885 Forum Posts by "TheloniousMONK"
At 1/19/06 06:20 PM, graceman wrote: i don't like Saddam either.but is it googdto wage a war to overthrow a government of a sovereign country just because you dont't like it or they did some bad things? now iraq is not peace and so many people dead1
Iraq has never been at peace. That is what we are trying to change.
At 1/19/06 04:59 PM, graceman wrote: maybe china's human right is not perfect.what about usa?the bad things they did on warprisoners in Iraq were known by the whole world!
The difference is neither our people nor government condone it. The Chinese government oppresses, persecutes, and executes its own people as a matter of policy - and your reactions indicate to me that the Chinese people condone this.
no need to mention the other things !why does us care about iraq or iran ?whar things would happen if there were no oil? for the human rights or demoncracy of these countries' people ? it is well known in the whole world having brains!!
Tell me taking Saddam out was bad. And do not even bother talking about Iran, they are on everyone's hit list.
where were the us troops when millons of Rwwanda people were killed ??
It was a mistake not to help, but Clinton was under a lot of criticism for Somalia, and seeing as how he had no spine, we chose to stay out. But where was China? Oh yeah, that's right, selling cheap goods to other massacring regimes.
At 1/19/06 03:19 PM, Doblosky wrote: shed blood since when? 20 years ago?
You should read these: Anti-Secession Bill Mandates Attack if Independence Is Declared, Officials Say and "China's Premier Zhu just said this afternoon that the path of Taiwan independence would only lead to bloodshed," Lien said.
it's 2006, not 1990 before a Chinese person could not leave country most likely, and now the policy is much looser. before you could not have more than one child and if you did, your child could be killed and mother nuetered, that doesn't happen any longer.
used to be no foreign religion, but at least it's tolerated now. over the years, the Chinese government has practically perfected itself and it should be an example of what other communist countries should be like. you cannot learn without mistake.
China is much better now, but perfect? You must be kidding. The Human Rights Watch has been monitoring China's progress and still considers it one of the worst in the civilized world as far as human rights are concerned. You can see for yourself by reading the most recent report here.
Beyond the gross infractions of human rights in your own borders, China, in its dangerous hunger for power, has opened trading relations with many governments that are known to be terrible, like Sudan and Zimbabwe. This has ruined an international effort to keep economic and political sanctions against them until they reform.
Bin Laden offers Americans truce
Thursday 19 January 2006, 21:04 Makka Time, 18:04 GMT
http://english.aljaz..29D-EA1A9678D922.htm
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
In an audio tape broadcast on Aljazeera, Osama bin Laden has warned that al-Qaida is preparing an attack very soon, but also offers Americans a long-term truce.
The voice, attributed to Bin Laden and apparently addressing Americans, said: "The new operations of al-Qaida has not happened not because we could not penetrate the security measures. It is being prepared and you'll see it in your homeland very soon."
But the voice on the tape, which appeared to be aimed at the American public, also offered a truce: "We do not mind establishing a long-term truce between us and you."
The tape, broadcast by Aljazeera on Thursday evening but dated to December last year, comes after a year of silence from the al-Qaida leader.
"This message is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end those wars," it began.
"It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those wars are definitely going our way.
"But what triggered my desire to talk to you is the continuous deliberate misinformation given by your President [George] Bush, when it comes to polls made in your home country which reveal that the majority of your people are willing to withdraw US forces from Iraq.
Americans want peace
"We know that the majority of your people want this war to end and opinion polls show the Americans do not want to fight the Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their [US] land.
"But Bush does not want this and claims that it is better to fight his enemies on their land rather than on American land.
"Bush tried to ignore the polls that demanded that he end the war in Iraq.
"We are getting increasingly stronger while your situation is getting from bad to worse," he told the US, referring to poor US troop morale and the huge economic losses inflicted by the war.
"The war in Iraq is raging and the operations in Afghanistan are increasing."
Truce offer
"In response to the substance of the polls in the US, which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to.
"We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others in the back, hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war.
"There is no problem in this solution, but it will prevent hundreds of billions from going to influential people and war lords in America - those who supported Bush's electoral campaign - and from this, we can understand Bush and his gang's insistence on continuing the war."
Addressing Americans again, he said: "If your desire for peace, stability and reconciliation was true, here we have given you the answer to your call."
