USA Imperialism

[silverslith]

Buffy, I'm just picking things at random. I highly recommend you open your eyes to the world of "realpolitik"

Agents Provocateurs?

Fascinating. No really, the ‘evolution’ of state disinformation has probably never been better displayed than in the case of the two (more than likely) SAS soldiers who were ‘liberated’ after being arrested by the Iraqi police on 19 September by a phalanx of tanks and helicopter gunships that stormed the police station where the two undercover soldiers were being held after they allegedly failed to stop at an Iraqi police roadblock and subsequently opened fire on the Iraqi police, killing one and wounding another.

 

The car they were travelling in was loaded with weapons including allegedly, assault rifles, a light machine gun, an anti-tank weapon, radio gear and a medical kit (’standard’ SAS issue according to the BBC). According to at least two reports, the car they were traveling in (A Toyota Cressida) was “booby-trapped”....

...What is clear is that the two SAS “undercover operatives” had been caught red-handed by the British government’s alleged allies, the Iraqi police, dressed as Arabs, replete with wigs and armed to the teeth and in a car which according to one report, was packed with explosives (the car by the way, has been taken away by the British occupation forces).

 

 

CIA Compiled Indonesian Death Lists in 1965

"...in four months,

five times as many

people died in

Indonesia as in

Vietnam in

twelve years."

 

-- Bertrand Russell, 1966

 

The following article appeared in the Spartanburg, South Carolina Herald-Journal on May 19, 1990, then in the San Francisco Examiner on May 20, 1990, the Washington Post on May 21, 1990, and the Boston Globe on May 23, 1990. The version below is from the Examiner.

 

Ex-agents say CIA compiled death lists for Indonesians

After 25 years, Americans speak of their

role in exterminating Communist Party

 

 

 

The CIA in Indonesia, 1965-1967

This article is from Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985, pages 239-264. Peter Dale Scott is a professor of English at the University of California in Berkeley, and a member of the advisory board at Public Information Research.

 

The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967

Peter Dale Scott

 

As for the CIA in 1965, we have the testimony of former CIA officer Ralph McGehee, curiously corroborated by the selective censorship of his former CIA employers:

 

"Where the necessary circumstances or proofs are lacking to support U.S. intervention, the C.I.A. creates the appropriate situations or else invents them and disseminates its distortions worldwide via its media operations."

 

A prominent example would be Chile.... Disturbed at the Chilean military's unwillingness to take action against Allende, the C.I.A. forged a document purporting to reveal a leftist plot to murder Chilean military leaders. The discovery of this "plot" was headlined in the media and Allende was deposed and murdered.

There is a similarity between events that precipitated the overthrow of Allende and what happened in Indonesia in 1965. Estimates of the number of deaths that occurred as a result of the latter C.I.A. [one word deleted] operation run from one-half million to more than one million people.97

McGehee claims to have once seen, while reviewing CIA documents in Washington, a highly classified report on the agency's role in provoking the destruction of the PKI after Gestapu. It seems appropriate to ask for congressional review and publication of any such report. If, as is alleged, it recommended such murderous techniques as a model for future operations, it would appear to document a major turning-point in the agency's operation history: towards the systematic exploitation of the death squad operations which, absent during the Brazilian coup of 1964, made the Vietnam Phoenix counterinsurgency program notorious after 1967, and after 1968 spread from Guatemala to the rest of Latin America.98

McGehee's claims of a CIA psychological warfare operation against Allende are corroborated by Tad Szulc:

 

CIA agents in Santiago assisted Chilean military intelligence in drafting bogus Z-plan documents alleging that Allende and his supporters were planning to behead Chilean military commanders. These were issued by the junta to justify the coup.99

Indeed the CIA deception operations against Allende appear to have gone even farther, terrifying both the left and the right with the fear of incipient slaughter by their enemies. Thus militant trade-unionists as well as conservative generals in Chile received small cards printed with the ominous words Djakarta se acerca (Jakarta is approaching).100

This is a model destabilization plan -- to persuade all concerned that they no longer can hope to be protected by the status quo, and hence weaken the center, while inducing both right and left towards more violent provocation of each other. Such a plan appears to have been followed in Laos in 1959-61, where a CIA officer explained to a reporter that the aim "was to polarize Laos."101 It appears to have been followed in Indonesia in 1965.

