OT (or is it?): American Imperialism

[dogscoff]

I think the most effective act of terrorism you could commit against the USA would be to knock out the TV networks. It would be an almost impossbly big task, granted, but imagine the results. Quite apart from the trillion-dollar hole in the economy where all that advertising and spending used to be, the morale and societal imapcts would be massive.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

OK, OK, I withdraw my statement I was wrong...

[dogscoff]

OK, OK, I withdraw my statement I was wrong...

No need to withdraw your statement just because some ppl have a differnt opinion. Maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong. No-one really knows.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Large-scale (I won't say "Islamic" here because... well, I'll explain below) terrorism is largely impossible in the US. Terrorists ususally aren't that clear-headed.

The reason I wont type "Islamic" above is because that would be severe religious discrimination. I personally know several Muslims, and they're all very nice people, also firmly opposed to Al-Qaeda. In fact, most of the Islamic world (here at least) firmly opposes terrorism. And then why would I type "Islamic terrorism" when it's only a small part of the Islamic world that commits these atrocious acts?

[Will]

dogscoff said:Everyone in Hollywood is insanely happy all the time. They all have great teeth and big cars and no-one os ever sad. Or so I'm told.

Pssh. I think somebody also forgot to tell you that Hollywood is the ***-crack of Los Angeles Everything is a facade, and if you go beyond the main roads, you can see it for the slum it really is. Now the Valley on the other hand... or more accurately, vallies, there's a lot of them... Those people are the ones with the great teeth, big cars, and are never sad. They usually work in Hollywood, and they're almost always stoned. Which explains the never sad bit.

And as for nukes in other countries... look at it this way. Yes, technically it would be just as easy to put all of them on subs, and then the missile force would be a lot more mobile. But by having missiles at a fixed land location, it is more guaranteed that the missile will be there and ready the instant it is needed. But there's another reason. The countries hosting the missiles WANT them to be there. Think about it: some neighbor is giving you problems, all you have to do is mention that the US gave you THE BOMB. That's a pretty powerful bargaining tool. So in the end, it ends up being a trade. The US gets a guaranteed launch point, the host country gets better diplomatic relations and the ability to trot out that little fact in any negotiations.

And that basically sums up everything in this thread. If something exists, there's probably an American who will try to sell it. But, as was already said, you shouldn't get pissed off at the US for selling, you need to get pissed off at the people who are buying it. Basic economics, if there is no demand, supply means diddly. People all over the world buy into "American excess" because THEY WANT TO. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I personally abhor most of it, and prefer to live simply. But don't blanket-blame an entire country for what amounts to the vices of everyone else.

[Renegade 13]

StrategiaInUltima said:
Large-scale (I won't say "Islamic" here because... well, I'll explain below) terrorism is largely impossible in the US. Terrorists ususally aren't that clear-headed.

The reason I wont type "Islamic" above is because that would be severe religious discrimination. I personally know several Muslims, and they're all very nice people, also firmly opposed to Al-Qaeda. In fact, most of the Islamic world (here at least) firmly opposes terrorism. And then why would I type "Islamic terrorism" when it's only a small part of the Islamic world that commits these atrocious acts?

When you talk about Ireland, and the fighting that goes on there, do you not say "the Catholics fighting the Protestants"? Is that also severe religious discrimination? I highly doubt that all Catholics and Protestants are fighting, no?

It is not severe religious discrimination to say "Islamic terrorists" because it is simply a distinguishing identifier. It is no worse than saying "that white serial killer". If you say "that white serial killer" are you discriminating against all white people? I think not. That's not discrimination, it's just an identifier, so people know what you're talking about.

[TerranC]

The countries hosting the missiles WANT them to be there. Think about it: some neighbor is giving you problems, all you have to do is mention that the US gave you THE BOMB. That's a pretty powerful bargaining tool. So in the end, it ends up being a trade. The US gets a guaranteed launch point, the host country gets better diplomatic relations and the ability to trot out that little fact in any negotiations.

I was under the impression that US nukes deployed to foreign bases stay in the foreign US bases themselves, which are sovereign US territory unless otherwise dictated, which means that the nukes are under total US control and are not "given" to their host countries.

And a nuke does not mean better diplomatic relations and the ability to trot out that "little fact" in any negotiations; it only gives the other party (or parties) incentive to gain equal nuclear footing, or even achieve nuclear "superiority", which just screws up everything. Cuba was awarded nukes because the soviets wanted to offset american nukes in Turkey; The UK and France developed their own nukes in responce to Soviet and perhaps American ones; Pakistan developed nukes in order to offset India's military might, which in turn developed nukes itself; China developed nukes in order to tell the soviets off in the Sino-Soviet split, and support for nukes is growing if not revitalized in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, because of NK's nukes. Need I say more?

I personally abhor most of it, and prefer to live simply. But don't blanket-blame an entire country for what amounts to the vices of everyone else.

Hear, hear.

[TerranC]

StrategiaInUltima said:
The reason I wont type "Islamic" is because that would be severe religious discrimination.

Islamic terrorism is as such because Islamic terrorists use Islam as "justification" to launch vicious attacks on other muslims and people of the book such as Christians and Jews who are all deemed "infidels" through their "true and clear" view of Islam.

Even Moslems themselves refer Al-Zarqawi and others as islamic terrorists - are they then discriminating against their own religion?

[tesco samoa]

tesco goes to the microwave and puts some popcorn in
sets it at 2 minutes high.

beep beep

grabs some beers and the popcorn

sits down.

opens the bag and munch munch...

[TerranC]

tesco samoa said:
stuff about popcorn

Tesco, pass me some too. I want to throw some at Dogscoff every time he posts something.