Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Well honey, it's like this:

Because we have a system of government (Capitalism) that recognizes it's citizens right to be compensated for their productive efforts. We recognize that an individual's self-interest is what drives him or her to do great things. Unlike the Socialist governments who seize, overtax, and nationalize anything of value that is produced by it's miserable citizens, we have a government that respect the property of our citizens. Why make the effort to produce anything of real value if your government is going to take your paycheck and either keep it, or give it to your neighbor? Therefore, in our country, we have more wealth and power that the socialist near-do-wells, and most important, we have citizens who are happy, and the miserable Socialists have a problem with those who are happy in the world.

Also, because we have an interest in oil (that we PAY for),and because we have the ability to protect that interest, WE DO SO. Our ability to do that intimidates countries like France, Russia, and Germany. Even though our leaders have had nothing in common with guys like Hitler, Noriega, Saddam and the like, it doesn't matter, because sorry little Socialists like Stoeckl and Herpesconsultant love to make accusations that our leaders are evil, and they are uot to take over the world.

These countries love to ignore the fact that we do not abuse that power. Never mind the fact that we've never used that power except to maintain peace in the world. It's all about envy, jealousy, resentment, vanity, and many other bitter, weak feelings.

But don't worry honey, these kind of people are no more important that the mosquitos you squash when they get out of line.

scalawag

I hate to be a stick in the mud, but capitilism is an economic, rather than political system. You can have repressive, capitalistic rulers (Saddam and Noriega both fit that description, from what I recall). It's been done for centuries.
Capitalism does work best in a free society, but that might well be due to the more fluid exchange of ideas and knowledge rather than anything else--being able to see and compare what people do in other parts of the world helps generate new ideas--but dictatorships tend to not allow that, and thus stifle thier own capitalistic system. However, they do have them. Recall all the news reports about shops being looted in Baghdad? Those were mostly privatly owned and run, with the post tax profits going to the proprietor.
Also, you seem to confuse socalism with communism. Socalism is actually a variable form of government. In ideal socialism, the people vote on what will be nationalized and what will be privatly run--usually, IIRC, they nationalize health care and transportation, possibly communications systems, leaving the rest in private hands. Taxes also vary, although they are inevitably higher than democratic capitalist countries. The range from about 40 to 70 percent, but as many have a graduated tax similar to ours, or a flat tax, there is still incentive to productivity and innovation. I still prefer capitalism; it does seem to work better, and has this wonderful tendancy to produce longer lasting megapowers with a high standard of living. However, socialism isn't evil incarnate.

Communism, of any stripe, best fits what you're describing. The orignal Marxist text said, again, IIRC, "to each from each" and indeed wanted an egalitarian system of economics--which flat out never works on a large scale. You could theoretically try to have a democratic communist country, but none has ever happend that I can recall off the top of my head. Most tend to be run by the most paranoid dicatators (i.e. Stalin) or the deluded idealouges like Lenin (or Mao, who fit both categories).

As for our ability to defend our interest--damn right we can and we will. Any and every country ever to survive more than a generation has done the same. Hell yes we took on Iraq mostly because it represented a threat to the US. Why would we otherwise? Anyone who attacks the US for that needs to look at history. A nation must defend itself or die, simple as that. And that means defending US assests (which Saddam siezed when he nationalized the oil wells for his own use), US allies (which Kuwait was, I think), and US citizens. Saddam represented a threat to all of these; his aggressive tendancies helped to destabilze a region vital to US interest, he shot at US servicemen who were not attacking. He invaded a US ally and didn't live up to the resultant treaties...etc.

But we have abused our power in the past. I love my country, but I am not blind to what it's done. Certainly, one can bring up the maltreatment of Indian tribes. More recently, fiddling around in Latin America--I reccomend that everyone find and read some books on what we were doing there during the cold war. We support Noriega and Pinochet because the (democraticlly elected) leaders they replaced wanted to move in a slightly socialist direction (nationilizing the phone services, in one case)--one which would have put them on par with many we called allies at the time, which I find ironic as all hell. But in reality, what does all that mean? That we aren't perfect. Big freaking deal, every country older than a generation or two has similar things behind them. All of Europe has a sordid history; Asia and Africa fare worse or the same. We are a nation governed not by God, but by human beings and as such must expect imperfection. To all those who attack America for that, get over it.

