Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

"Shame on you American-hating liberals"

124

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Political theory is a nice duck and cover tactic. Doesn't change the cold hard reality of modern pluralistic society though, so much the sadder for you and your narrow worldview. ;)

    Every government form in the world today is based at least partly on the theories of John Locke. Address the issues instead of avoiding them.

    "All governments rule with the consent of the ruled".

    Disprove it.

    It was true of Hitler. And true of Pinochet (as much as Aladdin will hate to admit that). True of Pol Pot and Mao. True of Stalin. And is in all liklihood true of Saddam Hussein as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Address the issues instead of avoiding them.

    ROFLMAO!

    Once again the hypocrisy shines through ol boy! Puts me in mind of a certain pot and kettle! ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat


    Every government form in the world today is based at least partly on the theories of John Locke. Address the issues instead of avoiding them.

    "All governments rule with the consent of the ruled".

    Choices get simpler when one has to face basic truths... things get more toward a simple black & white moment, rather than observing all of the "shades of grey" which are introduced as attempts at obfuscation.

    But... observing that simple TRUTH, "governments rule with the consent of the ruled", means that you either STFU and live with it, or STFU and deal with it. Gets more toward the philosophy which founded the United States... a minority of motivated individuals DID something about it.

    Might may not make right, but it separates the bullshit artists who just want to TALK about it - negotiate, collaborate, and yes, obfuscate - from those motivated to DO something about it.

    Easier for the bullshit artists to demean those willing to DO something about it, than to account for their own individual lack of motivation... and such comes with the appellation "war-mongerer"...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah yes the caveman speaketh! lol.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That "minority of motivated individuals" would have been able to do fuck all against Pinochet, Franco, the military at Burma or the Chinese government to name but a few. What planet do you live in?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK.......

    Hypothetical dictatorship, harsh, unjust, brutal police state under military rule.

    70% of the population want to get rid of the govt and install different one and different system, how do they do it?

    The secret police is all pervasive, the army and police are largely loyal and well capable of annihilating most subversives.....

    The people have not consented to this, they do not want it, how do they change it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They stop working. They call in sick. They fight. There are lots of options. No government can survive destroying the bulk of their population. If 70% of the population really wants to get rid of the gov't, the secret police cannot be everywhere...somebody is armed and against the gov't....secret police, military, police...someone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is no way to organise any mass movement internally, any effort would be destroyed by the secret police.....

    Individual actions are basically suicide

    Faced with these odds it seems unrealsitic to claim 'consent'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They starve. They get shot and chucked into the sea from a helicopter. Their wives and daughters get raped. They have to fight using the odd smugled gun, knives and rock-throwing against trained soldiers and policemen equiped with assault rifles and armoured vehicles.

    Keep dreaming :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    There is no way to organise any mass movement internally, any effort would be destroyed by the secret police.....

    Individual actions are basically suicide

    Faced with these odds it seems unrealsitic to claim 'consent'

    So, what happened to Milosovic?

    The comments are bullshit. No population that is 70% against a government is unable to find ways to organize resistance.

    There are resistance movements in Vietnam, in China, and were in the Soviet Union....all with far less than 70% of the population wanting the gov't changed. Each of those nations has (or had) a rather pervasive secret police force...and still organized resistence occurs....and in the case of the Soviet Union, eventually the government fell.

    You keep believing it can't be done. That's why Thanatos calls you sheep. Me, I've seen it done.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No

    I admit it can be done

    What you have claimed is that it can always be done, which frankly I don't believe.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    No

    I admit it can be done

    What you have claimed is that it can always be done, which frankly I don't believe.......

    yet you quote a man who believed it...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed he did but he live in an era before the emergence of the modern totalitarian state and as people so often point out, he got a lot of things wrong.................;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Presumably if your "argument" is valid Greenie we should leave the Iraqis to liberate themselves eh? Better tell Bush now, and I shall be expecting US troops to start pulling back tomorrow morning. :rolleyes:

    I hope Thanatos hasn't thought much about this either. He might realise that the US war on Vietnam and its 50,000 casualties were a pointless waste for it didn't matter if the evil commies conquered the South. All the locals needed to do is revolt and presto! end of the commies.

