I did not write that. It was in the international herald tribute IHT today and was written by Robert Kaplan. Best.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't worry i know that you did not wrote this, but i found this quote funny, lot of my patients are farmer, and they are not rich at all. Some regions in France have rich farmer like in the Bausses, but it's rather unusual.
By taking a french farmer in exemple i wonder if they try to say that french farmer are rich because of the EU politic of agriculture. Somes and few maybe, but most of them are really poor (as many americans farmer i think). These link will lead you to Insee (french official institute of statistic of economy) : it shows that the average income for a farmer french family is 26 000 $ (and a quarter come from outside jobs) the richest family of farmer are dealing with fine wines. <a href="http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/liste_theme.asp?theme_id=11"; target="_blank">http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/liste_theme.asp?theme_id=11</a>;
Perhaps the article is write by a famous journalist, but these exemple make me laugh. Worse, the implication of these example worry me, but perhaps i think too much
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
SDW2001, if you want to win points in an argument, make some valid rebuttals. You sound like the kind of person who uses his fists rather than his words when he has run out of ideas. Even if what I post is unacceptable to your view of the world, do try to counter with a valid argument rather than stooping to name calling. Your attitude is naive and childish and your post puts out the image of a 14 year old boy in a tantrum. Come back when you have something to *say*.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
His last post may have been over the line, but he did bring up some valid points earlier in the thread which you seem to have conveniently ignored. Or does someone only "have something to say" when it's something you like to hear?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
What constititutes *proof*? Proof, it seems, a multistandard whereby events and actions that make us uncomfortable demand rigorous proof beyond all and eery doubt, yet official denials of wrongdoings, or platitudes that don't challenge mainstream 'thought' seem to require none whatsoever.
*yawn, whatever*
A good source of information on U.S. relations with Afghanistan, the Taliban, the planned pipeline by Unocal etc etc is "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid.
OK OK OK OK OK.....before everyone in here kneejerks and calls him a terrorist because his name is Ahmed and his faith is presumably Muslim, (or a conspiracy theorist etc etc), just give me 10 seconds to add that Rashid according to the back liner notes) is a correspondent with Eastern Economic Review, and the Daily Telegraph. Having lived in England for a couple of years, (in Clapham, London and then Lozells Birmingham, as opposed to Mayfair or Knightsbridge to all those who automatically "think", from my current Brentwood, California address that I am some kind of snob)......draw breath........for the benefit of my fellow Americans who don't know this, "The Daily Telegraph" is one of Britains most conservative publications. I used to read it.
I take back the personal comment about your posh brentwood address and not having spent too much time outside. But if you read the Gaurdian instead of the telegraph, I am sure that you would understand the anti-american sentiment here especially after Sept 11th. SJO, some people were standing up cheering when buildings collapsed on TV in pubs (mostly Italian stockbrokers). It was exemplified here more than perhaps when you were in Clapham. Best. I don't agree with your opinions but that is what this forum is for. We'll make you see the light eventually :-)
The people of America should not be judged entirely upon the actions of their government. The people of Britain wouldn't all have liked to have been judged upon the actions of Margaret Thatcher, likewise for the people of Germany and Hitler. The leader represents the people, but is not the people and does not always speak with all their voice.
[quote]take back the personal comment about your posh brentwood address and not having spent too much time outside.<hr></blockquote>
You are so charitable, not. Why post that kind of drivel in the first place then? Or was that a kneejerk reaction that you were out of control of?
[quote]But if you read the Gaurdian instead of the telegraph, I am sure that you would understand the anti-american sentiment here especially after Sept 11th.<hr></blockquote>
I know "The Guardian" (aka the "Grauniad" in Private Eye) very well, and read it here on occasions when I visit an international newsstand. I utterly and totally resent the popular notion in the conservative media that "liberals" are against going after terrorists. And, FYI, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the governments of Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations involved in the September 11 attacks are all on the extreme RIGHT pf the political/religious/ideological spectrum. You will deny that as being a conspiracy theory as well.
[quote]SJO, some people were standing up cheering when buildings collapsed on TV in pubs<hr></blockquote>
That is hard to swallow...who would be cheering the deaths of 3000 civilians in English pubs? While those building were coming down, nobody had any idea how many were dying there...those towers housed 50,000 people between them.
[quote](mostly Italian stockbrokers).<hr></blockquote>
? It sounds like you have a problem with Italians?
[quote]It was exemplified here more than perhaps when you were in Clapham. Best. I don't agree with your opinions but that is what this forum is for.<hr></blockquote>
Not necessarily my personal opinions...regarding the Eugenics links, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...well you know what I mean. Where is the evidence against?
[quote]We'll make you see the light eventually <hr></blockquote>
Every nation has it's dark side. The USA and England are not just bathed in sunshine and roses, as all you pollyannas and denial-addicts in here seem to want to desperately believe. I have yet to believe that propping up vicious dictators and funding brutal regimes is the best way of enhancing our national security and spending our tax dollars.
I also know that America does a whole bunch of good stuff in the world; this is such common knowledge that and there is so much evidence of it wherever you look...and I don't need to repeat it, because I would be typing for weeks. I am grateful that I live in California as opposed to Kandahar.
