Has anyone else noticed the complete pointlessness of this statement? EVERY group says it, from the Americans to Al Queda. Even the claim itself is nonsensical - complete freedom is impossible, and hell, undesirable. The Americans, as I can see, are fighting for a form of global economic freedom, the freedom of exploitation. Al Queda for religious freedom - the right to inflict your religion on others...

"Freedom" can be pulled into any cause as a slogan - but then the supporters of it's group call it's enemies "enemies of freedom", as do the others...

Cosmo calls Socialists facsists, we often call Republicans facsists..

That's just it Joey, it's all about propaganda. EVERYBODY uses it nowadays to make themselves look better and to make their critics/opponents look worse. Needless to say, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle...

Its all about perspective. Anything can be justified for a "noble cause".

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
The Americans, as I can see, are fighting for a form of global economic freedom, the freedom of exploitation.

[

Hmmmmm, I was under the impression that the US was fighting to rid the world of terrorism.... and therefore eliminate the possibility of Sept 11 being repeated (or at least make it known that it will not be tolerated).

Originally posted by 92Notch


Hmmmmm, I was under the impression that the US was fighting to rid the world of terrorism.... and therefore eliminate the possibility of Sept 11 being repeated (or at least make it known that it will not be tolerated).

Many people such as Joey do not see it like that. They want to look at it as arrogant Amerikan's flexing thier technological and military might by picking on a third world, under-developed country. This perception is wide spread among people outside of the US. They seem to overlook the fact that WE did not draw first blood. When that fact is pointed out, they then throw in the ever popular foriegn policy issues.

It was not our foreign policy that caused this. Hell, the US gave a boatload of money to Afganistan this year to aid the country. What did it get us? A couple of jumbo jet/missles slamming into the WTC. The US gives more aid to other countries than any other nation or organization in the world. If our foreign policy is that bad, I say ****'em all. Pull all of our people out, bring back all of the military, maintain relationship with our friendly nations and ignore the reat of the world. Then the rest of the world will see just how much the US does contribute to the global economy and stability.

Amen

Originally posted by Brian


If our foreign policy is that bad, I say ****'em all. Pull all of our people out, bring back all of the military, maintain relationship with our friendly nations and ignore the reat of the world. Then the rest of the world will see just how much the US does contribute to the global economy and stability.

This is exactly what needs to happen. When was the last time foreign terrorists burned a Canadian flag? The US (more specifically the WTC and Pentagon) was not targetted randomly. Not surprisingly though a non interventionist foreign policy is counter productive to the agendas of the oil companies, "defense" industry, and the politicians they support. It would be worth bearing in mind that this is the platform which has ALWAYS been espoused by the Libertarian Party USA, something to keep in mind at the polls next year.

Originally posted by 92Notch


Hmmmmm, I was under the impression that the US was fighting to rid the world of terrorism.... and therefore eliminate the possibility of Sept 11 being repeated (or at least make it known that it will not be tolerated).

That would make sense in this particular case, however America's support of Israel, harbouring of Cuban teerrorists, assault of Columbia and so on are not so. I was referring to your foreign policy in general.

Originally posted by Brian
Many people such as Joey do not see it like that. They want to look at it as arrogant Amerikan's flexing thier technological and military might by picking on a third world, under-developed country. This perception is wide spread among people outside of the US. They seem to overlook the fact that WE did not draw first blood. When that fact is pointed out, they then throw in the ever popular foriegn policy issues.

Not draw first blood? It seems you have a short memory; their are countless things bin Laden considers first blood - support of the Shah, support of Israel, failure to assist the Muhjahadeen in rebuilding Afganistan and so on. But then, they in turn have attacked you before. This conflict has came to the 0point where the beginning is unclear. It could be traced back to 1948 and the UNSCOP, or even back further to the French and British mismanagement of the old Ottoman Empire.

Whether or not you consider yourselves responsible, or indeed, I consider you responsible, the fact remains: Osama bin Laden was motivated by your foreign policy. Whether this motivation was correct, valid or moral is debatable at best, but that is irrelevant. Your foreign policy motivated him, whether or not your foreign policy was moral.

There is a saying "you can't fight ideas with bullets", and that is the case here. War begets war. Your assault on Afganistan will create a new generation of "Fedayeen".

