Help
1) A conspiracy of Nanobots?
2) A conspiracy of Strong AI?
3) A conspiracy of clones?
4) A conspiracy of humans with implanted digitial chips and robotic parts?
I think we all can come up with a lot more conspiracy theories
.
Favorite Conspiracy Theories What's yours?
#61
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,331
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-April-02, 11:58
Since this is the "Conspiracy Thread" I hope some of you will check out and post in my "Singularity is Near" thread.
1) A conspiracy of Nanobots?
2) A conspiracy of Strong AI?
3) A conspiracy of clones?
4) A conspiracy of humans with implanted digitial chips and robotic parts?
I think we all can come up with a lot more conspiracy theories.
1) A conspiracy of Nanobots?
2) A conspiracy of Strong AI?
3) A conspiracy of clones?
4) A conspiracy of humans with implanted digitial chips and robotic parts?
I think we all can come up with a lot more conspiracy theories
.
#62
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2006-April-02, 12:05
csdenmark, on Apr 2 2006, 12:30 PM, said:
luke warm, on Apr 2 2006, 05:56 PM, said:
we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time
the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time
Sorry - as this statement looks rubbish to me I need to ask you - what's the difference?
it shows that the decisions are based on perceived nat'l interests and not on political philosophies... sometimes these discussions revolve around politics, and usually the decisions aren't politically based (usually, not always)
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#63
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2006-April-02, 12:53
"the shah came to power as a result of british/russian involvement during wwII... you, i think, are referring to what happened in 1953 when the prime minister was overthrown (he'd nationalized the oil industry)... the fact is, this 'coup' restored the iranian constitution"
Constitution? The Shah was a brutal, corrupt dictator, who ruled with an iron fist, not to mention secret police, with our approval.
"vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war"
Eisenhower refused to get the U.S. directly involved in a war, for the reason I gave. My point was that Vietnam had NOTHING to do with freedom for the Vietnamese.
"the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though,"
A plurality is a victory in a democracy.
" and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)"
The CIA had more than a minor role here.
"i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all?"
No. What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century. We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country. We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense. Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position. It is also imperialistic. Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.
It is morally wrong. It also repeatedly blows up in our faces - see Afghanistan (Taliban/Al Queda) and Iran (the present regime came to power directly because of the U.S. installation and support of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the twentieth century), to name just two. When the regal kleptocracy in Saudi Arabia is toppled and replaced by an anti-U.S. theocracy, we will once again have reaped the whirlwind. This may well be the case in Pakistan, as well. During the 2000 election, Musharraf deposed the democratically elected government of Pakistan, and Bush reacted favorably. He continues to support dictatorships in the Muslim world, as long as they are at least somewhat compliant. In this, he continues a long U.S. tradition.
Peter
Constitution? The Shah was a brutal, corrupt dictator, who ruled with an iron fist, not to mention secret police, with our approval.
"vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war"
Eisenhower refused to get the U.S. directly involved in a war, for the reason I gave. My point was that Vietnam had NOTHING to do with freedom for the Vietnamese.
"the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though,"
A plurality is a victory in a democracy.
" and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)"
The CIA had more than a minor role here.
"i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all?"
No. What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century. We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country. We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense. Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position. It is also imperialistic. Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.
It is morally wrong. It also repeatedly blows up in our faces - see Afghanistan (Taliban/Al Queda) and Iran (the present regime came to power directly because of the U.S. installation and support of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the twentieth century), to name just two. When the regal kleptocracy in Saudi Arabia is toppled and replaced by an anti-U.S. theocracy, we will once again have reaped the whirlwind. This may well be the case in Pakistan, as well. During the 2000 election, Musharraf deposed the democratically elected government of Pakistan, and Bush reacted favorably. He continues to support dictatorships in the Muslim world, as long as they are at least somewhat compliant. In this, he continues a long U.S. tradition.
