Thread: George W. Bush

Originally Posted by CANIBALISTIC

I like what you said but where did you get all of this info? You didn't just come up with this off of the top of your head did you? Just a question.

It was one ounce information, 15 ounces logical argument. When put together you get a nice 1lb steak, though one that is based mostly on argument and not necessarily on facts. In that it is quite subjective. As most is in regards to argument

Originally Posted by Eggs

What has defending our people and their assets have to do with being uncivilized? As to the law of the jungle, is it not civilized in some way? Thats why its called the law of the jungle. There are certainly levels of civilization below that..

Your distinction marking grades of 'law' is interesting but irrelevant. You assert that international law can and should be ignored when US interests are at stake. That's plain wrong. It also happens to be the way the US does business, but the underlying principle of Justice memorialized in legal codes runs counter to your assertion.

Originally Posted by Eggs

But you dont think that protecting US Citizens assets is something a country should be concerned with? Do you think its just that other countries steal our assets and screw us over? Thats a funny outlook on being civilized and on justice Justice in my book doesn't allow people to creep into my house and steal my belongings... and it certainly doesn't allow a country to act as a place that is safe for investors only to turn around and steal that investment from them. But if you think that is acceptable, please post your address up and I'll send some buddies over to steal you shit. Cause obviously I should "nationalize" (ie. steal) it for my own good ..

Most of this paragraph is a straw argument. No one is asserting what you are and no one in their right mind does not believe in property rights, self defense laws. No one claimed that the US should not protect the interests of its citizens. Law puts into place procedures for handling the wrongful acts of others on our citizenry at home and abroad.

Look, the US has been using our military and the CIA to prop up the worst human scum, like Hussein, to make investment in foreign countries safe for our elite. That is a fact that dates back to the 1800s--War is a Racket. The callous opportunism and RISK--it's all part of investing abroad--is a way of 'stealing' their indigenous properties first.

Originally Posted by Eggs

Just because men are assumed to be equal does not mean that they can act without regard for their actions. Do we have people in jail in the US? But that limits their freedom, thats not right *snivels* Thats not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness at all *whines some more* Yeah, thats life. We put the government into position not just to insure that people have an equal basis, but to insure justice and freedom for those that benefit society. Those that don't, well we put those in jail generally. Whether or not they are "human beings" and whether or not "they didn't mean to shoot the guy 10 times" or whether they were turned into a bad person because "their momma didn't buy them a barbie doll when they were 10 and it turned them into a psycho killer". Back in the day when the Declaration was written they were all about punishing those who deserved to be. Last I checked, just to put the "Declaration" in perspective.. I'm quite sure that it didn't inhibit a good many of the people then from owning slaves. Perhaps even quite a few of the signers themselves. So one could assume by that, they more than likely meant it for them.. and those they deemed acceptable to it. Because the Native Americans and the African Americans kinda got the shaft with that little Declaration...

I'm not sure what your point is in this paragraph. It seems that you are overstating the significance what equality means. That's not the point. All men..endowed by their Creator/God have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Living in a hellhole society/world governed by individual whim instead of law makes the effectuation of those God-given rights impossible....it runs counter to the high principles of our constitution

Some of the Framers were hypocrites so we all can be???? They owned slaves and slaughtered indians. Ooopsy??? Let's continue in that grand tradition? I don't know what your point is.

Originally Posted by Eggs

As brought up previously, I dont think your definition is inline with that the founders actually meant or acted upon at all. Anyways, once again... so do rational/enlightened people not act for the best interest of their country? Of their people and of their belongings? Should we put up a sign on our borders that says "plz come rape us!". I think not, and I certainly think that the government has an obligation to protect us. I might ignore laws, but at the least I am not recreating them to suit my own purposes ...

Once again, this is a straw argument. You go way too far in your rhetoric. Laws put in place procedure for handling wrongdoing...sometimes they are prophylactic sometimes they work after the fact and sometimes there are bad laws created for questionable ends. How does that reconcile with your blanket statement to ignore all international law?

Originally Posted by Eggs

Just out of curiosity, what have you ever done for your country? Not saying you havent done anything, but I'm just wondering. Besides that, wh are you to creae rules of what is and what is not American? I have seen no laws anywhere that say that Decker is the stronghold for all things good, lawfull, and patriotic in the US But I would be interested in seeing such a law on paper if you have it handy....

