On the topic of ethics: Gay television

[MrMarbles]

Tyrants will always hate more evolved forms of governance. This will never end as long as freedom exists somewhere. We might as well take a stand now. Well, those who care about freedom should. The fact that you canadians and eurolibs seem to side in many ways with the terrorists simply because of your envy of the u.s. is disgusting.

Terrorists aren't just grown on trees. Or born, pre-determined to hate you. Something happens in their lives which make them feel the way they do. Now if you were rounded up, and detained, not allowed to work, and have self-determination by a foreign power, you would be pretty pissed too. Now if the only reason why this is alowed in the world is because this power is supported by an even bigger power that has it's hands permenatley in the cookie jar, then you are goin to be even more pissed. What are you to do? You would fight back, right? Fight for your beliefs? Don't say no, because you would.

What terrorists do is wrong. But the only means for them to fight against those oppressing them is to blow stuff up, then they would. And so would you.

If America was to take it's hand out of the cookie jar, and have a foreign policy based on helping their fellow man, and not themselves, well you would probably see a sharp decrease in terrorists acts against you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Terrorists aren't just grown on trees. Or born, pre-determined to hate you. Something happens in their lives which make them feel the way they do.

Yes. For many of them it's having it drilled into their heads that america is satan from an early age in Saudi funded madrasas. They preemptivley created intentionally a generation of uneducated terrorists.

Now if you were rounded up, and detained, not allowed to work, and have self-determination by a foreign power, you would be pretty pissed too. Now if the only reason why this is alowed in the world is because this power is supported by an even bigger power that has it's hands permenatley in the cookie jar, then you are goin to be even more pissed. What are you to do? You would fight back, right? Fight for your beliefs? Don't say no, because you would.

Peaceful coexistence is an option for us. For them, they insist on shariah law and killing infidels. So who's really having the problem playing nice with others?

What terrorists do is wrong. But the only means for them to fight against those oppressing them is to blow stuff up, then they would. And so would you.

No. I would want the u.s. to come democratize the middleast and free the people from the tyrants in charge.
These people are taught to terrorize by the mullahs and tyrants, who LIKE tribalism and shariah tyranny. They don't like how leaders have little power in democracies, relative to the kind of power they're used to in their little tyrannical fiefdoms.

If America was to take it's hand out of the cookie jar, and have a foreign policy based on helping their fellow man, and not themselves, well you would probably see a sharp decrease in terrorists acts against you.

We give more aid than any other nation and our military stabilizes the entire world. An ounce of gratitude would be nice.

 

[dilloduck]

Terrorists aren't just grown on trees. Or born, pre-determined to hate you. Something happens in their lives which make them feel the way they do. Now if you were rounded up, and detained, not allowed to work, and have self-determination by a foreign power, you would be pretty pissed too. Now if the only reason why this is alowed in the world is because this power is supported by an even bigger power that has it's hands permenatley in the cookie jar, then you are goin to be even more pissed. What are you to do? You would fight back, right? Fight for your beliefs? Don't say no, because you would.

What terrorists do is wrong. But the only means for them to fight against those oppressing them is to blow stuff up, then they would. And so would you.

If America was to take it's hand out of the cookie jar, and have a foreign policy based on helping their fellow man, and not themselves, well you would probably see a sharp decrease in terrorists acts against you.

wow--what happened to this thread?---its come a long way from gay TV LOL

Mr, Marbles---could you explain where the US has prevented someone from self-determination and "created" terrorists?

 

[MrMarbles]

Yes. For many of them it's having it drilled into their heads that america is satan from an early age in Saudi funded madrasas. They preemptivley created intentionally a generation of uneducated terrorists.

Peaceful coexistence is an option for us. For them, they insist on shariah law and killing infidels. So who's really having the problem playing nice with others?


