Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Who is the real threat: America or Islamic extremists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nutritional_value
  • Start date Start date
I would like to add this. Why can't capitalist apologists try and edit their posts a little? Is it because they think that the more words they use the greater the impact? Please try to edit and or don't cut and paste from other 'sources' quite so much.

thx :rolleyes:
 
Guys, it is obvious that we will never see eye to eye on this or most other issues.

The point of debating is to see other view points and learn from them.

I have learned that you are mostly as stubborn, naive, ideological as many extremists I have met (and I have actually met a few), but then again, many of you are extremists in your own right.

You come from the same tree as the Jewish, Christian and Islamic militants/terrorists, hating for the sake of hating, not giving credit where it is due.

Since extremists view anyone who disagrees with them as being plain wrong or incapable of making a logical argument then this explains many of your pedantic and silly arguments.

BBFN
 
Respect to the American workers and all who REALLY built or invented anything useful to ordinary people.

Disrespect to those that used and stole these great things and called them their own.

Bye now

[ 26 September 2001: Message edited by: kissthecat ]
 
Sure NV, ask anyone if they'd like wealth and freedom and most people will say yes.

But one persons wealth (the ability to purchase more than ones fair share) is another persons poverty, thats what wealth is after all. Similarly one persons freedom is often tied to another persons oppression.

And why do people want Big Macs, Nike trainers and all the rest of the unnecessary consumer junk that the west spews forth - because its been slickly advertised to them, their own culture is shoved into second or third place. Abuse of economic power takes many forms, but of course you'd presumably say advertising was just free speech, which it isn't.

I do recognise though that America has been, and can be again, a great force for good in the world.We owe her a great debt for her assistance during and after the last war.

But she needs to use her undoubted power wisely.

[ 26 September 2001: Message edited by: Steve ]
 
Steve, what do mean "We owe her a great debt for her assistance during and after the last war." That war was fought to protect the economic interests of the western ruling class. As before the war western capitalists had funded Hitler and the Nazi Party and considered them friends and only fell out with Hitler when he invaded Poland.

It was a war fought between rival groups of capitalist states over markets, trade routes and sources of raw materials. A war that killed 55 million people and made millions more refugees and allowed the Nazis to carry out the holocaust under its cover. During the war the Allies carpet bombed German cities like Berlin, Dresden and Hamburg but refused requests to bomb the railway lines leading to Auschwitz and refused to allow all but a handful of Jewish refugees into their countries. After the war tens of thousands of German civilians and prisoners of war starved to death due to food shortages. It was not about democracy or fascism.

Nothing illustrated this more than the resultant carve-up between the victorious capitalist states in 1945 which left the totalitarian regimes in Spain and Portugal intact while delivering half of Europe into the hands of Stalin and Russian imperialism.
 
Bollocks.

I stand by what I've said. Thankyou America for helping to defeat fascism in Europe.

[ 26 September 2001: Message edited by: Steve ]
 
NV, I resent your terming us as extremists, you made an overtly racist post and we responded accordingly; if you cannot take the flak that will undoubtedly come from a post such as yours, then don't post it. You, after bracketing all followers of Islam together as fundamentalists, now braket all of us together as extremists. If we were really extremists, we would not bother debating with you, we would just call for you to be banned. If you think we are extreme, you obviously know very little about left-wing politics. None of us to my knowledge have been part of violent protests or trashing McDonalds or rioting. You just find it easy to bracket us as extremists so that you can dismiss us as insane, loony-lefties. Well we're not. Making a racist post is bad enough, but when you follow that up by screaming at the people who react against it, it gives the general impression that you are ignorant and immature. Not knowing you, I cannot comment on the truth or otherwise of these assessments but that is what some people will undoubtedly think of you after these posts.