Originally posted by Brian
It was not our foreign policy that caused this. Hell, the US gave a boatload of money to Afganistan this year to aid the country.

Osama is not Afganistan. The people of the Middle East are rarely supoportive of their states, or cognitive of the aforementioned state's funding.

Originally posted by Brian
What did it get us? A couple of jumbo jet/missles slamming into the WTC.

Forgetting the doubts regarding ObL's guilt, and his connection to the Taliban, yes.

Originally posted by Brian
The US gives more aid to other countries than any other nation or organization in the world.

I'm afraid not. The UN target for both bi- and multi-lateral aid is 1% of a nations GDP. America gives less than 0.3%. Even New Zealand, long harried by the UN for it's lack of aid, gives .7%.

Originally posted by Brian
If our foreign policy is that bad, I say ****'em all. Pull all of our people out, bring back all of the military, maintain relationship with our friendly nations and ignore the reat of the world. Then the rest of the world will see just how much the US does contribute to the global economy and stability.

I think they would love that. You don't actually give much that the Muslim PEOPLE feel.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal


Not draw first blood? It seems you have a short memory; their are countless things bin Laden considers first blood - support of the Shah, support of Israel, failure to assist the Muhjahadeen in rebuilding Afganistan and so on. But then, they in turn have attacked you before. This conflict has came to the 0point where the beginning is unclear. It could be traced back to 1948 and the UNSCOP, or even back further to the French and British mismanagement of the old Ottoman Empire.

What the ****? You mean to tell me that what ever this coward sees as 'first blood' is justification for Sept 11 ... the killing of thousands of our ****ing CIVILIANS? .... You can trace back as far as you want, the bastards and any government supporting these bastards (the ones who attacked our CIVILIANS) deserves to be eliminated IMO



Whether or not you consider yourselves responsible, or indeed, I consider you responsible, the fact remains: Osamma bin Laden was motivated by your foreign policy. Whether this motivation was correct, valid or moral is debatable at best, but that is irrelevant. Your foreign policy motivated him, whether or not your foreign policy was moral.


How the **** do you know what motivated Bin Laden? ... If it was foreign policy ... then **** him. There are other reasons (for simplicity I'll say jealousy). The kind of person that would attack the CIVILIAN population of the worlds most powerful superpower (That's right ... that's us) should be eliminated from the gene pool anyway ... I mean come on, use some common ****ing sense.


There is a saying "you can't fight ideas with bullets", and that is the case here. War begets war. Your assault on Afganistan will create a new generation of "Fedayeen".


Who ever came up with that quote is an idiot IMO. If the US runs this the way it should then there will be no thoughts of "Fedayeen" because no one will want to catch the wrath of said superpower (**** their weak ass "Fedayeen" anyway ... bunch of pussies ... why don't the come on over and invade us, fight us like men not weak as pansies)




Osama is not Afganistan. The people of the Middle East are rarely supoportive of their states, or cognitive of the aforementioned state's funding.


Maybe you should call the FBI, it sounds like you know where the **** he is, you could make yourself a rich man.



I think they would love that. You don't actually give much that the Muslim PEOPLE feel.

Do ya think .... I think Israel would Nuke the **** out of half the countries over there ... but then again, what the **** do I know?

On I side note:
I feel that any country that attacks us should get ****ed up; any country that is allied to that country should get ****ed up. The US should protect our interests (i.e. OIL) ... they are rich because of us; they would have not been able to get to their oil without out 'investment' into the region. ON second thought Osamma should be over here sucking our dick in joy, after all he is a rich man because of the US ..... **** him, and **** anyone who sympathizes with those ungrateful *******s.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal


Not draw first blood? It seems you have a short memory; their are countless things bin Laden considers first blood - support of the Shah, support of Israel, failure to assist the Muhjahadeen in rebuilding Afganistan and so on. But then, they in turn have attacked you before. This conflict has came to the 0point where the beginning is unclear. It could be traced back to 1948 and the UNSCOP, or even back further to the French and British mismanagement of the old Ottoman Empire.

Then wht not attack the UN as a whole? Instead, he targeted the US. Not the British or the French. The US.


