Is America really that much of a pseudo-theocracy?I find it hard to believe they can keep a straight face while saying all that 'god is on our side' stuff.
edit: I was also really confused by all this talk about 'freedom' till i figured they were talking about this:
www.freedomoil.com/
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:07,
archived)
edit: I was also really confused by all this talk about 'freedom' till i figured they were talking about this:
www.freedomoil.com/
it says "god bless america" everywhereand churches/ religious places of worship are pretty common, and they all have signs like those thay say stupid things
(
abandonnship,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:09,
archived)
my point is...I can't think of many other countries (apart from ones with theocratic forms of government) where that kind of phrase is common.
Well actually I can't think of any...
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:13,
archived)
Well actually I can't think of any...
yes,but most of them have governments that believe in science
( abandonnship,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:14,
archived)
As far as I knowonly the American government deny science
/searches for the link
EDIT: found one abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=517770
(/searches for the link
EDIT: found one abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=517770
The man with the screaming brain has nothing but total respect for Annie Lennox,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:16,
archived)
Islamic governments deny science. The following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Abd Al-Baset Al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Center. Al-Majd TV aired this interview on January 16, 2005
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: The centrality [of Mecca] has been proven scientifically. How? When they traveled to outer space and took pictures of the earth, they saw that it is a dark, hanging sphere. The man said, "Earth is a dark hanging sphere – who hung it?"
Interviewer: Who said that?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: [Neil] Armstrong. Armstrong was basically trying to say: Allah is the one who hung it. They discovered that Earth emits radiation, and they wrote about this on the web. They left the item there for 21 days, and then they made it disappear.
Interviewer: Why did they make it disappear?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: There was intent there…
Interviewer: So it may be said that this suppression of information was significant.
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was very significant, since…the Ka'ba [in Mecca]… They said it emits radiation. This radiation is short-wave.
When they discovered this radiation, they started to zoom in, and they found that it emanates from Mecca – and, to be precise, from the Ka'ba.
Interviewer: My God!!
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was said…
Interviewer: Does this radiation have an effect?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: They found that this radiation is infinite. When they reached Mars and began to take pictures, they found that the radiation continues beyond. They said that the wavelength known to us… or rather the shortness of the wavelength known to us… This radiation had a special characteristic: It is infinite, and I believe that the reason is that this radiation connects the [earthly] Ka'ba with the celestial Ka'ba.
Imagine that you are the North Pole and I am the South Pole – in the middle there's what is called the magnetic equilibrium zone. If you place a compass there, the needle won't move.
Interviewer: You mean that the pull is equal from both sides?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, and that's why it's called zero-magnetism zone, since the magnetic force has no effect there. That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier, and is less affected by Earth's gravity. That's why when you circle the Ka'ba, you get charged with energy.
Interviewer: Allah be praised.
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, this is a fact.
This is a scientific fact…
Interviewer: Because you are distant from…
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Earth's magnetic fields have no effect on you in this case.
There's a study that proves that the black basalt rocks in Mecca are the oldest rocks in the world. This is the truth.
Interviewer: The oldest rocks? Yes. Has this been proved scientifically?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It's been scientifically proven, and the study has been published.
Interviewer: They took basalt rocks from Mecca…
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: …Basalt rocks from Mecca, and investigated the places where they were formed.
In the British Museum there are three pieces of the black stone [from the Ka'ba] …and they said that this rock didn't come from our solar system.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:31,
archived)
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: The centrality [of Mecca] has been proven scientifically. How? When they traveled to outer space and took pictures of the earth, they saw that it is a dark, hanging sphere. The man said, "Earth is a dark hanging sphere – who hung it?"
Interviewer: Who said that?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: [Neil] Armstrong. Armstrong was basically trying to say: Allah is the one who hung it. They discovered that Earth emits radiation, and they wrote about this on the web. They left the item there for 21 days, and then they made it disappear.
Interviewer: Why did they make it disappear?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: There was intent there…
Interviewer: So it may be said that this suppression of information was significant.
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was very significant, since…the Ka'ba [in Mecca]… They said it emits radiation. This radiation is short-wave.
When they discovered this radiation, they started to zoom in, and they found that it emanates from Mecca – and, to be precise, from the Ka'ba.
Interviewer: My God!!
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was said…
Interviewer: Does this radiation have an effect?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: They found that this radiation is infinite. When they reached Mars and began to take pictures, they found that the radiation continues beyond. They said that the wavelength known to us… or rather the shortness of the wavelength known to us… This radiation had a special characteristic: It is infinite, and I believe that the reason is that this radiation connects the [earthly] Ka'ba with the celestial Ka'ba.
Imagine that you are the North Pole and I am the South Pole – in the middle there's what is called the magnetic equilibrium zone. If you place a compass there, the needle won't move.
Interviewer: You mean that the pull is equal from both sides?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, and that's why it's called zero-magnetism zone, since the magnetic force has no effect there. That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier, and is less affected by Earth's gravity. That's why when you circle the Ka'ba, you get charged with energy.
Interviewer: Allah be praised.