Sam,you're an intellectual who have read too many theories on how things should work,you may have also some strong leftist leanings that is no concern of mine.But our problem with is that you refuse to concede our points and you have this irritating ability of not backing up your statements with historical facts,instead what we get is revisionist history from someone who wants to score points.Many of us here dabble in history and while we find many of your statements intriguing,many of them are based on half truths and flat out lies.Show us your references and stop the ad-homs while you're at it,nobody likes a sore know it all
[quote]Sam,you're an intellectual who have read too many theories on how things should work,you may have also some strong leftist leanings that is no concern of mine.<hr></blockquote>
No concern? Hahaha! You could have fooled me. Try again.
[quote]But our problem with is that you refuse to concede our points and you have this irritating ability of not backing up your statements with historical facts,instead what we get is revisionist history from someone who wants to score points.<hr></blockquote>
Concede what points? The only things people have said to me, and about me, since I posted that (taboo it seems) history of Eugenics is a smorgasbord of angry, baseless mostly personal insults footstomping and innuendo, without a single solitary shred of factual evidence or reliable links to back up your own opinions. All the names and organizations mentioned in that post are real, and their links and ties to eugenics are (relatively) wellknown, albeit not mainstream history. Not, if I may add, in the paranoid conspiracy realm which, BTW, if you don't already know is populated by at least as many on the right as on the left.
[quote]Many of us here dabble in history and while we find many of your statements intriguing,many of them are based on half truths and flat out lies. Show us your references and stop the ad-homs while you're at it,nobody likes a sore know it all<hr></blockquote>
Can you expand on that a little? ie. what is true, what is half true and what is lies? Don't forget that much of this stuff happened between 60 and 120 years back, when the American mainstream had an extremely different view of race and color, and apartheid, segregation, lynchings and institutionalized hatred was the norm, and civil rights for native Americans and all people of color was an alien concept. Put into the relevant time framework and attitudes of the era, the Eugenics story correlates.
>But Steve666, probably everything out there that conflicts with your current understanding of the way the world works (or doesn't?) ...you will routinely put down as a conspiracy theory, or the ravings of some wacko.<
Actually, thats what most folks here think about your rantings. You need to choose more reliable reading material. Or smoke a joint......................
You think I made that stuff about people cheering in the pub on sept 11th? you weren't there. i was. it happened. i have nothing against Italians. I do have something against people who blantlantly cheer when 3,000 people die before their eyes. (I am Italian-American BTW).
i'd say this board is getting to you as the passive aggressive-ness is finally getting the better of you........
SJO: [quote]World view? Yes, other nations and peoples do exist outside of middle-class-white-bread-2-SUVs-in-the- garage-suburbia, by the way, and their rights to exist in peace and happiness are just as valid as ours. <hr></blockquote>
When did I say differently?
[quote]and I don't like the way the the election was hijacked by his like thinking buddies in the Supreme Court. <hr></blockquote>
Right. Gore didn't try to steal the election. Bush did. OK. I suppose winning four times over wasn't enough. He tried to stop the count because it was unconstitutional. It made one vote count more than (or have a greater chance of counting than) another. It violated Equal Protection. And don't forget, 7 of 9 justices saw problems with the recount.
[quote]Actually, thats what most folks here think about your rantings. You need to choose more reliable reading material.<hr></blockquote>
Suggestions please?
Does that mean the officially-approved soundbite- snatches common to anything sanctioned by the corporate media Rupert Murdoch/NewsCorp, AOL Time-Warner, Hearst etc?
Or will I find some more incisive and critical literature by rummaging throught the heaps of dusty tomes at City Lights in San Francisco, the libraries of UCLA and the used book emporiums in Hay On Wye, for example?
If all the history I have read about is such fantasy and lies, as so many here seem desperate to point out, please let me know of some appropriate reading material that meets with your parameters of acceptibility, or perhaps anything that comes with a "U.S. government approved" stamp.
I am always willing to learn.
[quote]Or smoke a joint...................... <hr></blockquote>
You were never interested in a meaningful conversation,what you wanted is to dominate it with your political views and every other views are false in your eyes.Guess what,Miss know it all,You don't know shit.You talk about Eugenics,can you really prove it or you have just read it from some book whose author/authors who only did selective research on the subject and made sure the results confirmed their views.If the U.S are in engage in widespread eugenics program,where is it? Where are the uber children and why could they not contribute to the community?Don't tell me,they are hidden somewhere in some forsaken base taught and trained by the hideous military to take over the world.Tell me seriously,how very sure are you that selective breeding works,is the result a 100% successful and all parties concerned are very satisfied with the result or have they found out that reality sucks and they found out that even at best you can get at least 5-10% of almost what you expect in the child.I may be far off from college,but I still know how genes damn work and until the world gets there,there won't be any IQ of 1000 walking around here.And do you really think that the so called religious zealots as you call them would stand for it when everything from cloning,stem cell research and abortion are being hotly opposed by them,how do you think they would react if the government or even private sector sponsors this.Oh yeah,they never count because there is no God and people who believes in myths don't know much of this world ,do they?Unlike you,perhaps?
BTW,I never trust the press except in sports or the funnies and you know why,they are never interested with the truth,they are only interested in their own version of what really happened and of course garner readership and maybe get the Pulitzer price.And besides every damn reporter,columnist,editor and publisher have their own agendas so I learned to read between the lines .Same with historians,especially those who have the case of the bias and the ever present judging the past with today's standards(And we all well know how that turns out especially when the dead cannot defend themselves.).Unless you are there,unless you live it,unless you experience it,you have no bleeping right to judge it and write about it.I have seen historians who would sell their integrity by making up facts inspite of the evidence in front of them just to prove their biases and there are some, burdened by guilt would write excellently written books that distorts the facts and make it as a strawman to attack their country in order to ease their "moral conscience".And there are some who would literally would revise history into something that would be so unrecognizable beyond belief.So please,unless you can show me and the rest of the guys proof that all you are saying are true and back them up substantially,you are just wasting our time .
