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.
Options

One tyrannical dictatorship you won't hear the neocons complain about

124»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would be unwilling to support my country if I really disagreed with the Leadership, e.g: If we were a Facist state. I would be fighting for revolution

    *bangs head against wall*. Gerbil, this is the very sort of false idea of what constitutes true patriotism - which apparently extends beyond the ignorant jingoistic allegiance to tokens (flags, anthems, slogans, etc.) of my own misguided compatriots - to wit I have been attempting to explain.

    I am vehemently opposed to the criminal cabal running my nation (and many other nations) into the ground for their own self aggrandisement and profit, nevertheless I support my "country" with a passion. That support manifests itself in the assumption of my civic duty to decry the misdeeds and tyranny being perpetrated by its current leaders. No country's leaders nor government structure can be equated with the country itself, they are merely one composite element of the entire nation.

    Thus revolution against those abusing their public office IS a patriotic act and one which was repeatedly recognised as necessary by my country's founding fathers.

    That is the measure of a true patriot, not the waving of flags nor the denigration of public discourse with vitriolic labels (i.e. "un-American", "Bush-basher", et al.) nor any other external trappings with which the many unquestioning sheeple puff themselves up whilst, in truth, relinquishing their civic duty to hold our leaders fully accountable. Love of country must transcend the "my team" mentality else it is nothing more than subservience to partisanship, which can only result in the fragmentation of a nation.
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    So, you mean the Country and not the leadership? Ok, now I get this patriotism thing. Sorry.

    I see what you mean now... overthrowing a corrupt government is patriotic as it is protecting, or saving, your country in a way, from a bad leader. IF you stand up to your leader for betraying the country and the countries people... you are being patriotic.

    Whereas, if you sit back and support them whatever, that is not Patriotism, but it is jingoism. The difference between Blind Beleif and Patriotism. Thanks for explaining that. :thumb: In that Case, I probably am a bit Patriotic. Except there will be no holding our government to account, as no one in the UK can seemingly be bothered to do anything about it. :o

    Its all such confusing language when your tired, muddling up country government and so forth.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why not? The US had been under direct attack from foreign invaders.

    Will you provide some proof for that ?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The US had been under direct attack from foreign invaders.

    OH SHIT WE ARE!!!!!?????

    MA! MA! GIT DA GUNS, DE BE A COM'N, GIT DA GUNS!





    ................ :yeees:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OH SHIT WE ARE!!!!!?????

    MA! MA! GIT DA GUNS, DE BE A COM'N, GIT DA GUNS!





    ................ :yeees:
    :D
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RK, that is not patriotism.
    In your opinion. I disagree. As you know New Yorkers are somewhat different to Middle Americans, and from the New Yorkers I know they are genuinely patriotic whilst at the same time being able to criticise George W.
    That is blind unquestioning hyper-nationalism (aka jingoism) and it is indeed essentially ignorant of what our government is up to outisde our borders as much as it is ignorant and unmindful of the true concept and demands of civic duty (i.e. holding one's leaders fully accountable for their misdeeds and abuses of power without regard to partisan nonsense).

    "My country right or wrong" is a path straight to rogue nationhood.
    American Presidents are far more accountable than our Prime Ministers. Nixon was impeached in recent times yet our PM's have lied, cheated and corrupted with not a sanction in sight. We are in a state of blind acceptance bolstered by ignorance and disinterest and allow our politicians free rein to use and abuse their power in our name.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Erm, no, Nixon retired actually.

    And he only ever got caught because he was stupid enough to record and store tapes of himself.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Erm, no, Nixon retired actually.
    He didn't retire, he "resigned" because he knew the consequences if he didn't.
    And he only ever got caught because he was stupid enough to record and store tapes of himself.
    Precisely. What liar and corruptor would do such a foolish thing? Nixon did, I wonder if Blair records things on tape in no.10? Now that would be interesting.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Next to George W. Bush, Richard Nixon comes across as a champion of honesty.

    Face it, the chimp's lies, deception and criminal responsibility easily outshines our own Tony. A man who not only took a nation to war and has cost so far the lives of 1,700 Americans (not to mention more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis) but who misled the entire world (or those foolish enough to believe him), threatened those who opposed him and set back international relations in the world by 50 years.

    And despite this Dubya was not only allowed to stand again but was actually elected as President.

    So what makes you think American Presidents are more accountable than British PMs? :confused:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    He didn't retire, he "resigned" because he knew the consequences if he didn't.

    He de facto retired and was NOT impeached, as you claimed.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bb, RK is correct in this. Nixon resigned, he did not "retire". It was an ultimatum, either resign or face impeachment for which he would have most assuredly been convicted and face prison time. The arrangement followed the traditional deference shown to holders of the office (which I find appalling frankly).

    members of his cabinet were not afforded the same escape route.

    I remember watching Nixon's resignation speech on tv back in '74 quite vividly.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If Hitler had 4 armies in Russia he would have won.

    As it stood he had 3 - one was waiting to invade Britain.

    If the German Army had proper logistical support they may have won in Russia, but you're over-simplifying the whole thing.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You could argue that if Hitler had not been in power during the war the Germans would have won it, no question.

    Thankfully for all he did one fuck up after another.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Foreign policy must contain a certain amount of pragmatism.

    Yes, the US is committed to the spread of democratic institutions around the globe, but there is only so much that can be done at a given time.

