>> <ahref='http://videosift.com/video/Obama-on-Protesters-They-Should-Thank-Me-For-Cutting-Taxes#comment-978221'>^Nithern:

Someone like WP, you will simply have to understand, doesn't get it. This person has contradicted themselves in the past. Said things both not correct, nor justified with facts one could look up (from a neutral source). WP has waged wars of disinformation, taking things out of context, and 'liberally' glossing over details that would have infact, destroyed his arguements. Its kind of like beating a dead horse. To WP, he/she/it gets tons of fun out of it, while the rest of us go off to play a game of chess or something..

Just take Obama's example. Take the piss out of them (Australasian for "make fun of them") and move on. Fudgepacker and the teabaggers are trolls, pure and simple. They do what they do to get a reaction. They don't have a fact to rest their hat on and they don't have an idea unless Glenn Beck put his weeping dick in their ear and fucked it in to them.

Do not feed the trolls.

I rather have Obama as President then Bush. How many times did Bush screw up words, sentences, and concepts, trying to make a point? If he couldn't get his own stuff straight, why should anyone take him serious on concepts that effect the nation?

Yes, 47%, due to tax cuts, provisions, and other legel code, allowed Americans to NOT have to pay a single dollar to the IRS. In fact, GE (General Electric) announced, after over 7000 local, county, state and federal filings, it will not be paying a penny in taxes. This is, the same company that filed $10.8 billion in profits for 2009. So, how is this possible? GE knows how to file taxes, and those earnings were made OUTSIDE the USA (to which it did make the proper accounting and taxes).

Someone like WP, you will simply have to understand, doesn't get it. This person has contradicted themselves in the past. Said things both not correct, nor justified with facts one could look up (from a neutral source). WP has waged wars of disinformation, taking things out of context, and 'liberally' glossing over details that would have infact, destroyed his arguements. Its kind of like beating a dead horse. To WP, he/she/it gets tons of fun out of it, while the rest of us go off to play a game of chess or something...

You can argue with him/her/it if you wish, but this person will NEVER conscede defeat, NOR, admit that you make valid and justified arguements. He insults and threatens at an alarming rate. He rails others, that they have to be held absolutely accountable, while keeping himself/herself/itself from any degree of accountability.

In essence, he/she/it, is Republican.

For example, ask WP to publish a list of CREDIBLE, economists, who disagree with how the economy has shown signs of turning around. Have him explain which factors are both leading and trailing indicators of the economy status and health. While doing this, have him state WHERE the deficit has grown from. Have him provide the full accounting of events, from a neutral source (read: non-right wing site). Yes, he will not provide this information, because his arguements really dont have much concrete ground to stand on.

Transcript:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Just a note, Mohammad was the only prophet in history to personally kill and wage wars in the name of his own religion! All other prophets can claim that their words were twisted and misused to wage wars, but Mohammad's followers can't.

Look,
I don't care about the regular Joe/Jane who has faith in whatever religion that gives them peace of mind. I really don't! For the most part, church going people are good people. They help each other out, they have a strong conscience to do good by their fellow man, they would never hesitate to share what they have and so on. Kudos to them.

What I have issues with is when someone starts to force their belief system on other people. Like they are doing a favour for someone who just doesn't know it yet. Saving them even! I'd sit and listen to a Muslim story because there's knowledge in knowing what's out there. I'd do the same for any Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or any other religion. Just don't tell me that your way is the only way. And definitely NEVER tell me that my way is the WRONG way. Don't infiltrate what I believe and I will respect what you believe. I may not believe it, but I will respect it.

What they are doing here is waging war with people not just with differing belief’s, but with people who choose not to have any belief. People who have minds which delve deeper into situations to dig out any spark of truth that’s available. A scientific mind is one that is still evolving, still considering possibilities and never settling for one all governing answer. We want the one theory of every thing, even though we realize we will never obtain it. Until then, we are OK to accept that we are not all-knowing. We are humbled by the universe at large and always strive to learn more.

Don’t come in and tell people to stop learning. Don’t tell people that all their thinking has already been done for them, and that they just have to accept it. Don’t tell people that it’s right there in that book. A working, functioning, striving mind won’t just roll over and stop thinking because your religion has all the answers. It doesn’t! In fact, your religion was written down by men who thought that their ideas should govern over every one else’s.

What I’m trying to say is, if someone wants to just accept theory without proof, great, go ahead. But don’t go around telling everyone else to give up on thinking as well. There are a large percentage who don’t want to be sheep in some one else’s flock. So Flock off!