[InfiniteNow]

It’s like shining a super bright light directly on the face of a blind man because he has asked you to do so… then him getting mad at you because you refuse to act on his request to shine the light on him.

 

Only when we stop blaming can we start fixing...

[silverslith]

I'm not particularly naive politically. I've been a candidate in the 1993 NZ parliamentary elections for a major political party contesting every seat. I have good friends in who are current Members of parliament in all the major parties represented in our house. I'm a realist and certainly not a dedicated activist (more an engineer and capitalist with my own high tech export company and a social concience). I am compelled to do my bit in the quest for reality and truth. I have commented before that I have found most US citizens to be very nice and well intentioned people. Our national identity is very much as straight talkers who put truth before ego however.

 

The Rand institute:

 

ARI Watch

Introduction

The best of the Ancient Greeks, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, purged of their errors and contradictions – that’s one way to describe Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Ayn Rand justified human freedom and dignity with a consistency and eloquence as had no one before.

 

Though nothing can undermine that achievement, the spread of her ideas has been hampered by her extraordinarily unfortunate choice of associates. In her own lifetime eventually all but a few of them betrayed her, afterwards heaping her with abuse.

 

Ayn Rand died in 1982. She willed her entire estate, including the copyrights to all her books, to Leonard Peikoff, an associate of some 30 years. She told him she trusted him to use it well. In 1985 Mr. Peikoff founded the Ayn Rand Institute – ARI – to promote her ideas, called Objectivism.

 

The September 11, 2001 attack soon revealed the true colors of many people and organizations. The National Review magazine (which Ayn Rand had loathed when she was alive), the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Accuracy in Media, and many other professed advocates of limited government, turned out to be advocates of a police state – so long as neocons are in charge of the police.

 

What staggers honest students of Ayn Rand is the likewise unmasking of ARI. It turns out ARI too promotes the essence of the neocon agenda, dressed up in Objectivist verbiage. This betrayal of Ayn Rand, by the last of her former associates, could hardly be more perverse.

 

The man responsible is Leonard Peikoff. Though not on ARI’s official board of directors, he ultimately controls ARI. He has veto power over anything ARI would publish, through Ayn Rand’s estate he largely finances it, and he appointed its director, one Yaron Brook. Besides Leonard Peikoff, two other of Ayn Rand’s former associates now at ARI are Harry Binswanger and Peter Schwartz.

 

On this website you will read ARI writers advocating the expedient suspension of the U.S. Constitution, self-sacrifice, and torture. You will see their evasions, their sickening aping of Ayn Rand’s style of expression, their sophistries and lies. You will see this as they call all who disagree with them pragmatists, leftists, and America-haters. We hang them by their own utterance and offer comment.

 

Vice is ugly, but it does one good to see it properly labeled. Our aim is to create a place where honest students of Ayn Rand, sickened by ARI, can come to recuperate. Whatever anyone associated with ARI publishes is on our watch. (This includes media op-eds, letters to editors, press releases, and newsletters put out by ARI; articles by ARI writers published elsewhere such as The Intellectual Activist, The Objective Standard, and Capitalism Magazine; and lectures and interviews given by ARI writers.)

 

Though these knaves and bunglers would destroy the intellectual legacy of Ayn Rand by marrying it to an agenda totally foreign to her ideas, one can take some solace in an aphorism by Friedrich Nietzsche: “The first adherents of a creed prove nothing against it.”

 

If you were expecting another Ayn Rand hate-site, you have come to the wrong place. Our target is the “Ayn Rand” Institute, because we respect the work of Ayn Rand.

 

wiki: Ayn Rand Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Views on Islam and the War on Terror

The Institute has taken many controversial positions with respect to the Islamic world. It has started what it calls a Free Speech Campaign in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. According to the UCLA Daily Bruin of October 17, 2006, Institute chairman Yaron Brook has called for the killing of hundreds of thousands of citizens of states that support Islamic terrorism to combat "Islamic totalitarianism," [8], and during an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, he said that the United States should "turn Fallujah into dust." Institute fellow Onkar Ghate has written that: "In fact, victory with a minimum of one's own casualties sometimes requires a free nation to deliberately target the civilians of an aggressor nation in order to cripple its economic production and/or break its will. This is what the U.S. did in WWII when it dropped fire bombs on Dresden and Hamburg and atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These bombings were moral acts."[9]. Though some at the Institute supported the invasion of Iraq, it now opposes how the Iraq War is being handled [10]. The Institute is generally supportive of Israel [11].