In today's opinion page from the International Herald Tribune on ICC. I'd like to see the ICC put the Dutch on trial for their overseeing the atocities of the Bosnian Peacekeepers. Oh, I forgot, the ICC exempted the Dutch and any previous engagement. How timely! See this below to get the counter argument to your Euro-centric viewpoint....
Europe should be more sensitive to American concerns.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great article but it misses the point as I see it.
First, the ICC will only deal with crimes committed after July 1. 2002. So it is not retro-active as such. I think it is a valid point to be mad about the Srebrenica-overrun, and it must be avoided in the future.
Second, the ICC deals with cases that are not dealt with in nations. So if there is a crime committed and nobody deals wih it, it can go before the ICC. This is IMO a strong signal to countries with weak or no enforcement of human rights or rules of war.
Third, I believe it is important to promote the rule of law, rather than the rule of force. And I see the ICC as an important step in that direction. Also I see it as a part of the more globalised way of our world. If you want free trade and no barriers that also means giving up something, namely sovereignty (Spelling?). In Europe this has been the ongoing process since the 1950's and it is still a very sensitive issue for some.
Fourth , why shuld any person be immune to the law? If your are a soldier, there are rules of war, Geneva Conventions - giving both do's and don't's. A war crime is a war crime, nationality is not an excuse IMHO.
The whole point of ICC is to make sure that warcrimes are stopped.
Great article but it misses the point as I see it.
First, the ICC will only deal with crimes committed after July 1. 2002. So it is not retro-active as such. I think it is a valid point to be mad about the Srebrenica-overrun, and it must be avoided in the future.
Second, the ICC deals with cases that are not dealt with in nations. So if there is a crime committed and nobody deals wih it, it can go before the ICC. This is IMO a strong signal to countries with weak or no enforcement of human rights or rules of war.
Third, I believe it is important to promote the rule of law, rather than the rule of force. And I see the ICC as an important step in that direction. Also I see it as a part of the more globalised way of our world. If you want free trade and no barriers that also means giving up something, namely sovereignty (Spelling?). In Europe this has been the ongoing process since the 1950's and it is still a very sensitive issue for some.
Fourth , why shuld any person be immune to the law? If your are a soldier, there are rules of war, Geneva Conventions - giving both do's and don't's. A war crime is a war crime, nationality is not an excuse IMHO.
The whole point of ICC is to make sure that warcrimes are stopped.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good points. However, the article points out that with the rising anti-american sentiment here in europe, for a number of reasons, combined with the fact that the US is involved in many military, peacekeeping and other missions, makes it more likely and also more risky to be put under ICC. This would only prohibit US from getting involved especially when asked to due to liabitity issues.
Peacekeeping accidents are bound to happen like the Dutch incident or even the terrrible accident that happened in Afganistan yesterday. Getting leaders tangled in this would want them to pull out. Which is what US proposed to do by vetoing US/UN peacekeepers now in Bosnia. The US did not want to get involved. Again, this was a European issue. Unfortuneatly, the US came in under alot of European pressure to clean up a mess in Europe's own backyard. This only highlights the fact the Europe or UN are better suited for "peacekeeping" missions (except for British SAS who are the best) and US for stike, etc.
The grey area is that of Nuremberg after WWII wrt ICC. People supported Nuremberg but that was not an ICC. The ICC presents a much greater problem for the US than it does an individual European or other member nation based on above factors. It looks like the US and Europe are splitting on more and more issues and this is one of them unfortunately. I don't think the US sees itself as immune from the law. We have too many lawyers in the US already!
One can only imagine that challenges posed when politics gets involved or charges levied against perhaps half the world's leaders. How is ICC going to try these many leaders when it cannot get Serbian Radovic (sic) let alone Milosovich (sic again)? This still takes years and years and is the basis for the ICC.
Great article but it misses the point as I see it.
First, the ICC will only deal with crimes committed after July 1. 2002. So it is not retro-active as such. I think it is a valid point to be mad about the Srebrenica-overrun, and it must be avoided in the future.
Second, the ICC deals with cases that are not dealt with in nations. So if there is a crime committed and nobody deals wih it, it can go before the ICC. This is IMO a strong signal to countries with weak or no enforcement of human rights or rules of war.
Third, I believe it is important to promote the rule of law, rather than the rule of force. And I see the ICC as an important step in that direction. Also I see it as a part of the more globalised way of our world. If you want free trade and no barriers that also means giving up something, namely sovereignty (Spelling?). In Europe this has been the ongoing process since the 1950's and it is still a very sensitive issue for some.
Fourth , why shuld any person be immune to the law? If your are a soldier, there are rules of war, Geneva Conventions - giving both do's and don't's. A war crime is a war crime, nationality is not an excuse IMHO.
The whole point of ICC is to make sure that war crimes are stopped.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that often in war things are more complicated then some will have you believe and one side's war criminal is another side's defender... Just look at the situation in Israel and the OT .. or US forces in Balkans...I think the US is very right in worrying about the ICC we constantly see how the UN is being used as a platform for evil countries to promote their agendas and attack their rivals with the UN's supposedly fair and impartial institutes ... just look at the ridiculous treatment Israel gets in the UN or the fact that the UN human rights commission is comprised by Algiers, China, Zimbabwe etc.... who's to say that the same won't happen with the ICC ?
the US is already taking **** for doing Europe's dirty job and risking its forces in a war Europeans should have been fighting... it has taken lots of flack for this.... Being cautious is only sensible for the US !
