theloniusfleabag

Dear Hugo, I must object to Many 'heavily socialist' countries enjoy far higher standards of living than 'freer economic' societies. Canada has among the highest human rights standards, as well as Sweden, for example, and both are 'left wing', and still have tremendous personal freedom.As for Leninist-marxism, I agree, Lenin was 'moron' and used Marism to bring about or justify totalitarianism. I could easily argue why 'communism' could be the only place true democracy could flourish, but that is for another thread. I am not sure what you mean by 'assimilating conquerors', except perhaps Marco Polo, for the Japanese and Russian conflicts were decided by attrition, not assimilation. You are right, the USA is somewhat tolerant of criticism internally, (just don't mention the 'Dixie Chicks' lol) but you must realize that communist China is the slave-keeper for the USA, among other countries, so a 'freer-market' move is good for the people in power, but still enslaves the people so that others may profit. The others in this case are Nike shoes and Walt Disney Toys.

Dear Derek, Most on this forum agree that Islamic fundamentalism is the catalyst for terrorist activities, and most believe it is they who 'ruin Islam for the others'. It is Mr. Read's "Flamer-type" messages that are ruining this board.

Dear Hugo, Umm, What? The NVA regulars you mean? The US grossly exaggerated body counts, so if you mean the US was winning the 'attrition war' you are still mistaken. But you are correct when you say they lost because of 'political will'. The down side of democracy, for the hard right-wing.

Dear Locke, Or John, whatever you prefer. If one has the vision of an idea, one must act accordingly, then try to convert. Most religions fail on one or the other test. To have just one religion, though? It hasn't been invented yet. Or it is a combination of all, and we're too stubborn to see it. Dear KK, Sorry, I spelled 'vitriolic' incorrect.

Dear KK, Excellent couple of posts. I love tongue-in cheekiness, and you are pushing the boundaries of 'vitiolic sardonicism'. Jolly good wheeze. And with a valid point.

Dear KK, What stange games men play. I would think that, given the spirit of intent on WMD's, it would be a deterrent for anyone to have his enemy BELIEVE he possessed WMD's whether or not one had them. We all know Iraq did have WMDs at one time, and used them. If they were destroyed, why would he seek to placate the US, of all countries, with proof? What has been turned up so far are cobweb ridden facilities with no signs of recent use. All the 'evidence' so far points to Saddam telling the truth for a change. Indeed, if he had the US in fear of non-existent WMDs, and no one could prove one way or the other, Saddam should at least go down in the history books as a 'master of deception'.

Dear KK, The Western world did indeed go to Aghanistan to oust the taliban, wanting Bin Laden's head, rallying behind the US after 9/11. Most everyone believed it was the right course of action. The present action by the US in Iraq is, in the minds of most, a totally different situation. The UN needs to be drastically overhauled, but in doing so could easily fill any 'world power vacuum'. The world does need a 'police force' but it cannot be, nor serve the interests of, only one country. In one of my previous 'signatures', a quote from Adolf Hitler I found to be very apropos. Basically it said every nation must cede a little bit of it's self-interest to the common community,(such as the UN) to guarantee the rights of all those in that community. It seems that the US has no interest other than it's own, which is fine as long as they are willing to risk being one of the 'pariah' nations.

Dear Mr. Read and Nuclear, Mr. Clinton, in true lawyer fashion, also used the phrase "..It depends on what your definition of 'is' is...." However, he was aquitted in a court of law. Ergo, not guilty.

Dear Mr. Read, I read many of those same news pieces, some are valid, some propaganda and some irrelevant. Great news pieces? Hardly. If Mr. Bush is waiting to expose evidence in Iraq to be timed for his re-election campaign, he should be immediately arrested by the UN War Crimes Tribunal and hung at The Hague. Oh, wait, the US and Israel 'announced' that they could never be tried for war crimes. Still, whatever rights one claims to have cease to matter when one is swinging from a rope.

Dear RB, The precedent of assassination has already been set, many leaders have been killed for various reasons. I would think that Mr. Bush would be considered a prime target for many. To announce that you intend to kill a leader is outrageous. The question is, can mankind ever move forward and rise above this type of behaviour, or will the caveman mentality and the biggest club forever rule?

Dear KK, How much would it cost whom? Yes, I believe people over the world would be depressed, for a time.

Dear Hugo, Actually, the Mujahadeen are doing exactly what they did before. They have not 'turncoated', their goals and the US' goals overlapped for a time. The Muj still have the exact same goal, to establish Islamic law in Afghanistan, and to end occupation, but now are fighting a different foe.

Dear Mr. Read, You are very correct in this quote. Further, many in the west, including Britain under Chamberlain, were awed by, and jealous of, some of Hitler's policies and sucesses.

Dear Mr. Read, I do not see where the reference to Saudi Arabia is in my post. I had said the 'House of Saud', using the same english letters you did when you used that term. Not sure what you see on your computer, though. It seems that many think the US helped Europe out of the dark ages, invented democracy, and freedom only exists when the US helps someone out. I suggest those people pull their heads from their collective behinds and look at some history and the world today. Most socialist nations have democracy, freedom, and a far higher standard of living and human rights than the good ol' US of A. They have also done so for far longer than since the USA was just a gleam in the milkman's eye. What am I trying to state? That the USA is a dunghill. Once upon a time, it stood for freedom, democracy and individual rights. (It was not the only one in history to do so, believe it or not) Now those noble virtues have been buried under heaps of greed, crime, and responsibility-dodging. Even truth itself has been cast aside for the sake of obeisance to Mammon, where the greatest good seems to be to line up for a chance to suckle at the teat of the Golden Calf.