"waging war, killing people, in the pursuit of peace, is an oxymoron if ever there was one"

while this may be true in the definitions of these words, I challenge you to show me at any point in history where there was an era of peace that was not the direct or indirect result of armed conflict.

Wow. Smart, tough, and wise beyond her years. I wish her the best.

Notice how early in the clip, it is said that the veil serves as an IDENTITY for these women? Seriously? If anything, it's the complete opposite. Covering up any possibility recognition, hiding behind a mask, being subordinate to their male peers... If anything, they are throwing away their identity, and willingly so. So sad.


"Death to the Americans and the Jews?" "Curses on the Jews and victory to Islam?"

Is Islam really so barbaric and evil that they'd want to sound like a Nazi regime? Holy shit. VICTORY?! Nobody is attacking them. They aren't defending themselves against a hostile enemy. They're fighting a self-waged war where they are the only fighters and they merely have many victims. If the Muslim religion ever possessed any semblance of good, it certainly does not now; at least not in this poor region of the world.

You'd think this kind of mentality could not survive--that the inevitable result would be the eventual extinction of this way of thinking. The fact of the matter is, however, that this kind of thing has been happening for thousands of years with this particular religion. Until the collective mentality starts moving in a direction where individuals like this girl are the norm, rather than the exception, willful ignorance, belligerence, and violence birthed by this backward state of mind will never come to a conclusion.

I worry for our species.

Open letter to people who think American could succeed in an invasion and occupation of the Dominion of Canada.



Dear loser,

I'd love to see America, launch an attack on Canada, and hold our vast country, which is flipping really cold for most of the year. Canadian Soldiers are well trained modern day combat troops. They train for winter warfare / survival. American soldier huddling in -45 degrees below.

American Soldier: "Hey guys, the unarmored humvee won't start!"
Dude: "Do you have a block heater? It's fucking cold outside."
American Soldier: "What the fuck is a block heater?"
Other Dude: "The thing our military couldn't afford to equip all our vehicles with before they sent us to fight here!"
American Soldier: "Mutha fucking economy!"
Other American Soldier: "Who leaked our massive military renovation of all our vehicles to be able to function in combat situations in a winter weather environment that we couldn't complete in time before we had to sell this war to the idiot public on the prevailing social and political winds??"
First Dude: "Probably someone working on the project that has friends who ARE CANADIAN!"

You couldn't even put protective blast shielding on your vehicles before you ran off to fight in a country that you knew might dissolve into a massive underground campaign of anonymous and sudden violence in close urban combat settings.

By the time that you attempted and failed to route our forces, as you have failed to route men with AK's out of hills in Afghanistan, although you have a much larger force stationed there than we currently have offered to assist you for some idiotic reason and sacrifice our blood for your former political policy, as well as trying to occupy a land mass second only to Russia, with harsh, inhospitable terrain, and a populace utterly hostile, betrayed, and proud people who would, don't get me wrong, some would, but depending on the severity of your attack and occupation of civilian centers, would not help you in any way, as nobody would work, and you would have to pacify all the young men that I know would resist such a thing.

Your country would have lost the domestic, foreign, and political capital to continue to wage war on an obviously peaceful, well liked nation of the world community. Germans, Japanese people, Brits, French dudes, South Americans, North Americans, and people who play on XBox Live would fucking hate you from every corner of the globe. It would be seen as a monumental error in human history, where two well build and structured, peaceful, healthy, and productive nations on this fucked up rock collide and utterly destroy each other. Your nation rich, but divided left and right to the point of riot and civil war, and ours waiting for you to leave and realize that a move such as war would constitute the birth of a new fascist state in the US of A, where occupation and domination are acceptable means of preserving your standard of living.

You think that the left wing half of the country would ever support a war like this? It's unthinkable. You'd destroy and destabilize what is your main trading partner, and sow chaos on the North American continent. With your military withdrawing from Iraq, and losing in Afghanistan, and with your bleak economy, you would become overstretched, your economy may fail, and you lose the ability to defend the territory you destabilized from an advancing Russia, intent on claiming your abandoned natural resources that we deny you access to through arson, sabotage, destruction of oil producing facilities (we could always drill for more in Alberta after everyone leaves our country). You would be forced to patrol and defend disputed territory from Russia, who would, by attacking Canada, promise the local populations freedom in exchange for support, and then conquer Canada themselves. Naturally American acquisition of a short fly over the bearing sea, and a boon of natural resources by force of arms would be seen as a provocative attempt to gain enough oil and space for a staging are to launch and destroy Russian forces while not risking American cities as strategic targets for Russian counterattack.

