Back to WMD:s

[madmallard]

that misses the point completely, which is hypocracy.

on two levels, no less.

Before the invasion the EU was getting behind its anti-american stance. But some of the nations in the EU, and some making bids were actually in support of american/british action.

What you call "finding a unified foreign policy" i call dissention and disagreement. BUt Chirac called it stupid, to their faces, to disagree with the union which would have power over them later. and I call that bullying and hypocritcal, because everyone the whole time was "speak out! speak out! Let your voice be heard!! But not if you're pro america/britain! You stay quiet!

I find this also to be stricking hypocritical to say:

Most is done by political nobodies, even we Europeans normally don't know

and then call Americans stupid for not knowing what their government does.

the US war planes didn't come out of nowhere - go and find an Iraqi who'll said that he was "freed" by the US...

So i guess you missed that whole pulling down of the statue of saddam in that one town where they eventually deacpitated in and drug the head through the streets beating it with their shoes.

Or the liberation of a children's prison. Or the sacking of palaces built in poverty stricken towns, or the bruning of houses where torture took place, or any of the towns that once they knew america was coming, they had their own revolt and kicked the Baath Party Socialists out.

Instead US military has to deal with riots and the chance of an upcomeing civil war.

There is no 'instead' here. Our troops went in fully EXPECTING those thing would happen. They hope that they wont, but you better believe our troops are the best equipped, trained and prepared in the world.

and I think the civil war began when they began Looting the palaces and burning Saddam portraits.

[Simpi]

if thats your conjecture, then fine.

you gotta back it up with something more substantial.

You conveniently word your arguement to leave out important facts. Were there forged documents about uranium purchases? Yes. Who forged them? America? nope. . .more likely a detractor to Saddam Hussein..

Explain me this logic. Would not that be same thing like shooting myself in the leg or confessing a murder I did not do? Heck, US set up the Gulf of Tonkin so few pieces of paper would certainly not be beyond them, though as you said, I have not seen any evidence that US would have forged them.

Do you really trust OPEC to have a good intentioned view of world interest as they've been spiking gas prices for the last 10 years? I would much rather trust ECONOMICS to rule the price of oil than a political organisation like OPEC who produces as a consortium to keep themselves important in the world politcal and economic arena. They don't even use their monies for infrastructure or to improve business or work conditions. . .have you seen pictures of these facilities? they look like the dark ages. . .

<i>This is from Opec’s homepage: OPEC's objective is to co-ordinate and unify petroleum policies among Member Countries, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers; an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations; and a fair return on capital to those investing in the industry.</i>

Oil is not a renewable source of energy, so whatever you say, it will become rarer and rarer. Granted, it will take few decades or so (with improved drilling techniques and all) but in the end, we will run out of it. So why should people who have this rare commodity, sell it out for no profit. Seeing how you support free market (correct me if i'm wrong) I cannot see how you could disagree.

When has US and more importantly, american companies (hell, any large company) cared about labor/living conditions in developing countries or anywhere else in the world (expect in their own soil). I’m sure you will talk about how developing countries must offer cheap labor since that’s the only thing they can compete with and sweatshops (run by companies such as Adidas, Disney & Nike) are not that bad (which was in fact written in the Economist*). Idea of cheap labor and how it will improve living standards of a poor family (allowing others to get education and better jobs) is nice in theory but I don’t see it working in practice. Mainly because ‘cheap labor’ is nothing sort of slavery when people are paid around 3 dollars a day. Paying some sort of decent pay would still not hurt the company and then the developing countries would benefit.

However, I would be like to read about the situation of oil workers in Opec countries so if you supply me with link (or book name) that would be great.

But I digress so let's steer a clear a bit. What you however missed in my post, was how the use of dollar in oil market makes it possible for US maintain a stranglehold in wolds economy. In other words, US house of cards does not fall down while dollars circle the world.

if Weapons of mass destruction are not the only reason we went in, and nobody ever said it was.