 

 

Environmentalism and animal rights

The Ayn Rand Institute is highly critical of environmentalism and animal rights, arguing that they are destructive of human well-being [12] [13].

 

 

Diversity, affirmative action, and multiculturalism

The Institute is also highly critical of diversity and affirmative action programs, as well as multiculturalism, arguing that they are based on racist premises [14] [15].

[freeztar]

The Zimbabwe Situation

[Buffy]

Buffy, I'm just picking things at random. I highly recommend you open your eyes to the world of "realpolitik."

So sad that you have such blind loathing for the word "American" that in a conversation with someone like me who is considered to be somewhat to the left of center that you can do nothing but scream "You're an Imperialist and you just won't admit it! You all are, you filthy Americans! You just want to kill people for no reason at all!"

 

That's not "realpolitik," that's unreasoning hatred, and it gets in the way of understanding.

 

There's no question that crimes have been committed in the past and very recently. That's one of the main reasons why America has been turned inside-out recently: its not pretty either. Far less outrageous but well documented crimes and misdemeanors than what you have posted above has been all that is necessary to completely turn around the US Congress in less than 2 years. Extreme viewpoints such as yours are *unnecessary*. By only promoting "proof" of this that is so extreme, based on bad information unsupported by anyone but extremists actually *detracts* from your arguments.

 

You may have read some of the more extreme right wing types right here on Hypography. Realize that if you call me "blind to Imperialism" and quote conspiracy theory sites, you give "aid and comfort" (as our silly president who is not long for this world likes to put it) to those who would use those rantings as similar justification for extremist action on the right.

 

That is: you create a self-fulfilling prophecy by your hatred and unwillingness to see "America" as anything more than a caricature of Dick Cheney. It makes you no better than those extremists you loathe.

 

You're welcome to continue posting your "truth," but realize that *even to people who are sympathetic to your worldview* they come across as incoherent extremist rantings.

 

Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind,

Buffy

[silverslith]

Buffy I'm hurt. Since you've neg rep'ed me for "Changing the subject eh? This is called intellectual dishonesty and it doesn't look good." in my post after this one of yours I assume you wanted me to respond rationally to these arguments you've presented. I will try to do this to your satisfaction.

 

You're right. If Iraq had a choice between having a friendly Shia-controlled regime in Iraq and Saddam, they'd choose Saddam or a Sunni Oligarchy every time! Makes perfect sense!

Surprized at this statement buffy. Its been all over the news that they do. Including the shias.

Was Iraq Better Off Under Saddam?, Some Young Iraqis Tell Harry Smith Many Of Their Friends Think So - CBS News

Was Iraq Better Off Under Saddam?

Some Young Iraqis Tell Harry Smith Many Of Their Friends Think So

(CBS) Many Iraqis think conditions have gotten so bad in their country, they'd like to see Saddam Hussein back in power, according to some of the seven young Iraqi men who had a candid discussion with The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith.

 

All are college-educated and speak English.

 

"When the Americans started this whole war issue," said one, who will be referred to as person No. 1, "we started to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and we walked toward it. But when the war happened, that light was the American train coming the other way that ran us over."

 

 

Thousands in Iraq protest against U.S. | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

April 10, 2007, 7:19AM

Thousands in Iraq protest against U.S.

Al-Sadr loyalists demand an end to the occupation

Washington Post

BAGHDAD, IRAQ — Draped in Iraqi flags and chanting anti-American slogans, tens of thousands of Iraqis swept into the southern city of Najaf on the call of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to mark the fourth anniversary of the ouster of President Saddam Hussein, calling for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq.

 

"No, no to the occupier. Yes, yes to Iraq," they chanted, as demonstrators burned and ripped apart American flags. "Get out, get out occupation."

