Yeah, getting little things like "facts" wrong tends to be a common theme amongst those who take pleasure in blaming the US for everything.
"Operation Ajax, 1953. It's not exactly a secret or anything, however they don't teach it in school and I don't think the movie is out yet. This is one of the cornerstones of why some islamists have issues with the USA."
I guess both you and "some islamists" missed this bit:
The idea of overthrowing Mossadegh was conceived by the British.
The UK came up with the plan and pursued it, the US agreed to assist. So why, pray tell, is the US the country being blamed?
Ofcourse, the revisionist historians who see this as some blatant power-grab, or the removal of a "democratic" regime for political purposes, all fail to acknowledge the realities of that time period. 1953. The early stages of the cold war. The US, as well as many other nations, had just finished fighting communist forces in Korea, spending billions of dollars, and losing thousands of soldiers. Back then Global Communism under a totalitarian USSR was much more threatening and terrifying than the prospect of a Global Islamist Caliphate is today. These revisionist stories make it seem as if Eisenhower just woke up one morening and said "Hey, you know what would be fun? If we started a revolution in Iran!", when in fact it was seen as a neccesary step in the fight for the survival of our very way of life. A revolution in an Iran increasingly leaning towards communism (and sharing a border with the USSR) was a logical way to avoid more intense warfare later on. And, as history shows, NATO nations won the Cold War without having to fight much. Was the revolution in Iran neccesary? Maybe, maybe not. Making such claims today though is rather like sitting back and saying that the D-day invasion should have never taken place. It's one part of a larger war, and a war that our side won.
"Iran is making no such threat. We are the ones talking of them building nukes in five years, not them."
Pull your head out of the sand please, it's hard to hear or see anything while your eyes and ears are covered.
As for the rest of your nonsense, the time for diplomacy in Iraq came and passed in the 1990's. Sadam survived one war, years of inspections and negotiations, followed by years of sanctions. Negotiating any more at that point was sheer lunacy. The UN resolutions pre-2003-invasion, as well as the US demands, were an ultimatum, NOT a diplomatic solution. They were quite clear on that. "Sadam WILL do the following, or we'll come in and finish the job we started in 1991".
And you can bet your ass PNAC's had it's crosshairs on Iran for a while. Right now we're at the same stage with Iran that we were with Germany in 1938. Democrats are waiving their flags yelling "We have peace in our time", while the Republicans grit their teeth and prepare for the worst. I'm not advocating an immediate invasion, but if we follow YOUR sage advice, we'll have another massive war on our hands within the decade. We'll also have a smoking crater where Israel used to be, and people like you feining shock. "How could we EVER have seen it coming??". Luckily, the US seems to be capable of electing intelligent individuals, instead of the "intelectuals" much preferd by other countries.
Not my country. Why the hell do you bigots always assume anyone who doesn't criticize the US every 5 minutes must be an American? No, not all of us are as openly hateful as you are. We don't need to make fun of "rednecks" or "Bushitler" to make us feel better about ourselves. There are actually people around the world who (*gasp*) LIKE the US.
And yes, I have visited other countries, and yes, I do speak other languages. As have many of my American friends. Yet another example of your ignorance at work. The old "he speaks well about the US so he must be American and therefore knows nothing about the rest fo the world" theory. Making such assumptions is fine, but "French surrenders jokes" are verboten, eh? How 'bout you go fist yourself.
"The US has already forced a regime change in Iran in the early '60s"
Whatever you're smoking, pass some this way.
The US may have helped back a popular revolution. They certainly did NOT engineer and force through an unwanted regime change. The only ones making that claim are the same clown who think the moon landing was faked. If that's the category you fall into, let me know and I'll avoid responding to you in the future.
"Fears of the US trying again have intensified since Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and started sabre-rattling at Iraq's neighbours."
Good! That's rather the idea. Unfortiunately, I don't think that's truly the way it is. Threatening to build nuclear weapons in 5 years isn't a normal reaction from those who are afraid of an imminent threat. If your cute little theory were correct, Iran would be doing everything possible to placate the US, while cunducting nuclear research in outmost secrecy. So it looks like another war might be neccesary after all. You figured they'd have learned from Iraq's example, but common sense seems to be in short supply in the middle east.
Gee there's a good idea. "liberate" the US and then watch North Korea, China, and Iran fight over how to devide the planet.
I'm being sarcastic obviously, but in all seriousness, the main thing keeping major warfare at bay is the fact that any serious contenders know that the US/NATO will use it's military to counter any violent expansion. If the US collapsed tomorrow, how long do you think it would be untill certain countries realized "....wait a minute...we could WALK to europe from here...".
We're the only species on this planet ever to develop art and science, the only species capable of understanding something about their existance and the nature of the universe, hell the only species to be able to look beyond day-to-day survival, and plan for something greater....and you think we "suck".