I love this country; I certainly support the removal of Saddam from his seat of power. But I can't really pretend we have a moral monopoly, or that the guiding principal of our foriegn policy is anything other than (somewhat) enlightened self interest--which isn't a bad thing, despite what some may say and think. Alexis was right about that much!

Paul

You are not a "stick in the mud" Paul, and feel free to correct me. You've done a nice job clarifying the various political and economic systems.

I've admittedly oversimplified things to defend our country against the criticism of those who live in socialistic societies. Whether it be communism or socialism, the root is the same: someone, whether it be your neighbor and/or your leaders want to take what is yours. I do have to disagree with you on the point that Saddam ran a Capitalistic society. Capitalism is based on competition. Saddam was a cold hard dictator that decided who was going to do what, and he took whatever he wanted from those who did the actual producing in that country. He didn't recognize anyone else's self-interest.

Our country has a degree of socialism at work, and fortunately, it's kept to a minimum. The liberals (generally the non-producers) would like to see more socialism, but they are kept in check by those who aren't afraid to work. They want to suck the blood out of the Donald Trumps and Bill Gates of the country who create jobs (based on their own self-interest)and make America strong. They resent the Donald Trumps and the Bill Gates of the country because these guys are successful. Likewise, guys like Stoeckl and Herpes resent America for similar reasons.

scalawag

I kind of figured as much. However in the numerous debates I've had on politics and economics, I've found simplification is dangerous. It leads to extra misunderstandings, and leaves you open for more attacks (because typically, in a simplified statement, there are some innaccuracies).

Saddam was more or less capitalist; he allowed for monetary incentives to harder work, and didn't always really disproportionatly clamp down on the wealthy (some of the poorer tribes actually got a great deal of his wrath). He was content to exploit the vast oil resources for his personal gain; most of the rest he left alone (why wouldn't he? That oil funded 70 odd palaces, and even he has to have *Some* limit to his avarice).

Paul

They do not!!!!!!! Jesus, just because they didn't agree with Bush's decision to go to war, that doesn't make them hate you. You have a very small mind!

Who are you kidding? Perhaps that was a generalization on "wag's" part, but I'd say it's a "fairly" accurate one.

They don't hate us? We didn't lay down and take it from the terrorists after 9/11. We stood up four our rights as a country, and, particularly, the rights of the victims (and their relatives) of 9/11. It's called "justice" Mr. Small Mind. And because we are defending ourselves, people like YOU are now criticizing us. You would have wanted us to remain vulnerable to more terroristic attacks because you think the US is owed a few shots from the rest of the world due to our arrogance. You want to see America weak but you say that you don't hate us. 3,000 people died because we were weak on 9/11, and you want America to remain weak. No skin off your back. The bottom line Herpes is that weak = dead Americans, and since that's what you want, you might as well hate us. At least have the courage to admit it.

scalawag

Look, re-read my post. I didn't question Bush's objectives. I simply said just because someone disagrees with someone else, doesn't mean they hate you. I don't know how esle I can say this. Some people disagreed with war. They didn't feel it was justified. OK? They disagreed with you. Nothing more. No hatred, no jealousy. We're all adults here (I think), so please, understand my point!!

Nice try! You are the guy who started a thread with a post that bashed the US in an extremely mean-spirited way. You haven't show even the slightest hint of having an open mind about how our president reacted to an extremelt difficult event (9/11) in our history. You've taken for granted that we would react to your unjustified criticisms the way most Americans usually react to foreigners who bash us out of envy: in most cases we'd laugh at you, however, this time you find yourself getting slapped around because lots of innocent people in our country have died and we just aren't in the mood to listen to some punk that shoots off his mouth without any concern for practical solutions.