Once again, your statements border on nonsensical. I offer up the principles of our constitution that say what it means to be an American. Where did I claim that I am the repository of all things good in the US? According to you, my claims are horseshit, even though I am supported by the US Constitution, and you are correct b/c....well, just b/c you are correct. Right?

Originally Posted by Eggs

Thats right, do you know the situation regarding US investment in Chile? Did we go down there and murder and force the population to work our oil rigs and make us burritos? ....

That's exactly what we did. I suppose you put your unyielding support behind Augusto Pinochet. Look up war crimes in the dictionary and his picture is posted....this is piece of shit the US propped up b/c he was friendly to US interests. Look we use the vast majority of world resources....this economic gravy our country pursues to benefit the elite is wrong. Does that mean all foreign investment is wrong? Of course not, but damn it, much of the US's foreign ventures have been nothing short of terrorist war crimes. I have a list of countries we fucked for profit...I can post it.

Originally Posted by Eggs

Once again, this country is created FOR US. This isnt the United Stated of America... plus Mexico, Canada, Chile, Brazil, etc. Yes we need to act like respectable human beings. That does not and should not prevent us from acting in a manner consistant with the protection of our citizens. The US government isnt here as a source of aid for Africa, or to send USAID workers to South America, or to give Tsunami relief to the Western Pacific regions. Those are things we do because we are nice people. That does not change the fact that the US government was created for, and still exists for, its citizens.

This country was not created for us. According to Madison, this country was created to protect the propertied class. But Madison also thought that the propertied class would be something like Plato's philosopher king...they would rule judiciously and wisely and fairly. Little did he know that the propertied class would turn into predator motherfuckers like the Bush clan. Not to sound like John H., but read a book called American Dynasty written by Kevin Phillips. He's a former Nixon official who lays out with detail how Bush and clans like the Bush clan have created a much less safer world through the comingling of government force and foreign investment.

Originally Posted by Decker

Your distinction marking grades of 'law' is interesting but irrelevant. You assert that international law can and should be ignored when US interests are at stake. That's plain wrong. It also happens to be the way the US does business, but the underlying principle of Justice memorialized in legal codes runs counter to your assertion.

Not really, as you mentioned "law of the jungle", and I just put it into perspective. There are different degrees of law... some nicer than others, some more fair, some that benefit the weak and fuck the strong, and so on. Just because something is International Law does not mean that it is right. That'd be like saying "Because so many Christians believe in it, then it must be right." Just because other people want everyone else to act a certain way does not in any way make it right, it merely means that is the way they want us to act.

Most of this paragraph is a straw argument. No one is asserting what you are and no one in their right mind does not believe in property rights, self defense laws. No one claimed that the US should not protect the interests of its citizens. Law puts into place procedures for handling the wrongful acts of others on our citizenry at home and abroad.

So was much of Socrates BS. Its really merely a roundabout way of proving a point. But see, that is what you're claiming, because you know as well as I do that if a country truly "nationalizes" our assets in their country then we are screwed over. Nobody is going to back us up in some court. And even if they did, what are we going to do to get back? Shut down that countries dictators $2.5 million bank account in the US? Thats a pittance. When working through the law you have to accept that both parties are willing to adece to the rule of that law... or in the least that a 3rd party has something of value to the offending party and you can convince them of your plight. But how often does that truly happen? You're probably well traveled, as am I... can you point me to situations in the world where we've been helped out of a mess caused my nationalization?

Look, the US has been using our military and the CIA to prop up the worst human scum, like Hussein, to make investment in foreign countries safe for our elite. That is a fact that dates back to the 1800s--War is a Racket. The callous opportunism and RISK--it's all part of investing abroad--is a way of 'stealing' their indigenous properties first.

I do agree with that. We have particularily bad taste when it comes to installing and supporting dictators. I'm not an elite, and yet my investments deal with foreign countries and I would suffer if somebody were to screw over one of the companies that I'm invested in. In this day and age, its not just he elite investing.. but your average US citizen. War is in many ways a racket. Its not always used as that, unfortunately at times it is to a large degree. As stated before, we're not stealing anything. Well, we're stealing it in as much as investors in their countries are stealing property from us when they invest in our real estate, or whatever else. Its an investment. Just because its in another country does not mean that its stealing something from them. If they didn't want to sell that shit, then they should utilize some self control and not sell it.