I accept that we are not free from the same kinds of sins but if we cannot spot them in others, we certainly cannot spot them in ourselves. Also, yes, the point of debating is to try to see other points of view, but how can there be debate if you seemingly expect us to acquiece at once to your self-proclaimed superior knowledge on the subject? Are you saying that you are in favour of debate so long as everyone agrees with you at the end of the day? As for your stubborn, naïve etc. comment, I am not going to say anything beyond the fact that we have debated on the issues you have raised and you then come out with personal insults. I would rather be all of these things than not be them and be an insane right-wing loony, fundamentalist.

I also very much resent what you said about hating for the sake of hating when you seem to do that very thing whilst unleashing your mindless vitriol on us. If we do hate something, and we hate very little, we generally hate it for more reason than you seem to be suggesting. I will concede that we do occasdionally hate something for no other reason than hate itself but that is a basic human trait and you cannot really blame us for it.

As for the 'pedantic and silly' arguments, would you care to give examples or are we just in line for more gross generalisations? As for the 'people against us being wrong' thing, we are wrong in your eyes, you are wrong in ours. Everyone believes that someone who disagrees with their opinions is wrong, does that mean that we are wrong or you are? You obviously think the former while I am more inclined to believe the latter, this is aprt of the debate you claim to support but at the same time complain about.

On a lighter note, this is my 2000th post.

hi2.gif


Pax vobiscum, Nemo

(Edited for typoes)

[ 26 September 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]
 
happey 2000th B nemo :)

hmmm on a slightly different note, have you ever done any really good drugs, that you have ENJOYED nv ? i am not being sarcastic, just intreasted in something.
 
Nemo wrote (the US)is a malevolent dictatorship aiming for global subjugation and people kneeling to the stars and stripes in every part of the world.

Not very good at it though are they?They had Europe in their hands and what did they do:re-establish the pre-war constitutions of the friendly nations and put Italy and Germany back on the road to civic recovery.Meanwhile Uncle Joe,dealt the same hand,imposed Soviet Autocrary on all the 'Liberated' nations and really did demand worship,of himself though not the flag.

Also you shouldn't confuse racism with disagreeing with someones creed.The latter is ,after all, something we're all guilty of.Its the point of the message board.

:o
 
No time to read all the posts, just time to respond to Steelgate - you may be right on the political foundation for WWII, although I doubt it.

Nonetheless, whatever was going through the minds of the Krupp executives and FDR, if the US had not intervened, and Britain was invaded by Germany, there's a good chance that your immediate ancestors would have been killed, or maybe hauled away to work in slave camps, like the Slavs. Or possibly London would have been razed by a retreating Hitler, as he wanted to do to Paris.

The United States is not the root of all evil, the world is not a simple place; sometimes Americans even have moral rectitude on their side, as they do today.
 
Actually Taxman, whilst they were reconstituting the economies of some of Western Europe, in order to have allies against the Soviets, they were also murdering thousands of Greek freedom fighters because they didn't want to go in exactly the same direction as the States. Most of them weren't even ruddy Communists, certainly not Stalinists, and even if they were, was that any reason to kill them all and impose a hugely unpopular monarchy?

Matt
 
Nemo, et al.

I had intended not to come back (but my curiosity got the better of me).

I stand by what I say about many of you being extremists.

The fact that non of you trashed a Macdonalds (to the best of your knowledge) is irrelevant. Grassroots support for extremist ideas breeds extremist action.

This is what occurred in the movement to kill Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. For months ahead of the assassination grassroots opponents legitimized the murder by publicly promoting the concept (yelling "Death to Rabin" at demonstrations for example). Then all it took was one nut to take the action.

Who knows, perhaps there is another nut perousing some of the comments on this website!

I totally reject the idea that I made an overtly racist posting, and totally reject that I am a bigot.

My posting is based on my good understanding of extremism, of living under threat, and you all naively under estimating the real threat.

Whether you believe it or not, the Islamic world is the most repressive culture in the world today. Their extremists are the most dangerous.

The people of the Muslim world are suffering greatly from this militancy, and from the repression of their rulers. And now they are coming to get the West.