The US is also the only nation where people seem to think they need to set some sort of example for the world. Every other country does pretty much whatever the hell they please, secure in the knowledge that their citizens are too focused on US politics to say much about the conduct of their own politicians.
On the other hand, Iran certainly is a "do as we do" country. They'd like nothing better than to turn the rest of us into "devout muslims". Then we can all "do" the same things. No thanks, I'll take "Amerikkkan Fachism" over the benevolence of Iran any day.
So what you're saying is we'll all be happy if we embrace cultures which practice ritualistic suicide.
Yeeeahhh....
Or we could all just become quakers. The old ways were so much more enlightened and fulfilling, right?
You have no idea just how foolish these nostalagic dreams truly are. Cultures evolve. We can no more go back to that way of life than we could grow back our tails return to wandering around the African plains.
I don't quite get the whole nihilistic "humanity sucks, boo hoo hoo" thing. If that's what you really believe, that we're all so terrible, go eat a gun -- you won't be much missed.
The problem is, what they're really saying is "humanity sucks, except for me".
No, just the vast majority. And not all mil postings are the same, but many are. It's just (in my opinion) that anyone who's unhappy doing IT for the military will be any happier doing it civvie side.
I worked in the civilian sector BEFORE I joined the military. Comparing civs to military is like comparing a rusted out steamboat to a brand new aircraft carrier. Now I've got CEO's coming in to observe us, and marveling at such things as the efficiency of our O-groups. If you're unhappy doing IT or the mil, you'll hate the civ industry even more.
Their motives were never in question. The motives of most criminals are usualy quite obvious. The perplexing thing in this case would be why Best Buy doesn't have safegaurds in place to prevent this sort of thing. And I certainly hope that, in your attempts at sarcasm, you weren't implying that making a low-wage somehow excuses criminal behaviour.
We weren't discussing theater prices, but ok, let's go with that one.
If theater chains set pricing independantly, why do nearly all movie theaters charge the same price? It may not be a monopoly, but the prices certainly are fixed artificialy. I wouldn't be surprised if they were set artificialy low - it discourages private individuals from trying to compete.
Home video market? Rarely will you find a DVD for below $20. The only ones going for that price are
a) movies nobody wants
or
b) movies that are so old that even the DVD's are covered in dust
New releases are always overpriced. Besides which, even $10 is unreasonably high for a DVD considering the manufacturing costs. It's a cost I'm personaly willing to pay, but it is still overpriced considering the cost of production and the potential market.
And if you're a fan of indie films, I can certainly understand your disconnect with reality.
That's not what they claim though. From their website:
Our technology centers on the ability to generate a unique type of hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture (a "unique gas", which we call "Aquygen(TM)" gas) on demand from a lightweight, compact machine that uses the water electrolysis process as its underlying technology basis.
This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of up to 10,000 F, the temperature of our Sun's surface, which is currently the limits of our ability to measure.
Which sounds like a load of hooey to me, but maybe someone with a better understanding of chemistry would be more qualified to comment.
Yes. As long as the movie companies maintain a monopoly on the industry, and continue to set prices artificialy high, I'll give props to anyone who rips them off.
heh, yeah, that's why the Euro started off being $2.00 US, and is now down to $1.27 US. Yep, the supremacy of the Euro is just around the corner./SARCASM
63% of people saying "yeah, it doesn't really bug me, I guess..." doesn't exactly qualify as "thunderous applause". Nor does the recording of telephone numbers really qualify as the death of liberty, or even the less of liberty. Or are you saying that, for you, through some mysterious twist in normal logic, it's ok for telephone companies to maintain records of your calls, but it's bad for the government to have those same records? Either they're both a "loss of privacy", or neither is. In which case, you haven't had any privacy in that respect since you first got a telephone.
The quote is a very good one though. If you look at some of the draconian new laws implemented in the EU, and the enthusiasm with which they were received, you'll see a much better example of liberty dying to thunderous applause.
Sounds like you've got it planned out pretty good. The key word in the first paragraph though is "defencible". Small communities cannot defend themselves against large nations. Implementing something like this on a small scale only works so long as it's being done in a free nation, which maintains a powerfull military. As soon as you lose that protection, someone's going to come by and show you how THEY think you should live.
And I don't quite get what basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of association have to do with climate. Hot or cold, dry or wet, the climate isn't going to change my ability to speak, nor should it. And, ofcourse, cultures which do not respect basic freedoms not only treat their own people in an inhumane manner, but are much more likely to come over and disturb your utopian society too. If the villiage next to yours beleives it's allright to kidnap and rape your daughter, I'm sure you won't just stand idly by and say "well, they have to define their own rights...".
Other than that, I find myself actually being quite attracted to your ideas. But I still think your monicker is totaly unsuitable:) There's verry little that's Marxist about you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, getting little things like "facts" wrong tends to be a common theme amongst those who take pleasure in blaming the US for everything.