Go ahead and call it, whatever it is that bothers you about our great country, whatever you want. Get crazy and call it "LOVE" if that suits you. I prefer to be honest and recognize the hatred for what it is. Maybe, after the flame you've started, there are some Americans that you consider friends and you wouldn't want them to see you for what you are. get a backbone and stand behind your thoughts about the US.

scalawag

I found this link interesting. Some food for thoughts...
click me

-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

I will not resort to name calling. You have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you haven't a grasp on reality.

I couldn't agree more! Did Aesop write that fable?

Maybe if you ingest pure crap, then it is food for thought.

Barring any shred of morality on the part of any of the supposed players, do you know how hard it is to maintain security on operation that big? Having dozens of media moguls, newspaper editors, reporters, etc. in on it is inconcievable; someone would have blabbed. Not to mention the hundereds of other players that would have to be involved... But that's exactly what would be needed.

Furthermore...frankly, I really dislike the President, and will probably vote for someone else (maybe a write in if the dems don't front a good canidate). But, this requires someone with mega-genius intelligence to pull off...and not a shred of morality, empathy...humanity... As much as I don't like GW he is NOT a mass murder. None of our presidents, including Bubba Clinton, has ever been anything near that much of a moral reprobate. The pure tripe in that article is indicitive of a person (or group, didn't read the byline) that is blinded by hatred of America and by MASSIVE paranoia. It made me queasy and disgusted. If you can actually trust that article, then frankly, you've not a shred of common sense, or any working knowledge of a free democracy (or any idea about operational security!). There are far too many holes for it to be taken seriously.

Disgusted,
Paul
-----
Cornsnakes and kingsnakes and gophers oh my!

Here's some of hte people who would have to have been in on it:

the president and probably his cabinet

the military--probably at least some 20 odd AF people.

various contractors (the ones said to be guilty)

media conglamorates as diverse and Christian World News, BBC, CNN, Fox News, the Economist, and ever internet provider in the hemisphere (the media has a remarkable ability at sniffing out consipiricy--it's what makes them thier reputation). This alone would probably entail the collusion of several hundred people.

dozens of experts who were interviewed as to how the collapse happened (which, the article gave incorrect explinations, just so you know).

Whoever was supposed to have placed the explosives (in a building the size of the Towers, it would have entailed probably a dozen or two, unless it was done long term, with the collusion of the janitorial and maintince staff as well as the team of demoltion experts).

Also, the article seems to imply that the flight crews might have been in on it (several comments about how unlikely it was the 4-5 guys on each plane could overpower the crew). Yeah right!

Operational security would have been a nightmare on this, and probably not attainable. Keeping an operation of htis size secerat would be a feat unparalled in the history of covert ops.

Here's some other major problems with that article:
If the whole thing was a frame by domestic politicos, why use the planes? Why not use hidden explosives and then blame the Arabs? It would have been safer, actually.

Also, the article gave incorrect information--no one said the girders melted; they said they were weakend by the heat, and that, combined with the impact, caused the collapse. Also, there is no huge central support columns, as it claimed. That's part of what made the TW's an architectural wonder when they were constructed. It also made it easier to take down.
Also, it claimed the collapsed neatly inwardly. NOT the case! I've seen pictures from up to half a mile away with debris and and soot all over the place. That's not collapsing inwardly; that's just collapsing.
As to the terrorist competency; it's actually not very hard (or wasn't anyway) to gain control of an airplane. Prior to 9/11, SOP was to do what the captors said, since no one would get hurt if that was the case. It made them taking it over much easier, I'm sure. And who said they acted with military precision; you just get on the flights you're told to get onto, and do what you're supposed to do. THe only precision would be to act when the boss of the group acted.
I'd be surprised if they knew completly of each other's plans--in my understanding of classical terrorist ops, cells are kept isolated and unware of each other. It is probable that the people going to NY were one cell, and the pentagons another, and the downed planes hijackers were probably yet another cell, unrelated to the other two.
Also, not everything planned was carried out; evidence was afterwards that at least one or two more attacks had been planned--one or two planes were found with box cutters and knives left on them, with an abnormal number of Arabs on the passenger list, although this fact was under-reported due to the other major news of what actually did happen).