So economic interests (= Greed) are also a good and valid reason? Why do you think they protected the Oil Ministry or awarded rebuilding contracts to companies with political connections? If Bush is so worried about humanitarian reasons (which were also raised), why doesn't he send troops to places which are much worse than Iraq, say Congo or Sudan.

I do mind the methods (and what am I really going to do about it besides vote against the President in 2004?), but I don't mind US hegemony. What's wrong with it? What about Europe? If they get their EU act completely together, there's a potential for European hegemony. Doesn't that concern you? Or is the EU somehow "better" than the US in your opinion?

I think Western hegemony is a fine thing. The rest of the world is full of oppressive influence, cultural relativity and acceptance be damned.

I'm a firm beliver of balanced forces, so no single nation can force it's way of life to anyone else. I don't care if you don't believe it (since it's my belief), but US tries to do it with political, military and cultural means. this also falls under 'oppressive influence'.

Let's not forget what Samuel P. Huntington said:

<b>"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."</b>

I’m sure western countries want to appear as torchbearers of freedom and democracy, but the truth is that they are quite willing let people in other nations to pay the price of their luxury. For example, Finnish goverment was pretty hush-hush when paper company UPM Kymmene was cutting down rainforest in occupied East Timor.

I still fail to see the BIG problem you are hinting at.

I quess it doesn't matter then....

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0317/sutton.php

*Economist also wrote about last presidential elections. They said that Al Gore is clearly a much more experienced and better choice for foreign policy. They also said that Bush is better for big companies so Economist readers should vote for him. The cover (I don't remember the exact number of it) has a picture of Gore and Bush in football gear, battling over a ball.

[kthulhu]

I'm a firm beliver of balanced forces, so no single nation can force it's way of life to anyone else. I don't care if you don't believe it (since it's my belief), but US tries to do it with political, military and cultural means. this also falls under 'oppressive influence'.

Let's not forget what Samuel P. Huntington said:

<b>"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."</b>

I&#8217;m sure western countries want to appear as torchbearers of freedom and democracy, but the truth is that they are quite willing let people in other nations to pay the price of their luxury.

You sound more like a typical Euro-booster to me. Knock America, since Europe could so such a better job in the current US role. Knock us for our foreign meddling? Sure, it sucks now, but the US was not the one that wrought centuries of colonial bullshit on the Third World, holding back the native populations so that they wouldn't overthrow the powers that be, and then pull out, leaving behind a lousy foundation to build from.

I still don't get the "theme" of your message. Does it concern the Iraq war? It's way, way too late to do anything about that now. We're in for good now, like it or not (and I don't, especially).

Whatever your main point is, what do you hope to accomplish with your constant antagonism and smugness?

[Simpi]

You sound more like a typical Euro-booster to me. Knock America, since Europe could so such a better job in the current US role.

Perhaps I am. Or perhaps I just want a world where a single superpower does not run rampant. Take your pick.

Knock us for our foreign meddling? Sure, it sucks now, but the US was not the one that wrought centuries of colonial bullshit on the Third World, holding back the native populations so that they wouldn't overthrow the powers that be, and then pull out, leaving behind a lousy foundation to build from.

And I don’t see EU toppling democratic governments, like what US did in Chile. If we go to history we can assume you mention how US saved Europe from Nazis and I can then mention Lafayette. That road however will lead us all the way to naval battle of Salamin and probably even further, so let’s not go there.

Apart from Huntington's quote, I have stayed on issues that are at maximum, few years old. I want to talk about present and future, not past. Economic connections in Iraq war/occupation are here right now and they should get more coverage in media.

I still don't get the "theme" of your message. Does it concern the Iraq war? It's way, way too late to do anything about that now. We're in for good now, like it or not (and I don't, especially).

Whatever your main point is, what do you hope to accomplish with your constant antagonism and smugness?

I try to point out how powers that be (PNAC) try to build a global ‘american empire’ under the pretext of ‘war on terror’. Securing oil will be the first step since it's a lifeblood of all developed countries.