These are facts, and if it makes the person who relates them a bigot, then so be it.

Love of wealth and freedom, and the desire to spread them to repressed people worldwide is not something that should be condemned.

Many of you want the same, be it in the form of a socialism, or class war, or anarchy, or whatever.

The fact is that capitalism IS spreading wealth and freedom, and some of these other political concepts are frankly a little too far off to be realistic.

We all benefit (and continue to benefit) from US hegemony. The fact that Well Red can call for class war is due to US hegemony.

NONE of this would be possible if the Nazi's, Soviet's or Islamic militants achieve[d] their aims.

Maybe capitalism and US hegemony has done some nasty things, but so did the Nazi's, so did the Soviet's, so do the drug traffickers, so do the Islamic militants.

How do you defeat such threats? Absolutely NOT by appeasement and calls for world peace, class war, anarchy, etc.

NV
 
"It was a war fought between rival groups of capitalist states over markets, trade routes and sources of raw materials. " - Steelgate

Wow. I've seen a lot of crazy stuff in my life but this is the first time I think I've seen WWII blamed on the US and Capitalists, or National Socialism called Capitalism. I know you guys tend to associate Capitalism with anything evil that happens anywhere in the world, but don't you think you push it a bit too far sometimes? I suppose Japan's imperial thrusts into China was the Capitalists' fault too? Yeah, that's right, Japan was Imperial Capitalist.

Okay, enough of the sarcasm. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were interested in power and domination, and they both believed that they were racially superior. They were only interested in wealth? Wealth was almost a non-factor...

The following is a digression, but related in that I am giving another example of war without economic reasons:

Tell me, why did Argentina and Great Britain fight over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) in 1982? Money? Have you seen the Falkland Islands? Probably never in the history of mankind have two nations gone to war over such worthless hunks of land. Empire and National Pride were driving them I would say. Or can someone tell me what the hell GB wants with a bunch of rocks off the coast of Argentina? Military outpost? Damn, buy a friggin' aircraft carrier you cheap sons-of-bitches and you'll get a better deal. Nearly 1000 soldiers killed for islands with a population of just over 2000.

(By the way I am acquainted with the whole "distract the people from the fact that we are fascists and have failed miserably to govern" reasons for the Argentine attack, I was referring to the underlying causes)
 
And I think many of us here would say that Britain should not have had a war over the Falklands, Myshkin.

NV, your post was racist because of the gorss generalisations it made about Muslims, no other reason. I am saying this once and for all, WE ARE NOT EXTREMISTS. Many of us are pacifists who condemn all violence, that of the terrorists and the state. Therefore, implicitly involving us in the assassination of Rabin is ludicrous not to mention paranoid. I say again, if we were extremists, we would be calling for swift retribution against you.

Also, we are not underestimating the real threat: US government aggression, there have been countless threads on the subject which you only have to read. We also do not underestimate the threat of Islamic/christian/Jewish/any other religious exttremists.

"Whether you believe it or not, the Islamic world is the most repressive culture in the world today. Their extremists are the most dangerous."[/quote

I disagree, it rules some of the most impoverished countries but the US, Israel, and the rest of the West are just as oppressive.

As regards your 'love of wealth and freedom' comments; they would not be condemned if they were truly wealth and freedom instead of items of a fool's paradise acquired at the expense of others. As long as this injustice continues, we will condemn it; as long as the west and others propogate ignorance and racism, we will condemn them.

As for your comments about a US hegemony being benign and concerned solely with spreading freedom, you are either blind to the facts or you ignore them and as such it is you who is naïve. If the US had succeeded with their foreign policy aims, it is true these terrorist acts would not have taken place, but the entire world would be filled with people on their knees before the stars and stripes, tears on their faces as 'God bless America' was played, and have utter belief in the US government's false freedom.

Also, how are we calling for appeasment? I have not seen a single call to appease these people, both the fundamentalists and US government are a menace to freedom.

