I'm sorry but you are simply wrong. America is rich largely because of it's slavery past which was cotton, which was textiles. It's why we grew so quickly and put ourselves in a place to overtake everyone after World War 2 when we literally had half the worlds wealth. There's plenty of economic history of this that you can research if you care to try.

The fear thing is pretty unique in America but not unique when you compare it to say a authoritarian society. Americans are a terrified people and it's easy to use it. You can look back at the first Gulf War when people were buying guys and camo and readying themselves in case Saddam came to attack the US. Which is insanity. In the Iraq War we were more terrified of Iraq than Kuwait and it's citizens were, and they had been attacked by them and were their closest neighbor. You can also see the fear today about taking peoples guns away, if we don't have guns we're all doomed, the government is coming or al qaeda is coming and we're all gonna die. Most of the rest of the world looks at us and laughs when we react all scared to nothing.

This cartoon pisses me off for one reason. It reminds me about the South Park guys bitching and moaning about how it was put in after Matts interview, so it looked to idiots like they had made it. Apparently that was enough for them to bitch and moan about it, I lost a lot of respect for Matt and Trea because of that.

No, nothing is the only thing the UN ever does. It similarly did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide. It similarly did nothing to stop Saddam's genocide of the Kurds. It similarly did nothing to stop Saddam's genocide of Shia Iraqis. Seems perfectly consistent that it continue it's track record without requiring any manner of puppet/fear conspiracy theory.

In the video Galloway also goes on to say that he's had several Israeli citizens on his show and who he's on platform with. Galloway specifically states that he doesn't consider every Israeli citizen the problem

2:45 in Gorillaman's video, "I don't debate with Israelis", again at 8:44 and again at 11:08. Galloway only declares that his problem is not with Jewish people, he repeatedly declares that he absolutely will not debate Israeli's.

What is your response to the gorrilaman video which Galloway explains his reasoning.

My response is disgust, outrage and disbelief. Galloway declares that on principle, his boycott of Israel extends to the point of refusing to even engaging any Israeli in debate. I had hoped that much was clear, and if that point isn't agreed let me know. I don't know how Galloway could make himself any clearer but apparently some still don't hear him.

On the face of it, his position on that isn't even what I find most offensive, though I do find it so. I insist it is no different than any other nationality I've mentioned up thread. What is intolerable is Galloway's own past record.

Saddam Hussein committed genocide against his own people not once, but twice. Killing nearly a half million people across the two. George Galloway did NOT refuse to engage Saddam(let alone Iraqis) in debate. In fact, George went to Baghdad and met Saddam, telling him "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability. I can honestly say when I was speaking with my comrades about coming here, each one wished me to extend their fraternal greetings and support."

Bashir al Assad is continuing on the work of his father, brutally repressing and killing his own people. Galloway again went to Damascus, to praise Syria and tell the people how lucky they were to have Assad. He even squeezed in praise for the Iraqi suicide bombers then blowing up Shia mosques and neighbourhoods.

Galloway's moral 'high' road towards Israel is revealing in the extreme when looking at his eagerness to not only engage, but actively praise other war criminals in the region.

Kuwait is a tiny country, and didn't have nearly the military that Iraq had because of US support of Iraq. Do you remember until he attacked Kuwait he was a big Ally, we loved him and supported him right through his greatest atrocities.

The Gulf War was just us rolling over them, it wasn't even a fight it was us flexing our muscles and a good sign to other countries not to step out of line. We then allowed Saddam to stay in power by letting him crush the resistance against him which was serious and would've most likely overthrown him. We imposed sanctions that were in the words of Dennis Halliday "Genocidal." And which when asked if killing 500,000 Iraqi children was ok Madeline Albright said "We think the price is worth it."

Iran isn't like Iraq at all, either before the Gulf War or Before the Iraq War. It's got a much more powerful and technological military. Also the US is simply not as powerful as it was. Remember the Gulf War was just after the Wall Fell, we were the worlds only super power. The Iraq War was against a basically helpless nation (even Kuwait wasn't afraid of them anymore), and we were stuck there for years, it was ridiculous how we fucked it up so amazingly. Russia in Chechnya is pissing themselves over how we fucked it up so badly. If David Petraeus could do what Putin did, he's probably be considered the greatest military man the US had ever seen.

I'm sorry but we cannot invade Iran like we did Iraq, simply because the world is changing too quickly. It's not going to happen, and if it does, you'll see a real uprising in the US. The OWS thing has more sympathy than people think, it's just bubbling under the surface. If it's given a huge cause the troops will have to be called back to the US to control the population.

Also contrary to popular belief Wars don't make money, they cost money. Preparing for War makes money, the Military Industrial complex wants to always be spending money Preparing for War and not having to fight one that would take significant resources, like getting bogged down in Iran.

I'm sorry but it's just nothing like the same thing going on. I don't think we're going to be invading Iran on the ground ever do to the change in the power system and the enemy.