Also, there wasn't really expert flying involved. That type of stuff you can learn on a video game; it's point and crash. You should recall that most of the critiques from their old instructors focused on thier take offs and landings--irrelevant in this case, no? In fact, they probably had the pilots get them pointed to NY ("take us to La Guardia" or some such, I'm sure) then killed them, and handled the minor last minute corrections themselves.

Herman, I used to at least respect your intelligence, even if I disagreed with your views, but this article, if you actually think it's right....sheesh man

Paul
-----
Cornsnakes and kingsnakes and gophers oh my!

Notice one of the first things mentioned. "German version". Need I say more? Hey Herpesconsultant, ya' still think others don't hate us after reading that diarrhea?

no text
Boa constrictor

-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

I have no intention to read your garbage. It's painful enough to listen to the garbage that comes out of your mouth. We, as Americans, have nothing to feel bad about, and we have no apologies to make to spineless, paranoid, foreigners like you. Your country has proven itself highly uncivilized throughout history and you should spend some time questioning your own government, not ours. We are laughing at you Stoeckl. It sucks to be you!

scalawag

You should read it. It's pretty amusing. Talk about severe paranoia.

Maybe I'll print it out and save it to read when I'm having trouble sleeping. I'm sure it will put me out.

scalawag

Even better, you can use it for toilet paper. Speaking of toilet paper, hey Stoeckie, how much toilet paper does your government allow you to have?

Guess that seals the fate of this user name. Toodles everyone.

propaganda.....but by reading a portion of it, I got a birds eye view into Hermann's intellect.

Main Entry: in·tel·lect
Pronunciation: 'in-t&l-"ekt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin intellectus, from intellegere to understand
Date: 14th century

a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge

b : the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed

One can agree or disagree as to a certain topic, but one should use arguments instead of name calling. Since arguments seem permanently to fail you, you (and some others) restrict yourself in name calling.

I will not respond to such posts in the future because I don't want to stoop to kindergarten level.

If you want to see valid arguments then look at Paul2 posting. This is the way a discussion should take place.
Boa constrictor

-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

I believe that the article you posted was way more insulting to Americans than any name calling that has occurred here. It was nothing more than a blatant slap in the face. How dare you cry foul after posting that you hypocrite. The U.S. didn't kill those people in 9/11. Remember, our president's name is Bush, not Hitler!

Don't pretend you have any interest in argument Stoeckl. That's why you are making an issue out of the name-calling. You, like your cowardly English counterpart hide behind articles written by other people. You can't stand on your own two feet, can you?You've demonstrated how your brain is not prone to reasoning, when it comes to what's happening in my country. You haven't responded intelligently even once to the arguments made in favor of America. Your prior post was ludicrious, laughable, and unworthy of debate, and deserving of the town dump, and little name-calling was certainly warrented.

scalawag

All right brain cell, I forced myself to take a look. Congratulations! You now have less than zero credibility. You shamelessly posted a fairy tale that wasn't even close to believable. In our country we have the National Enquirer, The Globe, and The Star, which are half-a$$ newspapers filled with outrageous stories about things like UFO's, Aliens, and plenty of other unbelievable bull$hit. I'm sure those newspapers would be very interested in your article.

