Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/12/04 08:21 AM, cockjockey wrote:

At 1/11/04 10:41 PM, Empanado wrote:

YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT DO YOU KNOW HOW IS IT LIKE TO LIVE 17 YEARS OF TERROR UNDER THE ECT ECT

Just two things;

1. You haven't lived for 17 years full stop, so it's hypocritical to open your statement with that.

You're right, i haven't, but it's simply part of the country i belong. It's not hypocritical at all, because the social aftermaths of the dictatorship are still present in the country. I actually care about the future (and past) of my nation (unfortunately i can't say the same about most people of my age) and i've asked people, gathered information and stuff, and that is what leads to a conclusion. Search on the internet, and you'll see that there's fairly a reason to get angry for it. I form part of a community, and that seems enough reason to me to piss off when someone puts it down to just another fact of the Cold War. A part of our identity as nation was lost in that dictatorship.

2. Your caps lock appears to be broken.

Well i'm not going to argue with this one, i was just pissed off at that moment. Good to see that there's still people that can recognize when they commit a mistake. I still disagree with you tho, shepard.

At 1/12/04 07:07 AM, adrshepard wrote: I belief that the US will not interfere with others unless it has something to gain or to protect.

That's not what policemen do?

At 1/11/04 11:53 PM, True-Lies wrote:

At 1/11/04 04:59 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Yes, let's hug!

This is a hug free zone.

This guy is in dire need of a hug people! Let's give him a big soft huggie wuggie!

I'm getting real tired of some of these damn European leftists in here criticizing US foreign policy over the past 50 years. Lets look at the centuries leading up to 1914. Spurred on by colonial interests countries like the UK, France and Germany began involving themselves in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire, Africa, N & S America and Asia. These three countries along with several others (Spain, Portugal, the Dutch etc) set up colonies displacing local cultures and traditions (set up the slave trade in Africa, introduced Smallpox [intentionally in some cases] to the Native Americans, India, Vietnam, and caused division between Jew and Arab). During WWI France and Germany made contradictory promises to the Arabs to destroy the Ottoman Empire that was aligned with Germany.
Following the war, these promises were not followed through and these foreign powers set up governments in these lands that were subservient not to the native's intrests but their own colonial interests. In fact England helped the Zionist movement in Palestine without caring much what happened to the Palestinians.
Then in WWII the resources of Europe were all but destroyed by your own damn internal squabbling and colonial ambitions. You were left with little ability to control your expansive and oppressive empires. The US, by virtue of geographical location, did not suffer the same loss of ability to produce so we stayed strong. We occupied Germany and Japan and once these messes were cleaned up we left these countries to govern themselves.
We have division in most of the world as a result of EUROPEAN colonialism. Once the dust of WWII settled we were left to clean-up YOUR mess. Yes we have made mistakes, we have at times been arrogant. We should have put pressure on the French instead of the N. Vietnamese. But we have had some success, governance of Afghanistan has largely been returned to the Afghani's as it will in Iraq. We will not control these governments for centuries as the European model dictates. You do not like our methods or the strife in the world, guess what too damn bad you Europeans created much of this fucked up shit. No please sit down and let us do our job if you are not going to help.
________________________________
God bless Tony Blair! And fuck the French!

At 1/12/04 07:18 PM, TheMason wrote: I'm getting real tired of some of these damn European leftists in here criticizing US foreign policy over the past 50 years. Lets look at the centuries leading up to 1914. Spurred on by colonial interests countries like the UK, France and Germany began involving themselves in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire, Africa, N & S America and Asia. These three countries along with several others (Spain, Portugal, the Dutch etc) set up colonies displacing local cultures and traditions (set up the slave trade in Africa, introduced Smallpox [intentionally in some cases] to the Native Americans, India, Vietnam, and caused division between Jew and Arab). During WWI France and Germany made contradictory promises to the Arabs to destroy the Ottoman Empire that was aligned with Germany.
Following the war, these promises were not followed through and these foreign powers set up governments in these lands that were subservient not to the native's intrests but their own colonial interests. In fact England helped the Zionist movement in Palestine without caring much what happened to the Palestinians.
Then in WWII the resources of Europe were all but destroyed by your own damn internal squabbling and colonial ambitions. You were left with little ability to control your expansive and oppressive empires. The US, by virtue of geographical location, did not suffer the same loss of ability to produce so we stayed strong. We occupied Germany and Japan and once these messes were cleaned up we left these countries to govern themselves.
We have division in most of the world as a result of EUROPEAN colonialism. Once the dust of WWII settled we were left to clean-up YOUR mess. Yes we have made mistakes, we have at times been arrogant. We should have put pressure on the French instead of the N. Vietnamese. But we have had some success, governance of Afghanistan has largely been returned to the Afghani's as it will in Iraq. We will not control these governments for centuries as the European model dictates. You do not like our methods or the strife in the world, guess what too damn bad you Europeans created much of this fucked up shit. No please sit down and let us do our job if you are not going to help.
________________________________
God bless Tony Blair! And fuck the French!

