the

  • 210 Replies
  • 32167 Views
?

quixotic

  • 1607
  • Im a mushroomcloudlayin motherfucker, motherfucker
the
« Reply #60 on: July 13, 2006, 06:28:46 PM »
Its not the Nazis or the Muslims that are the real threat. It always has and alwasy will be the Communists that are the biggetst threat.

China in 5-10 years will be able to take on America....BY ITSELF

Like...O M G ! ! ! He is, like, totally using the gun as like some kind of sexual weapon. O M G ! ! That is like, totally awesome! ! !

the
« Reply #61 on: July 13, 2006, 06:35:48 PM »
China already has, in a way.

They've proven their power by controlling the value of our currency; in which case, they bumped it up because they simply love U.S. dollars.  Thankfully, this didn't last an extended period of time, but it still was a slap in the face.

Yet people do not look at India.  India is approaching the means to be a superpower extremely rapidly.  Its Silicon Valley produces a great deal of effecient software and technology, and it is quickly becoming a hotspot for technological development.  "Indian Engineers" will soon have a similar meaning to "German Engineers".

I'm quite fond of India, actually.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

?

quixotic

  • 1607
  • Im a mushroomcloudlayin motherfucker, motherfucker
the
« Reply #62 on: July 13, 2006, 09:50:40 PM »
That true Meph.

But i dont think they have the quality of Germans or the rest of us. Like a lot of Asian states, they are more interested in mass production the n in qualilty.

But I can see India as a definite economical threat, especially here in AUS. We currently have a skills shortage, and im sure like many countries, a lot of work is being outsourced to India and Asia

Like...O M G ! ! ! He is, like, totally using the gun as like some kind of sexual weapon. O M G ! ! That is like, totally awesome! ! !

the
« Reply #63 on: July 13, 2006, 10:23:07 PM »
Quote from: "quixotic"
That true Meph.

But i dont think they have the quality of Germans or the rest of us. Like a lot of Asian states, they are more interested in mass production the n in qualilty.


Only a matter of time.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
the
« Reply #64 on: July 14, 2006, 02:26:18 AM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"
Scotland has given more inventions, discoveries, and great thinkers than any other nation per capita. the only other set of people that even come close are the Jewish.


Aye :p A Scotsman called James Bowman Lindsayinvented the lightbulb but he forgot to patent it... this leads many people to believe he was actually Irish.

Quote from: "quixotic"
Its not the Nazis or the Muslims that are the real threat. It always has and alwasy will be the Communists that are the biggetst threat.

China in 5-10 years will be able to take on America....BY ITSELF


Notice that China only became powerful when it created Capitalist zones. CHina has never really been communist and now it's using it's oligarchy to impose brutal conditions on the workers and slowly become a capitalist superpower.

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
the
« Reply #65 on: July 14, 2006, 02:32:02 AM »
Quote from: "Sarthos"
The biggest terrorist organization is the flat earth society, spreading thier plans to overthrow the government, and why the government is evil, quit being retarded, or simply hang yourselves.

Quote from: "Sarthos"
If our military disbands, we will be conquered by either the Nazis, or the Muslims.  Pick which one you are, join their cult, then have fun when their leader dies.  
KTHXBAI


Notice that the Nazi's rise to power was helped by the wall street crash, and Muslims are largely hostile because of America sticking it's nose in the middle east.

I reckon if you stopped spending money on invading people and gave some of that to the poor countries that need it, they would be a lot less hostile to you.

Also I think when dionysios said disband the military he meant downsize it and use it only for defence.

the
« Reply #66 on: July 14, 2006, 08:22:30 AM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Notice that the Nazi's rise to power was helped by the wall street crash, and Muslims are largely hostile because of America sticking it's nose in the middle east.

I reckon if you stopped spending money on invading people and gave some of that to the poor countries that need it, they would be a lot less hostile to you.

Also I think when dionysios said disband the military he meant downsize it and use it only for defence.


I disagree.

America is simply a very good scapegoat.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
the
« Reply #67 on: July 14, 2006, 09:44:30 AM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
I reckon if you stopped spending money on invading people and gave some of that to the poor countries that need it, they would be a lot less hostile to you.


What if we stopped spending money on invading people, and kept all the money for ourselves?  Would that be okay with you?

It looks to me like terrorism is basically blackmail, especially when you say that the solution is  to give money to the poor countries that need it and are hostile to the U.S.  I don't really see how it's a good idea to send the message, "Yeah, you know, this sneaking about blowing up civilians behavior -- it sure is paying off for you!  Have some foreign aid!"
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

the
« Reply #68 on: July 14, 2006, 11:11:27 AM »
It could Work!

the
« Reply #69 on: July 14, 2006, 11:49:54 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
I reckon if you stopped spending money on invading people and gave some of that to the poor countries that need it, they would be a lot less hostile to you.


What if we stopped spending money on invading people, and kept all the money for ourselves?  Would that be okay with you?