    This thread should be given ‘sticky’ status for future generations to admire. Really.


    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Presumably if your "argument" is valid Greenie we should leave the Iraqis to liberate themselves eh? Better tell Bush now, and I shall be expecting US troops to start pulling back tomorrow morning. :rolleyes:

    Your assumption is that consent is the same as what people would prefer.

    My question to you stands, Aladdin. Were you one of the consenting?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you trying to get a reaction out of me Grennie?

    I couldn't blame you if you did, it's happened before. ;)

    Since you're not serious this does not merit an extensive answer but you're going to get it anyway. As you well know I was a tad young to have either consented or fought Franco (2 years old when the poor man passed away). But suffice to say that both my grandfathers fought for the Republicans during the war and my parents and siblings have run many a pitch battle with Franco's police during the 40 years of oppression (and got truncheoned a few times for their efforts). Others were not so lucky and spent 20 years in forced labour or were simply shot.

    But hey, despite constant fighting and insurrections throughout the dictatorship we didn't manage to "liberate" ourselves so we must have all been consenting eh? 500,000 people were killed by Franco after the war- which makes him rather more deadly than Saddam. And let's say the international community wasn't terribly interested in removing him at the end of WWII. Apparently it didn't bother anyone that Franco had sent troops to fight alongside the Nazis... The US promptly signed a nice deal and secured the building and use of 4 massive bases. Franco got a nice bit of cash for it so let's say our efforts to liberate ourselves weren't greatly helped by successive US governments.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hey.... this is starting to sound like Ants....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg


    70% of the population want to get rid of the govt and install different one and different system, how do they do it?

    How was it that Nixon/Agnew were driven from office? When Gerald Ford assumed office, that pretty much completed a coup d'etat.

    Originally posted by Greenhat


    The comments are bullshit. No population that is 70% against a government is unable to find ways to organize resistance. ...

    You keep believing it can't be done. That's why Thanatos calls you sheep. Me, I've seen it done.

    No government will ever fall to those suffering from testicular deprivation. Those whose only weapon is their mouth? Cannot conceive of what is necessary to bring the task to fruition, because they submit to gratifying them who rule, rather than oppose them, and say: "No, FUCK YOU!"

    It requires a group of "caveman" types. It requires them who are not so self-serving, and actually stand up, rather than kneel down. It requires a modern day William Wallace, as revulsive as that concept might be to the English (as opposed to "Brits").

    Things have not changed so much since the times of Wallace. There are still informants. There are still spies. There are still collaborators. There are still them such as the clandestine-collaborator who seek to destroy a nation that they supposedly serve.

    Some prefer to live in slavery. Some find death preferable to that "life". The most prefer to grovel and snivel. A few would stand up, with dignity.

    Dignity seems to be in short supply, in this "modern" world...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who, then, would support the US/UK actively helping and supporting anti-Saddam groups within Iraq?

    What about assassinating Hussein himself?

    Are these acceptable alternatives to war?

    It seems that we don't want war for oil, and the solution is to encourage the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam. Saddam, however, quite likes his power, thank you very much, and isn't inclined to allow opposition. So, what do you propose?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by DJP


    What about assassinating Hussein himself?

    Can you not hear the tumoultuous cacophony of the bleating, should such a thing happen, and be traced back to the US? :rolleyes: Can you imagine the reaction of the clandestine-collaborator, and his sycophants? :eek:

    Almost worth it, don't you think? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Globe
    Can you not hear the tumoultuous cacophony of the bleating, should such a thing happen, and be traced back to the US? :rolleyes: Can you imagine the reaction of the clandestine-collaborator, and his sycophants? :eek:

    Almost worth it, don't you think? ;)

    Why do you think I posted it? :p

    It is, is it not, widely accepted that the regime is one of a dictator. And that you cannot rule a dictatorship by committee. Hence, if you remove the dictator himself; who steps in? There is a power vacuum, which could then be filled with a government accountable to the people. The apparatus of state may well survive, but no longer would it be crony dominated.

    Why not assassinate Hussein?