Isn’t the Opec connection to Iraq war just another way of ‘meeting threats’ since Opec could slay US with a single stroke of a pen. I spit on PNAC ‘principles’ as we have already seen what their ‘moral clarity’ means. Note who have signed it. Yep, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. They are now in control and that is damn scary...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm

[madmallard]

[quote="kthulhu]
You sound more like a typical Euro-booster to me. Knock America, since Europe could so such a better job in the current US role. Knock us for our foreign meddling? Sure, it sucks now, but the US was not the one that wrought centuries of colonial bullshit on the Third World, holding back the native populations so that they wouldn't overthrow the powers that be, and then pull out, leaving behind a lousy foundation to build from.[/quote]

another good example. If you're so hot, simpi, to talk about american oppressive occupation, then lets compare track records in the region of america and europe, shall we?

Hmm lets, see. . .

America . .. helped rebuild japan, and germany enough so that the people of those countries would later become respected superpowers in their regions from their hard work. . .

Europe. . .. brutally occupied the entire ottman region through aggressive colonialization up until the end of ww2.

America. . .wrote the constitution that Japan uses and ammends today as its governmental doctrine which continues to stand as Japan's commitment to personal defense and support military philosophy. . .

Europe, both axis and allies, occupied the entrie region and set up puppet governments, either run by europeans, or arabs from hundreds of miles away who were nothing more than a figurehead. . . .or installed local dictators who were part of a fringe minority group rather than the majority of the populaous. Europe also set op borders of nations without even a thought to the tribes and groups in the region. . .they 'looked good' on a map in some beuracrat's office.

I still don't get the "theme" of your message. Does it concern the Iraq war? It's way, way too late to do anything about that now. We're in for good now, like it or not (and I don't, especially).

Whatever your main point is, what do you hope to accomplish with your constant antagonism and smugness?

i thinks its more of a temper tantrum that they're not in the superior power for their businesses to explolit the position thats come along.

[kthulhu]

This has been going on too long, with no progress. I quit. You obviously have some sort of anti-America bias, I have some sort of pro-Western bias.

[madmallard]

lemme hit preview this time. . ..

if thats your conjecture, then fine.

you gotta back it up with something more substantial.

You conveniently word your arguement to leave out important facts. Were there forged documents about uranium purchases? Yes. Who forged them? America? nope. . .more likely a detractor to Saddam Hussein..

Explain me this logic. Would not that be same thing like shooting myself in the leg or confessing a murder I did not do? Heck, US set up the Gulf of Tonkin so few pieces of paper would certainly not be beyond them, though as you said, I have not seen any evidence that US would have forged them.

the logic is called. . .oh i don't know. . . .TELLING THE TRUTH AND THE FACTS!

How inconvinient the truth becomes when it doesn't supplement YOUR arguement. You just basically said "why would i shoot myself in the foot saying that I don't know because it would hurt my point of view, even though i really dont know."

how juvenial.

Do you really trust OPEC to have a good intentioned view of world interest as they've been spiking gas prices for the last 10 years? I would much rather trust ECONOMICS to rule the price of oil than a political organisation like OPEC who produces as a consortium to keep themselves important in the world politcal and economic arena. They don't even use their monies for infrastructure or to improve business or work conditions. . .have you seen pictures of these facilities? they look like the dark ages. . .

<i>This is from Opec&#8217;s homepage: OPEC's objective is to co-ordinate and unify petroleum policies among Member Countries, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers; an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations; and a fair return on capital to those investing in the industry.</i>

Oil is not a renewable source of energy, so whatever you say, it will become rarer and rarer. Granted, it will take few decades or so (with improved drilling techniques and all) but in the end, we will run out of it. So why should people who have this rare commodity, sell it out for no profit. Seeing how you support free market (correct me if i'm wrong) I cannot see how you could disagree.

You are truly blind if you think there's no profit. And now you're arguement no longer makes any sense. . .The people who are selling it aren't making enough money. . .But you have to stop the evil american Oil corporations from securing money making contracts?

beisde , you once again missed my point. The International Oil industry is about as inflated as the recording industry. They most certainly ARE making money. PLENTY of money. . .so much in fact that they can also use oil production to make political statesments, and affect globabl economy for personal gains. . .You think our corporations are bad?