Originally posted by JoeyNormal
Whether or not you consider yourselves responsible, or indeed, I consider you responsible, the fact remains: Osama bin Laden was motivated by your foreign policy. Whether this motivation was correct, valid or moral is debatable at best, but that is irrelevant. Your foreign policy motivated him, whether or not your foreign policy was moral.

He was motivated, in his own words, by the stationing of a US military force IN Saudi. The force the Saudi government request and approved durind and after the Gulf War. That IS his sole gripe. Even Mubarik said the whole Palestinian issue has NEVER been mentioned before his first taped interview.



Originally posted by JoeyNormal
There is a saying "you can't fight ideas with bullets", and that is the case here. War begets war. Your assault on Afganistan will create a new generation of "Fedayeen".

I'll agree with this. But, you use a bigger force to FIGHT force.


Originally posted by JoeyNormal
Osama is not Afganistan. The people of the Middle East are rarely supoportive of their states, or cognitive of the aforementioned state's funding.


No kidding. However, this whole war could have been averted by turning bin Hidin over. Most of the rest of the world, even most Muslim countries that have seen the evidence agree that this should have been done. What did the ruling Afgan party do? Said come and take him if you can...



Originally posted by JoeyNormal
Forgetting the doubts regarding ObL's guilt, and his connection to the Taliban, yes.


MOST people do not doubt his guilt. Only those with axes to grind against the US.



Originally posted by JoeyNormal
I'm afraid not. The UN target for both bi- and multi-lateral aid is 1% of a nations GDP. America gives less than 0.3%. Even New Zealand, long harried by the UN for it's lack of aid, gives .7%.


And what does that come up to in dollar amounts? We gave away the following this years I believe (I don't have time to look up exact figures right now):

Israel : $30 bil
Afgan : $>13 bil
Russia : >$25 bil

The list goes on. NO OTHER NATION GIVES AWAY THE AMOUNT OF FORIEGN AID THE US DOES PER YEAR.


Originally posted by JoeyNormal
I think they would love that. You don't actually give much that the Muslim PEOPLE feel.

Only because we cannot dictate where the money goes when it is handed over.

You know, if you or others dont like this country for whatever reason (and I honestly don't know your ideals, but I have a feeling of what they are), fine, I can live with that. I have no wish for anything bad to happen to anyone. However, don't go looking for reasons to hate. That is more counter productive than any other activity.

Palestinians are taught from elementary school level to hate America for our part in getting Israel some land in 1948. Not the UN as a whole, just the US. Many Muslims are hating us right now for having military outposts in thier country, or we have more than they have or whatever. It does not matter if the UN is involved, it alway reflect badly on the US.

If you don't like the foriegn policy of the US, then you and people like you should petition your governments to act on issues legally, thru the UN or whatever channels work. But to say that 4500 civilians deserved to die is cold, callus and makes one just as bad as a terrorist. NONE of the people in the buildings or planes did anything to you, OBL, or any other terrorist.

Originally posted by 92Notch
What the ****? You mean to tell me that what ever this coward sees as 'first blood' is justification for Sept 11 ... the killing of thousands of our ****ing CIVILIANS? .... You can trace back as far as you want, the bastards and any government supporting these bastards (the ones who attacked our CIVILIANS) deserves to be eliminated IMO

And YOU have attacked their civilians, both now and in the past. You are not saints.

How the **** do you know what motivated Bin Laden? ... If it was foreign policy ... then **** him.[QUOTE]

He has not exactly been reticent about it.

[QUOTE]There are other reasons (for simplicity I'll say jealousy).

Why would Osama bin Laden be jealous? The heir of an American sponsorred millionaire, if anything, he would be in a position to become one of which others were jealous.

The kind of person that would attack the CIVILIAN population of the worlds most powerful superpower (That's right ... that's us) should be eliminated from the gene pool anyway ... I mean come on, use some common ****ing sense.

In my opinion, ANYONE who would kill civilians on this scale should be killed, be it bin Laden, Bush, anyone.

Who ever came up with that quote is an idiot IMO.

Really? Have you heard of Guevara syndrome? Of martyrdom? Goddamn, I don't want bin Laden becomming a Middle Eastern Che.