Peter
#64
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,422
- Joined: 2003-February-13
Posted 2006-April-02, 14:29
luke warm, on Apr 2 2006, 08:05 PM, said:
csdenmark, on Apr 2 2006, 12:30 PM, said:
luke warm, on Apr 2 2006, 05:56 PM, said:
we might disagree with all of those positions, but they were taken by different us administrations over the course of many years... they weren't the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time
the result of any one political philosophy; rather, they were what this government felt to be in its national interest of the time
Sorry - as this statement looks rubbish to me I need to ask you - what's the difference?
it shows that the decisions are based on perceived nat'l interests and not on political philosophies... sometimes these discussions revolve around politics, and usually the decisions aren't politically based (usually, not always)
Sorry I still don't understand - and it is not bad will Jimmy.
For me danish natural interests are quite different than those assumed to be national interests for my political opponents. Fx. danish involvement in wars in general but especially long from danish borders.
The danish EU involvement is another topic where the arguments goes like yours. That project has a long term perspective to make an end of Denmark as an sovereign nation. Such is a political view shared by our right-wing intellectual elite. Their perspectives for the future I certainly don't share. They are frightening and I am completely unable to see the interests of a nation to make an end of itself.
Sorry Jimmy - the way I understand you I cannot buy your argument. The way I see the world is that a decision benefitting somebody is to disadvantage to others. I think it cannot be in any other way. 1$ can be used for this or that but not for this and that.
#65
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,422
- Joined: 2003-February-13
Posted 2006-April-02, 14:50
pbleighton, on Apr 2 2006, 08:53 PM, said:
"the shah came to power as a result of british/russian involvement during wwII... you, i think, are referring to what happened in 1953 when the prime minister was overthrown (he'd nationalized the oil industry)... the fact is, this 'coup' restored the iranian constitution"
Constitution? The Shah was a brutal, corrupt dictator, who ruled with an iron fist, not to mention secret police, with our approval.
"vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war"
Eisenhower refused to get the U.S. directly involved in a war, for the reason I gave. My point was that Vietnam had NOTHING to do with freedom for the Vietnamese.
"the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though,"
A plurality is a victory in a democracy.
" and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)"
The CIA had more than a minor role here.
"i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all?"
No. What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century. We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country. We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense. Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position. It is also imperialistic. Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.
It is morally wrong. It also repeatedly blows up in our faces - see Afghanistan (Taliban/Al Queda) and Iran (the present regime came to power directly because of the U.S. installation and support of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the twentieth century), to name just two. When the regal kleptocracy in Saudi Arabia is toppled and replaced by an anti-U.S. theocracy, we will once again have reaped the whirlwind. This may well be the case in Pakistan, as well. During the 2000 election, Musharraf deposed the democratically elected government of Pakistan, and Bush reacted favorably. He continues to support dictatorships in the Muslim world, as long as they are at least somewhat compliant. In this, he continues a long U.S. tradition.
Peter
Constitution? The Shah was a brutal, corrupt dictator, who ruled with an iron fist, not to mention secret police, with our approval.
"vietnam started, for us, around 1950 when truman began sending military aid to france (vietnam was part of their empire - the type of empire i've been discussing)... france lost the north in 1954, but america believed a communist north not to be in its interests... so a gov't was established in the south and a military was trained... this continued thru eisenhower and kennedy, until johnson turned it into full scale war"
Eisenhower refused to get the U.S. directly involved in a war, for the reason I gave. My point was that Vietnam had NOTHING to do with freedom for the Vietnamese.
"the us did invest money and influence in the chile election of 1964, and allende was defeated at the polls.. he won a plurarity the next election, though,"
A plurality is a victory in a democracy.
" and was overthrown by pinochet (yes, the sanctions imposed by nixon had some effect here)"
The CIA had more than a minor role here.
"i'll take it.. peter, do you think the national interests of the united states are of no import at all?"
No. What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century. We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country. We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense. Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position. It is also imperialistic. Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.
It is morally wrong. It also repeatedly blows up in our faces - see Afghanistan (Taliban/Al Queda) and Iran (the present regime came to power directly because of the U.S. installation and support of the Shah, one of the most brutal dictators of the twentieth century), to name just two. When the regal kleptocracy in Saudi Arabia is toppled and replaced by an anti-U.S. theocracy, we will once again have reaped the whirlwind. This may well be the case in Pakistan, as well. During the 2000 election, Musharraf deposed the democratically elected government of Pakistan, and Bush reacted favorably. He continues to support dictatorships in the Muslim world, as long as they are at least somewhat compliant. In this, he continues a long U.S. tradition.
