And even though they are both at fault for various things, "Angelica" is the only one responsible for deliberately running into him, and any consequences stemming from her actions, i.e. were he to die.
...
Yeah.. you're right.
Just because you see a crime take place... it is not up to you to inflict your own personal form of justice... i.e. witnessing a traffic violation and deciding on your own that the offender must die.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
And even though they are both at fault for various things, "Angelica" is the only one responsible for deliberately running into him, and any consequences stemming from her actions, i.e. were he to die.
It's funny, becuase the law doesn't see it that way. If a person runs a red light and gets creamed, the driver who hit the red-light-runner is not charged. You have some nutty logic.
The fact remains that the United States of America owns it's actions. No one controls the actions of another. Period. A calculated and carefully executed plan, considered and executed in view of the world speaks for itself.
The same thing can be said for Saddam and his Bathist thugs... hypocrisy!
It's funny, becuase the law doesn't see it that way. If a person runs a red light and gets creamed, the driver who hit the red-light-runner is not charged. You have some nutty logic.
If a person deliberately tries to run down the person who ran the red light, the law would most definitely hold that person accountable.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If a person deliberately tries to run down the person who ran the red light, the law would most definitely hold that person accountable.
Okay, I didn't view the situation as intentionally running down the person who ran the light. I saw the situation as being unavoidable. That is much the way I see Iraq, Iran and other situations. It is unavoidable for us to get involved in my view. I guess that is where we disagree.
To me, after 9/11 we had every right to press Saddam to come clean on his weapons program. If he deliberately tried to continue to keep his program in secrecy by denying access and playing games - then in my view we HAD to act. What are we supposed to do, say - okay, ha ha h that was a good one Saddam - making our inspectors wait outside this facility for 6 hours before you let us in... or sending us pages and pages of ambiguos documents that only fuel our suspisions and leave out important information.
Are we just supposed to walk away after Saddam of all people leads in circles for years? Hell no, the onus was on him. A more powerful entity had cast the spotlight on him and his regime for acting out of form. He needed to rise to the ocasion of risk losing it all. It was his choice!
Okay, I didn't view the situation as intentionally running down the person who ran the light. I saw the situation as being unavoidable. That is much the way I see Iraq, Iran and other situations. It is unavoidable for us to get involved in my view. I guess that is where we disagree.
I didn't view your analogy as relevent, because it portrayed Americans as though they did not have a planned calculated choice. So I did not buy into your analogy. I did buy into Cosmo's version of it, that analogously portrayed Americans as the other driver, who deliberately ran down the first driver.
To me, after 9/11 we had every right to press Saddam to come clean on his weapons program. If he deliberately tried to continue to keep his program in secrecy by denying access and playing games - then in my view we HAD to act. What are we supposed to do, say - okay, ha ha h that was a good one Saddam - making our inspectors wait outside this facility for 6 hours before you let us in... or sending us pages and pages of ambiguos documents that only fuel our suspisions and leave out important information.
Are we just supposed to walk away after Saddam of all people leads in circles for years? Hell no, the onus was on him. A more powerful entity had cast the spotlight on him and his regime for acting out of form. He needed to rise to the ocasion of risk losing it all. It was his choice!
You continue to give yourself rights that don't exist in reality. I understand basic human interaction, interaction-imbalances that indicate illness, and power plays, and I can see through any justifications. It sounds like you are not owning any sense of mistake at all, which is concerning to say the least.
The problem with not learning from this is that when humans continue to hold to these faulty thought processes, we have more of the same power escalations to look forward to.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I didn't view your analogy as relevent, because it portrayed Americans as though they did not have a planned calculated choice. So I did not buy into your analogy. I did buy into Cosmo's version of it, that analogously portrayed Americans as the other driver, who deliberately ran down the first driver.
You continue to give yourself rights that don't exist in reality. I understand basic human interaction, interaction-imbalances that indicate illness, and power plays, and I can see through any justifications. It sounds like you are not owning any sense of mistake at all, which is concerning to say the least.
The problem with not learning from this is that when humans continue to hold to these faulty thought processes, we have more of the same power escalations to look forward to.