When has US and more importantly, american companies (hell, any large company) cared about labor/living conditions in developing countries or anywhere else in the world (expect in their own soil). I&#8217;m sure you will talk about how developing countries must offer cheap labor since that&#8217;s the only thing they can compete with and sweatshops (run by companies such as Adidas, Disney & Nike) are not that bad (which was in fact written in the Economist*). Idea of cheap labor and how it will improve living standards of a poor family (allowing others to get education and better jobs) is nice in theory but I don&#8217;t see it working in practice. Mainly because &#8216;cheap labor&#8217; is nothing sort of slavery when people are paid around 3 dollars a day. Paying some sort of decent pay would still not hurt the company and then the developing countries would benefit.

yeah, well, most people don't realise the cost of living in some of those places is 30 dollars a month, which means for that pay, they get food, water, house, learn a trade, and maybe pay for a school. Or run a militia. Or operate a township. Or improve their town. They have to do everything on theri own without the help of 'foreign aide' and 'religious ministry' coming to save them. What a joke.

But I digress so let's steer a clear a bit. What you however missed in my post, was how the use of dollar in oil market makes it possible for US maintain a stranglehold in wolds economy. In other words, US house of cards does not fall down while dollars circle the world.

well. . our economy is paramount in the world. Most of the worlds countries has banks on the american dollar. . . whats stupider?

A: not protecting the dollar value in the interest of fairness?

B: protecting the Dollar value for Americans and for anyone,like the rest of the world, who has a bank drawn on american dollars?

if Weapons of mass destruction are not the only reason we went in, and nobody ever said it was.

So economic interests (= Greed) are also a good and valid reason? Why do you think they protected the Oil Ministry or awarded rebuilding contracts to companies with political connections? If Bush is so worried about humanitarian reasons (which were also raised), why doesn't he send troops to places which are much worse than Iraq, say Congo or Sudan.[/quote]

make up your mind. we use the troops or we dont. If we do, we're oppressive, if we don't, we're not being humanitarian. This juxtaposition of thinking loosens our ability to care about other views.

I do mind the methods (and what am I really going to do about it besides vote against the President in 2004?), but I don't mind US hegemony. What's wrong with it? What about Europe? If they get their EU act completely together, there's a potential for European hegemony. Doesn't that concern you? Or is the EU somehow "better" than the US in your opinion?

I think Western hegemony is a fine thing. The rest of the world is full of oppressive influence, cultural relativity and acceptance be damned.

I'm a firm beliver of balanced forces, so no single nation can force it's way of life to anyone else. I don't care if you don't believe it (since it's my belief), but US tries to do it with political, military and cultural means. this also falls under 'oppressive influence'.

Cultural oppresiveness claimed by someone who is hundreds of thousands of miles away is a cop-out. They can't accept that someone may choose for themselves "i like their way of life better," because we must be oppressing them and infecting them.

Military oppressiveness would be having the US Military at your government buildings screening you individual for the sake of intimidation. Military oppressiveness is massing troops at a border without warning, and then doing nothing, hoping to provoke the other side of the border (N korea, anyone?).

Political oppression? well, yeah, your damn right. I want to stamp out with the most oppressive means anyone who declares war on my life or my way of life. if you can't stand me, thats fine, don't look at me. But if its you or me, its going to be you.

and if you think its unfair, tough. You don't have the wieght of the world economy, the weight of the best military ever, the wieght of a young but extremely popular way of life or the weight of ridicule from envy from those who are still living in the 14th century.

so you go on "Not caring if we don't believe how oppressive the US is." I'll go on not caring on your world opinion of how we behave.

[Simpi]

You are truly blind if you think there's no profit. And now you're arguement no longer makes any sense. . .The people who are selling it aren't making enough money. . .But you have to stop the evil american Oil corporations from securing money making contracts?