Pax vobiscum, Nemo
 
"I've seen a lot of crazy stuff in my life but this is the first time I think I've seen WWII blamed on the US and Capitalists, or National Socialism called Capitalism."

Well, you and I may not agree with it, but it's hardly a radical or new explanation.

You're right that few wars are fought on entirely economic grounds, and I would suggest that any monocausal explanations of war (or anything) are probably misplaced. The Falklands War did indeed have a lot to do with propping up Galtieri's internal position. However, it's worth pointing out that at the time, it was believed that the Falklands had huuuuuuge oil reserves (in fact, later seismic testing revealed there are large-ish fields there , just not as big as was thought).

You might also take the line that if the war was fought to prop up the Argentinian military-industrial complex and to distract criticism from the pathetic economic situation for most people there, then the roots of the conflict were indeed economic...
 
You beat me to it on the oil/gas reserves off the Falklands JWH. The media was somehow unaware of this 'irrelevance' at the time strangely enough. They really dig don't they? hehe.

Also economics was very high on the list with the Chinese war. Japan needed raw materials desperately. That is a fact that is well known (for a change). 'Racial superiority' was just one of the many handy excuses thrown out for the Japanese public to feel better about it. They were fed the same kind of rubbish in their newspapers and cinemas as the British public were fed about Africans and Arabs (They needed our help so we took over the continent to help them).

Most of the big Japanese capitalist companies that existed during the pre ww2 period and during the war still exist. They were capitalist then they are capitalist now. The USA didn't invent capitalism ya know.

[ 27 September 2001: Message edited by: kissthecat ]
 
You know, I read some of the posts in these topic areas, and I shake my head. "The people of the world on their knees before the Stars and Stripes...tear stained faces..." Where do you get this from? Did you all have tenured old Communist professors ranting anti-American slogans through their soup stained grey beards?

For starters, try reading just a little US history. The country was populated by intellectual dissidents, religious dissidents, the poor, and the opportunistic, mostly refugees from decaying European monarchies or repressive Industrial Revolution governments. As a result, there is an almost institutionalized mistrust of big government and big organization in the States.

Your European ancestors who didn't leave during the migrations of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, were likely smug members of the 'have' society, or those who were afraid, for one reason or another, to question the status quo. Having descended from those who stayed behind, I suppose it is understandable that you cannot comrehend the motivations of those who left, and the social system they have spawned.

It is difficult to listen to Europeans, with their socialist governments, vestigial monarchies, and de facto social classes, speak of freedom, and then in the next breath, of American 'repression'.

There is such a division of powers between the states and the Federal government, because of a disinclination to put all the power in the hands of one central government - an idea apparently alien to Europeans.

That is also why the Executive(President), Legislative(Congress), and Judiciary control different aspects of governmental function, and must dicker with one another to get anything done.

That is also why the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution. While the idea is a hard one for the rest of us in the world, the Americans demand the right to bear arms, not primarily as a defence against crime, etc., but as a defence against the day that the government turns repressive, and comes for them. We may call that paranoia, but it is instructive for our discussion, to note the level of anti government paranoia in the US.

If you continue your US history lesson, you will learn that until the second world war, that country was, for the most part, isolationist. They didn't want to get involved in the world's hassles, until it became necessary to pull your European butts out of the fire. They were then pulled onto the world stage by the power vacuum of shambles Europe, and the increased power of Communist Bloc countries. Don't forget that countries 'liberated' by Stalin, stayed behing the Iron Curtain until 1989.

Next, try visiting there. No doubt it has lots of deep problems, but so does my country, and so does yours. Racism is still a problem there, but neither would I want to be an Algerian in France, or a wog (you name the race) in Britain.

Once I overcame my own inbred Canadian mistrust of the US, I spent some time there, and realized they don't have horns on their heads. However, they do have a vitality that I've rarely encountered in my travels around the world, and an inventiveness that has given us things like - the Internet.

