Will there be something like Telepathy again?

[Straybow]

Yeah, and you should see what we do to all the Mexicans sneaking across the border. If we don't catch them, after a while we force them to become citizens by telling them they won't get to vote if they refuse. If we catch 'em, we send them back so they can try again! Oh, the horrors!

[Kc7mxo]

Yep, we're a bunch of doo doo heads ain't we?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo

And then, our national guard is always running around looting our neighboring countries. Got to keep them dang canadians under the gun, right?

Neighbour or no, you killed thousands of Afghans, and kidnapped hundreds more. And you still didn´t bother to prove they had anything to do with the WTC attack. Guilty until proven innocent, right?

And you are preparing for a war of plunder against Iraq right now.

I don´t feel threatened by Iraq at all. Nobody does, except Israel. Except oil and Israel, I would like to hear any reason for this war.

[Xentax]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Neighbour or no, you killed thousands of Afghans, and kidnapped hundreds more. And you still didn´t bother to prove they had anything to do with the WTC attack. Guilty until proven innocent, right?

And you are preparing for a war of plunder against Iraq right now.

I don´t feel threatened by Iraq at all. Nobody does, except Israel. Except oil and Israel, I would like to hear any reason for this war.

*lol* So bin Laden says the attack went "even better than he expected", and that's not proof that he had anything to do with it? What do you want, a signed confession?

Even outside of that, if there's ever been a regime worth toppling, I think the Taliban ranks pretty high on the list.

And yeah, we're out to *plunder* Iraq -- they've got all of those valuables we lack in the United States. That's it.

While I'm not too afraid of Iraq right now, I *do* consider Saddam to be a threat if left unchecked, which is what he's been trying to so hard to do since '91 -- get everyone to leave him alone so he can start over again. Anyone willing to kill his own citzenry to stay in power, to starve those of his people who won't praise him in front of the cameras, is a threat to humanity, weapons of mass destruction or not.

Of course, the real argument here is, "Why is the US playing nanny to the world?"

I have two thoughts on that issue: The first is, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we stay out of foreign affairs, we're greedy, uncaring isolationists -- we got flamed over that prior to WW1, we get flamed for it today in various areas. Somehow, having a high standard of living and a fairly modern medical system means we "owe" those same things to the countries that can't take care of their own.

On the other hand, where we DO get involved, we're nosing in, the "aggressors", trying to force our way of life on everyone else, etc. Hogwash. American (properly, Western) culture spreads as ANY culture spreads -- people embrace the things they like, while others who dislike those same things cry foul, as if we're somehow *Forcing* people to listen to N-Sync and Britney Spears (you can HAVE those two as far as I'm concerned, but that's another story).

The 2nd reason is that we play Nanny because *Someone* has to, and because no-one else is both willing and able to do so. If you look, you can probably find at least one example in every generation of human history where someone was willing to do anything, sacrifice anyone and any principle, to achieve personal power. Hussein is merely the latest in a long chain that dates back through Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and on back through to Alexander to the Assyrians.

If you'd really rather we stand back and let ruthless men with unlimited ambition oppress the rest of the world, my answer is "be careful what you wish for".

After all, if America was Imperialist (among Saddam's favorite claims), Kuwait would be the 51st state now. But, wait a tick, we *freed* Kuwait from Saddam, who DID engage in a war of annexation, and we returned them to self-rule. Yeah, we're expansionist pigs, all right.

[Kc7mxo]

While we in the US rarely ever get things right in foreign affairs, at least we're TRYING. Which is more than can be said for Europe. They let Milosovic murder thousands and displace hundreds of thousands in albania for years, it wasn't until we stepped in that something got done.

Sure we make mistakes. Sure we don't accomplish the perfect and absolute good. But we're trying. Some one needs to be. If the UN would do its bloody job, we wouldn't have to. Madmen like sadamn need to be removed for both the good of the iraq itself, and the good of the world.