SJO, I don't know enough about American history to be able to clearly refute what you say above but to judge from previous experience in threads about the Israeli Palestinian conflict where you claimed (with the same confidence) things I KNOW are false as true and twisted facts to suit your view ... just kind of discredits your claims here for me as well, especially since you don't really bother to back your statements up with any substantial sources.
The problem is that often in war things are more complicated then some will have you believe and one side's war criminal is another side's defender... Just look at the situation in Israel and the OT .. or US forces in Balkans...I think the US is very right in worrying about the ICC we constantly see how the UN is being used as a platform for evil countries to promote their agendas and attack their rivals with the UN's supposedly fair and impartial institutes ... just look at the ridiculous treatment Israel gets in the UN or the fact that the UN human rights commission is comprised by Algiers, China, Zimbabwe etc.... who's to say that the same won't happen with the ICC ?
the US is already taking **** for doing Europe's dirty job and risking its forces in a war Europeans should have been fighting... it has taken lots of flack for this.... Being cautious is only sensible for the US !
SJO, I don't know enough about American history to be able to clearly refute what you say above but to judge from previous experience in threads about the Israeli Palestinian conflict where you claimed (with the same confidence) things I KNOW are false as true and twisted facts to suit your view ... just kind of discredits your claims here for me as well, especially since you don't really bother to back your statements up with any substantial sources.
(There is a point to this, please bear with me ...)
Between 1944 and 1970-ish, the American Government conducted secret tests on human beings designed to see the effects of radiation on them. Many did not know or understand what was going on.
In many cases, a disproportionate amount of these guinea pigs were black (like the babies who were injected with plutonium to see what would happen.
Conspiracy? Am I making this up? Here's a US government document. I have to use this kind of link because when it's something that challenges many "world views" you get flamed ... maybe you'll believe your own government. In addition, I expect you'll all of erased from memory the global outcry that occurred in 1993 when this emerged.
There are many many lunatic right-wing head-in-the-sanders on this board, and all it takes for someone with a female name to argue cogently for a different POV and the wee weenies come poking out with some of the most staggering idea-free baseless slander and personal insults ... it's staggering. Even the lefties (Hassan i S'bah for example) who take an intelligent voice don't cause the amount of defensive bo-lax SJO gets ... as long as they're male.
Some of you guys can give it but you just can't take it ... from a woman. Pathetic. You'd rather insult then debate.
I say this because SJO isn't talking conspiracy theory shite ... she's talking about a nation that used black people as radioactive guinea pigs in the 50's.
Why do you find the rest of her claims so unbelievable?
Some of you guys can give it but you just can't take it ... from a woman. Pathetic. You'd rather insult then debate.
I say this because SJO isn't talking conspiracy theory shite ... she's talking about a nation that used black people as radioactive guinea pigs in the 50's.
Why do you find the rest of her claims so unbelievable?
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Speaking only for myself , I have no interest in insulting anyone I am looking for serious well funded facts and serious discussions . When I post an opinion or a historical point I do my best to back that opinion up with reputable sources ( often more then one) SJO didn't and that's my point, and as I have said before she has proved to be unreliable in the past when dealing with Israel/Palestine threads .... specifically :
the story about the Jenin massacres that never happened.
Her definition of Arial Sharon as a war criminal based on nothing.
her claim that Israel is using American aid to flatten and repress the Palestinians.
her claim that US involvement in the middle east stirs war when in fact it does the opposite...
There are too many points to mention but I can go on if you insist ...
I would love to see some facts and serious arguments from SJO so bring it on
re your point about the radioactive stuff , sure the US has lots of bloody and shady bits in its past... like Testing LSD and other mind altering drugs on US serviceman ( some of which subsequently lost their sanity ).., like being involved in a multitude of coups all over the world, and the obvious stories like Irangate, Afghanistan .. plenty more I'm sure .....
But this is not the point SJO was basically saying that the US is ruled ONLY by evil man, and that its ALL one big evil conspiracy. More then anything it's her black and white telling of the story that gets me the most. Evil exists everywhere but what's interesting is whether there are people like SJO who are allowed to point this out and do their best to fight and convince others things need to change as opposed to places like China where the local equivalent of SJO would have simply been put in front of a firing squad.
that's the point.
sure the US has done bad things who doesn't .. but ask yourself - what about the good things ? the picture is complex and rich and often the good is mixed with the bad .. that's just the nature of things ..... SJO's notion that everything is planed in shady board rooms is ludicrous, the world is a total mess even if they really wanted people can't control things - we're just too dumb
<strong>the story about the Jenin massacres that never happened.</strong>
We'll never know will we as Israel wouldn't let an independent team to look (wouldn't let ambulances or doctors in either)<strong>
Her definition of Arial Sharon as a war criminal based on nothing.</strong>
Well, an Israeli government report found him indirectly responsible ...
<strong>her claim that Israel is using American aid to flatten and repress the Palestinians.</strong>
Well, Israel does receive $4 billion worth of military stuff every year. Jenin was flattened with this kit. QED.
<strong>her claim that US involvement in the middle east stirs war when in fact it does the opposite... </strong>
Here's a good one: the US wants democratically elected Arafat gone. Who are they going to talk to when he's gone? If the Palestinians can't have Yasser, they'll have Hamas. More violence, more war then there is now. American policy at work.