If the US runs this the way it should then there will be no thoughts of "Fedayeen" because no one will want to catch the wrath of said superpower (**** their weak ass "Fedayeen" anyway ... bunch of pussies ... why don't the come on over and invade us, fight us like men not weak as pansies)

Do you even know who the Fedayeen were? If you're interested, they were Palestinian refugees made homeless in the 1948 "War of Extermination", by the Irgun, Stirn and Hagannah. Over 600,000 were driven out of Israel. From the refugee camps, they raided border Kibbutzim, attacking far better equipped and armed Hagannah troops. In the mid-1960s, at the Pan-Arabic Conferance, they became [officially] incorporated into the PLO.

They were martyrs to later resistance groups (Fedayeen means "Sacrificers"), and themselves inspired by the near-genocide they had been victims of.

There acts resulted in Israels capture of Gaza and the West Bank, in '56 and '67.

This situation, today, will result in a similar wave of refugee-terrorists, I expect. When one's whole life has been thrown into chaos, death seems less than it does otherwise...

Maybe you should call the FBI, it sounds like you know where the **** he is, you could make yourself a rich man.

Literacy helps (NOTE: this is Fight Club, I ain't here to be nice). READ what I said: Osama is NOT Afganistan. He might be/have been there, but he is NOT the Taliban.

[QUOTE]Do ya think .... I think Israel would Nuke the **** out of half the countries over there ... but then again, what the **** do I know?

Did you know that little titbit of bloodthirsty stupidity does not appear to have any relevance whatsoever?


On I side note:
I feel that any country that attacks us should get ****ed up; any country that is allied to that country should get ****ed up. The US should protect our interests (i.e. OIL) ... they are rich because of us; they would have not been able to get to their oil without out 'investment' into the region. ON second thought Osamma should be over here sucking our dick in joy, after all he is a rich man because of the US ..... **** him, and **** anyone who sympathizes with those ungrateful *******s.


Goddamn, you should grow up a little. "Osama [note spelling] should suck our dick" - wow, I wonder why other nations don't think so much of you? Hmm

G R O W U P

Originally posted by Brian
Then wht not attack the UN as a whole? Instead, he targeted the US. Not the British or the French. The US.

He was motivated, in his own words, by the stationing of a US military force IN Saudi. The force the Saudi government request and approved durind and after the Gulf War. That IS his sole gripe. Even Mubarik said the whole Palestinian issue has NEVER been mentioned before his first taped interview.

Exactly - that is part of your foreign policy. However, it is not the sole part Al Queda objects to. Bin Laden's pet issue, yes, but not his only.

I'll agree with this. But, you use a bigger force to FIGHT force.

Which all too often results in another force a while later...

No kidding. However, this whole war could have been averted by turning bin Hidin over. Most of the rest of the world, even most Muslim countries that have seen the evidence agree that this should have been done.

An Afgan ex-pat summed this up quite well: "A cop comes up to you, kicks in the door, and demands you hand over "that murderous ******" who has been staying with you. You ask what he's done, to which the cop replies "well he's a ****ing ******, and we saw him near the crime scene, didn't we."

Other nations, as I'm sure you've noticed, weren't swayed by the evidence, but by the, well, bribes...

What did the ruling Afgan party do? Said come and take him if you can...

Incorrect. They stated they were certain he did not do it; one of the conditions of his stay there was that he carried out no such acts, apparently, and the Taliban had tried to ensure this was enforced. They said they would hand him over IF MORE EVIDENCE WAS SHOWN.

MOST people do not doubt his guilt. Only those with axes to grind against the US.

Oddly enough, the most patriotic American (and, in fact, the ONLY patriotic American who has earned my repect) is the one with the greatest doubts, of anyone I've met.

{QUOTE]And what does that come up to in dollar amounts? We gave away the following this years I believe (I don't have time to look up exact figures right now):

Israel : $30 bil
Afgan : $>13 bil
Russia : >$25 bil

The list goes on. NO OTHER NATION GIVES AWAY THE AMOUNT OF FORIEGN AID THE US DOES PER YEAR.[/QUOTE]

Those figures seem oddly high, source them.

Only because we cannot dictate where the money goes when it is handed over.

Actually, you could quite easily by using multi-lateral, not bi-lateral aid - give it to internal aid groups, not states.

