The Holocaust never happened

Illusion? So you do realize that the US isn't in charge and that all the badness in the world isn't the fault of the US? I may quote that in the future.

As for your question....how long has it taken for women to have the freedom and respect they have now in western countries? How long has it taken us to realize that killing homosexuals, cutting the hands off of thieves, etc, was wrong? Granted we have a long way to go, you can even argue that of western nations the US has the farthest to go, but what would the world be like if the beliefs Iran follows where to become dominant?

Seem to me civilization would be taking a huge step backwards.

I guess people could indulge in some IW and argue that the beliefs and attitudes prevalent in Iran aren't objectively good or bad, but is that really the case? I suppose people could wank a bit more and argue that "Anything has got to be better then what we have" or even "Once Iran has nukes it will feel safe, settle down, and become peaceful and respectful of others".

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a world significantly influenced by Iran would be far better then I realize. As an example Iran let's their women go to football games now. Kewl huh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/25/iran.gender

Tell me what you think. Would the world be better off if Iran had nukes and the corresponding increase in influence and penis size associated with having them?

I disagree with the conservative religious views of Iran's ruling elite in the same way I disagree with the conservative religious views of America's current administration. I will point out that there are more crack whores in Detroit than in the whole of Iran, which does not indicate that women have unlimited freedom or equality of opportunity in "the land of the free."

In the thread where we were arguing about standing armies and the usefullness thereof you gave the opinion that that aggression would always exist and therefore the strong would always push the weak around. My view was that this set of circumstances would continue only as long as we had a view of the world shaped by scarcity.

What you are continually positing is this new "Big Penis Iran" scenario is where the unjust hegemony of America were replaced by the unjust hegemony of Iran. Interestingly, in order to set up such a scenario you have to disarm everybody else first, and this is something which will not happen, as I have said, while there is a competetive global economy based around the idea of maintaining artificial scarcities. You could easily argue that if one country alone had nuclear weapons it would lead to a dangerous imbalance using just about any country as the example.

You aso seem pretty ignorant of history as far as Iran goes: the reason the people support the ayotollahs is because they suffered under the brutal dictatorship of the Shah and his secret service SAVAK, notorious throughout the world. Guess who set SAVAK and The Shah up in business?

I would argue that is America's secret fear of impotence that causes it to meddle around the globe, trying in vain for a "global sphere of influence" but merely supporting dictatorships and oppression, havoc and terror.

This post has been edited by Foghorn: Oct 12 2008, 07:07 PM

Not actually being in charge doesn't absolve the US of responsibility for the actions/policies carried out in pursuit of the illusion that it is.... That aside, though, I don't think I've ever claimed that ALL the badness in the world is the fault of the US... or even that most of it is.

Just a lot of it.


How is this even a little bit relevant when it's entirely improbable? As Foghorn TRIED to point out to you, Iran's nuclear option (should it manifest itself as a nuclear weapon) is one born out of a desire to not get the shit kicked out of it by the global bully (or it's regional proxy, Israel) or become a subservient state to those powers... If you think that once Iran gets a nuke or two, Ahmadinejad's going to go around the planet all Genghis Khan stylee, then you are sadly mistaken.


Absolutely... theocracy is never a good thing, so perhaps (as someone equally concerned by the threat to civilisation by religious fundamentalism) You could opine on how best to tackle the problem of loonies in your own bible belt?


There you go again, claiming that if Iran had a few nukes it would suddenly gain a significant influence over the world... Does Pakistan?

Nope, and neither would Iran

Crack whores? WTF? Are you trying to suggest that if a woman in Iran could make her own choices there would be more crack whores in Iran? Oh crap, maybe you are right. If women had the freedom to choose they would all become like those in the US...crack whores.

I really don't get your point, but your equating a woman's being free to being a crack whore makes me think you might like the world as it would be if Iran had a bigger penis. Women need to be protected and kept. They need to be submissive to a man because only being owned by a man can stop them from being whores. In the "land of the free" aka what most of us know as civilization, a woman being free doesn't make her a whore.

As an aside, about prostitution (I'm considering starting a topic about it), I personally I think that if you are good at something you might as well get paid for doing it. Sadly, AFAIK, it's only legal in Nevada.


No I didn't suggest that the strong would always push the weak around. I was pointing out that people always have needs and will always do what they have to in order to satisfy them. Sometimes it's a need to assert yourself...to be dominant. Other times it's a need to protect something you care about even if your personal needs are left unmet. Sometimes those that are strong sacrifice themselves in order to help those that are weaker, but that is almost always due to a family/tribal bond.