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Should the US attempt to negotiate with Usama bin Laden or stick to its policy of not negotiating with terrorists? Sound off!
At 1/19/06 03:40 AM, qiushidaren wrote: TheloniousMONK: yo hi, I know Americans sometimes talk about the civil liberties in China
but I will tell you I am a 21 years old citizen of China I really dont feel I am lack of civil
liberties£¬many many truth in this world can only be realized by going and see it but not by hearing, if oneday you can really go to China to take a look at China I think you may know who are right
You silence political opposition and persecute those who do not want to attend only state-approved churches. By the way, this silencing of opponents is one of the main reasons that there is so much corruption in your government.
But if you talk about Taiwan with me I will say it is none of your American's buisness
We have made it our business to help those who seek freedom from oppression and corruption find liberty. We have been involved since 1950 when the US navy safeguarded the island from possible mainland attack.
it is our Chinese's business no matter we are living in Mainland China or Taiwan or abroad we will
never forget that we are all Chinese we are the same, but you know Mainland China will never never and never attack Taiwan hehe,
The mainland has been threatening Taiwan for the last fifty years. A majority of Taiwan wants independence, and it was clearly demonstrated in the last election, despite threats by your Premier of bloodshed.
; Bush also doesn¡¯t want Mainland China to attack Taiwan he wants to keep the present situation, the problem of Taiwan Bush get a part in it, remember Bush is wat a kind of person my American friends tell me they think Bush is the most foolish president in USA history.
No one wants the mainland to attack Taiwan, and I do not believe you will be foolish enough to as long as we maintain our presence.
By the way, I would live in America.
At 1/17/06 01:25 PM, Rukaii wrote: It's good to see this thread back on topic. Well, I've heard from some people, who are really into this sorta stuff -- that China is set to be the number 1 nation within the next decade.
There is no chance China will be "number 1" in the next decade. Considering China's recent trend in growth, it will take them thirty years to match the US Real GDP in 2000. And that's considering that they have 1.3 BILLION people; their GDP per capita is shit. They have one of the most atrocious lack of civil liberties in the civilized world. Their Communist government is rife with corruption.
Economics and social issues aside, they are no where near us technologically. They have no GPS, first and second generation spy sattelites, and little actual military industry of their own to support a long-drawn conflict. In the same decade that they reach the Moon, we will be touching foot on Mars.
Militarily they are even farther behind us. Much of their airforce is bought from other countries. Their navy does not have the capability for operations at a global level as their subs are deisel powered, they have no battle systems like AEGIS and they have no aircraft carriers.
Now, from the looks of things, this is probably referring to domestic and not military, well aggressivly, China has never really encroached past its own borders. It has had its fair share of civil wars and has defended itself against invaders on more than one occasion, but as to attacking another nation in hopes of conqeuring, to the best of my knowledge (correct me if Im wrong) have not made a move to conquer any nation outside of its borders.
How about their refusal to recognize Taiwanese independence and threatening to attack them?
The answer is obviously indeterminate. It is like dividing infinity by infinity. The boulder has an infinite mass and God has infinite power and you are asking which one is "greater." The answer cannot be determined. However, if we apply l'Hôpital's rule...
At 1/16/06 05:30 PM, JMHX wrote: There was a report somewhere, which I'm going to try and find, that showed through a bunch of examples how the educations at Harvard College and any generic public university are, essentially, the same. It was thought-provoking and led to thinking this article up after I experienced it myself.
Despite what intuition tells me, this may very well be true. However, going to a school like Harvard gives you opportunities that you do not necessarily find at public universities. For example, being able to get involved as an undergrad in research at the forefront of any field. Also, a successful and active academic career at a school like Harvard allows you to write your own ticket as far as graduate programs.
At 1/16/06 11:04 AM, -poxpower- wrote: p.s. I don't vote
p.s. You live in Canada.
At 1/16/06 08:04 AM, JMHX wrote: rant
I think if you went to a more academically rigorous institution you would feel a little differently. Our best schools in the nation do not want to give out scholarship money, and as a result, weed out freshman that do not perform up to standard.
And honestly, I do not care about anyone's performance in high school or whether they deserve to be here as much as me or not. SAT's, ACT's, high school GPA's, community service, or who they know on the admission board really does not matter anymore. If they can perform up to standard, let them stay. If not, the system takes care of them.