Isn't the goal of every corporation to make money if you so worried about those prices. When did I say they aren't making any money? Affecting global economy for personal gains. Let’s look at your congress then. Corporations are lobbying, among other things, for oil drilling in alaska. Another thing they did not want to pass was a law requiring for fuel efficient cars. If you really want to, you could go and check out who is paying who in congress.

Any single corporation probably does not yet have the power to affect global economy, but lobbying groups can nonetheless steer political decision making and create better conditions for corporations. Companies can however, affect the lives of people in areas where operate. Niger delta is one of the good examples of places where oil companies (US & European) are quite willing to trample on human rights if it suits them.

well, most people don't realise the cost of living in some of those places is 30 dollars a month, which means for that pay, they get food, water, house, learn a trade, and maybe pay for a school. Or run a militia. Or operate a township. Or improve their town. They have to do everything on theri own without the help of 'foreign aide' and 'religious ministry' coming to save them. What a joke.

One again you try to ridicule me with your answer, like I would be blind to facts. I know the cost of living and I know what they must do to get it. Have you ever visited a sweatshop? Let’s take one example from Indonesia where a person who makes shoes for Nike, can make between 565,000 ($US65) to 590,000 ($US67.85) rupiahs per month (including overtimes which most workers do to support their families) after wages were raised in 2002.

Earlier study shows that cost of living (just basic needs) for single person (not family) where around 39$ dollars. Since then prices (especially food) has raised between 22 – 33% shows that this is now around 48.75$ for a single person. For a family the price is at least double that, depending on the number of children. So, some members of the family must also go to work which might not even be as ‘well paid’ as Nike factory.

It’s of course nice that people can live with 8am to 6pm job making shoes. This however does not take into an account one fundamental injustice. A single shoe sold by Nike, can easily cover the monthly wage of three workers. It would be no problem at all for Nike to pay, let’s say 140$ dollars/month to a worker (Less than one pair of sneakers can cost) which would earn a living for a family, make it possible for children to go to school (and let their mother stay at home and take care of them) and even leave some savings. This way the standard of living would raise and people would be happier. Would that really be so bad?

And one more thing. This is in Indonesia and situation in other countries (such as China), is not even this good.

if make up your mind. we use the troops or we dont. If we do, we're oppressive, if we don't, we're not being humanitarian. This juxtaposition of thinking loosens our ability to care about other views..

And the part of troops was sarcasm. But please answer the first part of my argument.

Cultural oppresiveness claimed by someone who is hundreds of thousands of miles away is a cop-out. They can't accept that someone may choose for themselves "i like their way of life better," because we must be oppressing them and infecting them.

Hundreds of thousands?….Yes, Sea of Tranquility is a nice place to live. Never fear though, I’m planning on moving to Valles Marineris as soon as possible. We are discussing across the ocean in this forum. So imagine how efficiently such corporations as Viacom, Creators or Disney can spread their, mainly Hobbesian, view of the world with the amount of magazines, movie studios, etc. they control.

Military oppressiveness would be having the US Military at your government buildings screening you individual for the sake of intimidation. Military oppressiveness is massing troops at a border without warning, and then doing nothing, hoping to provoke the other side of the border (N korea, anyone?)..

You exclude on thing. Military bases across the world. For example, why US military is reluctant to hand over servicemen to local authorities if they manage to fuck up somehow. Couple of years ago in South Korea, two soldiers drove over a schoolgirl with a hummer. To my knowledge those soldiers did not receive any penalties.

It might also serve you to read about history if Vieques and what navy has done there: http://www.politicomagazine.com/viequeshistory.html

Political oppression? well, yeah, your damn right. I want to stamp out with the most oppressive means anyone who declares war on my life or my way of life. if you can't stand me, thats fine, don't look at me. But if its you or me, its going to be you.?)

Like the Iraqi people declared war on your way of life.... Better look to such countries as Saudi-Arabia, Iran or Pakistan if you really want to seee religious whackos who hate your guts.

so you go on "Not caring if we don't believe how oppressive the US is." I'll go on not caring on your world opinion of how we behave.

I guess we can then end this discussion here and now....