Oh, mon dieu! Une autre American qui ne comprende pas l'histoire de la monde! SO, you're saying that just because colonialism raped and pillaged the world before the US came on the scene, that it is ok for the US to do exactly the same thing, except with new global economic forms of imperialism/terrorism? And even if the US feels that it is justified in totally disregarding International Law, or any other international authority on ethics or human rights because of its own perceived monopoly on "the right" or "democratic freedom," what makes you think that the American version will last any longer than, say, the Roman Empire? Particularly with so many non-white, non-christian/protestant, non-western states now posessing and seemingly willing to use nuclear weapons to defend THEIR ideas of ethics or human rights? I think that if the US continues to "rile up the natives" with its new breed of colonial empirialism, IT IS INEVITABLE that it will get nuked - not just a couple of little planes flying into the side of the world trade centre. This is an inevitable course that the US seems to be laying out for itself. If it were more interested in diplomacy, it would probably attract more diplomatic retributions and cooperations, as opposed to the violent ones it is attracting now. And hey, Sharon in Israel was adopting the same "anti-terrorist" rhetoric that Bush uses in Sharon's ongoing terrorizing of the Palestinians, which exemplifies my point. H-Dawg OUT!

That is not at all what I'm say H-Dawg. My point is that we have all these little morons out here talking about how arrogant the US as if their countries are morally superior to the US when in fact the problems of today are inherited from their failed colonialism.
Does this give us the right to rape and pillage the world? Of course not. Let's face it, France and Russia did not want the US to go to war with Iraq not out of some sense of moral righteousness. They did it because they were economic allies with Saddam selling him military equipment. Yes we did aid Saddam in his war against Iran but if we sold him that much equipment we would have faced M-16s instead of AK-47s, M-1 Abrams instead of T-72 tanks, and F-16s instead of MiGs and Mirages.
In terms of N. Korea when we learned of their re-initializing their nuke program we put diplomatic pressure on them. We have not significantly increased our presence there, a sure sign that we do not have any immediate plans of going to war. Yes we called them part of the Axis of Evil but what else would you call a country that starves their people while the elites live in luxury and build WMDs?
SecDef Rumsfeld is currently talking about decreasing our military. Does this sound like a move to solve all our problems through military instead of diplomatic means?
Are we perfect? Hell no, we make mistakes and have made bad foreign policy decisions. In fact I do not like our current stance in Isreal, I believe Sharon is a war criminal who is interested in war instead of peace.
Just in Iraq and Afghanistan there were no peaceful solutions. Saddam was not going to willingly let go of power and stop being a brutal dictator just because some diplomat told him it was right to do so. The Taliban was not going to stop their oppressive theocracy just because the world was putting pressure on them.

I'm just tired of a bunch of young, uneducated, preachy Europeans constantly pointing out the bad of US foreign policy as if the problems of the world today was caused BY the US instead of being INHERITED from them.

Now dat I got all a dat off my back, G, I gotsta get back to da crib and eat me some escargot and beer. Hmmm, I wonder if Bush is gonna let his new "secret police force" rumoured to be working in Iraq sodomize Saddam Hussain before Bush gives him back to the Iraqis? Or maybe Bush has dressed him up as an alter boy and is doing it to Saddam himself right now! If Saddam sold the shmagma-soiled dress to the press, do you think Bush would be impeached, or deified? Just wonderin, y'all. H-dawg, OUT!

At 1/12/04 08:34 PM, TheMason wrote: In terms of N. Korea... ...Yes we called them part of the Axis of Evil but what else would you call a country that starves their people while the elites live in luxury and build WMDs?

Now before I get a bunch of Marxist/Class warfare arguments from this statement about how this is true in the US let me remind you that in 2002 the budget was as follows:
21% Social programs.
38% Social Security & Medicare.
10% Physical, human & community development.
------
69% of the budget went to Social-type programs.

21% Went to National defense which was lumped in the same category with Veteran's affairs and Foreign policy.
Got this information from www.irs.gov.

I also heard a figure that if you have a refidgerator in your home you are already more wealthy than 66% of the world's population.

At 1/12/04 08:34 PM, TheMason wrote: That is not at all what I'm say H-Dawg. My point is that we have all these little morons out here talking about how arrogant the US as if their countries are morally superior to the US when in fact the problems of today are inherited from their failed colonialism.
Does this give us the right to rape and pillage the world? Of course not. Let's face it, France and Russia did not want the US to go to war with Iraq not out of some sense of moral righteousness. They did it because they were economic allies with Saddam selling him military equipment. Yes we did aid Saddam in his war against Iran but if we sold him that much equipment we would have faced M-16s instead of AK-47s, M-1 Abrams instead of T-72 tanks, and F-16s instead of MiGs and Mirages.
In terms of N. Korea when we learned of their re-initializing their nuke program we put diplomatic pressure on them. We have not significantly increased our presence there, a sure sign that we do not have any immediate plans of going to war. Yes we called them part of the Axis of Evil but what else would you call a country that starves their people while the elites live in luxury and build WMDs?
SecDef Rumsfeld is currently talking about decreasing our military. Does this sound like a move to solve all our problems through military instead of diplomatic means?
Are we perfect? Hell no, we make mistakes and have made bad foreign policy decisions. In fact I do not like our current stance in Isreal, I believe Sharon is a war criminal who is interested in war instead of peace.
Just in Iraq and Afghanistan there were no peaceful solutions. Saddam was not going to willingly let go of power and stop being a brutal dictator just because some diplomat told him it was right to do so. The Taliban was not going to stop their oppressive theocracy just because the world was putting pressure on them.

I'm just tired of a bunch of young, uneducated, preachy Europeans constantly pointing out the bad of US foreign policy as if the problems of the world today was caused BY the US instead of being INHERITED from them.

The thing that disturbes me, is, that while you may be correct in saying that Iraq and Afghanistan were brutal regimes, it is always interesting to note the brutal regimes that the US DOES NOT go after, and the ones it CHOOSES to focus on. Another aspect of this point is the RIGHT the US has to seek revenge on a couple of countries who happen to contain a few people that the US needs to capture/kill in order to find scapegoats to punish for a successful terrorist attack (911) that finally penetrated its complacency in regards to what its own foreign policy has fostered in terms of terrorist attacks against the west in direct response to economic/military/imperialist global terrorism carried out by western superpowers like the US against 2nd and 3rd world countries (designations created by the 1st world). The famous example of US complacency Chomsky brought to light is East Timor, which, largely because of chomsky, the US finally helped out. But the whole Afghanistan and Iraq wars seemed like huge sabor-rattling exercises largely staged to provide a tangible war scenario so that Bush could A) reinstill confidence in the ability of America to defend itself (which is TOTALLY contradicted by the fact that terror alerts have NEVER GONE AWAY since 911) and B) a bit of Bush senior getting his licks in after years of Saddam laughing in his face. But creating a war scenario just so you can publicly have a tangible forum in which to "win the war against terrorism" is not only bogus, but CREATES A WAR SCENARIO in which the US becomes a real target and, according to an overwhealming majority of British polled, the biggest threat to the world. I don't think you can fight terrorism effectively like that. Read Gayle Rivers on this. Just my thoughts. H-Dawg out.

Here's another issue that comes to mind, Mason. instead of making blatant "Political Realist" arguments to support US foreign policy (or arguments that simplistically take for granted the axiom that everyone will only act in their own interests, and if they don't somebody else will and trample them), are there any other possible solutions to foreign policy decisions that think outside of this (Western) ideological box? One argument for even making the attempt to think outside of traditional political theoretical models is that these models can only ever reproduce one outcome - a western model of world domination. In other words, even if Japan takes over world dominance (which it looks like it will), the way global economics/politics/military systems are set up right now, they will do it by reproducing a western capitalist/ideological system, but better than the US. And once this is achieved, this system will probably fall out of vogue, and will change itself into something else. I think US foreign policy, the way it stands, merely accelerates this inevitable outcome by making itself the big target of terrorists - not the global policeman but the global concentration camp commendant - and while it does this it is depleating its resources through EXTREMELY costly wars, like the one with Iraq!! (maybe that's the REAL reason Rumsfeldt had to cut the military budget!!). So, any ideas on other possible "utopias" that don't play that boring catch-22 game of political realism that always ends up in West is good, the rest are bad results?

At 1/12/04 01:08 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: This guy is in dire need of a hug people! Let's give him a big soft huggie wuggie!

Alright then... Witness the full paint power of the DAG!

MUaHAHAHAHAHAHA@$!!!!

Yo, I could use me a hug, y'all. H-Dawg, OUT.

Don't be shy! Come over here and give me a big bear hug!!!!!

What does hate get you? A job working in a cubice

What does love get you? A job like the one Hitler had!!!

Peace out all you mother fuckers!!!!!

At 1/12/04 10:16 PM, Eskimo_Joe wrote: Don't be shy! Come over here and give me a big bear hug!!!!!

MUST I remind you of the shoot-on-sight laws?

And H-Dawg gets a hug from the HugBear and gets shooted for hugging!

At 1/12/04 10:39 PM, Empanado wrote: And H-Dawg gets a hug from the HugBear and gets shooted for hugging!

Yo yo, thanks, y'all. Even if i did gets shot, dat be just like back in da hood, y'all. Now I'm gettin' all nostalgic n'shit. I be cryin', y'all. I'm glad your not here to see dat. H-Dawg, OUT.

At 1/10/04 01:14 PM, Aghh wrote: You stupid arogants fuckwits! all i'm seeing here is " We're american! we rock! we're the most powerfull nation around! you suck" You fucking arogant idiots! i hate people like you, because people like you give anyone with a sense of pride a bad name. And you wonder why so many people hate you! It pisses me off, what gives you the right to say your nation is the most powerfull nation around? thats bullshit.

Bullshit? America is the strongest nation in the world because it's economy makes up 30% of the world's, and it's military is #1 in the world, the amount spent on the U.S military exceeds the next top ten combined by far. We also have a system of government that allows freedom and oppurtunity, don't even TRY to deny that. I am a proud American, every country has it's pride, but America's is scrutinized by the world.

Also, remember September 11th?? Don't even begin to say that America's war against terrorism and tyranny is unjust.

take a look at americaforsale.org please icewraith.

At 1/12/04 10:20 PM, True-Lies wrote:

At 1/12/04 10:16 PM, Eskimo_Joe wrote: Don't be shy! Come over here and give me a big bear hug!!!!!

MUST I remind you of the shoot-on-sight laws?

dont shoot calvin and hobbes!

At 1/12/04 10:55 PM, IceWraith15 wrote: Bullshit? America is the strongest nation in the world because it's economy makes up 30% of the world's, and it's military is #1 in the world, the amount spent on the U.S military exceeds the next top ten combined by far.

Why stop with the next top ten? In 2004 the pentagon's budget is expected to top $400b, isn't it? Back when our budget was $310b (3-4 years ago?), global annual military expenditures sat at
780 billion dollars. No other country on Earth could pump up their military spending 40 billion a year. Our military budget is larger than the rest of the world's combined.

We also have a system of government that allows freedom and oppurtunity, don't even TRY to deny that. I am a proud American, every country has it's pride, but America's is scrutinized by the world.

A system of government that allows freedom and opportunity is nothing new, and it is practiced much more effectively in dozens of other countries. With a military budget of our size, don't you think we deserve alittle scrutiny??

Also, remember September 11th?? Don't even begin to say that America's war against terrorism and tyranny is unjust.

I fail to see how the current war against Iraq has anything to do with September 11th, 2001. The "War Against Terrorism" is an asinine excuse for expanding the US's base of power in the middle east and ratcheting up military spending yet another notch.

At 1/12/04 11:14 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/12/04 10:55 PM, IceWraith15 wrote: Bullshit? America is the strongest nation in the world because it's economy makes up 30% of the world's, and it's military is #1 in the world, the amount spent on the U.S military exceeds the next top ten combined by far.

Why stop with the next top ten? In 2004 the pentagon's budget is expected to top $400b, isn't it? Back when our budget was $310b (3-4 years ago?), global annual military expenditures sat at
780 billion dollars. No other country on Earth could pump up their military spending 40 billion a year. Our military budget is larger than the rest of the world's combined.