It looks to me like terrorism is basically blackmail, especially when you say that the solution is  to give money to the poor countries that need it and are hostile to the U.S.  I don't really see how it's a good idea to send the message, "Yeah, you know, this sneaking about blowing up civilians behavior -- it sure is paying off for you!  Have some foreign aid!"


Precisely.  This isn't even a purely American problem; might I note Australia and Spain for example?
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
the
« Reply #70 on: July 14, 2006, 11:51:06 AM »
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
Precisely.  This isn't even a purely American problem; might I note Australia and Spain for example?


You may!  Although I'd like to hear more about the Australian example, since I'm not familiar with it.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

the
« Reply #72 on: July 14, 2006, 12:23:11 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Also I think when dionysios said disband the military he meant downsize it and use it only for defence.


  No, I meant it literally (as stupid or radical as you may think that is).  Never the less, using the military only for defense is a huge step in the right direction of what is going on now.

  Never the less, using the american military "only for defense" would still be tantamount to maintaining an occupying power or settler state on First Nations' land.  If this sounds too radical, it does not alter the fact that it is true.  Perhaps reviewing the case of sovereign Hawai'i (which was colonized more recently than the american mainland) makes realization that Aztlan is still occupied by a colonialist power somewhat more feasible.

  Cheesejof makes many excellent political points even if he chooses to disagree with me on this, but the US military should be utterly abolished.

- Dionysios

the
« Reply #73 on: July 14, 2006, 12:34:10 PM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Also I think when dionysios said disband the military he meant downsize it and use it only for defence.


  No, I meant it literally (as stupid or radical as you may think that is).  Never the less, using the military only for defense is a huge step in the right direction of what is going on now.

  Never the less, using the american military "only for defense" would still be tantamount to maintaining an occupying power or settler state on First Nations' land.  If this sounds too radical, it does not alter the fact that it is true.  Perhaps reviewing the case of sovereign Hawai'i (which was colonized more recently than the american mainland) makes realization that Aztlan is still occupied by a colonialist power somewhat more feasible.

  Cheesejof makes many excellent political points even if he chooses to disagree with me on this, but the US military should be utterly abolished.

- Dionysios


By the same token, what makes you so sure that the idea of disbanding national armed forces is not permeated by those who would have it easier to take those nations out?  America is easily the biggest threat (though do to the political turmoil as I term it, not as much) to a hostile country grabbing for more power.  I find it dangerous to even fathom dissolving our armed forces.

Many parts of Africa are in turmoil; the middle-east has initiated war; Russians have some unknown agenda with Iran.  South America is quickly being taken over by Castros wanting to bathe in their own power.  I don't believe I need to mention North Korea.

The Philipines have been a dangerous place for quite a long time; the dogmatic and powerful in China have an absolutely enormous influence over the world; the rest of Asia remains at the discretion of China.

Not to mention, with this president we have made more than our fair shair of enemies.

Dissolving the military is synonymous with death.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

the
« Reply #74 on: July 14, 2006, 12:34:14 PM »
the

the
« Reply #75 on: July 14, 2006, 12:35:34 PM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
I for one believe in true prophecies which include Biblical prophecies.
  Perhaps there will also be some other power in the mean time (Turkey?), but for the state of israel to become the dominant superpower, then america must at some point decline and relinquish its current status as the dominant superpower.

- Dionysios


Perhaps so.

I currently take to the idea of India as a superpower.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
the
« Reply #76 on: July 14, 2006, 12:50:24 PM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
Never the less, using the american military "only for defense" would still be tantamount to maintaining an occupying power or settler state on First Nations' land.  If this sounds too radical, it does not alter the fact that it is true.  Perhaps reviewing the case of sovereign Hawai'i (which was colonized more recently than the american mainland) makes realization that Aztlan is still occupied by a colonialist power somewhat more feasible.


True.  Unfortunately the noble goal of returning the land to its original inhabitants is muddied by the difficulties of figuring out who among the constantly warring tribes first set foot there.  Obviously it would hardly help the situation to give the northeast back to the imperialist Iroquois, or Mexico back to the imperialist Aztec, etc.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

the
« Reply #77 on: July 14, 2006, 12:51:14 PM »
the

the
« Reply #78 on: July 14, 2006, 12:53:42 PM »
the

the
« Reply #79 on: July 14, 2006, 01:04:23 PM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
...but as the US military is the seat of american power actively used for colonialism, the world would be better if it were destroyed.


I guess we must agree to disagree then.  I can't say that I am a deeply learned historian and can profess the subject eloquently, but currently it is far easier to accept than the alternative, for me.

I will, however, say that I dearly hope that these supposed freedom fighters will know when to call it quits when the time comes.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
the
« Reply #80 on: July 14, 2006, 01:13:50 PM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
Spokesman for maintaining a military, have used american military agressions (which foster reistance)as the excuse for making more military!  This is a ludicrous circle.