I'm not sure what your point is in this paragraph. It seems that you are overstating the significance what equality means. That's not the point. All men..endowed by their Creator/God have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Living in a hellhole society/world governed by individual whim instead of law makes the effectuation of those God-given rights impossible....it runs counter to the high principles of our constitution

We have little to do with whether a country somebody lives in is a hell hole. In some cases were are responsible, as we help install or support the bastard at the head... but just like the US in our war with England, we had to do what was right and many people lost their lives fighting. I feel some sympathy for people who live in shit countries ruled by scum, but on the other hand I also feel like if they don't like it, then they should fight to change it. The truth of the matter is, most are willing to eek by and have shitty existences because thats the easier, safer way. Thats their decision.

Some of the Framers were hypocrites so we all can be???? They owned slaves and slaughtered indians. Ooopsy??? Let's continue in that grand tradition? I don't know what your point is.

Exactly! Nah, not really. I dont see us slaughtering any groups of people or making slaves of anyone. But it is very real that a good many of the people who supported those grand and noble words in both the Declaration and the Constitution did not actually mean them... or at least they only meant them in a limited manner. Should we espouse to achieve its true meaning as the words describe? Certainly. But lets not forget where it came from. I think I perhaps have a much less romantic view of the constitution and declaration than you do.

Once again, this is a straw argument. You go way too far in your rhetoric. Laws put in place procedure for handling wrongdoing...sometimes they are prophylactic sometimes they work after the fact and sometimes there are bad laws created for questionable ends. How does that reconcile with your blanket statement to ignore all international law?

Nah, I hardly go far enough. And your argument here is as much if not more of a straw man than mine. No where did I make a blanket statement that we should ignore all international law. My statement is merely that we must defend ourselves, and not allow other countries to abuse us because the "law" wont affect them if they do. International Law is quite impotent. To use it for everything would be silly, and ineffective. So we shouldn't ignore all of it, and I never said we should. But we must realize its limits and do what we can to protect ourselves from those limits and other countries abuses of them.

Once again, your statements border on nonsensical. I offer up the principles of our constitution that say what it means to be an American. Where did I claim that I am the repository of all things good in the US? According to you, my claims are horseshit, even though I am supported by the US Constitution, and you are correct b/c....well, just b/c you are correct. Right?

You stated that something was "unAmerican". I simply wanted to know by what right you declared something to be so. The constitution only supports you as you twist its meaning to your own purposes. Like all words, it can be distorted as such. I could just as easily say it backed me up... and that the justices it implies are ours to see to.

That's exactly what we did. I suppose you put your unyielding support behind Augusto Pinochet. Look up war crimes in the dictionary and his picture is posted....this is piece of shit the US propped up b/c he was friendly to US interests. Look we use the vast majority of world resources....this economic gravy our country pursues to benefit the elite is wrong. Does that mean all foreign investment is wrong? Of course not, but damn it, much of the US's foreign ventures have been nothing short of terrorist war crimes. I have a list of countries we fucked for profit...I can post it.

Please do post the list of countries we have "fucked" for profit. If I'd know bordellos were so succesful I would have become an investor years ago Regardless, as I said before, its not just the elite whose investments reach to other nations, but your every day average american. Should we prop up War criminals and ass holes whole back us? Nope... but in the same way, we cant just let some dick come along and "nationalize" our assets in their country because they are a schmuck. Which leaves us in a difficult position, because often times the only people available to run these countries are the ass hole dictators and the schmuck thief nationalizers.

This country was not created for us. According to Madison, this country was created to protect the propertied class. But Madison also thought that the propertied class would be something like Plato's philosopher king...they would rule judiciously and wisely and fairly. Little did he know that the propertied class would turn into predator motherfuckers like the Bush clan. Not to sound like John H., but read a book called American Dynasty written by Kevin Phillips. He's a former Nixon official who lays out with detail how Bush and clans like the Bush clan have created a much less safer world through the comingling of government force and foreign investment.