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, this is a fact.
This is a scientific fact…
Interviewer: Because you are distant from…
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Earth's magnetic fields have no effect on you in this case.
There's a study that proves that the black basalt rocks in Mecca are the oldest rocks in the world. This is the truth.
Interviewer: The oldest rocks? Yes. Has this been proved scientifically?
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It's been scientifically proven, and the study has been published.
Interviewer: They took basalt rocks from Mecca…
Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: …Basalt rocks from Mecca, and investigated the places where they were formed.
In the British Museum there are three pieces of the black stone [from the Ka'ba] …and they said that this rock didn't come from our solar system.
cock
( The man with the screaming brain has nothing but total respect for Annie Lennox,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:39,
archived)
It certainly is a load of cockbut in a real theocracy, like Iran or pre-liberation Afghanistan, you can be executed for daring to disagree with it.
That's why democracies like America are vastly superior to theocracies such as those.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:49,
archived)
That's why democracies like America are vastly superior to theocracies such as those.
Wellsuffice to say each country has it's lunatics. That's completely different to what we're talking about though.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:42,
archived)
No it isn'tbecause this particular lunatic is a member of the Egyptian National Research Center, and represents a maistream of thought in the Islamic world.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:50,
archived)
Take a look at some of the"extreme right wing christian research" it's just as laughable.
Equally... the person in that interview, Dr. Abd Al-Baset wouldn't be classified as the most levelheaded of people, his comments seem to be common to those of religious right-wing islamic groups.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:12,
archived)
Equally... the person in that interview, Dr. Abd Al-Baset wouldn't be classified as the most levelheaded of people, his comments seem to be common to those of religious right-wing islamic groups.
Yes, but "extreme right wing christian research" doesn't form the basis of science in America, or any western democracy. It's just a bunch of fringe loonies.
Whereas extreme loony Islamic science is mainstream in countries like Egypt and Syria, and compulsory in countries like Iran.
Again, there is a massive difference between Western democracies and Islamic theocracies or despotisms.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:16,
archived)
Whereas extreme loony Islamic science is mainstream in countries like Egypt and Syria, and compulsory in countries like Iran.
Again, there is a massive difference between Western democracies and Islamic theocracies or despotisms.
I'm not convinced of this yetalthough i've heard it claimed several times on the news... have you got any solid proof that "extreme loony Islamic science" is indeed mainstream?
The international students I know from several countries including iran, indonesia and quatar claim that this is not what they were taught back at home.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:25,
archived)
The international students I know from several countries including iran, indonesia and quatar claim that this is not what they were taught back at home.
I don't have anything handyso I'll have to pass on that one for now.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:53,
archived)
It's a pseudo-theocracyin the sense that America is not a theocracy at all.
/edit - and that oil propagand is merely the mindless regurgitation of left-wing mythology.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:32,
archived)
/edit - and that oil propagand is merely the mindless regurgitation of left-wing mythology.
You don't believe that the line between church and state has becomea little blurred as of late?
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:45,
archived)
I certainly don't.The separation remains as wide as it ever has been, and considerably wider than it was even as little as 50 years ago.
Just because some politicians have religious beliefs, that does not make a state a theocracy.
The important difference is that in the American Constitution, the freedom of religion and separation of church and state are enshrined.
In a theocracy like Iran*, there is no separation between church and state, and no freedom of religion. Big, big difference.
*corrected from 'Iraq'
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:48,
archived)
Just because some politicians have religious beliefs, that does not make a state a theocracy.
The important difference is that in the American Constitution, the freedom of religion and separation of church and state are enshrined.
In a theocracy like Iran*, there is no separation between church and state, and no freedom of religion. Big, big difference.
*corrected from 'Iraq'
Actually iraq was a millitary dictatorshipand the church was supressed by the government as a means of control. The taliban and vatican are examples of "openly theocratic" entities.
Although the constitution may state that there is freedom of religion, it may not be practiced
(and given the time it was written i'm not sure this is in there, should check this). This is the same as saying that the law of the land prevents racism... but in Australia there's alot of racist people, and words on legal and official documents do jack all to change that.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 5:57,
archived)
Although the constitution may state that there is freedom of religion, it may not be practiced
(and given the time it was written i'm not sure this is in there, should check this). This is the same as saying that the law of the land prevents racism... but in Australia there's alot of racist people, and words on legal and official documents do jack all to change that.
Whoops, my mistakeI said Iraq when I meant Iran -- which really is a theocracy.
While no law or constitution is perfect, the American one does a pretty good job of keeping church and state separate.
There's certainly no way that any sane comparison could be made between the US and Iran as similar by way of theocracy.
BTW, Iraq didn't suppress the church, it used it as a means of gaining loyalty. Saddam made a big show of being a Muslim to shore up his popular support (though he probably didn't actually believe any of it).
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:06,
archived)
While no law or constitution is perfect, the American one does a pretty good job of keeping church and state separate.
There's certainly no way that any sane comparison could be made between the US and Iran as similar by way of theocracy.