Next, ask yourself: how much of your dislike comes from the righteous anger of the morally correct, or from the sour grapes of the jealous? People in the world do better or worse; the Americans tend to do better than most of the rest of us; that bugs a lot of people.
 
Steelgate so you would not have fought in WW2... ok heres a situation for you to be in...

Lets say you in the Warsaw Ghetto just before the final Aktion... now would you have said No war but the class war thiswar is for US CApitalist interests sod it ... or would you have fought for your and your peoples life/dignity???

As for Falklands .. I wonder when Oil was ACTUALLY discovered there .. i know it been RUMOURED to have been on Falkland Island Economic Zone for deacades but when was it actually discovered -- anyone knoiw??

As fo (i think Nemo said) Britain should not have fought it .. well they british citizens and the islands been british since 1830's (we took them off spain not argentina) when we took them islands had NO permanent population.. and the citizens did not want to be controlled by Argentine Governement why shouldn't bbritain have fought????? \Liberty of a couple thousand civilians gets my vote.. also if we let Falklands go without a fight equally cuntish dictators in say Guatemala would have invaded Belize..

Latz
Trom

By the way many anti war people in WW2 served well in a difficult job of Bomb Disposal......
 
Trom, war was declared on Germany because they would not get out of Poland not because Germany persecuted minorities. That was the demand made on Germany to withdraw its troops from Poland Read your history. And what about the carpet bombing of German cities that killed millions of German civilians. And who brought Hitler to power in the first place, it was western capitalists who funded the Nazis and helped them to power.

[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: steelgate. ]
 
War was declared on germany cos we had to draw a line somewhere!!!!!! We let germany have german speaking parts but then they invaded Czech. with its non german majority (after negotiations gave them Sudatenland) after that we warned germany anymore territorial desires and we would go to war.... (so we should have instead let Nazis take over Poland and Russia and anywhere else --yes i know they signed a pact but read Mein Kempf and see what Hitler Really wanted!)... I always thought it was Hitlers oratory and the Depression in germany that got him to power -- oh and the Reichstag fire...

nullBy the way you did not answer my question.

Trom

[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: Trom ]
 
War was declared when it was because Neville Chamberlain's appeasment policy didn't work.

Hitler was funded by German industrialists, then later, partly, by money and holdings confiscated from the Jews.
 
Trom, no I wouldn't have fought. World War Two was a war fought by two imperialist powers, Britain wanted to protect its empire that was the reason it went to war. Hitler wanted to build an empire in eastern europe which conflicted with Britains economic interests. The war didn't achieve anything though as eastern europe was occupied by the Soviet Union which was led by Stalin who killed even more people than Hitler.
 
Socialists and anarchists were fighting against the Nazi's while the daily bollox in England were saying Mr Hitler was not such a bad chap.

Sometimes in history fighting against barbarism is necessary. The Warsaw ghetto is a good example of that. But you are still missing the point. Hitler needed the support of capitalists to get in the position to seize power. He did not have majority support in Germany.

But the present situation is not the same. It is not even similar.
 
I agree, like in the Spanish civil war for example or the Sandanistas war to overthrow the dictatorship in Nicaragua, but the allies war against Germany was not the way to fight fascism. It led to the deaths of 55 million people and didn't rid europe of tyranny either.
 
I think a lot of people went to fight but were determined to change blighty if and when they got back. Shame they accepted so little when you think about it.

But Churchill got kicked out of office so some of them got a kind of satisfaction :)
 
jhoney cannock...

"2For starters, try reading just a little US history. The country was populated by intellectual dissidents, religious dissidents, the poor, and the opportunistic, mostly refugees from decaying European monarchies or repressive Industrial Revolution governments. As a result, there is an almost institutionalized mistrust of big government and big organization in the States.”