You know, if you or others dont like this country for whatever reason (and I honestly don't know your ideals, but I have a feeling of what they are), fine, I can live with that. I have no wish for anything bad to happen to anyone. However, don't go looking for reasons to hate. That is more counter productive than any other activity.

Agreed. If you're interested, I'm a directly-democratic socialist.

Palestinians are taught from elementary school level to hate America for our part in getting Israel some land in 1948. Not the UN as a whole, just the US.

As it was the US that pushed UNSCOP's existence, it was an American city in which the Biltmore Declaration was signed, it was America that pushed out Britain.

Many Muslims are hating us right now for having military outposts in thier country, or we have more than they have or whatever. It does not matter if the UN is involved, it alway reflect badly on the US.

If you don't like the foriegn policy of the US, then you and people like you should petition your governments to act on issues legally, thru the UN or whatever channels work. But to say that 4500 civilians deserved to die is cold, callus and makes one just as bad as a terrorist. NONE of the people in the buildings or planes did anything to you, OBL, or any other terrorist.

NO civilian deserves to die. I never have, and never would say that they deserved to die. I've said why they died, not that they deserved it. Likewise, no Afgan civilian deserves death, no Palestinian civilian deserves death, and so on.

And YOU have attacked their civilians, both now and in the past. You are not saints.

How do you figure?



Why would Osama bin Laden be jealous? The heir of an American sponsorred millionaire, if anything, he would be in a position to become one of which others were jealous.

True, Osama (I noted the spelling :) ) probably would not be, also note that I put "for simplicity". Osama wants to keep his people loyal to the Koran or what ever ****ed up ideas about the Koran he (his people) are cramming down thier thoughts, that's easier to do if the country does not have freedom of speech, or TV's, or .... well you get the idea.



In my opinion, ANYONE who would kill civilians on this scale should be killed, be it bin Laden, Bush, anyone.

Glad to hear that, I'd be concerned to hear otherwise from anyone.



Really? Have you heard of Guevara syndrome? Of martyrdom? Goddamn, I don't want bin Laden becomming a Middle Eastern Che.



Do you even know who the Fedayeen were? If you're interested, they were Palestinian refugees made homeless in the 1948 "War of Extermination", by the Irgun, Stirn and Hagannah. Over 600,000 were driven out of Israel. From the refugee camps, they raided border Kibbutzim, attacking far better equipped and armed Hagannah troops. In the mid-1960s, at the Pan-Arabic Conferance, they became [officially] incorporated into the PLO.

They were martyrs to later resistance groups (Fedayeen means "Sacrificers"), and themselves inspired by the near-genocide they had been victims of.

There acts resulted in Israels capture of Gaza and the West Bank, in '56 and '67.

This situation, today, will result in a similar wave of refugee-terrorists, I expect. When one's whole life has been thrown into chaos, death seems less than it does otherwise...


Thanks for typing all that (I like history, it's a powerful tool), but my point was that I honestly do not think that type of attack will work against us (it's weak), due mostly in part to the fact that we are aware of their 'tactics', and posses the means to prevent it.


Did you know that little titbit of bloodthirsty stupidity does not appear to have any relevance whatsoever?

What's this all about, what " tidbit of bloodthirsty stupidity" are you referring to?

Oh yeah, **** you on the literacy comment :) I'll, put, as, many, commas, and, run, on, as, long, as, I, want,



Goddamn, you should grow up a little. "Osama [note spelling] should suck our dick" - wow, I wonder why other nations don't think so much of you? Hmm

G R O W U P

LOL :) :) I was in a bad mood when I posted that, I hope you got the point of that paragraph though.

If you can appreciate "freedom" then politics will have no boundary for you. The trick in America is to understand and appreciate what was sacrificed. We are all at the mercy of the roads WE CHOOSE. Much of the world does not have that freedom of choice and people like Osama, Hitler, Stalin. etc. offer an explanation for them.

Although I do not agree with the mentality, I understand what terrorists think. Put a weapon in someones hand who is filled with hate and they will use it. Idiots like Osama forget that in civilized societys we pay people to do that. Anyone with a third grade education knows we (the Western world) do not live in the stone age.

I mean, those aren't friggin birds dropping turds on you......

Originally posted by 92Notch
How do you figure?

Excuse me? Is that meant to be a literal question?