"Operation Ajax, 1953. It's not exactly a secret or anything, however they don't teach it in school and I don't think the movie is out yet. This is one of the cornerstones of why some islamists have issues with the USA."
I guess both you and "some islamists" missed this bit: The UK came up with the plan and pursued it, the US agreed to assist. So why, pray tell, is the US the country being blamed?
Ofcourse, the revisionist historians who see this as some blatant power-grab, or the removal of a "democratic" regime for political purposes, all fail to acknowledge the realities of that time period. 1953. The early stages of the cold war. The US, as well as many other nations, had just finished fighting communist forces in Korea, spending billions of dollars, and losing thousands of soldiers. Back then Global Communism under a totalitarian USSR was much more threatening and terrifying than the prospect of a Global Islamist Caliphate is today. These revisionist stories make it seem as if Eisenhower just woke up one morening and said "Hey, you know what would be fun? If we started a revolution in Iran!", when in fact it was seen as a neccesary step in the fight for the survival of our very way of life. A revolution in an Iran increasingly leaning towards communism (and sharing a border with the USSR) was a logical way to avoid more intense warfare later on. And, as history shows, NATO nations won the Cold War without having to fight much. Was the revolution in Iran neccesary? Maybe, maybe not. Making such claims today though is rather like sitting back and saying that the D-day invasion should have never taken place. It's one part of a larger war, and a war that our side won.
"Iran is making no such threat. We are the ones talking of them building nukes in five years, not them."
Pull your head out of the sand please, it's hard to hear or see anything while your eyes and ears are covered.
As for the rest of your nonsense, the time for diplomacy in Iraq came and passed in the 1990's. Sadam survived one war, years of inspections and negotiations, followed by years of sanctions. Negotiating any more at that point was sheer lunacy. The UN resolutions pre-2003-invasion, as well as the US demands, were an ultimatum, NOT a diplomatic solution. They were quite clear on that. "Sadam WILL do the following, or we'll come in and finish the job we started in 1991".
And you can bet your ass PNAC's had it's crosshairs on Iran for a while. Right now we're at the same stage with Iran that we were with Germany in 1938. Democrats are waiving their flags yelling "We have peace in our time", while the Republicans grit their teeth and prepare for the worst. I'm not advocating an immediate invasion, but if we follow YOUR sage advice, we'll have another massive war on our hands within the decade. We'll also have a smoking crater where Israel used to be, and people like you feining shock. "How could we EVER have seen it coming??". Luckily, the US seems to be capable of electing intelligent individuals, instead of the "intelectuals" much preferd by other countries.
Not my country. Why the hell do you bigots always assume anyone who doesn't criticize the US every 5 minutes must be an American? No, not all of us are as openly hateful as you are. We don't need to make fun of "rednecks" or "Bushitler" to make us feel better about ourselves. There are actually people around the world who (*gasp*) LIKE the US.
And yes, I have visited other countries, and yes, I do speak other languages. As have many of my American friends. Yet another example of your ignorance at work. The old "he speaks well about the US so he must be American and therefore knows nothing about the rest fo the world" theory. Making such assumptions is fine, but "French surrenders jokes" are verboten, eh? How 'bout you go fist yourself.
"The US has already forced a regime change in Iran in the early '60s"
Whatever you're smoking, pass some this way.
The US may have helped back a popular revolution. They certainly did NOT engineer and force through an unwanted regime change. The only ones making that claim are the same clown who think the moon landing was faked. If that's the category you fall into, let me know and I'll avoid responding to you in the future.
"Fears of the US trying again have intensified since Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and started sabre-rattling at Iraq's neighbours."
Good! That's rather the idea. Unfortiunately, I don't think that's truly the way it is. Threatening to build nuclear weapons in 5 years isn't a normal reaction from those who are afraid of an imminent threat. If your cute little theory were correct, Iran would be doing everything possible to placate the US, while cunducting nuclear research in outmost secrecy. So it looks like another war might be neccesary after all. You figured they'd have learned from Iraq's example, but common sense seems to be in short supply in the middle east.
Gee there's a good idea. "liberate" the US and then watch North Korea, China, and Iran fight over how to devide the planet. I'm being sarcastic obviously, but in all seriousness, the main thing keeping major warfare at bay is the fact that any serious contenders know that the US/NATO will use it's military to counter any violent expansion. If the US collapsed tomorrow, how long do you think it would be untill certain countries realized "....wait a minute...we could WALK to europe from here...".
We're the only species on this planet ever to develop art and science, the only species capable of understanding something about their existance and the nature of the universe, hell the only species to be able to look beyond day-to-day survival, and plan for something greater....and you think we "suck".
Well.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
The US is also the only nation where people seem to think they need to set some sort of example for the world. Every other country does pretty much whatever the hell they please, secure in the knowledge that their citizens are too focused on US politics to say much about the conduct of their own politicians.
