@newtboy
told ya he was pissed.
i admire this mans passion.
in fact,i applaud it.

while i do not agree with his attack therapy tactics and do not subscribe to his over-all conclusions.i absolutely ADORE how he calls out the cognitive dissonance of the american voter.

because he is right.

how can you subscribe to a law that makes prostitution illegal,yet porn legal?
or the guy who deals crack or meth as being a criminal? yet opiates are,by far,the leading cause of death in regards to controlled substances.so who is the bigger criminal?

and what,exactly,IS a criminal?is it because the state says so?if you subscribe to that,then i am a criminal.

i found his condemnation of the christian church to be the most delicious.
jesus christ was an insurrectionist,a radical,a dissident and a dissenter.a zealot in the face of the powered elite.

so how can you fight a war of aggression in jesus christs name?
how can you state that god blesses america with over 2.4 million people incarcerated?or to categorize and demonize those who may be different i.e:gay,lesbian or atheist and yet still call yourself a christian?

i giggled with delight when he pointed out that the very same people who are championing those insurrectionists,dissidents and agitators of the past as somehow being representative of their morals and ethics,are the very same people they are demonizing today for breaking the rules.

this man is so pissed off and i love it.
he says things that will make conformists extremely uncomfortable,and we NEED to be a bit uncomfortable.if only to shake off the apathy and lethargy.

as for the taxes argument..meh..i dont subscribe to the "privatize everything" ,because some things should not be profit driven,but i also do not subscribe to the 'taxes pay for essential services",unless wars of aggression,corporate welfare and big-agribusiness subsidies are considered "essential".

our democracy is broken,our government dysfunctional and serves only to keep the balance of the status quo on top..and fuck the regular dude.

can you REALLY say your government represents you?
ok,go ahead and vote.here are your choices:chocolate or vanilla but both are made by hagen daaz.

you really should watch to the end..he just gets madder and madder.
truths can often be uncomfortable,but that never changes the fact that they are truths.

and goddamn i love your optimism! just cant share it on this issue,though if you could bottle it up i am betting you would make a fortune.

ill have three bottles of newt please...to go.

Forgive me but I don't understand. Are you telling me you believe that Saddam era Iraq was better for the rest of the world? I hope I'm misreading you, because I'm pretty certain the entirety of the populations of Iran and Kuwait at a minimum are unanimous in feeling more secure in the absence of Saddam's military threatening them with repeats of his previously devastating wars of aggression against them. Tell me I'm somehow misunderstanding you,

most excellent commentary on my "wars of aggression" video.

god if i had a vagina i would so fuck you

@lantern53

ah my friend.
you seem to have fallen into the propaganda trap.
allow enoch to chat with you for a bit.

are you comfy? need a drink? coffee? a beer?

ok,then let us begin

this is not a political ideology.
this is not right nor left.(seriously limiting terms anyways).

this is about the full picture.

so let us discuss WHAT propaganda actual is,rather than what we are TOLD it is.
propaganda is simply manipulated information presented in a way to appeal to our irrational and emotional response rather than our rational and reasonable.

when i use the term "manipulated" i am not inferring or implying an outright conspiracy (though often-times it may possibly be a conspiracy) but rather a set goal to illicit the desired response.

and there is always an element of truth in propaganda but the truth being presented is controlled and manipulated.which is apparent in your commentary.

corporations use this tactic and we call it mass marketing but the first usage was that of the state to control its own citizenry.america being the major and first to pioneer this tactic.see:edward bernaise and the council of propaganda (later changed to the council of public relations).

so let us break down your examples which i assume are an attempt by you to discredit the assertions in dr wasfi's speech in this video.

1.to point out the crimes against humanity is a straw man argument.
it is irrelevant.
it is a last ditch effort by the american government to excuse and/or validate an illegal war of aggression:
a.no weapons of mass destruction
b.no connection to al qaeda
c.almost 1 trillion lost (literally,they cant account for that money)

so the american government points to the atrocities of saddam hussein and says "look! look at what a bad person he is"!

SQUIRREL!

which brings us to your next point.