BTW, Iraq didn't suppress the church, it used it as a means of gaining loyalty. Saddam made a big show of being a Muslim to shore up his popular support (though he probably didn't actually believe any of it).
I'm not saying that america is a pure theocracy, nor a complete oneI'm saying that america is becoming something you might want to call a "demo-thocracy" because the seperation of state and church is weakening.
My claim that america is turning into a pseudo theocracy is that many church affiliated people (not just people who are christian) have been entering both sides of politics of late. You can't really argue with the fact that the demographic of american politicians (those in office) are largely cocasian and christian.
I guess a good example of how this affects the political lanscape is the debate over gay marriage. It's well known that this is a thing looked down upon by the church, but a "seperated state" is unlikely to have any reason to limit the rights of it's citizens based on preferece or belief.
You can argue that this is because christian people elected christian leaders... it doesn't change the fact that this isn't a good example of seperation.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:19,
archived)
My claim that america is turning into a pseudo theocracy is that many church affiliated people (not just people who are christian) have been entering both sides of politics of late. You can't really argue with the fact that the demographic of american politicians (those in office) are largely cocasian and christian.
I guess a good example of how this affects the political lanscape is the debate over gay marriage. It's well known that this is a thing looked down upon by the church, but a "seperated state" is unlikely to have any reason to limit the rights of it's citizens based on preferece or belief.
You can argue that this is because christian people elected christian leaders... it doesn't change the fact that this isn't a good example of seperation.
The US has always been a majority Christian country.Nothing has changed over the years, excapt that many religiously inspired restritions have been lifted.
The prohibition of alcohol was abolished, gayness was legalised, nudity and swearing became acceptable. Over hundreds of years, the trend has been for less religion in government, not more.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:22,
archived)
The prohibition of alcohol was abolished, gayness was legalised, nudity and swearing became acceptable. Over hundreds of years, the trend has been for less religion in government, not more.
Well okprohibition of alcahol was abolished... but that's really standard now except in muslim countries.
Swearing... it's the same really, only there's even fewer countries.
but the rest:
- going nude in the street will get you arrested for "disturbing the peace" or something
- brand new laws against gay marrage (this is the big one... doesn't seem very justified)
See, the church marries people. As such gay people could get themselves married at any church (regardless of religion) that would agree to marry them, and that would stick. So it's a freedom of religion thing... but why is the state stepping in to make laws to prevent all churches from this regardless of their own rules?
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:30,
archived)
Swearing... it's the same really, only there's even fewer countries.
but the rest:
- going nude in the street will get you arrested for "disturbing the peace" or something
- brand new laws against gay marrage (this is the big one... doesn't seem very justified)
See, the church marries people. As such gay people could get themselves married at any church (regardless of religion) that would agree to marry them, and that would stick. So it's a freedom of religion thing... but why is the state stepping in to make laws to prevent all churches from this regardless of their own rules?
No law can prevent gay people being married in a churchbut there are laws that will prevent such a "marriage" being recognised as official by the State. This doesn't change anything, as it merely keeps the status quo.
That's what the overwhelming majority of voters wanted (70% on the referendums).
So really, the problem is that democracy overruled the gay lobby. That's the problem with democracy, you can't always get what you want.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:36,
archived)
That's what the overwhelming majority of voters wanted (70% on the referendums).
So really, the problem is that democracy overruled the gay lobby. That's the problem with democracy, you can't always get what you want.
"keeps the status quo."... right, I think we nailed it thereas for referendums, they're not good for this sort of thing. Gay people demanding marriage are quite the minority, and by that nature are underrepresented. Most people who voted aren't actaully going to be affected by this.
i always suspected the quo were involved
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:50,
archived)
i always suspected the quo were involved
Do you think it is an issue that the government approved the little disclaimer stickers about the theory of evolution?The problem is that the constitution has no bearing on modern day governmental decisions.
(
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:07,
archived)
I'm not entirely sure they did.How widespread are those stickers?
I have a feeling they only appeared in one state and then were criticised as unconstitutional. I may be 100% wrong
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:10,
archived)
I have a feeling they only appeared in one state and then were criticised as unconstitutional. I may be 100% wrong
I don't know which government approved what in that case-- but if the stickers say "evolution is only a theory, not a proven fact", they are 100% accurate. This is in no way worse than any other government warning sticker.
And it is completely wrong to say that the constitution has no bearing on modern day governmental decisions. It can, and has, overturned many government decisions and laws that were violations of the constitution.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:10,
archived)
And it is completely wrong to say that the constitution has no bearing on modern day governmental decisions. It can, and has, overturned many government decisions and laws that were violations of the constitution.
It was done by the board of education (or whatever it's called over there).The issue I have with this is that it is teaching people that humans (and the earth) have only existed for 2000 years, since the birth of Adam and Eve.
They teach similar things in these fundamentalist theocracies that you have such an issue with.
Edit: I'm not denying that the constitution still has weight, but these days a decision is regardless of the constitution and there is more of a "let's see if anyone notices" attitude.
(They teach similar things in these fundamentalist theocracies that you have such an issue with.