Yes but lets not also forget, that america was a country founded on royal charters and colinised by big buisness,
As as for freedom and liberity one of the main reasons why amierica had its lexxinton, was because of “ taxation with out reprsentation “ I am afraid it was not (just)the great humanistic movement for freedoms . It is also proberble that slave owners like washington didit like to see there the surplus profits curbed, via british buaracracy. ( puppet reagems, does that ring bell )

The first influx of pilgrims, into new portmoth (were not fleeing religious persucution), they came from neaterlands ( admitidbly they were engish refugees ) but thay were living in the neatherlands, which was tollerent to their reigious practises. It is more acurate to argue that they were seeking a better standerd of living. And also please lets not forget, a lot of those refugees that went to colinising areas like virgina, were from a gentry backgroud, the very institutions, which you would have us belive, “instill in americans a distrust”

“ . As a result, there is an almost institutionalized mistrust of big government and big organization in the States.”

Well if that is americas attidude, then pleas look around you at the 21st centurery ( there could be a flaw in your argument )

“Your European ancestors who didn't leave during the migrations of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, were likely smug members of the 'have' society, or those who were afraid, for one reason or another, to question the status quo. Having descended from those who stayed behind, I suppose it is understandable that you cannot comrehend the motivations of those who left, and the social system they have spawned.”

Well lets use anoter example then. How about american migration from ireland during the potatoe famine ? not all the irish could afford to go the ( new world ) obivsuly the ones that went to america, were a little bit better of then? it most have taken a lot of balls to leave a dieing country, ( with dieing people ) to skip across the atlantic and seek there fortunes. ( this is not what I really think by the way ) I merrley used it as a example to show you, what a riddiculas cunt sounds like ( hint hint ).

“There is such a division of powers between the states and the Federal government, because of a disinclination to put all the power in the hands of one central government - an idea apparently alien to Europeans.”

Which was spawned by ideas from people like montesque and his contempories… a europeon

That is also why the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution blah blah bollox

Could it also be a tool for the coliniastion of the west and perhaps future reprisals from an invading state ?


There are good and bad things to be said about america but ( you are very wrong ) when you say people on these boards only attack america, the main agenda is captilism. If america wants to be the world super power, then it will have to have its critques.
 
"there is an almost institutionalized mistrust of big government and big organization in the States."

Well, that might be the case internally (and there's a lot to dispute that) but it certainly hasn't stopped the US supporting (ahem) "big government" in foreign places - Israel and Saudi Arabia for starters.

"Your European ancestors who didn't leave...were likely smug members of the 'have' society, or those who were afraid, for one reason or another, to question the status quo."

1) Not everyone on this board lives in Europe; 2) not everyone in Europe is descended from Europeans; 3) not every European who didn't get on a boat was a quisling or an landlord. My ancestors were too fucking poor to buy potatoes in their miserable Fermanagh lives, let alone a £5 ticket to the US. 4) Not every European has an inferiority complex about not being American.

"It is difficult to listen to Europeans, with their socialist governments, vestigial monarchies, and de facto social classes, speak of freedom, and then in the next breath, of American 'repression'."

I am not the state I live in, dippy. I haven't read abyone here saying Europe is some sort of absolutely free utopia while the US is a massively repressive state.

"There is such a division of powers between the states and the Federal government, because of a disinclination to put all the power in the hands of one central government - an idea apparently alien to Europeans."

Oops! Not realised that there are federal governments in Spain, Germany and (arguably with devolution) Britain, then?

"That is also why the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution. While the idea is a hard one for the rest of us in the world, the Americans demand the right to bear arms, not primarily as a defence against crime, etc., but as a defence against the day that the government turns repressive, and comes for them."

Actually, it's only if the Federal government impinges on the rights of the state government - but if the state government infringes your rights, there is no difference. It's not hard for me to understand just because I'm a foreigner.

"If you continue your US history lesson, you will learn that until the second world war, that country was, for the most part, isolationist [blah blah blah]".

