>> ^NetRunner:

So while you're hoping he fails, and this turns into a huge fucking mess, so you can rub it in me or DFT's faces, I'm hoping he pulls it off, because I don't want lots of innocent people to die.


I agree. blankfist sees this as a game and shows no genuine concern for anything other than his own ego.

For anyone interested in going beyond the sports of politics, there is a good exchange of ideas here: http://videosift.com/video/Democracy-Now-Debate-on-U-S-Military-Intervention-in-Libya, here: http://videosift.com/video/TRN-Obama-and-the-Libyan-Rebellion and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Sg8U07tDQ (still unsifted, go for it.)

And for the record, I'm pretty sympathetic to both sides of the debate at this point. Helping the Libyans to gain independence is a good thing, but fears of Milton Friedman style Chicago school economic imperialism (like we've seen in Iraq, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, etc.) are well founded.

I'm a centrist on this issue.

When a widespread tsunami warning is issued this is what the list looks like after an 8.9 130 km off the coast of Japan:


Japan, Russia, Marcus Is., N. Marianas, Guam, Wake Is., Taiwan, Yap, Philippines, Marshall Is., Belau, Midway Is., Pohnpei, Chuuk, Kosrae, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Johnston Is., Solomon Is., Kiribati, Howland-baker, Hawaii, Tuvalu, Palmyra Is., Vanuatu, Tokelau, Jarvis Is., Wallis-futuna, Samoa, American Samoa, Cook Islands, Niue, Fiji, New Caledonia, Tonga, Mexico, Kermadec is, Fr. Polynesia, Pitcairn, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Antarctica, Panama, Honduras, Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru

Here is some insane raw footage of water moving through Miyagi Prefecture-There is another clip with a raging fire moving with the rush of water which may be part of the fire from a turbine a Nuclear Power facility.

Why is it extreme fiction to think that powerful, ambitious men would take advantage of a power vacuum? Free market intervention via the IMF has horror stories far, far worse than this. Real stories, not fiction. Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Bolivia. Powerful people take advantage of the power vacuum in our country too. Deregulation of derivatives caused the current financial crisis. Deregulating the banks caused the mortgage fraud crisis. Deregulating energy caused the Enron crisis. Business has co-opted our relatively powerful government and led us into war and debt. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and the power of wealthy ambitious men would be unbound. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and what you consider to be oppression would be dwarfed.

When states fail, gangs and warlords always immediately rise up to take advantage of the system.

When I say anarchists and conservative libertarians are naive, I'm not trying to be mean. I think they are blind to the historical constant that powerful, ambitious men will always try and game political systems, and that anarchism, by design, would be completely impotent at stopping them. It is no small coincidence that these powerful, ambitious men support many of the institutions and think tanks that inform your politics. The same people that fund Cato and the Reason Institute also fund PNAC and Freedomworks. Does it not disturb you that Neo-Cons fund your institutions? Does it not disturb you that conservative libertarian heroes like Milton Friedman have backed violence and violent dictators in South America to further their cause? To further your cause?

Anyway, this is why I find conservative libertarianism and anarchism so objectionable. I don't think anarchism could ever happen, because of the paradox that in order to achieve and maintain an anti-state, you would need the power of a state. The reason I oppose a movement that could never get off the ground is that its principles (low taxes, deregulation) are being used as justification for the very tyranny it seeks to abolish.

(PS: check out the documentary: GASLAND. My fiction was based on real events.)

I only had to read 3 of the "200 lies" to see that the person who wrote it has never really read, nor understood, Chomsky... except maybe in-order to get his 'out of context' quotes.

I've been following Chomsky for over 20 years and you'd be hard pressed to come up with something on him. He has been intellectually consistent and on-topic since the 70's. He was against the slaughter of peasants in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, East Timor, Iraq, Palestine, and every other hidden murder zone in the last 50 years.