No. I would want the u.s. to come democratize the middleast and free the people from the tyrants in charge.
These people are taught to terrorize by the mullahs and tyrants, who LIKE tribalism and shariah tyranny. They don't like how leaders have little power in democracies, relative to the kind of power they're used to in their little tyrannical fiefdoms.


We give more aid than any other nation and our military stabilizes the entire world. An ounce of gratitude would be nice.

Why not let these people decide for themselves? If a foreign country was to invade America, telling you that it's ways are better, will you lay down, and take in the ass? And if there was no organized military to help you, what tactics would you use to fight them? Think about it. America is messing with peoples lives here. People who have families, children, parents, they have hopes and dreams, goals and futures, just like you. Are you really the one to tell them to change?

 

[MrMarbles]

wow--what happened to this thread?---its come a long way from gay TV LOL

Mr, Marbles---could you explain where the US has prevented someone from self-determination and "created" terrorists?

How far back do you want to go?

1919 America supports Zionist settlers in Palestine, and block efforts of Arabs to govern themselves.

In 1953, the democratically elected and wildly popular Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup ostensibly because of his plans to nationalize that country's petroleum resources which were in the hands of British and U.S. oil interests.

The U.S.-sponsored coup brought the reviled monarch, Shah Reza Pahlavi, to absolute power. In 1976, Amnesty International declared that the Shah's CIA-trained and equipped security force, SAVAK, had the worst human rights record on the planet. In 1979, the Shah's U.S.-backed, 26-year dictatorship ended when pent-up frustration and civil unrest exploded onto the streets of Tehran. This spontaneous popular uprising was later commandeered by anti-American cleric Ayatollah Khomeini.

In 1958, Gen. Abdel Karim Qassem of Iraq led a revolution toppling the British-installed monarchy and ushered in land, health-care and education reforms. He also spoke of wresting control of the country's oil reserves from Western corporations.

In 1959, Qassem survived an assassination attempt by Ba'ath Party activists; notable among them was a man by the name of Saddam Hussein.

Living in exile after the attempt on Qassem's life, Saddam was a frequent guest at the American Embassy in Cairo as the U.S. grew increasingly concerned over Qassem's oil industry nationalization plans and overtures to the Soviet Union.

In 1963, Qassem was overthrown - with the help of the CIA's electronic command center in Kuwait - by a coalition of army officers and Ba'athists. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party would later consolidate their hold on power in a bloody 1968 coup.


That should be a good start.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why not let these people decide for themselves?

That's called democracy, that's what we're instituting over there. Previously Saddam decided everything, now the people will decide for themselves.

I can't believe you stepped in this 20 foot radius cow patty.

This is becoming too easy.

Ho hum.

Just another day in the life of ...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Or this:

Why not let these people decide for themselves?

Game. Set. Match. Thank you!

 

[dilloduck]

How far back do you want to go?

1919 America supports Zionist settlers in Palestine, and block efforts of Arabs to govern themselves.

In 1953, the democratically elected and wildly popular Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup ostensibly because of his plans to nationalize that country's petroleum resources which were in the hands of British and U.S. oil interests.

The U.S.-sponsored coup brought the reviled monarch, Shah Reza Pahlavi, to absolute power. In 1976, Amnesty International declared that the Shah's CIA-trained and equipped security force, SAVAK, had the worst human rights record on the planet. In 1979, the Shah's U.S.-backed, 26-year dictatorship ended when pent-up frustration and civil unrest exploded onto the streets of Tehran. This spontaneous popular uprising was later commandeered by anti-American cleric Ayatollah Khomeini.

In 1958, Gen. Abdel Karim Qassem of Iraq led a revolution toppling the British-installed monarchy and ushered in land, health-care and education reforms. He also spoke of wresting control of the country's oil reserves from Western corporations.

In 1959, Qassem survived an assassination attempt by Ba'ath Party activists; notable among them was a man by the name of Saddam Hussein.

Living in exile after the attempt on Qassem's life, Saddam was a frequent guest at the American Embassy in Cairo as the U.S. grew increasingly concerned over Qassem's oil industry nationalization plans and overtures to the Soviet Union.