How terribly generous of them over fifty years - so glad "we" were able to repay them with global hegemony.

"Next, try visiting there."

Have done, plenty of times, loads of American friends, etc etc. None of them is as starry-eyed as you are.

"a wog (you name the race) in Britain."

I've never called anyone a wog, you fuckwit.

"Next, ask yourself: how much of your dislike comes from the righteous anger of the morally correct, or from the sour grapes of the jealous? People in the world do better or worse; the Americans tend to do better than most of the rest of us; that bugs a lot of people."

Personally, I think it's partly to do with the fact that American state does better by ensuring it grinds its heel in the face of others, not because of jealousy. In fact. what's been stroiking about recent White House/US media action has been the tendency to put forward this dizzy "they hate us because we're successful" line which a) ignores the concrete political and economics roots of US criticism and b) must come as some surprise to the pisspoor malnourished kids living in ghettos across the US.

Are you really Canadian?
 
You know, Johhny Canuck, strange to say I do have some knowledge of US history. Enough to know that the freedom you seem to be waxing so lyrical about is still not available to some people who are non-white and/or female and/or homosexual and/or a recent immigrant or a native American or some poor sod living in another country. Let us never forget that much of America's early wealth was founded on the exploitation of slaves and native Americans. It is true that the same is the case in much of Europe and I condemn both. I also condemn your use of the word 'wog' you disgusting racist. Don't you know what it means you moron? If I ever hear anyone use that term I will shout at them and that includes anyone here.

Also, why do you think that anyone who dares to criticise the US government is a comminist? I am not a communist and I have never had an overtly communist teacher so your comments to that effect are a gross generalisation based on breathtaking ignorance.

As for my comments about people kneeling to the stars and stripes, it is perhaps a little hyperbolic but it is a fair description of US foreign policy aims.

You have immense holes in your 'logic,' in saying that:

"The country was populated by intellectual dissidents, religious dissidents, the poor, and the opportunistic, mostly refugees from decaying European monarchies or repressive Industrial Revolution governments."

A.) Just because some of these people left does not mean all of them left. And B.) This was hundreds of years ago so its relevence is questionable. I think this is just a cheap attampted side-swipe at all of us in an attempt to discredit us in your eyes. This seems to be a feeble attempt at eugenics on your part.

"Your European ancestors who didn't leave during the migrations of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, were likely smug members of the 'have' society, or those who were afraid, for one reason or another, to question the status quo. Having descended from those who stayed behind, I suppose it is understandable that you cannot comrehend the motivations of those who left, and the social system they have spawned."

Oh thank you. We really appreciate being patronised. But surely if you are Canadian, you don't have the 'heritage of freedom' bollocks and all that either. What you have said here confirms your status as a racist tr*ll.

"It is difficult to listen to Europeans, with their socialist governments, vestigial monarchies, and de facto social classes, speak of freedom, and then in the next breath, of American 'repression'."

And McCarthyist as well? And if you think we only talk about US oppression, you are either blind or a bigger fool than has been proved thus far. To my certain knowledge we have talked about 'western' oppression and Chinese oppression within the last couple of weeks.

As for the thing about 'seperation of powers,' I agree that it should be done, amazing eh? But you can hardly blame us for the system of government we live under can you?

"If you continue your US history lesson, you will learn that until the second world war, that country was, for the most part, isolationist. They didn't want to get involved in the world's hassles, until it became necessary to pull your European butts out of the fire. They were then pulled onto the world stage by the power vacuum of shambles Europe, and the increased power of Communist Bloc countries. Don't forget that countries 'liberated' by Stalin, stayed behing the Iron Curtain until 1989."

And who let Stalin 'liberate' these countries? And who has been trying to exploit them every since? Capitalists. Those countries were reprehensible too but you saying that the US is perfect is too much.

Also, I resent your implication that we are jealous of the US. Our anger stems from hatred of the US government's actions.

Pax vobiscum, Nemo
 
Back
Top Bottom