Peter
Peter it looks to me that there are only slight differences in your descriptions of facts compared to Jimmy's.
It would be of very much interest to me if you would be able to get a bit deeper into the decision structures. American political system is very different to what we have here. Lobby-groups, think-tanks, limit public debate, over-political presidential leadership.
I often wonder why it looks like american president acts very strange. It looks like their most quailified decision is the appointment of an often very well-qualified foreign secretary. Is it so that foreign secretary is mostly independent of think-tanks and the political parties and financers but only needs to pay attention to lobby groups?
#66
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2006-April-02, 14:56
pbleighton, on Apr 2 2006, 01:53 PM, said:
No. What you should take is that it is wrong to topple foreign governments, and support foreign dictatorships, which we have been doing for a century.
"wrong" is a moral judgment, so i'll address that later
Quote
We are completely entitled to the use of all necessary force in direct self-defense of our country. We are NOT entitled to the practice of puppetmaster nonsense.
not entitled by whom? i agree that any act by any official should not be allowed *if illegal and judged so by our court system*... so if any of the acts you mentioned fall into that category, you are correct... otherwise what we have here is your opinion that this gov't was not "entitled" to perform certain acts... unless judged against the law (and i'm not saying this isn't the case), your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine - the amount charged by bbo to post it here
Quote
Contrary to your repeated statements, puppetmastery IS an ideological position. It is also imperialistic. Typically, its practitioners engage in ritual self-denial.
which ideology engages in puppetmastery? conservative? liberal? both parties have done things you don't approve of, i'm sure... sure it exists, but contrary to *your* repeated statements, it spans ideological views
Quote
It is morally wrong.
now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality? is this the 'peter morality' we're speaking of, or is there some more objective type?
claus said:
Sorry I still don't understand - and it is not bad will Jimmy.
i know there isn't any bad will, claus.. what i meant by my post was that the decisions made by the leaders of this country have spanned ideological views... this can be seen by examining under whose watch certain things were done...
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#67
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2006-April-02, 15:43
"which ideology engages in puppetmastery? conservative? liberal? both parties have done things you don't approve of, i'm sure... sure it exists, but contrary to *your* repeated statements, it spans ideological views"
I never said that it didn't (to a certain extent) span the political spectrum IN THIS COUNTRY (though there has always been significant dissent, mostly on the left). There may be a consensus regarding a particular issues, or cluster of issues, in a particular country, but that does not make such consensus position non-ideological - it merely says that a substantial majority of people in one particular country during a particular period of time shared a particular ideological position. It seems that you are confusing political consensus with some sort of nonideological "objectivity". What I call imperialism, or puppetmastery, and you call the agressive pursuit of national interest though miltiary and economic force, is an inherently ideological issue. It cannot be otherwise. It is a complex issue with many strrongly held ideas on both sides.
"now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality?"
I said nothing about measurement. It is an opinion (you have expressed a few of these yourself). It is also shared by a large majority of the world's population, as far as I can tell, if you look at public opinion around the world.
"not entitled by whom? i agree that any act by any official should not be allowed *if illegal and judged so by our court system*... so if any of the acts you mentioned fall into that category, you are correct... otherwise what we have here is your opinion that this gov't was not "entitled" to perform certain acts... unless judged against the law (and i'm not saying this isn't the case), your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine - the amount charged by bbo to post it here"
Your position appears to boil down to this: if there is a political consensus in a country, then if a government commits acts based on this consensus, then neither the country nor the government can be held morally accountable for these acts, whatever they may be, even if they involve killing large numbers of people in other countries. In other words, the importance the quality of life, security, etc. of American people is so much greater than that of other people, that we should ignore the effect on foreigners in our moral calculus. This, by the way, is a profoundly ideological position.
It doesn't take much in the way of historical example to demonstrate how silly this blanket absolution is. Would you like me to do so?