I gave you examples, you want more or do you want to do your own research? The American public was scared of Saddam in 1990 and they were scared again in 2003. In both cases there was NOTHING to be scared of yet you had people training and buying guns just in case he came HERE to the United States.

Hell you don't even have to look hard, remember the Red Scare when everyone was terrified that the communists are going to choke us in the night? We're a scaredy cat nation, because the propaganda is geared towards scaring us. You can't deny the effect of propaganda on people, it turned us from not wanting to get into World War 1 to a German hating crazy warmongering public. We couldn't even play Bach here because we hated Germany so much. Also the Yellow Journalism that got us into the Spanish American War, there are still people terrified that Cuba is about to strangle us...SERIOUSLY FUCKING CUBA!

Goebbels, Hitlers propaganda minister, based HIS propaganda on the United States' model. This shit is all documented, and you just sit there "Nope not true" you don't have any evidence though.

Chomsky talks about getting letters from people constantly about how dare he defend (as if he does) the helpless people that might kill us at any moment.

LOOK Right here at home, we're terrified of black people, so lets have a War on drugs to make sure if you're a 14 year old black kid with a joint in your pocket you go to jail for a LONG AS TIME. Just look at any prison, you'll see the effect it had.

Just provide some evidence for what you claim...it's not hard, till then you can't tell me I'm drinking kool aid because I actually work at gaining knowledge.

Saddam wasn't weak in the beginning, he was strong enough to think that he can invade Kuwait and take over their oil. But after years of sanctions, its government turned into shambles and it was easy meal for Bush.

So the US strategy is for Democrats to sanction n weaken, then for the Republicans to go in for the kill. Iraq was sanctioned heavily by Clinton, and when Bush came in, it was turn to invade. That is why it they fixed the intelligence to fit the policy of invasion. It was a plan years in development.

Now Obama has put heavy sanctions on Iran, which is already taking a heavy toll on Iran people. This will continue for another four years. Then the next administration, which undoubtedly will be a Republican will do the invasion. By that time, Iran's government will be in shambles and its people so demoralized that its going to be as easy as Iraq invasion.

The Green movement was Iran's only chance to change the invasion plan and now that has been lost, by regime's own arrogance. Also the military industrial complex needs another war to feed on, and unfortunately it seems like that it is going to get it.

You're assuming a reasonable person. A suicide bomber is not reasonable. Maybe this person's family is already dead to american drone attacks (or whatnot), which set him on the path of wanting to destroy america. My point is, you can't assume these kinds of people act in a reasonable way, or that they even know that everyone has weapons. Avoiding nuclear disaster from the cold war was only done because people were smart and cautious; if it had been George W instead of JFK at the cuba crisis, would the same thing have happened? Maybe, maybe not - it doesn't take much for it all to come crashing down. What if it had been Saddam Hussein instead of JFK?

I'll answer some of messengers questions:

"1. Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?"

Gaza is now basically a prison camp, and yes, Israel is behind that, but thats not why Islamic totalitarian terrorists are fighting. They are not seeking freedom, they are seeking islamic totalism and the extermination of jews.

"2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?"
Yes, probably.

"3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?"

If the occupiers were muslims, imprisoning and ruling Gaza with an islamic iron fist, then yes, probably. It is a strange and sad fact that Islamic societies are rabidly anti-semitic and anti-everything-not-islam, and at war with any neighbour that doesnt conform to islam, while being strangely content and silent if oppressed by fellow muslims, as is the case in so many islamic countries, where were the islamic suicide bombers fighting the oppression of Saddam?, The taliban, kohmeini? Muslims, especially women, are suffering every day all over the place, and most of the suffering is NOT caused by Israel or the west, but by islamic or muslim thugs at the helm of an oppressed people. I'd love for the palestinians to have freedom, but not just from Israel, but also from the violent ideology of the terrorists claiming to fight for them.

"4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?

5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?"

Firstly, The enemy is not israeli civilians, secondly this question sets up a false dichotomy: obviously killing is worse than celebration, but celebrating the death of innocent people doesnt exactly show that you are ready for peace or reconcilliation.It shows that Hamas' tactics are not simply last-resort, desparate actions from an imprisoned people, but something they at some level rejoice in doing. If Hamas were the peace-loving hippie freedom fighters you seem to think they are, they surely would not celebrate like this?

Actually the number was closer to 47%, ( http://atlanticreview.org/archives/726-More-Americans-Believe-that-Saddam-Was-Directly-Involved-in-911.html ) that is less than 70% to be sure, and its unfortunate that Cenk gets this number wrong. I cant find the numbers now, but he may have been mistaking it for the republican % at the time. At any rate, it is still an insanely high number, and even after all the debunking of this claim, a sizable number still believed it in 2007. Even tho Cenk had the number wrong, his point still stands, when nearly half the country get such a well-established, crucially important, and highly relevant (at the time) fact so completely wrong, something is wrong. And if your claim is that the news media has no responsibility, whats the point of having them in the first place? They could might as well have reported that a couple of penguins flew into the towers.