<strong>There are too many points to mention but I can go on if you insist ... Snap.
Comments
<strong>
Hey PowerDoc,
I did not write that. It was in the international herald tribute IHT today and was written by Robert Kaplan. Best.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't worry i know that you did not wrote this, but i found this quote funny, lot of my patients are farmer, and they are not rich at all. Some regions in France have rich farmer like in the Bausses, but it's rather unusual.
By taking a french farmer in exemple i wonder if they try to say that french farmer are rich because of the EU politic of agriculture. Somes and few maybe, but most of them are really poor (as many americans farmer i think). These link will lead you to Insee (french official institute of statistic of economy) : it shows that the average income for a farmer french family is 26 000 $ (and a quarter come from outside jobs) the richest family of farmer are dealing with fine wines. <a href="http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/liste_theme.asp?theme_id=11"; target="_blank">http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/liste_theme.asp?theme_id=11</a>;
Perhaps the article is write by a famous journalist, but these exemple make me laugh. Worse, the implication of these example worry me, but perhaps i think too much
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>
SDW2001, if you want to win points in an argument, make some valid rebuttals. You sound like the kind of person who uses his fists rather than his words when he has run out of ideas. Even if what I post is unacceptable to your view of the world, do try to counter with a valid argument rather than stooping to name calling. Your attitude is naive and childish and your post puts out the image of a 14 year old boy in a tantrum. Come back when you have something to *say*.
His last post may have been over the line, but he did bring up some valid points earlier in the thread which you seem to have conveniently ignored. Or does someone only "have something to say" when it's something you like to hear?
<strong>
What constititutes *proof*? Proof, it seems, a multistandard whereby events and actions that make us uncomfortable demand rigorous proof beyond all and eery doubt, yet official denials of wrongdoings, or platitudes that don't challenge mainstream 'thought' seem to require none whatsoever.
*yawn, whatever*
A good source of information on U.S. relations with Afghanistan, the Taliban, the planned pipeline by Unocal etc etc is "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid.
OK OK OK OK OK.....before everyone in here kneejerks and calls him a terrorist because his name is Ahmed and his faith is presumably Muslim, (or a conspiracy theorist etc etc), just give me 10 seconds to add that Rashid according to the back liner notes) is a correspondent with Eastern Economic Review, and the Daily Telegraph. Having lived in England for a couple of years, (in Clapham, London and then Lozells Birmingham, as opposed to Mayfair or Knightsbridge to all those who automatically "think", from my current Brentwood, California address that I am some kind of snob)......draw breath........for the benefit of my fellow Americans who don't know this, "The Daily Telegraph" is one of Britains most conservative publications. I used to read it.
Does that make you feel any better?
[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I take back the personal comment about your posh brentwood address and not having spent too much time outside. But if you read the Gaurdian instead of the telegraph, I am sure that you would understand the anti-american sentiment here especially after Sept 11th. SJO, some people were standing up cheering when buildings collapsed on TV in pubs (mostly Italian stockbrokers). It was exemplified here more than perhaps when you were in Clapham. Best. I don't agree with your opinions but that is what this forum is for. We'll make you see the light eventually :-)
<strong>Hi All,
Peace from Europe</strong><hr></blockquote>
The people of America should not be judged entirely upon the actions of their government. The people of Britain wouldn't all have liked to have been judged upon the actions of Margaret Thatcher, likewise for the people of Germany and Hitler. The leader represents the people, but is not the people and does not always speak with all their voice.
You are so charitable, not. Why post that kind of drivel in the first place then? Or was that a kneejerk reaction that you were out of control of?
[quote]But if you read the Gaurdian instead of the telegraph, I am sure that you would understand the anti-american sentiment here especially after Sept 11th.<hr></blockquote>
I know "The Guardian" (aka the "Grauniad" in Private Eye) very well, and read it here on occasions when I visit an international newsstand. I utterly and totally resent the popular notion in the conservative media that "liberals" are against going after terrorists. And, FYI, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the governments of Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations involved in the September 11 attacks are all on the extreme RIGHT pf the political/religious/ideological spectrum. You will deny that as being a conspiracy theory as well.
[quote]SJO, some people were standing up cheering when buildings collapsed on TV in pubs<hr></blockquote>
That is hard to swallow...who would be cheering the deaths of 3000 civilians in English pubs? While those building were coming down, nobody had any idea how many were dying there...those towers housed 50,000 people between them.
[quote](mostly Italian stockbrokers).<hr></blockquote>
? It sounds like you have a problem with Italians?
[quote]It was exemplified here more than perhaps when you were in Clapham. Best. I don't agree with your opinions but that is what this forum is for.<hr></blockquote>
Not necessarily my personal opinions...regarding the Eugenics links, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...well you know what I mean. Where is the evidence against?
[quote]We'll make you see the light eventually <hr></blockquote>
Every nation has it's dark side. The USA and England are not just bathed in sunshine and roses, as all you pollyannas and denial-addicts in here seem to want to desperately believe. I have yet to believe that propping up vicious dictators and funding brutal regimes is the best way of enhancing our national security and spending our tax dollars.
I also know that America does a whole bunch of good stuff in the world; this is such common knowledge that and there is so much evidence of it wherever you look...and I don't need to repeat it, because I would be typing for weeks. I am grateful that I live in California as opposed to Kandahar.
No concern? Hahaha! You could have fooled me. Try again.