 

 

buffy:

You're right. If America had the choice between sitting in a self-driven civil war that means that they have to spend billions of dollars to support an economy that cannot produce much oil because the civil war keeps disrupting production (and by the way letting this nerve rattling conflict drive oil prices through the roof), and letting whatever will happen there after a withdrawl settle down and turn production up again, they'd choose civil war with a black hole for money and dead young people *every time*. Makes perfect sense!

I saw one of your neocons on oprah last week saying that "we only went into Iraq and afganistan to squeeze iran, punish them for going to euros for oil sales"

Big oil and profits. Not one care for your troops or any other human life.

 

buffy:

That's right! Israel is *so* smart to figure out how to buy all those rockets that are manufactured by Iran, let them shoot them at Israel, killing its own citizens, destroying its tourist trade, and trashing their budget, just so they can take land from Lebanon. They did that right? Wait. Sez here they withdrew. Well the facts don't matter: its just simply *obvious* that this is true.Oh and Iran: Just like with Iraq, they get no benefit whatsoever from having another country in Lebanon be controlled by its Shia population. It would be much better to treat Hezbollah which preaches anhilation of Israel and denies the Holocaust as a paraiah, because *no one* in the Iranian government agrees with those stances!

AlterNet: War on Iraq: White House Wants A Wider Mid-East War

White House Wants A Wider Mid-East War

 

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted August 7, 2006.

 

George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the Israel-Hezbollah conflict as a chance to get the Israelis to spread the war to Syria and achieve the long-sought goal of 'regime change' in Damascus. George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah as an opportunity to expand the conflict into Syria and possibly achieve a long-sought "regime change" in Damascus, but Israel's leadership balked at the scheme, according to Israeli sources.

 

One Israeli source said Bush's interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy against Islamic militants.

 

After rebuffing Bush's suggestion about attacking Syria, the Israeli government settled on a strategy of mounting a major assault in southern Lebanon aimed at rooting out Hezbollah guerrillas who have been firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel.

 

In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post hinted at the Israeli rejection of Bush's suggestion of a wider war in Syria. "Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria," the newspaper reported.

 

On July 18, Consortiumnews.com reported that the Israel-Lebanon conflict had revived the Bush administration's neoconservative hopes that a new path had opened "to achieve a prized goal that otherwise appeared to be blocked for them -- military assaults on Syria and Iran aimed at crippling those governments."

 

The article went on to say:

 

After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 -- after only three weeks of fighting -- the question posed by some Bush administration officials was whether the U.S. military should go "left or right," to Syria or Iran. Some joked that "real men go to Tehran."

 

According to the neocon strategy, "regime change" in Syria and Iran, in turn, would undermine Hezbollah, the Shiite militia that controls much of southern Lebanon, and would strengthen Israel's hand in dictating peace terms to the Palestinians.

 

But the emergence of a powerful insurgency in Iraq -- and a worsening situation for U.S. forces in Afghanistan -- stilled the neoconservative dream of making George W. Bush a modern-day Alexander conquering the major cities of the Middle East, one after another.

 

Bush's invasion of Iraq also unwittingly enhanced the power of Iran's Shiite government by eliminating its chief counterweight, the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein. With Iran's Shiite allies in control of the Iraqi government and a Shiite-led government also in Syria, the region's balance between the two rival Islamic sects was thrown out of whack.

 

The neocon dream of "regime change" in Syria and Iran never died, however. It stirred when Bush accused Syria of assisting Iraqi insurgents and when he insisted that Iran submit its nuclear research to strict international controls. The border conflict between Israel and Lebanon now has let Bush toughen his rhetoric again against Syria and Iran.

 

In an unguarded moment during the G-8 summit in Russia on July 17, Bush -- speaking with his mouth full of food and annoyed by suggestions about United Nations peacekeepers -- told British Prime Minister Tony Blair "what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this ****."

 

Not realizing that a nearby microphone was turned on, Bush also complained about suggestions for a cease-fire and an international peacekeeping force. "We're not blaming Israel and we're not blaming the Lebanese government," Bush said, suggesting that the blame should fall on others, presumably Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

 

Meanwhile, John Bolton, Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, suggested that the United States would only accept a multilateral U.N. force if it had the capacity to take on Hezbollah's backers in Syria and Iran.