You could spin it like that.  Or you could spin it like this:

Originally, Americans wanted a military to throw off British rule.

Later, they wanted a military to keep the British from pressing their sailors.

Later, they wanted a military to keep European powers from exerting influence over the Americas.

Later, they wanted a military to keep the country in one piece.

Later, they wanted a military to protect American shipping and American citizens overseas.

Need I go on?

Quote
People hate the american military.


People hate Hamas and Hezbollah and North Korea and Iran, too.  I guess they should all be disbanded as well.

I will not respond to your vast oversimplification of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq -- suffice it to say that as usual, the U.S. is in the position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't", where the damning is via world opinion.

As for Aztlan -- the U.S. conquered them, it's over.  The U.S. is no more an occupying force in North America than is Iran in the Middle East, or India in South Asia, or China in the Far East.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

the
« Reply #81 on: July 14, 2006, 01:41:27 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
I will not respond to your vast oversimplification of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq -- suffice it to say that as usual, the U.S. is in the position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't", where the damning is via world opinion.


Quite so.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
the
« Reply #82 on: July 14, 2006, 03:01:31 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
What if we stopped spending money on invading people, and kept all the money for ourselves?  Would that be okay with you?


Certainly. After all it could go towards public improvements and such.

Quote from: "cheesejoff"
It looks to me like terrorism is basically blackmail, especially when you say that the solution is  to give money to the poor countries that need it and are hostile to the U.S.  I don't really see how it's a good idea to send the message, "Yeah, you know, this sneaking about blowing up civilians behavior -- it sure is paying off for you!  Have some foreign aid!"


The foreign aid is not meant to go towards terrorists, but towards the countries that have been left worse off by U.S foreign policy to try and recoup some of the damage done.

the
« Reply #83 on: July 15, 2006, 11:19:41 AM »
I just wanted to add a thought.

The US always discusses the intentions of the founding fathers and how we should strive to uphold them. But was there ever an inention to have a standing army?
The function of the second amendment was primarily to give the people a stronghold, so that they would be on equal ground with the government (who could have conceived of wmd's then?) and so they could mobilise in event of war and the citizens band together. The point was that the government shouldn't be stronger than the people and the people should be a part of the governement, and as responsible for upholding the democracy as the government itself.

I doubt that it was our intent to take over the world, but merely to carve out a niche and live our lives without intrusion from eiother world governments or our own.

Certainly, there's not an easily solution. To disband the military at this point would be incredibly foolish, but it shouldn't be comprised of people in need of scholarship funding  or housing either (says the girl who joined for art school money). Think about it: If the government just ended it's military grant fund and instead made it a no-strings educational grant fund, not only would Americans perhaps creep up in education on a worldwide scale, but the military wouldn't be made up of people fighting for a cause they didn't necessarily believe in.
'm not a flat earther. I just play one on TV.

the
« Reply #84 on: July 15, 2006, 11:26:18 AM »
Quote from: "jitterbug"
I just wanted to add a thought.

The US always discusses the intentions of the founding fathers and how we should strive to uphold them. But was there ever an inention to have a standing army?
The function of the second amendment was primarily to give the people a stronghold, so that they would be on equal ground with the government (who could have conceived of wmd's then?) and so they could mobilise in event of war and the citizens band together. The point was that the government shouldn't be stronger than the people and the people should be a part of the governement, and as responsible for upholding the democracy as the government itself.


We would not have a standing army if the people did not want it.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

the
« Reply #85 on: July 15, 2006, 11:31:39 AM »
oh, like we wouldn't be in Iraq right now if people thought we should leave?

Isn't it possible people want it because they're convinced it's a necessity?
'm not a flat earther. I just play one on TV.

the
« Reply #86 on: July 15, 2006, 11:43:08 AM »
the

the
« Reply #87 on: July 15, 2006, 03:14:12 PM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
Jitterbug is correct that the existence of the US Army is illegal according to the american constitution which outlaws a standing national army.  Quite pertinent.  Technically, a standing navy is constitutional, but a standing army is not.
  And history definitely shows that america has become more of a monstrosity as it has aged.

- Dionysios


Whether she is correct or not is not the point.  The point is that people have decided they don't want the draft and would rather leave these things up to a military.

This does not mean to say that I don't find fault in this.  I very much agree with the principals the founders believed in (as in a pure Republic instead of a Democracy).
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

the
« Reply #88 on: July 15, 2006, 03:23:55 PM »
Why a draft, though? Why not a volunteer army where people are not given enormous financial incentives to join? In those cases, it becomes a draft of the poor, which is equally unfair.
'm not a flat earther. I just play one on TV.

the
« Reply #89 on: July 15, 2006, 03:25:25 PM »
Quote from: "jitterbug"
Why a draft, though? Why not a volunteer army where people are not given enormous financial incentives to join? In those cases, it becomes a draft of the poor, which is equally unfair.


Because there is a lack of responsibility in this country.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe