It's all about the 'argent' for the French! The money! France does not own the iraqi oil, but they do have much invested in it. I understand their opposition war, but I doubt it is for any moral reason. France has had a great history of slaughtering arabs. Their campaign against Algeria was one of the most brutal since World War II. No way the 'peaceful' French would oppose a war for anything except money. I do not blame them, I think that is how a nation should think. They should support their own interests, although France's interests are maily about having 35 hour work weeks and eating frogs. There are a number of factors influencing France, morality is not part of the equation. Immigation from North Africa and the Middle East is, with 10% of the French population Arab, most living in government housing developments called HLMs and on welfare, French are frightened of internal strife. In addition to their current economic ties to Iraq, they have a long history of alliance with Hussein. In 1982, they were iraq's greatest nuclear sponsor, even building them the Osirak nuclear reactor, something that would have allowed Iraq nuclear ability by 1987 if it had not been destroyed. The French may have an opinion you enjoy, but its not for the righteous reasons you (hopefully) have, it is all about the 'argent.' That is why I know that in the case that war does happen, France will jump on board. They will want a piece of post Saddam Iraq and will claim that they were on board all along.
As for the conservative media, you are probably refering to Bill O'Reilly and FoxNews. I have not watched Mr. O's show in some time, but if that is the best explanation he has for why the French oppose enforcing their own resolution 'shame on you mr. o' reilly.'
As for the Conservative media, is the Star Tribune conservative? Most resonable people would say no, but with Andrew, you can never be to sure. Check this out. http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3635624.html. Phx Monkey SUCKS!!! Peace, i'm outta here!
I personnally think that the French are the scorge of the earth. They stink, have funny accents, and eat frogs! Furthermore, they are very lazy and smoke like chimneys all day long. We need to do something before the French menace destroys us all! Who's with me?! What shall we do? I say we relocate the French to Siberia and let the Germans finally take France!
Southerners have all the right in the world to fly whatever flag they want. No one has the freedom from being offended. I do however understand why people are offended. Sure, the Civil War was fought for economic reasons, but that is not how it is remembered and what it stands for to people today. At the end of the day, the South's main work force, black slaves, were freed. Granted, the emancipation proclomation may have been a move by Lincoln to keep Britain on the sidelines, but motives mean nothing when you look at final results. The freeing of slaves was without doubt the biggest impact of the Civil War. By the way, it could be argued that every war was fought for economic reasons.
In the end...the flag is just a piece of fabric, so it really harms no one. It should definitely not be illegal. You just need to understand that the common man on the street does not historically analyze every minute detail.
I do not know if we have talked about this yet, but we should now. human cloning is inevitable, but when it happens, we will have opened up pandora's box. Humanity isn't ready for that kind of power. There has never been an animal clone made without some defects. When someone successfully clones a human, they will create a kind of subspecies because it is inevitable that it will be abnormal. How could one possibly explain to the clone that they were just a mistake, and that they were created knowing that they would have something wrong with them. I know that there may one day be useful technology associated with cloning, but cloning for the sake of cloning is wrong. I do not know of anyone who would condone experimenting on humans as if they are rats.
Gross, you are dead on. Bush is pathetic when it comes to civil liberties and is quite arrogant. He believes that he can do anything he wants without explaining anything to the American people. On the other hand, I am not sure that if Gore was elected president in 2000, he would not have partaken in the same abuses. I also do not think that the DFL candidates in 2004 are any better than Bush when it comes to civil liberties. I do not see democrats attacking Bush very harshly on those issues, in fact, most support him on taking away civil liberties and would rather attack his stance on taxes. If a major political party came along in 2004 and stood for less government interference and remaining true to the U.S. Constitution, I have no doubt it would make a major dent in American politics. I know I would vote for that platform.
I will shut up...after this message. We have beaten the topic to death, and it seems that if I stopped writing, you will not have anyone to argue with. For a site called the "anarchist times," you all seem to be too like minded. By the way, CALM DOWN! Its only a stupid politics and philosophy!
Franson, I love Gross' quote, but if you did not realize it yet, no one reads anyone else's messages carefully. That especially applys to responses to what I have written. I have finally decided to stop criticizing people for not reading what I write, because it is futile. Gross asked:
"why did Osama Bin Laden attack America, why didn't he attack one of the other thousand nations that populate this Earth with as such supreme prejuidice he attacked America?...In that answer, Ben lies the reason that I believe that we can't go killing the arabs and say that we were attacked first."
I see it as justifying Bin Laden's actions. If the wording would have been 'why did Hitler try to destroy the Jews, why didn't he attack one of the other thousand ethnicities that populate this Earth with as such supreme prejuidice he attacked the Jews?...In that answer, Ben lies the reason that I believe that we can't go killing the Germans and say that we were attacked first,' noone would have doubted that was justification. I realize that is an extreme example, and the situations are different, but there is no doubt that Gross was trying to justify Bin Laden's actions. With his logic, you could justify practically anything.
By the way all of you have a very very low opinion of Americans. Jesse thinks that poor people should not be able to hold office or vote, and Gross and Franson think Americans are the stupidest people ever. For example, Franson wrote, "Americas are some of the cockiest ethnocentric bastards of the world." Please tell me, where else in the world have you been? Why do you hate your neighbors and your classmates so much? I agree that there are idiots in America, but to label all residents of a country like that is quite 'cocky,' wouldn't you say. America, like everywhere else, has idiots, and geniuses, lunatics, and sensible people. What proof do you have of American's cockyness and ethnocentricity as a whole? That is not what I get from my personal experiences...but then again, I am just a stupid, ugly American.
By the way you stupid bastards, September 11 is not the only attack committed by Al-Qaeda, they have literally committed hundreds. Further, Al Qaeda is just one organization out of hundreds worldwide. You keep on bringing it up that all I think about is September 11, and seem to believe that that organization, which without doubt is the most threatening organization to the U.S. right now, will never attack again. If we did not take away Al Qaeda's safety in Afghanistan, they would still be there training thousands of people (as they did before) to attack again. I do think that the world is safer that Al Qaeda's ability to train is greatly diminished.
Franson and Jesse, you acknowledge the existance of evil in your pieces. You do not meantion how to deal with it, just how not to deal with it. You do not think that I feel sorry for innocents who get caught in the crossfire? We did a lot of horrible things during the WWII to the enemy. The bombing of Tokyo, the firebombing of Dresdon. Both were horrible actions in themselves that actually did target civilians, unlike modern American tactics, but they brought a quicker end to the war, and ultimately saved millions of lives on both sides. There is an example of evil ultimately stopping evil.
By the way, your labeling as evil totally contradicts when you said "YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL SOMONE ELSE WHAT IS RIGHTAND WRONG," Jesse!
We have beaten the topic to death, and we need a new topic. If you feel obligated to respond, please do so, and this stupid bastard will shut up. If I get personal remark I find inexcusable (which is pretty hard for me to find), you will find one pissed off bastard waiting to respond.
I didn't hate your personal attacks, so much as the fact that you did not address anything that I had written previously. If you do not address my arguments, you are not really arguing against me, are you? Because you gave me a question, I will give you several. 1) Are you justifying September 11 attacks? If so, why is it better than any of the 'horrible things' that you say America is so evil for? Do you have a double standard between for America and Bin Laden? If so is 9/11 morally the same as America targeting known terrorists, who have been trained in Al Qaeda camps with precision guided weapons? 2) When has America, ever, "randomly sluaghtering Arabs"? If you could tell me when, it would be quite helpful. (Bombing an Al-Qaeda terrorist camp does not count as 'randomly slaughtering Arabs' because bombing a specific military target and is not random at all.) I guess if your definition of a patriot is 'randomly slaughtering arabs', consider me Jane Fonda! 3) WHEN DO YOU TAKE A STAND GROSS? "I will never support killing someone because who they are or where they live or killing some one at all." What if someone wants to kill you? Would you just say we can't hurt them for who they are? What would you have done with the Nazis? Given them a hug?
Finally to answer your question...It doesn't matter why Osama attacked America! (Sorry to be such an arrogant, ugly American Bastard) He may have had a perfectly good reason! The only thing that matters is that he did and will do it again. The fact is that if you do not get that bastard's organization out of business, it will affect you, me and everyone. Do you deny that Al Qaeda is seeking nukes and other very powerful weapons, or would that just make you an "arrogant patriot?" Your rejection of becoming your definition of a "patriot" is quite noble, but you have a very narrow perspective of the world. Your extreme ideology blinds you of very real threats. But maybe, all the media is just being "manipulated" by the evil government. Sure, everyone is criticizing me, but I will still stand by my positions. I will not conform to the society of the A-Times! You are the one who is being manipulated and who is the conformist.
P.S. Gross is a paranoid bastard.
Gross, when I first read your piece, I thought it was civil and intellectual, but then I reread it and realized that it was a bunch of rhetoric and quite unintelligent. All you do is say what you believe I think without carefully reading what I have written. I suggest you read what I write much more carefully. What you wrote is roughly the equivilent to, 'you are wrong, I am right, you are stupid, now I will make up a bunch of crazy stuff about what I think you believe.' Gross, we can not possibly have a meaningful conversation if you resort to such immature responses and arguments. You would be a great politician with this kind of attack. It does not respond to anything I have written. Maybe I am being manipulated by U.S. government propaganda. Maybe I haven't 'grown up' yet, but at least I am here to discuss very important philisophical issues, not to call other people names. What about you?
Andrew, where do you draw the line? When do you say that someone is wrong? That is what I am getting at. If you are unwilling to do that in all circumstances, then you literally have no backbone. By the way, if I thought that all arabs were terrorists, why would I believe that freedom of speech and universal suffrage would benefit the middle east? If I thought that all Chinese were communists, why would I be an advocate of free trade with China and believe that China had an important role in the future of world capitalism (which I made clear to you in previous conversations). I do not care about what other people believe, but I do care about their actions. Unfortunately, you apply your moral relativism to the actions. Maybe rape and murder should be legal? I mean, "we don't have the right to tell someone if they are right and wrong." Never, not once, do I advocate doing anything against people who do not share my opinion. Actions are what the only thing I am concerned about. You never address what to do if a nation attacks another. You dismiss with it with "America has made plenty of mistakes." Because America has made plenty of mistakes, we should not ever defend it? Wonderful idea Andrew! I know that America has made mistakes, I am not an uneducated hillbillie, but you, as an educated person, should also know that America, for all its faults, is not evil, and definitely one of the better places in the world to live. I will not get into romaniticizing about how great it is, but I will say that if my Grandfather did not immigrate here with his family, he would be a bar of soap.
Dan, Jesse is biased because he has the right to be, and ought to be. We aren't a newspaper, we are just a bunch of folks arguing with each other. Sure, Jesse is biased, but so are the rest of us. If he, and the other writers here, were not, no one would come to this website!