2.the atrocities you are referring to were well know when saddam was a paid participant by multiple government agencies.
let me say that again for you:
saddams atrocities were WELL known and was on the american government payroll.
did saddam gas the kurds?------yes
who sold him the gas components?---we did.

so when my government,in a last ditch effort to absolve its complicity in the wreckage that is iraq by pointing to the awful and horrific acts saddam perpetrated on his own people as somehow making the invasion of iraq a righteous act is utter..and complete..hypocrisy.

they KNEW what he was doing and did nothing because it was politically expedient for them to do so.they wished to corral iran and the ends justified the means.see:Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard

there are many MANY accounts where the american government turned a blind eye to the suffering of other nation-states citizens because it did not align with our interests.

i find the whole situation morally repugnant and it angers me even further when i see the propaganda twisting my fellow countrymen into believing this is somehow a morally just way to deal with despots,tyrants,zealots.

when it was MY country who put them in power in the first place!

the rationalizations are so deeply cynical and hypocritical that it creates an almost vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

and this is my main point in regards to your commentary.
it is a rationalization given to you by those who wish to continue to oppress,dominate and control those who are powerless.

it gives a semblance of morality where there is none.

because if we took your commentary to its logical conclusion:that sometimes war is necessary to rid the world of "evil" (an arbitrary term based on perspective),then why are we not in those countries that ALSO oppress,kill,maim,torture and immiserate their citizens?

answer:because it does not serve the interests of this government.

so the only usage of emotional heart string pulling is to give americans a sense of moral superiority,while not dealing with the actual reality.

you are being manipulated my friend.
and they have given you a convenient myth to hold onto.

by my commentary i am not dismissing the great works of my country nor am i saying that my country is inherently evil.
i served my country and did my duty.

but i also will not turn a blind eye to the reality on the ground just because i find that information..uncomfortable.

many times the truth is uncomfortable and it takes courage to look at it with clear eyes and a critical mind.

i always stick to the axiom:governments lie

as for your nazi reference,
i invoke godwins law.
the death camps were not even a known reality till the war was almost over and were not the reasons for the war in the first place.
so the context is irrelevant.

as always,
eyes open...
and stay sharp.

@lantern53 keepin it frosty since 1982.stay awesome my man

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

Think bigger: Cannabis could cure our constant state of war and aggression.

Worst thing that ever happened to me was alcohol abuse; best thing was my discovery of cannabis. It's helped me become a caring human being and resolves my anger issues.

The fact that it's use is a mostly illegal is infuriating. They want us fighting drunk, not peacefully high.

It's a more sinister piece of propaganda than that though, at least in that it IS citing true facts. For all the quotes save for those from the newly elected president(which I just haven't searched) there exists written and video evidence of the attributed quotes and none of the leaders quoted would deny them.

The propaganda part is in completely leaving out the reasons for the overthrow of the Shah, who was running a brutal regime of his own over the Iranian people. If the American support for the Shah wasn't enough reason for mistrust of America, there was the American backing of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war that saw hundreds of thousands of Iranians killed in Saddam's war of aggression. That war included some of the most prolific use of chemical weapons in, well, pretty much ever and the use was entirely against the Iranians. The public support for anti-American sentiment didn't come out of a vacuum.

That said, the mistrust cuts both ways and with Iranian leadership promising death to America and Israel for the last couple decades while steadily building up the infrastructure required to build nuclear weapons is legitimately cause for concern too.

Sorry, I think that got long and preachy.

Between wars of aggression (Iraq, Afghanistan) and the violation of national sovereignty (Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Jemen, Somalia), the running of gulags (Gitmo, Baghram) and torture facilities (airport in Mogadishu), the NDAA and the war on whistleblowers on the one hand and the entire corporate corruption (too big to fail/jail in particular) on the other hand, there's plenty of reason to take a good look at what the latest administrations have been responsible for.

But hey, Benghazi and the IRS are the real scandals, right?

Not Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou and Bradley Manning or Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Certainly not HSBC or Gitmo. And neither nightly JSOC raids nor cruise missile attacks, much less torture and kidnapping.

Well apparently you just can't fucking read. I addressed that in my post, The West, meaning America and Britain primarily has carved up and destroyed the Middle East several times over. The Atrocities that happen in the wake of that happen in the context of previous wars and atrocities. So if you destroy a country and suddenly there's no food and people are killing eachother for food, it's YOUR Fault. You created the conditions in which this horrible shit can happen.

That is exactly what The Nazis were found guilty of, waging a war of aggression. That is what we did in Iraq, it is not surprising to any knowledgeable person that this created power issues and ignited other tensions. In fact most Iraqis agree it was the US that caused the civil war and escalated the violence.

Next time try to read and maybe do some research. It is about Western Powers destroying and trying to create Nations and failing miserably, helping to start and escalate a cycle of violence in those regions.