Stoeckl, I didn't realize you actually THAT stupid and clueless. You are one defective unit and I almost have to feel sorry ya, but I'm not as gullible as you. Do you believe in Santa Claus Stoeckl?

scalawag

PS A poem by Stoeckl: Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.

how you haven't made any comments about why that article is true? We've expressed ourselves very clearly about how we think the article is trash. Why don't you make a statement about why you think the conspiracy theory explained in the article is valid? I'll snswer for you Stoeckl. Your only interest was to insult Americans as demonstrated by the fact that YOU haven't offered any ARGUMENTS to defend that piece of crap. You know damn well there's no truth to that article. You are certainly stupid, but not THAT stupid. Now let's hear you defend that article. How about it Stoeckl?

scalawag

lifelines that are holding all these useless countries from being swallowed up by the vortexes in the cesspools that are building up strength in their countries. I say cut the apron strings. When they start begging for help, I say ignore them. Remember.....never bite the hand that feeds you. There is not one country on this planet that doesn't receive some sort of monetary aid from the U.S., and it all comes out of our hard earned dollars.

I'm with you Gail! When it comes to the US helping out the ungrateful parasites of the world, like Stoeckl and his comrades, no good deed goes unpunished. They take us for granted and it would be so sweet to just watch them flounder without helping. The war in Iraq brought to light the extent that these pathetic countries are against us, and now most Americans do have a justified hatred for them. I hope that we, as a nation, start acting like we have a problem with thoses countries, every chance we get. At least Stoeckl has exposed himself for the extreme jackass that he is. Hopefully he'll be treated accordingly on this forum.

scalawag

Hey wag,
I wrote a new poem. Wanna' hear it, here it goes...

Roses are red
snotballs are green
will somebody please
kick Stoeckl in the spleen

Bravo Poopie! That poem was music to my ears.

scalawag

Why thank you! I am an Arteest, you know.

Its always the same, if someone dissagrees with you then you must bash them, fight them, or call names.

you never give a reasonable answer.

steve

... it is narrow minded to say "the people in these countries hate us".
I would say that the majority in Germany is indifferent as to this topic. Some like the U.S. and some do not. But I would not speak of hate.

But the current behaviour is what many people here disturbs (to say the least):

Last I checked the United States Of America are a member of the United Nations. Thus they should follow the regualtions of this club. And the regulations are: No war without an UN - resolution.

What would you think about a neigbour who only follows the regulations in your country as long as they suit well for him?
You can not expect to be liked when you break all international rules when you see fit to do so!

Another example are the prisoners from Afghanistan that you have locked up at the camp in Kuba. Against all international regulations THAT YOUR POLITICIANS HAD SIGNED you keep these guys there in a status as rightless persons.

They have either be treated as criminals or as prisoners of war. Either group of persons has its rights. You are violating international law. Amnesty International already chimed in.

With such a behaviour you get in lane with countries that you supposedly despise.

What would you think about a country that acts like it sees fit and follow contracts only as long as they don't disturb?

I am sure I will get a reply that "the guys in the camp and in Iraq are terrorists and they just get what they deserved".

But why aren't you just honest and say: We are the kings and do what we want and now we behead them all without a trial.

Then the family of the advanced nations would know for sure that the U.S. has left their community.

A nation where somebody can become president who has got the second most votes of the candidats is doubtful anyway.
Boa constrictor

-----
Beware of Commies and Mutts!

the UN was not a club it was an alliance of countries. secondly Iraq has violated all of the UN resolutions and has doen so for what 13 years now? so dont come in saying we didnt have the right to go to war with them. it is not our fault france, and germany were too scared to go to war with them. oh wait they werent scared they wanted to keep getting that oil under the table. funny how all this works huh?

lets take a look at all the peaceful organizors that went over as "human shields" only to return and say we are doing the right thing and have a whole new look at it. until you havce seen what is going on over there i donty think you have a viable opinion. i have been to both afghanistan and iraq, and guess what i am going back, so yes my opinion does matter. and as far as the al qeada in Cuba, no they do nto have rights. anyone who kills another man for shaving his beard or looking at a woman with lust has no rights. i guess you also think timmothy mcveigh has rights or charles manson huh?

herman you have some beautiful snakes man dont get me worng and you are a very intelligent person so i for one dont see you taking this as a low blow in any way but a means of defending my beliefs and my country and its leaders. the fact of the matter is everyone has a formed opinion via the media, hell i had one till i got there. but until you see what has happened because of people like UBL and saddam you really are not justified in any anti-war, anti- american remarks. as far as i am concerned we fought this war with two others, australia and the united kinggdom, the un can go to hell.
-----
The next time the shuttle lands, lets all get dressed up in ape suits and charge at the astronaughts yelling and ranting. That way they can try to figure out where they took a wrong turn.

and thank you for your service to this country.