What rights are you talking about that don't exist? The right to invade a country that we percieve to threaten our own? I'm not sure how you can say we don't have that right, becuase we sure as hell did it. What you fail to understand about human interaction is the one who is the most powerful gets to make the rules. That is why it is imperative for America to maintain her strength and influence on the world. Becuase it is much better to live under our rules, thought they are not perfect, than to live under the rules of those that threaten us.
What rights are you talking about that don't exist? The right to invade a country that we percieve to threaten our own? I'm not sure how you can say we don't have that right, becuase we sure as hell did it. What you fail to understand about human interaction is the one who is the most powerful gets to make the rules. That is why it is imperative for America to maintain her strength and influence on the world. Becuase it is much better to live under our rules, thought they are not perfect, than to live under the rules of those that threaten us.
You may fail to perceive that life gives you the consequences for the imbalanced actions you take that go against natural life principles. You always have the right to free choice, however that includes accepting the consequences. When people justify imbalanced and unhealthy choices, and when they get the natural consequences for these choices, they can't understand the cause and effect, because they have denied their own fallacy. To each his/her own.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
That is why it is imperative for America to maintain her strength and influence on the world. Becuase it is much better to live under our rules, thought they are not perfect, than to live under the rules of those that threaten us.
As much as I'd like the rest of the world to live like us, and by "our rules," that whole idea is very self-defeating. Whether you have the best system or not, people (especially in other countries) do not want to be told how to live.
As much as I'd like the rest of the world to live like us, and by "our rules," that whole idea is very self-defeating. Whether you have the best system or not, people (especially in other countries) do not want to be told how to live.
Thank-you for this.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
NC FAN, you have any friends or acquaintances that come around once in a while, and offer you help with something, but you know deep down they are really only trying to help themselves?
You know that feeling when you get when you see them coming... "Here comes So-and-So, I wonder what the hell he wants from me now?"
Such is the worldview of the United States, and you know what? It's true! There isn't anything we do in other countries of the world (goodwill or not) that isn't at least half-pragmatic. It's all in the history books.
As far as Iraq goes, and why we're there-- It's like 2 captains of a baseball team jockeying for home field by going hand over hand on a baseball bat-- except the bat is 18 miles long. Who knows how all this really started, or who's fault it REALLY was? You can go back and forth for ages over how 9/11 came about-- They started it, we started it, they started it, we started it... etc... Does anyone really think that terrorists attacked us for our love of freedom? Of course it isn't that simple.
The point is, these entanglements are TERRIBLE for our great country. Some people can barely be reasoned with, let alone told how to live. As a matter of fact, I'd say we are powerful enough to pick and choose who we want to do business with. They (countries of questionable ethics and regards for the rules) can either change voluntarily (or with a little economic passive resistance from us), or they can go fuck themselves. It's really all bigger than Iraq and 9/11. Our foreign policy really needs to change, if we're ever going to progress, and truly keep ourselves safe.
This is exactly why the US invasion is responsible. The US created not only a power vacuum, but a lack of balance and stability. And which set other necessary variables into play.
Had to dig this thread back up, but a thought occured to me. Why is it that you hold the US responsible for the chaos in Iraq, and not the individual killers who are running around fighting the Iraqi government and US forces?
Yes, we created a power vacuum, but that doesn't justify looting does it? Yes, we created instability, but that doesn't justify a militia to gather and plant IED's in a market, right?
How is it that you hold the US responsible for the wrong doings of another? Is it that we should have known better, but these people shouldn't? It's our fault for creating instability, but those who create IED's are "just doing what anybody would do to defend themselves from an invading army." Is that how you see it?
The fact is, your logic and thinking on this is wrong. People have a right to fight for what they believe in, be it oil money or jihad. The US is no more at fault here than other parties who contribute to the daily violence.
NC FAN, you have any friends or acquaintances that come around once in a while, and offer you help with something, but you know deep down they are really only trying to help themselves?
You know that feeling when you get when you see them coming... "Here comes So-and-So, I wonder what the hell he wants from me now?"
Such is the worldview of the United States, and you know what? It's true! There isn't anything we do in other countries of the world (goodwill or not) that isn't at least half-pragmatic. It's all in the history books.