When the "200 lies" start with Chomsky's take on Lenin, the author's already proven himself to be a moron. Chomsky's only downside is that he bores people who aren't intellectual enough and infuriates people who are brainlessly patriotic.
>> ^quantumushroom:

The Top 200 Chomsky Lies.
Oh, that's right, it's FOX that has an agenda.

--"They are all crazy. That doesn't take balls. That takes a whole lot of stupid"

Sadly, it only takes poverty.


From Wikipedia
Poverty
According to the PNUD, 48% of the population in Nicaragua live below the poverty line,79.9% of the population live with less than $2 per day,unemployment is 3.9%, and another 46.5% are underemployed (2008 est.). As in many other developing countries, a large segment of the economically poor in Nicaragua are women. In addition, a relatively high proportion of Nicaragua's homes have a woman as head of household: 39% of urban homes and 28% of rural homes. According to UN figures, 80% of the indigenous people (who make up 5% of the population) live on less than $1 per day. According to the FAO, 27% of all Nicaraguans are suffering from undernourishment; the highest percentage in Central America.
Infrastructure
During the war between the US-backed Contras and the Marxist government of the Sandinistas in the 1980s, much of the country's infrastructure was damaged or destroyed. Inflation averaged 30% throughout the 1980s. After the United States imposed a trade embargo in 1985, which lasted 5 years, Nicaragua's inflation rate rose dramatically. The 1985 annual rate of 220% tripled the following year and rose to more than 13,000% in 1988, the highest rate for any country in the Western Hemisphere in that year.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I take no pleasure in the fact innocents have to be searched, but if you're going to piss off anyone, how about the demographic and "religion" responsible for terrorist acts 99.99% of the time? Maybe some of these fictional "moderate" Muslims might actually stop and ponder why they let jihadist vermin represent their religion.
BTW, now that you've "seen the light" about the stupidity and low qualifications of a large swath of TSAers, are you ready for the same gorogs being hired as Government Medical Techs? Same efficiency, same grace. It's only a matter of time.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Either way you look at it QM, they've never found ONE bomb. Not one. Ever.



For "Terroristic Acts" see War in Iraq, War in Afganistan, War on Terror, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Gulf War Sanctions, Invasion of Haiti, Invasion of Grenada, Funding Militias in Nicaragua who attack soft targets.

See where I'm going here...to much of the world we are the terrorists.

We were not attacked from or by Afghanistan. Let us connect the dots and look at this logically without the simplistic view which the general US population so quickly likes to fall into.

We were attacked by Saudi nationals, led by a Saudi national who is a member of a Saudi elite family (who was protected by the Bush clan on 9/11). These Saudi's were funded by Arab money. Not 'Afghani' money. To be further detailed. Individuals in Al Qaeda were 'trained' in Afghanistan at camps which were originally established by the US CIA to train the locals to fight against Russia. These groups were funded, equipped, and trained by the USA. Bin Laden was in the leadership at the time. So if we are talking about associations of associations here, the US was technically attacked by individuals trained by US leadership. That is if you want to label anyone or anything associated with the training camps as being guilty of attacks against the U.S. Yes the Taliban are fundy wackos for sure.. but the Taliban did not attack us.

Iran may have some involvement. But the US equipped and funded Saddam/Iraq and fueled a long and brutal war between the two nations. Millions died as a result. Chemical weapons were used on both sides of that war. Chemical weapons and technology provided to Iraq by the US and their allies. Iraq and Iran were not responsible for the planning and execution of 9/11. That has been proven. Bush wanted you to think otherwise to justify his illegal war. Simply to overthrow Saddam, who stopped listening to his CIA puppet masters YEARS before. This has happened the US many many times. They stick a dictator in power, and they shit hits the fan. Panama, Nicaragua, Iran, the list goes on. Then the US wonders why they have enemies out there. We keep meddling and destabilizing regions. Why? An unstable region is a region which is not united. They pose a far less of a threat to US power as a result. That is why the middle east (the part that doesn't bend over to US power) is not allowed to unify.