[quote]But our problem with is that you refuse to concede our points and you have this irritating ability of not backing up your statements with historical facts,instead what we get is revisionist history from someone who wants to score points.<hr></blockquote>
Concede what points? The only things people have said to me, and about me, since I posted that (taboo it seems) history of Eugenics is a smorgasbord of angry, baseless mostly personal insults footstomping and innuendo, without a single solitary shred of factual evidence or reliable links to back up your own opinions. All the names and organizations mentioned in that post are real, and their links and ties to eugenics are (relatively) wellknown, albeit not mainstream history. Not, if I may add, in the paranoid conspiracy realm which, BTW, if you don't already know is populated by at least as many on the right as on the left.
[quote]Many of us here dabble in history and while we find many of your statements intriguing,many of them are based on half truths and flat out lies. Show us your references and stop the ad-homs while you're at it,nobody likes a sore know it all<hr></blockquote>
Can you expand on that a little? ie. what is true, what is half true and what is lies? Don't forget that much of this stuff happened between 60 and 120 years back, when the American mainstream had an extremely different view of race and color, and apartheid, segregation, lynchings and institutionalized hatred was the norm, and civil rights for native Americans and all people of color was an alien concept. Put into the relevant time framework and attitudes of the era, the Eugenics story correlates.
I think I am falling in love with you....
>But Steve666, probably everything out there that conflicts with your current understanding of the way the world works (or doesn't?) ...you will routinely put down as a conspiracy theory, or the ravings of some wacko.<
Actually, thats what most folks here think about your rantings. You need to choose more reliable reading material. Or smoke a joint......................
You think I made that stuff about people cheering in the pub on sept 11th? you weren't there. i was. it happened. i have nothing against Italians. I do have something against people who blantlantly cheer when 3,000 people die before their eyes. (I am Italian-American BTW).
i'd say this board is getting to you as the passive aggressive-ness is finally getting the better of you........
get a grip ...
When did I say differently?
[quote]and I don't like the way the the election was hijacked by his like thinking buddies in the Supreme Court. <hr></blockquote>
Right. Gore didn't try to steal the election. Bush did. OK. I suppose winning four times over wasn't enough. He tried to stop the count because it was unconstitutional. It made one vote count more than (or have a greater chance of counting than) another. It violated Equal Protection. And don't forget, 7 of 9 justices saw problems with the recount.
More later.
Suggestions please?
Does that mean the officially-approved soundbite- snatches common to anything sanctioned by the corporate media Rupert Murdoch/NewsCorp, AOL Time-Warner, Hearst etc?
Or will I find some more incisive and critical literature by rummaging throught the heaps of dusty tomes at City Lights in San Francisco, the libraries of UCLA and the used book emporiums in Hay On Wye, for example?
If all the history I have read about is such fantasy and lies, as so many here seem desperate to point out, please let me know of some appropriate reading material that meets with your parameters of acceptibility, or perhaps anything that comes with a "U.S. government approved" stamp.
I am always willing to learn.
[quote]Or smoke a joint...................... <hr></blockquote>
No thanks, I don't smoke....
You were never interested in a meaningful conversation,what you wanted is to dominate it with your political views and every other views are false in your eyes.Guess what,Miss know it all,You don't know shit.You talk about Eugenics,can you really prove it or you have just read it from some book whose author/authors who only did selective research on the subject and made sure the results confirmed their views.If the U.S are in engage in widespread eugenics program,where is it? Where are the uber children and why could they not contribute to the community?Don't tell me,they are hidden somewhere in some forsaken base taught and trained by the hideous military to take over the world.Tell me seriously,how very sure are you that selective breeding works,is the result a 100% successful and all parties concerned are very satisfied with the result or have they found out that reality sucks and they found out that even at best you can get at least 5-10% of almost what you expect in the child.I may be far off from college,but I still know how genes damn work and until the world gets there,there won't be any IQ of 1000 walking around here.And do you really think that the so called religious zealots as you call them would stand for it when everything from cloning,stem cell research and abortion are being hotly opposed by them,how do you think they would react if the government or even private sector sponsors this.Oh yeah,they never count because there is no God and people who believes in myths don't know much of this world ,do they?Unlike you,perhaps?
BTW,I never trust the press except in sports or the funnies and you know why,they are never interested with the truth,they are only interested in their own version of what really happened and of course garner readership and maybe get the Pulitzer price.And besides every damn reporter,columnist,editor and publisher have their own agendas so I learned to read between the lines .Same with historians,especially those who have the case of the bias and the ever present judging the past with today's standards(And we all well know how that turns out especially when the dead cannot defend themselves.).Unless you are there,unless you live it,unless you experience it,you have no bleeping right to judge it and write about it.I have seen historians who would sell their integrity by making up facts inspite of the evidence in front of them just to prove their biases and there are some, burdened by guilt would write excellently written books that distorts the facts and make it as a strawman to attack their country in order to ease their "moral conscience".And there are some who would literally would revise history into something that would be so unrecognizable beyond belief.So please,unless you can show me and the rest of the guys proof that all you are saying are true and back them up substantially,you are just wasting our time .
<strong>
YodaMaster,
In today's opinion page from the International Herald Tribune on ICC. I'd like to see the ICC put the Dutch on trial for their overseeing the atocities of the Bosnian Peacekeepers. Oh, I forgot, the ICC exempted the Dutch and any previous engagement. How timely! See this below to get the counter argument to your Euro-centric viewpoint....