We also have a system of government that allows freedom and oppurtunity, don't even TRY to deny that. I am a proud American, every country has it's pride, but America's is scrutinized by the world.

A system of government that allows freedom and opportunity is nothing new, and it is practiced much more effectively in dozens of other countries. With a military budget of our size, don't you think we deserve alittle scrutiny??

Also, remember September 11th?? Don't even begin to say that America's war against terrorism and tyranny is unjust.

I fail to see how the current war against Iraq has anything to do with September 11th, 2001. The "War Against Terrorism" is an asinine excuse for expanding the US's base of power in the middle east and ratcheting up military spending yet another notch.

Just to add to this string, here's a little item I just read in Harper's Weekly about the "so-called 911 connection to the war in Iraq" :
HARPER'S WEEKLY REVIEW

[Image: A Christian martyr.]

Former secretary of the treasury Paul O'Neill revealed in a
new book that President George W. Bush was already looking
for an excuse to invade Iraq during the first few weeks of his
presidency. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That
was the tone of it," O'Neill said. "The president saying
'Go find me a way to do this.'" O'Neill said that the very
first meeting of the National Security Council involved
discussions of a "post-Saddam Iraq," peacekeeping troops,
and war-crimes tribunals. O'Neill provided the book's
author, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, with 19,000
internal documents -- one of which, from March 5, 2001, was
entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" and
included a map of Iraqi oil fields listing contractors and
countries with interests there. O'Neill also said that Bush
was disturbingly disengaged ("like a blind man in a room
full of deaf people") during cabinet meetings, and that many
high-ranking administration officials have no idea what the
president wants them to do and that they operate on "little
more than hunches about what the president might think." (Harpers Weekly, Jan 13, 2004).

At 1/12/04 09:29 PM, H-Dawg wrote: In other words, even if Japan takes over world dominance (which it looks like it will), the way global economics/politics/military systems are set up right now, they will do it by reproducing a western capitalist/ideological system, but better than the US. And once this is achieved, this system will probably fall out of vogue, and will change itself into something else. I think US foreign policy, the way it stands, merely accelerates this inevitable outcome by making itself the big target of terrorists - not the global policeman but the global concentration camp commendant - and while it does this it is depleating its resources through EXTREMELY costly wars, like the one with Iraq!! (maybe that's the REAL reason Rumsfeldt had to cut the military budget!!). So, any ideas on other possible "utopias" that don't play that boring catch-22 game of political realism that always ends up in West is good, the rest are bad results?

First off, I doubt that Japan will be able to take over world dominance. Japan may be an economic power house but it is limited by its geography. It has to rely upon imports to provide just about anything (ie-oil, beef, etc). For an industrializied nation, it has a very weak military looking to the US to provide most of its defense.
Secondly, my position comes not from a strict adherence to political realism but from history. World politics has always been about playing "king of the hill" whether it is France and Britian in Europe or China and Japan in Asia. Someone is always trying to push the king off his hill.
Personally I think we have made a mess out of the Middle East in our foreign policy going back to Carter. In large part this is because our government 1) from 1979-c. 1990 only saw the world as bi-polar (US vs. USSR) and 2) a lack of understanding of the region.
However, sometimes you have to take tough action to right mistakes. Read Caleb Carr's The Lessons of Terror. People like bin-Laden are not going to listen to talk (ie-Neville Chamberlain & Adolf Hitler) regardless of East/West orientation. Bin-Laden forced us into a corner between 1993-2001. Either do something about Iraq or leave the region. Had we left the region bin-Laden would have continued hammering us until we submitted to his view on Isreal. Instead we broke with status quo and finally invaded.
Terrorists will always be with us, so does that mean we give into them? Do we give into mob rule, and discard justice?

At 1/13/04 01:09 PM, H-Dawg wrote: O'Neill said that the very
first meeting of the National Security Council involved
discussions of a "post-Saddam Iraq," peacekeeping troops,
and war-crimes tribunals. O'Neill provided the book's
author, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, with 19,000
internal documents -- one of which, from March 5, 2001, was
entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" and
included a map of Iraqi oil fields listing contractors and
countries with interests there.

Interesting point you make here, Bush is in Iraq for oil profits? Why then is he looking to other countries to help manage the post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq? Secondly, having maps of oil fields when discussing invading Iraq was a GOOD thing. Look at all the environmental/economic/military problems created when Saddam lit the torches in Kuwait. There were concerns about these fields other than economic.