>> ^deedub81:
It's not the media's job to "inform" people. The example about nearly 70% of people believing that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9/11 is laughable. If that stat is true (which I doubt), it's the uninformed American population that's the problem.

It seems like you missed the main point. Or that you're being willfully contentious to support your bias.

The point here is that the uninformed population IS the problem. And the only institution that can inform the population, that has a DUTY to inform the population, the vairous news media, is failing in their job. Hence...the uninformed populace.

I can't imagine how you can possibly claim, or hope to support, your position that it's not the job of the news outlets to inform the people. That's just patently absurd. But it does appear that the majority of news sources either agree with you or, at the very least, place that responsiblity low on their list of priorities. It hasn't always been that way though. There was a time when the presentation of fact was considered a sacred duty. Something's broken now though and there's only speculation on what the cause is or what the solution should be.

It's not the media's job to "inform" people. The example about nearly 70% of people believing that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9/11 is laughable. If that stat is true (which I doubt), it's the uninformed American population that's the problem. The problems with the media and a lack of facts are a SYMPTOM. If people didn't eat that stuff up (as a sort of pseudo-entertainment) then the media executives would be forced to change their model.

People watch that garbage. That's the problem.

HAHA! That's awesome...I was correct on accident I suppose. Or I knew that all along...>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^rottenseed:
I don't moderate my channel. The irony is that it's the "law" channel.
[edit] is that irony?

I think in this case, you're dead on:

"Irony deals with opposites; it has nothing to do with coincidence. If two baseball players from the same hometown, on different teams, receive the same uniform number, it is not ironic. It is a coincidence. If Barry Bonds attains lifetime statistics identical to his father’s it will not be ironic. It will be a coincidence. Irony is “a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was to be expected; a result opposite to and in mockery of the appropriate result.” For instance:
If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck was delivering insulin, ah! Then he is the victim of an irony.
If a Kurd, after surviving bloody battle with Saddam Hussein’s army and a long, difficult escape through the mountains, is crushed and killed by a parachute drop of humanitarian aid, that, my friend, is irony writ large.
Darryl Stingley, the pro football player, was paralyzed after a brutal hit by Jack Tatum. Now Darryl Stingley’s son plays football, and if the son should become paralyzed while playing, it will not be ironic. It will be coincidental. If Darryl Stingley’s son paralyzes someone else, that will be closer to ironic. If he paralyzes Jack Tatum’s son that will be precisely ironic."
- Baba Ram Carlin

>> ^rottenseed:

I don't moderate my channel. The irony is that it's the "law" channel.

[edit] is that irony?


I think in this case, you're dead on:

"Irony deals with opposites; it has nothing to do with coincidence. If two baseball players from the same hometown, on different teams, receive the same uniform number, it is not ironic. It is a coincidence. If Barry Bonds attains lifetime statistics identical to his father’s it will not be ironic. It will be a coincidence. Irony is “a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was to be expected; a result opposite to and in mockery of the appropriate result.” For instance:

If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck was delivering insulin, ah! Then he is the victim of an irony.
If a Kurd, after surviving bloody battle with Saddam Hussein’s army and a long, difficult escape through the mountains, is crushed and killed by a parachute drop of humanitarian aid, that, my friend, is irony writ large.
Darryl Stingley, the pro football player, was paralyzed after a brutal hit by Jack Tatum. Now Darryl Stingley’s son plays football, and if the son should become paralyzed while playing, it will not be ironic. It will be coincidental. If Darryl Stingley’s son paralyzes someone else, that will be closer to ironic. If he paralyzes Jack Tatum’s son that will be precisely ironic."

- Baba Ram Carlin

You know, dictators like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein regularly hired goons to go on rallies and protests against their rivals so that when western journalists come all you hear is 'praise Gaddafi! shame on the rebels! ahyayayayay!'

Just saying.

It wasn't an ad hominem attack. Yes, it was a sly insult of your analytical powers, but between the lines it also was a rebuttal to your argument. I'll explain: The point is that you think Saddam's having WMDs in 1988 has some impact on the fact (not the opinion) that there were no WMDs in 2003. What happened in 1988 doesn't change facts in 2003. But 63% of Republicans (seemingly, including you) still think there were WMDs, even when all the top Republican leaders say so. If your position is, "There were WMDs in 1988 therefore there were WMDs in 2003," that's illogical. We know there were none.

The implication in the joke is that the reason you still believe there were WMDs is that you watch Fox News, which is notorious for wilfully spreading misinformation, particularly following Republican party lines, including about the existence of WMDs.

@KnivesOut, sorry for ruining your joke by explaining it.>> ^lantern53:

You realize you lose the argument when you make personal attacks and avoid the question?
Also I don't watch Fox and Friends. But I agree that the TV becomes an idiot box when you watch TYTs.
Here:
The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.