Now more about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is NOT a nation. We label it as one, however it is a mishmash of very very different tribes within the same region. Many hold different beliefs and languages. 'Afghanistan' as it is known is not recognized by the local populace in the same sense as you would call the US a 'country'. The borders were drawn by westerners, and the so-called 'country' has been invaded numerous times by foreign powers. The British came in and failed. The Russians came in and failed. How are we to believe the US will be any more successful? They won't. The US CANNOT enforce a western government and values upon a land of tribes, where tribe comes first before so-called nationality.

The Karzai government is a sham. A US placed goon in power. The elections were a sham. They were rigged, and the likely to win candidate walked out due to the corruption. Karzai is a president of a city. Not a nation. Beyond his cities borders he holds no more sway that another tribal chief. Without constant military protection, he wouldn't survive a short walk to the end of the block. He is not a president of a nation. He is a representative, a local extension to the occupying force.

What to be done? Our mission is done. It is failed. Bin Laden escaped. Afghanistan is not the US's responsibility. It is the Afghanis. Let them free themselves. Let them choose their way forward. It may be bloody, but it is their nation and their culture. The US had it's bloody internal conflicts. The US earned it's way to where it is today. We build it ourselves based on our own culture and methods. It is not the same as theirs. It will not work for them. They need to find their own way.

Lets rebuild the US and stop throwing wasted resources at a dead land that would take from us with one hand, and stab us in the back with the other. The US should NOT be nation building.

I don't really remember Obama selling weapons to Iran either.

Or starting the "War on Drugs"

Or tripling the national debt.

Or lying to Congress.

Or enacting the largest tax increase in history

Or arming and training the Mujahedeen (including one Osama Bin-Laden)

Or attempting to overthrow the the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, resulting in mass slaughter.

Or deregulating the media

Or deregulating the SNL industry, resulting in a massive financial collapse

Or selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein

Or denying the threat of AIDS/HIV

Or...

Or...

But Obama hasn't been in office long enough to see if he can match Ronnie's record of having "The Most Corrupt Administration in US History" with 135 members of his admin indicted or investigated.

And this was really the way you think a government would do it? First rig up buildings with explosives in secret without anyone knowing, then somehow get people to agree to be suicide pilots of planes, then have those planes be passenger planes so that they are not just killing the people in the buildings but those in the planes, and then have them be piloted into the buildings, and then demolish the buildings with explosives.


Really?


You really think they would do this? I know the governments do some seriously horrible shit, and that the attack on Irag was not driven by trying to get anyone remotely connected to 9/11... but you really think that the US government would create something this convoluted when there are plenty of simpler ways to create a reason to attack another country and make your populous afraid of an unseen bogeyman.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that even blatant facts that kill their suppositions are treated as merely 'bogus information from the man' and discounted, whereas utter drivel masquerading as science that agrees with them is lovingly circulated ad nauseum.


>> ^NobleOne:
^ Spoco2: why is it so unbelievable really? Has there never been government conspiracies or secrets? In your context of your argument the Government never killed Kennedy even after coming up with the idea of backing money to silver, pulling out of Vietnam, or dis-banding the CIA... Though i am sure it was one shooter with one bullet that went all nimbly bimbly bouncing around the car and pushing Kennedy back and to the left. That was how long ago and we still don't know all the facts on it.... I am sure as shit not that naive to think it was one guy from a 3rd floor book depository with a bolt action rifle... or the coincidences that Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Robert Kennedy were all killed within the same time frame... Or how about over throwing the Shah in Iran or the contras in Nicaragua.... Man the list is overwhelming.... Trillions of dollars in Oil will make people do i am sure just about anything....

