Ableton Forum

stinky wrote:

It would be comical, if it wasn't so sad, how the media is used as a weapon by the small # of terrorists to degrade the will of those that would be the most help to those who need it - like the burgeoning democracy being created in Iraq and elsewhere.

The media is a weapon and you guys are getting played by the terrorists, IMO.

It's even more comical that you think that way, instead of realising that, in fact, the corporations (including the oil cartels) control the media. Any presstime the terrorists get is a fart-bubble in the ocean, comparatively

This is part of the strategy to win against Al Q. and the circumstances in that region that allow those to flourish in that area. It is a lot harder to win friends against an enemy that is actually supporting the right of the people to rule.

Dude, Bush has absolutely "0" strategy. These guys just want to indefinitely perpetuate control over a region, until that region has no more assets to control. It's that simple.

I can't wait for the day when we withdraw from Iraq and have hopefully left them in a better place than they were under Saddam.

Get used to it. You'll be waiting for a long time.

I couldn't have addressed these glaring mistruths better. The amount of coverage is terribly neglectful on the part of the media, I find myself going to European news sources for more information. In America the media has not shown the full scope of the violence in Iraq, the persistent pressure from all sides on the "people".

And how is it a policy change to use DIRECT force against a percieved "weak" enemy and to use other pressures against more powerful ones? North Korea and Iran look like the REAL threats now, and the so-called "domino effect" of democracy hasn't quite panned out yet. Oh yes, maybe we need to be patient. Which would be fine, but I don't believe democracy can be foisted on a culture - it needs to arise from within.

It doesn't matter tho, ultimately we are just listening to ourselves talk, because you ain't going to change my mind, and I doubt I will change yours.

I've always said that Bush is a true progressive liberal when it comes to his decisions abroad...

This is truly a gem... you've definitely outdone yourself...

the so-called "domino effect" of democracy hasn't quite panned out yet. Oh yes, maybe we need to be patient. Which would be fine, but I don't believe democracy can be foisted on a culture - it needs to arise from within.

What strikes me as embarrassigly ignorant is that their are even proponents for this type rationalization.

stinky wrote:

but we do believe that we have principles of government that are worth spreading to those less fortunate

that's bullshit.. if that's the case, why didn't we do anything in Rwanda? Why is it the unilateralism is only enforced in one place, and not another? Who gave us the right to be the world's policeman? Now that the USSR is gone, we can move into anywhere we want? Yeah, you do sound self righteous, and it's really misguided after years of being exposed to bullshit propaganda on CNN & FOX.

in what world do you think its possible to tackle all injustices equally? Its not possible. And frankly speaking, it is true that the U.S. will also act in times when it is in its interests do so. This is the constant struggle between acting in one's self interest and acting in the sole interests of others.

This is where I think you need to take a chill pill. On one hand you say, why didn't the U.S. do something at XYZ place and then go on to say "who made you the world's policeman?"

Pick a stance please. You can't have it both ways.

rob.

stinky wrote:

It would be comical, if it wasn't so sad, how the media is used as a weapon by the small # of terrorists to degrade the will of those that would be the most help to those who need it - like the burgeoning democracy being created in Iraq and elsewhere.

The media is a weapon and you guys are getting played by the terrorists, IMO.

It's even more comical that you think that way, instead of realising that, in fact, the corporations (including the oil cartels) control the media. Any presstime the terrorists get is a fart-bubble in the ocean, comparatively

This is part of the strategy to win against Al Q. and the circumstances in that region that allow those to flourish in that area. It is a lot harder to win friends against an enemy that is actually supporting the right of the people to rule.

Dude, Bush has absolutely "0" strategy. These guys just want to indefinitely perpetuate control over a region, until that region has no more assets to control. It's that simple.

I can't wait for the day when we withdraw from Iraq and have hopefully left them in a better place than they were under Saddam.

Get used to it. You'll be waiting for a long time.

If you don't think he has a strategy then you either are:

1) not listening
2) don't want to listen
3) or are too dense to understand.

I can't count how many speeches he has made that outline what the goals are. I'm not going to do the work for you. Google is useful in these instances.

rob.

I'm only following your logic.. They were questions directed at you. If "you" believe that it was justified for us to invade Iraq, then why didn't we go into Rwanda where there was actually a huge catastrophic event that could have been prevented.

Don't give me that stupid "flipflopping" argument. I haven't changed my stance one bit. It's actually your stance that's being challenged, for the above reason mentioned.

stinky wrote:

I've always said that Bush is a true progressive liberal when it comes to his decisions abroad...

This is truly a gem... you've definitely outdone yourself...

if you understood what the term means, you wouldn't disagree. Define progressive liberal.

Then take a look at what Bush has done in the middle east and see if the definition fits. Don't be a tool to your bias which is probably clouding your ability to think clearly.

again, look up the definition and think about what "change" towards "enfranchisement" he's pushing in the region....

rob.

robtronik wrote:

stinky wrote:

but we do believe that we have principles of government that are worth spreading to those less fortunate

that's bullshit.. if that's the case, why didn't we do anything in Rwanda? Why is it the unilateralism is only enforced in one place, and not another? Who gave us the right to be the world's policeman? Now that the USSR is gone, we can move into anywhere we want? Yeah, you do sound self righteous, and it's really misguided after years of being exposed to bullshit propaganda on CNN & FOX.

in what world do you think its possible to tackle all injustices equally? Its not possible. And frankly speaking, it is true that the U.S. will also act in times when it is in its interests do so. This is the constant struggle between acting in one's self interest and acting in the sole interests of others.