Originally posted by 92Notch
True, Osama (I noted the spelling :) ) probably would not be, also note that I put "for simplicity". Osama wants to keep his people loyal to the Koran or what ever ****ed up ideas about the Koran he (his people) are cramming down thier thoughts, that's easier to do if the country does not have freedom of speech, or TV's, or .... well you get the idea.

Good good ;)

I disagree. You see, he sees you as impinging on other nationalist and religious freedoms. You're both fighting for "freedom" of a sort.

I do agree with you logic, but not your summation that that makes him an enemy of "freedom".

Originally posted by 92Notch
Glad to hear that, I'd be concerned to hear otherwise from anyone.

Agreed. However, I must say I do not feel that as solely revenge; if he swore he was real sorry and wouldn't do it again, I'd imprison him, as I consider the death penalty immoral - but killing one is better than allowing thousands to die. And no way would I trust a jail to hold him.

Originally posted by 92Notch
Thanks for typing all that (I like history, it's a powerful tool), but my point was that I honestly do not think that type of attack will work against us (it's weak), due mostly in part to the fact that we are aware of their 'tactics', and posses the means to prevent it.

The Fedayeen's tactics are innappropriate now; but the concept of martyrdom remains.

Agreed, however it is very hard to fight such an opponent, a guerrilla, as they blend into society, or whatever terrain they are within. A man who buys a newspaper in front of you could be a suicide bomber, a McDonald's worker, a....

How can you fight a group that is only ever identified after it's attacks? You can infiltrate, watch, but, throughout history, this has never been enough to stop attacks. And, at times, like Ireland's 1919 rebellion, this infiltration has led to a complete morale collapse within the infiltrator; as all agents, suspected or real, were killed.

Originally posted by 92Notch
What's this all about, what " tidbit of bloodthirsty stupidity" are you referring to?

I believe I misunderstood your comment as saying "should", not "would"; sorry.

Originally posted by 92Notch
Oh yeah, **** you on the literacy comment :) I'll, put, as, many, commas, and, run, on, as, long, as, I, want,

LOL, that was actually about you mis-reading me, which I guessed happened, as you appeared to be relying to "not IN Afganistan", not "not Afganistan".

Originally posted by 92Notch
LOL :) :) I was in a bad mood when I posted that, I hope you got the point of that paragraph though.

Yes, but I disagree with it - why are US interests more important than any other? Why do the US's desires deserve more credence the the Arab states?

Originally posted by JoeyNormal

Yes, but I disagree with it - why are US interests more important than any other? Why do the US's desires deserve more credence the the Arab states?

For the same reason the Maoris controlled their bit of the planet for a good while. I.E. Until a more powerful, cohesive, technologically advanced group showed up.

You can probably fix this might-makes-right human societal characteristic by controlling the brain chemically, surgically, or electronically.

Should we start that process in NZ? Some group will always be in control, and those on top (currently that darn US) have historically prefered to remain in that position of power, wealth, and authority. The choices seem to be assimilate, revolt so YOU are the top dog, or die.

I do not normally condone vulgarity, but 92 Notch said it so eloquently. **** 'em! :o

Originally posted by hammegk
For the same reason the Maoris controlled their bit of the planet for a good while. I.E. Until a more powerful, cohesive, technologically advanced group showed up.

You can probably fix this might-makes-right human societal characteristic by controlling the brain chemically, surgically, or electronically.

Should we start that process in NZ? Some group will always be in control, and those on top (currently that darn US) have historically prefered to remain in that position of power, wealth, and authority. The choices seem to be assimilate, revolt so YOU are the top dog, or die.

Don't make me debate social darwinism here.....

And can someone explain why what is is naturally what's right

Originally posted by Cosmo
I do not normally condone vulgarity, but 92 Notch said it so eloquently. **** 'em! :o

As representative of the great Iraqi state, I am sorry to inform you we will be launching a full scale misslie assault on the USA in retaliation to your unjustifiable assault of Afganistan.

Or, about as valid: I, Osama bin Laden, will make America fall for its crimes against our religion.

Just because you have power, and you are you, you can doi whatever you want?

Originally posted by JoeyNormal


Don't make me debate social darwinism here.....

