Rogue states.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 1:29 am

Just my rant....

I don't know if this is really "on topic" but I'll try anyway:

[rant mode on]

I am politically pretty uninterested, but I don't think there's a thing like "rogue states" .
All over the world - from the US to South America, Russia, Europe, Africa, Australia and all that I've forgotten to mention there's the same percentage of - ah - let's just call it "unsavory people".

No matter if your a Jew, a Moslem, a Roman Catholic (...just make that "all" I'm to lazy to write them all down) there are ***holes everywhere.
And sometimes - by chance, vote, revolution or right of birth you get some ***holes as leaders of your government. That fact doesn't make your whole country "bad". Never. Nowhere. No way .
Here in Austria we have a very mixed population since we are one of the countries where political refugees come to ask for protection. I've met people from Turkey, Iran, Irak, Afgahnistan (sp?), Arabs and a from lot of former "Washaw Pact"(sp?) states- and most of them where just as nice and intelligent people as we are. And SOME of them where ***holes - just like some of "our" people ...

So what I'm trying to say is - We are all equal - and you can't say some country is "rogue" just because it's leaders suck.

BTW - if the CIA, KGB, Mossad and their like are THAT good (as the like to make us believe) how do you explain that Saddam, Osama, Sharon, Britney, Keith - whatever you like to call the "rogues" - are still around ?

[rant mode off]

Sorry for the swearwords, but it had to be said.

No worries.

Beldin.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 1:46 am

Originally posted by C Elegans

It sounds very pessimistic I know, and I admit history is my worst subject, but I have yet to learn about a really powerful and influencial nation that act in the interest of humanity as a whole, and not in it's own interest. Acting in it's own interest also usually means acting in the interest of the ruling elite, not necessarity the interest of its population.

I don't believe in history you will find a nation that was really powerful and influencial...and stayed that way by not acting in it's own self interest first.

This can be said of humans aswell. (Possible Flamming) Firemen/women draw a check. Policeman/women draw a check. (End Possible Flamming) Almost all humans look at their own self interest first. (There are exceptions...very few exceptions) And I'm not one of them. Sure I will sit in a long line at a red light and let someone trying to get in line, go head and get in front of me..it's not in my interest too...it just puts me one more car behind, but I will. I will stop and help someone with a flat...not in my interest too, but I will.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 3:35 am

Wow, this has turned into a class on the strategy of nuclear warfare, the geo-politics of WW2 and the post-war world and naive views of communism. This is so weak, I can't tell the pepper from the gnat-sh*t anymore.

I can't remember (and don't care) who made what pathetic argument! Mis-quote me all you want.

The Mujahadin? They're the Northern Alliance. The US is not fighting Mujahadin fighters it trained to fight the Soviets. It is fighting Foreign Pakistani and Saudi funded INSURGENTS in Afgahanistan. You're dead wrong.

Nuclear War? What d'yall know about nuclear war? I am a child of the cold war, the Soviets were evil and nukes kept the peace for 50 years. Deterrence works. In fact, I think the US should have been far more aggressive in their use, maybe we wouldn't be contemplating their use now.

World War 2 wasn't fought on US soil? So what?! What is your point? What is this "argument" about? Maybe the European countries shouldn't have been so stupid.

America has perpetrated no crime except defend itself from people envious of its wealth and power. Anyone who doesn't agree with this should go check out this thread before trying to beat me into submission.

And no, I'm not American.

But I'd gladly lay waste to those who try to destroy what America stands for. [que cr*ppy counterattacks about what America stands for]

Face it, better minds than yours created the arguments you are regurgitating now.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 4:13 am

Originally posted by Gruntboy

<snip>
America has perpetrated no crime except defend itself from people envious of its wealth and power.
<snip>
Face it, better minds than yours created the arguments you are regurgitating now.
<snip>

LOL

on both accounts.

I won't discuss those statements. Especially the first one...

I accept them as Gruntys POV, but can not (will not) accept them as reality.

No worries,

Beldin

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 4:32 am

Beldin, that is a rare and excellent attitude.

People come on here and post up expecting to convert people to their point of view. I see no point in "arguing" - its solves nothing as I certainly won't be swayed from my opinion, as much as a marxist is commited to theirs.

Instead, arguments become more vicious and polarised and I simply won't stand for that abuse.

Sensible discussion and having the ability to say "I agree to disagree" is a rare commodity.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 4:47 am

Originally posted by Gruntboy

Sensible discussion and having the ability to say "I agree to disagree" is a rare commodity.