^ Spoco2: why is it so unbelievable really? Has there never been government conspiracies or secrets? In your context of your argument the Government never killed Kennedy even after coming up with the idea of backing money to silver, pulling out of Vietnam, or dis-banding the CIA... Though i am sure it was one shooter with one bullet that went all nimbly bimbly bouncing around the car and pushing Kennedy back and to the left. That was how long ago and we still don't know all the facts on it.... I am sure as shit not that naive to think it was one guy from a 3rd floor book depository with a bolt action rifle... or the coincidences that Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Robert Kennedy were all killed within the same time frame... Or how about over throwing the Shah in Iran or the contras in Nicaragua.... Man the list is overwhelming.... Trillions of dollars in Oil will make people do i am sure just about anything....

Star Wars Defense Initiative
Invading Grenada and Nicaragua, etc
Iran Contra

National defense. That's the only thing that federal government actually SHOULD be doing, so I don't have a problem with them so much. I'd prefer less political meddling in international matters though. Small government, strict constitution, fiscal responsibility. Nowadays the obstacle to these issues is domestic entitlement spending, social engineering, and so forth. Reagan could have done better, but with a democrat congress it is hard. He talked the right stuff though. Even the Repubican party didn't like how hard he was pushing for cuts in domestic spending.

Star Wars Defense Initiative
Invading Grenada and Nicaragua, etc
Iran Contra

I was in grade school then, but I remember Reagan pushing some pretty expensive stuff, and committing some fringe actions that I would now say push the constitutional envelope. It wasn't just congress.

In reply to this comment by mxxcon:
i wasn't commenting so much on atrocities they've done but the fact that the whole organization from the very bottom to the very top is structured to encourage and cover up these crimes.
and the fact that US Gov't still support this organization
and the fact that there is no measurable public outcry against blackwater or gov't officials that are not acting stop this.

this country needs some of that sense of responsibility and shame that is so common in japan's society.
90% of our elected officials should commit public seppuku.

The whole organization from the very bottom to the top is structured to encourage and cover up these crimes? You mean like how the American government itself tries to cover up things like the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, or it's use of biological weapons in Korea (those brave few who protested were condemned were and persecuted: McCarthyism at its finest during the height of the cold war), or tried to cover up the whole Iran-Contra affair (Where the US sold Iran weapons and gave the funds to the Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua, who used American funded weapons to commit countless atrocities) or the army's use of torture in the current Iraqi war?

And sense of shame and responsibility that is common in Japan's society? You mean like how the doctors of Unit 731 who performed live vivisection on prisoners and civilians with no anesthesia, who viewed non-japanese civilians as nothing better than "logs" to test on, and how these doctors were not charged with war crimes and went back into Japanese society and lead successful careers afterward? And how so many Japanese people, including influential politicians are vocal deniers of war crimes committed by the Japanese army (that whole section was censored out of Japanese school curriculum)? Or like how Issei Sagawa, who murdered and ate Renee Hartevelt, a Dutch exchange student in Paris, is a celebrity and a free man in Japan, and makes a living from his infamy? Shame and denial are not mutually exclusive.

I'm saying this kind of corruption and coverup, and this kind of public apathy, is hardly unique to America, and is hardly a new phenomenon. It's ubiquitous. Seriously, Blackwater is one of the least things to be ashamed about in our history.

Aus dem Land
das sich selbst zerstört
und uns den 'way of life' Diktiert

da kommt Reagan und bringt Waffen und Tod

und hört er Frieden
sieht er rot.
Er sagt als Präsident von USA
Atomkrieg ? - Ja
bitte
dort und da

ob Polen
Mittler Osten
Nicaragua

er will den Endsieg
das ist doch klar.

Doch wir wollen: Sonne statt Reagan
ohne Rüstung leben !
Ob West
ob Ost
auf Raketen muß Rost !
wir wollen: Sonne statt Reagan
ohne Rüstung leben !
Ob West
ob Ost
auf Raketen muß Rost !

Er will die Säcke im Osten reizen
die auch nicht mit Atomen geizen

doch dein Krieg um hirnverbrannte Ziele

der läuft nicht Reagan - wir sind viele !
Hau ab mit deinen Nuklearstrategen

deinen Russenhassern
deinem Strahlenregen

Mensch Knitterface
der Film ist aus

nimm' die Raketen mit nach Haus !