I have also never seen any grade inflation. Teachers play favorites, of course. But that cannot be avoided because as a teacher you are going to like those that are proactive and enjoy their subjects.
At 1/15/06 01:22 AM, -Buddhist- wrote: Personally I believe, in this case, that they should just let him pass on in a cell, rather than execute him. I mean, the guy's dying on his birthday, almost died on death row last year, is hard of hearing, blind, and can barely walk. That really wouldn't show any justice. The man got his karma already, is there really a need to kill him?
The fact that he is on death row in the first place demonstrates a fundamental flaw in justice and correctional policy.
Now please just shut up.
At 1/7/06 11:02 PM, psycho-squirrel wrote: no, i wouldnt even consider it. it wouldnt help me reach my goals in life. it would only be a waist of 4 years for me.
Whether or not it would help you reach whatever goals you have set for yourself, I assure you it would not be a waste.
At 1/7/06 06:16 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I think the only sort of job I'b be comfortable with would be a field medic, hostage negotiater or chaplain - although I'd be helping people to keep fighting, I think the good I'd do would outweigh the bad.
Military service is not all just killing and destroying wholesale. MP's are often in positions where they must defuse otherwise lethal situations. Military engineers build roads, airports, and city improvements for the good of the public. And let us not forget the Coast Guard, my blessed service. The Coast Guard saves ten lives a day, upkeeps our nation's vast and hugely important maritime navigational system, protects ports at home and abroad, cleans up after hazardous spills and disasters, enforces US laws in US territorial seas, and so much more. There is no service like it.
I'm not so sure. I do armchair psycology and there are a number of famous experiments that seem to show people will follow orders no matter what.
You assume that you will be too weak to do the right thing.
At 11/23/05 02:25 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Anyone know where it is so I can find it on google earth? Like coordinates or something?
Yeah, reminds me. I wanna cheeck out North Korea on google earth also :P
Pretty much all nonpublic government facilities are either blanked out, as is the case for A-51, or unabled to be zoomed in very far on. I found Edwards Air Force base on there, which was really neat. You can see the SR-71 on display and the gigantic compass on the ground just outside the base, but you can only zoom in so far.
At 10/24/05 11:39 PM, Bapabooiee wrote:
This is exactly why I stick to the Bungie.net forums, these forums are full of dolts.
rofl
Great logic there genius. Maybe you shoulden't bother coming to Newgrounds if the ads piss you off. Fuck, I find myself clicking them sometimes because I can't even figure out what they're selling.
A HUGE site like this needs money. Those ads that piss you off are the only thing giving this site money. And if you suggest AH, I don't think they are making money off of that yet.
At 6/21/05 04:23 PM, capn_g wrote: I don't think it counts as intervention if it's your own forces on your own soil.
Sure it does... just like all the others.
At 6/21/05 03:58 PM, Maus wrote: "UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval
Response to hijacking attacks."
Come on, now.
What is the problem with that?
At 6/19/05 04:12 PM, lapis wrote: China is seeing abysmal economic growth
Indeed.
At 6/17/05 01:29 PM, Hyperdragoon wrote: Let's hope this doesn't end in fireworks.
Don't hold your breath.
At 6/16/05 01:39 AM, Jimsween wrote: Thats a pretty lame argument. All I'm asking is that you give a credible source, really a non-biased one is all I ask.
And now the magic word is "credible?" Give it a rest.
Oh, so now you resort to petty insults and incorrect summaries. If anything, it's a cause-effect relationship without any proof of the cause or the effect. He clearly has political motivations in saying what he said, so you can't really trust that he was offended, since you have proof that he would have reason to pretend to be offended.
I told you to quit playing stupid. You got offended. You wrote the above text. Simple, concise logic. Do I really need to draw the parallel for you?
You would make it seem as if the only problem with Iraq is that the media isn't reporting the truth.
Then let me say, right now, I am not that stupid. All I said was that the media is ignoring Iraq and it makes Bush look bad because that is where his resources are.
And you did in fact make a connection, you said people weren't being told the truth about it, that they were not being explained to how it would work.
I am not sure about you, but I believe in a free press, so I do not believe it is the media's job to explain things to the public. Furthermore, I never said the media was not being truthful.
Oh wow, you typed refusing in caps! So I guess that... make it bad? The democrats can shoot down Bush's bill if they believe it's crap, and they are not at all obligated to provide an alternative.