 

"The real problem is Hezbollah," Bolton said. "Would it [a U.N. force] be empowered to deal with countries like Syria and Iran that support Hezbollah?" [NYT, July 18, 2006]

 

Strategy Meetings

 

Though the immediate conflict between Israel and Hezbollah was touched off by a Hezbollah cross-border raid on July 12 that captured two Israeli soldiers, the longer-term U.S.-Israeli strategy can be traced back to the May 23, 2006, meetings between Olmert and Bush in Washington.

 

At those meetings, Olmert discussed with Bush Israel's plans for revising its timetable for setting final border arrangements with the Palestinians, putting those plans on the back burner while moving the Iranian nuclear program to the front burner.

 

In effect, Olmert informed Bush that 2006 would be the year for stopping Iran's progress toward a nuclear bomb and 2007 would be the year for redrawing Israel's final borders. That schedule fit well with Bush's priorities, which may require some dramatic foreign policy success before the November congressional elections.

 

At a joint press conference with Bush on May 23, Olmert said "this is a moment of truth" for addressing Iran's alleged ambitions to build a nuclear bomb.

 

"The Iranian threat is not only a threat to Israel, it is a threat to the stability of the Middle East and the entire world," Olmert said. "The international community cannot tolerate a situation where a regime with a radical ideology and a long tradition of irresponsible conduct becomes a nuclear weapons state."

 

Olmert also said he was prepared to give the Palestinians some time to accept Israel's conditions for renewed negotiations on West Bank borders, but -- if Palestinian officials didn't comply -- Israel was prepared to act unilaterally.

 

The prime minister said Israel would "remove most of the [West Bank] settlements which are not part of the major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria. The settlements within the population centers would remain under Israeli control and become part of the state of Israel, as part of the final status agreement."

 

In other words, Israel would annex some of the most desirable parts of the West Bank regardless of Palestinian objections. That meant the Israelis would need to soften up Hamas, the Islamic militants who won the last Palestinian elections, and their supporters in the Islamic world -- especially Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

 

buffy:

I *dare* you to find one statement that indicates that Iran does not fully back Israel's right to exist!

I fully conceed to you on this. The Iranian pres has said that it would be better if it had never been created. Never that it has no right to exist.

 

 

buffy:

You're right. Unlike every single other country in the world, Americans are monolithic brainwashed drones doing the bidding of an evil right-wing cabal! Yes, that's why you see absolutely consistent polls that show 80% support in America for the entire neo-con Imperialist platform! That's why in the last elections the most extreme right-wing Republicans were totally victorious and now control all of the levers of power in America!

I don't like you saying things like this. I have very good American friends. Are you sure about the polls? I'm dissapointed, I thought the elections were stolen by the republicans from sane majoritys that voted against them. Things like the electronic voting machines make by neocon owned companies with no records checkable.

 

buffy:

Oh and that Putin! Wow! Total democrat! And *no* Russians are fooled by him! They completely disagree with him and he's changing his tune to match their will.

Nope, russians just don't believe any propaganda from their media. Americans often desperately want to for the warm fuzzies they get about their state solving everyones probs around the world with their perfect democacy and economic systems. Remember, some know better than others so they should make all their decisions for them right?

We're all Dick Cheney clones,

Buffy

[maikeru]

My opinion: Many Americans have great difficulty in seperating the rightful love they feel for their geographic home and admiration for the achievements of ther fellow inhabitants with a loyalty to a state that deserves neither respect or survival in a world where humanity matters. This is in my opinion very likely due to the extremist nationalistic brainwashing they are subjected to by being forced to recite thousands of times a pledge of allegiance to a state over which they have no control during their formative years. Not to mention the least informative and most controlled by greedy sociopaths media of any country in the world. Russians I know are incredulous at the ability of americans to suck up the constant propaganda fed to them by their media. I've been there and even before 911 I was horrified by the standard of news feeds that US citizens have to deal with.:)

 

Buffy has a point when you tar and feather Americans left and right with generalizations. The American government, media, and corporations do put out a lot of propaganda, but most of it is cut through with a little reason, thought, and research.

