little "if you don't like it, you can GET OUT" sentiment at the end of your post is exactly why people like myself won't take you seriously. See, because it's an ignorant thing to say. I might as well end my post with "this is my view, and if you don't like it, you can GET OUT." Just as valid as your point.
The best part about this Cop Killer thing by Ice-T is that Ice-T plays a cop on some TV show. Last week I was flipping channels and saw that his character got shot in the chest. I couldn't help but start rappin' some cop killa...
Immortal means: infinite length of life. There could have been thousands of millions of billions of years between the command and the act. But it *would* have happened eventually, because in infinity, all possible things happen. It was *inevitable* that they eat the fruit, it was only a matter of time.
Whoa there... You're trying to use "scientific" number-theory type arguments to assert that imaginary characters would inevitably commit an act. It should read this way: "It was *inevitable* that they eat the fruit, because Stanley Ancientguy, the writer of that portion of the Bible, would have inevitably written that part had he gone on writing indefinitely."