[madmallard]

You are truly blind if you think there's no profit. And now you're arguement no longer makes any sense. . .The people who are selling it aren't making enough money. . .But you have to stop the evil american Oil corporations from securing money making contracts?

Isn't the goal of every corporation to make money if you so worried about those prices. When did I say they aren't making any money? Affecting global economy for personal gains. Let’s look at your congress then. Corporations are lobbying, among other things, for oil drilling in alaska. Another thing they did not want to pass was a law requiring for fuel efficient cars. If you really want to, you could go and check out who is paying who in congress.

[/quote]

Remember that state of the union address from Bush from the other thread? The one where he was sending millions of dollars in aid to africa over AIDS? Well he also put legislation to the floor in the Billions of dollars to research hydrogen cars. get your facts straight.

Now then, your arguement is contradictory already. Do you know how a corporation runs?

Any single corporation probably does not yet have the power to affect global economy, but lobbying groups can nonetheless steer political decision making and create better conditions for corporations.

and what makes a corporation lobbying for beneficial laws for them to make money any different than a Pro Choice group lobbying for more loose abortion laws? Absolutley nothing. Both are being selfish to their own affairs. And you know what? its up to the politician to decide what is best, not those organisations or corporations.

well, most people don't realise the cost of living in some of those places is 30 dollars a month, which means for that pay, they get food, water, house, learn a trade, and maybe pay for a school. Or run a militia. Or operate a township. Or improve their town. They have to do everything on theri own without the help of 'foreign aide' and 'religious ministry' coming to save them. What a joke.

One again you try to ridicule me with your answer, like I would be blind to facts. I know the cost of living and I know what they must do to get it. Have you ever visited a sweatshop?

Nope! hope i never do, too.

Let’s take one example from Indonesia where a person who makes shoes for Nike, can make between 565,000 ($US65) to 590,000 ($US67.85) rupiahs per month (including overtimes which most workers do to support their families) after wages were raised in 2002.

Earlier study shows that cost of living (just basic needs) for single person (not family) where around 39$ dollars. Since then prices (especially food) has raised between 22 – 33% shows that this is now around 48.75$ for a single person. For a family the price is at least double that, depending on the number of children. So, some members of the family must also go to work which might not even be as ‘well paid’ as Nike factory.

Oh gee, and how is that any different than some of the more 'developed' nations of the world? If you're making 70 bucks a month and spending 50$ to cover yourself and bills, and then saving the rest. . .. thats more like America than most people like you think. A Mcdonalds worker on average? About 6.50 per hour tops, not including overtime. Lets assume its a girl, she'll make $1040 a month. Nix 15% to taxes. $884. Now $450 for rent, 200 for car payment, 100 for bills including car ins. That leaves $134 to blow on clothes or other amenities.

When you consider the scale in AMERICA, they don't have it so bad either. And guess what? The girl probably goes to college AND works overtime too. (i used girl because they pay less car ins). These people aren't depraved in any sense. They are usually -real- people, who's mommies and daddies didn't give them a car and pay their insurance when they turned 16.

It’s of course nice that people can live with 8am to 6pm job making shoes. This however does not take into an account one fundamental injustice. A single shoe sold by Nike, can easily cover the monthly wage of three workers. It would be no problem at all for Nike to pay, let’s say 140$ dollars/month to a worker (Less than one pair of sneakers can cost) which would earn a living for a family, make it possible for children to go to school (and let their mother stay at home and take care of them) and even leave some savings. This way the standard of living would raise and people would be happier. Would that really be so bad?

you call it an injustice. Its called business. You don't like the job, go get another one. If it doesn't pay enough then people wont work there and they'll close down. Companies don't "owe" their workers any more than the wage they are promised when hired, and for any worker to think they are somehow morally entitled to it is very childish and repugnant. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. Obvioulsy, enough people keep these jobs because they are better than the jobs they had or didn't have before.

Nike isn't responsible for the standard of living. The individual is, but then thats a hard concept for you to swallow, I'll bet, considering where you're from. Its not Nike's responsibility to pay out a salary just because the people want to be happier, any more than its McDonald's responsibility to up the wage so they can afford nicer cars.