To operate our facilities, you would need to import skilled labor from the US to fill those positions, unless you hold us at gunpoint and order us to work. You presumably believe that controlling us would be easy after you kill our families and at LEAST take from us our loved ones serving in the military. Outrage and dissent would be rampant for a freedom stolen is a rage born. Name one country that you maintain physical and dictatorial sway over on this globe, with American administrators, and American military personnel patrolling the streets? can you? Iraq, the country you are leaving? Afghanistan, another quagmire for the American empire?

Another thing, While you stay in our cities, please feel free to find yourselves at home with our McDonalds, 7-11's, Suburban Houses, and mounds of Americanized consumer junk that you shovel down our throats. I'm sure the treasure's gathered will be worth it. I'm sure gaining more retail space and warehouses, more empty houses, more mouths to feed and policing our cities, and all those good things that come along with occupation would be worth it. Might provide some jobs though, eh?

Blockade:

America puts a blockade on Canada. Canada withers economically without US assistance. Canada eventually caves.

a: False.

America withers as Canada denies access to drinking water and electricity to large portions of the US, leaving millions of people high and dry in the dark.


"Alliance":
America forms a "security" pact with "Canada", something of a new world order conspiracy theory.

a: Either Or

America is ripped apart internally by Left Wing, and dissent over such a blatant display of the highly unpopular One World Government idea. America could also pull it off, given the state that television has left the brains of all the citizens in both our countries.




Peace

Irishman, I don't think Ron Paul's blimp was designed for transcontinental flight.

The point is that Obama has said a great many things to a great many people, some of which are good things, others not so much. He has also said things that are evasive, deceptive and contradictory. (So has Ron Paul and just about every politician who has ever lived btw) Am I happy about this? No. Do I have some worries? Yes. Have I given up hope already? Fuck no.

To get elected to office, you have to jump through a great many hoops, and keep the power mongers and money men from tearing you to shreds and leaving you in the dust bin of history with Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.

Will he cave to power? Will he wage war against them? I don't know, and neither do you. Most likely, he'll do something between these two extremes.

Perhaps, when Obama speaks about fighting terrorism, he is referring to 'actual' terrorism (remember Al Queda), as opposed to Iraq. He has said a great deal about communication, diplomacy and negotiation, which sounds like a step in the right direction to me. Perhaps he will be another raging neo-con, but it's all speculation at this point.

Have some patience, I'm sure there is a world of fresh new conspiracies for you to indulge in right around the corner. If Obama turns out to be George Bush #3 (#4 if you count Reagan), then I'll hit the streets and protest with you*. Cut and paste this paragraph if you like. Until then, it's just speculative, fringe hysteria.


*Said protest must take place within 100 miles of my residence in beautiful, sunny, southern California unless you want to pay airfare and travel expenses elsewhere.

>> ^J-Rova:
How are cell phone towers scattered all over the mountains and forests any different? Goddamn those blinking red lights! But nobody wages war on wireless companies...everyone wants to hate on oil, in classic bandwagon garbage fashion. And those shots of the land in question were ugly, by the way.


1) This is selling land, not leasing land - cell phone towers tend to be leases on small areas of land I think.
2) It's mining for oil. It's not a question of ugly, it's a question of pollution. Oil is a messy industry and that tends not to go well with wilderness.
3) It's land next to state parks and from what I gather it's pristine wilderness, maybe ugly to you, but once you mess that kind of thing up it tends to stay messed up for a long time.
4) The whole thing was done in a spirit of corruption trying to secretly and quickly take public land and put it into private hands that Bush has personal interest in (the oil industry).

Is that enough?

How are cell phone towers scattered all over the mountains and forests any different? Goddamn those blinking red lights! But nobody wages war on wireless companies...everyone wants to hate on oil, in classic bandwagon garbage fashion. And those shots of the land in question were ugly, by the way.

Evened that up for you legacy0100... such lucid observations don't deserve to be in the negative.

Singapore and Korea have greatly benefited from Western imperialism (English and American). They inherited our knowledge to build sustainable economies around our economic theory and sound legislative backgrounds. As for Saudi-Arabia, US geologists first discovered the oil under their feet in the 1930s but Americans waited at least 20 years to really start pumping it out.