    You have to prioritise.

    LOL you must be joking?

    If the US is "committed to the spread of democratic institutions around the globe", you must be from a parallel dimension.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    If the US is "committed to the spread of democratic institutions around the globe", you must be from a parallel dimension.

    when people say stuff like "america is commited to spreading democracy around the globe" i think to myself, "do they actually believe that and are trying to convince me to believe it aswell" or "are they only trying to get a rise out of me" either way they are fools...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    when people say stuff like "america is commited to spreading democracy around the globe" i think to myself, "do they actually believe that and are trying to convince me to believe it aswell" or "are they only trying to get a rise out of me" either way they are fools...

    Exactly. I find it somewhat difficult to accept someone can realistically believe America is committed to "democracy", it's patently absurd after a little research. Total delusion.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    Exactly. I find it somewhat difficult to accept someone can realistically believe America is committed to "democracy", it's patently absurd after a little research. Total delusion.

    i know..i laugh at every last one of them...from the concerned mother, pastor, news anchor woman, child....there'll be satirical books and plays about them for years to come, i might write one myself...i'm glad i've got a little bit of street sense to see past it all...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    i know..i laugh at every last one of them...from the concerned mother, pastor, news anchor woman, child....there'll be satirical books and plays about them for years to come, i might write one myself...i'm glad i've got a little bit of street sense to see past it all...

    History will prove us correct :yes: . Of that there is little doubt.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One has to learn the polispeak meanings for the rhetoric that emerges as a PR cover for Washington's (or even the EU's) pursuits around the globe.

    "Democracy", "Democratic Principles" and "Values" are all terms referring to "Capitalism" or "Corporate Interests", not the notion of an informed civic participatory system of governance. It's about hegemonic corporate control and for that, as we clearly see, Washington has little concern as to whether it is advanced through despots or through the installation of new more marketable puppets.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One has to learn the polispeak meanings for the rhetoric that emerges as a PR cover for Washington's (or even the EU's) pursuits around the globe.

    "Democracy", "Democratic Principles" and "Values" are all terms referring to "Capitalism" or "Corporate Interests", not the notion of an informed civic participatory system of governance. It's about hegemonic corporate control and for that, as we clearly see, Washington has little concern as to whether it is advanced through despots or through the installation of new more marketable puppets.

    thats true but where's it all going...greed can only go so far...the world markets will be saturated soon enough and i can only see civilisation as we know it go one way...(and it ain't up)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think it should be pointed out that the parties that rule the US and the rest of the world (now and in the future cos of globalisation/modernising/westernising/americanisation/empire building and what new euphamism is next) is not Washington or these policiticians, but the multinational big corporations. it just so happens that these entities have America as a home base. Globalisation is just a sugar-coated term to spread the "free market" (free from much government interventions) so big corporations (who have the capacity to start business in other countries, leaving smaller companies behind, and powerful enough to dwarf local companies) can acquire new markets and continue growth (which equates to profit and weaht). the White House is in the hands of the massive organisations. corporations do big business with the politician’s (or their family’s) businesses, the fund the politicians campaign campaigns and give media air time (which now can be unlimited). Why? Cos these corporations have interests regarding taxes, and policies (trade, environement, foreign, etc). these corporations are not accountable to the citizens and therefore virtually immune to the public. Yet the decisions and actions by these corporations affects our lives in every way.

    But what is more scary is the fact that the public just doesn’t care. We don’t care not because we really are that apathetic, but we don’t care because of all the distractions that are being fed to us. Mtv, sensetionalism, terrorism, wars. Its all a distraction from the issues that truly affects our lives. The issues of how those on the higher part of society (the ruling classes whether policitical or corporate) are trying to maintain their status. Even if it oppresses those at the bottom. (its consistent with every major civilisation from pharaohs to emperors to now). thay have massive influence on government (with their lobbyists and side dealings), they control what news we hear and see, they control the prices from oil to cds.

    we are so distracted that what the conglomerates do (whether good or bad to us or to people from other countries) does not even come into our frame of mind. we dont see them while all the while they are smiling in front of our faces as the reach their hand into our pockets and being. all we see is britney spears, tony blair or bin laden. the true enemy (if youd wanna call em that) does not have a face.

    we only know what weve been told.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    we only know what weve been told.

    Yeah I know. You try telling all these nice folks that there is no such thing as a state or a nation, that corporations are a figment of the imagination and that you are programmed at birth to accept the existence of things that are antithetical to your self interest and have no factual basis.

    People argue for the state, against the state, for a corporation, against a corporation but it's existence is never questioned. It's in the acceptance of existence that you are lost.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Yeah I know. You try telling all these nice folks that there is no such thing as a state or a nation, that corporations are a figment of the imagination and that you are programmed at birth to accept the existence of things that are antithetical to your self interest and have no factual basis.

    People argue for the state, against the state, for a corporation, against a corporation but it's existence is never questioned. It's in the acceptance of existence that you are lost.

    i've questioned their existence aswell but you might aswell just accept someone invented them and whether we like these fictional entities or not we might as well just accept them and go along with them...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    i've questioned their existence aswell but you might aswell just accept someone invented them and whether we like these fictional entities or not we might as well just accept them and go along with them...
    yeah. like if you realise that youre simply just a WHORE. you have the choice wheter to REPRESS it or EXPRESS it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    one way of looking at it
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Sign In or Register to comment.