Thank's for the appreciation. (sp?) .

I've discovered that this attitude is much better on my blood pressure and keeps me from developing ulcers

.

No worries,

Beldin

BTW @Grunty: The fact that I do NOT agree with everthing the US does doesn't make a marxist out of me. I just hope that's understood.
I follow no political doctrine but mine: (Allignment: )Neutral Good with chaotic tendencies

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:11 am

By Gruntboy:
I can't remember (and don't care) who made what pathetic argument!

By Gruntboy:
What d'yall know about nuclear war? I am a child of the cold war, the Soviets were evil and nukes kept the peace for 50 years. Deterrence works. In fact, I think the US should have been far more aggressive in their use, maybe we wouldn't be contemplating their use now.

By Gruntboy:
America has perpetrated no crime except defend itself from people envious of its wealth and power.

By Gruntboy:
Maybe the European countries shouldn't have been so stupid.

By Gruntboy:
Face it, better minds than yours created the arguments you are regurgitating now.

Yours arguments, Moderator, only your own mind can create.
For clear my reticence: I hightly disaproove your words.

By Gruntboy:
People come on here and post up expecting to convert people to their point of view. I see no point in "arguing" - its solves nothing as I certainly won't be swayed from my opinion, as much as a marxist is commited to theirs.

How can you be,
beliving in such thing.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:35 am

How you got from "They represent the American spirit" to "they're here to pacify anti-American sentiment" is beyond me.

To quote myself, ""show" the people [of the countries Bush is raping and impoverishing] that Americans are a positive force". The Peace Corps are therefore structured to eliminate the idea that Americans are a negative force, largely believed in the countries that the Peace Corp visits, implied in his statement (or my rough quotes at least

The Mujahadin? They're the Northern Alliance. The US is not fighting Mujahadin fighters it trained to fight the Soviets.

The CIA started aid and training to the Mujahadin, made up completely of feudal landlords violently opposed to the socialist land reforms, women's rights, literacy campaigns, etc, (this group including of course characters like Osama Bin Laden) before Soviet military aid to the PDPA government, in an effort to deliberatley force the USSR to enter the war (and topple the progressive government), as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, admitted. And who do you think was responsible for the Taliban movement?

Nuclear War? What d'yall know about nuclear war? I am a child of the cold war, the Soviets were evil and nukes kept the peace for 50 years. Deterrence works. In fact, I think the US should have been far more aggressive in their use, maybe we wouldn't be contemplating their use now.

If the "cold war" was a genuine totalitarian means of social control and indoctrination, you are indeed a child of the cold war.

America has perpetrated no crime except defend itself from people envious of its wealth and power.

And the aformentioned Mujahadin counter revolutionaries, (or guys like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, popularly known for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil) who were wildly supported by the US and termed "freedom fighters", to fight against the popular PDPA regime, (which was providing hospitals and emancipating women and peasants) how do they fit into your conception of "defending itself from people envious of its wealth and power"? I can cite a hundred other examples of a massive historical contradiction with your idea of American "defense".

And no, I'm not American.

Well, that explains quite a few of your statements. How, as not being an American yourself, can you be an authority on "what America stands for"?

its solves nothing as I certainly won't be swayed from my opinion

Couldn't this best be termed "indoctrination"? A marxist arrives at their political views after a concrete understanding of dozens of philosophical and economic currents, not by memorising knee-jerk totalitarian rhetoric that is a long way from reality.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:42 am

The fact that I do NOT agree with everthing the US does doesn't make a marxist out of me. I just hope that's understood.

I wasn't insinuating that Beldin - there are multiple posts in this thread with a clear Marxist/Leninist/Maoist/Stalinist viewpoint but their views are too naive to begin to rationalise. I didn't consider your posts unnecessarily marxist.

@Ivan, I think we've had this discussion before. What was the point of quoting me repeatedly without comment when my original post is still clearly visible on the page?

I have had some arguments in my time, Ivan, and they have solved nothing. One man stands up and says "America is a rogue state [subtext - "I approve the events of 9/11"]". Is that provocation or not? I don't expect to turn that man from their views - nor should they expect to do the same to me, but appear to wish to do so by starting the argument in the first place.

Such people are unwilling to make progress through *discussion* (as opposed to argument). When they fail to argue you down, they trick some poor misguided fool into slamming a jet-liner packed full of people into one of your tall buildings packed full of people.

No rational discussion would condone such activity.

PS I am not a moderator on this forum - only IWD and IWDII.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:49 am

And who do you think was responsible for the Taliban movement

Pakistan.