It is not to say that Westeners are totally responsible for these success stories, but we sure as hell had a hand in getting them started. As for Africa, what most upsets me is that many people fell guilty at their failure. Africa has been offered a multitude of opportunities for growth and stability but have wasted them all away.

Ultimately, their fate lies in their hands. We should stop all aid to Africa.


>> ^legacy0100:
Africa needs to start from basic agricultural and clothing/household item manufacturing environment.
Why don't they have these industries? Singapore started out from Malaria ridden jungle to one of the richest, highest GNP economy in the world, without Africa's natural resources.
South Korea was a war torn, bombed down wasteland and within 50 years it is now top 10 economic powerhouse of the world.
Saudi Arabia was a bumblefuck nowheresville desert with fiefdoms and petty tribes dotted randomly in the sand, until they found out their natural resource pitched a high price to the westerners. And now their kingdom is the richest and most politically influential nation in the world.
Did anybody ORDER them to learn new technology from the westerners? Did anybody TEACH them to strive for better quality in life?
No, they fucking decided that for themselves!!!
So what the fuck is up with Africa, seriously? Is it seriously lack of information and education? Seriously? They just don't know where to start? But then how the hell would they know you can get precious metals from burning them?
ANd like Pprt said, why wouldn't they simply just ply out the parts? They're too impatient to do that? Smashing it is more 'efficient?'
Africa pisses me off beyond belief. Why the hell would they do this to themselves? Why would they be contempt? Why can't they rise up, demand something better, start waging war for the purpose of 'CONQUERING' more resources and not petty politics like 'your daughter is a witch' or something?

Africa needs to start from basic agricultural and clothing/household item manufacturing environment.

Why don't they have these industries? Singapore started out from Malaria ridden jungle to one of the richest, highest GNP economy in the world, without Africa's natural resources.

South Korea was a war torn, bombed down wasteland and within 50 years it is now top 10 economic powerhouse of the world.

Saudi Arabia was a bumblefuck nowheresville desert with fiefdoms and petty tribes dotted randomly in the sand, until they found out their natural resource pitched a high price to the westerners. And now their kingdom is the richest and most politically influential nation in the world.

Did anybody ORDER them to learn new technology from the westerners? Did anybody TEACH them to strive for better quality in life?

No, they fucking decided that for themselves!!!

So what the fuck is up with Africa, seriously? Is it seriously lack of information and education? Seriously? They just don't know where to start? But then how the hell would they know you can get precious metals from burning them?

ANd like Pprt said, why wouldn't they simply just ply out the parts? They're too impatient to do that? Smashing it is more 'efficient?'

Africa pisses me off beyond belief. Why the hell would they do this to themselves? Why would they be contempt? Why can't they rise up, demand something better, start waging war for the purpose of 'CONQUERING' more resources and not petty politics like 'your daughter is a witch' or something?

>> ^jwray:
>> ^Kagenin:
The definition of "terrorist" is someone who uses fear, intimidation, and/or violence to further their agenda, political or otherwise.
That would mean anyone who has ever waged war (defensive or otherwise) is a terrorist... Including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Try another definition that involves something along the line of deliberately killing random noncombatants.


No such qualification is necessary. Washington was a "terrorist" to the British forces he fought against, and the Red Coats were "terrorizing" the American Colonists. Its all about perspective, which was the point I was making.

In that respect, Americans practically invented Guerrilla warfare. During the American Revolution, we targeted commanders, knowing full well the men they commanded would fall apart without their leadership. We continue to do this today, targeting leaders of political organizations, with far different results, however. In the short-term, we create power vacuums, but it isn't long before someone steps up to fill said vacuum, and energizes another generation of people to hate us.

>> ^Kagenin:
The definition of "terrorist" is someone who uses fear, intimidation, and/or violence to further their agenda, political or otherwise.

That would mean anyone who has ever waged war (defensive or otherwise) is a terrorist... Including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Try another definition that involves something along the line of deliberately killing random noncombatants.

Oh wait, that would still make all the major powers on both sides of WWII terrorists for bombing the fuck out of each other.
So you'll be wanting another definition...

At least after the USA won WWII relations with Japan were repaired and now we're friends.

Between firebombing a whole city with airplanes and leaving a backpack bomb in a cafe, the only significant differences are size, purpose, and governmental affiliation. I suppose one could argue that the world is better off if loose cannons get more opprobrium than republic-supported warfare.