BTW, I may be incommunicado for most of next week - I will respond as I can today, then you will have to wait for my delicious morsels of wisdom
Peter
I never said that it didn't (to a certain extent) span the political spectrum IN THIS COUNTRY (though there has always been significant dissent, mostly on the left). There may be a consensus regarding a particular issues, or cluster of issues, in a particular country, but that does not make such consensus position non-ideological - it merely says that a substantial majority of people in one particular country during a particular period of time shared a particular ideological position. It seems that you are confusing political consensus with some sort of nonideological "objectivity". What I call imperialism, or puppetmastery, and you call the agressive pursuit of national interest though miltiary and economic force, is an inherently ideological issue. It cannot be otherwise. It is a complex issue with many strrongly held ideas on both sides.
"now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality?"
I said nothing about measurement. It is an opinion (you have expressed a few of these yourself). It is also shared by a large majority of the world's population, as far as I can tell, if you look at public opinion around the world.
"not entitled by whom? i agree that any act by any official should not be allowed *if illegal and judged so by our court system*... so if any of the acts you mentioned fall into that category, you are correct... otherwise what we have here is your opinion that this gov't was not "entitled" to perform certain acts... unless judged against the law (and i'm not saying this isn't the case), your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine - the amount charged by bbo to post it here"
Your position appears to boil down to this: if there is a political consensus in a country, then if a government commits acts based on this consensus, then neither the country nor the government can be held morally accountable for these acts, whatever they may be, even if they involve killing large numbers of people in other countries. In other words, the importance the quality of life, security, etc. of American people is so much greater than that of other people, that we should ignore the effect on foreigners in our moral calculus. This, by the way, is a profoundly ideological position.
It doesn't take much in the way of historical example to demonstrate how silly this blanket absolution is. Would you like me to do so?
BTW, I may be incommunicado for most of next week - I will respond as I can today, then you will have to wait for my delicious morsels of wisdom
Peter
#68
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2006-April-02, 16:44
pbleighton, on Apr 2 2006, 04:43 PM, said:
"now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality?"
I said nothing about measurement. It is an opinion (you have expressed a few of these yourself). It is also shared by a large majority of the world's population, as far as I can tell, if you look at public opinion around the world.
I said nothing about measurement. It is an opinion (you have expressed a few of these yourself). It is also shared by a large majority of the world's population, as far as I can tell, if you look at public opinion around the world.
well you did say, "It is morally wrong." ... perhaps that sentiment is merely an opinion, but it's stated as a fact... all i asked was, whose morality are you using to measure this against?
it appears to me that to make an appeal to morality one must take the position that such a thing exists... if that's your position, i agree with you... but then, as c.s. lewis might have said, i have some idea of the appearance of a straight stick, which makes it easier to recognize the crooked one
from a philosophical point of view, i agree that the usa has performed acts of questionable morality... i happen to believe the ends do not justify the means... but my arguments to date haven't been based on my persona beliefs, but on whether or not the usa has acted in what it perceives to be its nat'l interest, and whether such acts could be labeled 'imperialistic'
Quote
Your position appears to boil down to this: if there is a political consensus in a country, then if a government commits acts based on this consensus, then neither the country nor the government can be held morally accountable for these acts, whatever they may be, even if they involve killing large numbers of people in other countries.
no, my position has (had) nothing to do with morality... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light ... "for all have sinned..." - nations as well as individuals - "... and fallen short of the glory of God"
i will be gone the entire month of april, myself... not *gone*, but away from home for odd hours, sometimes overnight... it's a busy month for me
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#69
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2006-April-02, 18:26
"no, my position has (had) nothing to do with morality... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"
Except for a horse-race, who is going to win the election conversation, how can anyone have a meaningful political discussion which is devoid of a significant moral dimension?
Welfare, abortion, capital punishment, the minimum wage, gay marriage......
Peter
Except for a horse-race, who is going to win the election conversation, how can anyone have a meaningful political discussion which is devoid of a significant moral dimension?
Welfare, abortion, capital punishment, the minimum wage, gay marriage......
Peter
#70
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2006-April-02, 18:54
whether or not that's true, i'd still be interested in knowing upon what you base this ethereal concept of 'morality'...
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#71
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2006-April-02, 18:57
As Potter Stewart said of pornography, it is difficult to define, but I know it when I see it...