Yeah, Plato did have some romantic ideas. This one obviously didn't quite work out, as we've all seen that powerful positions tend to attract people that are interested in that power and what it can do for them. Unfortunately for us, there arent really any parties that are different than that. Kerry would have been an opportunistic bastard in his own right, and Bush is... well, Bush. The US has long had a policy of pissing off the world in promotion of foreign investment. Some of it necessarily, but we do rather need to keep ourselves in better check than we do. Which makes me wonder, whose running for the next election.

Originally Posted by Eggs

Not really, as you mentioned "law of the jungle", and I just put it into perspective. There are different degrees of law... some nicer than others, some more fair, some that benefit the weak and fuck the strong, and so on. Just because something is International Law does not mean that it is right. That'd be like saying "Because so many Christians believe in it, then it must be right." Just because other people want everyone else to act a certain way does not in any way make it right, it merely means that is the way they want us to act. .

‘Law of the jungle’ is sort of a joke b/c there is no law (i.e., no degrees)….might makes right is no law…I was awkwardly trying to state that. Like I said, there’re good laws and bad laws, international and local, and that’ll never change. The most we hope for is striving for the fairest laws. International law is a sticky subject b/c it is generally the product of much negotiation btn the interested parties so there is rarely the one-sided, unfair, firm rebuke that you state.

Originally Posted by Eggs

So was much of Socrates BS. Its really merely a roundabout way of proving a point. But see, that is what you're claiming, because you know as well as I do that if a country truly "nationalizes" our assets in their country then we are screwed over. Nobody is going to back us up in some court. And even if they did, what are we going to do to get back? Shut down that countries dictators $2.5 million bank account in the US? Thats a pittance. When working through the law you have to accept that both parties are willing to adece to the rule of that law... or in the least that a 3rd party has something of value to the offending party and you can convince them of your plight. But how often does that truly happen? You're probably well traveled, as am I... can you point me to situations in the world where we've been helped out of a mess caused my nationalization?.

A country can nationalize it’s own natural assets—coal, oil, sugar etc., This can be done to help its squalid, dirt poor citizen’s or it’s own investor class. Usually when a political figure or movement want to better the conditions for the country’s poor, they can’t b/c the US beat them to the punch by propping up any leader—hussein, shah of iran, Pinochet—that will grant the US investor class preferred treatment, ironclad property rights, and assurances that anyone attempting to organize labor (unionizing) will be crushed/murdered.
There's a case regarding the use of death squads by a US softdrink's foreign subsidiary to crush unionizers--it's either Coke or Pepsi, I can't recall. The US investor class isn’t exclusive to it’s own countrymen…look at the billionaires of Mexico that have ties w/ US interests. Monied interests are not bigoted where other monied interests are concernec--see Bush and the House of Saud.
The instance of neoliberal interference that is evil is when foreign investors mingle w/ brute military force or psyops or both to effect cheap labor (slave/indentured labor) and little or no regulation or restrictions and political control to ensure that the gravytrain keeps running…sort of like locust on a corn crop.



I guess in a country like the US, which was founded on conquering indigenous peoples, it’s hard to conceive of the justice involved in looking at a poor country where the labor is paid nothing, working conditions are abominable, mortality rates are sickening and puppet governments are the norm and saying, “gee, maybe the investor class elites of the US, through manipulation of foreign governments by force, are doing some evil nasty stuff to poor peasants by “buying” the natural resources and “employing” the indigenous people.” Just a thought, they were there first and the US comes along looking for a few more dollars that’ll never ‘trickle down’ to the worker and bastardize the free market by strong-arming the local government.



An aside, the reason why the US wouldn’t let Hussein be tried under the jurisdiction of the World Court is b/c the US is #1 on the docket for war crimes/terrorism by Reagan/Bush in Nicaragua. The US simply ignores the world court’s jurisdiction.



I have to go Eggs but as always, it has been fun talking with you. Here’s your (partial) list of countries that the US has exploited through outright brute force (not choice of preference by the elites) or finesse tactics (hiring death squads, rigging elections, terrorizing civilians, etc.) in an attempt to make foreign investing safe or safer:



Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Greece, Italy, China, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Philippines, Laos, Zaire (Congo), Ecuador, Brazil, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Nicaragua….there are more, but you get the point. These examples span really only this century too. I have the documentation to support these examples. I’d have mentioned pre-war Germany, but those bastards were more than willing to go along with the DuPonts, GE, ITT, Standard Oil etc. You know, traitors to our country.