Long story very short...I KNOW MORE THAN YOU ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

I don't know of any country or organization in world history who doesn't say they want peace. Hitler marched under the banner of Peace, it's just peace within certain parameters. Same with Defense, I don't know of a country that attacks another without invoking their right to defend themselves. It's bullshit. It doesn't matter what books Islamic people read or Christian people read. People are going to justify the actions they want to take any way possible.

This is sort of like the argument that lays a Billion peoples deaths at the feet of Communism. It doesn't much matter what the "Communists" actually believe, only what they say they believe and what they do.

This is sort of a completely pointless argument anyway, the West has been waging horrific wars against the Islamic world for the past century, and we blame them? When you attack a country and destroy it you are responsible for all the carnage that follows even when not committed by you, because you created the conditions in which they could happen. That's called waging a War of Aggression. It's the crime that the Nazis were guilty of in the Nuremburg Trials and is considered the supreme international crime.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Reagan agreed to tax hikes in exchange for spending cuts.
The taxocrats lied; there were no spending cuts.
Nothing's changed there.


Reagan is one of the reasons the current crash happened.

Also there is no way Ryan and Romney could be as horrible as JFK. Probably the greatest Mass Murderer the US has ever had with his war of aggression in South Vietnam.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

@bcglorf @VoodooV
Agreed, I think the late Mr Hitchens has a piece on the 'isms - state religions he calls them.
@shinyblurry 'We had an obligation and a duty to defend the world (and ourselves) from the tryanny of the Nazi regime'
Come on! It took 3 years to decide what side to join and the British were made to pay for EVERY BULLET at triple price. Thats how the US inherited the global empire.
Don't delude yourself that ANY WAR of aggression was EVER fought for ANYTHING other than ECONOMICS.


Absolutely, the Americans were completely selfish in their involvement in WW2, just like every single other nation. I think you are mistaken in suggesting that somehow negates the morality of removing the Nazi regime. Just because the allies were motivated by self-interest doesn't change the fact that their self interest included the ending of one of history's most grotesque and systematic genocides.

Being selfish is just being selfish, for some people that means feeding their neighbour's cat because they like having it come around, for others it means shooting their neighbour's cat because they don't. Both selfish acts, but one is generally good and decent and one is grotesque. Far too many of America's critics want to ignore the alternative in the conflict, and/or think pointing out selfish motive sufficient evidence of malice. Both are critically flawed arguments, but they are repeated endlessly to stir up the masses.

@bcglorf @VoodooV
Agreed, I think the late Mr Hitchens has a piece on the 'isms - state religions he calls them.

@shinyblurry 'We had an obligation and a duty to defend the world (and ourselves) from the tryanny of the Nazi regime'

Come on! It took 3 years to decide what side to join and the British were made to pay for EVERY BULLET at triple price. Thats how the US inherited the global empire.

Don't delude yourself that ANY WAR of aggression was EVER fought for ANYTHING other than ECONOMICS.

i'd honestly really like to see a first person shooter where you play the nazis, or the iraq'is, or the japenese.
or something other than an American indestructo-terminitor-special-forces-Seal-Team-Six-Juggernaught mowing down legions of brown people. frankly i'm a bit tired of playing games that pretend that all the losers in american wars (and often wars of aggression) weren't actual people with actual lives and actual feelings and actual stories to tell. but instead something less.
Yes I know it's a GAME and it's all fantasy rather than a realistic simulation
still, millions of young minds play this drivel and for once, just once, it could be somewhat realistically even-handed ... or even enlightening for something with such mass appeal to offer a different fucking perspective on the supposed world.

and i hate being killed by 7 yr olds online

@Yogi, I disagree that Afghanistan was a "war of aggression."

Hypothetical situation: Let's say Sarah Palin and the Tea Party take over America's government, and a bunch of non-government militias start bombing France for being godless socialists. Let's say the Palin administration completely refuses to take action to stop them on her own. Worse, let's say she praises the militias and even provides them a bit of money & supplies to keep up the war on Socialism, which she says is evil.

In this situation, hasn't the USA declared war on France? Does France have no right to take military action in response?

I mean sure, Sarah would just nuke them with a wink and a smile, but it doesn't seem like France would be guilty of war crimes if they attacked the US for what's being done by those ostensibly non-government militias.

I'm not saying what we did and are doing with Afghanistan is good -- I think we should leave ASAP -- but I think calling it a war crime is a bit much.

Iraq is a whole other kettle of fish...