This is where I think you need to take a chill pill. On one hand you say, why didn't the U.S. do something at XYZ place and then go on to say "who made you the world's policeman?"

Pick a stance please. You can't have it both ways.

rob.

I think the issue here is that we don't believe Iraq was invaded for "our" interests. No connections to Al Q., no production facilities or stores of bio, chem, or nuc weapons, etc.

And where the hell IS Osama anyway? 5 years isn't enough time for the greatest nation on earth to track down a cave dweller with a severely degraded organizational infrastructure? Doesn't something strike you as bizarre about that?

Oh wait, now we need to get the aluminum foil for our heads!

If you don't think he has a strategy then you either are:

1) not listening
2) don't want to listen
3) or are too dense to understand.

I can't count how many speeches he has made that outline what the goals are. I'm not going to do the work for you. Google is useful in these instances.

rob.

That's really shallow. Anyone can sit there and say "Freedom" 75 times in a speech, but that type of generality doesn't connote any type of strategy. If he had a strategy, why is the media complaining that there was none? You're a fool if you even attempt to eat up any of his speechwriters bushism's and look to them for any type of intellectuality.

stinky wrote:I'm only following your logic.. They were questions directed at you. If "you" believe that it was justified for us to invade Iraq, then why didn't we go into Rwanda where there was actually a huge catastrophic event that could have been prevented.

Don't give me that stupid "flipflopping" argument. I haven't changed my stance one bit. It's actually your stance that's being challenged, for the above reason mentioned.

I'll tell you why. Its in the congressional resolution giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Go read it - it will help you understand the difference.

(hints: last time I checked, Rwanda wasn't under sanctions and under direct supervision of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions.... and that is just the beginning. There's more. Google is your friend.)

so again, pick a stance. Either you want the U.S. involved or not. Can't have it both ways. We also have to choose our battles. I'd like to state that the Rwanda situation was a shame, a true travesty. I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone in there and done a better job than the U.N. oversight that occured, but then again, I'm not President and I can't make those decisions.

Its a shame the U.N. didn't do more to stop it as well. That's what they are there for, right?

rob.

pulsoc wrote:

robtronik wrote:

stinky wrote: that's bullshit.. if that's the case, why didn't we do anything in Rwanda? Why is it the unilateralism is only enforced in one place, and not another? Who gave us the right to be the world's policeman? Now that the USSR is gone, we can move into anywhere we want? Yeah, you do sound self righteous, and it's really misguided after years of being exposed to bullshit propaganda on CNN & FOX.

in what world do you think its possible to tackle all injustices equally? Its not possible. And frankly speaking, it is true that the U.S. will also act in times when it is in its interests do so. This is the constant struggle between acting in one's self interest and acting in the sole interests of others.

This is where I think you need to take a chill pill. On one hand you say, why didn't the U.S. do something at XYZ place and then go on to say "who made you the world's policeman?"

Pick a stance please. You can't have it both ways.

rob.

I think the issue here is that we don't believe Iraq was invaded for "our" interests. No connections to Al Q., no production facilities or stores of bio, chem, or nuc weapons, etc.

And where the hell IS Osama anyway? 5 years isn't enough time for the greatest nation on earth to track down a cave dweller with a severely degraded organizational infrastructure? Doesn't something strike you as bizarre about that?

Oh wait, now we need to get the aluminum foil for our heads!

There is a connection to Al Q. in Iraq. Again, I'm not going to do the homework for you. Saddam created a safe harbor for Zarqawi before we invaded. Why do you think he went there?

Secondly, the pre-war intelligence gathered was agreed upon that he did have WMD's, wanted to produce more, and hadn't produced proof that he destroyed stockpiles that he was mandated to document. SO, IOW, its saddam's fault that he violated mulitple U.N. Security Council resolutions, created a prior history of WMD usage, and kicked out inspectors. He had the ability to change the direction of the action, and he didn't. We called him on it and he lost. Now we get to try to rebuild his country. Who's fault is that? His.

rob.

stinky wrote:

If you don't think he has a strategy then you either are:

1) not listening
2) don't want to listen
3) or are too dense to understand.

I can't count how many speeches he has made that outline what the goals are. I'm not going to do the work for you. Google is useful in these instances.

rob.

That's really shallow. Anyone can sit there and say "Freedom" 75 times in a speech, but that type of generality doesn't connote any type of strategy. If he had a strategy, why is the media complaining that there was none? You're a fool if you even attempt to eat up any of his speechwriters bushism's and look to them for any type of intellectuality.

again, if you want me to spell it out for you I can. But you do yourself a disserve for not even being able to articulate a guess as to what the plan is.

You are uninformed or wish not to be informed. One more chance and then I'll spell it out for you if you want. But its better if you go do more research. It will help you understand all of this better.

rob.

There is a connection to Al Q. in Iraq. Again, I'm not going to do the homework for you. Saddam created a safe harbor for Zarqawi before we invaded. Why do you think he went there?

Man, you are lost... there is no proof there. There was no connection to Al Q in Iraq before the US invaded. There is no such thing as Al Q, if you go back further in this thread, you'll find it. I think you've lost it... you really don't have the ability to think for yourself, beyond the spoonfed dribble they feed you. If you trully care, you need to stop flagwaving, stop whatever you're doing, and reresearch your flawed sources.

please SPELL it out for all of us IGNORANT souls!!!!

and, define what a progressive liberal is, in your world. Do us a favor.. show us how intelligent you really are.

stinky wrote:There is no such thing as Al Q

It's under your bed. With big, nasty teeth.

Dr. Goebbels wrote:If the Jew did not exist, we'd have to invent him