Why does discussing the moral dimension of foreign policy make you so nervous?
Peter
Why does discussing the moral dimension of foreign policy make you so nervous?
Peter
#72
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2006-April-03, 04:39
it hardly makes me nervous... but if i could ever get you to say why you use the word 'immoral', i think i'd be able to show that you don't really mean what you say
i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality... either that or you base morality on your own opinions, which would, imo, dilute your arguments... but we can never know as long as you refuse to answer the simplest questions on the subject
potter stewart indeed
i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality... either that or you base morality on your own opinions, which would, imo, dilute your arguments... but we can never know as long as you refuse to answer the simplest questions on the subject
potter stewart indeed
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#73
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,422
- Joined: 2003-February-13
Posted 2006-April-03, 06:21
luke warm, on Apr 3 2006, 12:39 PM, said:
it hardly makes me nervous... but if i could ever get you to say why you use the word 'immoral', i think i'd be able to show that you don't really mean what you say
i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality... either that or you base morality on your own opinions, which would, imo, dilute your arguments... but we can never know as long as you refuse to answer the simplest questions on the subject
potter stewart indeed
i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality... either that or you base morality on your own opinions, which would, imo, dilute your arguments... but we can never know as long as you refuse to answer the simplest questions on the subject
potter stewart indeed
Jimmy I don't understand your problems with the term moral. Maybe that's why I still don't understand your meaning of the word national interests.
The way you think is your decent behavior to others - that reflects your moral beliefs. If somebody advocates cruelty I think they are advocating immoral point of views. Agent Orange and death penalty are just 2 examples of immoral behavior.
You may find guidiance for moral in your political books, leaders in newspapers, the bible, UN covenants of human rights etc.
#74
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 2004-February-04
Posted 2006-April-03, 07:51
morals is what you grow up with.
If you grow up in the cannibals tribe, it is moral to eat fellow human beings.
If you grow up in the cannibals tribe, it is moral to eat fellow human beings.
Make love, not war
#75
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2006-April-03, 08:00
Hi Luke,
you still belive in living in the greatest country?
I think, with this statement, you exactly named the factor, why an awful lot of people hates the US.
They simple hate guys, who think, they are simply the best.
They simply hate guys, who do not respect their ideas and religion.
They simply hate guys, which send their 5. cavalary to get the american way of living into their or other countries.
Your country has the power of a big brother. But maybe your country is not old enough and has it time as a bully right now.
Most people in Western Europe loved the US or at least respected them. But a lot of people lost this feelings due to the cowboy mentality of Mr Bush and his Father and Mr. Reagans politics.
Unfourtunately your nation does not make a lot of democratic moves in foreign affairs.
Most UN_Resolutions are not against Taliban/Communist block/whoever. Most had been send against Israel and the US.
You did not pay your part of UN-fees for several years, because you did not like the way it was spend. (I think, there had been an agreement some years ago, but it happend tillthe 90`s)
The US is one of a few countries, which did not sign the Kyoto protocoll.
The US does not respect the International Court in Den Haag. It is not allowed to get US Soldiers for their war crimes in front of this court.
They did not helped Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Vietnam or the Iraq. They did it for their own economical interest.
If you want to be the greatest, you must be ethical ahead all others. To stay the greatest, you must learn to serve and to spend your power, when they are needed and not, when you decide, that they are needed.
But anyway, there had been a lot of big countries in history, which had been able to rule "their" world. Some for some years like Alexander the great, some tried it for thousand years and felt after twelve, some stayed on top for hundred years.
But in two hunderd years, nobody will care much about the states we have now. New "greatest" countries, new leading economics will rule the world, so we just have to sit and wait...
A game of bridge while we are waiting?
you still belive in living in the greatest country?
I think, with this statement, you exactly named the factor, why an awful lot of people hates the US.
They simple hate guys, who think, they are simply the best.
They simply hate guys, who do not respect their ideas and religion.
They simply hate guys, which send their 5. cavalary to get the american way of living into their or other countries.
Your country has the power of a big brother. But maybe your country is not old enough and has it time as a bully right now.