But you're right, if they didn't have oil, we probably wouldn't bother them as much. Because they wouldn't have any power. But oil has given the middle east too much power too fast, and their governments are unstable because of it. Madmen with nukes worry me far more than somoene who merely dislikes me and has nukes. Russia woldn't nuke us, becaues they knew that would mean the end of everything. China is the same. Iraq? That madmen gasses his own people. I don't trust him any farther than I could throw an oil barrel.

[Citizen Cain]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Except oil and Israel, I would like to hear any reason for this war.

Clean up your own house before complaining about the mess in someone else's corner. The US gets basically none of its oil from Iraq.

Russia has billions of dollars in debt over military hardware that Sadam is paying back in oil interests.

The French are the worst smugglers of Iraqi oil in the world.

The Russians and the French are the two biggest opponents of war on the security council.

Yeah, oil's involved in the politics of this war, but it's the only reason anyone's standing up for a man who's launched two wars of aggression, killed millions, violated a dozen UN security council resolutions, been the only man in history to launch a war against an ethnic minoirty in his own country using chemical and biological weapons, uses food as a tool to ensure loyalty and tortures and murders those he can't starve into submission.

Yeah, you're a real freaking champion of human rights and morality by opposing an action to allow millions of Iraqis from ever living to see the day they taste freedom. Hypocrite.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Xentax

If you'd really rather we stand back and let ruthless men with unlimited ambition oppress the rest of the world, my answer is "be careful what you wish for".

'Ruthless men with unlimited ambition' who oppress the rest of the world would be my description of the American political class.

And, yeah, there is now democracy in Kuwait. (Not!)

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Citizen Cain
The US gets basically none of its oil from Iraq.

This is right, but you are still wrong. They do not necessarily want to use the oil, they want to control it. Ever played monopoly?

And besides oil, there is of course the Israel Lobby, and they have obviously pocketed lots of US politicians. Speak out against Israel these days, and I will call you a brave man, indeed.

[Straybow]

Oh, I see how this works. Huddled in their dens high in the towers of New York, covens of Jewish telepaths focus their commands upon the dupes they've placed in power in Washington. If only they had a few more adepts in London they could stymie EU efforts there more effectively. But having been cast out of continental Europe in the wake of WWII their power cannot touch the true and pure of heart.

Hey, maybe it's the English language that makes their telepathy more effective, since obviously it has no impact on the Palestinians who are clearly within range of Israeli Jews' efforts.

[campfreddie]

Oh do behave, Comrade.

While there's no democracy in Kuwait, the Gulf War was fought to return the UN recognised government. Kuwait was the victim in that case and if we imposed a goverment on them we would have been just as imperialist as Iraq was. And I'm sure you'd be moaning about how imperialist America was conquering the middle east in a quest for an oil monopoly.

Perhaps when British forces liberated parts of France in WWII we should have reinstalled a royal family. I'm sure there were plenty of British chinless wonders who still had some (diluted) french blue blood. :roll eyes:

There are problems with the war on Iraq, such as the current lack of evidence that Sadam has any WMD capability. There are also problems with the US handling of the affair, the 'our photocopiers are better' theft of UN documents and the attempts by GWB Jnr to vindicate his father and rehabilitate all the disgraced US rightwingers. I think that Kissenger had too many indonesians to oppress and couldn't take time out for a waron terror but that's another story.

However, the fact is that US politicians with megalomaniac tendencies are kept in check somewhat, by a little thing called democracy. Iraqi politicians with megalomaniac ambition tend to be there for life.

Sure Yank-bashing is fun, it's better than sitting in my castle, maintaining my stiff upper lip while dreaming of the sound of leather on willow and the glory of empire. However it's best not to take it too seriously. For all the evil inflicted on the world by America (Britney Spears, N-Sync, Michael Jackson's face, the remake of The Italian Job with 'Handsome Rob' replacing everyone's favorite frilly-shirted hero) there's a lot more good (liberal democracy and world peace being the main ones).