And can someone explain why what is is naturally what's right

Can't do that, but will keep trying to explain what *IS* (based on history.. Social Darwinism perhaps), rather than what you WISH IT WAS based on(what you, today, like or don't like)....

NO offense intended.....;)

I know what is, but that is irrelevant. I know what I consider moral, and does not change much.

Also, what is new is that America claims moality. Most empires do immoral things, but generally don't tell their citizens they are not...

America is not an "empire". Sorry, but it's just not true. That's part of the beauty of this place.

Originally posted by RedLine99
America is not an "empire". Sorry, but it's just not true. That's part of the beauty of this place.

It depends on how you define it. If it is defined by the political system, I agree, it is not. If it is defined by one's political power over other nations, America is.

By empire I meant a nation which has or aspires to foreign power.

I am damn sick of hearing the word "freedom" 15 to 20 times in every political speech. Pick your politician, and eventually it will all come back to 9-11 and that big catch word "freedom". I challenge any of you to count the number of utterences in any of Dubya's speeches. Its mindless, only serving the purpose to rouse nationalistic thoughts in the minds of the weak. No person has fought for my freedom in 56 years. By saying that I DO NOT mean to imply that vengeance, retalliation, or whatever you want to call it, is unjust in response to 9-11, quite the opposite in fact.

Mr. Normal, you should be careful not to characterize Americans as fighting for the freedom of "global exploitation". Not all citizens of this nation believe in such mainfest destiny, especially not I. Believe it or not, we are not completely a nation of idiots hell bent on the need to dominate the economic world in order to waste cheap gas or live like Romans. This may, perhaps, be the goal of the U.S. government and its elite corporate bed partners, but certainly not the goal of millions of true Americans determined not to sell their country for a profit.

:)

I had meant American state in that. By the way, one could also state that by not resisting, and by helping foot the bill in your taxes you're supporting your state's actions.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
I had meant American state in that. By the way, one could also state that by not resisting, and by helping foot the bill in your taxes you're supporting your state's actions.

Now there's an idea. Joey, after you get educated & arrive here in the US please get a job with a firm that deducts taxes and files their state & US tax forms, and then resist our tax authorities.

That will be an interesting experience and perhaps help you define "freedom"!:D

LOL, why not just go hide in the mountains with AIM or some militia ;)

Seriously, if half (or even just 20%, or 10%, or...) of America's civilians refused to pay tax until a certain policy was changed, do you think the state would be capable of penalizing all and forcing the cash out? I'd expect not, and would expect a capitulation.

Some people have compared the events of Sept. 11 to the events that took place in Pearl Harbor over 50 years ago. There were many people that strongly opposed us (the US) getting involved, there were those that said it would be impossible for us to win if we did get involved, the same things are being said today about Sept 11th ..... What did history teach us last time?

Was WWII worth it for us to fight? .... We were involved because we wanted revenge to some extent, and we were fighting for freedom.... freedom to know that our enmy would not have the capibilitys to pull some shit like that again (I'm simplifing here), much like we are fighting now .... only now it's a different kind of war but for the same freedoms we were fighting in WWII.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about WWII? ..... using your logic, you would be saying it was wrong for us to get involved there too. .....it is a reasonable comparison because these terrorists work their magic in other countries as well.

A bit off topic, but I actually agree with Mr. Normal a bit on this one. The only way to make real change in this country is to resist and disobey. By saying this, I am not advocating violence, but he's correct in the fact that if just 5 to 20% of the citizens of this country joined together and refused to pay their taxes then something positive would happen, in a number of ways. Of course these citizens would be threatened, intimidated, some arrested, others lives destroyed at least temporarily. They would be labeled unpatriotic, fanatical, and associated with some kind of right wing religous cult to help ruin their credibility. The most dedicated win, and no true change has ever been made without the great personal sacrifice of a few. Now if I could just get 12 million other individuals to agree.

Originally posted by 86Dude
... Now if I could just get 12 million other individuals to agree.

In fact if you just got them to agree to say the same message to 1)local 2)state & 3)federal pols that would be significant I'd think....

What's the message? Cut expenditures and Lower taxes. How do the 12 million ever agree on what to cut?

Hmmmm, do we really want Ross Perot??

Nevermind!:D

Count me out of the tax protester group too, but I could visit you in jail if that would be appreciated.