When you see two people suffering, one being someone you know, and the other a stranger, you will choose to help the one you know (unless you don't like them for some reason). People group together. It's in humanity's nature to form families, tribes, villages, cities, and countries. My point in the thread I think you are referring to was that eventually, inevitably, those needs/bonds would simply result in the creation of what currently exists. One group vs another as one groups needs conflict with another groups needs. Eliminating standing armies wouldn't change the reasons why we have standing armies in the first place. To protect what we care about...what's important to us.


I don't know what you mean by artificial scarcities. Do you think that resources are limitless?

Iran wouldn't be a better role model for the world then the US? Both suck donkey ass? I suppose Iran in charge would be something different at least. Let's empower them...maybe the world will be a better place.


My ignorance is boundless.


Oh sure, make it personal. Where is your compassion and sympathy? Why are you making the US's "secret fear of impotence" public? Just send the US some viagra and things will be ok. Or send some nukes to Iran.

Zoomer, you cracked me up.

As for America's secret fear of impotence? That cracked me up even more. Fear of impotence, never. I think the worst we can be accused of is arrogance, believing that our way of life, our constitution and our form of government (even with all it's faults) is superior than any other. Yes we are arrogant, patriotic and proud. I am, anyway.

But for me the difference is that Americans want to share this with other nations. I wasn't a sterling scholar in history but seriously I cannot ever remember being taught of a war or invasion where Americans vanquished and conquered another nation and assimilated their lands, wealth and other properties into our national treasuries and government and subjugated their surviving citizens to American rule.

Oh no doubt you'll throw up the rape and pillage of third world countries, perpetrated by American capitalist corporations. But American corporations don't go harvesting and stealing, they pay what the citizens and governments of those countries demand. Why doesn't anyone care to look at the deals as they were cut on both sides of the negotiating table? Why doesn't anyone ever consider the improvement of living standards that western corporations brought to third world countries?

Ummmmm?

Don't even have to go that far...

Excellent song!

Here's another oldy but goody...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6E98ZRaU1s&feature=related

EDIT: Ok, the [movie][/movie] tags didn't embed the youtube link. What did I do wrong?



Youtube link edited at posters request. ¨torrenter

This post has been edited by torrenter: Oct 14 2008, 08:46 AM

@zoomer: In betwwen the [movie][/movie] tags don't put the http-type youtube link, use the <object width="425" height="344"><param... type link instead.

I'm trying to suggest that if all American women had the freedom to choose then there wouldn't be any crack whores at all.

The English Collective of Prostitutes' position is that people who genuinely enjoy the work should be legitimised whereas those that are forced to work as prostitutes to fund a drug habit should be helped into recovery or at least some other way of supporting themselves.

Agricultural subsidies in Europe and America keep the price of various foodstuffs artificially high.
Diamonds are in plentiful supply in certain areas but there is a virtual monopoly on them which restricts their supply.
Cocaine is very, very much more expensive in the US and Europe than it is in the country of origin, its price kept artificially high by making it illegal.
These are merely three examples off the top of my head.

Yeah great. Now answer the point: if the US hadn't have stepped in maybe Iran wouldn't be the country you now hate and fear.

A stopped clock gets it right twice a day. Now all you need to do is accidentally be right again.

Not even a nice try arrgh. Texas wasn't part of the US at that point in time and it was Mexicans who'd settled it mostly that wanted secession from Mexico.

Touche Coyote, however again the US wasn't the continental contiguous 48 states that it is today. Not that it matters. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that white early Americans did conquer and seize lands from the native American peoples. It's how the country got to be THE country. Before that, there really was no unified America.

Now I'll have to answer my own questions:

Maybe they want to take their 'fair' share without putting forth much effort. Or perhaps they're sorry they impetuously agreed to unfavorable terms, perhaps out of desperation. Perhaps they thought prosperity should be gifted to them. Whatever it is, it looks to me like third world countries think along the lines of. 'America bring us your business, your jobs, your money. Teach us how to do it like you. Set us up with materials and knowledge and machines. Pay us higher wages than we've ever known before. And then when we are to the point in knowledge and skills, that we don't need you, get the hell out of our country!'

The British colonized America. They started the war with the native Americans. Unfortunately for the native Americans, by the time it took the colonialists to gain independence, the war the British started wasn't easily stopped. What would become, and now is, the US had to clean up the mess the British created.

The pilgrims went to find a "new world" where they could be free. They didn't go to the "new world" to kill and subjugate it's natives. That was the British.

While what would become the US eventually managed to make the British go away, it was already too late to stop what the British started.

Funny ain't it? Go to a new place to make a new home, just wanting to live in peace and be left alone, only to find the same fricken' assholes you thought you left behind followed you and fucked it up yet again.

Sorry, zoomer, but that was a friggin AWFUL song.

The British may have initiated the genocide of the American natives but they certainly didn't do most of the work. You'v