And yes, the Jewish lobby is strong, in many cases very wrong and has little to do with 'Jewish values'. Unfortunately, the Islamic lobby tends to be rather inconsistent, liable to explode when travelling by bus and has even less to do with 'Islamic values'.

[warden]

The Elerians were good because they were functionally different from the other races. You'd expect the Harvesters to operate in a similar mode (they seem to be kinda like the Gou'ald or Puppet Masters) but I don't think they do.

The game does have PsyOps troops though and you can imagine them to be low-grade telepaths (PsiOps) if you like...

Andrew

[Xentax]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


'Ruthless men with unlimited ambition' who oppress the rest of the world would be my description of the American political class.

And, yeah, there is now democracy in Kuwait. (Not!)

You can describe them all you want, but it's FAR less accurate when applied to an freely-elected leader than to one whose authority is based only on control of the military, infrastructure, and food supply.

Please. If the American people have a problem with GWB's policies, he won't be re-elected in 2004. Regardless, he won't be in power after January 2009, *no matter what*. Whereas the man you're trying to defend has been in power for decades, and will be until he dies or is removed. He won't voluntarily give up his rule under ANY circumstances, which is the biggest single proof that he is NOT the right person to lead.

Your second sentence makes me suspect you're just trolling. What, us wanting to remove an oppressive leader in Iraq is wrong, but us NOT forcing a democracy on the Kuwaiti people is wrong, too? WHICH IS IT?

As others have said, we restored the U.N.-recognized leadership of Kuwait. And while it is a *constitutional monarchy*, and only about 10% of the people have the right to vote, it IS an elective system of government (though a rather elitist one).

And, more importantly, the Kuwaiti people are not *suffering*, and are not begging the outside world for help. Nor is the Kuwaiti government gassing dissidents or sponsoring terrorism. There are a lot of places the US could work on improving before Kuwait becomes the trouble spot, and Iraq's at or near the top of that list.

Stop stirring the pot for trouble's sake, Tribune. Take a stand. Do you want *someone* to take a stand against oppression and injustice in the world, or do you want every country to be left to its own problems? You can't have it both ways.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


'Ruthless men with unlimited ambition' who oppress the rest of the world would be my description of the American political class.

And, yeah, there is now democracy in Kuwait. (Not!)

Your "decriptions" and $1 would get you a cup of coffee but that's about they are worth.

So... What are your examples of how the US opresses the world? And don't come back and say Afghanistan because, well, the people there aren't opressed as long as they don't bomb our buildings. We're doing what the UN wouldn't, step in and remove dictators who threaten other countries with terrorist attacks.

There may not be true democracy in Kuwait, but it's better than those in Iraq have, no?

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


This is right, but you are still wrong. They do not necessarily want to use the oil, they want to control it. Ever played monopoly?

Oh yeah, that's why the US kept Kuwait under our military control after we (with help) liberated the country, right??

You need to check your facts before posting, me thinks.

And besides oil, there is of course the Israel Lobby, and they have obviously pocketed lots of US politicians. Speak out against Israel these days, and I will call you a brave man, indeed.

Hmm, well you're definitely living up to the "comrade" part of your name, that's for sure. Are you positive you shouldn't have a swastica for your symbol instead however? Your prejudice's are showing, you might want to pull down your SS uniform blouse a little.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by campfreddie
...For all the evil inflicted on the world by America (Britney Spears, N-Sync, Michael Jackson's face, the remake of The Italian Job with 'Handsome Rob' replacing everyone's favorite frilly-shirted hero) there's a lot more good (liberal democracy and world peace being the main ones).

For what it's worth, you're welcome to Britney, N-sync, and MJ. *sigh* You'd think that as prevelant as American culture is we'd at least pick something better to try to spread around the world than the afore-mentioned three listed...