<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/63045.html"; target="_blank">http://www.iht.com/articles/63045.html</a>;
pasted below
Europe should be more sensitive to American concerns.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great article but it misses the point as I see it.
First, the ICC will only deal with crimes committed after July 1. 2002. So it is not retro-active as such. I think it is a valid point to be mad about the Srebrenica-overrun, and it must be avoided in the future.
Second, the ICC deals with cases that are not dealt with in nations. So if there is a crime committed and nobody deals wih it, it can go before the ICC. This is IMO a strong signal to countries with weak or no enforcement of human rights or rules of war.
Third, I believe it is important to promote the rule of law, rather than the rule of force. And I see the ICC as an important step in that direction. Also I see it as a part of the more globalised way of our world. If you want free trade and no barriers that also means giving up something, namely sovereignty (Spelling?). In Europe this has been the ongoing process since the 1950's and it is still a very sensitive issue for some.
Fourth , why shuld any person be immune to the law? If your are a soldier, there are rules of war, Geneva Conventions - giving both do's and don't's. A war crime is a war crime, nationality is not an excuse IMHO.
The whole point of ICC is to make sure that warcrimes are stopped.
<strong>
Great article but it misses the point as I see it.
First, the ICC will only deal with crimes committed after July 1. 2002. So it is not retro-active as such. I think it is a valid point to be mad about the Srebrenica-overrun, and it must be avoided in the future.
Second, the ICC deals with cases that are not dealt with in nations. So if there is a crime committed and nobody deals wih it, it can go before the ICC. This is IMO a strong signal to countries with weak or no enforcement of human rights or rules of war.
Third, I believe it is important to promote the rule of law, rather than the rule of force. And I see the ICC as an important step in that direction. Also I see it as a part of the more globalised way of our world. If you want free trade and no barriers that also means giving up something, namely sovereignty (Spelling?). In Europe this has been the ongoing process since the 1950's and it is still a very sensitive issue for some.
Fourth , why shuld any person be immune to the law? If your are a soldier, there are rules of war, Geneva Conventions - giving both do's and don't's. A war crime is a war crime, nationality is not an excuse IMHO.
The whole point of ICC is to make sure that warcrimes are stopped.
Good points. However, the article points out that with the rising anti-american sentiment here in europe, for a number of reasons, combined with the fact that the US is involved in many military, peacekeeping and other missions, makes it more likely and also more risky to be put under ICC. This would only prohibit US from getting involved especially when asked to due to liabitity issues.
Peacekeeping accidents are bound to happen like the Dutch incident or even the terrrible accident that happened in Afganistan yesterday. Getting leaders tangled in this would want them to pull out. Which is what US proposed to do by vetoing US/UN peacekeepers now in Bosnia. The US did not want to get involved. Again, this was a European issue. Unfortuneatly, the US came in under alot of European pressure to clean up a mess in Europe's own backyard. This only highlights the fact the Europe or UN are better suited for "peacekeeping" missions (except for British SAS who are the best) and US for stike, etc.
The grey area is that of Nuremberg after WWII wrt ICC. People supported Nuremberg but that was not an ICC. The ICC presents a much greater problem for the US than it does an individual European or other member nation based on above factors. It looks like the US and Europe are splitting on more and more issues and this is one of them unfortunately. I don't think the US sees itself as immune from the law. We have too many lawyers in the US already!
One can only imagine that challenges posed when politics gets involved or charges levied against perhaps half the world's leaders. How is ICC going to try these many leaders when it cannot get Serbian Radovic (sic) let alone Milosovich (sic again)? This still takes years and years and is the basis for the ICC.
Best.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</p>
<strong>
Great article but it misses the point as I see it.
First, the ICC will only deal with crimes committed after July 1. 2002. So it is not retro-active as such. I think it is a valid point to be mad about the Srebrenica-overrun, and it must be avoided in the future.
Second, the ICC deals with cases that are not dealt with in nations. So if there is a crime committed and nobody deals wih it, it can go before the ICC. This is IMO a strong signal to countries with weak or no enforcement of human rights or rules of war.
Third, I believe it is important to promote the rule of law, rather than the rule of force. And I see the ICC as an important step in that direction. Also I see it as a part of the more globalised way of our world. If you want free trade and no barriers that also means giving up something, namely sovereignty (Spelling?). In Europe this has been the ongoing process since the 1950's and it is still a very sensitive issue for some.
Fourth , why shuld any person be immune to the law? If your are a soldier, there are rules of war, Geneva Conventions - giving both do's and don't's. A war crime is a war crime, nationality is not an excuse IMHO.
The whole point of ICC is to make sure that war crimes are stopped.
The problem is that often in war things are more complicated then some will have you believe and one side's war criminal is another side's defender... Just look at the situation in Israel and the OT .. or US forces in Balkans...I think the US is very right in worrying about the ICC we constantly see how the UN is being used as a platform for evil countries to promote their agendas and attack their rivals with the UN's supposedly fair and impartial institutes ... just look at the ridiculous treatment Israel gets in the UN or the fact that the UN human rights commission is comprised by Algiers, China, Zimbabwe etc.... who's to say that the same won't happen with the ICC ?
the US is already taking **** for doing Europe's dirty job and risking its forces in a war Europeans should have been fighting... it has taken lots of flack for this.... Being cautious is only sensible for the US !