Most people in Western Europe loved the US or at least respected them. But a lot of people lost this feelings due to the cowboy mentality of Mr Bush and his Father and Mr. Reagans politics.
Unfourtunately your nation does not make a lot of democratic moves in foreign affairs.
Most UN_Resolutions are not against Taliban/Communist block/whoever. Most had been send against Israel and the US.
You did not pay your part of UN-fees for several years, because you did not like the way it was spend. (I think, there had been an agreement some years ago, but it happend tillthe 90`s)
The US is one of a few countries, which did not sign the Kyoto protocoll.
The US does not respect the International Court in Den Haag. It is not allowed to get US Soldiers for their war crimes in front of this court.
They did not helped Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Vietnam or the Iraq. They did it for their own economical interest.
If you want to be the greatest, you must be ethical ahead all others. To stay the greatest, you must learn to serve and to spend your power, when they are needed and not, when you decide, that they are needed.
But anyway, there had been a lot of big countries in history, which had been able to rule "their" world. Some for some years like Alexander the great, some tried it for thousand years and felt after twelve, some stayed on top for hundred years.
But in two hunderd years, nobody will care much about the states we have now. New "greatest" countries, new leading economics will rule the world, so we just have to sit and wait...
A game of bridge while we are waiting?
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#76
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-April-03, 08:01
pbleighton, on Apr 1 2006, 11:57 AM, said:
"why isn't america the greatest country in the world?"
Because Canada is.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#77
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-April-03, 08:07
mike777, on Apr 1 2006, 04:54 PM, said:
Sure 1 million or more are dying or may but we did not stop Pol Pot in Cambodia and Europe did nothing but were able to help their own. No one hates them for doing nothing.
These are things that happen and will continue to happen due to our human (read animalistic) nature.
We have telethons and charity campaigns and galas for 20 people dying from somewhat obsure conditions. What about the 2 million (mostly children) that die of malaria each year? This due to lack of medicines that are not produced and provided because there is insufficient profit incentive for the major pharmaceutical companies to distribute them........
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#78
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2006-April-03, 08:09
For the original theme, favourite CTs:
-Area 52
-CIA Murder of JFK
-moon landing was in Hollywood.
-Hitler was gay.
-All western goverments are marionetts. We are all ruled by a couple of banks, which secretly own the national banks. These really deciding guys are the Rockefellers and their friends.
Funny, as I tried to wrote Rockefeller, my PC lost his connetcion to the internet. So maybe they are there, reading my posts?
Flechters Visions...
-Area 52
-CIA Murder of JFK
-moon landing was in Hollywood.
-Hitler was gay.
-All western goverments are marionetts. We are all ruled by a couple of banks, which secretly own the national banks. These really deciding guys are the Rockefellers and their friends.
Funny, as I tried to wrote Rockefeller, my PC lost his connetcion to the internet. So maybe they are there, reading my posts?
Flechters Visions...
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#79
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2006-April-03, 08:29
Codo, on Apr 3 2006, 09:09 AM, said:
For the original theme, favourite CTs:
-Area 52
-CIA Murder of JFK
-moon landing was in Hollywood.
-Hitler was gay.
-All western goverments are marionetts. We are all ruled by a couple of banks, which secretly own the national banks. These really deciding guys are the Rockefellers and their friends.
Funny, as I tried to wrote Rockefeller, my PC lost his connetcion to the internet. So maybe they are there, reading my posts?
Flechters Visions...
-Area 52
-CIA Murder of JFK
-moon landing was in Hollywood.
-Hitler was gay.
-All western goverments are marionetts. We are all ruled by a couple of banks, which secretly own the national banks. These really deciding guys are the Rockefellers and their friends.
Funny, as I tried to wrote Rockefeller, my PC lost his connetcion to the internet. So maybe they are there, reading my posts?
Flechters Visions...
And they are affecting your typing. Area 51 (Groom Lake air base in Nevada) where they have the "skunkworks" producing the stealth type prototype aircraft and have supposedly reverse engineered "captured" alien spacecraft.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#80
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 2004-February-04
Posted 2006-April-03, 09:19
The best conspiracy theory : we are living in a world of our imagination. Machines are ruling the real world and NEO is the savior(not)
Make love, not war