As far as Iraq goes, and why we're there-- It's like 2 captains of a baseball team jockeying for home field by going hand over hand on a baseball bat-- except the bat is 18 miles long. Who knows how all this really started, or who's fault it REALLY was? You can go back and forth for ages over how 9/11 came about-- They started it, we started it, they started it, we started it... etc... Does anyone really think that terrorists attacked us for our love of freedom? Of course it isn't that simple.
The point is, these entanglements are TERRIBLE for our great country. Some people can barely be reasoned with, let alone told how to live. As a matter of fact, I'd say we are powerful enough to pick and choose who we want to do business with. They (countries of questionable ethics and regards for the rules) can either change voluntarily (or with a little economic passive resistance from us), or they can go fuck themselves. It's really all bigger than Iraq and 9/11. Our foreign policy really needs to change, if we're ever going to progress, and truly keep ourselves safe.
Gotta agree with about 99% of this. I think that Bush's foreign policy DID change to reflect the reality you speak of. He just fucked up the implementation by listening to assholes like Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don't see it so much as the US trying to tell Iraq how to live, as much as we're trying to tell them how not to live.
A nation sticking their noses in other nation's business under the premise of "freedom and democracy" when they are really trying to dictate to their own economic interests does not seem to be noble at all.
Probably one of the best post I´ve ever read. I´m with you.
I asked you to explain this post. You haven't done so. Therefore I'll regard your post as just hot air with nothing to support it's validity.
Didn't really realize you couldn't understand such a basic concept. Democracy works in large part becuase of the free-market economy that goes along with it. When the economy faulters, the government is weakened by unsatisfied citizens. People will start to doubt and undermine the system. Other countries who are economically stronger will exert more influence in the world. Not all of these countries are democracies. Iran certainly isn't influencing Lebanon to be a democracy - they are influencing the country to be an Islamic theocracy just like they are.
Case in point, Amedinijad in Iran and Chavez in Venezuela. With oil at $60 a barrell these guys can afford to grab the spotlight and try to assert their positions in the world. With oil at $30 a barrell, they are hiding, running scared from their own country men looking to overthrow them.
Didn't really realize you couldn't understand such a basic concept. Democracy works in large part becuase of the free-market economy that goes along with it. When the economy faulters, the government is weakened by unsatisfied citizens. People will start to doubt and undermine the system. Other countries who are economically stronger will exert more influence in the world. Not all of these countries are democracies. Iran certainly isn't influencing Lebanon to be a democracy - they are influencing the country to be an Islamic theocracy just like they are.
Case in point, Amedinijad in Iran and Chavez in Venezuela. With oil at $60 a barrell these guys can afford to grab the spotlight and try to assert their positions in the world. With oil at $30 a barrell, they are hiding, running scared from their own country men looking to overthrow them.
Duh...
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were both extremely wealthy countries. Sure, the wealth wasn't always distributed evenly, but then how does that differ from our so-called 'democracies'?
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were both extremely wealthy countries. Sure, the wealth wasn't always distributed evenly, but then how does that differ from our so-called 'democracies'?
Comments
Yeah.. you're right.
Just because you see a crime take place... it is not up to you to inflict your own personal form of justice... i.e. witnessing a traffic violation and deciding on your own that the offender must die.
Hail, Hail!!!
Please elaborate.
It's funny, becuase the law doesn't see it that way. If a person runs a red light and gets creamed, the driver who hit the red-light-runner is not charged. You have some nutty logic.
The same thing can be said for Saddam and his Bathist thugs... hypocrisy!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Okay, I didn't view the situation as intentionally running down the person who ran the light. I saw the situation as being unavoidable. That is much the way I see Iraq, Iran and other situations. It is unavoidable for us to get involved in my view. I guess that is where we disagree.
To me, after 9/11 we had every right to press Saddam to come clean on his weapons program. If he deliberately tried to continue to keep his program in secrecy by denying access and playing games - then in my view we HAD to act. What are we supposed to do, say - okay, ha ha h that was a good one Saddam - making our inspectors wait outside this facility for 6 hours before you let us in... or sending us pages and pages of ambiguos documents that only fuel our suspisions and leave out important information.
Are we just supposed to walk away after Saddam of all people leads in circles for years? Hell no, the onus was on him. A more powerful entity had cast the spotlight on him and his regime for acting out of form. He needed to rise to the ocasion of risk losing it all. It was his choice!
