My America

[Gorgetrapper]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[ShadowWulf]

Originally Posted by Gorgetrapper [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yep, seen that one, funny also/ Though I have yet to see many penis's pop out in this thread (OH GAWD NO DONT!).
Only reason im still here is thuis far the discussion has be relatively mild, no huge fag lines, and the topic's are stimulating and good reading id imagine no matter what side your on.

[astarothel]

Originally Posted by ShadowWulf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have yet to see many penis's pop out in this thread (OH GAWD NO DONT!).

That just reminded me. I havent read Warren Ellis' blog in like a year. I should get on that shit.

[Taxi]

Another good 8 minutes of footage from the real news network about the g-20 events last week in Toronto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu5o5891JS8

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by ShadowWulf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TAXI: You read anything off of Z-Net? You might like it, or not, but the articles are fascinating though some should be taken with a grain of salt. Several articles on the G20 as well just got posted. http://www.zcommunications.org/journ...jesse-freeston

Yep been a reader since 1998

This is a website similar to Z-net, if you dont know about it:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

The articles are usually solid. I say usually because the article on top at the moment actually isnt. It draws some hasty conclusions about people being provocateurs, not enough evidence to warrant that article for sure. But articles like "The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order" are really interesting and well researched.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's nice that you live in a country where you get to have opinions like that and vocalize them in public, isn't it?

Don't kid yourself. You can do that in most other countries in the world too. America is not special. Furthermore, the American military hasn't done ANYTHING towards THOSE ENDS since we BEGRUDGINGLY fought in ww2. The VAST majority of the TOTAL funds applied to the US military has gone towards doomsday bombs / deployment, and killing civillians in foreign countries for the protection of monetary interests.

Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's a 2010 pay chart. Obama just made the GI bill not completely suck again recently, so that compensation is worthwhile again. VA hospitals are still awful.

You don't have to tell me about how the benefits are not that great. Ask me why I didn't join. Also, ask me what it's like trying to get my brain-damaged brother admitted to the VA hospital near me.

Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now tell me how much I'd have to pay you to put your life on the line.

There is a number, but the US Military isn't willing to pay it. Blackwater.. That's probably another story. However, this is a very shaky argument because of the above debunking of the motives of the US Military, which have nothing to do with "putting your life on the line to protect the state." That is such a laughable premise that I am actually quite surprised you would even begin to stoop to it. It is patently false, and I defy you to support it with ANY form of evidence.

The fact is that YOU TOOK A JOB. You were offered a pay scale and a benefits package, and you TOOK IT. That was a decision on your part. Whether or not you were deluded into thinking that CHOICE was somehow patriotic or not is completely beside the point.

Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Edit: Blaine just reminded me that we got taxed on our housing and all our benefits and those are valued way above market so we'd end up with a few hundred bucks a month. The only way you make much is if you're deployed to a war zone.

See above. You were offered a job, you did a (probably quick and deluded) estimate, and you signed the contract. Whine somewhere else.

You are not a patriot just because you were brainwashed and are deluded, no matter how many flags you wave or how many bullets you've taken while killing brown children.

[Xenephex]

Originally Posted by Taxi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you completely ignored my posting of the vietnamese declaration of independence after saying that this "crap" was still floating around and that lol, please find me an "academic" source to back that up. Good job.

Im done for the night, dishonest interlocutor.

No, I didn't completely ignore you. You just lack any touch of subtlety. I've read the speech before (probably before you were born); I don't deny it's authenticity.

The 'crap' I was referring to was the interpretation of that document which you apparently accept. Said interpretation being that Ho was a great admirer of American democracy and wanted to form a government allied with the western powers after the end of the war until he was rejected and only then turned to the communists (that's pretty much precisely what we all believed in the 60's). It's hard to believe that interpretation still has any currency, what with Wikipedia and all.

It was a great speech, but it was not primarily directed towards the Vietnamese people; it was directed towards the western powers, and in particular the U.S., in hopes that they would a) grant Vietnam its independence and b) recognize Ho's Viet Minh as the legitimate government.

This was less than a month after the end of the war; there were still Japanese troops in Vietnam. There would shortly be British, French and Chinese troops in Vietnam and things were about to get complicated, but at that moment they were just confused. Ho seized the opportunity to declare his party the legitimate government of Vietnam and issue his declaration. He was well aware of what was happening half way around the world - that the Western powers, plus Russia, were in the process of deciding the face of the post-war world. It was a nice speech and it was a political ploy.

I remain disappointed that we (not meaning just the U.S. but the western powers in concert) gave Vietnam back to the French after the war (of course I am somewhat disappointed that we gave FRANCE back to the French after the war); there was considerable sentiment among many in power in the U.S. to grant Vietnam its independence. But the perception at the time was that we 'needed' France in post-war Europe, since they were the biggest country on the continent (outside the emerging communist bloc) that had not been an axis power during the war.