 

We have enough liberty, freedom, and resources to draw on that any investigator who is *really* interested to get at the truth can usually do so. I know this sounds like I'm quoting the X-files, but "The Truth Is Out There." You can find it if you know how to look. And this requires some skill.

 

By closing your mind, you risk making some fatal errors of judgment. The pursuits of truth and understanding must never end, even if they take us to the ends of the earth or the dark recesses of our minds.

[Buffy]

Buffy I'm hurt. Since you've neg rep'ed me for "Changing the subject eh? This is called intellectual dishonesty and it doesn't look good." in my post after this one of yours I assume you wanted me to respond rationally to these arguments you've presented. I will try to do this to your satisfaction.

I'm sorry that you don't get what you're being asked to respond *to* here. You have made no effort to distinguish between "Americans" and "Neo-con extremists in America." That's offensive, and the fact that you didn't respond to it caused my ire. I apologize if you just didn't get it.

Iran has nothing to gain by creating civil war in Iraq.

You're right. If Iraq had a choice between having a friendly Shia-controlled regime in Iraq and Saddam, they'd choose Saddam or a Sunni Oligarchy every time! Makes perfect sense!

Surprized at this statement buffy. Its been all over the news that they do. Including the shias.

This was a typo on my part, although it should have been somewhat obvious from its original context (inserted above for clarity). If you read this as "If Iran had the choice..." it has an entirely different meaning. I know that Iraqis want the US out of Iraq. Heck *I* and most of my neighbors want the US out of Iraq. But in this case you're trying to make the claim that Innocent Iran has *no interest* in a friendly regime on its border and has taken *no action* to involve itself in Iraq, which is more than a little hard to swallow!

I saw one of your neocons on oprah last week saying that "we only went into Iraq and afganistan to squeeze iran, punish them for going to euros for oil sales"Big oil and profits. Not one care for your troops or any other human life.

 

Nope, russians just don't believe any propaganda from their media. Americans often desperately want to for the warm fuzzies they get about their state solving everyones probs around the world with their perfect democacy and economic systems.

Got it. Applies to every last one of us. Every American is a card carrying Neo-con. We're all dupes to the "conservative press."

 

Can't you see how offensive this is? The complaints of the conservatives here is that *the entire American Press (except for Fox News) is controlled by a Liberal Conspiracy*. Its not, but your insistance that its monolithically Imperialist is so false that your intent is immediately called into question. Can't you see how this gets in the way of solving the problems in the world? Do you actually want to solve them?

 

You're right. Unlike every single other country in the world, Americans are monolithic brainwashed drones doing the bidding of an evil right-wing cabal! Yes, that's why you see absolutely consistent polls that show 80% support in America for the entire neo-con Imperialist platform! That's why in the last elections the most extreme right-wing Republicans were totally victorious and now control all of the levers of power in America!

buffy:

I don't like you saying things like this. I have very good American friends. Are you sure about the polls? I'm dissapointed, I thought the elections were stolen by the republicans from sane majoritys that voted against them. Things like the electronic voting machines make by neocon owned companies with no records checkable.

I'm wondering if you got that this entire post you were responding to here was tongue-in-cheek...to be charitable though, it does not sound like you're following what's going on here very closely...if you looked, you might even see something you like if you made the effort.

 

Again, being an extremist on the left to "try to balance" the extremism on the right is a failed strategy, and I would encourage you to move to the center where most of the rest of us are.

 

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,

Buffy

[maikeru]

Again, being an extremist on the left to "try to balance" the extremism on the right is a failed strategy, and I would encourage you to move to the center where most of the rest of us are.

 

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,

Buffy

 

It's unfortunate that different forms of extremism, whether they're left or right, don't add up like positive and negative numbers. One dose of right-wingers plus one dose of left-wingers doesn't make neutral- or balanced-wingers. (But it might make for good buffalo wingers. :)) Instead, we have a greater quantity of extremism.

 

Rather than being in the left, right, or center, I think these terms and positions limit us and would be better disposed of.

 

I myself like where I stand, which is somewhere, everywhere, and nowhere.

[freeztar]

Here I am, stuck in the middle with you...

Try to make some sense of it all

But I can see it makes no sense at all

 

I've got a feeling that something ain't right...