SJO, I don't know enough about American history to be able to clearly refute what you say above but to judge from previous experience in threads about the Israeli Palestinian conflict where you claimed (with the same confidence) things I KNOW are false as true and twisted facts to suit your view ... just kind of discredits your claims here for me as well, especially since you don't really bother to back your statements up with any substantial sources.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
<strong>
The problem is that often in war things are more complicated then some will have you believe and one side's war criminal is another side's defender... Just look at the situation in Israel and the OT .. or US forces in Balkans...I think the US is very right in worrying about the ICC we constantly see how the UN is being used as a platform for evil countries to promote their agendas and attack their rivals with the UN's supposedly fair and impartial institutes ... just look at the ridiculous treatment Israel gets in the UN or the fact that the UN human rights commission is comprised by Algiers, China, Zimbabwe etc.... who's to say that the same won't happen with the ICC ?
the US is already taking **** for doing Europe's dirty job and risking its forces in a war Europeans should have been fighting... it has taken lots of flack for this.... Being cautious is only sensible for the US !
SJO, I don't know enough about American history to be able to clearly refute what you say above but to judge from previous experience in threads about the Israeli Palestinian conflict where you claimed (with the same confidence) things I KNOW are false as true and twisted facts to suit your view ... just kind of discredits your claims here for me as well, especially since you don't really bother to back your statements up with any substantial sources.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well put.
Between 1944 and 1970-ish, the American Government conducted secret tests on human beings designed to see the effects of radiation on them. Many did not know or understand what was going on.
In many cases, a disproportionate amount of these guinea pigs were black (like the babies who were injected with plutonium to see what would happen.
Conspiracy? Am I making this up? Here's a US government document. I have to use this kind of link because when it's something that challenges many "world views" you get flamed ... maybe you'll believe your own government. In addition, I expect you'll all of erased from memory the global outcry that occurred in 1993 when this emerged.
<a href="http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/"; target="_blank">http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/</a>;
Here's a bit more detail.
<a href="http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/THE_HUMAN_RADIATION_EXPERIMENTS.html"; target="_blank">http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/THE_HUMAN_RADIATION_EXPERIMENTS.html</a>;
THIS HAPPENED. Do you know why I say this?
There are many many lunatic right-wing head-in-the-sanders on this board, and all it takes for someone with a female name to argue cogently for a different POV and the wee weenies come poking out with some of the most staggering idea-free baseless slander and personal insults ... it's staggering. Even the lefties (Hassan i S'bah for example) who take an intelligent voice don't cause the amount of defensive bo-lax SJO gets ... as long as they're male.
Some of you guys can give it but you just can't take it ... from a woman. Pathetic. You'd rather insult then debate.
I say this because SJO isn't talking conspiracy theory shite ... she's talking about a nation that used black people as radioactive guinea pigs in the 50's.
Why do you find the rest of her claims so unbelievable?
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
<strong>
Some of you guys can give it but you just can't take it ... from a woman. Pathetic. You'd rather insult then debate.
I say this because SJO isn't talking conspiracy theory shite ... she's talking about a nation that used black people as radioactive guinea pigs in the 50's.
Why do you find the rest of her claims so unbelievable?
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Speaking only for myself , I have no interest in insulting anyone I am looking for serious well funded facts and serious discussions . When I post an opinion or a historical point I do my best to back that opinion up with reputable sources ( often more then one) SJO didn't and that's my point, and as I have said before she has proved to be unreliable in the past when dealing with Israel/Palestine threads .... specifically :
the story about the Jenin massacres that never happened.
Her definition of Arial Sharon as a war criminal based on nothing.
her claim that Israel is using American aid to flatten and repress the Palestinians.
her claim that US involvement in the middle east stirs war when in fact it does the opposite...
There are too many points to mention but I can go on if you insist ...
I would love to see some facts and serious arguments from SJO so bring it on
re your point about the radioactive stuff , sure the US has lots of bloody and shady bits in its past... like Testing LSD and other mind altering drugs on US serviceman ( some of which subsequently lost their sanity ).., like being involved in a multitude of coups all over the world, and the obvious stories like Irangate, Afghanistan .. plenty more I'm sure .....
But this is not the point SJO was basically saying that the US is ruled ONLY by evil man, and that its ALL one big evil conspiracy. More then anything it's her black and white telling of the story that gets me the most. Evil exists everywhere but what's interesting is whether there are people like SJO who are allowed to point this out and do their best to fight and convince others things need to change as opposed to places like China where the local equivalent of SJO would have simply been put in front of a firing squad.
that's the point.
sure the US has done bad things who doesn't .. but ask yourself - what about the good things ? the picture is complex and rich and often the good is mixed with the bad .. that's just the nature of things ..... SJO's notion that everything is planed in shady board rooms is ludicrous, the world is a total mess even if they really wanted people can't control things - we're just too dumb
<strong>the story about the Jenin massacres that never happened.</strong>
We'll never know will we as Israel wouldn't let an independent team to look (wouldn't let ambulances or doctors in either)<strong>
Her definition of Arial Sharon as a war criminal based on nothing.</strong>
Well, an Israeli government report found him indirectly responsible ...
<strong>her claim that Israel is using American aid to flatten and repress the Palestinians.</strong>
Well, Israel does receive $4 billion worth of military stuff every year. Jenin was flattened with this kit. QED.
<strong>her claim that US involvement in the middle east stirs war when in fact it does the opposite... </strong>
Here's a good one: the US wants democratically elected Arafat gone. Who are they going to talk to when he's gone? If the Palestinians can't have Yasser, they'll have Hamas. More violence, more war then there is now. American policy at work.
<strong>There are too many points to mention but I can go on if you insist ... Snap.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>