France had dictated the terms at Versailles after WW I (against U.S. objections) and had in the process almost guaranteed an eventual WW II. This time we had a different plan and we, for reasons I still don't comprehend, thought we needed the French and thus the French immediately became a major speaker in brokering all the crap that followed. We got the Western Europe we wanted (which didn't turn out too badly for them - compare and contrast Eastern Europe), and France got back its colonies, including Indochina. And France continued and continues to do exactly what France wants. They have never been anyone we could rely on, then or now.

So we should have granted Vietnam its independence, but we were never going to hand the country over to Ho. There were a lot of political factions in Vietnam - Catholics, Buddhists, and various non-religious factions that were not communist. The advantage that the communists had was that they were unified (well, after Ho killed off the opposition) and organized. But they NEVER represented anything close to a majority of the population.

You could look some of this stuff up yourself if you would go somewhere besides your radical websites (Wikipedia actually does at least a reasonable job on most of it). Suffice it to say, that the history of post-war Vietnam is complex and I'm tired of typing.

Bottom line: Nice speech which was a calculated political maneuver. i.e. Ho was not a fool. And, Ho was still a communist long before World War II. I covered it in my initial response. I just thought you knew a little more than you did.

[ShadowWulf]

I dunno, i think General Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette made all the difference in the end...

So we should have granted Vietnam its independence, but we were never going to hand the country over to Ho. There were a lot of political factions in Vietnam - Catholics, Buddhists, and various non-religious factions that were not communist. The advantage that the communists had was that they were unified (well, after Ho killed off the opposition) and organized. But they NEVER represented anything close to a majority of the population.

And as I said before it all comes down to political wheeling and dealing. We could of, should of, but didnt does not cut it im sorry. For that matter im not sure what you're trying to defend here. I am aware of the complexities of post WW2 Vietnam however nothing you said again addresses with any of my points made earlier, though in some way it seems to reinforce them. Both the eastern and western forces were guilty of plying favor in the region and attempting to expand its regional base of power. We sought to maintain close ties with France and hence acquiesced to their bid for the region while Ho and the communists he worked with from outside the country sought to do the same in their way.

The people were mostly not communist, you are correct in this, but what does it matter? You could also say they were hardly democratic for that matter if you had wished. In the end the people were caught in the middle, and crushed, by both "Liberating" and "Freedom loving" sides.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by ShadowWulf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What IS liberty? I am rather interested in your definition.

Liberty is what they have in Iraq, but we don’t have here… or little of. Liberty is, for instance, the ability to bear arms at any time and any place, loaded, so to defend ones friends, family and neighbors. In Iraq they can pretty much carry full-auto assault most anyplace they go. In the US you are lucky to have a semi-auto from before the ban, and locked up. In Canada… lol like 4% have a handgun.

Liberty is basically, in this case, having the ability to meet your obligation to others, by your own free will and choosing, by whatever means to whatever ends. Personal firearms is something that needs to be removed before a government can take all freedoms away from the people when it wills to; but it is government which should not be free. Yes liberty is much more, but this answer is specific to my post that you were replying to. For the broader understanding of our Liberty in the US, one needs to read the US Constitution… w/o special interpretation but literal. The founders had it right, as well as could be governed by man at least.

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Liberty is what they have in Iraq, but we don’t have here… or little of. Liberty is, for instance, the ability to bear arms at any time and any place, loaded, so to defend ones friends, family and neighbors. In Iraq they can pretty much carry full-auto assault most anyplace they go. In the US you are lucky to have a semi-auto from before the ban, and locked up. In Canada… lol like 4% have a handgun.

Liberty is basically, in this case, having the ability to meet your obligation to others, by your own free will and choosing, by whatever means to whatever ends. Personal firearms is something that needs to be removed before a government can take all freedoms away from the people when it wills to; but it is government which should not be free. Yes liberty is much more, but this answer is specific to my post that you were replying to. For the broader understanding of our Liberty in the US, one needs to read the US Constitution… w/o special interpretation but literal. The founders had it right, as well as could be governed by man at least.

Im still struggling with this issue. I used to be a staunch supporter of weapon bans of any kind, until i was attacked 3 times in 6 months in the subway. Now i carry a knife. I differ in that from most people from the left i guess.

But that leaves also other areas with big question marks. Like people showing up with automatic rifles at rallies of the kind i join sometimes in Canada, just to intimidate people. Columbine doesnt happen often in Canada because its alot harder to get access to these kinds of weapons. So im still struggling about where i stand on this issue.

Liberty is also for me freedom of association and freedom of speech, freedom of movement which we are seeing being repressed in lots of western countries at this point in time. All the simple things that are in the american constitution, canadian charter of rights and freedoms, UN declaration of human rights, thats liberty to me. Its more than that, but those are the basics.