You continue to give yourself rights that don't exist in reality. I understand basic human interaction, interaction-imbalances that indicate illness, and power plays, and I can see through any justifications. It sounds like you are not owning any sense of mistake at all, which is concerning to say the least.
The problem with not learning from this is that when humans continue to hold to these faulty thought processes, we have more of the same power escalations to look forward to.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What rights are you talking about that don't exist? The right to invade a country that we percieve to threaten our own? I'm not sure how you can say we don't have that right, becuase we sure as hell did it. What you fail to understand about human interaction is the one who is the most powerful gets to make the rules. That is why it is imperative for America to maintain her strength and influence on the world. Becuase it is much better to live under our rules, thought they are not perfect, than to live under the rules of those that threaten us.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
As much as I'd like the rest of the world to live like us, and by "our rules," that whole idea is very self-defeating. Whether you have the best system or not, people (especially in other countries) do not want to be told how to live.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You're welcome, Ang.
NC FAN, you have any friends or acquaintances that come around once in a while, and offer you help with something, but you know deep down they are really only trying to help themselves?
You know that feeling when you get when you see them coming... "Here comes So-and-So, I wonder what the hell he wants from me now?"
Such is the worldview of the United States, and you know what? It's true! There isn't anything we do in other countries of the world (goodwill or not) that isn't at least half-pragmatic. It's all in the history books.
As far as Iraq goes, and why we're there-- It's like 2 captains of a baseball team jockeying for home field by going hand over hand on a baseball bat-- except the bat is 18 miles long. Who knows how all this really started, or who's fault it REALLY was? You can go back and forth for ages over how 9/11 came about-- They started it, we started it, they started it, we started it... etc... Does anyone really think that terrorists attacked us for our love of freedom? Of course it isn't that simple.
The point is, these entanglements are TERRIBLE for our great country. Some people can barely be reasoned with, let alone told how to live. As a matter of fact, I'd say we are powerful enough to pick and choose who we want to do business with. They (countries of questionable ethics and regards for the rules) can either change voluntarily (or with a little economic passive resistance from us), or they can go fuck themselves. It's really all bigger than Iraq and 9/11. Our foreign policy really needs to change, if we're ever going to progress, and truly keep ourselves safe.
Had to dig this thread back up, but a thought occured to me. Why is it that you hold the US responsible for the chaos in Iraq, and not the individual killers who are running around fighting the Iraqi government and US forces?
Yes, we created a power vacuum, but that doesn't justify looting does it? Yes, we created instability, but that doesn't justify a militia to gather and plant IED's in a market, right?
How is it that you hold the US responsible for the wrong doings of another? Is it that we should have known better, but these people shouldn't? It's our fault for creating instability, but those who create IED's are "just doing what anybody would do to defend themselves from an invading army." Is that how you see it?
The fact is, your logic and thinking on this is wrong. People have a right to fight for what they believe in, be it oil money or jihad. The US is no more at fault here than other parties who contribute to the daily violence.
Gotta agree with about 99% of this. I think that Bush's foreign policy DID change to reflect the reality you speak of. He just fucked up the implementation by listening to assholes like Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don't see it so much as the US trying to tell Iraq how to live, as much as we're trying to tell them how not to live.
Probably one of the best post I´ve ever read. I´m with you.
I asked you to explain this post. You haven't done so. Therefore I'll regard your post as just hot air with nothing to support it's validity.
Didn't really realize you couldn't understand such a basic concept. Democracy works in large part becuase of the free-market economy that goes along with it. When the economy faulters, the government is weakened by unsatisfied citizens. People will start to doubt and undermine the system. Other countries who are economically stronger will exert more influence in the world. Not all of these countries are democracies. Iran certainly isn't influencing Lebanon to be a democracy - they are influencing the country to be an Islamic theocracy just like they are.
Case in point, Amedinijad in Iran and Chavez in Venezuela. With oil at $60 a barrell these guys can afford to grab the spotlight and try to assert their positions in the world. With oil at $30 a barrell, they are hiding, running scared from their own country men looking to overthrow them.
Duh...
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were both extremely wealthy countries. Sure, the wealth wasn't always distributed evenly, but then how does that differ from our so-called 'democracies'?
Huh?