Edit: I'm not denying that the constitution still has weight, but these days a decision is regardless of the constitution and there is more of a "let's see if anyone notices" attitude.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:15,
archived)
The difference isthat even in the few places where they might do this in the US, they also teach alternatives, and they don't stone you to death if you dare to question the creation theory.
Quite different from Iran, or pre-liberation Afghanistan.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:17,
archived)
Quite different from Iran, or pre-liberation Afghanistan.
This isn't the point we were arguing.Do you think that the lines between church and state are becoming a bit blurred of late?
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:29,
archived)
No, I don't.It's just a myth being pushed by people who don't like the fact that Bush won the election.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:33,
archived)
Nah actually it's more an observation of what is being attempted to be legislated
I don't think you've been to iranI've heard first hand that it's bad, but not nearly as bad as you're making out.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:33,
archived)
I've never been therebut it is extremely bad. Young girls are executed for having sex. Dissidents are imprisoned. Two bloggers got sentenced to 14 years for criticising the government.
Iran is a true theocratic state in perpetual, massive violation of human rights.
See more here.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:38,
archived)
Iran is a true theocratic state in perpetual, massive violation of human rights.
See more here.
Human rights get violated all over the world...Venezuela, Tibet, Russia... Should America 'fix' those countries too?
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:41,
archived)
In due courseif necessary.
Probably they'll all just reform themselves.
Egypt is going to start allowing proper elections for the first time, I hear.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:44,
archived)
Probably they'll all just reform themselves.
Egypt is going to start allowing proper elections for the first time, I hear.
Yes indeed.At the moment, the biggest immediate threat takes priority.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:45,
archived)
The idea that America is the nanny of the world is sickening. gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:05,
archived)
I just want to know who they think gave them the authority to do that(, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:08, archived)
You would prtefer the USSR maybe?Or Nazi Germany, or the Ayatollahs?
It's a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Besides, it isn't just the USA, it's all of us democratic/capitalist/liberal countries.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:09,
archived)
It's a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Besides, it isn't just the USA, it's all of us democratic/capitalist/liberal countries.
MeddlingGah, it just winds me up something rotten.
The US is being run by a bunch of fucking meddlers. The stated goal of the currently selected ones is to meddle as much as possible in other countries, to benefit the USA's peace and prosperity as much as possible.
We must never forget this: The Iraq war was sold to us, the public, as a threat to our existance. We were told it was all about Iraq's imminent threat to us; not its neighbours, not its people, but us in the UK and the USA. It was never sold to us as a humanitarian mission. It was never about "spreading democracy". It was all about those Weapons of Mass Destruction - the ones that the USians, having invaded and conquered a sovereign country, have now completely given up finding. There are no "WMD". Iraq was not a threat. They lied through their teeth to get acceptance for their war, the war they'd wanted back in 1998 (and probably earlier).
There have been many regimes, movements and ideologies in history. Most burn themselves out. You can't defend a bad ideology by saying "look over here! This one's worse!". It doesn't work like that.
If you want to know what the future will be, look back to the British Empire. We pulled some dirty shit. We oppressed the USians so badly, they turned into exploitative, gun-toting crackpots that exploit countries for their own ends, installing dictators (Saddam, Pinochet, Noriega, etc.), taking over countries to suit their own ends. What a legacy.
Personally, I want each country to individually solve its own political problems. If there are political crises, countries should work together, not threaten to blow each other up. Powerful countries should offer help, not impose it. If they want to appear charitable, they should offer help to all oppressed people, not just the ones that, if they won their conflict, would turn a country's position to the advantage of the benefactors.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 9:27,
archived)
The US is being run by a bunch of fucking meddlers. The stated goal of the currently selected ones is to meddle as much as possible in other countries, to benefit the USA's peace and prosperity as much as possible.
We must never forget this: The Iraq war was sold to us, the public, as a threat to our existance. We were told it was all about Iraq's imminent threat to us; not its neighbours, not its people, but us in the UK and the USA. It was never sold to us as a humanitarian mission. It was never about "spreading democracy". It was all about those Weapons of Mass Destruction - the ones that the USians, having invaded and conquered a sovereign country, have now completely given up finding. There are no "WMD". Iraq was not a threat. They lied through their teeth to get acceptance for their war, the war they'd wanted back in 1998 (and probably earlier).
There have been many regimes, movements and ideologies in history. Most burn themselves out. You can't defend a bad ideology by saying "look over here! This one's worse!". It doesn't work like that.
If you want to know what the future will be, look back to the British Empire. We pulled some dirty shit. We oppressed the USians so badly, they turned into exploitative, gun-toting crackpots that exploit countries for their own ends, installing dictators (Saddam, Pinochet, Noriega, etc.), taking over countries to suit their own ends. What a legacy.
Personally, I want each country to individually solve its own political problems. If there are political crises, countries should work together, not threaten to blow each other up. Powerful countries should offer help, not impose it. If they want to appear charitable, they should offer help to all oppressed people, not just the ones that, if they won their conflict, would turn a country's position to the advantage of the benefactors.
Your source is "http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/"got anything more factual and less opinion driven on the matter?