In 1963, Qassem was overthrown - with the help of the CIA's electronic command center in Kuwait - by a coalition of army officers and Ba'athists. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party would later consolidate their hold on power in a bloody 1968 coup.


That should be a good start.

The zionists were a powerful force in American politics and presented the government with doctrines and promises for Palestine that they ultimately did not adhere to. I guess you could say america was duped into this action by the Zionists.
Many of you examples refer to Britain and others have to be taken in context with world events of the time. ( ie cold war ). If we hasnt made some moves in this area the Communinsts were certainly ready and able. Here's an interesting link from that period.
http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1951.html

 

[OCA]

wow--what happened to this thread?---its come a long way from gay TV LOL

Mr, Marbles---could you explain where the US has prevented someone from self-determination and "created" terrorists?

Not saying we were wrong in any way just citing an example where we prevented self determination and a bad situation resulted.

Shah of Iran, U.S. installed, supported and not voted on by the people. Resulted in the revolution by Khomeni and the infamous hostage crisis.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not saying we were wrong in any way just citing an example where we prevented self determination and a bad situation resulted.

Shah of Iran, U.S. installed, supported and not voted on by the people. Resulted in the revolution by Khomeni and the infamous hostage crisis.

Yes. It was in the context of fighting the greater war against communism. Context, baby. Context.

 

[OCA]

So explain to me how punishing and dooming a population because of the cold war makes it right. Don't remember the Soviets trying to invade or anything else in Iran.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So explain to me how punishing and dooming a population because of the cold war makes it right. Don't remember the Soviets trying to invade or anything else in Iran.

No one's condemned or doomed. Since the premise of your question is flawed, I shan't continue.

Anyhoo. Where ya been man? We missed ya! Slumming over at superchicken's place?

 

[OCA]

So since suppression of personal freedoms under both the Shah and the Islamic governments were rampant you're saying that we had no responsibility for it? And that we didn't in large part doom that to happen with our financial support of an undemocratically elected head of state?

You can't just sluff this one off, if you're going to call out other leaders of other countries for their atrocities you have to be willing to call your own out for the same and we've supported some real scumbags over the years.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So since suppression of personal freedoms under both the Shah and the Islamic governments were rampant you're saying that we had no responsibility for it? And that we didn't in large part doom that to happen with our financial support of an undemocratically elected head of state?

You can't just sluff this one off, if you're going to call out other leaders of other countries for their atrocities you have to be willing to call your own out for the same and we've supported some real scumbags over the years.

In the context of soviet aggression, we did the right thing. Things must be kept in context to stay meaningful and so ACCURATE assessments can be made. context. context. context.

 

[OCA]

Well whatever gets you through the day, looks to me like we are hypocrites, we say part of our mission in Iraq was to remove Sadaam and institute democracy but in Iran we've done just the opposite and created a huge problem for ourselves. History will say we spent a dime to save a nickel.

 

[007]

Is all this history and istitutional diatribe what the "GAY CHANNEL" is going to be running?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well whatever gets you through the day, looks to me like we are hypocrites, we say part of our mission in Iraq was to remove Sadaam and institute democracy but in Iran we've done just the opposite and created a huge problem for ourselves. History will say we spent a dime to save a nickel.

People will say we supported unsavory characters to keep them off the payrolls of communists, keeping the red influence out of the region. I can live with it.

 

[OCA]

Is all this history and istitutional diatribe what the "GAY CHANNEL" is going to be running?

Not quite catching your drift there Pale, please explain.

 

[OCA]

People will say we supported unsavory characters to keep them off the payrolls of communists, keeping the red influence out of the region. I can live with it.

And turned a blind eye to murder and genocide, another purported reason we removed Sadaam, what about the others?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And turned a blind eye to murder and genocide, another purported reason we removed Sadaam, what about the others?

Other what?