Injustice indeed. . .

Now then. . it would be NICE if they decided to do this, but its their choice. no-one has a right to force them, and its whiny and moany for people to jump up and down like a 4-year old and say "Thats not fair. . they have more than me!"

And one more thing. This is in Indonesia and situation in other countries (such as China), is not even this good.

well gee, i dunno, shouldn't we try to place trade restrictions on China for human rights violations? Oh thats right we tried. . . and got shot down by the rest of the world.

if make up your mind. we use the troops or we dont. If we do, we're oppressive, if we don't, we're not being humanitarian. This juxtaposition of thinking loosens our ability to care about other views..

And the part of troops was sarcasm. But please answer the first part of my argument.

only when you answer mine about 'conveniently forgetting the facts,' because it would 'shoot yourself in the leg' if you admitted to it.

Cultural oppresiveness claimed by someone who is hundreds of thousands of miles away is a cop-out. They can't accept that someone may choose for themselves "i like their way of life better," because we must be oppressing them and infecting them.

Hundreds of thousands?….Yes, Sea of Tranquility is a nice place to live. Never fear though, I’m planning on moving to Valles Marineris as soon as possible. We are discussing across the ocean in this forum. So imagine how efficiently such corporations as Viacom, Creators or Disney can spread their, mainly Hobbesian, view of the world with the amount of magazines, movie studios, etc. they control.

Oh, so their books and movies are the enemy? Give me a break. They dont 'spread' they 'Sell'. And people 'Buy'. Get over it.

Military oppressiveness would be having the US Military at your government buildings screening you individual for the sake of intimidation. Military oppressiveness is massing troops at a border without warning, and then doing nothing, hoping to provoke the other side of the border (N korea, anyone?)..

You exclude on thing. Military bases across the world. For example, why US military is reluctant to hand over servicemen to local authorities if they manage to fuck up somehow. Couple of years ago in South Korea, two soldiers drove over a schoolgirl with a hummer. To my knowledge those soldiers did not receive any penalties.

could it be, i dunno, we don't trust their court system? Besides. . .a US military person while serving active duty on base is not subject to American civillian laws. They are subject to MILITARY laws. Their rights are VERY different as an enlisted active duty. Maybe you should research that and understand why we don't turn over 'suspect' at the drop of a hat.

It might also serve you to read about history if Vieques and what navy has done there: http://www.politicomagazine.com/viequeshistory.html

Is it your testimony that this piece of drivel is an unbiased news source?

Political oppression? well, yeah, your damn right. I want to stamp out with the most oppressive means anyone who declares war on my life or my way of life. if you can't stand me, thats fine, don't look at me. But if its you or me, its going to be you.?)

Like the Iraqi people declared war on your way of life.... Better look to such countries as Saudi-Arabia, Iran or Pakistan if you really want to seee religious whackos who hate your guts.

Who said Iraqis people declared war on our way of life? It was the Baath party and Saddam, as well as militant Islam and Al quida that did.

so you go on "Not caring if we don't believe how oppressive the US is." I'll go on not caring on your world opinion of how we behave.

I guess we can then end this discussion here and now....

Indeed. People of intellect have a consistant problem with dealing with people whos views always come schewed from the vines of mistrust, and insipidness.

[kthulhu]

Regarding Nike:

I don't buy Nike products, for several reasons.

One, I think it's wrong that they pay their workers so little and then charge so much for the end product.

Two, I think it's aggravating that they still overcharge so much, even considering manufacturing, shipping, marketing and product development costs, for their products, which brings us to reason three...

Three, I can't afford Nike products, and I wouldn't buy them if I could . Hell, a $20 - $30 pair of shoes from the local volume seller works just as well, and even BETTER, than a pair of Nikes. Why are they better? They're cheaper and easier to replace, so I don't worry about them. I can abuse them, make them dirty, etcetera, and the only cost is $20 (plus my vanity, if I'm so inclined)

So yeah, that sums up why I don't like Nike.