Also what's the big deal with iran having nuclear weapons? I mean, america's got the most bombs, france has a few, china has shitloads, russia has so many they don't even know what to do with them, north korea probably has the bomb, india and pakistan like to show their bombs in parades... but right now iran is the demon! They could fesably have A BOMB! (but no delivery system)
The american leadership is blowing the shit out of their neighbours and they're scared that they'll be attacked... do they really want to give up whatever bargaining chips they have? They're not stupid, despite wearing funny things on their heads
Also... both Australia and America have also got really shoddy human rights records of late, although not publicised/performed on the same scale. I don't think we're in a position to judge "what's best" for others.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:05,
archived)
Also what's the big deal with iran having nuclear weapons? I mean, america's got the most bombs, france has a few, china has shitloads, russia has so many they don't even know what to do with them, north korea probably has the bomb, india and pakistan like to show their bombs in parades... but right now iran is the demon! They could fesably have A BOMB! (but no delivery system)
The american leadership is blowing the shit out of their neighbours and they're scared that they'll be attacked... do they really want to give up whatever bargaining chips they have? They're not stupid, despite wearing funny things on their heads
Also... both Australia and America have also got really shoddy human rights records of late, although not publicised/performed on the same scale. I don't think we're in a position to judge "what's best" for others.
Check the links for the sources.Many countries have nuclear weapons, but none of them are Islamofascist theocracies that believe in self-martyrdom. That's why Iran is so dangerous.
And if you really think that human rights in Australia/America are in any way even remotely similar to human rights in Iran/Taliban-Afghanistan, you are very deluded.
Instead of dismissing things out of hand, you should do some real research.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:12,
archived)
And if you really think that human rights in Australia/America are in any way even remotely similar to human rights in Iran/Taliban-Afghanistan, you are very deluded.
Instead of dismissing things out of hand, you should do some real research.
I'm saying that those links are selectiveI read it before posting;
the blog is a collection of opinions and facts to support what they want to say and as such there are better ways to locate information on this topic. It's a bad index.
If you're researching unbiased information on this subject... this page is not the first port of call.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:33,
archived)
the blog is a collection of opinions and facts to support what they want to say and as such there are better ways to locate information on this topic. It's a bad index.
If you're researching unbiased information on this subject... this page is not the first port of call.
That'swhy you probably don't want to go and live in Iraq. Saying that, there's this great architecture college there, I remember three of it's resident bods graduated at the AA. Not that they live in Iraq now though. Mind you I expect the development prospects there are great now. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few developers eyeballing the place. There's nothing more healing to the spirit of a place than whacking up a few seventy-story hi-tech tower blocks.
There were some promising murmers at the ICT trade show in Shanghai about telecommunications there too. Yep, I recon give the place about twenty years and if the Yanks have naffed off by then, it might actually be a nice place for the wife and kids.
That's what I hope anyway. Forgive me for missing the point.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:14,
archived)
There were some promising murmers at the ICT trade show in Shanghai about telecommunications there too. Yep, I recon give the place about twenty years and if the Yanks have naffed off by then, it might actually be a nice place for the wife and kids.
That's what I hope anyway. Forgive me for missing the point.
America will probably still be in Iraq in twenty years time,The only towers there would be owned by Haliburton.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:16,
archived)
At least Saddam won't be torturing and murdering the families of anyone who disagrees with him anymore.A fascist dictator has been overthrown, yet some people can only complain about it.
It's very sad to see that political perspectives have become so narrow that a hatred of the US eclipses all other considerations.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:20,
archived)
It's very sad to see that political perspectives have become so narrow that a hatred of the US eclipses all other considerations.
Even worseIs that American people's delusion of being a hated race, will surely last longer and appear more pronounced than the actual hatred it's self.
I don't hate America. My company helps contract Developments between US designers and Chinese developers every year. I've never known an area of religious or political contradiction to slow things down in the board room.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:26,
archived)
I don't hate America. My company helps contract Developments between US designers and Chinese developers every year. I've never known an area of religious or political contradiction to slow things down in the board room.
It's not a delusion.Any regular visitor to B3ta would note the depth of hatred for the US that is regularly expressed on the board -- and this isn't a particularly rabid place as politics go.
Just look at this thread -- before I posted, the default assumption was that Americans were inbred, religious hicks who hated science. And you made the broad assumption that Iraq would be okay "as soon as the Yanks naffed off".
There is a lot of bigotry on B3ta, but since most people agree with it at some level, it isn't seen for what it is.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:30,
archived)
Just look at this thread -- before I posted, the default assumption was that Americans were inbred, religious hicks who hated science. And you made the broad assumption that Iraq would be okay "as soon as the Yanks naffed off".
There is a lot of bigotry on B3ta, but since most people agree with it at some level, it isn't seen for what it is.
noyou misread that...
the statement was made by an American, that the current representitive leader of her country did not agree with a set of otherwise commonly accepted scientific theories.
You assumed the rest.
edit: seriously... b3tans make fun of blair on a daily basis. Does that mean that they think the UK is 100% twattyville? I think you're only reading what you want to believe here.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:38,
archived)
the statement was made by an American, that the current representitive leader of her country did not agree with a set of otherwise commonly accepted scientific theories.