On the other hand, Iran certainly is a "do as we do" country. They'd like nothing better than to turn the rest of us into "devout muslims". Then we can all "do" the same things. No thanks, I'll take "Amerikkkan Fachism" over the benevolence of Iran any day.
You may want to check this post before you start acting like a bigot.
Well, for one, they'd end up a lot poorer than before they started dumping them. That's why it's in their interest NOT to dump US currency.
So what you're saying is we'll all be happy if we embrace cultures which practice ritualistic suicide.
Yeeeahhh....
Or we could all just become quakers. The old ways were so much more enlightened and fulfilling, right?
You have no idea just how foolish these nostalagic dreams truly are. Cultures evolve. We can no more go back to that way of life than we could grow back our tails return to wandering around the African plains.
I don't quite get the whole nihilistic "humanity sucks, boo hoo hoo" thing. If that's what you really believe, that we're all so terrible, go eat a gun -- you won't be much missed.
The problem is, what they're really saying is "humanity sucks, except for me".
No, just the vast majority. And not all mil postings are the same, but many are. It's just (in my opinion) that anyone who's unhappy doing IT for the military will be any happier doing it civvie side.
I worked in the civilian sector BEFORE I joined the military. Comparing civs to military is like comparing a rusted out steamboat to a brand new aircraft carrier. Now I've got CEO's coming in to observe us, and marveling at such things as the efficiency of our O-groups. If you're unhappy doing IT or the mil, you'll hate the civ industry even more.
Their motives were never in question. The motives of most criminals are usualy quite obvious. The perplexing thing in this case would be why Best Buy doesn't have safegaurds in place to prevent this sort of thing. And I certainly hope that, in your attempts at sarcasm, you weren't implying that making a low-wage somehow excuses criminal behaviour.
Ah. Yes. Ofcourse. Let me guess, it's all part of a Zionist conspiracy, right?
We weren't discussing theater prices, but ok, let's go with that one. If theater chains set pricing independantly, why do nearly all movie theaters charge the same price? It may not be a monopoly, but the prices certainly are fixed artificialy. I wouldn't be surprised if they were set artificialy low - it discourages private individuals from trying to compete. Home video market? Rarely will you find a DVD for below $20. The only ones going for that price are a) movies nobody wants or b) movies that are so old that even the DVD's are covered in dust New releases are always overpriced. Besides which, even $10 is unreasonably high for a DVD considering the manufacturing costs. It's a cost I'm personaly willing to pay, but it is still overpriced considering the cost of production and the potential market. And if you're a fan of indie films, I can certainly understand your disconnect with reality.
Well thank you Dr. Semantics. Got anything relevant to add?
You must have had one sad, empty childhood....
Yes. As long as the movie companies maintain a monopoly on the industry, and continue to set prices artificialy high, I'll give props to anyone who rips them off.
Blind nationality? Interesting how Europeans assume that anyone who disagrees with them is American. For the record, I'm not.
Whoops. Guess I got my numbers wrong. Thanks to all 7 of you for pointing it out :)
heh, yeah, that's why the Euro started off being $2.00 US, and is now down to $1.27 US. Yep, the supremacy of the Euro is just around the corner. /SARCASM
63% of people saying "yeah, it doesn't really bug me, I guess..." doesn't exactly qualify as "thunderous applause". Nor does the recording of telephone numbers really qualify as the death of liberty, or even the less of liberty. Or are you saying that, for you, through some mysterious twist in normal logic, it's ok for telephone companies to maintain records of your calls, but it's bad for the government to have those same records? Either they're both a "loss of privacy", or neither is. In which case, you haven't had any privacy in that respect since you first got a telephone.
The quote is a very good one though. If you look at some of the draconian new laws implemented in the EU, and the enthusiasm with which they were received, you'll see a much better example of liberty dying to thunderous applause.
Sounds like you've got it planned out pretty good. The key word in the first paragraph though is "defencible". Small communities cannot defend themselves against large nations. Implementing something like this on a small scale only works so long as it's being done in a free nation, which maintains a powerfull military. As soon as you lose that protection, someone's going to come by and show you how THEY think you should live.
:) There's verry little that's Marxist about you.
And I don't quite get what basic freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom of association have to do with climate. Hot or cold, dry or wet, the climate isn't going to change my ability to speak, nor should it. And, ofcourse, cultures which do not respect basic freedoms not only treat their own people in an inhumane manner, but are much more likely to come over and disturb your utopian society too. If the villiage next to yours beleives it's allright to kidnap and rape your daughter, I'm sure you won't just stand idly by and say "well, they have to define their own rights...".
Other than that, I find myself actually being quite attracted to your ideas. But I still think your monicker is totaly unsuitable
But isn't there a "-1 Gormless"?