[silverslith]

Buffy has a point when you tar and feather Americans left and right with generalizations. The American government, media, and corporations do put out a lot of propaganda, but most of it is cut through with a little reason, thought, and research.

 

We have enough liberty, freedom, and resources to draw on that any investigator who is *really* interested to get at the truth can usually do so. I know this sounds like I'm quoting the X-files, but "The Truth Is Out There." You can find it if you know how to look. And this requires some skill.

 

By closing your mind, you risk making some fatal errors of judgment. The pursuits of truth and understanding must never end, even if they take us to the ends of the earth or the dark recesses of our minds.

 

My mind is closed to nothing, I have no firm faith or belief in anything. And I certainly don't tar all americans with the neocon brush. Thats why I use language like "many Americans" I am an observer representing the rest of the world and as such I feel that presenting views held by many ouside America (and within it) is a way of increasing the understanding of all.

 

Funnily enough regarding my "My opinion: Many Americans have great difficulty in seperating the rightful love they feel for..." post,( which was my first on this thread for a week because I didn't want to offend local Americans). I asked a moderator who was online at the time I posted it if I had gone too far. His reply was no, it was spot on and he'd just tried to give me positive rep points for it but he'd used all his. Also I discussed the pledge of allegence thing with US cit's recently imigrated here and other intelligent people I know over the last 3-4 days and they thought I was spot on with that observation too. I did realise your post was tongue in cheek Buffy (if a little short tempered) which is why I'm bemused you neg rep'd me for changing the subject, which I'm not even sure I did.

Its common for our Kiwi wry humour and straight talking to create some culture clash, particularly with US people. I don't expect you to realise how repugnant american "bragging" is to us either and always try to treat it with understanding. In saying that I don't think anyone outside US is going to disagree that many US people would benefit from an effort to understand people of other cultures and creeds a lot better. Its not really your fault that Xenophobia is a US problem. Fear of the different has been used by your state to control thought in your country for too long as mike correctly surmised in f911

Stick poking is a NZ/Australian tradition, it is the normal way we relate. It helps you deal with faulty beliefs and taking yourselves too seriously. Check out how MA and me got aquainted on solar/nuclear.

Glad to share this community with you guys.:)

[TheFaithfulStone]

Jesus, man.

 

You quoted Ayn Rand and Alternet in the same thread?

 

Wow. Just... Wow.

 

TFS

[Buffy]

Stick poking is a NZ/Australian tradition, it is the normal way we relate. It helps you deal with faulty beliefs and taking yourselves too seriously.

Well, ya sound like Ann Coulter, bugalugs!

 

Just stick-poking ya, Morris! Sorry! Don't wantcha to feel all fanny-whipped, eh! Although mebe your mum shoulda told ya its dangerous to stick-poke a slayer with a very sharp stake! :confused:

 

Glad to share this community with you guys.:hyper:

Us too! Glad you let us know so much about your views! Very educational!

 

Your archetypically whinging Yank,

Buffy

[silverslith]

Well, ya sound like Ann Coulter, bugalugs!

 

Just stick-poking ya, Morris! Sorry! Don't wantcha to feel all fanny-whipped, eh! Although mebe your mum shoulda told ya its dangerous to stick-poke a slayer with a very sharp stake! :hyper:

 

Us too! Glad you let us know so much about your views! Very educational!

 

Your archetypically whinging Yank,

Buffy

 

 

Watch out "once I catch your scent I'll relentlessly and tirelessly hunt you down and consume you" :confused: (silverslith can be a tough avatar to live with)

[silverslith]

Jesus, man.

 

You quoted Ayn Rand and Alternet in the same thread?

 

Wow. Just... Wow.

 

TFS

 

My connections real slow so I usually try to pick a couple of reasonably moderate but contrasting views from the first page of google results. :confused: :hyper:

[maikeru]

My mind is closed to nothing, I have no firm faith or belief in anything. And I certainly don't tar all americans with the neocon brush. Thats why I use language like "many Americans" I am an observer representing the rest of the world and as such I feel that presenting views held by many ouside America (and within it) is a way of increasing the understanding of all.