You assumed the rest.
edit: seriously... b3tans make fun of blair on a daily basis. Does that mean that they think the UK is 100% twattyville? I think you're only reading what you want to believe here.
No I didn't.Just look at the first post in the thread and the first few replies.
I think this (one ear and two mouths) might be one of the milder defects sported by the people who live in the vicinity of this sign.
(batteryoperatedlettuce, Sun 27 Feb, 4:50, Ignore, Reply)
it says "god bless america" everywhere
and churches/ religious places of worship are pretty common, and they all have signs like those thay say stupid things
('abandonnship- b.n.' sure does like a.b., Sun 27 Feb, 5:09, Ignore, Reply)
And this is a relatively mild thread. Yank-bashing on B3ta is much worse when more of the Poms are awake.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:44,
archived)
I think this (one ear and two mouths) might be one of the milder defects sported by the people who live in the vicinity of this sign.
(batteryoperatedlettuce, Sun 27 Feb, 4:50, Ignore, Reply)
it says "god bless america" everywhere
and churches/ religious places of worship are pretty common, and they all have signs like those thay say stupid things
('abandonnship- b.n.' sure does like a.b., Sun 27 Feb, 5:09, Ignore, Reply)
And this is a relatively mild thread. Yank-bashing on B3ta is much worse when more of the Poms are awake.
You mean bush bashing?that's something else altogether. Admittedly it can get confusing when the word "America" is used in the place of "American Administration", but you have to read this in on context.
You don't see people treating the american members of b3ta any differently based on their country.
Also abandonnship is American, so her opinion isn't yank bashing (unless she's into self mutilation).
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:54,
archived)
You don't see people treating the american members of b3ta any differently based on their country.
Also abandonnship is American, so her opinion isn't yank bashing (unless she's into self mutilation).
No, I mean Yank-bashingwhich encompasses Bush-bashing, people-who-voted-for-Bush-bashing, and general prejudice against Americans for being obese, dumb rednecks etc etc etc.
Also, just being American doesn't mean one can't hate Americans. See Michael Moore, Ward Churchill and Ted Rall for examples of Yank-bashing Yanks.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:02,
archived)
Also, just being American doesn't mean one can't hate Americans. See Michael Moore, Ward Churchill and Ted Rall for examples of Yank-bashing Yanks.
Michael Moorehmm... his target is definatley not the entire nation. He's a satarist, many of them pick a new target every time... and don't take sides.
He however has a few that he goes for, and he admits it:
- bush (and the current republican party)
- the NRA (despite being ironically a lifetime member)
- multinational corps
- to some extent the church, but this just seems to be when the church steps in on the side of any of the above
I don't know about the rest... but he wouldn't be supporting an american party so strongly if he "hated america".
That said, i'm off topic. Yes you can hate your own country... but read what she said, are you really implying that she was spitting "vile anti amercian propaganda"!?
Furthermore, the "people who voted for bush bashing" is just bush bashing. You put these people in front of a person who voted for bush and there won't be much hatred, probably a few arguments may arise over difference of opinon though.
And american's have got a stereotype? Get used to it! "when the the Poms get on the board" well there's theirs. The french... yes... WONDERFUL reputation. Etc...
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:17,
archived)
He however has a few that he goes for, and he admits it:
- bush (and the current republican party)
- the NRA (despite being ironically a lifetime member)
- multinational corps
- to some extent the church, but this just seems to be when the church steps in on the side of any of the above
I don't know about the rest... but he wouldn't be supporting an american party so strongly if he "hated america".
That said, i'm off topic. Yes you can hate your own country... but read what she said, are you really implying that she was spitting "vile anti amercian propaganda"!?
Furthermore, the "people who voted for bush bashing" is just bush bashing. You put these people in front of a person who voted for bush and there won't be much hatred, probably a few arguments may arise over difference of opinon though.
And american's have got a stereotype? Get used to it! "when the the Poms get on the board" well there's theirs. The french... yes... WONDERFUL reputation. Etc...
I believe you're missing the point on this one.Agreed, Saddam was an evil, murderous dictator, however the invasion of Iraq was illegal - America acted of it's own accord, without the approval of the United Nations. Do you remember why America invaded? Something to do with WMDs?
America has done nothing but make the entire area a haven for terrorists. Saddam wasn't a good man, but Bush is no better in any way, shape or form.
Also, it is actually possible to hate Bush without hating America.
(America has done nothing but make the entire area a haven for terrorists. Saddam wasn't a good man, but Bush is no better in any way, shape or form.
Also, it is actually possible to hate Bush without hating America.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:27,
archived)
Was it something to do with WMDs at all?The way I remember it, only Blair cited WMDs as the reason for going to war. Bush merely mentioned them incidentally.
"Make" the region a haven for terrorists is a bit rich, seeing as Saddam didn't exactly exclude them and was probably likely to give them help, particularly if they were going in the direction of israel.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:30,
archived)
"Make" the region a haven for terrorists is a bit rich, seeing as Saddam didn't exactly exclude them and was probably likely to give them help, particularly if they were going in the direction of israel.