Uh, hello! The UN wasn't following it's own regulations. They agreed to take measures if Saddam didn't comply and then backpeddled when they realized the U.S. and it's REAL allies actually had the guts(unlike France and Germany) to go through with what should have been done from the start. But we all know why those countries were stalling, don't we?

The UN is a neutered organization. When such a group as it places LIBYA as the head of the human rights commision, and would have put Iraq up as head of the WMD control commison (can't recall the name of the board), it loses all credibility. The UN falsely assumes that all nations as members have an equal or nearly equal share in everything, which simply isn't true, even in todays far more global economy and body politic. Also, the UN was founded in part in response to Warsaw and WWII (as was NATO). It was founded, in fact, with the goal to prevent global warfare. Frankly, when such a thing as more feasible, it mattered. Now however, the US and perhaps China are the only two nations that can afford war. Most other countries haven't got the economic power to fund a major military--it's gotten too expensive. They have pockets of excellence (Germany's special forces are reputedly some of the best in the world, and everyone knows the British SAS), but those aren't enough to wage a real war.

Furthermore, the UN hasn't been effective for a decade now. There's been some irrelevant stuff here and there, but in general it's held up due to rivals between member nations. That's what paralzyed it during the Rawandan genocide (with France supporting the genocidares and sending them arms). It became an excerise in pure beuracracy some time ago. I think however, that what just happend killed it's military power permenently. It was shown to be irrelevant, and thank God for that! It might survive as more of a global marketplace thing, where trade agreements can be hammered out, but we already have the WTO there, so even that's doubtful.

Paul

I agree entirely.....well said..

First of all, Bush won the election. The liberals in this country are no different than you and your socialistic buddies who would love to see American weak. Gore would have served that purpose nicely for you, but he lose fair and square. Close but no cigar. Ha Ha Stoeckl!

As far as the UN goes, we all know that Germany, Russia and France each had their own seedy little agendas in their opposition to this war. The people of this country now have very little respect, if any, for your little alliance of thugs (Germany, Russia and France) that want to see America weak. You know what you can do with your international laws Stoeckl.

scalawag

ability to have a reasonable discussion. You can't just keep posting the same propaganda over and over and expect people to take you seriously. Before you blow all your credibility you should look into how we vote in the U.S. We have an Electoral College. We don't actually vote for the candidates themselves we vote for the slate of Electors representing the party of our choice. And of course because many U.S.citizens don't know this, it is blamed on the institution instead of the ill-educated people.

A state's electors is equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives. So each state has 2 more votes than its proportionate population. When the popular vote is so close, the number of STATES won becomes decisive. Gov. Bush won 31 states (61%), Vice-President Gore won 19 and DC. Those 11 extra states in the Bush column convert to 22 additional electoral votes, which becomes the winning margin for Gov. Bush.

>>A nation where somebody can become president who has got the second most votes of the candidats is doubtful anyway.

Yeah, as long as we don't count the military voters in California, Gore had mopre votes. Count them and Bush would ALMOST CERTAINLY have beaten Gore. No doubt about it. BUT...why waste time when the votes wouldn't have let Bush win in California, anyway? But, another lie from Gore isn't a surprise, right?

I still hate Lincoln. Zachory Taylor was our greatest president of all tyime! LMAO.
KJ

I heard that Lincoln chopped down a cherry tree and blamed it on Washington. What a jerk!

I'd rather be stuck in a room full of mosquitos than to be stuck with having to listen to some of these peoples' drivel.