Indoctrination? No, my opinions are formed through my self-informed political socialisation. Not marxist rhetoric. How can anyone who labels themselves a "marxist" claim to have arrived at their beliefs through anything but indoctrination. The very process of reading marxist literature and agreeing to label oneself marxist is not a self-aware process. You have taken the views verbatim. I ascribe to no known political thought save my own. Why would I enslave myself to such a system?

Since when was not being in America a criteria for exclusion from comment?

Do you live in Russsia? A marxist utopia? Did you know Marx? That is such a pathetic grasp at countering my opinions (which I am entitled to - take a leaf out of Beldin's book).

I have, in all liklihood, read more American history and philospophy, travelled more widely in America than most Americans have - not that I need to justify that to you.

Grow up. Your argument is immature.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 6:05 am

I have had some arguments in my time, Ivan, and they have solved nothing. One man stands up and says "America is a rogue state [subtext - "I approve the events of 9/11"]".

How does rightly saying America's policies are a threat to the global population as a whole serve as a justification of terrorism? And who is "Ivan"?

Pakistan.

While America looked on with approval.

Indoctrination? No, my opinions are formed through my self-informed political socialisation.

"Self-informed political socialisation" is a remarkable term to describe your politics, especially because you saught to nullify criticism of the US by linking to a few WTC pictures.

Not marxist rhetoric.

Point out the "marxist rhetoric" in my posts.

How can anyone who labels themselves a "marxist" claim to have arrived at their beliefs through anything but indoctrination.

I never labeled myself a marxist, and I have the most curious inclination to believe you don't know much about marxism, based on your apparent bias in the laughable statement "the Soviets were evil".

Since when was not being in America a criteria for exclusion from comment?

Not being an American sort of excludes you from being an authority figure on American cultural life and "values".

Do you live in Russsia? A marxist utopia? Did you know Marx? That is such a pathetic grasp at countering my opinions (which I am entitled to - take a leaf out of Beldin's book).

You have an interesting penchant for attacking people's statements as "pathetic" or "immature", yet not actually attempting to refute them.

I have, in all liklihood, read more American history and philospophy, travelled more widely in America than most Americans have - not that I need to justify that to you.

Grow up. Your argument is immature.

More patronising and elitist insults!

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 6:23 am

Could everyone please tone down the accustory and argumentative nature of their posts or i will be forced to close this discussion.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 6:35 am

Ivan is Delacroix - proof you don't even read people's posts!!!

Did you think I was referring to you in some "Battle" comic kind of way?? "You crazzee Ivan, Die!!!" LMFAO!

Mr Sleep, good suggestion. I think this should have been closed the minute it was opened - it was destined for flames.

Now I am faced with Generic Internet Troll #72. No matter how cogent and impervious your argument, Generic Internet Troll #72 takes every piece of your post and quotes it back it you, even if the quoting makes no sense and even if it just serves to reinforce your opinion. Generic Internet Troll #72 thinks this is clever as it makes him/her look academic.

If you want to see how quoting is done, check out some of waverly's posts. At least his are funny.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 7:53 am

I'll be honest with you.
You are totally alter to me. Your logic make almost no sense to mine(of course mine to yours happens the same).
Anyway, I'll try to talk, in via of help. Trying to avoid political oposite view. Just to clarify your questions, and give my opinion in the lightest way possible.

By Gruntboy:
@Ivan, I think we've had this discussion before.

Yes. Since we have talked before and you are busy with other conversation , there is no need to keep much longer in this.

By Gruntboy:
What was the point of quoting me repeatedly without comment when my original post is still clearly visible on the page?

You are so familiar to your own words, that my quotes have no efects to you. I quote repeatly to expose parts that I find more absurd and agressive.

By Gruntboy:
One man stands up and says "America is a rogue state [subtext - "I approve the events of 9/11"]".
------------------------------------
I am a child of the cold war, the Soviets were evil and nukes kept the peace for 50 years.
------------------------------------
Such people are unwilling to make progress through *discussion* (as opposed to argument). When they fail to argue you down, they trick some poor misguided fool into slamming a jet-liner packed full of people into one of your tall buildings packed full of people.

Let the past to the past. You should closure this kind of thing. Not to forget. Just to don't live in the past. Say America is rogue state does not mean aprovation of the terrorist attack. Diferent point of view and persistence is not terrorism.
I have no legitimation to say what I'm saying, I barely know you,; just a personal opinion. I totally acept any discordance from you.

By Gruntboy:
PS I am not a moderator on this forum - only IWD and IWDII.