I'm not saying that there weren't any terrorists before America invaded,But now, there is no real infrastructure, a whole heap of extra available weaponry (new and used), and some extremely pissed off people. Some might call that a haven for terrorists.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:36,
archived)
It does have people in it trying to stop terrorists, though.Which it didn't before.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:43,
archived)
There were at least six different reasons for invading Iraqbut America-haters have rewritten history to suit themselves.
As I said, it's depressing that so many people have been conned into thinking that democracy is somehow worse than fascism or theocracy.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:32,
archived)
As I said, it's depressing that so many people have been conned into thinking that democracy is somehow worse than fascism or theocracy.
Has anyone here spoken out against Democracy?I haven't read any posts like that.
What were the other reasons for invading Iraq? The only ones I remember were mentioned after America invaded.
(What were the other reasons for invading Iraq? The only ones I remember were mentioned after America invaded.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:34,
archived)
Here are the reasons given before the invasionIt helps to be well informed. Don't believe what you see in the Guardian or on the BBC.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:41,
archived)
Are you claimingsome kind of conspiracy by the guardian, and international press against america?
I've seen alot more evidence to suggest that there exists alot of collusion between fox and the republican party and many other entities considered by fox to be of financial interest.
I wouldn't take a government press release alone as proof of fact. Not from any country, including my own (so rightly proven with the "children overboard affair")
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:44,
archived)
I've seen alot more evidence to suggest that there exists alot of collusion between fox and the republican party and many other entities considered by fox to be of financial interest.
I wouldn't take a government press release alone as proof of fact. Not from any country, including my own (so rightly proven with the "children overboard affair")
All three of us are Australian.This really is quite a silly argument...
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:46,
archived)
Not that sillysince our country is an ally of the US, it does concern us.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:48,
archived)
:)I'm glad there's enough of you around at the same time to have one. Usually it's dead at this hour.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:50,
archived)
It's proof of the factthat the government gave a number of reasons other than WMD for the invasion of Iraq.
That is all it's required to prove.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:47,
archived)
That is all it's required to prove.
Which reasons?The only ones I saw were either about WMDs or weapons inspectors.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:48,
archived)
That's becauseyour sources were not telling the whole truth. I have helpfully provided a link to an original source, so you can compare the reality with what you have been told.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:49,
archived)
Why can't you tell me what these reasons are?Surely if you are as educated as you make out, you'd be able to rattle these off from the top of your head, rather than post some legalese from the white house, and keep referring back to it without so much as a quote.
TELL ME WHAT THESE OTHER REASONS WERE.
(TELL ME WHAT THESE OTHER REASONS WERE.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:52,
archived)
Okay, since you evidently can't understand big words:* Saddam had WMD
* Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda
* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush
* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire
* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture
See, it's not that difficult if you're literate.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:57,
archived)
* Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda
* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush
* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire
* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture
See, it's not that difficult if you're literate.
And how many of these were presented to the UN?One: WMD's.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:59,
archived)
Ummcan you provide us with this literature?
We're not convinced... and you can't "prove us wrong" in an argument till you do that (unless mathimatically).
I mean the american explinations for war changed so much that it was laughable at times.
There were no WMD's found
It's VERY hard to move WMD's without detection, or leaving evidence... even during a war.
There's still no sadam to al-queda link... not unless you believe that SCO has nothing to do with microsoft and it owns all linux software ever made and that can fesably ever be though of :)
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:22,
archived)
We're not convinced... and you can't "prove us wrong" in an argument till you do that (unless mathimatically).
I mean the american explinations for war changed so much that it was laughable at times.
There were no WMD's found
It's VERY hard to move WMD's without detection, or leaving evidence... even during a war.
There's still no sadam to al-queda link... not unless you believe that SCO has nothing to do with microsoft and it owns all linux software ever made and that can fesably ever be though of :)
Sorry mate,but when the argument consists of "The Americans only ever gave ONE reason for the invasion of Iraq", then it is indeed mathematically possible to prove it wrong -- simply by proving that there was more than one reason. QED.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:35,
archived)
Actually, as mentioned above,They only presented one LEGAL reason for invasion to the UN, and it wasn't true.
Take your QED elsewhere (especially considering that this was originally an argument about the separation of church and state). You've proven nothing.
(Take your QED elsewhere (especially considering that this was originally an argument about the separation of church and state). You've proven nothing.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:38,
archived)
I suspect that was the only one the UN would listen to.Having faffed around over Iraq for ages.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:03,
archived)
It was the only one the UN would listen to,because it was the only viable, legal reason for invasion that america had. Strangely, it wasn't even true.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:08,
archived)
Fool. Carlyle Group - bin Laden - al-Qaeda.
"* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush"
President Bush has attempted to assassinate Saddam.
"* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire"
The US has failed to abide by many UN agreements.
"* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors"
That is a lie, as there were actually inspectors on the ground. Bush refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, in truth, just prior to the (second Bush) invasion.
"* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture"
The US oppresses Iraqis with murder and torture. In the same prisons, like Abu Ghraib, no less!
"See, it's not that difficult if you're literate."
Must be eminently difficult for you then. Why DO you despise reality so very very much?
You've become tiresome; and your bullshit, trite, weather-thinned and vacuous. Our patience wears thin.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:38,
archived)
"* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush"
President Bush has attempted to assassinate Saddam.
"* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire"
The US has failed to abide by many UN agreements.
"* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors"
That is a lie, as there were actually inspectors on the ground. Bush refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, in truth, just prior to the (second Bush) invasion.
"* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture"
The US oppresses Iraqis with murder and torture. In the same prisons, like Abu Ghraib, no less!
"See, it's not that difficult if you're literate."
Must be eminently difficult for you then. Why DO you despise reality so very very much?
You've become tiresome; and your bullshit, trite, weather-thinned and vacuous. Our patience wears thin.
Why not summarise it for me?Let me know you understand it.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:45,
archived)
I'm not convinced you have read it either.www.b3ta.com/board/4317746
If you can't even tell me what your six reasons were, you obviously aren't as 'in the now' as you'd like people to think.
(If you can't even tell me what your six reasons were, you obviously aren't as 'in the now' as you'd like people to think.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:49,
archived)
No, they weren't.Just give me one reason other than WMDs.
One.
Or would you rather us think that you're just parrotting someone else's opinions?
(One.
Or would you rather us think that you're just parrotting someone else's opinions?
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:54,
archived)
I've read it.Reasons:
Thwarting weapons inspections,
continuing weapons programs,
aspiring to nuclear weapons,
threatening national security,
threatening peace and security of the region,
brutal repression of its civilian population.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:57,
archived)
Thwarting weapons inspections,
continuing weapons programs,
aspiring to nuclear weapons,
threatening national security,
threatening peace and security of the region,
brutal repression of its civilian population.
So have I -What reasons did you get out of it? Other than weapons inspectors being obstructed?
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:58,
archived)
You should improve your reading skillsand stop getting your "news" from useless sources like the ABC.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:59,
archived)
What's wrong with weapons inspectors being obstructed as a reason?
I believe that you were arguing that there were more reasons thanjust WMDs. The obstruction of weapons inspectors is just another facet of the WMD issue, not a whole new reason for invasion.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:07,
archived)
But the point of this- I'm guessing - is to say "the war was a mistake". Which only works for the specific reason of WMDs existing in Iraq, since there apparently weren't any. But reasons like thwarting inspections remain valid. Iraq was being aggressive and totalitarian.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:12,
archived)
I have mentioned above that I do not deny Saddam's pre-war behaviour,But this does not give America the right to step in.
Similarly, If I see someone in the pub that looks like they might be able to beat me up, I am not allowed to make a pre-emptive strike.
(Similarly, If I see someone in the pub that looks like they might be able to beat me up, I am not allowed to make a pre-emptive strike.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:15,
archived)
This post is very hard to readlots of vertical single word lines of text :)
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:35,
archived)
SeirouslyDon't worry about it man.
You would be very supprised how little the opinions surrounding the Iraq war affect business.
I do have a problem with the war though, from a personal point of view. I earn RMB which is pegged to the dollar. The Iraq war caused the dollar to fall, dragging the RMB down a whole two points with it against the pound. Since my money eventually goes back to England, it's now worth over seven percent less than it was before the Iraq war. Those US troops and planes wern't bombing buildings and people over there - they were boming MY bank balance.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:37,
archived)
You would be very supprised how little the opinions surrounding the Iraq war affect business.
I do have a problem with the war though, from a personal point of view. I earn RMB which is pegged to the dollar. The Iraq war caused the dollar to fall, dragging the RMB down a whole two points with it against the pound. Since my money eventually goes back to England, it's now worth over seven percent less than it was before the Iraq war. Those US troops and planes wern't bombing buildings and people over there - they were boming MY bank balance.
Well I realise that now, butI must have sent George Bush a hundred letters before the war, begging him not to invade Iraq. I now reluctently concede that an enormous loss of life, the spending of a few billion dollars and the ongoing trauma of a fifteen year war, are more important than me having to buy a slightly cheaper car - BUT NOT BY MUCH.
Next time I would like the USA as a nation, to show a little more consideration, and think about the knock on finacial effects to others, and more specifically me.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:45,
archived)
Next time I would like the USA as a nation, to show a little more consideration, and think about the knock on finacial effects to others, and more specifically me.
It's all a lot of moral equivocationwhere people grumble about the status quo (er, not the memes) being in some sense rotten while refusing to be pinned down about what they'd prefer.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:38,
archived)
Well,I was only kidding about America really. In business terms it doesn't really matter who's running the place, as long as they stay out of the way and play with white paper and war and stuff.
As long as people can get in there and exchange money and service, I'm sure it'll wriggle back onto the map.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:22,
archived)
As long as people can get in there and exchange money and service, I'm sure it'll wriggle back onto the map.