Really? 72% of Americans believe they are.
FYI, it hasn't been two months, it's been 60 years, social security is not going to crumble because they didn't change it in two months. Just because Bush wants to pull some piece of crap out of his ass and do it doesn't mean they have to do the same.
FYI, the difference is now we suddenly realize the money is really not going to be there. We cannot hope for another roaring economy to buy us out of this crunch. We cannot fund this with one generation paying for the last.
Yeah, hes so crazy, it's not like the president can VETO things, psh crazy.
If the Republicans, as you mention below, think Bush's plan is such a bad idea, perhaps they would be more inclined to vote in favor of a better plan, and nullify the veto. And, furthermore, Bush stated he would consider all ideas with the exception of a increase in payroll tax.
Or maybe the president just has bad ideas, and thats why he looks bad.
It is not just the President's idea. I am not about to debate Social Security reform - I did enough of that last year - but privatization has many benefits, and it has been tossed around for a long time, even by former President Clinton.
The dems are a minority, the republicans could pass this if they agreed it was good, they don't, enough republicans think its bad to make it so it wont pass.
Let's face it. In a normal, real-world scenario, both Republicans and Democrats are needed to pass legislation.
At 6/15/05 11:28 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote: Dumass.
You're done.
At 6/15/05 11:25 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: What? Did you just say my point is not good? Did you insult me? Or were you insulting the French King?
Well, I was just finishing your sentence for you, but now that you mention it, I think the discrepancies between pre-Revolution France and the modern US make it rather moot. I mean, their economy, society, and corrupt government could not handle debt. Ours can, and we have seen the wonders of the effective use of debt in the past.
At 6/15/05 09:10 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Look at France before the Revolution. That is a good lesson in hostory of why debt is bad.
Yeah, bad in the hands of economic ignoramus.
At 6/15/05 08:36 PM, butterfli wrote: I don't see how this got to do with the National Debt. Not saying what you're saying is wrong (or correct), but I don't see how.
The Debt will hit us like a bitch with a sackful of bricks in each other hand. Not now. But one day-- possibly.
It isn't something to ignore.
What I am saying is there is nothing wrong with debt as long as the economic gains match or exceed the debt.
So, let's say taxes are cut from 40% to 35%, causing a deficit in the government's budget. But, with this extra money, people go out and buy or invest. People and businesses then grow richer. Then, when the next tax season roles around, even though the people are being taxed a lesser percentage, they are a lot wealthier and therefore end up paying more in taxes than they would have at 40%. So, that debt that the government had the last year is suddenly harmless. That is basically what happened during the 1980's.
At 6/15/05 06:19 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote: No difference. Drudge was the one who decided to put on his site some guy who said Hillary would be the VP nominee. Drudge is not a trustworthy source. He's not a source at all.
You probably said the same thing during the Lewinsky scandal when Drudge broke it.
No, I'm ignoring untrustworthy sources. I'm ignoring "news" that has no shame in using lies and propaganda to win political battles. I get the truth from reliable sources. If something is fact you'll be able to prove it with sources that arn't owned by some insane lunatic.
No, you are deliberately trying to ignore fact because you are a bitter, angry Liberal.
Obvious.
Oh yeah, just to assuage any doubts you had of the Washington Times article.
At 6/15/05 05:04 PM, SkyCube wrote:At 6/15/05 04:59 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote:I think he may have been joking.What's wrong? HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF A MIRACLE!?!?!?!?We don't make legal/medical/ethical decisions on the off chance that something impossible might happen.
As if the caps lock and excessive punctuation did not give it away.
At 6/15/05 02:51 PM, Jimsween wrote: You have to pay it back eventaully.
So?
And the external debt can be used to cripple our country, which some theorize is already done by Saudi Arabia.
I would love for you to explain this. Really.
At 6/15/05 05:49 PM, butterfli wrote: You have to pay more taxes in the future. It will be hit us VERY hard. It will make the cost of living nearly unbearable if it's not eleviated some.
Not according to history. In the 1980's Reagan initiated huge, across the board tax cuts, and, despite a growing debt, we were met with huge economic gains.
This in turn raises the cost of our exports-- other countries won't buy our products.
I see no correlation between debt and cost of exports. Perhaps you could exlpain that?
And if I remember well...
National Debt keeps us on toes on Inflation.
Please elaborate on this.
