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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I was reading some Kipling, and thought of the collaborator:
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..."
Apropos, don't you think?
Rattle on oh deluded warrior.
Actually Jacq, my contention has always been and remains consistent that it was not for Washington to unilaterally invade or to presume itself above international law as it currently stands to pursue further geo-political manipulations. The history of our national machinations to unilaterally determine the direction of other nations and peoples has systematically left us in deeper crises than before.
Therefore, I have always contended that the wrongheadedness of our original involvement in installing and empowering Saddam would only evolve into additional crises should we presumptuously assume the mantle of global arbiter yet again.
I do not subscribe to the American Empire mentality fueled by our powerful corporate interests and the military interventionist model they have inundated us with through decades of heroic imagery of the warrior "saviour". For a young man or woman to offer themselves up to "defend" my or any nation is noble. For them to be subsequently used to further extend hegemonic global control is a betrayal of that noble sacrifice.
What you must ask yourself is, in a review of the history of US conflicts even within the short period we call the "post war era" up to the present time, how often has actual "defence" of US soil and the security of its citizens truly been shown to be the justifiable pretext of our militancy. Certainly not Vietnam, not Guatemala, not Panama. The list goes on and serious unbiased review of the justifications and the outcomes both for the US as well as those at the receiving end of our might will show a troubling repetition. A repitition we make yet again, having defied our sworn ratification as a signitory to the UN Charter. The same UN which has for more than half a century significantly mitigated the nationalistic passions of its members and contained the threat of global war which caused suffering of which i have little doubt your elders are well acquainted.
Will we solve despotism by assuming ourselves and our model of governance to be the panacea for all? When delivered at the end of a rifle muzzle or cruise missile, can we truly expect open minded reception? Do we not therefore become the global despot (however well intentioned) for presuming to decide the fate of others for them?
I believe in multilateralism and the power of changed minds, not higher body counts than the other guy. Therefore, as always, I believe that this matter was for the international community to wrestle with regardless of the time taken. All we've done is exchange one nightmare for a novel counterpart in cyclical fashion. Creating future strawmen. the ousting or destruction of whom future generations will be manipulated and contrived into undertaking.
Or in Balkan?
Should they also have stayed out of that?
By what I have read within this forum, the collaborator is employed by - and serves the interests of - the European Union. He - AND his opinion - are irrelevant. An American? A canard used only when it serves his propagandizing agenda.
One cannot serve two masters. The collaborator has made his choice, and declared his loyalty.
All commentary of the collaborator should be judged from that perspective.
Keep ranting, you provide no end of humour for colleagues, even our fellow countrymen on assignment over here. You have joined the enviable ranks of poster child for the rabid right 2003-2004.
And still you make wild assumptions demonstrating that you have no clue about anything, not merely the realities of the political arena. How telling as well that you refer to serving "maters", I find no government - my own or any which comprise the EU - to be my "masters", clients yes. Unquestioning obedience to those elected to "serve" the people is just the sort of sycophantry (TM-Thanatos) which highlights the sort of willing surrender those of your ilk have made of your civic duties in favour of blind partisan allegiance. Tis your mindset which represents the gravest threat to the future of our system of governance and the founding principles upon which it rests.
How appropo then that you should claim to have coined a term so clearly derivitive of the relative positioning of your cranium to the source of effluence of your typical inane rantings, "rectumification" indeed. Best you toddle off and see a proctologist post haste.
Oh the hypocrisy...
Would like to hear your colleagues' points of view on some of the discussions here. If they're already reading this, would you then mind inviting them to post as well?
As a second point would people use the names people have chosen when refering to them, this isn't a playground.
Yes, Than demonstrates it on a continual basis. His only consistency is in dismissing whatever he cannot give legitimate response to or falling back upon his age worn personal presumptions and attacks.
My colleagues find this and all such boards a waste of time. Its something I take a degree of light hearted ribbing over, but otherwise they consider this a diversion only slightly more productive than PC solitaire.
With anticipated responses such as Than's latest, I am increasingly inclined to agree.
Yes
It isn't that bad really is it, I think it is pretentious to ascribe personal attacks, name calling etc to just being 'childish', when everyone does it.
Would it actually be better if everyone was very repectful and nice and lovely?