Denn wir wollen: Sonne statt Reagan
ohne Rüstung leben !
Ob Ost
ob West
Kalten Kriegern die Pest !
Wir wollen: Sonne statt Reagan
ohne Rüstung leben !
Ob Ost
ob West
Kalten Kriegern die Pest !

Dieser Reagan kommt als Mann der Rüstungsindustrie

but the peoples of the States don't want it - nie !
und den wahren Frieden wird's erst geben

wenn alle Menschen ohne Waffen leben.

Wir wollen: Sonne statt Reagan
ohne Rüstung leben !
Ob West
ob Ost
auf Raketen muß Rost !
Sonne statt Reagan
ohne Rüstung leben !
Ob Ost
ob West
Kalten Kriegern die Pest !.....


Sun Instead of Rain (English translation)

From the country that destroys itself and dictates to us the "way of life," Reagan comes bringing weapons and death, and when he hears peace, he sees red. He says as president of the U.S.A., "Nuclear war? Yes please, there and there." Whether Poland, the Middle East, or Nicaragua, he wants the final victory, that's perfectly clear.

2X But we want: sun instead of Reagan, to live without weapons!
Whether West, whether East, let missiles rust!
He wants to provoke those bastards in the East, even those without nuclear weapons, But your war over crazy goals just doesn't work, Reagan--there are too many of us!
Cut it out with your nuclear strategies, your Russian haters, your nuclear fallout.
Hey, wrinkle-face, the jig is up, take your missiles back home with you.

2X Yeah we want: sun instead of Reagan, to live without weapons!
Whether West, whether East, the plague on all Cold Warriors!
This Reagan is married to the defense industry, but the people of the States don't want it--never!
and there will first be true peace, when all people live without weapons.

2X We really want sun instead of Reagan, to live without weapons!
Whether West, whether East, let missiles rust!
Yeah we want: sun instead of Reagan, to live without armaments!
Whether West, whether East, the plague on all Cold Warriors!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I politely disagree with your assertions as they are emotion based opinions rather than facts. America did not create 'a problem'. Hostile terrorists existed long before the US was settled. The US is not a worse people for trying to defeat terrorists. That is an value based opinion subject to debate. And terrorists hate anyone/anything that is convenient to thier cause du'jour. Pinning that sort of moving target onto ideas you disagree with politically is spurious.


I see we can add "Lacks reading comprehension skills" to your list of character flaws.

I said "we created this problem", an obvious reference to the current rash of so called "islamofascist" terrorists, not terrorism in general. Throughout the 1980's this country covertly spent one billion dollars to fund the Afghanistan Mujahideen in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And then when they succeeded the US cut off all ties to the Afghani people, refusing to provide even one million dollars in aide to rebuild schools. And because of it, a power vacuum formed that allowed the Taliban and al-Qaeda (the CIA assets led by Osama bin Laden) to seize control and turn hundreds of thousands of young men against the US. Or as the man behind the money for Operation Cyclone, Charles Wilson, once said, "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." So yeah, the US created this problem. Try getting your history from somewhere other than Faux News.


As far as 'reaching out' being the solution to 'the problem'? In a remarkably short period of time, Barak Obama has very effectively proven that reaching out is an incredibly ineffective tactic. Reaching out efforts from Barak Obama have been rejected by France, Germany, England, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Hamas, Al Quieda, and Somali pirates. Why should I ascribe to the notion that 'reaching out' is going to decrease hostility when all factual examples contradict that concept? For example, Clinton 'reached out' to terrorists and a fat lot of good it did him in Mogudishu.


Actions speak louder than words, and sadly diplomacy is really just a lot of empty words. But with the current economic climate, we're really at a loss to be able to do much more than talk. Regardless the damage done to diplomacy by the previous administration will be a constant burden for years to come.

In the not too distant past we have had it within our power to improve the quality of life for millions of people in third world nations. But whenever we make an effort, we do the least we can and often leave places in worse situations than we found them.