 

That's true. And I am guilty of making the errors I warned against by making too quick a judgment and not reading and interpreting carefully enough. I hope you will accept my apology. Your views are welcome.

 

I have many, many memories, unfortunately, of debating with people over the internet where just *being* American apparently causes disgust, because of the country's soiled reputation and war in Iraq. Even in real life, I feel like I'm on the defensive half of the time, living in the area I do and not sharing majority or religious views. (I'm not Mormon or neocon Republican, and in Utah, this makes me part of an extremely tiny minority.) I've become rather stubborn as a result. I'll try to do my part to work on this. :confused:

 

Funnily enough regarding my "My opinion: Many Americans have great difficulty in seperating the rightful love they feel for..." post,( which was my first on this thread for a week because I didn't want to offend local Americans). I asked a moderator who was online at the time I posted it if I had gone too far. His reply was no, it was spot on and he'd just tried to give me positive rep points for it but he'd used all his. Also I discussed the pledge of allegence thing with US cit's recently imigrated here and other intelligent people I know over the last 3-4 days and they thought I was spot on with that observation too. I did realise your post was tongue in cheek Buffy (if a little short tempered) which is why I'm bemused you neg rep'd me for changing the subject, which I'm not even sure I did.

 

The pledge of allegiance does seem to be another bit of propaganda. It's the government trying to get people to be more "patriotic," as if "patriotism" itself is a cure-all for this nation's ills. Nothing will cure this nation's ills except a little honesty and bitter medicine.

 

Its common for our Kiwi wry humour and straight talking to create some culture clash, particularly with US people. I don't expect you to realise how repugnant american "bragging" is to us either and always try to treat it with understanding. In saying that I don't think anyone outside US is going to disagree that many US people would benefit from an effort to understand people of other cultures and creeds a lot better. Its not really your fault that Xenophobia is a US problem. Fear of the different has been used by your state to control thought in your country for too long as mike correctly surmised in f911

Stick poking is a NZ/Australian tradition, it is the normal way we relate. It helps you deal with faulty beliefs and taking yourselves too seriously. Check out how MA and me got aquainted on solar/nuclear.

Glad to share this community with you guys.:hyper:

 

I have some sense of it. It's repugnant to me as well. That bragging covers up lies, insecurities, and serious, looming problems. And those need to be brought out into the open and dealt with accordingly. I think more Americans need to honestly appraise and examine their history and consciences as to what this country has done, is doing, and will do. And they need to teach it like it is in the school's and dump this retarded "No Child Left Behind" "hold-every-child-behind" education, which my friends fume so much about.

 

America's a large country and a lot happens here. The country's almost the size of Europe with a comparable population. We look inward a lot and outside not so much. We don't tend to hear what's happening outside or sometimes care. And that's unfortunate. It really is.

 

It depends also where you are in the US. In Utah, which some would regard as the "boonies" or "a lost world," I don't hear much in the news except about new Mormon temples and churches being built or the latest "MorPop" movies to hit the theatres. Outside of Utah, no one probably has heard or would care about these. In some ways, I don't think it's dissimilar for others living in other parts of the US, whether it's the Pacific coast, Bible Belt South, wilds of Idaho and Montana, or the cosmopolitan East Coast.

 

Likewise, I'm glad to share this community with you. You probably don't know how many of your posts I've enjoyed. :hihi:

[silverslith]

The pledge of allegiance does seem to be another bit of propaganda. It's the government trying to get people to be more "patriotic," as if "patriotism" itself is a cure-all for this nation's ills. Nothing will cure this nation's ills except a little honesty and bitter medicine.

 

Yeah, the govt should pledge allegiance to the people and their responsibility to be good global citizens every day from when they're born:hihi:

 

I have some sense of it. It's repugnant to me as well. That bragging covers up lies, insecurities, and serious, looming problems. And those need to be brought out into the open and dealt with accordingly.

 

Heh! Egos are like balloons, the more you inflate them the easier popped.

Like I said we love to receive and give insults. If someone loses their rag we tend to dance around cackling and taunting "soinso's lost the plot! haha" until they grin and lighten up. Kiwis could learn to sell themselves better tho.

I've enjoyed your posts too, and buffys as I messaged her with rep. see ya round:)