At 1/13/04 03:14 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/13/04 01:09 PM, H-Dawg wrote: O'Neill said that the very
first meeting of the National Security Council involved
discussions of a "post-Saddam Iraq," peacekeeping troops,
and war-crimes tribunals. O'Neill provided the book's
author, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, with 19,000
internal documents -- one of which, from March 5, 2001, was
entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" and
included a map of Iraqi oil fields listing contractors and
countries with interests there.

Interesting point you make here, Bush is in Iraq for oil profits? Why then is he looking to other countries to help manage the post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq? Secondly, having maps of oil fields when discussing invading Iraq was a GOOD thing. Look at all the environmental/economic/military problems created when Saddam lit the torches in Kuwait. There were concerns about these fields other than economic.

But surely the important point here is that O'Neil's book points to Bush as the AGRESSOR in Iraq, irregardless of world opinion, diplomatic options, or any real or imagined direct threat posed by Saddam's regime!! The "threat" seems to have been perceived by Bush to be economic, which explains the part about the oil field maps - THAT was the real threat, losing political, economic, diplomatic control over Iraqi oil fields, not some crazy, unsubstantiated (and apparently made-up) theory about weapons of mass destruction. And even more insidious, is the apparent fact that Bush saw 911 as a GODSEND of an excuse to go to war with Iraq in order to change the regime and regain influence over Iraqi oil. I mean, look at who is power-brokering all of the Iraqi reconstruction contracts!!! Its kind of sick when you think about it - Bush using the deaths of innocent Americans as pawns to regain political and economic control over one of the richest oil reserves in the world. Bush's dad apparently tried to BUY that control by proping up such a heinus dictator as Saddam, and Bush Jr., when Saddam shows his true colours and will not cooperate, just moves in like a mafia hit-man and "makes a regime change." He doesn't give a fuck about innocent Iraqi citizens, or he would have tried harder to find a solution to his own political problem that didn't involved dropping bombs on them!!!! Now I gots myself all DEPRESSED n'shit. H-Dawg, OUT!

At 1/13/04 03:08 PM, TheMason wrote: First off, I doubt that Japan will be able to take over world dominance. Japan may be an economic power house but it is limited by its geography.

But it already is becoming dominant on the economic front, and in a global worldview, I don't think geography really matters much when material military presence has largely been replaced by economic warfare in the form of "structural adjustment," "tied debt" and the dominance of transnational corporations in determining laws and movement of people and products across borders. Japan has a LOT more up-to-date and cooler "stuff" than Americans in a day-to-day standard of living basis.

Terrorists will always be with us, so does that mean we give into them? Do we give into mob rule, and discard justice?

I would counter this point by asking "whose justice?" Isn't a fundamental problem here the fact that BUSH is imposing his OWN sense of justice, or "the right," over and above International law or anyone else's sense of justice? He seems to think that because HE designates someone a terrorist, THAT ALONE makes them a terrorist - as opposed to a "freedom fighter" for example - and any country that chooses to "harbour" them is ALSO a terrorist state. This is simplistic, dumb-assed, cowboy logic that frankly makes CANADA a terrorist state if it were to defend the "human rights" and due process of law of someone Bush perceived as a terrorist!! It seems to me that Bush's idea of justice is only supportable if Bush himself turns out to be God!

By the way, Mason, thanks for the Caleb Carr book reference! I will definitely pick this up, particularly given how apparently knowledgeable you seem to be on these issues! Thanks. Best, H-Dawg.

At 1/12/04 10:02 PM, True-Lies wrote:

At 1/12/04 01:08 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: This guy is in dire need of a hug people! Let's give him a big soft huggie wuggie!

Alright then... Witness the full paint power of the DAG!

MUaHAHAHAHAHAHA@$!!!!

Only one solution to this:

At 1/13/04 04:52 PM, H-Dawg wrote:
But it already is becoming dominant on the economic front, and in a global worldview, I don't think geography really matters much when material military presence has largely been replaced by economic warfare in the form of "structural adjustment,"

Japan has no oil on that lil island that they have. The only oil that they are getting is being pumped in Russia. Russia cuts it off, Japan is scerwed. Its that easy.

" Save a cow, eat a vegetarian "

Shit, wrong topic. Sorry about that.><