Dear Hugo, I did state that lend/lease was essential. WWII would have indeed had a different outcome if the US was not dragged into WWII, with their immense, and unbombable factory production. I am not sure where you think I stated otherwise. The US troops were also invaluable as cannon fodder, I suppose.

Dear Hugo, This is utter nonsense. If Mr. Read feels enmity towards the House of Saud, and so does Osama Bin Laden, does that make the two of them friends? I would suggest that it would make them back-stabbing allies, at best. European countries had run up a debt by 1947 of 5.4 billion dollars in restructuring, with the IMF (set up in 19440 and with the World Bank (set up in 1946). The USA underwrote both these agencies.The only reason the USA could do this was because N. America did not have the snot bombed out of it. Lend/Lease was dangerously close to profiteering, but it was essential. Otherwise, the US contributions to WWII were dubious at best.(With the noted exception of the heroes of Bastogne, such as Gen. 'Aw Nuts!' McAuliffe,) If the UK (who were the real heroes of WWII) could have profitted off of WWII, they would have done so also.

Dear Mr. Read, If you are going to make up fictional statistics, try adding some zeros. He could then have saved 10,000X that number. Racist? You must be joking or mad. No reference to the competency of the Chilean Army has been mentioned here. In fact, my point is the CIA intervened to ensure thae brutal dictator installed was a 'US-friendly' one, (or 'moderate') to ensure the US multi-nationals could profit. They certainly would not let a coup take place if the Chileans were to be the ones to profit. Deserved to perish for stubborness? Or for almost causing a death? Pinochet? I do not believe he should perish. He should have been returned to his country for trial. That would not have been good for the US, though. The truth would have been discovered. I find it racist that one could think that the people of other nations could be viewed as too incompetent for self-determination.

Dear Hugo, A nice, easy answer but hardly applicable to Central and South America (with exceptions, I'll grant you) and elswhere. The people of Nicaragua and Honduras, for example, dared want to own it's own natural resources, such as coffee and bananas. They wanted their own people to profit, and prosper, but the brother of the CIA director was a major shareholder in The United Fruit Company. With it's and the US' profits in jeopardy, they killed and tortured thousands, because if the Nicaraguans wanted to own their own bananas, they must be 'Stalinist Communists bent on enslaving and murdering millions'. Hardly a fair comparison. Thae US is drawing it's line in the sand, but horrifically it has been and seems to continue to be, "If the profits from a country do not profit the US, it must be invaded or eradicated as the enemy". "if you ain't with us, you're against us" is the battle cry of the US, now more than ever, since GW Bush put it in a speech after 9/11. Too bad he used such a tragedy to twist things even further than they were.

Dear Mr. Read, You and Osama Bin Laden seem to share a goal. The elimination of the House of Saud. What do you think they've been doing? Sitting on the oil? This last sentence looks like it was written in about 1950. It irks Osama that the House of Saud exploits the 'Land of the Two Holy Places' for it's own, and Western (read: Infidel) profit. I'm not sure why it irks you. Jealousy, perhaps?

Dear Mr. Read, Salvador Allende was killed for being a Marxist, not a tyrant. The US then helped install a far worse dictator. The US has supported, and still supports, brutal dictators many times, always with it's own interests and gain in mind.

Dear Nuclear, Busloads of willing fighters against "the great Shaitan" were shipped from all over the place, I am surprised you didn't see this on the news. I saw a news bit (which is unusual for me, for I traditionally shun TV, but did watch the Iraqi invasion coverage) and Syria, Lebanon etc were loading 'potential martyrs' up at the 'greyhound station'. That some were caught now????? is 'proof of perfidy? Surely you jest.

Dear FastNed, It appears as though the WMD's were indeed destroyed in accordance with previous UN resolutions. With Resolution 1441, while time indeed ran out for the inspectors, Iraq stated "We destroyed them as asked" and the US said "We don't believe you". Thus, the onus was at the time, placed on Iraq to prove 'non-existence' of WMD's. Timewise, an infinite task against those who say 'You're lying'. The onus has shifted to the US, to prove that they were there at the time of invasion. Far more possible, yet it has not been done. Especially when the US says 'That doesn't matter now".

Dear Whistler, Amen. However, it does make me think totalitarians, especially communist ones, have missed out on a great deal. Socialism is definitely the way to go. Profit motive, subsidized health care AND a sense of humour. Canada has it all.

Dear Whistler, Believe it or not, a nuclear power plant was discussed for Ft. McMurray, Alberta, to power oilsands extraction equipment. Weird. If nuclear power was cheaper, why extract the oil? Availability may be a key issue, as well as the cost of the reactor. For Iran, the oil is cheap and profitable, while a nuclear reactor is more costly only at start-up. Same with enriching facilities and missile factories.

Dear Whistler, Developing nukes is far more difficult to keep hiddden than many realize. All developed uranium is supposed to be accounted for. It requires a special facility to be enriched to weapons grade. That is why the documents 'revealing Iraq sought uranium from Africa' were found to be falsified. Plus, the scientists who can 'do the math' are very few and far between. Far more dangerous is the precedent that the US has set regarding obeying international law. They have basically taken a page out of Mein Kampf by saying, 'the strong have the right to do what they will, the weak shall submit or perish'. Who should obey any rules now? I am happy to see the interim power of Islamic law abated, for a while, in Iraq. However, defying international law was one of the stupidist things Bush could have done. I read much of the political statements by Saddam, before the war, including the interview with Dan Rather. Saddam was far more open to international debate and criticism that Bush. Internally it was the opposite, I'll admit. Further, Afghanistan is now proof that both the Rusians and the Americans still are foolish when it comes to religious fervor in a foreign peoples. Neither could fully conquer a small, backwards country such as Afghanistan, and unless they can full convert it's inhabitants, they never will.