I already knew it.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 9:12 am

To quote myself, ""show" the people [of the countries Bush is raping and impoverishing] that Americans are a positive force". The Peace Corps are therefore structured to eliminate the idea that Americans are a negative force, largely believed in the countries that the Peace Corp visits, implied in his statement (or my rough quotes at least

Stated in logical form:

A praises B,
therefore
B was structured (presumably, you mean established) for propaganda purposes.

Let's consider this. The titular head of the British government, Good Queen Bess II, gave the late Spike Milligan an OBE (an honorary knighthood) in 2000, when he wasn't late. This was for being an outstanding citizen of the British Commonwealth, on being an (in effect) ambassador of good cheer. The same man, be it noted, who once called the current Bonnie Prince Charlie, "a grovelling little bas!ard." It therefore follows that Spike Milligan and his Goon Show were actually working for, and consulted with, the British government--by inference, so did Monty Python, which acknowledged openly Milligan as their "spiritual forefather" in several interviews.

Well, for that matter, the whole program of honorary knighthood must be made up of people who worked secretly for the British government, since they were praised for helping the UK out! (Think: Paul McCartney, Secret Agent.) By extension--the French Legion of Honor is given only to those who work for the French goverment. Doctors Without Borders, praised by the French leaders since its inception and given federal funds, must therefore have been established to eliminate the idea overseas of France as a negative force.

This is delightful, but I haven't got anymore time to spend on spinning it out.

@Mediev, you and I and the rest of the world know that political leaders regularly praise a lot of things without having an ounce of vested time spent in their structuring and control. It's simply good PR. Or do you have a single shred of evidence you can produce backing up your claim that the Peace Corps (of all things!) was established for the purpose you state, or has ever had the tiniest bit of political influence on any country it's been in?

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:36 am

The TRUTH

Originally posted by mediev
Couldn't this best be termed "indoctrination"? A marxist arrives at their political views after a concrete understanding of dozens of philosophical and economic currents, not by memorising knee-jerk totalitarian rhetoric that is a long way from reality.

So, in other words, Marxists have the exclusive take on Truth and everyone else is just a product of capitalistic propaganda?

Wow! How about that for a debate ender! Hey, everybody! we can stop discussing our views now - mediev has it all figured out.

This topic is getting wy out of hand - did anyone want to make an attempt to bring it back to the subject (i.e. rogue states)? Anyone care to make a definition of "rogue state" and try that out for size on the board?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:45 am

Since this thread has been created, a topic by Gruntboy, subtly titled Why Marxism sucks, has been created. I agree that all future posts on Marxism should be under that topic, or another topic should a proponent of Marxism choose to create one. Lets keep focused on the definition, nature, and content of rogue states, either generally, or specifically upon an individual example.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:45 am

I think sarcasm, hostility and ad hominems should be avioded in a political discussion like this. My personal opinion is in line with Beldin, but I also think:

1. Leave the terrorist attack outside of this, critisism against the US politics is not at all equal to approval of the WTC attack, that's a false dichotomy. Being under attack does neither change the past, nor does it make a person or a nation perfect.

2. Any person has right to an opinion about any country/ideology/political system regardless of his/her origin or nationality

3. Any person should be allowed to expressed his/her political views without being ridiculed and called insulting epithomes by those who don't agree.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:06 pm

Mediev, you and I and the rest of the world know that political leaders regularly praise a lot of things without having an ounce of vested time spent in their structuring and control. It's simply good PR. Or do you have a single shred of evidence you can produce backing up your claim that the Peace Corps (of all things!) was established for the purpose you state, or has ever had the tiniest bit of political influence on any country it's been in?

Yes, I've researched the subject a great deal, especially since I, as has been plainly visible this entire thread, based it on my interpretation of a Bush TV statement! If an organisation has been designed to expose third world citizens to the "goodness" of America, what are their available means?

So, in other words, Marxists have the exclusive take on Truth and everyone else is just a product of capitalistic propaganda?

No, if you look at what that statement was directed at, it was saying it is less like mindless stubbourness and more like indoctrination to steadfastly refuse to ever alter your largely undefinable views, particularly when these views have been espoused in by corporate elites and government bureaucrats alike for decades.

Anyways, I have yet to see any new arguments from "Gruntboy", just shallow and childish personal attacks, embodied in the "y MArkcisem sux!!!" thread.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:18 pm

@mediev what are you attempting to gain from (what i loosely refer to as) this debate?

If this topic doesn't get back on track and instead stays with it's current method then it will not have much of a life.