    Surely we would all accept the principle of the greater good?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let the UN do their job in peace. Determine whether Saddam is really a danger to others, and take appropriate steps. Exhaust all the diplomatic channels first.

    In any case there is no much point giving support to anti-Saddam groups within Iraq. According to Greenhat and Thanatos school of "logic", any country that is ruled by a dictator is obviously happy with him- otherwise they would have kicked him out by now. So why "liberating" the Iraqis when this is their regime of choice? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But isn't it forbidden by a Finding? That the intelligence agencies are not empowered to carry out assassinations?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Very interesting issue is asassination.........

    I think the specific problem in Iraq is Saddam's son who it would appear is ready made to take his fathers place....

    I also think that such an act may push Iraqi symapathies towards their regime.

    It would also seem to be a likely trigger for similar attempts on western leaders. Some have suggested that few leaders will ever sanction assassinating another political leader because it sets a precedent and makes themselves targets.......

    All in all a I think a solitary assassination is unlikely to have much of an effect on the nature of any regime, particularly Iraq where there are many who could fill Saddams shoes.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Exactly. When you validate political assassination you're opening yourself to the same treatment. And the 'other side' would have as valid a reason to assassinate our leaders as we have to assassinate theirs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin

    In any case there is no much point giving support to anti-Saddam groups within Iraq. According to Greenhat and Thanatos school of "logic", any country that is ruled by a dictator is obviously happy with him- otherwise they would have kicked him out by now. So why "liberating" the Iraqis when this is their regime of choice? :rolleyes:

    "Happy" and "Consent" do not mean the same thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was there

    Don't tell me that you think Iraq, and all the other tied in Nations, had nothing to do with 9/11. You are fooling yourself.

    I was there on 9/11. I worked for 7 weeks straight, 2,3,4 hours of rest between picking up body parts, digging through 1000lbs of steel and twisted junk, trying to save or at least lay to rest some of the victims. Victims of what???? I'll tell you exactly.

    You liberals out there.......all it takes is one bullet flying past your ear.....or picking up a thigh bone or 1/2 a torso because some sick demented person and group hates you. That group includes Iraq. That group includes France and Germany....2 countries who could give a shit about world peace. Let them pick up the pieces of their fallen brothers and than say....ah....you know....we love Sadam and we love bin ladden....how could these big Americans want to go to war.

    Such total BS. You can only assume you know the deal. You don't. You are pansy's and falling right into what these 3rd world terrorists want.

    Lt. Thomas
    FDNY
    New York City Fire Department
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: I was there
    Originally posted by Thomas Wu
    Don't tell me that you think Iraq, and all the other tied in Nations, had nothing to do with 9/11. You are fooling yourself.

    I was there on 9/11. I worked for 7 weeks straight, 2,3,4 hours of rest between picking up body parts, digging through 1000lbs of steel and twisted junk, trying to save or at least lay to rest some of the victims. Victims of what???? I'll tell you exactly.
    Well, do.

    No-one should have to do what you did, if you're not just winding us up, but how can being there on September 11th qualify you to know that Iraq and 'all the other tied in nations' (names?) had anything to do with it? It's like Globe/Thanatos/Cellulite saying that because he was in the Vietnam War, no-one can disagree with his opinion on anything connected to it, even the political motivations of the American government at the time.

    You've posted an emotive argument, if it even amounts to an argument, for what? Attacking Iraq? If more body parts have to be picked up in America as a result of laying siege to a country which has never attacked America (because Irraq has been turned into a popular cause for extremist arabs), will you listen to the emotive protests of the people that have to deal with those consequences?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Joe, this is just indicative of the emotional, knee jerk, militarism that the Washington spin factory intends to achieve. Its the same sort of non-argument that was levelled at the anti-war movement in the Vietnam era, and lo and behold its succeeded again.

    There will always be a portion of the population who will refuse to question what the media is feeding them, who will duly and "patriotically" narrow their minds at the mere suggestion that some foreign boogeyman is a possible threat, and who will happily beat the war drums without thought to how likely it is that our own renewed aggression will only compound the very problems they think we are eliminating.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know, but you have to say something, don't you..?
Sign In or Register to comment.